Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Cordless Larry, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229

How do I submit an RfA? Frozen902 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen902, you have only 55 edits over a period of four years. In practice, administrators must be highly experienced and fully conversant with Wikipedia's policies and guideline, and are expected to have significant creation of high quality new content. Thousands of good edits are expected. Your chance of being selected as an administrator at this time is essentially zero. Please read WP:RFA. Cullen328 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you perhaps mean AfC? Your draft Draft:Andrey Kulsha has been declined for reasons given. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is no way for me to become an administrator. I'd just like to know how so in the future I can do so. Frozen902 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its not even possible to submit an RfA given that they just added a requirement to be extended confirmed (after 500 edits and 30 days of editing) so, definitely zero. And even when a candidate has 500 edits/30 days, candidates will almost certainly fail the RfA. This means that the de jure requirement is 500 edits/30 days, but the de facto, something like 10,000 edits/1 year. It was the case where a non EC user could still submit an RfA, but required an EC user to confirm it which I assume no one would accept the submission. JuniperChill (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean voters on a Request for Administratorship usually expect at least 10,000 edits and one year as a registered editor.

Work in some of the backroom stuff—Articles for deletion, New Page Patrol, and more. Have a clean record, understand and practice the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Watch how other editors make changes. Learn to enjoy working with other editors. Use your sandbox a lot for practice. Enjoy Wikipedia—if you don't enjoy editing here, slow down and read the articles on subjects that interest you. Then make small edits. Always add an edit summary explaining what you did and why. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 07:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

I'm new to editing a page and I wanted to change a picture on a footballers page I don't know how to. If anybody could help that would be amazing. i will link the page where the picture is. Lloyd Kelly Sauberos (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauberos Depends. We can use that particular image because the copyright holder clearly states that it's ok. Almost all random pics you find online can't be used on WP/Commons because copyright. So the question is, what do you want to change it to? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to a newer picture of him but i found it online😭 Sauberos (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all pictures found online are Copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Often, there will be a copyright declaration near the image or at the foot of the web page it's on, or on the first page of the website, but even if there is not, copyright must be assumed, as it exists automatically when a new picture (etc.) is made and does not need to be claimed. Some images found online may be illicit copies, but copying and re-publishing a stolen image is as bad as stealing it directly.

A picture found online of a living person (to whom Fair use cannot apply) can only be used on Wikipedia if is covered by Public domain (which will not be the case here), or if the copyright holder has explicitly released it under an appropriate Creative Commons license. Copyright holders can also release pictures to Wikipedia, but have to fill out a specific legal form to do so.

Using copyrighted images without permission can result in legal action. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

I advise you to read in full all of the texts I have linked to, not because you need to know all their details, but because it will bring home to you how complicated Copyright is, how serious copyright infringement is and why Wikipedia does not allow it.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.82.201 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks Sauberos (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to post emojis that look like you? Thanks a lot Junurita (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? Sauberos (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry,How to post emojis like you.My english is not good. Junurita (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EMOJI may have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Junurita (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a Windows 10/11 computer you can easily input emojis by pressing the Windows (⊞) and period (.) keys at the same time. Masatami (let's talk!) 15:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

💥 I've learned something today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junurita (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why was this draft rejected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eamwit 50.45.214.102 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user and welcome to Wikipedia. The reasons why your draft was declined are in the gray boxes inside the AfC submission templates on the top of your draft. The reasons say: "This submission is not adequately supported by Reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." Hope this helps. Meltdown reverter (mail) 23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would I fix it to make it supported by reliable sources? 50.45.214.102 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. To be pedantic, your draft was declined, not rejected; the former implies that if improved, the draft may eventually be accepted as an article, while the latter means that any further time spent on it would be wasted and you shouldn't bother. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. I corrected the formatting of your references. In addition, I did a few minutes of online research and added info about believed ancestors of the country’s people, and the English translation of Eamwit. I would suggest that, while waiting for the next review of your draft, you do additional research and add additional information about the Eamwit people. Can you find data on their education system, common means of earning a living, and if the tribe’s chief has others helping in governing the people? Since you are interested in publishing an article on Eamwit, it should not be much of a burden for you to do additional online research, using reliable references.

If you haven’t done so already I would suggest you read Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for help in expanding your draft. Best wishes on your Wikipedia draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, I'm not a reviewer, but I am impressed with the expansion you've done to your draft article. Good job! Karenthewriter (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! 50.45.214.102 (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose in a talk page or notice board discussion when we come across emotional response, up to the extent expectations are withing policies and guideline we can support. But parts of expectations are not within policy or guidelines or time taking but our peer Wikipedian is overtly emotional, how to handle such emotional responses? also when they are experienced users of otherwise good standing.

As such my WP search for word 'emotional' found Essays: Wikipedia:Mostly negative, Wikipedia:Avoiding talk-page disruption, Wikipedia:Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT

Is there any useful essay to help, "How to handle emotional responses?" aspect or you can share own helpful tips and helpful experiences. 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Bookku (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bookku. There is WP:CALM and WP:HOTHEADS. Also, not strictly about "emotional responses", but WP:STICK, Wikipedia:Just drop it, Wikipedia:Let it go are also good essays in this kind of situations. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to ask a question about Deleted Edits. Pardon my basic beginner knowledge about Wikipedia's permissions. Why am I not able to view my deleted edits, because if I am able to view them, I can correct my mistakes and not make such errors again.

Thanks for any help! Bunnypranav (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit is deleted, such as if a page you created or worked on was deleted, it's removed from public view and only available to admins. It's not that you made a mistake, more that the article in question did not meet our guidelines for publication. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks for clearing my question about deleted edits, I was thinking deleted edits refer to reverted edits. Thanks again for the wonderful and quick help Bunnypranav (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bunnypranav, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are three circumstances you may be referring to, and it's not obvious which of the three applies.

1. If an edit of yours is reverted, it will still be there in the history of the article (and in your user contributions). But I haven't found any examples of this in your contributions.
2. Occasionally, material on a page may be oversighted, for reasons such as copyright or personal attacks, and it can happen that an innocent edit of your can get caught up in this. When revisions are oversighted, they still appear in the history of the page and your contributions, but with a line through them, and they can't be picked. Again, I don't see an example in your contributions.
3. If a page you have edited is deleted, then your edit is lost with the deleted page. If it was a page you created, or in your user space, the deleting admin will usually put a message on your user talk page, and I don't see such a messge on your user talk page; but I guess this could happen if it was a page that you happened to make an edit to, and then it was probably nothing to do with your edit that caused it to get deleted. If a page is deleted, it is possible that the deleting admin might be willing to send you the content: see WP:REFUND.

Does this help? If not, please clarify your question. ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It does help, thanks for the clarification, I was thinking that reverted edits also count as deleted edits. Thanks you again for the help and quick clarification Bunnypranav (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see in your edit count that you have made one deleted edit. This is presumably on a deleted page (my 3 above), but not being an admin, I can't tell which page. As RickinBaltimore indecated, it is very unlikely that you did anything wrong in your edit: the most likely case is that the article was unsatisfactory, and your edit brought it to somebody's notice. If you can remember what the name of the article was, you can look in Special:log/delete and see who deleted it and why. ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: You have one deleted edit, removing {{Orphan}} from List of 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection releases. The article was later deleted and all edits to it are therefore registered as deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do remember this edit, thanks for clearing my doubt about deleted edits. Bunnypranav (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am trying to draft an article about myself and it was declined for lacking note-worthiness.

I only included two external journalistic articles in which I am mentioned. Should I add more articles that I have published, and a narrative about their significance? I have over 70 articles, several book chapters, and have made methodological contributions to my field. Dashoham (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dashoham and welcome to the Teahouse! Per WP:YOURSELF, we very strongly discourage anyone writing about themselves. This is considered having a conflict of interest. The draft as I see it was rejected for not meeting our general notability guidelines as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind that having an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dashoham We have special criteria for determining the Wikinotability of academics. Please read that guideline to see whether you meet at least one of the conditions. If you do, base a draft solely on showing that, backed up by reliable sources that are independent of you. Don't add lengthy lists of your publications: perhaps just mention and cite any reviews which the best have received. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This might be the increase in notoriety (with much of erroneous foreign reporting of a victory for Mélenchon), but, similar to an operation that was active in 2021 to promote Éric Zemmour on French Wikipedia, across all language Wikipedias, there seems to be an effort to describe Jean-Luc Mélenchon and La France Insoumise, sometimes even the entire left-wing alliance New Popular Front, as far or extreme left.

This happens in a context of recent elections, which saw a surprise semi-victory (first place, but no majority) for the center-left to far-left (social-liberal Place Publique to Trotskyist NPA) alliance. The campaign raised an important question: is the party LFI "equal" to far-right National Rally, and is it part of the "republican arc/front"? The answers were divers, with many journals going back on their previous line of labelling it "far-left". The ministry of the interior notably classifies LFI as "left" (instead of "far-left", attributed to Trotskyist formations) since it's founding, and National Rally as "far-right" (these classifications happen notably for "purposes of political analysis"). Therefore labeling any of these entities "far-left" exclusively isn't really a possibility. Many experienced users have supported the far-left label, especially on English Wikipedia, however the additions and changes were often made by new users. This is happening on English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, notably, as well marginally on Italian Wikipedia (and more, these are the ones I realized).

How do I proceed, or could an experienced user proceed in my place? 80.209.216.81 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the edit history of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, there seems to be an ongoing discussion in the talk page. Either way, many other editors are currently aware of this and are reverting edits. guninvalid (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is anyone aware of this? I didn't see any discussions on this. In any case, this seems to be a concerted effort, though weirdly French Wikipedia is left out currently. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is anyone aware of this? Most articles about genuinely important subjects are on the Watchlists of many editors, who are alerted every time the article is edited, prompting them to check the validity of the edits. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.82.201 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess? Reassuring? Not really. Let's hope this will resolve itself alone. I've never heard of 87.81 etc. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Zemmour-related influence effort was not across all Wikipedias afaik, but mainly at fr-wiki and en-wiki, and a bit at it-wiki. See details at WikiProject France. If you know of any other aspects of the WikiZedia controversy, please let me know. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all.

I just had a look to this article New Popular Front and it seems that a lot of positive work has been done. Especially, the translation are often excellent and the drawbacks of the French article have not been replicated here. Ex: unsourced list of political measures, long list of supporters, etc. If there was an influence, it would be in the French article, during the first week after the dissolution, with a pro-NFP bias. Concerning the left-wing or far-left discussion, this is on French pages an ongoing discussion between seasoned contributors. This is linked to Mélenchon himself or to the name of its party ("France insoumise") and there isn't anything new about it.

As you know, Wikizedia was about paid contributions, in favor of Zemmour's party. There's no proof that NFP or LFI has practised paid contributions on their side.

Please note that the French admins on last February have banned a contributor which could be linked to "Cheep". This contributor was also active on Joe Biden french page. A strange activity (imho) remains on that page [1]. You are welcome to watch this. Xavier Sylvestre (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to correct the page name for Brinkhaven Ohio. It still shows up as "Gann" which has not been the name of the village since the 1800s.

I am Christopher Wyant, the mayor of the village, and I have updated some information on the page but I don't seem to be able to change the page name.

Our official website is https://www.brinkhaven.gov/

Can someone assist? BrinkhavenOhio (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrinkhavenOhio. I can help move the page. On another note, you're going to need to change your username to something that doesn't appear to represent a whole group/village. Use Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, and let me know if you run into any issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it DOES represent the whole village. The email I use belongs to the office, not to me. As I said, I am the mayor presently, but I won't always be. The next person in this seat will own the profile. BrinkhavenOhio (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, Christopher. Wikipedia is not like other websites, where you can have "profiles", and shared accounts. A Wikipedia account is required to be owned by, and used by, an individual: role accounts are forbidden. You need to change your username to something that does not suggest that it is a role account, or editing on behalf of an organisation (even a community). You do not need to use your real name: I do, but many do not; and something like "Chris from Brinkhaven" would be quite acceptable.

When somebody replaces you as mayor, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, they should create their own personal account.

Your use of the word "profile" suggests that you think that that there is some connection between the account and the articles that you edit: there isn't. (Almost) anybody in the world may edit (almost) any article in Wikipedia.

However, as the mayor of the village, you have a conflict of interest in editing articles about the village, so you should not normally edit the article directly, but instead should place an edit request on the article's talk page. (See that link for how).

Firefangledfeathers has moved the article to Brinkhaven, Ohio (but the old name is still there as a redirect, so if somebody searches for Gann, Ohio, it will take them to the article). ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name change complete. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. But we've had a longstanding issue with the article being incorrect and outdated. I provided only publicly available information and easily verified data. I made no editorial additions. I added the type of government, the names and roles of village leaders, postal code, official URL, etc...

Apparently a local resident tried to correct the information in the past but it was removed for some reason.

At any rate, I have requested a name change for my account.

Thank you for your assistance. BrinkhavenOhio (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping move the page. Do you have an estimate on when that should be reflected? BrinkhavenOhio (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrinkhavenOhio Moves take effect immediately. Hence you can now click on either the link Brinkhaven, Ohio or Gann, Ohio to reach the article under its new name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BrinkhavenOhio (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Christopher from Brinkhaven: One thing you and your fellow citizens can help with is the lack of images of Brinkhaven (compare what we have at c:Category:Brinkhaven, Ohio with c:Category:Fredericktown, Ohio, for example). You should only upload images which you have taken yourselves, or that are so old that they are out of copyright (there are some other exceptions, but those are the main types). Mobile phone images are fine. There's an overview at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really just trying to humblebrag? Is this a Knox County thing? :-D

We haven't gotten to that level yet. As you can see, we literally just got the name corrected. Christopher from Brinkhaven (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Christopher from Brinkhaven: No, I'm trying to assist you. If I wanted to brag, I'd show you the pictures of my home city, Birmingham, England. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello everyone. Good day Teahouse Members and @Novem Linguae:. I joined the Wikify Project and also participate in Project Law. There's an article Re: Dimes V. Grand Junction Canal that an Infobox has been requested ... I submitted a talk page reference here. However, I was unable to create and submit the infobox section within the article. In the past I have on different article submitted an infobox. Uncertain why unable to complete addition of infoxbox here. Any further suggestions for improvement is greatly appreciated. Thanks! TriosLosDios (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TriosLosDios. When I looked at your discussion in the talk page, it seems like you forgot to add the final two curly brackets ( }} ) to complete the infobox template. I hope this helps you. Meltdown reverter (mail) 19:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please can you tell me why my long-held wikipedia entry has been deleted? Thanks Meedper (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Hello,_please_can_you_explain_why_my_long_held_wikipedia_entry_has_been_deleted?_Thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leela Floyd shows deleted in 2022 for lack of notability references. David notMD (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some vandalism on Incredibles 2 originating from a particular IP Address. Can I have some help reporting it/dealing with it? I've already reverted the edits, but I have a feeling they'll be back given how recent the vandalism is. I've never dealt with this before. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Solitaire Wanderer:. If the vandalism continues to happen, you can enable Twinkle by going to Gadgets in your preferences so you can revert edits more efficiently and restore revisions. Another option is that you can report the vandalism here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Meltdown reverter (mail) 20:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't vandalism be reported at WP:AIV instead? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. AIV is for clear-cut vandalism; AN/I is for more subtle and complicated editing problems. Cremastra (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to make a page on the first legally recognized invention from space, due to its historical precedent and research significance. It is not a commercial product and I have no financial or social incentive for this beyond my appreciation for the subject. Yet I have submitted twice, each time rejected due to "faulty citations," each by the same admin, whom has argued with me and I expect is biased and targeting me out of spite, despite claiming they have no interest in this page. The sources are primary, diverse, unbiased, and independent of the subject, originating from NASA, NatGeo, and the US Government Patent Office. I just cannot grasp why this is continually being denied. And it doesn't help that this admin fails to state specifics on which citations are even against the rules. Is the patent against the rules? I would appreciate any assistance in putting this through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspinty1 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Draft:Zero G coffee cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and Draft:Gspinty1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gspinty1: none of the sources cited is independent of the subject. The first is a video made by Pettit, the second is based on information provided by Pettit, the third is based on information provided by Weislogel, and the fourth is a patent written by Pettit, Weislogel, and their co-inventors. You accuse SafariScribe of being motivated by spite; but he is merely applying Wikipedia policy. To establish that the subject is notable, you need independent sources, not sources written or influenced by people associated with the subject (in this case, its inventors). Maproom (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the draft, the description as an issued U.S. patent is not correct. 20110101009A1 signifies a patent application submitted in 2011. This never proceeded to a patent. Upon further research at USPTO, the reference should be changed to issued patent #8074827. This still does not address the lack of independent references needed to confirm notability. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt that the image is your "Own work". However, https://www.space.com/31196-space-coffee-zero-gravity-cup-astronauts.html should qualify as an independent reference. David notMD (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent yes, but is it WP:BLOG-ish? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is a blog really from my point of view. However, information on a blog should be verified for accuracy by seeing what other independent sources says. Soafy234 (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooop. An Administrator deleted the draft for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Same reason the same Admin deleted a previous version. (The Declines were actions by Reviewers, who are not necessarily Admins; the draft deletions were by an Admin.) Having seen the most recent draft before it was deleted, I agree that it contained promotional wording about how important this invention is - all unreferenced. The Admin did not 'salt' the deletion, meaning you are able to try again, but content must be neutral point of view and independent ref verified. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I've noticed that there's been a relatively long-time dispute about the size class of the Toyota Grand Highlander, specifically whether it's a mid-size or a full-size crossover. Based on the citations, its a mid-size, but there were a few users who believed it was a full-size. I feel that this might turn into a mild edit-warring scenario, so what's the best thing to do? Thanks in advance! LlabmuG (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LlabmuG, you need to discuss it at Talk:Toyota Grand Highlander. Few people here at the Teahouse will even know what a "crossover SUV" is. Maproom (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LlabmuG. This is a perfect textbook example of an utterly inconsequential content dispute that is not worth wasting electrons on. How about "some sources describe it as a mid-sized SUV ref ref ref while other sources describe it as a full-sized SUV ref ref ref" and leave it at that? These definitions are highly subjective, and trying to cram every topic into a narrow pigeonhole is not a good approach. In the spirit of full disclosure, I recently purchased a Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid, a somewhat similar vehicle. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the suggestions. LlabmuG (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan was my ex- wife. is she listed here? 70.119.26.190 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article titled Susan Spaw. The fact that it's in red tells me that. Do you believe thee should be such such an article? HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a search facility. This is easy to find and easy to use. Try it! 126.253.240.102 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is your interest in creating an article about your ex-wife? Or was it about submitting an Articles for Deletion process, in the hope said article could be deleted? David notMD (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the longest audio recording you have at WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia? It kind of helps as background noise while I'm working on something. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Geometric distribution for a little while now, and before I started, there was a template saying the article "lacks corresponding inline citations." After adding some citations, I think that it would be okay to remove the template but there's still more parts of the article that need citations. Is it okay to remove the template even if the whole article isn't properly sourced? Moon motif (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moon motif, I do not know why you would want to do that. If you have partially solved the problem, then thank you very much for that. But if you have not yet fully solved the problem, as your question seems to acknowledge, then the tag should remain. In short, solve the problem and then remove the tag. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Sorry, yeah, it's a bit late here and my brain is fried. I've been trying to find sources for the last bits for like a month now, and I genuinely don't know if I can. The biggest is the § Proof of expected value section, and I haven't found a text that uses similar proofs. Also, a bullet point in § General properties and a couple more in § Related distributions remain unsourced. I've been really tempted to ax them, but I don't know where the line between "I personally cannot find a source" and "There is no source" is. Moon motif (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moon motif, this might be a time to tag those specific uncited bits with citation needed tags - use {{cn}} for this. If nothing else it will alert readers that these parts are not currently sourced, and best case scenario another editor will be able to supply sources. Don't fry your brain on a potentially impossible task, we need it for all the other uncited articles! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I probably should've remembered about the citation needed tags lol. Hoping that one day the article will be completely sourced! Moon motif (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Geometric distribution, and removed the "more footnotes needed" as no longer applicable. Ok, the referencing is not perfect; it rarely is in any long article. But it's pretty good. Maproom (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dawson, the jazz drummer, was thought to have never published any material. Wrong. I possessed the only copy of "Cymbal Sounds in Jazz". It was a "White Paper" insert in the Zildian cymbal catalog. I sent the original to Berklee for safe keeping.I have copies of the original and would like to contribute to the Wiki page. Vincherry (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincherry Published means available to the general public. If it's the only copy, in what sense is it published? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The document exist nowhere on the internet so I consider that obscure.No one has so far claimed to have another copy.I contacted Zildjian and they have no record of it although they hold the copyright. Vincherry (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an insert in the Zildjian cymbal catalog (year? Avedis Zildjian Company), why do you think you are the only person with the document?

Vincherry What content are you wishing to add to the article Alan Dawson? Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincherry: One thing you could usefully do is upload a scan of the document to the Internet Archive; it can then - if suitable - be linked to from the article here, either under "External links", or as a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincherry, archival material that is available to some members of the public, even if restricted or very difficult to access, may be used as a source. If Berklee has the original and they make either the original or a copy of it available, to scholars, for example, then it is considered published for the purposes of WP:Verifiability, and you may refer to it. If Berklee holds it, but provides access to no one outside their institution, then it can't be used. That said, the idea of uploading a copy to IA is a good one. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map on Läckö Castle is great. How is it made? I opened the source code and found nothing. How is that map made? How to make one? Vino Italiano (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vino Italiano: It's made outside Wikipedia. The article uses {{Infobox building}} which can pull data from Wikidata and OpenStreetMap. "Wikidata Item" under "Tools" in the article links to Läckö Castle (Q935973) where "OpenStreetMap relation ID" links to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1619392. I don't know how OpenStreetMap makes maps. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @PrimeHunter – Vino Italiano (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hy, can Someone please do Assessment (references) for chief secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa page.Draft:Nadeem Aslam Chaudhry many chief secretary are already have a wiki Chief Secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa .. the article rejected because of Fails NPOL as well GNG by the reviewer. Janabanigu (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thew fact that for some of the people listed at Chief Secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa there exist articles does not mean that there should exist articles for every person, including Chaudhry. Appointed - as compared to elected - positions do not always qualify. David notMD (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

research say Chaudhry was on very high post including the Additional Secretary at the Prime Minister's Office. he has been on high posts since 2020 from covid time. Janabanigu (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Janabanigu. The question is not what high posts he has occupied, but whether there is enough independent reliably published information about him to base an article on. Nothing written, published, or or commissioned by him or his associates - including the government - will count, and neither will mere mentions (in a list, or in a newspaper item that says he has been appointed, but without at least several paragraphs about him and his career). Those are the sorts of sources that are a non-negotiable requirement to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new. There are a lot of obscure people on wikipedia that are not really notable. Can I just delete the articles? For example using the suggested edit widget on my home page it took me to this page Kent (Gillström) Isaacs. I can't find any secondary sources so I dropped a comment on the talk page but wondering if I should have just deleted the page. I think a lot of these pages are created by the people themselves for marketing. Here was another that I was tempted to delete: John A. Gauci-Maistre FunFactsFanatic (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FunFactsFanatic, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are not an admin, you do not have the power to delete an article; but like anybody else, you can nominate it for deletion: see articles for deletion.

It is not enough that the article does not establish notability: you should make a genuine effort to find sources that establish notability: see WP:BEFORE - if you don't then your AFD is likely to get closed quickly as "keep".

But if you have looked, and not found the sources, then by all means launch an AFD. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I already mentioned I've looked for secondary sources. Is there a listing of what articles have been deleted and why? FunFactsFanatic (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunFactsFanatic, there sure is! Instructions and helpful info can be found at WP:AFD; you'll also be able to find archives there, as well as currently open discussions. WP:AFDSORT may help find ongoing discussions on specific subjects - try the 'biography' section for similar articles to the ones you're thinking of nominating for deletion. You can always watch some of the current discussions and see how they end up, if you'd like to observe for a little while before committing to the nominations. There's no rush. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Several alternatives to deletion exist; that link also provides some helpful info on when deletion is not appropriate. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related question, since we're here. Does anyone know of a database report, external tool, or maintenance category that catalogues articles with external links in body prose? Folly Mox (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, do you have any advice how to search for articles with external links in body prose? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None that I know of. Cirrus search is not really up to the task because its regex is limited. Someone once wrote a bot that added a bare url template but I don't know if that bot is still running and I don't know if it distinguished bare urls inside <ref>...</ref> tags from those that were outside.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:TECHPUMP may be the next place to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, does this search answer your question? Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Glancing at the bolded stuff at the first page, no. As I understand it, @Folly Mox wants a tool/search that can find stuff like "In 2024, Smith started a new political party with James McMurdock." I tried this [2] but that doesn't work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ah, right. You can search for those with this search, but it's slow, times out after finding ~500k results, and does not distinguish between links in citations and other kinds, but will get you part way there. With sufficient fiddling, you might be able to weed out some of the refs by restricting equal signs or pipes just before it, but there would be diminishing returns, probably some false negatives, and it still wouldn't be perfect. HTH anyway, Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Btw, where is the WP-guidance on writing searches like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Here's one level of fiddly search, which cuts out a lot of refs (but not all of them) and may cut out some good results, too, but the general mix of results is a higher proportion of non-ref results than previously. If I knew what the results were going to be used for, it might be possible to tune it better for those goals. Maybe Folly Mox can answer that. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddly search 2. Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång you can start with Help:Searching, and then mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Regular expression searches; finally, this may help for some features, but Wikimedia doesn't implement all of that I don't think. Cirrus search regular expressions are a pain in the butt, because it lacks absolutely basic features of regular expressions like alternation (OR) which make a lot of things really difficult; it also lacks positive and negative lookaround, which would've been really helpful to exclude <ref> tags in the current situation, and there's no easy workaround for that. On top of that, the doc we do have is pretty poor. lately I finally got fed up enough to start writing my own crib sheet, and I'm finally getting a bit better at it. I mean to someday either redo the doc entirely, or else (more likely) just write up the crib sheet as a kind of quick-start box which may be useful to those who know some flavor of non-Cirrus regex, to get them going quickly. I'm still learning, though. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Thanks again! I spot checked a few search results, ctrl-f-ing " [http" (with a space before the [, hoping that helps a little) in the wiki-text. Much is ref and EL-section, but I did find [3] and Town#Alabama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if we're after a "Hunt for bad WP:EL" search/tool, refs and EL-sections are big obstacles. Ping @Trappist the monk again if you want to add anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Single, one-line advanced searches are limited in what they can do. A user script or Module could grab the article and exclude all refs fairly easily, and then search what's left for the pattern using Lua pattern matching. That would be a better approach to this imho, if you want good results. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the acceptable references for musicians and songwriters to include in an article about them. Is there a “tier” ranking among various music publications and blogs? 2605:59C0:130:E210:C4E:A420:3D1:FC6A (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge, but there is a list of reliable and unreliable sources available to check sources against. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wiki-editing and would really appreciate some help here! My draft, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_J._Calis, "is not adequately supported by reliable sources" despite citing a number of legitimate journals and papers, including The Atlantic and America Magazine. I'm not sure what qualifies, then -- thanks for any help! It'sMeowOrNever (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It'sMeowOrNever, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you are having a very common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create an article before spending time learning about Wikipedia's requirements.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Of your Eight citations, only the last two come anywhere near meeting the requirements for sources to establish notability, in that they are the only two sources independent of Callis. Unfortunately, neither of them says very much about Callis himself: they (and the quotes you take from them) might well be appropriate for the article in addition to more substantial independent sources.

Writing an article begins with finding several sources that meet the criteria in the golden rule. If you cann't find these, then you know that there is no point in spending any more time on this, as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted.

If you find them, then the next step is to forget absolutely everything you know about the subject, and summarise what these independent sources say about it.

If that results in enough content to be an encyclopaedia article, then you can may add a selected bibliography, and some uncontroversial factual data (like dates and places) from non-indpendent published sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a huge help -- thank you! This is exactly the sort of feedback I was missing. Thanks again for the clarification! It'sMeowOrNever (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My draft at Draft:Ramallah Friends Meeting (Quakers) was declined due to:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The draft contains citations to University papers, reliable Books, and verifiable primary sources. What am I missing for this page to be deemed adequately supported? It is about the only Quaker Meeting in the Palestinian Territories and I have included most citations that are available outside of any possible newspapers in Arabic. Thank you in advance. InquisitiveALot (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, InquisitiveALot, and welcome to the Teahosue. What you are missing is independent sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back and taking the time in your reply. Having sourced & cited Books and University papers & archives, would those count as independent sources for publication? InquisitiveALot (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on exactly what those sources were and what they actually said. A chapter, or several paragraphs, in a book (not by the subject or someone associated with them/it) published by a university press would doubtless support Wikipedia:Notability, a passing mention or inclusion in a list in such a book would not, but could Verify a particular fact. Archives often contain material from or by the subject, which would not support Notability because they would not be Independent of the subject, though again they could be used to verify uncontroversial facts. The suitability of other papers, such as Doctoral theses, depends on how widely they are accessible (i.e. are they truly 'Published') and whether their author was or has become a recognised authority on the subject.

In short, it depends on the context of the subject in question, but if in doubt put them in and let the next reviewer judge them. Don't be discouraged, many drafts go through several rounds of submission before they become articles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.82.201 (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can some one please add a picture on Qazi Muhammad Asad Khan the image source link is https://www.facebook.com/share/u3kQycDRxSYrviKw/?mibextid=xfxF2i from his verified page. Janabanigu (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we can't just take an image from Facebook. Please read the Wikipedia:Image use policy. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I am reaching out in utter frustration regarding my article submission. Since the start of the year, I have been diligently re-drafting this article to meet all the requirements specified by your guidelines. It is outrageous that editor Johannes Maximilian has now reiterated the same feedback previously given by other editors, claiming the article lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia and fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have meticulously revised the submission to eliminate any peacock terms and ensure it is written from a neutral perspective, as per your instructions.

Furthermore, the accusation that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources is simply untrue. I have invested countless hours referencing independent, reliable, published sources to verify every piece of information in the article. It is incredibly disheartening to have my efforts continuously dismissed by editors who seem to be trigger-happy in rejecting submissions without offering constructive feedback. This process is beginning to feel discriminatory and marginalizing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, free space for sharing knowledge, yet I am encountering constant obstacles and encountering editors who appear to be mean-spirited and resentful, rejecting my efforts without due consideration.

This cannot continue indefinitely. I have poured significant time and effort into ensuring my submission meets Wikipedia's standards, and it is unacceptable for it to be continually undermined by dismissive editorial behavior. I urge you to review my submission again, taking into account the extensive work I have done to comply with your requirements. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Adefolarin

Adefolarin1 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Teahouse hosts: also asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#19:32, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Adefolarin1. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adefolarin1 This has been answered at that link. Forum shopping is poor etiquette, please do not do it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails on tone, lack of NPOV, and flawed references. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that utterly non-neutral prose like She expressed confidence in her appearance and emphasised the importance of balancing her roles as a queen, mother, and entrepreneur. She remains committed to supporting her husband in preserving Ile Ife's traditions and fostering cultural heritage. She attributes her ability to manage her responsibilities to divine guidance and the wisdom instilled by her family belongs in an encyclopedia is bizarre to me. That's press release writing, not encyclopedia writing. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adefolarin1, it may be that you have immersed yourself so deeply into this topic that you have lost sight of what an Encyclopedia is. It is nothing like promotional Social media. Please read Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, particularly Section 2.3, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Try to imagine how your Draft would read if it was written by someone with no personal connection to the subject and no particular like or dislike for them, presenting only published facts in a dry, non-judgemental (positive or negative) style. That is what Wikipedia articles require. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.82.201 (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley is one of six wives of Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, ruler of Ile Ife. All married him in the fall of 2022. Any attempt to create an article about her must rest on references to what people have written about her. Wikipedia policy is that published interviews do not count toward eastablishing notability. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been entering some "depicts" information for paintings on Wikimedia. Most of these paintings have the title already there as a "depicts" entry, but nothing else. Should I avoid repeating words from the title (redundant)? Or does the entry just refer to the specific painting itself and not the subjects within the painting? I hope I am making sense. Thank you! Artfann (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Artfann. I think what you are doing is way outside the purview of Wikipedia (specifically), and you should ask at either Commons, or Wikidata: I'm not sure which. You are editing a file in Commons, but applying the Wikidata property "depicts".

To me it seems that entering a theme like "poverty" and "charity" is original research, and should not be done without a reference; but of course I'm thinking from Wikipedialand, and it might be different in Commons. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to put {{copyvio-revdel}} on the sandbox. As per WP:COPYSAND , copyrighted material is not allowed in the sandbox.

Courtesy link:

• revision history
• copyvio checker
• taken from here

Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question. I have revdel-ed the relevant content, as it was a clear copyright violation. I've also warned the editor concerned. I don't see why that template should not be used, though I'd want to check back to ensure it wasn't removed automatically when the sandbox is cleared for the next editor. I'd not thought about that before, so might consider using the talk page if the template was lost each time the page is blanked. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, i found an article Lanka Tiles sense of promotional content, puffery and peacock words. I tried to clean the page but its creator reverted my edits. I also smell like COI or paid contribution. I did this assuming good faiths. Please also have a look at other articles created by Chanakal. Capital Alliance, Heritance Tea Factory, Hunas Falls Hotel, Heritance Ahungalla, Jetwing Vil Uyana, Dankotuwa Porcelain, Sierra Cables and many more like these. I have a strong feeling of paid COI now. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are diverging the discussion by creating a tea house discussion. I am willing to discuss and agree on a consensus. Chanaka L (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator also removed COI tag. It seems a clear indication of COI and paid contribution here. I would like to hear from other experienced editor on Wikipedia. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhtar40 as I said you are only accusing, not discussing. You removed perfectly well cited facts as well as removed summary from the lead section. Chanaka L (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed only promotional and repeated text but you already reverted my edits. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:LEAD. Providing a summary of info is the point of the lead section. The fact that Lanka Tiles is one of the most valuable brand is not promotional, it is a fact am afraid. Chanaka L (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhtar40@Chanakal If you want to discuss the article, do so on the article talk page, please. The Teahouse is for answering questions, not for angry content disputes. Cremastra (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on their talk page, it is them who diverge the discussion. But I welcome your opinion on the matter as an uninvolved party. Chanaka L (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are both edit warring. I will look at the actual details after I have requested page protection. Cremastra (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how having the history of the company in the lead is problematic, per, yes, WP:LEAD. That text doesn't look promotional to me. Ceylon Theatres acquired Lanka Ceramic from the government of Sri Lanka. In 2013, Royal Ceramics acquired 80% of the stake in Lanka Ceramic, thus bringing Lanka Tiles under the umbrella of the Vallibel One Group. That sounds like neutral wording to me.

Having "awards and accolades" in a separate section makes more sense than lumping it in "operations". Mentioning that in the lead is, again, summarizing the body and seems fairly neutrally-worded. Cremastra (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cremastra for looking into the matter and providing a feed back. Cheers Chanaka L (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request deletion for Draft:Riley Strain due to WP:BLP1E, notable for one event. Cwater1 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwater1 since you are the draft's creator and main author, you can request deletion using the {{db-g7}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Got it. Hopefully I can remember next time. Cwater1 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've written a list page of historical plaques and include the text of the plaques in the page (List of Blackburn Historical Plaques).

I've noticed Wikipedia bots making alterations to the plaque text to meet Wikipedia standard, but this makes the information inaccurate. Is there a way to indicate that the text should be protected as is so that automated tools don't alter it? Scooby359 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scooby359: You can put {{Nobots}} on the page; or better still discuss the matter with the bot operator (in this case User:Sdkb) on their talk page, so that they can understand and remedy the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks for the help! Scooby359 (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby359 Do not place {{nobots}} on the page, as that blocks all sorts of beneficial edits, so please do not do that. Instead, use the template {{as written}} only around the section of text that should remain the same. In your case, that would look like this:

blah blah blah {{as written|on 15th August 1842}}, blah blah blah...

Then the bots should leave it alone, but are still available to fix other problems in the article. Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Ace, I've updated with {{as written}} so hopefully sorted now. Thanks for your help! Scooby359 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would request senior editors and admins to have a look at the contributions of User:HingWahStreet of engaged in writing jounals/magazines → The Wikimedia Journal of Hong Kong Transport. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/User:HingWahStreet). Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a senior editor, but even I can tell this is a blatant misuse of userpages. I've tagged them as such. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was hoping for some help with a particular sentence. It's part of the plot summary on the Spider-Man (2002 film) page. Below is the first paragraph of the plot summary, with the sentence in question in bold:

On a high school field trip, teenager Peter Parker visits a Columbia University genetics laboratory with his friend, Harry Osborn, and his love interest, Mary Jane Watson. There, Peter is bitten by a genetically engineered spider, and falls ill upon returning home. Meanwhile, Harry's father and Oscorp founder, Norman Osborn, bids for an important military contract. He tests a performance-enhancing chemical on himself and goes insane, killing his assistant in the process.

The syntax feels off to me. Here is a version I proposed:

Meanwhile, Harry's father, Norman Osborn, tries to secure an important military contract for Oscorp, the company he founded.

We don't have to use either version if another better version exists. Please let me know your thoughts. We've tried various versions and discussed on the talk page, but haven't come to a consensus. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either is OK; the second (yours) is preferable. (I might simplify that to "Meanwhile, Harry's father Norman tries [...]".) -- Hoary (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryman Healthcare's logo is outdated and we would like to update it to the current one. Rutheavh2 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rutheavh2 hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You said "we" – do you mean that a group of people is using this account?

As to your question – new users aren't allowed to upload files. You can bring this question up on Talk:Ryman Healthcare. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No i'm the only user. thanks do i just create a new topic? under companies? Rutheavh2 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rutheavh2, click "Add topic" at the top, next to "View history". A form, which you've already used here after clicking the "Ask a question" button, will appear. When you're ready to publish the message, click button "Add topic" at the bottom. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can someone help me with an archiving issue? I tried archiving sections from this talk page but instead of archiving it to the linked Archive 1 from the talk page, the bot archived it here which doesn't show up when you access the Archive 1 from the talk page itself. Griboski (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griboski, hello! OneClickArchiver uses the configuration of the automatic bot archival to find out where the archive page is. This configuration was broken and caused incorrect archival by OneClickArchiver. The configuration has been fixed. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

andrybak Thank you! I knew I screwed something up. Question is what to do with this erroneous archive that it created? --Griboski (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can mark Talk:Vasojevići (tribe)/Archive 1 with template {{db-author}}, and an admin will delete it. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there way I can withdraw my request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. I don't think I'm ready yet. I like to have better experience and plus I might take a wiki break. Cwater1 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've marked it as withdrawn for you. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been editing here for long, but I recently overhauled the Quintus Sertorius page. I understand the points about summary style, but how much should I cut it down? It stands a bit above 9,000 words as of now (which the size page notes is worthy of cutting down), and Sertorius is not a 'major' figure in Roman history like Caesar that can really justify such a large article. I just have a passionate interest in him and thus wrote that much. I would appreciate some recommendations! Should I merge my writings into that of the Sertorian War, perhaps?

As well, what is the process for getting an article reviewed for its content? Sertorius was C-level when I began editing, and I would be interested in seeing what grade it is now after my edits. I admittedly have a lot to learn, but I think I have improved the article from its earlier state. Thank you! Harren the Red (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harren the Red: Well, one thing is that the "Sertorian War" section is far too long. It's supposed to be a relatively brief summary (maybe a couple of paragraphs) of the main article Sertorian War, not a separate full treatment of the war. If any of the sourced information there is not already in the main article, you can move it into that article. Deor (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information! I'll start cross-referencing and seeing what I can port over. Harren the Red (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, Harren the Red! The Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject is fairly active, so you can ask its participants at the WikProject's talk for better recommendations on trim the article or on a possible merge, or for an updated class assessment.

As a side note, class assessments are rather informal in my experience, unless taking the article through a formal review process like Good Articles and above (i.e. Featured Article). That may be why the WikiProject's requests for assessments hasn't been meaningfully updated since 2022. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know! I'll get in touch with that project specifically :) Harren the Red (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harren the Red, you might want to take this one to WP:PR - tell them you're new, interested in taking this article through WP:GA if possible, and aware that you need to cut things down but not sure what needs the most cutting. You obviously have the interest and skills to be able to take this to Good Article status, and some targetted advice from editors who are used to the content review processes will probably be very helpful for you. Of course, read the GA guidelines first and do what you can to clean it up with them in mind first. Good luck and welcome! -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do i put user box in my membership page like many member .Thank you Junurita (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

. . . in what's called your "user page", Junurita. Please see Wikipedia:Userboxes#Using existing userboxes. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you said.I only want to create user boxes in my membership page😄. Junurita (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Junurita. We do not have anything called a "membership page". I'm guessing (and Hoary was guessing) that you mean what we call your "user page" User:Junurita. ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right.Thamk you. Junurita (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

😅 Junurita (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I write a message that says "_____ redirects here. For the _______, see _______."? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevortnidesserped: {{Redirect}} Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I do such a task? As my title possesses a spelling error. WikiPhil012 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPhil012 renaming a draft is usually not necessary, as the reviewer will choose a suitable title if the draft is accepted. However, if you would still like to do it, follow the directions at Help:How to move a page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful response. WikiPhil012 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how to write in wikipedia JAYDEEPNIMAVAT1518 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JAYDEEPNIMAVAT1518 Welcome to wikipedia! For detailed instructions on how to write articles, check out Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:The perfect article. Hope this helps! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, see WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what GGS said: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm trying to create a separate Wiki page for Elitechrome, a brand of Kodak 35mm film. At present there is a redirect from Ektachrome so I can't just set up Elitechrome as it's own product page (it is a separate product). So any time I search for Elitechrome it just redirects to Ektachrome. How do I remove the redirect so that I can write a new page and put some pictures up for Elitechrome? Thanks. SnarkyDragon (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SnarkyDragon, when you open the page Elitechrome you will be redirected as you mentioned, but a notice will appear at the top of the page:

(Redirected from Elitechrome)

Click on the link and you will be sent to the origin of the redirect, which you can then edit.

Before editing, please make sure the product fulfills the notability requirements for products. Broc (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Broc - I got as far as that but couldn't see where the redirect was in the source - the words Elite Chrome don't seem to have any code next to them. SnarkyDragon (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the text "#REDIRECT [[Ektachrome]]" with your new article. Meters (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks v much! SnarkyDragon (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no I've tried and failed. May have to give up on this one and just edit the main Ektachrome page with details of Elitechrome. Trying to remove or bypass the redirect has me stumped. SnarkyDragon (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SnarkyDragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you are trying to do is precisely to create a new article, which is a very challenging task - the fact that the page already exists as a redirect does not change that. I would very strongly advise that, as a newish editor, you do not attempt to create the article in the existing redirect page,but create a draft and submit it in the normal way.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I do understand that but it still doesn’t allow me to create a new article as the title I want to create is linked as a redirect so I can’t physically create a new article and I don’t want to waste the time and energy drafting something only to find I can’t actually create a page because nobody has explained how to remove the redirect. SnarkyDragon (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I am very strongly advising you not to attempt to create a new article at this stage without going through the WP:AFC drafting process. If you use that, you won't have to worry about the redirect, because the reviewer who accepts the draft will sort out the redirect.

The "waste of time" that you are imagining is a chimera - the existence of a redirection will not affect the creation of an article about Elitechrome. But the waste of time - yours and others' - in try to write an article when you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability may be significant.

If you have already found those sources, it may be a different matter: I would still advise a relatively new editor such as yourself to use AFC. But you could try going ahead and editing the redirect. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bizarre attitude.

My original comment was around redirects and barriers to creating a new article.

Now you're saying that if I don't do things in a certain way it's a waste of my time and others time. You mention about a WP:AFC drafting process in your latest comment, but not in your earlier comment (and nobody else commenting mentions this process) - so how exactly am I supposed to contribute to Wikipedia if the mods are gatekeepers and don't actually answer things specifically or in an accessible way?

Do please show me where I have written that I won't do anything in a way that's advised? But yes you dive straight in and tell me I'm wasting my and others time? I mean if that's the attitude of Wiki then literally why should I bother?

I do object to people acting high and mighty when I am asking simple questions about processes which could have been answered very simply and in a more accessible and less high and mighty way. SnarkyDragon (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Colin - 'you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability may be significant'

I was not aware that not providing evidence for an article I am considering writing constitutes evidence not existing? Also, who exactly is 'we'? And why does my original question not matter? You're bothered about 'evidence' and fixated on that rather than just answering my actual question. Why?

Are you now saying that when I have an idea for an article I need to produce a dossier of evidence to appease you (why you?) and prove that I am not wasting time?

What you're doing is acting in an extremely toxic way and I don't particularly understand why.

What is wrong with just answering the question I asked and trusting that maybe (just maybe) There IS a separate product which someone had considered writing about to improve knowledge on a subject.

https://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e7014/e7014.pdf SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnarkyDragon I don't see any edits to the redirect page. If you are using the Visual Editor, a pop-up will appear when you click "edit", you just need to deselect "Redirect this page to..." and press "Apply changes". If you are using the source code editor, as Meters suggested above, you only need to remove the text #REDIRECT [[Ektachrome]]. Broc (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s because I haven’t made any yet, I don’t want to invest time and energy only to not be able to actually create the page I want to. SnarkyDragon (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnarkyDragon You can create a draft (by using the Wikipedia:Article wizard for instance), then a page mover will be able to replace the redirect with your draft at a later point. Replacing a redirect is a routine procedure so don't let it be an obstacle to your contribution. Broc (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok - so are page movers actual human mods or wiki automated processes? And how do I flag that I’ve made a draft and it’s ready for review? Thanks SnarkyDragon (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnarkyDragon Yes to your first question. As for the review process: you will find a button "Submit draft for review" on the draft page you create via the article wizard. An experienced editor will then review it and, if it fulfills verifiability and notability criteria, will move it to mainspace. Broc (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions but now with Colins response I have a deeper understanding of the type of people who run and moderate Wikipedia and I'm not sure I want to invest any more of my time or energy - I'll be picking this up elsewhere. SnarkyDragon (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnarkyDragon for what it's worth, neither ColinFine nor I "run and moderate Wikipedia". There is no such thing as a moderator here. There is a community who built policies using consensus, and there are a few elected members, called administrators, who usually take responsibility of interpreting the outcome of discussions and implementing it (they can block users, delete pages, etc.).

ColinFine's suggestion was simple: creating a new, well written article is difficult. That's why we have the WP:AFC (Articles for Creation) process, where you can take the time to edit a draft article, get feedback from reviewers, and only get the article published once it's ready. This way, you can take all the time you need, and readers of the encyclopedia will get to enjoy a good article. The AFC process was devised to help new editors with drafting their very first article, and I agree with the recommendation of using it.

If you think writing a new article is a difficult task you are not yet ready to take on, Wikipedia:Task Center has many simpler, but not less useful, tasks that can also be performed by inexperienced users. Broc (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment and you may have some understanding as to why I viewed Colins comment as purely and simply toxic - and there are some outstanding questions I have asked in my comment relating to that toxicity. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I wish to write an article - I wish not to be gaslighted into being told I cannot. I thought that the Teahouse was somewhere supportive but clearly it is not and I am now gaining an understanding of the gatekeeping and control of knowledge on wikipedia. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnarkyDragon I'm pinging ColinFine just to make sure he reads the discussion.

I'd like to mention that Teahouse hosts are only here to help new users in good faith. We don't want to discourage new users, so I'm sorry if you felt that way! That being said, I don't see any personal attack in ColinFine's message, only a suggestion to use a process (WP:AFC) that, as I said already, was meant to help new users in drafting their first article.

So please, if you do wish to write an article, go ahead and start a draft! Feel free to drop me a message if you ever have any questions: I am a new page reviewer, so I can provide you with some guidance on what we are looking for in new articles.

If you want to learn more on Wikipedia's guidelines on writing articles, you can also read Help:Your first article. Broc (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also emailed various stakeholders about this, I’m not a child and will not be treated as such. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin’s message was toxic and I require an answer to each and every point that I have reasonably made in my reply to him. He needs to be accountable and answer fully especially the questions I have posed asking ‘why’. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a volunteer service, nobody is "required" to answer you. We are all spending our time to help other editors as much and as far as we decide to, with no further obligations. Broc (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I can say the same about trying to contribute when people aren't especially helpful - all I ultimately wanted was to contribute to Wikipedia and wanted some advice on that. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I gave abundant support in my messages above. If you decide to contribute (and I hope you will), you are more than welcome to reach out for guidance.

Fighting with fellow editors, on the other hand, will not be constructive for anyone and it will certainly not help improve the encyclopedia. Broc (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to fight at all - but it was reasonable to ask for justification why I was being spoken to like that - there were some exceptionally unhelpful things said to me. Yes, you did give support and for that I am thankful. SnarkyDragon (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnarkyDragon, I'm sorry if I came over as toxic: that was not at all my intention.

My intention was to warn you against a path which my experience of helping hundreds of new editors tells me is likely to result in pain and frustration, both for those new editors and sometimes for those who try to help them.

I certainly did not intend to dissuade you from contributing, and I'm sorry if I came over that way. ColinFine (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnarkyDragon: I don't think this explicitly came up yet, but articles that don't cite sources meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines are deleted. I think this is something understood by active editors but confusing for new editors. If you start out by editing Ektachrome, you can gather the sources for your new article in the process. There's no technical problem with converting a redirect into an article; it happens all the time. Feel free to reach out if you have questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SnarkyDragon (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

back to the original question[edit]

SnarkyDragon, this seems to have gone astray from your original help request, so let's see if we can do a reset to get it back on track. Broc's original explanation at the top (@ 06:44) is the way I always do it also, but if that doesn't work for you, the click this link and it will take you to the redirect page. You are welcome to edit it and change it into an article, but that's an involved procedure even for a very short article, and your idea of expanding the section about it at Ektachrome is a better (and easier) idea. I would go that route for starters. Once that section hits critical mass—which is around a couple of paragraphs and a minimum of three very solid citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources—then come back here and ask about how to spin off an article section into a new article. "Reliable" in the Wikipedia sense means a lot of things, but no blogs or social media or sketchy websites for starters; a book chapter or an article in a reputable magazine like Popular Photography devoted to it would be a good start. "Independent" means mostly not from Kodak websites, but follow the link for more detail. Do you need help finding reliable sources, or writing citations, or do you know how to do that already? Help:Referencing for beginners might help for the latter. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very helpful and I will have a think SnarkyDragon (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I just ran into this problem for my Patch management draft. There is already an existing redirect at Patch management. Luckily you can just follow the steps at Article wizard using your intended article name as Broc suggested, and automated software (/admins?) will take care of the redirect page once your article is accepted. Tule-hog (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SnarkyDragon (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a political party in pakistan please help to expand more things Hazara Quami Mahaz Pakistan Janabanigu (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What help is it that you are seeking? 331dot (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually article needs more detailing and there is also an incident which should be added.https://www.dawn.com/news/1401278 Janabanigu (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janabanigu, is your idea that you (i) think of a subject that doesn't have an article, (ii) create a stub about the subject, and then (iii) hope that other people will do the hard work of turning this stub into an article worth reading? Most people at the "teahouse" know little about the politics of X (where X is almost any nation, such as Pakistan), have no particular interest in the matter, and are likely to be unenthusiastic about reading up on it. Suggestion: You might create fewer but better articles. (The good quality of such an article might inspire other editors to read up on the subject and make improvements.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback @Hoary I understand your concern and will aim to create fewer , but higher quality articles in the future. In hopes of inspiring more engagement and contributions from other editors Janabanigu (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since creating your account on 10 July you have been busy creating short drafts and submitting to AfC, with some accepted (as stubs and orphans) and some declined as not qualifying for WP:NPOL or general notability. I concur that quality needs more attention. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I have trouble successfully uploading the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article. What else can I do so the article is published?

It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.

Thank you in advance!

Best wishes 123creativeuser 123creativeuser (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@123creativeuser I think that the main problem is that your sources are websites like Sexauer, which are galleries trying to promote the artist and, ultimately, make money from her. Thus they are not independent. What we need to be convinced that Lee is Wikinotable is to read that people who have no connection to her have noted her work and commented on it without prompting by her or her agents. A long list of her exhibitions doesn't help: that's what her own website would cover, not Wikipedia. So, cut all that and focus on material about her meeting these criteria. You may find this essay helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to :/ SillyBilly13 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SillyBilly13 Welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to create a page about your involvement with editing Wikipedia, click on your red username above and create the page. Pease ensure it conforms to the user page policy. If you are thinking that Wikipedia is the ideal place for your autobiography, it is probably not. Please see WP:AUTO. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SillyBilly13 If you want to create an article, I recommend that you first edit a few already-existing articles to get the hang of editing Wikipedia. Then you may check out Help:Your first article! Apmh (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of presidents of USA 2607:FEA8:3FE1:D900:3888:5E6B:161A:4AF (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you elaborate on your question? If you're trying to make a new article, you may be looking for List of presidents of the United States or History of the United States. — Amph (my talk page, my contributions) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could I get recommendations/advice on how I can further improve this page?:

Extended content

Teahouse Personal information Full name Luong Jérémie Loïc Nino National team Vietnam Born (2000-07-25) July 25, 2000 (age 23) Châtenay-Malabry, France Height 1.94 m (6 ft 4 in) Weight 83 kg (183 lb) Sport Sport Swimming Strokes Butterfly, freestyle Club Cercle Paul Bert Rennes, France College team Michigan Wolverines swimming and diving Coach Mathieu Burban Medal record Men's swimming Representing  Vietnam ASEAN School Games 2017 Vietnam 200 m individual medley 2017 Vietnam 400 m individual medley 2017 Vietnam 50 m backstroke Southeast Asian Games 2021 Vietnam 4 x 100 m freestyle 2021 Vietnam 4 x 100 m medley 2021 Vietnam 100 m freestyle 2021 Vietnam 50 m freestyle 2023 Cambodia 4 x 100 m freestyle 2023 Cambodia 100 m freestyle 2023 Cambodia 50 m freestyle Luong Jérémie Loïc Nino (born 25 July 2000) is a male athlete of the Vietnam national swimming team. Having won the Gold Medal for team Vietnam at the 31st Southeast Asian Games in the 4x100 m freestyle Relay and silver in the 100 m freestyle, Luong holds multiple national records.[1][2][3] Career[edit] Early life[edit] Luong was born on July 25, 2000, in Châtenay-Malabry, France to a Vietnamese mother and a French father.[4] Growing up in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, he attended the British International School Ho Chi Minh City.[5] Luong started swimming in 2009 at the Yết Kiêu Aquatics Center, and joined the Vietnamese national swimming team in 2018.[6] He later committed to swim for the University of Michigan, starting with the class of 2022. [7][8] Swimming career[edit] In 2020, Luong transferred to Cercle Paul Bert in Rennes where he trains with his coach Mathieu Burban.[9] In 2023, he qualified and participated in the 50 m freestyle, 100 m freestyle, and 50 m butterfly at the 2023 World Aquatics Championships in Fukuoka, Japan.[10] Honors and awards[edit] Victorix Ludorum (Overall Player of the Year), awarded by British International school HCMC: 2018 [11] Bằng khen của Thủ tướng chính phủ nước Việt Nam (Certificate of Merite from the Prime Minister of Viet Nam): 2022[12] Philanthropy[edit] Luong organized a toothpaste collection drive at the British International school in Ho Chi Minh city, which resulted in over 3,000 toothpastes collected for a medical expedition to Quảng Nam province.[5] References ^ Tùng, Đào (14 May 2022). "Nhật ký SEA Games 31 ngày 14-5: Ngày của những hy vọng vàng". Báo Người Lao Động Online (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 28 June 2024. ^ "InterSport". InterSportStats. Retrieved 28 June 2024. ^ "List of Vietnamese records in swimming", Wikipedia, 2024-06-11, retrieved 2024-07-05 ^ Nam, Đình (2023-05-06). "VĐV gốc Pháp giành huy chương cho Việt Nam tại SEA Games 32". Thể thao 247 (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 2024-07-05. ^ a b "Toothpaste Collection". Nordangliaeducation. 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2024-07-05. ^ Đăng, Huy (2017-06-26). "Đôi ngoại binh của làng bơi TP.HCM". Tuổi Trẻ Online (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 2024-07-05. ^ "Student-athlete Jeremie commits to the University of Michigan". Nordangliaeducation. 2018-05-16. Retrieved 2024-07-05. ^ Lepesant, Anne (2017-12-31). "Michigan Adds Verbal from Vietnamese National Teamer Jérémie Luong". SwimSwam. Retrieved 2024-07-05. ^ Lebouchard, Chloé (2024-02-27). "JO 2024. Natation : Jérémie Luong, l'étoile du Vietnam". Ouest-France.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-07-05. ^ "Jeremie Loic Nino LUONG | Results | World Aquatics Official". World Aquatics. Retrieved 2024-07-08. ^ "Secondary Sports Awards Ceremony 2018". 2018-06-22. Retrieved 28 June 2024. ^ Nguyễn, An (2022-05-27). "Thủ tướng Chính phủ tặng Bằng khen cho 305 VĐV xuất sắc tại SEA Games 31". laodong.vn (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 2024-07-05.

 Luong.alois (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luong.alois I don't think editors here at the Teahouse will give you inputs on how to improve the content of the page, as most of us are likely not experts in Vietnamese swimming. The page seems well-written and sourced. As you declared a COI with the subject, you must go through the Articles for Creation process, where an experienced editor will review the page before approving it for mainspace. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, click the blue button "Click here to start a new article" and follow the procedure. Broc (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a column to a table, but the column header cell does not take style (background color, font boldness) and is not like the other columns. Please see the table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Lake#Raptor%20Lake-U%20Refresh

I added the column "Release date" but it is not bold and the background is not as in the other column headers.

How can I have done that properly?

Can you please do the modification so I could see what you done to know what should I have done? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim Masiutin. Header cells have ! instead of |.[4] Header cells and normal cells can be anywhere in a table. It's not something automatic for the first row. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! These two characters look very similar and are easy to miss, that's what happened in my case. Thank you for your help. Now I will know. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I am new and unsure how to get information about our music duo on to wikipedia? Theresa.bentley (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; writing about yourself isn't what Wikipedia is for. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Bentley Project - Music Duo was Speedy deleted as being advertising/promotional. See WP:NMUSIC for criteria for music notability. In theory, your group will in time be so famous and written about that someone with no personal or paid connection will craft an article. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear editors, I meticulously worked to create a draft of my page but it got deleted. Could anyone please help me fix the issues? I am pasting the link here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dessy_Ocean Sehar Awais (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Draft:Dessy Ocean had been deleted, you wouldn't be able to see it. It hasn't been deleted, or even rejected. If the subject is notable, you're welcome to improve the draft and to resubmit it. But I struggle to see any sign of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your feedback.I will try to find some more reliable sources to get it approved Sehar Awais (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sehar Awais, the draft did not get deleted, but only declined. The reasons are explained at the top of the page: the draft you wrote does not show the subject's notability because it does not contain reliable, independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject. You can add such sources to the article, if they exist, and then resubmit it.

Have a look at Help:Your first article where all of this is explained in detail, and let me know if you have further questions. Broc (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking to make this article CLNS a neutral point of view, as it got declined. I thought it was all neutral, and I'm not sure what parts of the article don't seem neutral. I think I need to work on my references as it probably refers to having primary references instead of secondary but unsure on which ones to change.

Any help would be greatly appreciated Richielemay29 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor about being paid, Richielemay29. As just one sample, Draft:CLNS Media tells us "CLNS Media has played a role in covering significant Boston sports events over the past decade". Has it covered them? If so, then "CLNS Media covered...". If not, then what was this "role"? We can assume that what's insignificant goes without mention, so cut "significant". "Over the past decade" has built-in obsolescence. The humdrum section within which this sentence appears has no reference. Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, I fixed that line. Would you recommend I remove any references that seem to be primary? Richielemay29 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd better put this draft aside for a moment while you attend to more pressing matters. Is c:File:URX5Gm55 400x400.jpg (the company logo) really your own work, so that you, personally, are in a position to copyleft it? -- Hoary (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's the companys work yes, which I stated I am apart of Richielemay29 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we're asking, @Richielemay29, is that when you upload something to Wikimedia Commons (as you've done with the logo), you are giving permission for anyone to use it for anything, including editing it however they want and slapping it on whatever they like. This is usually something companies really don't like, because they want their logo to belong to them and only be on things they approve. Besides that, if you are not the artist who originally designed it, you most likely do not own the copyright to it - and the artist may also have some opinions on what people can do with their work. W're trying to make sure you and your company (and the original artist, if that's not you) don't get a very unpleasant surprise someday if someone does decide to have fun with the logo - which they can, under the terms it's currently uploaded under.

There are other options for uploading the logo that don't involve allowing it to be reused, and you might want to use those options instead. For those you would need to wait until the draft is accepted, but I promise that having the company logo or not having it won't make any difference to whether it's accepted or not! The draft stage is to get the article's bones looking good; once it's been accepted you can enjoy adding frills like infoboxes and logos and whatnot. Right now the text and sources are what's important. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A complete outsider's observations here - The lead is ALL jargon. It tells me almost nothing. "Media Talent" sounds wanky. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead is trying to say that the subject is a web site. Most, maybe all, of the site's content is about the Boston Celtics basketball team, though this isn't mentioned in the lead. Maproom (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richielemay. The mistake you are making with the content - as many new editors do, especially ones who have a connection with the subject - is that you are writing what the company wants people to know - even when you are thinking you are writing bald facts.

Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what the company wants people to know - its own website or Facebook page is the place for that, not Wikipedia.

What Wikipedia cares about, almost exclusively, is what other people, wholly unconnected with the company, have chosen to publish about it - even if the company really doesn't like what they've said. Every single claim in the article should be citable to a reliable published source, and the great majority of them to sources wholly unconnected with the company; and those sources must not be cherry-picked for favorable presentation. (I'm not saying that there are sources which are critical of CLNS: I have no idea, and I haven't looked. But it is the duty of a Wikipedia editor writing an article to look for and use such sources if they exist). ColinFine (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried repeatedly today to publish after an edit on an article. I get this: No stashed content found for 1228854049/e4392273-3ffd-11ef-a418-cd2fe938f0ef. What does that mean? Beingherenow2 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Beingherenow2. Unfortunately that means the visual editor has been open for too long, and the cache has emptied. Any work you had in the editor has not been saved and cannot be recovered.

To avoid this, make sure to "Publish Changes" often, backup your text in another application, or use the source editor which doesn't seem to have this issue. Qcne (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! That explains it. Fortunately it was just some minor things. Beingherenow2 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, a couple questions on the biography page for Jessie Henderson that I wrote. I got a notification that I may not have the proper sources for the page. Is there a way I can know which cited links might be causing the flag? I tried removing some sources but it won't let me remove only update the information of the source. How can I delete a source? As a back up is there a way for me to delete the biography page if I am not able to get this clarified? Nenarodz (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Nenarodz, in this little series of edits you added a three-minute interview on Youtube as the reference for, for, for -- uh, you don't say what it's for, and you deleted the "notability" flag. For a start, attach that (rather dubious) reference to this or that assertion or a number of them. Putting aside the propriety of removing bits of an article, you ought to be able to delete any part of an article: what exactly is the problem you face when you attempt to do so? -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, appreciate your response but was simply asking for assistance as I am very new to this platform, I didn't ask for the sarcasm that was added to your message. Very unneeded. I didn't realize the source didn't properly load, will make sure it is adjusted properly. I figured out how to remove the flag after I posted this, but happy to make any further adjustments to references. When I go to edit references it doesn't give me the option to completely remove any references it only allows me to make edits to the pre-existing ones. I can remove any part of article minus references for some reason, unless I'm doing it wrong or missing something. Nenarodz (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still mystified, Nenarodz. But perhaps you're using the "visual editor" or even the "app": I've never used either, because (after a rather mystified first ten minutes or so) I've never had trouble with the "source editor". Perhaps somebody accustomed to the "visual editor" will recognize and understand the problem you're facing, and give useful advice. ¶ Youtube references tend to be frowned on, for copyright-related reasons. That doesn't seem to be an issue here. What's likely to be an issue is that this Youtube video is an interview (or similar). A person isn't a disinterested source about herself or what she has done; what Wikipedia wants is commentary about the subject from reliable, disinterested sources. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nenarodz! So Wikipedia is a little bit tricky here - it got me too when I was starting out - the references are in the body of the article, not the reference section. If you click the little up arrow thing (^) next to the reference you're trying to change/remove, it will take you to the part of the article where the reference is used. You then edit that part of the article, specifically the bit that starts with <ref> (after the sentence the reference is attached to). Does that help at all? StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nenarodz: Regarding, "When I go to edit references it doesn't give me the option to completely remove any references it only allows me to make edits to the pre-existing ones." On the Visual Editor, you'll need to edit the text where the inline citation's superscript callout is located.^{[this bit]} You just delete it like you'd delete text. If you click down in the references section, you can modify a reference but not add, remove, or replace one. It's a software limitation. The ability to modify the references from the reference section was only added last year. It has to do with how and where the references are defined in the wikitext source. The Visual Editor is a lot easier to get started with, but it has a lot of little limitations like this. Feel free to ask questions if that's not clear, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My understanding is that there's a list somewhere of websites we are not allowed to link to, or cite, in articles. Can someone tell me where to find the list? Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat: See m:Spam_blacklist. Fabrickator (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat: There is both the global meta:Spam blacklist for all Wikimedia wikis and the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for the English Wikipedia. The software prevents saving of edits which try to link a blacklisted site. We also have Wikipedia:Deprecated sources which may not be blocked from saving but generally shouldn't be used as sources in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat, you may also be looking for WP:RSPSS which tells you whether certain sources are considered reliable or otherwise. Between the three of us hopefully you've found it! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the events shown in the "On this day" article on the front page of Wikipedia (Main Page) repeat every year? Or do you change them out with different facts and events? 159.196.168.46 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! You can learn about how the "On this day" section is developed at WP:OTD. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted my first bio Draft:Henry Beach Needham and it said it would take 4 months to publish. I would like help with edits and approval. It is for muckraking investigative journalist, Henry Beach Needham. Logger67 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not quite, Logger67. You're told that it may take four months or longer merely to be reviewed (whereupon it will be accepted, declined or rejected). But underline the "may" within that. I've a hunch that it will be gratefully accepted, and that the process will take very much less than four months. In the meantime, a note:

• "Charivari" is an odd word. -- OK.
• Charivari is an odd word. -- OK.
• "Charivari" is an odd word. -- Strange: italicizing shouldn't merely duplicate quotation marks (or vice versa).

I suggest that you deitalicize the numerous long quotations. (Of course, newspaper titles and the like constituting mere parts of those quotations can remain italicized.) HTH. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog of drafts is not a queue, so could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before it is reviewed. David notMD (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if there is a standard template similar to

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

except it is to be taken seriously - preferably with a modifiable message. That is, a template for an important critique (but maintaining a little levity). Tule-hog (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lower half of Template:Like/doc has a dizzying number of templates; see also Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace and Wikipedia:Template index/Talk namespace. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks for all the links. {{subst:uw:minor}} was exactly what I was looking for. Tule-hog (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tule-hog: If you use Twinkle, it has a number of standardised templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the joint article to find information about the individual parts of a joint, but there isn't any, there aren't even links to articles for those parts. Considering that I am there exactly to find the missing information, I feel unqualified to be the one adding that.

In any case, now I find myself wandering through different forums to search for a place for requesting expansion, yet I can't seem to locate one. I would appreciate some pointers, thank you.

(Edit:there were links in the category section, but still, a summary would be nice)—Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I would normally start by asking a question on the article talk page, but if it looks a bit quiet there, the next step might be the talk page for WikiProject Anatomy. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will head there now, thanks. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have some personal info in it, and I can't email the oversight team right now due to screen time limits. BombCraft8 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BombCraft8. I've requested oversight. There are many methods to contact the OS team listed at WP:RFO. Thank you for noticing and reaching out, but please do not link to oversightable material. The goal is to spread it as little as possible while getting OS attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thx

will be sure to remember

i think this is streisand effect but unsure BombCraft8 (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the instructions to add WikiProject tags to a new article draft only seems to add the article's talk page to be tracked in 'Recent changes', but does not list the article in the WikiProject's homepage Articles for creation subheader under article alerts. Is there a way to be automatically added to those lists, or is it done manually? Tule-hog (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tule-hog: It is done automatically by the bot, AAlertBot, but not immediately. Check the pages later today. It looks like they should be updated a little over 2 hours from now. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i figured it might be a delayed refresh. thanks for linking the bot as well :) Tule-hog (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to start formatting my citation in the page for SEATO. It's a declassified US military document called United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense with a subsection NATO AND SEATO: A COMPARISON.

I first found a scan copy on https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-A-1.pdf, but there is also a text version on WikiSource. Assistance much appreciated and sort of needed. RFNirmala (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to click 'Ask a question' at the top of the page to start a new topic. You currently have asked a question on an unrelated question above yours! The 'unsubscribe'/'subscribe' button exists for each topic. Tule-hog (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RFNirmala,

* {{Cite report |url=https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-A-1.pdf |title=United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967 |publisher=Department of Defense |volume=IV. A. 1. |language=en |quote=it is interesting that Dulles was so concerned with avoiding a public identification of SEATO with NATO that he tried to have the new treaty called 'MANPAC,' for 'Manila Pact.' |quote-page=A-14 |section=NATO and SEATO: A Comparison |section-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_–_Vietnam_Relations,_1945–1967:_A_Study_Prepared_by_the_Department_of_Defense/IV._A._1._U.S._MAP_for_Diem:_The_Eisenhower_Commitments,_1954–1960}}

Generates:

• "NATO and SEATO: A Comparison". United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967 (PDF) (Report). Vol. IV. A. 1. Department of Defense. p. A-14: it is interesting that Dulles was so concerned with avoiding a public identification of SEATO with NATO that he tried to have the new treaty called 'MANPAC,' for 'Manila Pact.'

Hope that helps. |archive-url= is for online webpage archive services. |section-url= lets you give a second URL to link a |section= within a larger work. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already added your citation in the article, also added a new sentence for the quoted information. Thanks for cleaning my new topic mishap! RFNirmala (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small edit request for the Hebrew Wikipedia because I'm not sure how to do it myself. Do they have a teahouse there where I can ask? Can I make the request here? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew Wikipedia(as well as any other language Wikipedia) is a separate project, so you will need to ask about editing its articles there. The best place is probably article talk pages; I'm not sure if they have a Teahouse, but they have a Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Ill go there. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Wikipedia:Local Embassy#Hebrew suggests asking User:Amire80. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've already got a reply. Did you need anything else? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Further reading section, with two books, to Mona Lisa. The two books come out on the same line. Why? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add a "space", fixed. Lectonar (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maurice Magnus. The normal formatting is a leading asterisk to make a bulleted list.[5] A single newline in wikitext is treated like a space unless there is something else causing a line break in the rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am actually a long-time editor, and I knew to use an asterisk; I was merely careless in this case. But I didn't know that the asterisk prevented there being a space between the two lines, and I was wondering why there was a space between the two lines. I'm glad to have learned that. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An hour or so ago, I was viewing this page on my smartphone (Android, Chrome, configured to use desktop format), and noticed that all the postings were from February 2024. Now I'm back home using a computer, it's back to normal. I'd assume I'd been dreaming, but it's still like that on my smartphone – correct URL, February content. How can this happen? Maproom (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: What does it say at "This page was last edited on" at the bottom of the window? Is it possible the smartphone cached the page in February and you just have to reload the page? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you tried bypassing your cache? Broc (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It said "Last updated 24 February 2024". I'm sure I've read it on my smartphone mre recently than that. Anyway, I went from the Teahouse to another page, then to the Teahouse again, and it was fixed. It seems harmless, I'll stop worrying about it. Maproom (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me bundle the 4 citations in the first sentence of 1st paragraph and 2nd paragraph of the article Ada Wong? I cannot bundle a source that is already used; it's kinda tough. Many thanks. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• snipped* at User:GGCOMM/sandbox

Hello GGCOMM, try having a read of WP:BOSS. That should give you all the info you need. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account now blocked for multiple reasons. Follow the process for appealing your block. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is going on, but the substitution on this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of permanent Ambisonic playback systems is not actually creating the discussion page. Can someone please assist? VViking_TalkEdits 14:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Victor Schmidt mobil for helping with this.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viewmont Viking. In case it wasn't clear from the diff [6], [[WP:PROMOTION|a means of promotion]] was missing the ending ]]. A transclusion would also have failed. When the code of a template call is displayed instead of the output, the reason is usually a missing ]] or }} somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I need help with the Wikipedia page for the Tanawha Trail. I edited out this line:

"Tanawha, the Cherokee word for fabulous hawk or eagle is an appropriate name for this trail that offers hikers views of distant mountains."

It has since been reinstated. Tanawha is not a Cherokee word. Eagle is ᎤᏬᎭᎵ (uwohali.) Hawk is ᏔᏬᏗ (tawodi.) It's likely the person who wrote this got it from the National Park Service page about the trail, which is also wrong. The NPS person in charge of info about the Blue Ridge Parkway area is checking into it also. Now, this error may have originated with the NPS site, it shouldn't be perpetuated on Wikipedia. If you look at the page for Tanawha, Queensland, the word is sourced as a Maori word for a water guardian. That is the correct origin of the word.

I tried posting this on the Talk page, and also on the talk page of the user who reinstated the sentence, but I haven't gotten any responses. I'm new to the "backstage" area of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where to go from here. What's next? Lostcheerio (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. If the sources provided in an article are in error, you will need to provide more current sources that provide better information, as well as address that with the existing sources(as you already are working on in this case). You should discuss this on the article talk page with other editors to decide how best to change the article. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I did post on the article's Talk page, ten days ago. The person who reinstated the incorrect information did so within 24 hours, but so far no response from him on the follow-up. As I understand the rules, it's the responsibility of the person who reinstates the false information to provide sources to back up that decision. Lostcheerio (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lostcheerio, the source seems to be unverifiable, so I've removed and pinged the other editor to the talk. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article reads like a brochure guide to the trail. In fact, there seems to be just one source, the US NPS brochure guide to the trail. My guess is, it more or less repeats the brochure. Yes, US Government, so in the public domain. But it's a brochure guide text, not an encyclopedia article. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's basically a copy of the brochure, which is public domain and noted as such in the edit summary for the creation. It could use a copyedit for encyclopedic language. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you agree, then, that there isn't a copyright concern--as I noted. It's still a travel brochure and hiking guide rather than an encyclopedia article. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's why it needs a copyedit. Valereee (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Valereee. Lostcheerio (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got two questions. If a swimmer hasn't been found guilty of doping. And Wada has stated that the swimmer is not found guilty of doping. Is it okay to name and shame and make an entire chapter dedicated to claiming that the swimmer is supposedly guilty and claiming they tested positive to doping despite nobody claims that? I think that's just libel to claim they are guilty of doping when Wada has not labelled them as guilty. It's undue and libel do I removed it. I also want to start a new talk discussion (on this topic) on this swimmer's page [7] but have no clue how to do that. Can you help me? 49.186.109.79 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZenChen0, is there a reason you added this information to this article? Valereee (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP 49, I started a talk page section, and you should be able to use the reply button to respond. Since this is a relatively public venue, I'll say that ZenChen0's version is not definitely "libel", though this is a WP:BLP-sensitive matter and experienced voices would be welcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the most recent version of my draft on the B Reactor Museum Association. I was working on it just 15 minutes ago when my browser crashed, and now I can only see the version from a few weeks ago. Is there any way I can get back all of my recent work? IImostwanted (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IImostwanted. I'm afraid that if you didn't "publish" (i.e. save) your changes, then Wikipedia hasn't got them. Your last saved edit to your sandbox was on 25 June. This is why many editors recommend saving your work reasonably often. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IImostwanted: Special:Contributions/IImostwanted shows no saved edits since June except your post here. If "Enable the Edit Recovery feature" is already enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing then you may be able to recover unsaved text by using the same device and browser to edit the same page or going to Special:EditRecovery. If this doesn't work then your work is lost. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! Didn't know I had to continuously publish. Will do. IImostwanted (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Adminstrators,

Hello Teahouse community, I recently made an edit to the Bottlenose Dolphin Anatomy article, intending to enhance the comprehensive coverage of the dolphin's anatomy. I added information about various anatomical features such as the dorsal fin, fluke, belly, melon, blowhole, eye, beak, and median notch, supported by reliable sources. However, my edit was reverted, and I'm seeking guidance on how to proceed. Could someone please review my edit and provide feedback on why it might have been reverted? I want to ensure my contributions align with Wikipedia's guidelines and improve the article effectively. Thank you for your assistance! —Moosebag10 (chatter) 20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried either posting on the article's talk page, or leaving a message on the talk page of the person who reverted you, asking why? DS (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just so you know - this - is not acceptable. DS (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moosebag10 Looking at the edit summary you put, "Leave this darn text here, add citations to it by time.", and the edit itself I can tell you right now that that's not going to be allowed on the page.

The burden of providing citations is on you, not on everyone else. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moosebag10, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is exactly how disagreements between editors are supposed to be resolved: you Boldly make a change, somebody Reverts your change, and then you Discuss the issue on the talk page, and try to reach consensus: see WP:BRD.

Without looking in detail at your edit, I see that you added a significant amount of information , with no citations. That is probably why @Helpful Raccoon reverted it. ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is the exact reason why I also reverted Moosebag10's edit to the article, as I explained on their user talk page immediately afterwards. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source. Not a vexillological false edit.

Urs Truly and Please,

—Moosebag10 (chatter) 20:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the thing back.

URS TRULY AND ONE MORE TIME I AM TYING YOU ON A PIÑATA,

—Moosebag10 (chatter) 20:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now you made me angry… Moosebag10.exe (die) 20:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there may be concerns regarding his contributions. I want to clarify that He used AI tools like ChatGPT to assist in drafting content, with the intent of enhancing the Bottlenose Dolphin article. He apologized if there has been any confusion or upset caused by this.

He values the input and expertise of the Wikipedia community and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. He kindly request a respectful dialogue to address any concerns and work together to improve the article collaboratively.

Thank you for your understanding. Moosebag10.helper (help him) 20:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Moosebag10. I don't know what vexillology has to do with it. Nobody is arguing about whether the content you added is correct or not: that is not the point. All information in a Wikipedia article must be available in a reliable published source; and while the rules do not insist that everything actually be cited, if it is not, other editors are entitled to remove it.

The information you added is still there in the article's history. You are welcome to restore it as long as you cite a reliable source for it.

In any case, I would always advise adding information in smaller chunks than you did.

I get that you are frustrated. I'm afraid that that is what often happens when people attempt major edits to Wikipedia articles without first understanding Wikipedia's requirements. Please take the feedback you are getting as intended to help you understand how we work. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ColinFine,

Thank you for your message and for clarifying the expectations regarding sourcing and editing on Wikipedia. I appreciate your guidance on ensuring all information is supported by reliable sources.

I apologize for any confusion or frustration caused by my recent edits. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and will take your advice to heart moving forward. I will ensure that any restored content is properly sourced from reliable published sources.

If you have any further suggestions or specific guidelines for adding information in smaller chunks, I would appreciate your advice.

Thank you again for your help and understanding.

Best regards,

—Moosebag10 (chatter) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily blocked Moosebag10 for disruptive editing. I advise the editor to stop using ChatGPT or similar software to compose their replies. We need to hear from the human being, not a robot. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right. I put this in the "using AI in the WP-context is probably evil" category. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use ChatGPT when you talk to people on WP either. It doesn't help. When you write in WP-articles, animals are not "captivating" or "physiological marvels"[8]. If that's how you want to write, or copypaste ChatGPT-stuff, do it somewhere else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]