Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, 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.

Help Wikipedia

Can't find that many good references

I am trying to make a page on Major Hans Freiss, but the only references I have are in German. It is very hard with so little info. Some sources say he died, others say he is alive, but since he was born in 1910, he is probably dead. Here is a link to my draft: ​​​​​Draft:Major Hans Freiß - Wikipedia Deerare2good (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The interweb seems to think he is Frieß, not ei. German refs are fine; as for other reference sources I suspect a newspaper archive might be your best bet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

can you help me find one Deerare2good (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Spelling the subject's name correctly makes it easier for a search engine to find sources. Maproom (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing that, but besides the german refs, which might work, there is nothing besides some axis history forum that is not reliable. Deerare2good (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How about this search? (I can't read german so I don't know if these are all for the same guy) 47.188.8.46 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Third Party

If one user adds content, another user reverts it, and the initial user reinstates it without engaging in conversation, what would be the best course of action for me to take? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally, the best course of action is to contact the first user directly. Mach61 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

LeónGonsalvesofGoa, this is a vague scenario that has no simple or single answer. If the first editor was vandalizing and the second editor removed the vandalism, then the first editor should be warned and reported to WP:AIV if they persist. If the first editor was adding accurate, properly referenced content, then there is nothing wrong with restoring it if a vandal like the second editor removes it. In that case, the second editor should be warned. If the first editor added accurate but unreferenced content, you can either add a reference yourself, or ask the first editor to do it, or tag it as described in Template: Citation needed. There are countless other variations that need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328@Mach61 To clarify, I initiated a talk page discussion (Talk:Abu Bakr al-Razi#Quotes on Religion). The rationale provided by the second user for removing the edit is supported by policy. It has been 24 hours, and the first user has not yet responded. How long should I wait before considering the removal of the content added by the first user? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no specific time limit, but the point is to plausibly give people time to respond. As Cullen328 said above, if you do feel it is supported by policy, there is nothing wrong with restoring or reverting material, especially if there is some established consensus—and there are often ways other than simple reversion to handle an issue, such as the use of maintenance templates like {{citation needed}}. Remsense留 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Aspiring Wikipedian Seeking Guidance on Reviewer/Adminship Path

Hi everyone,

My name is Sweetabena and I'm a passionate Wikipedian with a long-term interest in contributing to this incredible resource. I've been editing actively for two years and have made some contributions across various topics.

I'm deeply impressed by the dedication and expertise of the reviewer and admin communities on Wikipedia, and I'm inspired by the crucial role you play in maintaining the platform's high standards. As I strive to further my involvement, I'm eager to learn how I can become a reviewer or even one day, an admin myself.

I understand that both these roles come with significant responsibilities and require deep knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and community dynamics. I'm committed to dedicating myself to gaining this knowledge and developing the necessary skills.

I'd be incredibly grateful if any experienced reviewers or admins could share their insights on the path towards these roles. And at what point do I qualify to become a reviewer or admin? Sweetabena (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sweetabena. Your enthusiasm is very nice but after over two years of editing, you only have made 149 edits, 113 of which were to articles. Your contributions are appreciated, but read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants where it says that 500 undeleted article edits is the minimum to become an AFC reviewer. It would take you another eight years to hit that target unless you dramatically increase your editing frequency. As for becoming an administrator, many thousands of high quality edits are expected, along with widespread participation in behind the scenes administrative type tasks and deep understanding of policies, guidelines and social norms. So, the short answer is to get much more heavily involved. Cullen328 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Cullen328 for your encouraging advice! I really appreciate your suggestion to get heavily involved before formally applying to become a reviewer. I completely agree that hands-on experience is the best way to learn the ropes and develop the necessary skills. I'm excited to roll up my sleeves and start contributing more actively to Wikipedia. Do you have any specific recommendations on how I can get started? Are there any particular areas or projects where I could be most helpful? I'm open to any suggestions you may have.Sweetabena (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You say that you are Ghanaian, Sweetabena. This suggests that you have an understanding of Ghana that most other editors (e.g. me) will lack. So perhaps Ghana-related subjects. But note two things. First, you can't write about Ghana (or anything else) from your personal knowledge: you have to cite reliable sources. Secondly, you are not at all limited to Ghana; you are of course very welcome to contribute on Uzbeki, Polish, British, Vietnamese, Finnish (etc), or international matters, or matters that are area-independent. (Just this morning I was reading about crying: a fascinating subject, but one whose reliable sources I'm not competent to digest.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks a million @Hoary. I really appreciate Sweetabena (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sweetabena. I recently (August) became an Articles for Creation Reviewer, and to get experience beforehand I participated in a few WP:AFD discussions, tagged articles with WP:CSD deletion where needed (using WP:TWINKLE), and improved suggested articles from Special:Homepage. All of these got me used to the various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Qcne for sharing your insights on becoming a reviewer! I greatly appreciate you detailing your experience with AFD discussions, CSD tagging, and Twinkle usage for deletion, as well as your involvement in suggested articles. This is incredibly valuable information for someone like me aspiring to become a reviewer myself.

Thank you again for your time and guidance. I truly appreciate your encouragement and will continue working towards becoming a valued member of the reviewing community. Sweetabena (talk) Sweetabena (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sweetabena Speaking as one who recently gotten accepted as an admin, this is certainly a route you can take, going through articles of which topics you are more familiar with as I had also started out with this. If you are interested in this direction, I can help you to get started with updating Index of Ghana-related articles on a regular basis (I am doing so for Index of Singapore-related articles), which will help you to look out for vandalism and other issues using Special:RecentChangesLinked/Index of Ghana-related articles. – robertsky (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Robertsky I'm definitely interested in exploring this route. Could you tell me more about what updating the Ghana-related articles index entails on a regular basis? What resources or tools would be helpful in getting started? I'm also eager to learn from your experience as an admin and any tips you might have for someone interested in the role. Sweetabena (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on article I created?

Hi all, hope you’re all well.

I recently created the article Sheth Ghoolam Hyder and I would like some feedback from experienced editors as to how it could be improved and also would like to see new contributions to the article as well!

Kind regards Ixudi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article. Well-sourced. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ixudi Given that thisis your first effort at creating an article, I would have recommended going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process described at WP:YFA, as that would have resulted in you submitting a draft that a Reviewer would then past judgement upon. For your having bypassed this process, New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP) will probably be reviewing your article within next 90 days. It is possible that it will be accepted, converted to draft, or tagged for deletion. Only after NPP rules or 90 days pass without an evaluation will it be 'visible' to search such as Google or Bing. Last - "Good article" is actually a formal rating that requires nomination and review. Lesser ratings, typically shown on the Talk pages of articles, are Stud, Start, C-class and B-class. An editor has rated it C-class. My criticsm is that you have included content that is not about Hyder. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope when I get an article it will be rated "Stud". AndyJones (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How do i make a side table on a matter?

See TAROM (airline) and then Draft:Legend Airlines (romania) tarom has a side table where it says full name and stuff i want that but idk how Poyeker (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Poyeker: Welcome to the Teahouse! The "side table" is called an infobox. The specific infobox on TAROM is {{Infobox airline}}. I suggest you go to Template:Infobox airline, copy the Blank syntax, paste it in Draft:Legend Airlines (Romania), and then fill out the parameters appropriately. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Poyeker.. While GoingBatty's answer is correct, adding an infobox will not help Draft:Legend Airlines (Romania) get accepted.

There is only one thing that is worth spending any time on with regard to that draft at present, and that is finding more sources which meet the triple requirement of being reliable, independent of Legend, and having significant coverage of Legend (not just of one incident) - see Golden rule. If you cannot find at least three such sources, give up, because that draft will never be accepted.

If you can find three such sources, then learn how to format your citations (see WP:REFB, make sure those strong references are all cited and remove most of the weak ones (like anything originating from Legend), and then check that the article contains only information from those strong sources.

More generally, If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Should i make a different article only on the specific matter of the human trafficking?

and what CAN i name it?

I know that i shouldnt just come in here and try anything but yeah

I could make one on the matter of the specific flight (why it got stopped and where what)? i think that would benefit it easier because there are more articles on that specific thing yk Poyeker (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ian Charles draft

Some years ago, an editor began a draft on Ian Charles, who is the director of the Quadram Institute, a UK public-funded research institute specialising in food and the gut. The draft is in their sandbox, here:[1]. The editor attempted to submit the draft, but it was rejected (inappropriate tone) and I think they lost heart and gave up - they haven't edited since. I'm wondering whether it's worth resurrecting this draft, but had some questions: (1) Is it okay to start with a draft from someone else's sandbox, assuming that I attribute it? (2) Is he likely to pass WP:NPROF? My feeling is that the director of a substantial public research institute ought to be a match on criterion 4 or 5, but when I've seen discussions it's mostly been in the context of universities rather than public-funded research institutes, so I'm not sure. Inevitably, as with any academic, independent sourcing is going to be a bit sparse (that's why we have NPROF). (3) I have a slight COI (I have connections with a different organisation somewhat related to his, and know professionally at least one person who works in his institute).

If people think Charles is a pass, my intention is to tone down the 1st and 3rd sentences to get rid of the internationally recognised fluff and the mission statement, convert the "references" into selected literature, and see if I can prop his biographic details with at least his University of East Anglia institutional web page, while also making sure it's not a copyvio (which some of the existing text definitely is)[2]

Grateful for any advice. Elemimele (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor in question has not edited anything since 2020, so I would treat content as money found on a sidewalk - yours! And your distant connection to IC does not in my opinion warrant declaring a COI. Go forth and draft! David notMD (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There are two obvious ways of going about this, Elemimele. One is to copy its content, start a new page (a sandbox of yours, a draft, an article), paste the content there, save, improve, save. Please do not do this. (A guideline whose title I don't remember warns against this approach.) The other is to rename (move) the file to a new address (a sandbox of yours, a draft, an article), save, improve, save. If you do this, you don't have to attribute it at all: the old page will redirect to the new one; and the history of the old page, and its moving, will appear in the history of the new one. (The only possible problem would come if the creator reappears and wants to use their sandbox. We can sort that out if it ever happens.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, David notMD, Hoary, I'll move to draft (if I don't mess it up) and work from there, and to be on the safe side, I'll leave a note to the creator. I appreciate the responses! Elemimele (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, failed. There already is a very short and rejected draft from MrStoat, written rather recently. MrStoat was probably unaware of the sandbox version. Time for me to learn about merging.... Elemimele (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Elemimele The draft by MrStoat at Draft:Ian Charles is Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. What I advise here is that you contact MrStoat on his Talk page and ask if he is open to you contributing to the draft before he resubmits it. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have already moved a large about of content from the abandoned draft to MrStoat's draft without first notifying. Although it is now after this action, I recommend communicating with MrStoat, as what you've done is hijacked the draft. You may not get a reply, as MrStoat created this draft in early October and has not edited it nor anything else since then. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I am rather new to contributing to Wiki and happy for others to work on and edit the draft page. Many thanks. MrStoat (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as well, as I just did a lot of chopping and moving to make this more aligned with articles about academics. Still missing are references to verify his education and career. What I advise at this point is that the two you collaborate on improving the draft and deciding when it becomes good enough to resubmit. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for the criteria for notability of scientists. Can be difficult to achieve. Referencing some of his journal publications is allowed, but does not contribute to extablishing notability. I will not be revisiting the draft. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi MrStoat and David notMD, I've added an explanation on your talk-page, MrStoat, about what I was getting up to. I apologise for not doing this earlier. I ran out of time this morning to do much tidying beyond the initial big copy of text from the sandbox draft. I'd very much like to collaborate, MrStoat, and I'm reasonably confident we can get this to a pass of WP:NPROF. The OBE alone won't get him notability, but it helps to reinforce that his directorship of Quadram isn't just a teeny-tiny uni-spinout. This is a major public-funded UK research institution with a long history, and he's in its highest appointed position, as well as being an academic professor at the adjacent university. David notMD, I'm sorry about the referencing mess. That was inherited from the sandbox thing, and I'd intended to update the literature, trim it to the most high-impact, and convert it to a proper Selected Publications, while using the references to do what they should: back up the biographical information. But I had to get the kid to school! Elemimele (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

notibility check

I have started an article in my sandbox. When I get a solid lead and some credible references how do I get it checked for notability? I checked the notability page for criteria, and it seems I am ok.

My first article was through a semester long WikiEdu format so this is new for me WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. WP:42 useful on quality of references. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiTikiTavi63, Dolly Parton's Imagination Library is already covered in Dollywood Foundation, the sponsoring entity. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not search the Foundation. I searched the Imagination Library. You just saved me work! WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Unoccupied person feeling weary and impatient

Hello. What are your opinions on RationalWiki and Conservapedia. Have there ever been incidents with editors of the two? Also, on a lesser note, am I allowed to take part in Teahouse discussions if I have something useful to add? Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

the answer to the last question is "yes", with the added note of "if you're sure it's constructive" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And the first question?? Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, the Teahouse is a place for editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and for experienced editors to accurately answer those questions. It is not a forum to express opinions about other wikis. It is most definitely not a therapy session for any editor's boredom, weariness or impatience. So please stop that behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you become a Wikipedia admin? Do you need to have edited a lot? Is there a minimum edit number? These are my questions. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

hope this helps Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Weezer) 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To become an admin on Wikipedia, you must create and pass a request for adminship. Yes, you must have edited a lot; there are no firm limits on the process and community norms change over time, but certainly experience measured in years and edit count in the thousands (or tens of thousands) would be a practical baseline. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

invisible commentmobile

is there a limit to what can be done with invisible comments in an article besides "anything actually related to improving the article or keeping it good" and "hopefully not adding enough of them to clutter the source for anyone who happens to be editing"?

in the cases i'll hopefully have time to work on tomorrow (being the lists of pokémon, currently still at gen 1), noting unimportant, unsourced anime and game examples (like may's beautifly in the anime, or the dead gardevoir in pmd) and common misspellings (like "ninetails" for ninetales, or "alamomola" for alomomola) are both things i believe would be fine cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: Welcome to the Teahouse. Does WP:INVISIBLE answer all your questions? It suggests what's considered appropriate and inappropriate uses of hidden text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

yes, i checked that while writing the question, just wanted to be 100% sure so i wouldn't make a moderately-sized mistake

from just reading it, it seems the answer is a decisive, unambiguous "sure i guess"

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Drawings relying on copyrighted sources?

This has been stuck in my head for some time and the question in advance may seem dumb, but what do they mean by "copyrighted sources" prohibiting drawings and other depictions of a certain object (for instance an image of the German destroyer Z43)? Does this even cover official descriptions of said object?

Sincerely, e (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Browhatwhyamihere. As a general principle, if an artist makes a drawing that is based on a copyrighted photograph, then that drawing is a derivative work that is subject to the copyright restrictions of the original photo. It is possible that the copyright on this particular photo of a warship may have expired, according to Photograph copyright (Germany), but I would seek expert advice on that matter. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to consult with Sturmvogel on the copyright expiration matter; he knows more than I do. Anyway thanks for the reply! e (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Donation Receipt

Hello, I can't find any information about locating my donation receipt. can you help? Howkew21 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello amd welcome. We have nothing to do with the donation process, which is conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Please direct any inquiries to donate@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

unable to publish article

i've been working on an article for 4 days now, and i've been trying to publish it for a while, but it just won't work. i keep getting this pop up: "No stashed content found." is there any way i can solve this? or copy the exact content to a different window? or anything? i suspect this happens if i keep a window open for a very long time. creating this article all over again would be a severely tedious task, so i would really appreciate any solutions to this issue. Dissoxciate (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dissoxciate. Keeping a window open for a very long time without regularly publishing your changes is not a good idea. I suggest that you develop new articles in your sandbox or in draft space. Publish your changes frequently, and then move the content to the main space when it is ready. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the response, Cullen328. i'll definitely keep that in mind. i was working on a direct create, which is why i decided not to publish regularly, as the article would be incomplete in that case. even though i'll publish changes frequently from now, what do i do about the current problem? is there any solution for this article? Dissoxciate (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No article on Wikipedia is 100% complete- but to directly create an article you will need to have at least enough to demonstrate notability. If it will take time to do that, you should use your sandbox and then move it when ready. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Dissoxciate, sometimes "lost" content can be found in your browser history by repeatedly hitting the back arrow. Whether or not this will work in your case, I do not know, but I wish you luck. Other editors may have other suggestions. Cullen328 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate: If you still have the text in your browser but are unable to save it then try copying it to User:Dissoxciate/sandbox. Keep the old window open as long as possible until you have saved the content somewhere and checked it can be seen at Special:Contributions/Dissoxciate. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll see what I can do about the article. Dissoxciate (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

GIF

How do you make a GIF? I want to upload a gameplay screenshot for Ape Out, but I feel as though a still image isn't clear enough. The video can be found here. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 20:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Like all other media, GIFs and videos used on Wikipedia articles need to be freely licensed, or fall under non-free content policy, which is stricter than "fair use". Since the promotional video is presumably still under the copyright of the publisher, it likely can't be used here.

Moreover, the use of animation and video on Wikipedia has historically been fairly limited due to accessibility concerns, among others. Generally, there aren't a lot of cases where videos and GIFs—which cannot be printed out, for example—get across information not available in prose or still images.

I do think this may be a case where it could be useful like you've said, but you're probably much better here working with a full video instead of a GIF, and making sure its purpose is as necessary and clear as possible. Cheers! Remsense留 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Final remedy to boredom

Hi. I would like to know if there is any saloon or something like that to discuss things? This is my last question here. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, when you created your account you should have been assigned a mentor and a homepage with edit suggestions. You are of course always welcome to ask questions here or on your mentors talk page but the aforementioned homepage or this page on suggestions for new articles may help give you some ideas. There is also the Village pump which references the Teahouse and Help Desk. If all else fails you can try finding a Wikipedia Project that interests you and maybe that will give you some ideas of what to edit next. --ARoseWolf 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The IRC or Discord is probably your best bet. Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will now do something else. I definitely didn’t know all of that before. I will stop to express my boredom on here now. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, no one is telling you that you have to be on Wikipedia all the time. If you’re on and get bored, maybe it’s time to take a break; watch some YouTube or read random AskReddit threads like I do. Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I have so many chores to do throughout the day. I have a set time I can devote and the rest of the time I am on in between my work I have to get done. During the winter I have more free time than the summer but you don't have to be on here all the time. Just edit as your schedule allows. --ARoseWolf 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it considered bad practice to skip multiple lines?

I have come across a problem in the article that I am editing where the images take up space around a title that aren't relevant to the title that I am editing. I have tried moving the pictures to the right, but it still takes up the space. I am thinking that adding a few extra lines to space them out should help, but I don't seem to see it on other articles. Are there any possible solutions that I haven't come across? Thanks! Fdefect (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Fdefect, welcome to Wikipedia! You can try using the {{clear}} template. Cheers, — Frostly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ISBN

ISBN 0-8160-5764-8 1 appears on https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofpa0000unse_s7e2/page/n3/mode/2up but "{{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)" when I click Publish. What needs to be done for it to be accepted? Mcljlm (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: I'm going to have a hard time helping you if you didn't give us a little more information. Could you please link to the page you're working on? Thanks. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mcljlm. I don't see any ISBN or similar value on that page. But I can tell you that the trailing "1" is not consisent with ISBN formatting. ISBN 0-8160-5764-8 looks like what you want. DMacks (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The ISBN I posted is on the back of the title page, https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofpa0000unse_s7e2/page/n5/mode/2up DMacks. Mcljlm (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah found it...had to use a different browser...weird. But anyway, it clearly does not have the trailing '1' there.

Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. ISBN 0-8160-5764-8.

no error. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Mcljlm, ISBN 0-8160-5764-8 translates as ISBN 978-0-8160-5764-1, and either of these two is the ISBN of an edition of Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

[insert very important topic here]

Hello! Happy new year to ya'll at Wikipedia! I really don't have anything to say other than if there could be little categories in the search bar (example: on the left history and on the right food so you find a specific category) I'm not saying that it's messy but it's something to think about. Jude marrero =D 74.103.166.181 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jude, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, but this page is generally for people asking for help in editing Wikipedia articles. If you want to suggest changes to the user interface, one of the subpages of the WP:Village pump is probably a better place to ask.

Note that you can look at a Category and see all the sub-categories and articles in it, for example Category:Food. There is also a way of combining categories in a search, PetScan (though I've no experience of using it myself).

Also you might find something in the Outline of knowledge helpful. ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "translates" ColinFine? Mcljlm (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you've replied to the wrong person in the wrong thread, Mcljlm. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving Pages Between Different Language Wikipedias

My question is: how do I move pages between languages? I'm asking because there is a certain inactive user draft I found that I want to move to the Georgian Wikipedia (which is the language the draft is written in). - Alex26337 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

*Forgot to add that it has a corresponding English Page. - Alex26337 (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Alex26337, it's not obvious that there's a Georgian-language page on Deutsch, so this could be useful over there. OTOH I can't read Georgian and the entire thing may for all I know be booby-trapped with misstatements or otherwise worthless. So I'd be inclined either to ignore it or to have it deleted. If your level of Georgian is good enough to know that it's worthwhile, you can look in ka:WP to see what the procedure is for copying it there; if it isn't but you suspect that copying the draft would be worthwhile, you could look among speakers of Georgian as a first language for somebody who is active both here and there and likely to respond quickly, and ask them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Alex26337, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I know there is no mechanism for moving/copying pages between different versions of Wikipedia. You would need to copy the (source) text into a new page on ka-wiki, and of course you would be responsible for ensuring that it met ka-wiki's policies. You should also attribute it (probably in your edit summary) - see WP:copying within Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

My edit to a page was replaced with completely unrelated info

Hi, I'm a relatively new editor, and so far have been doing some small edits, and functioning relatively well, but this seems like it could benefit from some experienced editors.

I was editing the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation page, and everything was going well, but when I went to save my edits I was told that there was someone else editing the page, causing a conflict. I thought, "ok, so I'll just save my edits and go on with life," but when I saved my edits and saw the page, what I had added was not there. And, I found that I was staring at a table accompanied by information that A) does not even pertain to the BBRF in any way (its about some sort of band and their tour dates), B) removed the source that I had added, along with two others, C) taken away the sensibly placed template asking that the article get more sources added along with more info, and D) removed the infobox that I put in in an effort to add some information in an organized manner.

When I looked at the edits log, mine were not there, (but the edit(s) by the user who put the unrelated information are there), which seems like it may be important to resolving this. It's like I never edited the article at all, and it's somewhat frustrating that this happened. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Villaida (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Are you still having a problem? The misplaced material you describe seems to have been removed from the page, if you would like to add your information again. Remsense留 23:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Villaida: Hello! If you are doing a major edit which lasts for like 15-30 minutes, there is a high probability that someone would post an edit and cause an edit conflict. I recommend using this Template:In_use, your first edit is to just post this template on a page, then begin a major edit and then remove the template. Of course, it wouldn't prevent any other editors to intervene, but it would be less likely to happen. Also, there had already been the relevant discussion on the Teahouse, I think you would find the information posted by other editors there useful. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

Heath Ledger was a direct descendant of Emanual Solomon , a 15 year old convicted of theft at the Durham Assizes in 1817 and transported to Australia wit his brother Vaiben in 1818. This is researched, documentad and verified in " Descendants of Samuel Moss Solomon" written by Jenny Cowenthe first edition which appeared in2019 and the second edition which will be published in 2024. Heath Ledger is entry 1230 on page 386 and entry 1406 on page 420. The ISBN is 978-0-9945173-1-9. Heath Ledger's maternal forebears were Jewish. GavinSilbert (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn’t this be a better issue to raise on the Heath Ledger talk page? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, but Wikipedia cannot use self published books as citations for biographies, see WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB for details. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How to edit a template

Some of the best templates for specifying what type of English to use for a page have handy abbreviations. Examples include American English, which you can just type { { AmE } } for, or British English which you can type {BrE } } for.

Many of the other variations of English could use shortform versions, but I try them and they do not exist or don't work. Just one example might be Indian English. I try "IndE" and it doesn't word. I get you couldn't use just "IE" because there are others like "IrishEnglish" etc.

If I could add some of these chosen abbreviations for language templates that I work with frequently, that would be really helpful. Some are Indian English, Nigerian English, Irish English, but there are so many different versions and it would be helpful to know how to edit a template, and where to locate that etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iljhgtn. Abbrevations like that don't work by editing the existing template but by making a redirect to it. For example, Template:AmE says #redirect [[Template:American English]]. Click "What links here" under "Tools" on Template:Indian English and select "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" to show current redirects.[3] The only one is Template:Indian-English with a hyphen so there is no abbreviation. {{American English}} and {{British English}} are used far more than other variants so an abbreviation is more helpful. I think they have too many redirects [4][5] and personally I'm not fond of something like {{AmE}} in an article source because the meaning can be hard to guess. {{IndE}} would be harder. {{American English}} is used in 18441 pages. Only 424 of them use the {{AmE}} redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Iljhgtn. To add to what PrimHunter says, I am very familiar with the abbreviations "BrE" and "AmE" outside Wikipedia, but I've rarely come across the other abbreviations. Which doesn't mean that they can't be used, but they are likely to be less familiar. ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but redirects are the answer for what I am looking for then? I appreciate that. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any abbreviated redirect for wikiprojectbannershells? That would also be useful. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You can find the shortcuts in a box to the right of the main text on the page for Template:WikiProject banner shell. The most convenient one is {{WPB}}. Reconrabbit 17:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So in the source editor i would just put { { WPB

insert wikiproject 1

insert wikiproject 2

} }

Then close it like I did above? With the spacing corrected of course? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You would need to put a pipe (vertical line) character between each of the projects, like this:
{{WPB | WikiProject Nepal | WikiProject Mining}}

You could even use abbreviations for the wikiprojects, like NEPAL and MINING. The easier it is for future editors to read, though, the better. Reconrabbit 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation

Regarding citation #2 of an article, I am working on: Wdallen49/Bobbie R. Allen I have a PDF document that was scanned from a Draft which was written by a U.S. Gov't official. I would like to cite this document in my article about Bobbie R. Allen but I'm not sure if that is acceptable. Can someone advise me regarding the use of this document? Wdallen49 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Wdallen49/Bobbie R. AllenRemsense留 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49, in my view, a preliminary draft of a document cannot possibly be a reliable source. The basic concept of a draft is that it probably contains errors that need to be corrected by further editing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Much of the information in the document is corroborated with other verifiable information. My thought is that it's a good (if not perfect) source of information which enables the reader to come to the conclusion that the subject was very successful. Wdallen49 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wdallen49: Was a final version of the document ever published, and could that be cited instead? Besides the PDF scan, could a reader independently verify that the draft exists? GoingBatty (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49 Another issue is how you obtained the draft; was it published somewhere and made available? "Published" covers a lot more ground than one might think, but it doesn't, for example, cover your cousin, the government official taking work home one day and showing you a copy of the draft over dinner. And if you (or anyone you know) is the official, there are other issues involved. Mathglot (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49, you have to consider whether this document is a primary source. We are not biographers here, and it's important that we don't carry out our own historical research into the lives of the the people about whom we write. We shouldn't piece together information from primary documents. We are restricted to summarising what "proper" biographers (and journalists, etc.) have published elsewhere, after they've done the piecing-together. The correct order of events is that someone writing an article about him in a magazine, writing a history book, or writing a biography, researches the document and describes its contents and existence. You then refer to the magazine or book in the Wikipedia article. Elemimele (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elemimele, This document is a significant source although much of the information contained within it is also contained in another official document. The author discussed much of the subject's career which is shown in multiple sources in the article. I guess I'm wondering it the document would be banned or worse, the entire article removed! Wdallen49 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot The draft was stored in the papers of the subject after passing away in 1972. My thoughts are that even though the paper is obviously not a formal published work, it gives support to other documents within the article which are properly cited. Wdallen49 (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49, unfortunately, that means that you cannot use the papers at all in the article. The best you could do is contact the owner of the draft and request that they publish it; if they can find a source that is willing to do so, you can then cite that source. But while the papers are in your possession and unpublished, you may not use them. Sorry. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, thanks for that input. The person who wrote the draft has also passed away but he's donated his works to the Harry S. Truman Library. I've initiated a search for the papers and hope to find them. Wdallen49 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, I'm searching for an original at several Archival libraries but have not found the document yet. There are other official documents within the article that support most of what's said in the document in question. However, the document in question was very well written and also written by a very senior government official, thus, I'd like to include it. Wdallen49 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it a kind of promotion on Wikipedia?

Hi Everyone, I am not sure whether this is the right place to put this concern here. But i think this is a serious issue for Wikipedia decorum. Today i noticed a user named User:Sush150 frequently adding Bollywood Hungama website links as references on Wikipedia's various articles. I checked his recent contribution on the pages below and found Bollywood Hungama is used very frequently as references: Singham Again, Murder Mubarak, Maddock Films, List of Hindi films of 2024, List of Hindi films of 2023, List of Hindi films of 2021, List of Hindi films of 2020, Kareena Kapoor Khan filmography, Tiger Shroff, List of highest domestic net collection of Hindi films, Dunki (film), Tiger 3, Fighter (2024 film), Jawan (film), Akshay Kumar filmography.

These are few i found, but i am sure there is a long list. Macbeejack ☎ 08:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Macbeejack ☎ 08:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The site does not seem like it's nearly notable or reliable enough to be put in articles this way, even in external links. I would ask them about this on their talk page, and revert as you feel is appropriate. If this continues indiscriminately, it may be a case for WP:ANI. Remsense留 08:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Macbeejack Remsense as someone who has updated a lot of Bollywood films (mainly ones filmed in Yorkshire) with 10s of 1000s of missing credits, and will be updating many more in the future, I know that Bollywood Hungama is always credited as some type of partner (brand, agency, ticketing, digital, media, education, marketing, channel, banking, satellite, streaming, distribution etc), in the pre-opening credits of every single film I've updated, usually with just their logos.

The same goes for many other random recurring companies in logo form (some of which I need to make a note of, as I always have to image search them to find out which companies they are), including some Indian newspapers (some of which I've noticed Wikipedia claims are unreliable, which I take as a pinch of salt as a right-wing Brit, as Wikipedia also claims that every single right leaning British source is unreliable, even though I spot misinformation and mistakes every single time I read an article The Guardian and The Independent, yet Wikipedia claims they're reliable). Danstarr69 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, apologies for my ignorance. Remsense留 09:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

While noting up front that sometimes printing errors does not an unreliable source make, one problem we have with reliable news sources is that we can't use newspapers that permit pay-to-print revenue models for establishing notability, which in our insufficiently nuanced reliability scale cuts out most of the newspapers in some countries: certainly Nigeria, and possibly India as well (I'm unfamiliar).

Circulating a printed newspaper for subscribers is not a content model any news service established within the past four or five decades can afford. I agree it's a problem, as is an overall absence in the editorbase of what I'm going to call "foreign media literacy". Fortunately, for the present case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force § Guidelines on sources exists, which characterises Hungama as generally reliable, and even prefers their reported numbers for worldwide box office gross. Folly Mox (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Folly Mox, Thank You for your reply on this. I agree that Bollywood Hungama is generally reliable on the basis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force § Guidelines on sources . But my question is: Is it right to add references repeatedly of same website while there are other reliable website available to justify the fact? You can check the films i mentioned above, where approximately 80% references used of Bollywood Hungama. Is it right?

Danstarr69, perhaps one of us is hallucinating. As I read it, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has very similar (guardedly approving) comments about the reliability of The Independent, The Guardian, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoary Wikipedia, just like Twitter, is full of left wingers.

You can't add any right wing sources to articles, as left wingers will remove them, no matter what the sources say.

One of last times I remember using one, was to show that a farmer, or someone who now lived/worked on a farm, was the focus of a single TV episode, in a long running TV series.

There was nothing controversial in that source whatsoever, yet it kept being removed, even though it wasn't Blacklisted. I'm pretty sure I was using the deprecated Daily Mail to help prove that fact, as nothing else existed other than 1 local newspaper.

I've also seen generally unreliable sources get removed countless times while browsing through other people's edits...

Yes you read that right - Removed not replaced, therefore in the near future, facts also get removed because the evidence was removed. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes people take the "generally" of "generally unreliable" too far, and interpret it as meaning "unreliable in every case ever", and likewise with "generally reliable". People do similar overinterpretation with respect to style guidelines as well, forgetting about nuance and exceptions, so I don't think this is necessarily attributable to political perspective. Folly Mox (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

can't convert dollars/oz to cents/gram

Using the convert template, if I do: 15|$/oz|¢/g

I get: $15 per ounce (Error in convert: Cannot convert "$/mass" to "cent/mass"

The help message didn't help me too much.

I can do: 15|¢/oz|¢/g to get: 15 cents per ounce (0.53 ¢/g)

I can do: 15|$/oz|$/g to get: $15 per ounce ($0.53/g)

What am I doing wrong in the 1st example? I know I can't convert currencies (e.g., dollars to euros), but this is just a decimal place conversion. Also, how do I get it to spell out gram? Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunandshade, it seems like the template treats ¢ as a distinct unit from $, so this will not work. Would the presentation with no conversion—$15/oz ($0.53/g)—be acceptable? It seems best practice anyway, e.g. to compare 5 billion to 0.4 billion, as opposed to 5 billion to 400 million.
Oh—and you can spell out the units by using {{convert}} with |abbr=no ({{cvt}} is actually an alias that uses |abbr=yes)—which produces $15 per ounce ($0.53 per gram). Remsense留 09:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. The original article did not use convert (I assume the calculation was done by hand) so I thought I'd add in the convert template, but was trying to keep the same units as the original. I agree using $ to $ is fine so I'll use that. And I'll use abbr=off. Funny, for my other uses of convert, abbr=off is the default, so I didn't have to specify it. Sunandshade (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

you're welcome, best of luck! Remsense留 10:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving articles to articles which already exist

When I rename an article to a name which doesn't already exist on Wikipedia, it gets moved no problem.

However when I try to rename an article to a name which already exists on Wikipedia, I always have trouble, especially when it exists as a redirect.

I'm fairly sure that in the past, all I had to do was to remove the redirect, and then redirect it in the opposite direction, but now even that doesn't seem to work.

Do I always have to request assistance in these redirect cases, or is there a way I can do it myself?

I know you'll want to know what I'm trying to do as always, even when it's irrelevant to whatever I was asking, so here it is... I've just attempted to rename St Anne's Pier to St Annes Pier, as that is what its name is. It doesn't contain a comma, just like the town of Lytham St Annes which it's located in, doesn't contain a comma either. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You can request this at WP:Technical moves. The specific article is often relevant to troubleshooting for subtle reasons, so we're usually more helpful when we know.

Remsense留 09:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Remsense Now, are you going to answer my question...

Do I always have to request assistance in these redirect cases, or is there a way I can do it myself? Danstarr69 (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies—it requires the page mover permission, which is given out comparatively rarely, as you can see on the page. Remsense留 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanStarr, there are some circumstances in which you can move over a redirect without the File Mover permission, and you may have encountered this in the past. WP:Moving a page#How to move a page says Moreover, the move will fail if a page already exists at the target name, unless it is simply a redirect to the present name that has never been modified, in which case you can move over the redirect (check the edit history). If you cannot move a page yourself because of a technical restriction, and you expect the move to be uncontroversial, you can list it at the technical section of requested moves. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 You have made ~2,600 edits which is lower than the minimum requirement of 3,000 edits for consideration for page mover rights. While your contributions is on the low side, you still can start to the process of getting the right, if you have not begun, by participating in WP:RM discussions, file for technical requests appropriately. The purpose of doing so is to demonstrate that you understand the MOS policies and guidelines on article titles when the reviewing admin checks through your application for the right. – robertsky (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Minor pedantic point: they are apostrophies, not commas. {The poster formerly kn own as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume "[inverted] commas". Remsense留 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't understand what is meant by a credible link?

I am trying to fix this draft. I do not see what is wrong with the links, the son of the national poet of nepal, a major academic and public radio exchange and routledge? How is then credibility defined? 85.191.190.175 (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. It's not about "credible": it's about whether the source meets the triple criteria of being reliably published, being independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. See WP:42.

Looking at your reference list, it appears that the first two are published by historyradio, and so are not independent, and the other three are about Wynn, not about History Radio (your note says that the first one "mentions" History Radio, and the other two don't appear to be related to it at all, just to Wynn.

An article might be about History Radio, in which case its sources must be independent pieces about History Radio, or it might be about Wynn, in which case its sources must be independent pieces about Wynn (not by, or dedicated to, him). It can't be both. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

SPLC

During a recent discussion I was told that the SPLC was "quite literally, in the business of manufacturing controversy to generate donations." As far as I can tell the context in question is somewhat pointed, but factual. I am concerned because I have had several interactions with this editor, and they are bringing up previous debates from other articles which seem to misrepresent me as an editor. I have asked them to strike and stop doing that on their talk page, and linked them to WP:TPNO. I'm not really sure where to go from here. DN (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

They seem to refuse to let it go. DN (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, what section is the citation removal referring to? That might help sort this out. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. To clarify, the original removal was not a citation from the SPLC, or on the SPLC wiki article. It was in the Far Right subsection on the Republican Party (United States) article, and the source seems to be Joe Feagin, however there seems to be some disagreement as to the legitimacy. That started the discussion which led to this comment about the SPLC citation I showed them, and the subsequent WP:TPO awkwardness. The editor I'm having issues with seemed to continue bringing it up on the article talk page saying they hadn't done anything wrong. I finally gave up and went on their talk page to tell them I'm not going to engage with them any further for the time being. Sorry if this is TMI. DN (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I find the perspective from the other user to be troubling to NPOV, however must clarify the source to such a charter. For example, I think it would be fair to list white supremacists as often having involvement with the far-right under a controversy section, but not the main section itself. Thoughts? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I tend to agree. I did try to advocate for including attribution and rewording the context to avoid generalizations, but it felt like no matter what there was no compromise, even though they seemed to acknowledge the reputation of the original source (Feagin). When I mentioned the SPLC citation, well, it only seemed to get worse. That response felt more like stonewalling. The straw that broke my back was bringing up an entirely separate incident on a different article from a long time ago that IMO not only had nothing to do with the discussion, but misrepresented that incident entirely. "you presented a source that made it clear that scholars don't all agree on what happened. This is likely to be another such case." I won't go into it further, but it just felt like pure manipulation. DN (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would bring up both of those cases where appropriate myself, seems like harassment and not being constructive. Seems as though they have more of an agenda to promote than encyclopedia to contribute to objectively. Possibly bring it up to one of the teahouse admins? I've never used a Wikipedia reporting system so I shouldn't give advice on this. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Thank you for your help. DN (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

uploading image to wikipedia turns horizontal

Hello, I'm trying to upload an image I took on to wikipedia, but as soon as I upload the photo here it turns horizontal. If I continue uploading will it switch back vertically? I'm using a MacBook if that helps. Sorry I'm new to this. Brutallygolden (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleted page but I want to try again

The page I was working on (Megan M. Carpenter) was deleted but I want to take another try at it. Is all that work lost? The notice says to contact the person who took it down but when I click that person's name ("User:AmandaNP") I don't see any type of messaging tool. Can someone suggest a next step? I'm new to all this. Thanks! Pilgrimfoot (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The page was deleted back in 2019 for "unambiguous copyright infringement" (see the messages on your talk-page). Pages deleted for copyright reasons will almost never be restored in the deleted version. @AmandaNP: as deleting admin. People here can be reached via their talk-pages. See Help:Talk pages. Lectonar (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Pilgrimfoot. I am an administrator and can read deleted articles. I believe that it is very likely that this person is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography. But you will need to start over and be careful to avoid copyright violations. You must paraphrase and summarize the sources in your own words. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I need to change a page & EpTic is preventing me from doing so.

Hello, I actually have a Wikipedia page on here & the information is incorrect & insufficient & I would like to both change it & add to it. 108.14.77.234 (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You replaced the existing image with non-existing one by using your own local path on your PC. Read Wikipedia:Uploading images. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

What is your relation to the subject, you may have a conflict of interest, and if so you need to declare it and follow relevant policies for editing with a conflict of interest. Remember, someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

Thanks, Geardona (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. I may be misinterpreting, but I read your comment above as meaning that you are Selah Marley, and that you are making the (unfortunately very common) mistake of thinking that the article Selah Marley belongs to you, and that it is appropriate for you to edit it. If that is the case, please understand that neither of these things is true: see WP:OWN and WP:ABOUTYOU.

What you are welcome to do is to make edit request for things in the article about you to be changed. But please understand that Wikipedia requires reliable published sources for all information in an article. Personal knowledge - even of the subject of an article - is not accepted. That Selah Marley was born in Miami is stated clearly in one of the sources (the Essence article), so if you wish to challenge that you'll need to find a reliable source that says otherwise.

as for the image: you are welcome to provide a (freely licensed) image if you think it is better than the current one, (though it is then up to an uninvolved editor to decide whether or not the image is better). But you will need to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons (and license it for free use) in order to do so - DeltaSpace has given you the link with information of how to do that. ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't Find References— Should I Remove?

Hello! I've been working on the Dutch East Indies article, and there's a paragraph that describes types of punishments used on slaves. I tried to find references to support the detailed list, but was unsuccessful in finding anything more specific than beating/killing (and am not very enthusiastic about digging deeper on slave torture). I'm hesitant to remove the paragraph, particularly since I want to avoid whitewashing the article, but am not sure how else to improve it. I'm hoping to get this article closer to being a Good Article, and it seems this paragraph as it stands would get in the way for important lack of citations. I considered being WP:BOLD, deleting the paragraph and leaving a note on the talk page, but figured as a new-ish editor I should ask somewhere first. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, but the article's talk page doesn't seem very active. Thanks for your time! Placeholderer (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Placeholderer: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see the paragraph already has some "citation needed" templates, which is good. The best place to talk about improving the article is its talk page: Talk:Dutch East Indies. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Placeholderer The entire section on Slavery was added by User:LouisBStevenson in February 2023. You could ask that person if there are references. David notMD (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Length in FA articles

Article: Letterpress (video game)

So I want this article to become FA status; I feel as though it has potential. However, I believe that there's a criterion for FAs that it must be comprehensible. Therefore, I have doubts on whether or not this article can become a FA. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hi there! Congratulations on having the recent successful GA review. If there are parts of the article that are incomprehensible, you can mark them with {{clarify}} and discuss them on the article's talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you mean that the article needs to be "comprehensive", since your title asks about the length of the article? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The "proper length" of a featured article depends largely on its subject: if it can be comprehensively covered in 2,000 words, then that is a potential 2,000-word featured article. From what I've read about the process, featured articles even about very broad topics rarely need to be longer than 10,000 words—past that point, content should likely be split into "subpages" instead. Remsense留 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say comprehensive. Thank you for answering. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, my brain isn't working today. I swear I said the right thing but another word just comes right out... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Believe you me, we've all been there! I know I have. Cheers! Remsense留 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @TrademarkedTWOrantula. There is a list that contains FAs by word count that you might find interesting: Wikipedia:Database reports/Featured articles by size. The current shortest article is Tinder Fire, which was promoted to FA in 2023. See the nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tinder Fire/archive1. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

william shakespeare

Born 2011 Domingo6777 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Domingo6777: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Indef blocked for vandalism and false Edit summary. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of the [unreliable source?] tag

Hi there!

I have a question about the use of the unreliable source tag as I am unsure when to use it, or if it conflicts with this guideline which says that information that is not backed up by a reliable source should be boldly removed.

For example, on the article Gamefam, two sources lead to Forbes contributor pages; a source that has been called generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Should the information that relies on these sources be removed or is this tag enough.

If this tag is sufficient, how can't falsified information be used on Wikipedia if it is backed up by an unreliable source (provided the tag is present). TenToe (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello TenToe. The policy at Wikipedia:PROVEIT says:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page.

So

• If the article content is verifiable, it needs a citation to a reliable source added.
• If the article content is verifiable only in primary sources, it should follow the WP:Primary rules in the Wikipedia:No original research policy.
• If it is not verifiable via any reliable source, it should be removed.

It's kind of up to editor discretion on how to traverse that. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rjjiii,

Thanks so much for your response. This is much clearer to me now.

The example I gave had alternative sources that are more reliable so I shall replace these.

It seems like if information is only available in a questionable source such as Forbes Contributor, it is best to just not include it. TenToe (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

TenToe, many good faith editors are not aware that articles written by Forbes contributors are not considered reliable. Once that is discovered, the first choice should be to find and add a reference to a better source that verifies the content. That is a better course of action than just deleting the content. If the material is false, it should be removed. If the content seems plausible but cannot be easily verified, then a "citation needed" tag should be added. Cullen328 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How to get military service photo into Wikipedia Commons

I have never attempted to author a Wikipedia article before, so this is all news to me. I am working on adding content related to a World War II pilot, and would like to have his service photo in the article. I have the image, but cannot provide a source/year when it was taken -- although I know the photo represents the subject. This is more than 80 years ago, so it's more likely those details can ever be known. Do these circumstances make it impossible to import this photo into Commons (and ultimately add to my article), or is there a way around this? I've tried twice already with no success. SMC317 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

SMC317 aside from the image issues, you will need three sources that are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage in order to prove his notability, and given the information at User:SMC317/sandbox, I don't think Crecelius meets that standard. It's probably more important to know whether he is notable or not before spending a lot of time figuring out images etc.

As for the image upload, it seems that according to the edit filter log on Wikimedia Commons, the image is too low quality and you are a new user, so it was blocked. Try bringing this up at the help desk on Wikimedia Commons, where the editors will know more about this issue. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

SMC317, I agree that this person's notabilty is a much more important issue than the photo. After all, over 15,000 American airmen were killed in World War II, including one of my uncles who was shot down and killed in the Battle of Monte Cassino in 1944. The vast majority of these men are not notable. If you can establish notability and get your article accepted, then a non-free photo of a person who is now dead can be uploaded here on English Wikipedia under WP:NFCI, bullet point #10. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this input. I will start studying the notability requirements and see if this article is actually viable. SMC317 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Disable something in my talk page

How can I disable "learn more about this page" in my talkpage? I put my status up there, and I'd like people to see it easier. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikiexplorationandhelping I don't see a 'learn more about this page' popup. It might be caused by your browser or skin. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose you can see my status as online on top of the page then? Then I'm all set! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s a mobile view thing. Blueskiesdry (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wikiexplorationandhelping: Yes, it's MediaWiki:Discussiontools-ledesection-button. In the mobile version you have to click that to see the lead of talk pages. I don't know whether there is way to avoid it, apart from adding a heading so there is no lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Confused on how to post a translation for community review

Hello, I'm having some trouble with my translation. I'm working on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rheinhotel_Dreesen which is a translation of this one https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinhotel_Dreesen . I originally submitted it as a personal draft, and I've started messing with it today to try and make it a community draft and I think I might have made some sort of mistake. I also can't figure out how to fix my citations, so if you could give me some guidance I would really appreciate it. I really want to publish this page because it discusses a significant WWII site and there is very little information on it in English. Yustyn Kokor (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yustyn Kokor there is no 'community draft'/'personal draft' system, only drafts. The existence of a draft implies that anyone can choose to work on it or to not work on it. You can resubmit it for review in the button at the top of the draft. The main issue with the draft right now is the over-reliance on Wikipedia as a source, which is not reliable. The citation error can be easily fixed by commenting out the unused list-defined reference. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply! What do you mean by "commenting out the unused list-defined reference"? Yustyn Kokor (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@SapiensYK: The error message means that you have a named reference that is not being used. Scroll down to the bottom of the draft's source code. (You won't be able to do this in the Visual Editor.) You'll see this: <ref name="Vogt2004"> :::[[Helmut Vogt (Historiker)|Helmut Vogt]]: ''Wächter der Bonner Republik. Die Alliierten Hohen Kommissare 1949–1955.'' Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn 2004, ISBN 3-506-70139-8. :::</ref>

That is a list-defined reference. You either need to cite it, delete it, or replace it with: <!--<ref name="Vogt2004"> :::[[Helmut Vogt (Historiker)|Helmut Vogt]]: ''Wächter der Bonner Republik. Die Alliierten Hohen Kommissare 1949–1955.'' Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn 2004, ISBN 3-506-70139-8. :::</ref>-->

The <!-- at the start and the --> at the end signal the start and end of a comment in HTML. This is called "commenting out" because placing the list-defined reference within a comment prevents Wikipedia from doing anything with it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have one last question: how can I remove the wikipedia articles I cited and keep them as links? I put them as citations by mistake, I meant to insert them as links for more information Yustyn Kokor (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@SapiensYK: One links to to a Wikipedia article by enclosing the text in double brackets—thus [[Friedrich Ebert]] becomes Friedrich Ebert. If you want the text ("Crown Prince Wilhelm", for instance) to link to an article with a different title, separate the target and the desired text with a "pipe"character—[[Wilhelm, German Crown Prince|Crown Prince Wilhelm]]. Do that and delete the following "references". Deor (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Is there a way to link another Wikipedia article but in a foreign language (it doesn't exist in English yes)? Yustyn Kokor (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just figured it out. Thank you Yustyn Kokor (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

SapiensYK I believe you are referring to this edit. That's an improvement, but there are other things you could do to improve it even more:

• Punctuation before ref tag: i.e., ...in 2000.<ref>...</ref> not:...in 2000<ref>...</ref>.
• Include (at a minimum) the publication date of 2004 for the Vogt citation, and the page number(s) (48) verifying the content you added.
• Optional, but nice to have, are the |language=de parameter, a translation of the title, and the publisher location. I'm also a big fan of the |oclc= parameter, but you don't need to add it if you don't want.
• Also optional, but very helpful for English readers who don't have access to the book, and wouldn't understand it even if they did, are the parameters |quote= and |trans-quote=;
• Don't reduplicate the entire citation; use named references instead.

See my latest change to the article, incorporating these suggestions. Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, as far as figuring out how to link to another Wikipedia article but in a foreign language that doesn't exist in English, this edit is not the right way to do it. Instead, please use template {{ill}}, as shown in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SapiensYK, you might be interested in joining WP:GERMANY. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Help please!

Dear all, is there a friendly member available to help a newcomer please? Just need some general advice from a kind person! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to ask away! Remsense留 23:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Remsense. Is there a facility for a draft article to be reviewed, whilst it's still in progress please? Marilyn Fowles (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Music Man Project

I have added a box at the top of the page where you may submit your draft for review at Articles for Creation when it is ready. However, I would address the banner about undisclosed payments at the top of the article before submitting, since the article will not be accepted if those concerns are not addressed. Remsense留 00:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Remsense. My next question was going to be about the undisclosed payments banner - this suddenly appeared today and I don't know how to address it. Any help much appreciated! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The banner was put there at bare minimum because the article reads like it was written in exchange for payments. I would look at the pages concerning conflict of interest and neutral point of view. If you are paid for editing Wikipedia, that requires disclosure as stated. Remsense留 00:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No I'm not paid and don't have anything to disclose. Not sure how I've managed to give an incorrect impression. Thank you for explaining and helping. I will look at the pages and also find somebody to adopt me via 'adopt a user'! Thanks again! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If I had to guess: the article reads as promotional, lacking an encyclopedic tone, and has an while there are third-party news articles and other secondary sources, there is arguably an overabundance of links to primary sources close to the subject, partners of the subject etc. These are often signs of a conflict of interest. Remsense留 00:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, that is so helpful! I'll keep studying and learning, I'm really enjoying it! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

best of luck, happy editing! Remsense留 00:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to automatically add every article in a WikiProject to your watchlist?

I want to have the entirety of the Beatles WikiProject on my watchlist so I can see all the edits, but I can’t be bothered to add them all manually. Is there some script that can do this for me? Blueskiesdry (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There are ways to manage WikiProjects—I recommend not having them all on your watchlist, but here is a third-party tool that collates maintenance and work needed for Wikiprojects, and every day Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Article alerts is updated. Remsense留 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I fix a wiki-link

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lignum_vitae&oldid=1193635624

I made a change to link to the correct page but someone came along reverted it and gave me the vandalism template. I even left a note in the edit summary explaining. The whole phrase containing the wiki-link is un-cited, do I need to cite a new source to make a change to the wiki-link without being accused of vandalism? Or is it just because I don't have an account. 76.16.75.39 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that your edit was an improvement, because you replaced a link to a vague topic with a link to a more specific and more applicable topic in context. Perhaps RTSthestardust can provide a better explanation for why they reverted you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Quoting an opinion?

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

In the first paragraph, someone has quoted a book claiming the impact and the importance of the author on the page. Is the the neutrality that Wikipedia is seeking? Thefrozencelt (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The opinion is quoted and attributed, which is often perfectly reasonable in context, because it is not in Wikipedia's own voice. The goal is that various opinions stated in an article together sum to a neutral point of view, which is not "no point of view". Remsense留 02:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Removed Post, Referred Here

Hello, I've been referred here to ask questions I might have about Wikipedia editing.

I've adding public information to Terracotta, Inc. article, but it was all reverted for being "Promotional". I'm not sure I understand why updating the the Company Info Element to include the C-Suite, Yearly Revenue, and the history of the company's acquisitions is considered "Promotional" information.

If that's the case, how do other companies provide this information on the article? User talk:LiteFrozen#c-MrOllie-20240105014700-January 2024 LiteFrozen (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@LiteFrozen: Some sentences in this diff are clearly promotional like

• The company expanded the capabilities of Ehcache and developed enterprise-class products
• Terracotta acquired Quartz, the de facto standard job scheduler for Java
• Terracotta DB was launched, an in-memory data management platform for translytical (transactional and analytical) workloads, based on an evolution of Terracotta Big Memory. Terracotta DB adds persistent store and compute capabilities as well as claims 300% better performance on caching compared to previous releases
• its in-memory processing provides the foundation for Software AG's cloud offerings

I definitely agree with MrOllie's revert here. And then afterwards you restored a version with more promotional content such as Terracotta, Inc., is a computer-software company that specializes in increasing scalability and performance of real-time Big Data applications. and Terracotta DB adds persistent store and compute capabilities as well as claims 300% better performance on caching compared to previous releases. All of your reversions and additions are adding promotional content to the article, which is in violation of WP:NOTAD. And, by the way, other companies don't add information to the article, editors do. ‍ Relativity 02:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(To MrOllie: My apologies for pinging you when it seems that you don't want to take part in this conversation. I only saw the talk page thread after my response.) ‍ Relativity 02:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand companies don't contribute the information, it's users. Yes.

What I was saying is, say in this article: World of Warcraft on the right side we have a list of important people.

Is it not acceptable to put this information? It seems like I've been told that users are NOT to add such information. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The company expanded the capabilities of Ehcache and developed enterprise-class products

Terracotta acquired Quartz, the de facto standard job scheduler for Java

Terracotta DB was launched, an in-memory data management platform for translytical (transactional and analytical) workloads, based on an evolution of Terracotta Big Memory. Terracotta DB adds persistent store and compute capabilities as well as claims 300% better performance on caching compared to previous releases

its in-memory processing provides the foundation for Software AG's cloud offerings

I believe most of this was added before me, but I'll be happy to remove it for being promotional. :) LiteFrozen (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@LiteFrozen: Yes, some of it was added before you edited. Apologies, and next time please don't revert other user's constructive edits that remove promotional content even if you do not add it. ‍ Relativity 02:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldn't want promotional content on any pages if it's against Wikipedia's policies.

That's understood. I reverted the page because there was no explanation on the changes. I'm not sure how I'm getting flak for reverting an ambiguous edit with no information but the other user reverted it to the original form and removed valuable information and an opportunity to correct the article.

I get it, some people don't care. I try. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie clearly explained that the content that you reverted to was promotional, and many workings in Wikipedia rely on common sense. In this case, it's pretty obvious that some of the parts in the revision you reverted to were promotional. ‍ Relativity 02:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he said promotional. But there was information there that was not promotional, like company statistics, which were cited.

I think it's pretty common sense that a new editor would be running into some of these issues and would get some additional information regarding reverts, but I don't mind hunting for the reason an ambiguous "promotional" might mean and which piece of information it related to.

It's all good, it's growing pains that's it. Appreciate you helping out.

I'm still wondering how those company stats are added, since when I added it, it was considered "Promotional". LiteFrozen (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also weird that I'd get slighted at because the original article was considered promotional. It was reverted (to a promotional state) but not updated, but that user isn't getting all the reverts. Kinda lazy, but whatever. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem was that you reverted to a version that stated that the company was increasing scalability and performance of real-time Big Data. This is promotional content, and reverting to a version with the promotional content is seen as badly as having written the content yourself. Although thank you for removing some of the promotion, even though it did remove much of the content of the article. ‍ Relativity 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

Yeah, I'll double check when using the Undo button to make sure the previous version is actually the previous version without my edits. Not sure why that reverted to what it did.

No problem! I love to help. Sadly, it did remove much of the article and information about the company. I'm sure someone will come along and update it with non-promotional material, although, I'm not sure what that would be. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What to do?

Hello,

I am seeking advice regarding the page Center for Inquiry.

This page was up until now filled with an overly positive and biased viewpoint. The original page made no mention of Center for Inquiry's many well-publicized controversies. Recently, I overhauled the page and made good-faith edits that mentioned these controversies while also maintaining a neutral viewpoint. All of my edits had sources. Also, they remained unbiased, simply covering the facts without injecting any personal opinions.

However, a user is undoing my edits, and they are pressuring me to take the discussion to the talk page, citing WP:BRD. They are acting as if WP:BRD is mandatory, when it is an optional measure as per Wikipedia's page on it.

It turns out that this person, a user named Gronk Oz, is affiliated with CFI. His user page says "I have been a member of Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia ("GSoW") since 2014." GSoW is a group founded by user Sgerbic, Susan Gerbic of Center for Inquiry. https://centerforinquiry.org/speakers/susan-gerbic/.

Additionally, the user Sgerbic / Susan Gerbic is part of the CFI article talk page which is why I refuse to employ WP:BRD.

To summarize: CFI employees who actively monitor CFI's Wikipedia page are undoing my perfectly valid and well-sourced edits because it covers facts that they don't like.

What can I do in this case? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@VegitotheKnightmare: Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't reach a consensus that way, look into other dispute resolution options at WP:DR. Do not engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in talk page discussion since it is actively monitored by CFI employees. The conflict of interest noticeboard says talk page discussion is required. Any advice in this situation? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're not willing to discuss it on the talk page, then drop it and find other articles to edit. WP:BRD may be an essay, but WP:CONSENSUS is policy. RudolfRed (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I will discuss it on the talk page and use dispute resolution if necessary. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

VegitotheKnightmare, while there's nothing wrong with discussing on the Talk page, if the editors in question are employees, then that is not the approach I would take, as I believe it would be a waste of my time. The first thing I would do is gather evidence (diffs) of what made you suspect they are employees, and then make a calm, neutrally worded account about what you have noticed going on at the article, along with your diffs, and post it to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The folks there will know what to do next. A couple more things you can do if you wish, is to post a {{uw-coi}} template on the User talk page of the user or users who you suspect of being employees of CFI, and to add the {{connected contributor}} template to the header section of Talk:Center for Inquiry. Let me know if you need further help with this. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this very helpful advice. I will let you know if any issues arise. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It may be useful for editors to look at the edit history that VegitotheKnightmare has mentioned to form your own view about the neutrality of recent edits. Just a suggestion. BlueWren0123 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list of "Staff" of CFI. It doesn't claim that the list is exhaustive, but FWIW it doesn't include Gerber, who is described as a "speaker" and as a "fellow" of CFI. So she's affiliated with CFI, but I see no evidence that she's an employee (and rather doubt that she is one). Of course, not all conflicts of interest are paid, but an allegation of a paid conflict of interest (or a description of somebody as an "employee") should be based on sound evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBSCE may be instructive here? I didn't follow the case, but it relates to the article discussed in this thread. Folly Mox (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ms. Gerbic is a columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Normally I would limit my response to the article's Talk page, but since VegitotheKnightmare made accusations against me here (without bothering to notify me), I think it's fair that I reply here. Firstly, to be absolutely clear - I do not have, and have never had, any connection to CFI, nor any dealings with them. Secondly, I was not the only editor to suggest that these changes need discussion - two others (neither of whom I know at all) did so before me. I won't go into the merits of the proposed changes here - that is what the Talk page is for. Gronk Oz (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz,

I apologize, but that's incorrect. You are the only registered user to reverse my edits other than a user who restored my edits after I requested evaluation. Additionally, you are a member of GSoW, founded by Susan Gerbic of CFI. If not a connection with CFI, you seem to have a bias towards it.

Finally, you accuse me of not bothering to notify you which I interpret as a passive aggressive attack on my person. I don't agree with incorporating personal attacks. Let's refrain from that. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz, I'm sorry, but I do believe that you are guilty of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Let's discuss politely in the talk page. Thank you. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@VegitotheKnightmare: Agree - discuss the article on its Talk page. When I said that "I was not the only editor to suggest that these changes need discussion - two others (neither of whom I know at all) did so before me", the sequence of events was:

1. At 00:43, 3 January 2024 Achmad Rachmani reverted your edits with the Vandalism tag, and placed a message on your User Talk page explaining that “they did not appear constructive”.
2. At 01:58, 5 January 2024 126.253.150.39 reverted your edits with the comment “apparent vandalism (including article link breakage) and other unconstructive edits. Contentious additions should be reached via talk page consensus before wholesale re-addition.”
3. At 03:30, 5 January 2024 I undid your edits with the comment “Please follow WP:BRD - when your edits were reverted with the request to take them to the Talk page before adding them back, it is appropriate to do so.”

That is how I came to my conclusion that I was the third editor to suggest that these changes need discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Achmad Rachmani did indeed revert my edits. However, they were restored after I asked for a re-evaluation in my talk page. Achmad determined that they were neither vandalism nor unconstructive, and he restored them at 00:57 on Jan 3. You can check this for yourself.

@126.253.150.39 is an unregistered user who claimed "Contentious additions should be reached via talk page consensus before wholesale re-addition.” This reversal was invalid because the edits were not contentious. A contentious addition "is an unreferenced or poorly referenced claim that any editor objects to, if that editor is acting in good faith." My addition was neither unreferenced nor poorly referenced, but, even assuming that it was, the editor was likely not acting in good faith since they are an IP user without any history who reverted the changes almost immediately after I posted them. It's quite suspicious, really.

Then, of course, you reverted my edits. You were in fact the second registered user to undo edits as I said, and since Achmad's reversal was a mistake and later undone by him, you are technically the only user to truly revert my edits.

Therefore, there was no basis for your reversal if you only used it because you thought previous users had objected to my modifications. If this is the case, and to avoid any further dispute, I kindly ask you to reconsider your undoing and to restore the page as I left it; I worked hard to improve it. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@VegitotheKnightmare: That is what the discussion on the Talk page is for. Please note that unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia, and their actions should not be dismissed on the basis that they are unregistered.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, let's move this to Talk. And I would like to publicly apologize to you for mistakenly accusing you of being a CFI employee. My mistake. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Tidying User Page

My user page is fine but it does have a lot of notices on it about events etc which are now out of date. Question 1. Is it okay to remove stuff from my user page or should it all stay as a permanent record? Question 2. How do I delete stuff like invites to participate in events now past etc. I use visual editor and am technologically challenged so would need very clear instructions if anybody has the heart to help! Thanks. Balance person (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You can delete almost anything. (What you should not delete is clearly so marked.) Certainly you can delete invitations to events. Alternatively, you can "archive" it. I leave your second question to somebody who uses the visual editor. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Balance person Consider using Help:Archiving (plain and simple). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Hoary and User: Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you both. I understand now that I can delete stuff. The Archiving plain and simple thing does not give me the choice of only getting rid of ads for events. Other stuff on my page is helpful guidance and I want to keep it though it may be old. Does anybody know how I can just delete the old event notifications and individual bits that are no longer useful? Sorry this is just such a basic question! Balance person (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Balance person, I don't know of any automatic way, so if it was me, I'd just go to [6] and delete the unwanted stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Gråbergs Gråa Sång So simple! So brilliant! Thank you! Balance person (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Balance person: If you use Help:Archiving (plain and simple) then you can first add {{subst:DNAU}} to sections you don't want archived. Archived sections would still be available on a page like User talk:Balance person/Archive 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will try that next time! Balance person (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Help!

I had put this article on deletion at a time when there was no citation in it. And this article was completely failing Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, but later citations were added to it and the article was improved. Can I remove the deletions I have placed? Will there be any problem in this? Or should we wait for the results? Thanks. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman Just put a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakkur (Bengaluru) Inscriptions that you're satisfied with the improvements and withdraw the nomination. Write a Keep comment if you like. It will be closed normally at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks you for guidance. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Corporate Notability

Hello everybody, I am seeking advice regarding the page Draft:We Are Era, which has been under review and was recently rejected by Robert McClenon due to concerns about corporate notability.

In response to this feedback, I have carefully reviewed and revised the draft, placing a particular emphasis on addressing the corporate notability criteria. The draft now includes references from around 28 reliable sources, the majority of which are reputable newspapers or magazines in Germany (e.g. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Der Spiegel or Der Tagesspiegel). All these sources are comprehensive and secondary. There are also no signs of them being unreliable or dependent on the subject. I am convinced that they give a balanced and external perspective on the company, covering aspects such as the company itself, major campaigns, and acquisitions.

As an active contributor to the German Wikipedia for over ten years, with a focus on geography, history, media, and politics, I am relatively new to the English Wikipedia. Therefore, I welcome any advice or input to ensure the article meets the required standards.

Are there any concrete tips anyone could share?

Thank you! Renredam (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Renredam: 28 sources is quite a lot to plough through – perhaps you could highlight the 3-5 strongest ones, bearing in mind that for the purposes of establishing notability, the sources should not only be secondary and reliable, they also need to be fully independent of the subject, and to provide significant coverage directly of the subject. This excludes anything based on the company's publicity materials, routine business reporting, interviews, or anything where someone from the company is commenting on things. In other words, we want to see what independent writers and broadcasters have said about this business, entirely of their own volition. (You can highlight the strongest sources on the draft talk page, so it will be available to future reviewers.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A nuance - in English Wikipedia, Declined is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Renredam: Looks like reference #6 is a dead press release, which doesn't seem secondary. GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Renredam - The text of your draft doesn't speak for itself. It doesn't tell the reader what third parties have said about the company. The reader should not be expected to read the references to know why the company passes corporate notability. Also, since the company is a division of RTL Group, you should explain why they should have a separate article from the parent company. Also, you haven't answered my question about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, can someone please confirm if holding "Presidential award for furthering diversity" from Brown University satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #2? Thank you. 1.23.250.167 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on what I see at [7] I'm leaning no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. "No". Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Accidental article

Hello! I accidentally created an article when I meant to create a draft! Could anyone remove it? Article in question: Kingdom of Menabe ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Flux55, welcome to the Teahouse. I have deleted the redirect which was left by your move to draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

New to creating , help to create the wiki

Hello New to creating , can you help create the wiki

Arun Keshav Sapre 1955-1971 - late Squadron Leader Arun Keshav Sapre was Pilot in the Indian Air Force, Sq Ldr Arun Keshav Sapre died at age of 43 testing four-gun firing on HAL's Marut aircraft during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. He was awarded Bharat Rakshak Ati Vishist Seva Medal by Government of India posthumously. He played an important role during the war.

Reference https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Database/4981 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Database/Awards/awards.php?qaward=AVSM&qunit=ASTE&qname=&qyear= https://www.naidunia.com/chhattisgarh/raipur-mayor-pays-tribute-to-martyr-arun-keshav-sapre-on-49th-death-anniversary-6579507 59.96.80.53 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. IP users cannot directly create articles, but may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Be advised that this will be challenging; please read Your First Article beforehand. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You obviously know how to create and submit draft articles, because your draft Draft:Arun B Sapre has already been rejected. Please read the reasons for that rejection carefully and address them, before resubmitting it. The process for an article on Arun Keshav Sapre will be the same - Arjayay (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to be authors or co-authors. Per above, use WP:YFA to create and submit a draft to the review process. Do not submit until you learn how to properly reference. Do consider creating an account first, as that has certain benefits. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is already Draft:Arun Keshav Sapre in the system, created by this IP using the Article Wizard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Having been a pilot and being awarded a Vishist Seva Medal posthumously for death during a training exercise are very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

In the first sentence, the draft says "1955-1971" implying he was about 16 years old when he died, but later the draft says he was 43 years old. That draft needs a lot of work, starting out with making a plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please

Please help me understand if the following entry is acceptable to Wikipedia. Thanks.

Draft:Oindrilla Maity Surai Basuproma (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Basuproma Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the advice left by reviewers? It seems pretty accurate to me. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear 331dot,Thanks so much for this. Will add more text to my entry before I get back once more to you. Basuproma (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners, but even if refs are fixed, may not qualify. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear David notMD, Ihave re-edited the same draft and modified the tone of the entry to a more neutral one. Plus there are additional external links to it. Could please let me know if it is acceptable now? Thanks so much in advance. Basuproma (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not how references are done, and I see no External links (which do not contribute to notabilty, anyway). Look at other articles about people to understand that references are inserted into the text, but the software then inserts a superscripted number in the text and puts the refs under References. David notMD (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much, David notMD. Will sort this out. Basuproma (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

how a disclosure wikipedia page looks like?

if i state that I have been paid to create a wikipedia page about my employer, will this statement be visible to other users? Chiara ravasio 96 (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Chiara ravasio 96 Hello and welcome. Yes, it will (and should) be visible to the public. If you don't want it to be, you will need to refrain from making edits related to your employer- the Terms of Use require paid editing to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much! where and how this statement will be visible? Chiara ravasio 96 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chiara ravasio 96: Hello! Please read WP:DISCLOSE. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On your User page is the most common placement. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Login

Can't Remember my username or password. please help. this is the 18th account i've made. Jordan'sWiki (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jordan'sWiki it sounds like you should get yourself a password manager. Here's one: [8]. -- asilvering (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you save your email address at Special:Preferences then you can use Special:PasswordReset. You don't even have to remember the username if you know the email address and can still receive mails at it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On whether to create a page

Hello! I am hoping to create a page called Despair or Despair (theology). Since despair and depression are different in the religious context, I want to create a page expanding the latter definition. Before I begin compiling my reading and writing the article, is there any way I can search to see if the page has been deleted, merged, or discussed by a WikiProject group before? I'd rather not be that guy who makes a page that’s been created and deleted several times. Also, since Despair redirects to Depression (mood), should the main page be Despair (theology), should I simply create the page as Despair since the usage makes it a unique article with a particular usage, or should I add it to the disambiguation page for users to determine which is the better usage for their purposes? Thank you in advance! ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode: Hello! I went here and in the logs I don't see any previous deletions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you very much! ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode: Welcome to the Teahouse! You may want to ask your question about how to name the new article at Talk:Despair (disambiguation). GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What should I do if no one responds? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD if no one responds. You can always rename it again later either by "moving it" or requesting a technical change at WP:RMT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much! ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing a Wikipedia article with a Word document

I have been trying to update a Wikipedia essay about my former professor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Brown_(anthropologist). It includes his biography and his research and influence. I tried several times to Publish Changes to the site after pasting in a Word document with my changes. It seemed to accept the changes. However, when I went to the essay about his work, etc. later it was in the original form. Thus, I assume my changes were not accepted. I could not figure out how to use VisualEditor with a Word document. I thought I could modify changes needed such as using links on names, etc. that needed to be cited in other Wikipedia articles, but I could not do so. Do I need to make all those changes in the Word document before pasting in the content? Rscupin (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rscupin: Hello! The reason the page went back to the original form was because your edits were reverted, as your additions didn't cite any sources and didn't conform to the Manual of Style. I would recommend you read these two pages and Help:Editing for more information. If you want to make major changes to a page, you are recommended to draft them in your user sandbox before posting them. Liu1126 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Look at articles about academics (one route - select a prestigious university, and it likely has a listing of notable faculty). For a living person, all statements need to be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rscupin, your proposed additions are well-written and informative. But that is not enough to make this new content acceptable for Wikipedia. Vast swathes of this material are entirely unreferenced, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. How can the reader verify that what you have written is accurate, unless you provide references to reliable, published sources? Please read and absorb Referencing for beginners.

Another significant problem is that you include an extremely long direct quotation from one of his books. Wikipedia: Quotations says Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. I think that most editors would agree that direct quotes of two, three or even four sentences are fine in most cases, as long as they are properly attributed to the source with an inline citation with full bibliographic details. In this case, the direct quotation is 31 sentences long, and is considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia.

As far as developing content in MS Word, there is no prohibition, but as an editor with almost 15 years of experience, I recommend against it. I do all of my content development in my personal sandbox pages. That allows me to add properly formatted inline references as I go, as well as section headers, wikilinks, and all of the various things that make standardized Wikipedia content so useful. I can see exactly how the new content will appear to the reader before I add it to the main space of the encyclopedia. So, I recommend that you consider that approach.

My final recommendation is that you take a look at some existing Good articles to get a sense of what a "good" Wikipedia article looks like, and how it is structured and referenced. In particular, I recommend Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. If you read three or four of the biographies listed there, I think that you will have a better idea of the expectations of the Wikipedia community when it comes to biographies of academics. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rscupin, here is a relatively minor point about conceptualization, and word usage among Wikipedia editors. What you are calling an "essay" is actually called an "encyclopedia article", or "article" for short. Wikipedia: Essay says Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more editors. The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia. Such essays are not visible to casual readers of the encyclopedia, and are "behind the scenes", as it were. In addition, the essay style of writing is not appropriate in encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rscupin, another oddity is that virtually the whole thing, as edited by you, was in boldface. Please don't. Another is that the draft contained some information that, even if it were reliably sourced, probably wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia article. And yet another is that so much material in the draft was devoted to a single book that, if the material belongs anywhere, probably belongs in a separate draft/article devoted to that book. (Thus for example the article Steven Pinker deals only briefly with Pinker's book The Blank Slate, which gets its own article.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What more is required to get published

we wrote an article about our association but it seems as though it does not meet standards. Please advise why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Drug_%26_Alcohol_Testing_Association_of_Canada_-_DATAC DATAC2024 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@DATAC2024: Hello! Have you tried clicking on the links and read the information which Spiderone provided? I'll copy them here:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

That, and the article was written in very promotional tone, and, yeah, it was just deleted under the G11 section for speedy deletion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@DATAC2024 Wikipedia is not intended to be a vessel for promoting your noble cause. See WP:NOBLECAUSE for more information NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The draft has been deleted and the OP has been blocked indefinitely for unambiguous promotion . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Citing personal correspondence

I was hoping to correct some mistakes on an existing page about a painting, based on information given to me by the curator of the museum where the painting is currently held. How should I go about citing this? I would be happy to post this correspondence anywhere it would be helpful. Alexanderwbr (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderwbr: Hello! Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If the source is already published somewhere, then it might be possible to use it, but it seems like right now it's only available to you, so it can't be considered a reliable source. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I’ll reach out to the curator and ask if there are any publicly available sources that she could share to back up what she told me. Alexanderwbr (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Alexanderwbr, I suggest that you make the museum curator aware of how Wikipedia defines a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability of politicians

Does being a member of the US House of Representatives make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article on its own based on WP:POLITICIAN, even if their career was "unremarkable"? The article that prompted this question was Nelson Papucci though I am sure there are similar very short articles about members. Reconrabbit 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Reconrabbit. Papucci was a member of the Alabama House of Representatives as opposed to the US House of Representatives. That being said, I believe that there is a fairly strong consensus among editors who regularly work on biographies of politicians that articles about national, state and provincial legislators should be kept and improved instead of being deleted. Anyone who spends an hour or two in a public library in Montgomery, Alabama, the state Capitol, or Madison County, Alabama, which he represented in the legislature, would certainly be able to improve and expand that article dramatically. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I'm more used to articles on academics, which are numerous but have quantitative measures to figure out how notable they are if it comes into question. Reconrabbit 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed one problem, may have created another (smaller) one

So, I managed to fix the inline citation problem on the Integrated Conservation and Development Project page, but when I was doing the first one (a book), there was text that told me that apparently, I didn't do the date (of when accessed) correctly and I don't know how to fix it. Villaida (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Villaida: Hello! I have fixed it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Villaida. To clarify regarding dates, the MediaWiki software does not recognize ordinal numerals in dates, such as the "5th" in "January 5th, 2024". Please see Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines for the three styles of date formats that are acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Villaida (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it!! Villaida (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename

Hello, (Not bored this time) I am planning to change the name of a page. How do I do that? Are there any guidelines for page names? Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: You're going to want to see the help page Wikipedia:Moving a page and the policy on article titles. As it would be your first time getting involved in page moving, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page to see if anyone would find it controversial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

For Cullin: I stopped already… I do have the right to ask a question, right? I do, no matter what I did before. I am planning on renaming a page I created. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Valid question and correct answer. In fact, given it is an article you created, I'd say go ahead and rename it (as long as the new name is appropriate). Because if you want to change Amaru Topa Inca to something like Duck, Duck, Goose, that would be a no-no. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Birth name with transgendered individuals.

What is the policy in regards to this? Caitlyn Jenner has the birth name listed but Laverne Cox doesn't. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there. Check out WP:DEADNAME for the relevant policy.

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

So, the birth name is only listed if the person was notable under that name. Hope this helps, cheers! Remsense留 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The logical basis for how we handle this issue is really quite simple, Traumnovelle. Caitlyn Jenner had been a very famous celebrity for at least 39 years before transitioning, and was likely notable as an Olympic athlete all the way back to 1972. Therefore, it is appropriate to mention her previous name, which received massive coverage worldwide for decades. Laverne Cox, on the other hand, became famous as a transgender person, and was unknown to the general public prior to her transition. Her considerable accomplishments in acting and performing are as a trans woman and are all credited under her current name. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to violate her privacy by mentioning a previous name that she has left behind. That name adds nothing to the reader's understanding of her success. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects into full pages

I'm wondering if anyone can just literally edit out the "[[#REDIRECT]]" code from a redirect and turn it into a comprehensive Wikipedia page Abigbagel (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel: Yes, you may. RudolfRed (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel before you do, check the page history. You may find that the redirect was created after a deletion discussion (in which case you should probably not create an article there). -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Abigbagel, and welcome to the Teahouse. The other thing to bear in mind, apart from what asilvering said, is that if you do this you will effectively be creating an article directly in main space. This is allowed, but as soon as you publish (save changes) that article will be expected to meet the minimum requirements for an article, particularly in terms of sourcing.

If you reckon you can do this on the first go, go ahead; but it may save you hassle to develop the article in your sandbox or in a draft. When you think it is ready to replace the redirect, you can either submit it for review, in which case the accepting reviewer will handle the issue of the existing redirect, or else submit a requested move (You won't be able to move it over the redirection yourself). ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bare URL Monthly Category

If any administrators are reading this, can you please delete this monthly category for bare URLs listed in January 2022, which has been emptied and now falls under CSD G6? (I'm asking here because I can't find where-else to ask. Also, this place is usually busy.) - Alex26337 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Alex26337, there's usually no need to ask anywhere about CSDs. CSD is pretty well patrolled. Just tag an empty category {{db-g6}} and it should be gone in a few hours. Folly Mox (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article

Would like to check the references mentioned are sources that are independent of the subject. Adarshkagineregunduraj (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts: question also asked at the AfC help desk ([9]), so ignore this one. -- asilvering (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

An experienced Reviewer stated that the references are not independent, or that not enough of the references are independent. As example, interviews with Adarsh do not contribute to Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bengali as official language of sierra leone

How Bengali became an official language in Sierra Leone | Research News - The Indian Express. Sierra Leone officially recognized Bengali as an official language due to the successful peacekeeping mission of Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers. However, Wikipedia has not yet updated this information. Would you like me to help make the necessary edits on Wikipedia?

Gokul Balagopal96 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend asking this inclusion question on either Talk:Bengali language or Talk:Sierra Leone, where there are people more likely to know details. In fact, on a cursory glance, this has been discussed on both pages, and there are good reasons why it is not included. Remsense留 06:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gokul Balagopal96:Probably find a few reliable sources apart from the ones mentioned here [10] because, this fact checking site claims that the whole thing was either misreported or a hoax. Bingobro (Chat) 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph/New Section

Hey seniors! Happy new years to all of you.

i have one question for you, How many minimum words should there be to create a new paragraph (new section)? Is there any specific criteria for this? Thanks Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

no criteria. no minimum words, either. ltbdl (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Youknowwhoistheman, if another editor thinks that a paragraph is too short or a section is too short, you may find out that paragraphs and sections have been combined. This is among the least useful things to disagree about. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and @Ltbdl, Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If earnest Hemingway were alive

He would make one uber-duber Wikipedian!!! Comintell (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't you mean humorous Hemingway? dubious Hemingway? verbose Hemingway? See For sale: baby shoes, never worn for anecdote about Ernest Hemingway (note spelling). David notMD (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Future reminder

Is there anything like a template to set myself a future reminder that would ping me on a specific date? Respublik (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Respublik, you could install the user script User:SD0001/W-Ping. There's no feature natively built into the Mediawiki software. If you're not comfortable copypasting javascript code, there's a gadget under Special:Preferences → Gadgets → Advanced → "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files". Folly Mox (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle.

What is twinkle and what are the circumstances to use it? Thank you, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

see here. ltbdl (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello WikiTikiTavi63, the full details are here: Wikipedia:Twinkle. It's a tool that automates a lot of things. I personally use it when reverting edits, requesting page protection, and proposing deletion. If you revert or "roll back" edits with Twinkle, it gives you the option to place a welcome message or relevant notice on the other editor's talk page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Much clearer now. Thank you WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

hi Risjjius (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Great Barrington Declaration "semi protected"?

Why does the initial description of it say it's a "fringe" notion? This is very prejudicial and unlike Wikipedia.

Francis Collins just expressed regret last week for his efforts in trying to shut down Focused Protection: He said, "If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is, and that is something that will save a life. So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruin the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recovered.[i]

Only years too late does he acknowledge that the Great Barrington Declaration “could have been a great opportunity for a broad scientific discussion about the pros and cons” of focused protection, but he fails to admit his mistake in actively trying to cancel the authors and to stop discussion of its ideas. This is like saying that protests about the Vietnam War could have been a great opportunity in the political community for discussing the merits of that war, but not admitting that you previously and strenuously tried to prevent all the protestors from gathering to protest.

[i] Francis Colins, quoted in The Wall Street Journal, December 30-31, 2023, p. A12. Pence (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)