Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, 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

Redirect creation request for SAMPLE

Could someone please create SAMPLE as a redirect to SAMPLE history (like how OPQRST exists) and add a {{redirect|Sample||Sample}} to the latter? I can't the first half of that. Thanks 2A0D:6FC2:6A92:3F00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. It will be interesting to see if there will be discussion to change SAMPLE to redirect to Sample instead. GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 2A0D:6FC2:6A92:3F00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

red flagged/ tagged articles

I am wondering ...I see lots of articles with maintenance tags on them. I see they are dated. Sometimes I see in the histories people do work to repair them. My questions is...does anybody patrol the tagged pages to see if they are improved and possibly remove the tags? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiTikiTavi63, the editors making the improvements will often remove tags. Also, specific tags about certain issues (such as {{POV}}) that are not paired with any specific talk page discussion are often removed as WP:DRIVEBYs. However, tags may certainly linger longer than strictly necessary. Cheers! — Remsense诉 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks. I actually have been working on the Mater Matuta page. You made some suggestions the other day which I followed through on. Hopefully someday somebody will remove the tags. thanks again, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63 In theory yes. Finding a stale article, slapping a tag and moving in is imho lazy. If you notice a problem, try to fix it. Tags are incredibly useful when the articles are being actively worked on by other editors. But if a tree falls/article is tagged, and no one hears/sees it, does it really count? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

As I am a novice I do not think I should, nor do I even know how to remove a tag. I was just wondering….there seem to be a lot of tags. Thanks for your input. User:Shushugah WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63 Anyone can remove a tag if they believe that the related issue has been fixed. On visual editor it is often as easy as clicking on a template like {citation needed} and pressing delete. There are some people who spend all of their time trying to fix these maintenance tasks, and some who spend their time identifying problems so that those people can find and fix them. I looked at Mater Matuta and did some small edits. It is not quite ready to have the notices at the top removed but it is getting closer. Reconrabbit 18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Can you tell me what still needs attention? User:reconrabbit WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the same reference being used over and over inside the same paragraph. It is usually preferred to put it at the end of the paragraph, and to only put a citation after a sentence if it is relevant to that statement or if it is specific about a stated fact. I may take another look at the article later, but there is some writing that makes it look like an essay, describing a series of events or not describing some things that may not be obvious (matera matutae?) But this is better discussed on the article's talk page. Reconrabbit 19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I need help in creating a new article.

I need help in creating a new article for an organisation that doesn't exist. I know someone who is a part of that organisation and can tell me everything about that article. I am just confused on how to do it. I found that the article is missing because I found a red link on a related organisation's page. Ultima1108 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't exist, but you know someone who's part of it. The article is missing, but someone can tell you everything about it. Please sort out your thoughts before you type here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to know how to create an article. I can't find the help page for it. That's why I posted it here. 59.184.253.9 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you meant that the organization exists but an article on it does not. If so, then Help:YFA. (Incidentally, since you have a user ID, please do make sure that you're always logged in under that user ID.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ultima1108: You may not attribute material to what somebody told you (whether in conversation, in email, in Whatsapp messages, or wherever). Everything must be based on published sources. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ultima1108. Please note that the very first, and absolutely necessary, step in creating any article is finding several places where people who have no connection with the subject of the article have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable places. If you cannot find such sources, then there is no point in spending any time at all in trying to write the article. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!!! That is what I am dealing with! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Single Pair Ethernet

Hi, since years I am writing some arcticles in German Wikipedia. Now I am starting some technical articles here. I would like to translate these article into en.wikipedia: Draft:Single Pair Ethernet

translated page|de|Single Pair Ethernet| version=240874606|insertversion=1194350781

SPE is a small part in article Ethernet over twisted pair#Single-pair and just a short summary without IEC 63171 like in my german article about SPE.

I would appreciate any further suggestions to improve and publish this article, and I am grateful for any help and support. Thank you. Best regards, Ralf. Ralf Moses (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ralf Moses: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you haven't done so already, please check out Wikipedia:Translation. You have lots of information in your draft that do not have any footnotes. Please add more footnotes for every section and resubmit. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty for your help. I have added the footnotes now.

I would appreciate any further suggestions to improve and publish this article.

Thanks again. BR Ralf. Ralf Moses (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft, and the sources it cites, are entirely about the technical specifications of Single Pair Ethernet. I don't see that as making an acceptable article. Does anyone use it? What for? WHat are its advantages and disadvantages? Maproom (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Contents of an article

Hi Teahouse! How do you find the article "Contents" section with in-article hyperlinks? If Contents is the right name for it, it's right after the lead and lists the main parts of the article, you click on the part of the article like example "Early life" and now you're at that part. It makes finding parts easier. Do you rember this? Does wikipedia still have this?
Thank you Teahouse. 63.248.183.70 (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. A recent change of the 'default skin' which determines your screen's layout was made a year or so ago. The in-article Contents table was moved in the upgrade to outside of the article, on the upper left hand side of the page viewing in when desktop view. You can toggle it's position so that it either expands fully as a column on the upper left of the scren, or collapses into a pancake menu icon of three horizontal lines on the upper left of the screen.

If you find it annoying, you can revert to using the old screen layout (=skin), but you would need to have a free, registered account and change that in your personal account preferences. I'm pretty sure an IP user cannot do that. I hope this all makes sense! Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Some alternatives for IP editors are explained here and here. They work reasonably well (though I've reconciled myself to the new skin and have stopped using them). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank yoy Nick Moyes and 57.140! The explanations and the links are fantastic! Due to browser glitches on my browser, there arent the links or icons to click on in upper left corner mentioned by NM, if and when I find another device I'll try your instructions! which are descriptive and thorough. Much thanks! 57.140, I tried "here" link #1 and the directions worked and I can see the Contents again! With practice I'll start to memirize the stuff to type at end of URL. "here" link 2 isgoing to require more practice but then i'll be able to click each time to use 2010 Contents again with my device and browser! Thank you! You guys are great! Best, 63.248.183.70 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright question

Imagine yourself in this scenario: you come across a heavily tagged, ill-maintained article. And let's imagine you add a few new details, rectify some grammar errors without significantly altering the original content, fulfil the CN tags, and then discover that someone has added several copyright infringement that has gone undetected for over 10 years. What would you do? 20 upper (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

remove it, if I had to guess. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Buddy Holly) 14:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@20 upper: Recently Mathglot reminded me: "If it really was copied from a copyrighted source, that is one of the most serious violations at Wikipedia, as it violates both our WP:Terms of use as well as copyright law, and as such, it is one of a very small number of violations with legal implications (others include libel, legal threats, and there are a couple others) that require immediate attention and that are not subject to amendment by policy, consensus, ArbCom, or WP:IAR. Content in violation of copyright cannot be left in the article, and not only that, it must be expunged from the page history by an admin, so that no trace of it is left in Wikipedia. As far as what to advise a user, probably the simplest and best response is to tell the user to place a {{Copyvio}} template on the article page itself; this will both immediately hide the suspected offending material, as well as signal an admin to have a look at it and assess the situation for further action. Users should not be told to simply remove the content themselves, or to rewrite or summarize copied content, because that masks the continuing problem of copyrighted content which remains accessible in the page history; it's best just to flag it for admin action with the template." GoingBatty (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2 and GoingBatty: The issue is that the article is a "vital article." I attempted to rephrase a few sentences, but a large portion of the article is directly copied from one source and it uses citations utilized by this particular source. 20 upper (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Being a vital article doesn't offer any kind of protection, unfortunately. If the source is incompatibly licensed, the material copied over needs to be removed. I've occasionally seen revdel requests declined because the violation is so old it would require deleting an unholy number of intermediate revisions, but you can just leave that up to the reviewing admin. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

IP 57: Can you link the discussions with the declined revdel requests? Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I've not kept any track of them, but I think there have been several discussions at WP:AN - you might turn up some if you search the archives. I've had a few such requests turned down myself over the years, all involving small amounts of text which were added decades earlier, with many, many revisions since; I can't remember, now, which specific articles were involved. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, here's a long and involved discussion from 2022 you might find interesting, though it's about an accepted rather then declined request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

IP 57, thanks, that is indeed a very interesting discussion. There is an inherent tension between the legal requirement to remove copyright violations and the licensing requirement in ToU § 7 to preserve attribution, and it seems to me that most of the comments there were trying to square that circle. The response Moneytrees got back from WMF as I understood it resolved that in favor of the long-revdels-are-ok side, especially since contributors' names are still visible in history (through the strikeout font) which is the attribution requirement, and diffability is not. Struck revisions are non-diffable for non-admins, so traceability takes a hit for us peons, but that's short of the requirement (though sometimes irksome to me, personally). Flatscan's contribution towards the end and their § "Attribution" in RD1 section at WP:Revdel and follow-up Rfc were helpful. I'm sorry I missed those, as § 7 is clear about the fact that just a list of names is sufficient therefore diffability is not required, and WP:CWW#List of authors does mention it.

I have an idea about how full traceability for everyone might be kept as well (hint: think Earth Prime with articles having a parallel history only through the revdel era, but where the copyvio never happened at the beginning of it) and I can picture how to do it, I just don't know if it's worth it. But this is getting well afield of the OP question, and if we take this up, it should probably be at WP:VPI. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I confess that my eyes glaze over quickly when copyright issues arise - when my requests were declined, I just shrugged and moved on. I think all my requests pre-date that discussion, though, so maybe admins nowadays are handling things differently. Might be an interesting discussion indeed for the Pump, @Mathglot. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

template ref list

I am having trouble correctly citing a book that has numerous references. I have tried giving the book a refrence name and then using code {{r|Beacon1997|p=50}}. But the article I am editing uses a template ref list and I don't understand how to edit that as the references are only visible in visual editing. I end up with an error code that sends me to the same page repeatedly and nothing I try seems to work. Appreciate any help. LauraONagel (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I recommend using one reference per </ref> code, I’m still new to Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, if it keeps sending you to the page you are editing, I’ll try to research why the problems occur. Cometkeiko 16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll keep trying. LauraONagel (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to indicate the page number or location in a book I recommend using Template:Rp, which doesn't need to be included inside the citation. Reconrabbit 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful. I'll try it. LauraONagel (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The template {{r}} can get confusing to use. Iterating on Reconrabbit's advice, the template {{rp}} could be used like this:

<ref name="Beacon">example book<ref>{{rp|23}}

which renders as:

.

This way, you can add the citations intuitively in VisualEditor, and simply tack on the RP template to indicate the page number. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You can see my article Charles Brenton Fisk for further examples of this. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Trying to eliminate a copyright problem.

The article Ethiopian Manifesto was flagged for copyright violation. I have rewritten the section in question. Please note that what I have newly written does not show up unless you enter edit mode. I'd like to know if the rewriting I did has solved the problem. deisenbe (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No, not in preview. If you go there and click Edit you can see what I wrote and saved there. deisenbe (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm goingto post this at Help desk. deisenbe (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I answered at the help desk. Next time, just be patient and don't post in more than one place. RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

sandbox issue

in snadbox rules it didnt say you cant do keffir or other slurs and a person removed my edits there. 81.97.224.185 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an environment that is intended to be welcoming for all types of people. If you are only here to post slurs, you will quickly be blocked. This is a project to write an encyclopedia not to fool around. Basic common sense and decency should tell you it is inappropriate to post slurs, you shouldn't need a specific rule. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that you should need to read a rule to know that you shouldn't post slurs Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Buddy Holly) 18:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a question, my imagination is way too wide, but is it possible to create another sandbox? I promise I totally won’t make an entire whole different universe.

(for Nick, a little laugh is sometimes just good, we all need an appropriate joke for some collaborative projects) Cometkeiko (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt: if you ever post offensive slurs anywhere on Wikipedia again, your IP address will be blocked from editing. This is an adult project; try not to act like a stupid kid. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I read it like that dude in the movies who acts smug and is black. Cometkeiko (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Time zones on infobox settlement

Resolved

 – Kk.urban (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the time zone data comes from on {{Infobox settlement}}?

For example, if you type in "Pacific" for the time zone parameter, it automatically links to Pacific Time Zone and the UTC offsets, and the daylight saving time. I tried to do the same with "Hawaii–Aleutian" but it's not working. Kk.urban (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the data comes from anywhere, you manually add it when you add the template. The examples in the template and in article's using it I see that it is just a Wikilink. What error are you seeing when you do |timezone = [[Hawaii–Aleutian Time Zone|Hawaii–Aleutian]]? RudolfRed (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed Thanks, you're right. It's actually only {{Infobox U.S. county}} that does this automatically, and the way to put a county in this time zone is to use |timezone = Hawaii (without a wikilink). Kk.urban (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Relevance to school articles of non-school activity by students

Is there an essay or guidance on Wikipedia that discusses the relevance of non-school activity to articles on schools, when it is a current or former student that's involved? The cases I've come across are crimes reported in reliable sources, where the crimes are not school related, yet some think it's relevant to put that in the school's article because the indicted attend(ed) the school. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Many colleges/universities have a section for Notable alumni, meaning that those people are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Notability can be for criminal activity. However, if a person is not Wikipedia-notable, I see no reason to mention that person (and their crime(s)) in a school article. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Willondon, a former student can be notable for good things, like winning a Pulitzer Prize or starring in a hit movie. Or, they can be notable for something bad, like being a convicted serial killer, or getting fired from a high profile job. If a Wikipedia biography exists for a person, no matter why they are notable, and their connection with the school is well referenced, then they should be listed in the "Notable alumni" section. It is not the "Alumni who make this school look good" section. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, I'm on board with that. In the current case [1], these are hitherto unnotable people, indicted for murder; they just happen to attend that school, and the assault took place in a park area beside the school. (BTW Thanks for all the input here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willondon (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Without a Wikipedia article to link to, it's tough (not always impossible) to have alumni in the school article (WP:ALUMNI has a bit of info about some guidelines). However as you've pointed out on the talk page, the reference doesn't say anything about the school. With references comes some indication whether the two are related or not, and then there can be a debate about whether it's of significance in the school article. Without any reliable source making the connection it's a non-starter. I note there's a murder victim already in the article, with a linked Wikipedia article. Comparisons will be drawn. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Temporary Password

I am User:Wxao Zesty, I am requesting for a temporary password to my email. Since, the last one did not go through.216.176.69.228 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Use Special:PasswordReset RudolfRed (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

Authority control, Defaultsort and Reflist template are minor edit? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman: Welcome to the Teahouse! Help:Minor edit says that adding templates is not a minor edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No fair!!

I wanted to make a page called: "Republic Of Kit Kat!" on Wikipedia, (a micronation I made up.) but, when clicking on a red link, it did not even let me even create it. Even when I clicked on: "Create a draft and submit it for review." That will not make me create a page!! Even MicroWiki allows you to do this. Please tell me the proper way.

From your biggest fan: PolskiSlaskiego! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@PolskiSlaskiego!: Wikipedia is not for things you made up – please do not create such an article. Tollens (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@PolskiSlaskiego!: Hello Polski! Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place to create articles on things you made up one day. We create articles based on what reliable sources say, and something you just made up most definitely does not have any reliable sources. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 20:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am SO sorry, but that was not my actual problem. (I did that by complete accident.) My actual question is what I stated at the very end: "How do you properly create a page?" I tried clicking on a red link, no luck. I tried creating a draft, did not work. I am even 100% logged in, so this makes no sense to me. I am just stuck here, not able to find the correct way. So please, if you can, reply to this question telling me how to create a page PROPERLY. I am SO sorry to Wikipedia, @Tollens, and @Blaze Wolf for being so harsh. My apologies.

From your biggest fan: PolskiSlaskiego! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@PolskiSlaskiego!: Well assuming you aren't wanting to create an article (Not a page, tho all articles are technically pages but not all pages are articles) on your made up micronation, I suggest you follow WP:YFA. What are you seeing when you click on a red link? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

When clicking on a red link, it reads: "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist." And then, it says: "......create it as a draft." and when clicked on, it sends to, indeed a draft, but that is not what I want. But, are you supposed to start with a draft? Because I want an already official article when I hit done, or whatever the finish button is. I think I might have solved the problem, but if there are any alternative ways, then please let me know.

From your biggest fan: PolskiSlaskiego! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

New accounts cannot directly create articles, you may use the Article Wizard to do so- though creating a new article is challenging, it's best to get some editing experience first. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about the fact that new accounts can't directly create articles. PolskiSlaskiego! I would recommend following 331dot's advice and get some editing experience in first before creating a new article. If you really think you can't wait and want to create an article now, then you may use the Article Wizard to do so. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PolskiSlaskiego, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. To echo what DavidMD says: would you build a car as your first ever engineering project? Or enter a tournament the first day you started a new sport? Please get some experience editing - and learn about Wikipedia's policies, such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, before you try to create a new article. You will save yourself and other people a lot of frustration and effort if you do this. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Baby steps: Think of a topic. Check to see if an article already exists. If not, find reliable source published references about the topic. See WP:42 to learn what that is about. If no existing article, and references do exist, use Article Wizard to create and then submit a draft, with properly formatted references. Only include in the draft the facts that are provided by the references. Once submitted, an experienced reviewer can Accept, Decline, Reject or Speedy delete your draft. P.S. "Publish changes" means save, it does not mean publish in Wikipedia's mainspace. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Thank you so much! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Translating a page

How can I translate a page from english to bangla Tausif23 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tausif23: See WP:TRANSLATEUS for the guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Disabling military time

Hullo friends. I would like to disable military time in signatures and the like such that it says something like "Example (talk) 3:00 PM, 19 January 2024 (UTC)" rather than "Example (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)". I was wondering where I would find a setting, gadget, or other such thing to do that. That's all. Thanks! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 23:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Antrotherkus Click "Preferences" (which you can get to by looking at the top of your display or clicking what I just linked there.) Then, click the "Appearance" tab there. There should be some options for you to adjust the time display there. Cheers ‍ Relativity 00:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

When I go to the "Appearance" tab, there are only two time-related options: "Date format" and "Time offset". Neither of them seem to be related to 24-hour time. If you're curious, I use the Vector 2010 skin. Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 01:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Antrotherkus I would use Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time. Galobtter (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

NIAC

Can somebody take a look at the National Iranian American Council article? An editor keeps removing edits cited to news articles and replacing it with information sourced only to the organization's website. jwtmsqeh (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that would be some form of blocking good-faith edits, and I’m pretty sure it is a sign of bad-faith. Cometkeiko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cometkeiko (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring ongoing! The contending editors (including Just want...) are also heatedly debating their disagreements on the article's Talk page. If they cannot solve it there, then advice needed on how to get third parties involved. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft Article

How do I find a draft article? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? What draft are you looking for? Galobtter (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's a draft titled, say, "Aave protocol", then you look for "Draft:Aave protocol". If on the other hand you're wondering how to use a search engine such as Google to find a draft about, say, the "Aave protocol", then the answer is that you cannot. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see my other comment OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I found my draft, and it has been rejected for unreliable sources. I have 18 sources, including LA Times, YouTube video, Track and Field News publication, and major college athletic websites. I dont know what to do to improve this? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Are either of you willing to look at my article and comment on what is wrong with my sources? It is Drat Art Venegas OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft Art Venegas OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@OLYMPICHAMMER I see you refer to Draft:Art Venegas are "my article", but it was created by Eric-Dieter, who has also asked questions at Wikipedia:Help desk#(moving an article). Are you using multiple accounts?

S0091 suggested you review this guide for how to cite sources. Did you have specific questions about that? Maybe you'd prefer the video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN.

Victor Schmidt gave you specific feedback about some of the references. Did you have any specific questions about that feedback? GoingBatty (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am working with Eric on this project, and he is the one that posted the article. Victor Schmidt and S0091 only sent me educational materials and guides, which I have gone thoroughly over hours and can see nothing wrong with our sources.

We are citing publications like the LA Times, Track and Field News, YouTube interview videos, major college Athletic Dept websites, and other independent articles online. What more do we need to do? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@OLYMPICHAMMER: They expressed concerns with the formatting of the references, so I added an inline citation for reference #1 for you as an example. They also noted that the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. For example, where is the source for all the information in the "Art Venegas coaching tree"? If you are Venegas or are working with Venegas, then you and Eric-Dieter have a conflict of interest that you each need to disclose on your respective user page. GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@OLYMPICHAMMER: Also note that interviews are not independent, so those won't help with notability. Plus, the tone needs to be changed from promotional (e.g. "legendary", "Venegas is regarded to have few peers", "cemented his coaching preeminence") to neutral and encyclopedic. GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

GoingBatty, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sample: Venegas coached UCLA throwers to some of the greatest performances in NCAA history, and his athletes include some of the most notable collegiate competitors ever. To which is appended "[6]". "[6]" turns out to be a web page published by UCLA. This is not a disinterested source, and thus it is not a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoary, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Note discussion about this draft are currently in a lot of places (here, WP:HD, on the draft itself, at my talk page, and at Ad Orientem's user talk).

OLYMPICHAMMER, please note that on Wikipedia, declined and rejected mean different things. Draft:Art Venegas was declined. When reviewers decline a draft, this means sorry, this cannot be promoted to an article at this time. Please improve it further, whereas rejected means Sorry, there is no potential this becomes an article any time soon. Please stop trying. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You have done a lot of work after Draft:Art Venegas was declined, but the referencing method you use is not acceptable. See Help:Referencing for beginners and examples of articles of the athlete articles you Wikilinked to see proper referencing. When refs are done right, the software inserts a superscript number and adds the ref under References. As noted above, refs need to be independent. Continue to fix stuff and submit again. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

David, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

OLYMPICHAMMER I recommend deleting the 'Coaching Tree' section. P.S. I am not an Reviewer. David notMD (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Each one of those is annotated with online publications? At some point you editors are ridiculous......... OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Help

Í ám á new user who made lots of edits on my IP account. Í was wondering if i could have my IP account transfered to my new one. Socialstviper (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Socialstviper, and welcome! I’m afraid it’s not possible to assign IP contributions to your account, although if you wish you can indicate on your userpage that you edited previously under an IP and can specify there. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the best way to proceed once I have a draft I like?

I have a draft of a page of a surrealist artist that I have been heavily researching and gathering links on. It looks and feels like a real page, but I don't want to put it out too early and have it deleted, etc. Who should I send it to (and HOW) I have never attempted a page before. BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

BillE.Vader1963, Draft:Raymond A. Whyte? You could ask about that either here or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (but please not both). -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you! good tip! BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@BillE.Vader1963: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest using the Articles for creation process for your draft, and have added a template to your draft for you. When you're ready to have your draft reviewed, click the blue "Submit the draft for review" button. Good luck with the draft! GoingBatty (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

BillE.Vader1963, should "mystical animals" be "mythical animals"? Maproom (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ooh. Good catch. Thanks! BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Once submitted to AfC there is a waiting period than can be as short as hours and as long as weeks - even months if the draft backlog gets huge. You can continue to work on a submitted draft. The reviewer will either accept, decline with reasons given, reject if opinion is no potential, or speedy delete (hopefully not!!) for major transgressions. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Userbox alignment

Hi. I added some userboxes to my user page but no matter what parameter I use, they won't align. Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} to your user page, which helped a bit, but didn't completely solve the issue. GoingBatty (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you but @Sirdog has provided a better solution. CanonNi (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

CanonNi, it appears that {{Babel}} is the issue. I think it's because it's literally just a raw module and the module may be conflicting with {{Infobox Wikipedia user}}. There is a languages parameter for {{Infobox Wikipedia user}} you can make use of, or you could use the various specific language templates (example: {{User en}}). Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge may be able to assist you in getting it to work if those solutions aren't what you are looking for. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirdog Thank you! Used the specific language templates in |languages instead of Babel and that fixed the issue.

Quick question, what does raw module mean? Does it just mean a module is badly coded? CanonNi (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Badly coded? I'm certainly not qualified to make that assessment! I just mean that if you look at the source for Template:Babel all it does is invoke a module, rather than having wikitext with perhaps modules invoked inside of that. —Sirdog (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you! CanonNi (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

link on my name

I would like to add a link to my name , mentioned at So you think you can dance info. Thanks a lot! Miriam Larici 47.157.5.19 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:Help desk § link on my name; and referring to So You Think You Can Dance

hi ip user! 331dot has already answered your question in the Help Desk. for next time, please don't post your question to both the Teahouse and Help Desk to help keep responses to your question in one central place (and besides, most people answering questions in one probably also answer questions in the other as well). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I doing anything wrong?

I have recently being accused of being biased for reverting the unsourced ccontent additions. I am trying to be very gentle and let the other person uderstand why I reverted their information. But since now I lack the Wikipedia norms handy I started doubting myself. Should I mend my ways or what all I am doing is right? Should I be referring any extra guideliness or am I lacking any Wikipedia rules? I am unsure and please help me out in assessing my activity if it's going fine or not. Thank you

Please refer to Talk:N. T. Rama Rao#Reply to ip user 136.54.56.86 and Talk:2024 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election#Latest edit - JSP infobox. 456legendtalk 09:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Althought people who accused the same later clarified that they misundertood but still I need a through check on what I am lacking. Can I get more educated before I continue editing here? 456legendtalk 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend! I'm not seeing anything egregious. I see an innocent interaction at the 1st link and a good ole' civil content dispute at the 2nd (at time of writing). Noting that I have not checked any page history, just read the talk pages. My one comment would be that "First thing you must understand that any content addition that is contested shall be removed at the first place and will be discussed whether to add it or not" is not strictly true. Aside from fairly obvious exceptions, such as enforcing WP:BLP/WP:V policies, removing WP:COPYVIO, or fighting WP:VANDALISM, there is no policy I'm aware of that demands an article be kept at a certain version until discussed. Regardless of the article state, it's better that once 2 or more editors are aware others disagree that no one continues editing that part until a discussion happens. What you said tends to occur in practice, however, as a reversion of an edit tends to be the way editors learn there is disagreement (see: WP:BRD). Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirdog I get that. I should have refrained from removing the addition at the first and it was my fault that I assumed it to be that way and informed the same. Other than that I think I am fine with the rest of the discussion involving the content discussion. Meanwhile, I found the same user to add such similar addition on a different article and I assumed it to be a affliation to a organisation on his part and safely requested him to disclose any such if true. The user got offended and accused me of stalking and challenging my behaviour, thus I decided to recuse myself from the article. I don't intend to complaint anything against the user now but would like to know if looking upon other user contributions here on wikipedia not acceptable and is assuming someone to be paid for editing and asking the same to them to diclose not accepted? here And since I have recused from the article, do I need to bother about anything else on that particular talk page and do I need to further get involved in the discussion there if the other users show up? Please guide about this too. 456legendtalk 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for editors who see what may be a flaw in an editor's edit in one article - for example updating a fact on a place or person without providing a reference - to see if the same flaw was committed at other articles. This may also happen when an editor posts a question here at Teahouse. To the recipient, can it feel like stalking? Yes. Edit summaries at the articles should be about correcting the errors. Separately, advice can be posted to the editor's Talk page. And absolutely, asking an editor if a COI or PAID situation exists is valid, and very common if there is reason to suspect such. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you for the detailed analysis. Also thank you @Sirdog for the information. 456legendtalk 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Image preview on hover

When I hover over link to some articles, infobox image is shown along with lede text. But in some article hovers image is not shown, even when infobox has an image (this and this). Why? How to make sure that image is visible in preview. Also, what should be ratios of infobox image which make sure that images are not cutoff in preview (cut from top like this). -- Parnaval (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Parnaval. The preview feature is mw:Extension:Popups. At mw:Topic:X24ym9nooumpgr1h I wrote:

I suspect the actual rule is simply something like this:

width × height must be either at least 320 × 200 px or 203 × 250 px.

The images in your examples File:Andrea-Kevichusa-BH (cropped).jpg and File:Mahima Makwana snapped at an airport (cropped).jpg are too small. We don't pick images based on how they are currently processed in previews. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I correctly start a GA Reassesment?

I know sometimes but sometimes don't GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment (with four Ss). Maproom (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages allowed if no article?

Idk how to put the title, but I will try my best to explain it.

Basically, can disambiguation (or dab) pages display something if no article exists. For example if you look at the dab page for Cross country, there is a section that does not have an article. Copied from the article above

• Cross Country (film), a 1983 drama film starring Nina Axelrod

I've removed a couple of items from Cross country, including that one.

And most dab pages do not have the disambiguation suffix for some reason like why does Great Western Railway (disambiguation) have it, but not Cross country? Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that it's to disambiguate. There's an article on Great Western Railway as well as a dab page, but for Cross country there's only a dab page. Maproom (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Basically it is unclear whether to include something in a dab page if it does not have an article, like the example above. Even the WP:DAB article is unclear or I just couldnt find it, although it does have a 'what not to include' section but not the inverse?

And so that explains why GWR does and does not have the dab suffix? I mean we also have CrossCountry, a UK railway company without any additional suffixes, although the only difference is that it is spelt as one word. Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit 16:53 UTC - see also and copies from: MOS:DABMENTION. Idk how to use green text below so im using quotes instead

• "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader". Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems quite clear to me. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says Don't include entries without a blue link. and Don't include red links unless used in articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is a primary topic for the name, then that article gets the bare title, and a DAB page is labelled as such in its title. If there is no primary topic, then the DAB page gets the bare title. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Article submission declined - help, don't know how to fix it :(

Draft:Together UK Foundation

Hi I'd appreciate someone's help please in showing me how to fix the issues a reviewer outlined in my article submission.

I don't feel they're fair considering The News Letter (oldest newspaper in English speaking world) and The Irish News are both well-respected news papers. Second, this organisation's opponent (Ireland's Future) has a wiki page, so it's unbalanced if TUKF does not also have one. TheHandsomeHistorian (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TheHandsomeHistorial, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are three separate requirements on a source in order to count towards notability: reliability is the most obvious one, but independence, and significant coverage, are also important: see golden rule.

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

Looking over your reference list, almost all of them are clearly not independent; the Irish News might be, but does it contain significant coverage of the Foundation? (It might do, but I haven't looked). If it does, it will be one acceptable source, but we need more than one.

As for Ireland's Future: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is possible that the article Ireland's Future (which is not their article, by the way), is inadequately sourced: I haven't looked at it closely. If you think it is, you are welcome to improve it, or propose it for deletion if you think the organisation does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Value of the TeaHouse

I just want to say thanks to the team running the Tea House. I have told my professor how prompt your responses are and how generous too. I was running into some editors who were…. not so much, and it was becoming discouraging to try to manage the steep learning curve. Sometimes I come here just to read. Thanks again, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi WikiTikiTavi63, you're welcome, glad you like it. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome here! Thanks for the feedback; it's nice to hear. Mathglot (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

nurulhuda.kssg

help me please recover my Facebook account 176.16.231.187 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We cannot help you with Facebook issues here, sorry. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

feedback on draft f0r musical artist

Hi all - happy new year! I've re-edited a draft wiki page for a musical band and would be grateful if an editor could let me know if it now qualifies for publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Say_She_She_(band)

Thanks! georges_mille Georges1K (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Georges1K: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some tweaks and restored the {{AFC submission}} templates (the ones with comments stating "Do not remove this line!") I see you added some references since the last review. When you're ready for the draft to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button. Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Posting articles written on linkedin

i am a seasoned digital marketer of global repute, written many articles on LinkedIn etc, i dont want to promote myself on Wikipedia, but want to articles written already on linked by me only. It will definitely benefit users as these are related to field of Digital Marketing and SEO and solves many issues of users. Anoopsrivastava784 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopsrivastava784: Welcome to the Teahouse! We already have articles on Digital marketing and Search engine optimization. You may improve those articles using published reliable sources that you didn't write, but adding links to your own work would be considered promotion, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote your work. GoingBatty (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If what you have posted at LinkedIn is copyright protected (I am not familiar with LI policy), then you cannot use that content in an existing or new Wikipedia article. And, as noted above, you may not use your LI articles as references. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And if it is not copyright protected, you still should not use it, due to WP:SPS and conflict of interest concerns. In brief, don't use it. Mathglot (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

creating a page

Hello, I created a userpage yesterday and and watching tutorials on how to edit and build a page. My goal is to create a page for a notable musician. I understand that I need to have an account 4 days and do at least 10 edits before a page I create is considered for approval.

I created a userpage in the sandbox as a test. Do I need to have a userpage approved before I create another page? Holyhootenany (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Holyhootenany, you're free to continue working on the draft, you don't need permission to create a draft or drafts in userspace. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Could I get an editor to look at the draft page and suggest edits that help with approval? Holyhootenany (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Holyhootenany: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you created User:Holyhootenany/sandbox, which was declined because it did not contain multiple published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Do redirects from one user talk page to another work?

Hi! I operate two accounts - this one, and a mobile account, User:Phönedinger's jellyfish. I checked the list of reasons to make a redirect, but didn't see anything about talk pages on there. Is it possible to redirect the mobile account's talk page to my main one? If not, I'll watchlist the mobile talk page on both accounts. Would rather be safe than sorry. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 19:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Schrödinger's jellyfish! While I don't see it specifically listed for mobile accounts per se, redirecting an alternate account's talk page to your main account is a practice doumented at the public sock account policy, so I'd say go for it and just add the redirect template to your mobile talk page. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you so much! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference add which is not available online

I want to add news to a article but online news is not available print news is available how to add? 45.124.7.168 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered on the Help desk. Please don't ask the same question on more than one desk: it can lead to confusion and potentially wastes the limited time of the volunteers who respond on the desks. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nazism

The ol', "far-left, not far-right" trope. Please see Talk:Nazi Party/FAQ.

Nazism is incorrectly labeled as being far-right, when it should be labeled as far-left. The politics that the party represented (fascism), as well as the National Socialism they represented, are all facets found within the far-left leaning ideologue. Yes, they despised liberals, but Hitler HATED capitalism and also utilized racial ideologues not found in either far-right or far-left of his era. It wasn't until now that the far-left have embraced racial ideologues to replace the class ideologues found within their Marxism (another facet of the Nazi's, by the way). Neo-Nazi's are the current label for any new KKK member and since it WAS the Democrat party (the same that exists today, there was no "flip") that created the KKK, Neo-Nazi's are far-left as well, so you might as well correct that article as well. History is important in the fact that you can't change it, so why are you trying to hide the left's dark history? They have so much more than any group from the right.... 70.122.110.127 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) The Teahouse is not the place for this, I suggest you post on the relevant article talk pages, don't expect a kind reaction though. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC) See the boxes "Frequently asked questions" at Talk:Nazism, and "Fascism is a right-wing ideology" at Talk:Fascism. See also Talk:Fascism/FAQ. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC) The OPs remarks are fringe views that are complete and utter baloney, and these views are rejected by all competent political scientists of the last 90 years. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Collapsed; wrong venue; WP:NOTFORUM; perennial comment already answered in the Nazi party FAQ. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I delete everything, then rewrite the whole article?

Article: Tumblestone
So here's the thing... I want to improve this article, but I'm kind of cringing how bad I was writing it back when I had less experience. I was thinking to rewrite it from scratch. When is it okay to blow everything up? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

TrademarkedTWOrantula, although you wrote most of that article, several other editors contributed significantly as well. Suddenly eliminating their work seems harsh to me. Instead, I recommend a series of smaller, incremental edits to gradually improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hello! The article right now seems short enough, so I think it would be OK to just rewrite everything. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 - copy a section into your Sandbox, improve it there, then paste back - would be preferred to blanking content and starting over. David notMD (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with David notMD and Cullen328. Flip the situation around: an article created by someone else, inexperienced, which you subsequently improved in numerous edits back in the day. Original user pops back up, decides to throw everything out, and start over. How does that make you feel about all the contributions you made, now dumped in the trash? See also WP:OWN. Not saying that WP:TNT is never a valid option, but you should always consider the contributions of other users. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

math

whitch number is closest to 0 1 fourth or 1 sixth 67.81.11.50 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is 1/6, but please ask these questions at the mathematics reference desk in the future. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I join any Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process?

Hi! I know I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but after having created several Wikipedia pages in the past few weeks, I have gained a better understanding of the rules, particularly regarding the Notability Guidelines. While I enjoy creating biographies of random notable people, I am interested in participating in the deletion process and casting my vote. Is there a specific rule for this? Do I need to be an expert to do so? Additionally, where can I find a list of articles that have been tagged for deletion? I hope you can answer my questions. If not, I guess I will stick to editing or creating pages.Aona1212 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aona1212. Any editor in good standing can participate in AfD debates. Just be sure that your recommendation is based on our policies and guidelines. As for finding deletion debates, WP:AFDT is the shortcut to today's deletion debates. "Today" is based on UTC, so depending on where you live, the day may not end at midnight. That page has a back arrow, allowing you to see a list of yesterday's debates, and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aona1212 Just to mention that deletion discussions are not based on votes. Editors express their views about the compliance of the article according to policy/guidelines and an administrator (usually) who is technically equipped to make the deletion will do so (or not) based on the arguments made. Most often, it comes down to deciding whether the subject of the article is wikinotable, which can be a judgement call. See also WP:DEL for a full discussion of the policy and process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

How can I restore edits that were deleted by Wikipedia?

I wrote neutral and accurate information about the services provided by the Arizona Department of Transportation, a government agency. The current information is outdated so major editing is needed. Most of the content was taken from the Arizona Department of Transportation's website, azdot.gov.

I disclosed that I am an employee of the Arizona Department of Transportation and I received a message saying that I have a conflict of interest and the content I provided was rejected.

How can I restore the edits that I had made? Loribaker2757 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Loribaker2757, you do have a conflict of interest. Thank you for disclosing it. An acceptable Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what reliable sources independent of the topic say about the topic. Accordingly, use of azdot.gov should be limited. The policy language at WP:ABOUTSELF makes it clear that the article should not be based primarily on sources like azdot.gov. Any reader who wants more information from your employer's website can simply visit that website. The best practice for you as a paid editor is to make well-referenced formal Edit requests at Talk: Arizona Department of Transportation, where you must gain consensus for your proposed changes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a state government agency not a business. 2600:8800:5662:C0:F456:239B:6DC5:E2EB (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

From a policy point of view, government agencies are treated the same as private businesses. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you do those citation things on mobile?

So I want to edit something but I need a citation, thing is, I don't know if you can do so on mobile, and I don't want to damage the article. Please help. RoboDoggo9123 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RoboDoggo9123. My suggestion is to use the fully functional desktop site, which works just fine on mobile devices. I edit using a smartphone 99% of the time, and have added thousands of references to Wikipedia that way. Just scroll to the bottom of any mobile Wikipedia page, and there is a "Desktop" link and if you click it, you can edit using the desktop site. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Shumpei Fukahori

I honestly have no idea what I did to Shumpei Fukahori's article. Please can someone check it out and fix it? Thanks :) RossEvans18 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why it looked like that but I fixed it eitherway, haha. Enlightened Southerner (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :) RossEvans18 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Policy question

On an article about a person who was murdered, is there any policy against mentioning the name of the murderer in the Death section? Enlightened Southerner (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Enlightened Southerner, if the killer was convicted in a court of law, then it is OK to mention the name. If the killer died without being tried, but reliable sources and investigative bodies agree that they were responsible, it is probably OK to mention. We say, of course, that John Wilkes Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, although Booth was killed when he was a fugitive, and was never tried or convicted. On another point, was the victim notable before the crime in this case? Otherwise, per WP:BIO1E, the article should be about the notable crime rather than a biography of the victim. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is Juraj Vankulič who was a Slovak drag performer who was murdered in the 2022 Bratislava shooting and the murderer was Juraj Krajčik. I reworded the article in ways and in the death section I wrote “ On October 12, 2022 at around 6 p.m., Vankulič was murdered when shot by a 19-year old teenager, [NAME REDACTED by an administrator]…” however my edit was reverted with the edit summary: “No mention of the murderer, please”, I was unsure if this is just an opinion or a policy regarding murder people, would you say it is appropriate to mention the name? Enlightened Southerner (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Enlightened Southerner Looking at the source you cited, I see no mention of the killer's name. So it would be highly inappropriate to mention it there - or here - without proper citations! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I copy a Simple English Wikipedia page into English Wikipedia?

Hello. I noticed there are some Simple English Wikipedia articles that do not exist on English Wikipedia. Would it be okay to copy them to here, in a similar manner to how copying from other Wikipedias works on Simple English Wikipedia? I couldn’t find any guidelines that say whether this is alright, so I thought I should defer to here.

I’d also like to say that, if this is alright to do, I would of course disclose that it was copied over in the talk page, as WP:CWW recommends.

Thank you! Slamforeman (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Slamforeman. The answer is "yes" as long as the article is in complete compliance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, editors who are blocked on English Wikipedia are sometimes advised to edit on Simple English Wikipedia to show their ability to edit Wikimedia projects productively. So, keep that in mind when assessing articles that you find there. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Slamforeman. Yes, but with limitations. You can copy an article from Simple English and provide attribution. We have stiffer requirements on providing references than Simple English does. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy while simple:Wikipedia:Citing sources is a guideline. So you may need to find more sources or leave material out, depending on the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your help. Slamforeman (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Slamforeman, Yes, as others have said, but note that copy attribution is required, per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. You may use a modified copy of the model attribution statement near the top of WP:CWW, modified to fit your situation. I.e., this:

Copied content from [[:simple:<Exact page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution.

Add that to your edit summary when you copy the content. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. Will do! Slamforeman (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Need info on Patna

What to visit 223.191.1.204 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is not really the place for questions about locating relevant content, that would be more suited to WP:Reference Desk. Then again, you could just do a simple search, though in this case, it seems that there's an existing article on the content you have requested. Sigh. Fabrickator (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Try https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Patna – robertsky (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

List Class?

Hi. I was looking at the C++23 page, and started thinking what exactly a list-class article is...

This article really seems like a long list, so would this be considered a list-class article? Coulomb1 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this would be considered a list. According to the criteria on WP:CLASSES, a list needs organized links to other Wikipedia articles. C++23 is mostly a changelog. If you think the article should be classified differently, you can request a assessment here. CanonNi (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Any good sites for finding record chart placements for all/many countries?

Are there any quality, reliable websites that have chart information pertaining to multiple countries (not just the US and UK), particularly one where I can look up a certain artist and find the corresponding album and song chart placements by country for said artist? Thanks - Elephantranges (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elephantranges That's the sort of question that experts at this reference desk ought to be able to answer. Alternatively, try the Talk Page of a relevant music project, listed at WP:PROJDIR/MUS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Dear Team

i am create the my self biography but after publish our content is delete speedy deletion. how to solve the issues Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti – while I cannot view the deleted draft, the reason given for deletion indicates that your draft was promotional. Using Wikipedia to promote yourself, your business, or anything else is not permitted; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles also must demonstrate that reliable sources not connected to the subject have chosen to write about them already, and may not include any information not already in other sources. Writing autobiographies in particular is also strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons, which I see has already been mentioned on your user talk page. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion someone else will likely write an article about you eventually. Tollens (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Team

we create article for Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti related achievement and occupation ,company we are mentioned in the Articles . In the Infobox we mention he name ,occupation of company website only . kindly share guides create page Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti, let me quote: Al Sulaiti Holdings was founded and is chaired by Dr. Ahmed Al Sulaiti, a visionary businessman from Qatar. He has built a diversified business portfolio that is well-known both locally and internationally. (And the deleted "Dr Ahmed Mohammed Hassan Al Hayya Al Sulaiti" continued in the same vein.) If it is well-known both locally and internationally, then those who know it are sure to find disinterested, reliable sources about it and to want to create an article purely based on those sources. Incidentally, the articles I've seen on companies that are well-known both locally and internationally don't bother to say that these companies are well-known both locally and internationally, and one reason for not saying this is that readers will already know it. That matter aside, I note that your user name is the same as the name of your subject. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

More than one version of an article by you, about you, has been Speedy deleted. Unless you can create a draft in which all content is verified by references written by people with no connection to you, stop trying. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Indef blocked on 21 January. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox use

What would be the right infobox to use for this article? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TrademarkedTWOrantula! I'd probably say the best fit for a bookstore is {{Infobox company}} as I don't see any other infobox that'd be more specific. You can see if another infobox suites your purposes by scrolling to the bottom of the documentation and looking at the table. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Chrome browser

Using Chrome browser after a system update, I noticed my Chromebook's not displaying Tex (math formulas, etc.) and hyperlinks have to be double clicked. I don't normally log in. Any suggestions? 73.192.182.36 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Try Google Chrome help. Mathglot (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing is also appropriate for such issues. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

GA controversy, how to resolve?

Has had controversy over my practices of GARs and GANs, how to resolve? I don't properly know GAs GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Your user talk page, User talk:GabrielPenn4223, suggests that you have little or no idea of what you are doing. For a start, two points: (i) Do not nominate any article unless you have done a large amount of work on the article. (ii) Do not review any article that you have worked on more than trivially, let alone any article that you have nominated. -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I know, but when will this debate controversy stop for once? I am annoyed by this. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

What debate controversy? Just stop nominating articles for GA and walk away from any discussions that might be happening there. Find something else to do instead, here is a good place to find things to do: Wikipedia:Task Center. Polyamorph (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223 There is no controversy. You';ve simply been told that you do not know what you're doing, and you have only just come to realise people are right. Any 'controversy,'as you perceive it, will stop when you start to appreciate that you don't yet know enough about how Wikipedia works, especially in relation to Good Article status and reviews. You've only made 60 contributions to articles, yet you seem to have caused quite some disruption and chaos by thinking you can storm in and randomly nominate articles, then seek talk page protection on those nomination or review pages just because you don't like being told to stop what you're doing and gain some understanding first.

You may be editing in good faith, but disruption is disruption. Adminstrators have the ability to put partial blocks on areas where good faith editors are nevertheless causing undue disruption and time-wastage. If you continue as you have done, I fear that could happen to your account. So, simply keep away from article assessments, and work in other areas which will improve your article-editing skills and understanding.

If you've recently made other inappropriate nominations, please go back and undo them all to avoid wasting other editors' time. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wherever you're asked, just promise that you'll stop nominating and reviewing GAs until you've gained more experience or that you've already stopped, then follow-through. Whenever someone comes to you about a mess you've made, tell them you're sorry, and tell them to help you fix it if you need to be the one to fix it, or fix it themselves if they can. If you've made a big mess, you could post to WT:GAN apologising, and asking them to fix it or help you fix it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and @Usedtobecool, I've already apollogized on WT:GAN. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223, that's it then. You don't need to run; it's better to hang around in case other people show up with questions. As the mess clears up, it will be forgotten. Meanwhile, you can do other things, as was suggested above. You are not in any trouble, as long as you stop and engage with others politely. Just take it slow, whatever you do next. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223 Thank you - that's the best way to deal with such issues. I've just deleted your GAR proposals for Nature and for National Register of Historic Places so that's two less thing to clear up. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Article name for YouTube channels

Hi. If I'm creating an article for a YouTube channel operated by one person, should the name of the article be that of the channel or person? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the name should be the YouTube channel's name because the article is about the YouTube channel not the person. Tusharhero (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking through Category:YouTube channels and , it depends under which name they are more known. Articles about YouTuber who are mostly known under their channel name use the channel name, if they are mostly known under a different name (real name or not) use that, and in Edge cases use editorial judgement to decide on one. A redirect or disambiguation entry can be considered from the other one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit quality

How is edit quality measured in the mobile app and why isn't it shown in the website? Tusharhero (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not a mobile user, but it's possible the Wikimedia Foundation is adding features, trying things, hoping to attract more people, encourage them to become editors. As for the website, the quality of your edits will become clear to you through feedback from others. People will revert you and warn you if you do things wrong, you may get no feedback if you're doing well. People may occassionally show up to thank you and encourage you if you keep on with good work. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tusharhero: If you refer to a specific feature which isn't shown somewhere then please describe the feature and where you see it. If it's red and green numbers in parentheses then it's not about quality but size. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it just says "Edit quality perfect". Its in the edit tab of the mobile app. Tusharhero (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Book cover and page referencing

Hello, how would I go about making a book reference where a page and the back of the book back up 2 separate claims on an article? Should I make 2 different references with one specifying a page, and then the other specifying the back of the book? Goldclock (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Goldclock Welcome to the Teahouse. Two separate references are not necessary. Both of our editing tools allow for one reference to be named and used again and again. See WP:REFNAME if using Source Editor. Personally, I would use the {{rp}} template after each of the citation, such as [citation] and [same citation] Hopefully this helps. But do bear in mind that if you're basing a factual statement about, say, the author of a book by what they have written about themselves on the back cover, then that source is not deemed as 'reliable' as it's written by the subject. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I use visual editor. If I use the {{rp}} template after the inline citations should I remove the "page cited/pages cited/at" field from the reference since its specified by the {{rp}} template? If not, then how do I add both the back cover and page number to the reference, because if I try to use both the "page cited" and "at" fields then it rejects it. Goldclock (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Goldclock Yes, I would remove the specific page number from within the original reference so that it simply points to the book as a whole, then I would add the respective page number/frontispiece/back cover mention to the rp template for each specific use. (Note: I have seen others here recommending the {{sfn}} template, but I find {{rp}} works fine for my needs, so I've never investigated any alternatives.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Goldclock (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

When is it OK to re-write a page from scratch?

Hello... what do you do when a page is so badly written, with lots of mis-information and few proper references, that it would be much easier to start again than try and correct / edit it? Is it Ok to do that?! In this case I'm talking specifically about Antony Gibbs & Sons - I have read the key texts about the company and his family recently, so am aware of all the mistakes in the Wiki page. It's ages since I've edited anything, so can't remember the etiquett about signing off... I'm @Ruthhenrietta ;-) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ruthhenrietta. Welcome to the Teahouse. Nowadays, your signature is automatically added to your post, or to any response if you click 'reply'. But if you respond the old way by clicking 'edit source' then you still need to use four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) to insert your signature.

Now, regarding a 100% rewrite: personally I would strongly advise against it. It would only take one error in your version for someone to completely revert what changes you'd made and take you back to square one. A better way would be to first add a note to the article's talk page to explain your concerns and highlighting major flaws, and saying what you'd like to do, and inviting any feedback or cooperation on the project. Taking all the sources and starting from the beginning, I might work on rewriting each section, one at a time. Making clear edit summaries when you save changes means others can see what you've done, and relatively small edits are easier to understand and less soul-destroying to have reverted and to re-fix than massive edits and massive reverts.

If you insisted on doing a complete rewrite, you should prepare an alternative version in your sandbox and then link to that on the article talk page along with your concerns and seek comments and feedback. But there are probably less than 10 people 'watching' that article, which gets about ten views a day, so the likelihood of many people seeing your 'call to arms' is quite low.

So, whilst I would encourage you to WP:BEBOLD, I'd also recommend you make changes in a piecemeal fashion, rather than one quantum jump. Does that help at all? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes - it really helps - thank you... I'll take your advice... I realise it's a very niche subject! But it bugs me when information is so poor, so I think it's worth doing Ruthhenrietta (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta Yes, I've just looked at it a bit closer and it does rather cover a broad range of topics in one article, so it could well be that a rewrite in your sandbox is a good way forward. Feel free to bring anything back to the Teahouse if you want further input.

...And good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I will definitely get back to you if I need help - thanks Ruthhenrietta (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta: @Nick Moyes: We also have the essay Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over but in my experience that typically involves a valid reason to delete the article first. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

most References

is Vic Damone You Were Only Fooling the most References i ever in article i ever did? Samchristie05 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Samchristie05, could you please re-phrase your question so it makes sense? Qcne (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Vic Damone You Were Only Fooling References Samchristie05 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not really a question @Samchristie05..? Qcne (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

anyway have you heard the story of me at the beginning at website, that I acted like a reviewer approved my own article!? Samchristie05 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, @Samchristie05, I have no idea what you are asking. Is English perhaps not your first language? Qcne (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Amir Tsarfati

The Amir Tsarfati article has not been published although he is a famous author and speaker. Can anyone shed some light on this? Aiinceku (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have rejected the draft @Aiinceku, so it will not be published. Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Qcne (talk) a bot? Aiinceku (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No? Qcne (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast response.

You clearly are a very dedicated moderator to be responding during a weekend.

Would it be possible to give reason for your rejection of the Amir Tsarfati article?

Thank you. Aiinceku (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There are no "moderators" on Wikipedia- we are all volunteers.

I rejected the draft as there is zero evidence this person meets our special definition of a notable person, which can be found at WP:NPEOPLE.

I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amir_Tsarfati which sets out why the article was deleted in December. Qcne (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering and thanks for replying.

BR Aiinceku (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Using PGP signed messages from the person the article is about as a source

Hello, I am currently considering making changes to the Cicada 3301 wikipedia article. I was planning on using direct statements made by 3301 as a source, however I have run into an issue. Every step of the puzzle and other miscellaneous statements made by 3301 have been clearsigned using PGP in some way or another. tl;dr, its a way to mathematically prove that the content can only be from 3301 themselves, and the signed message content is unmodified. Due to the complex math involved in generating the RSA keypairs and signatures, it is considered practically impossible to bruteforce/forge within our lifetime, and many lifetimes after that. Upon a signature being verified in a program like GPG, you also get all sorts of information about the message such as the author, date, and time the message was created. Because of this I believe their PGP signed messages would fall in the category of direct quotations, with 3301 themselves being the source.

The issue I have ran into though, is that due to the formatting of PGP signed messages(example of one here) it is often easiest to upload them to pastebin for people to download and verify themselves using GPG software. 3301 did this for a few of their signed messages. I have been informed by the wonderful folks in the help IRC channel that pastebin is still not considered a reliable source regardless of document contents and verifiability, due to lack of editorial oversight etc. I was wondering if there would be a way to still cite/precedent for citing a PGP signed message confirmed to be authored by the subject of the wikipedia article, without the issues associated with using pastebin. This is may be an uncommon issue without a clear answer, but if there's one thing I've learned in the past several years it's that 3301 is really good at creating unique problems for solvers. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration responding to this post. Ctvrty (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ctvrty! Taking a step back, I would be wary of WP:Original research here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so the idea is that we summarize information that secondary sources (like newspapers and books) have found notable to write about. Using info directly from Cicada 3301 (a primary source) would be more appropriate for a secondary source than for us. If no newspaper has found the info sufficiently important to write about, then I question whether it's important enough for us to cover in the article.

There are some exceptions where using primary sources is OK. For instance, we like to have birth dates for all biographies, so if the only source for 3301's birthday is a statement they made themselves over PGP, we'd want to find a way to cite the PGP message. I'm afraid I'm not techy enough to be able to give you advice on that. But that's downstream of the original research issue, which should be worked through first. Hope that's helpful! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I was afraid that would be an issue. Thank you for the thorough reply.

Re:secondary sources, one of our community members suggested that recordings of talks at DEFCON conferences/presentation slides from the talks when a/v recording isn't available(the files are usually hosted by DEFCON or DEFCON Villages, so you know for sure that the slides are legit) that cover the history of 3301 could be an acceptable secondary source. There are currently 3 separate talks that were either approved by DEFCON as a main track talk, or by the Crypto & Privacy Village at DEFCON in previous years that cover the history of 3301 and cultural impact to varying degrees. DEFCON is a world-renowned hacking and cybersecurity conference hosted every year(except when its cancelled), with both the DEFCON main track and Crypto & Privacy Village talks being subject to review and revision before being accepted. Would these be acceptable as reliable, secondary sources? Ctvrty (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say conference proceedings can be acceptable sources, but it depends on who gave the talk, the extent to which the proceedings were published, and other factors. Editors more familiar with the subject area would be better positioned to answer than me. Feel free to try using them as sources and see how others watching the article react to it. If you're confident that the information belongs in the article, then including it with some source is always better than doing so with no source. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! I figured it might be a bit nuanced, but I'll still give it a try. Thank you so much for your help! Ctvrty (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Need help with my drafts

Hi,I have made 3 pages that already exist in the Turkish Wiki so these are translations but they are quite different from the original (Draft:Erenköy, Kadıköy, Draft:Göztepe Park, Draft:Caddebostan, Kadıköy). I am slowly improving them and the best one out of the three is the Caddebostan article with over 20 sources. Is it possible for experienced editors to give me advice on these drafts and how can I improve them? It would be an honor for me to get an article published. Thank you. Youprayteas (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)youprayteas

@Youprayteas, I went through the drafts and made various cleanups. I'd suggest looking in the revision history to see what I've done. The biggest issue is establishing the notability of the neighborhoods (WP:POPULATED), which needs to be done through in-depth sourcing. The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity. It's okay if these sources are not in English, but we're looking for media coverage (or, even better, scholarly books). The other thing I'd pay attention to is WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. We don't want a Wikivoyage travel guide, but rather an encyclopedia article, and things like a destination list or overly detailed description of which bus lines run through a neighborhood are questionable. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I established the notability of Caddebostan and Erenköy through the sources. I added the bus lines because it was also on the Turkish version. Youprayteas (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas, editorial standards differ between different language editions of Wikipedia. The fact that the neighborhoods are considered notable for Turkish Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they will be here. Likewise, the bus lines being appropriate to add there doesn't mean they necessarily will be here. I would look to high-quality examples of articles about places to see what we're aiming toward. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: shouldn’t all legally declared neighborhoods have an article, no matter how small? Less is better than none, I presume. Youprayteas (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We are pretty strict about WP:Notability here compared to other language editions of Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I just read the changes and thank you for your help. I would like to ask you, do you think my Caddebostan article is ready for being an article? I have multiple sources declaring Caddebostan is a neighborhood. The other ones are work in progresses. Youprayteas (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas, that's for the reviewer to say, not me. Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The first source is used in literally every neighborhood article in Turkey so I would definetly include that. The second source is for the km2. The third source is for the population and the list of neighborhoods in Kadıköy. The 8th and 9th sources are for the history. The 12nd source is for the Barlar Street which isn't mentioned on the other sources. The 14th article is probably the most inclusive for destinations in Caddebostan. 19th source is needed for the mansion being sold. The 21st (last, for now) article is for the Göztepe Park. So in summary these 9 sources are enough. I wanted there to be as much references as possible because I really want this article to get published, since Caddebostan is a very notable neighborhood. Youprayteas (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Youprayteas, you say "I wanted there to be as much references as possible"; but Sdkb has already commented on this: "The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity." Sdkb asked you "Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article?" Please answer these questions. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas Vis a vis notability of "legally declared neighborhoods", WP:Notability (geographic features) addresses this. (Well, I"m not even sure that we generally have "legally declared neighborhoods" in the U.S. Typically, we have plat books which may name subdivisions and the like, but I'm doubtful that meets this criterion.

George Van Driem's Source for Maghrebi Mint Tea History

Hi there! I'm here because my edit on Maghrebi mint tea got undone. The reason given by the user was that the source's author, George Van Driem, is a linguist, not a historian. However, considering George's specialization in historical linguistics and his book "The Tale of Tea: A Comprehensive History of Tea from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day" delving into tea's history from prehistoric times, should his source still be excluded from the history section? Thanks! MoroccanTeaEnjoyer (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

MoroccanTeaEnjoyer, since the book has received positive reviews, such as this one in an academic journal, and I have found no negative reviews, I think the book should be considered a reliable source. Many academics branch out from their original field of study and do excellent work in related fields. The best place for a source analysis, though, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cullen. Your answer was helpful. MoroccanTeaEnjoyer (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding "Democratic School" and editing "Democratic Education" accordingly

Hi Everyone,

I'd like to improve the article democratic education and have read in the Talk article discussion that the article should be split into Democratic School and Democratic Education, with a new definition for the latter. I wrote a draft for the new "Democratic School" article here in my Sandbox ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Altiflash/sandbox ) and also recommended a few changes for Democratic Education. However, I wouldn't want to delete the parts from "Democratic Education" that I adopted into the Democratic School article until the "Democratic School" article has been reviewed and approved. If I publish "Democratic School" now, though, there may be criticism that the topic is already covered by "Democratic Education". What do you recommend I do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/About Altiflash (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Altiflash: What I suggest you do is create the new article, using only material you pull out from the original article. Then, add any additional material. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

photograph on the Wikipedia page for Kathy Ellis

The photograph on the Wikipedia page for Kathy Ellis, swimmer, is incorrect, the photo is of Donna deVarona, not Kathy Ellis. 2601:805:C100:ADA0:156A:FB3C:E694:E76B (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I looked at the original image, and it seems like it is Kathy Ellis. The image on Wikipedia is just a cropped version of the image. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 23:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the poster is correct. The original says "Caption ...Donna deVarona, left, individual medley, and Cathy Ellis, freestyle, pose prettily." But the displayed photo is mirrored, for example seen by a mirrored "EXIT" in the right side. I guess the caption was made for the correct orientation. Compare also to other photos of Donna deVarona and Kathy Ellis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and to PrimeHunter for the further research. I have removed the photo from the Kathy Ellis article, citing this conversation in the edit summary. Pinging Holly Cheng, who uploaded File:Donna de Varona and Kathy Ellis.jpg and extracted File:Kathy Ellis, 1964.jpg. GoingBatty (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This happens occasionally with photos in the UCLA archive. I'll fix it. —holly {chat} 02:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Standards for meeting validity bar on new pages

Hi, I've created two pages that I though had enough third party references to meet the criteria for a page on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DFJ_Growth and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Randy_Glein. I'm not being paid, but doing to help DFJ (I have done some paid work for some of the companies in their portfolio) and to learn more about the Wikipedia ecosystem. How much more third party validity to these pages need or is there something else? they are both factually accurate, Randy Glein is a well known and important person in the venture community and DFJ has evolved into DFJ Growth and Threshhold Ventures (you can see this on DFJ.com). thank you! Scottfasser (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scottfasser The issue is not factual accuracy (that's at WP:V), it's notability (WP:N). You need to show that these are notable people/things in the way that Wikipedia defines notability ("he is well known in the venture community" is a good indicator that someone might be notable, but that's all). You need to show that your topics have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Guys!

Toothy Was Voiced By Dean MacDonald In Banjo Frenzy (Happy Tree Friends) Helpmechoosehappytf (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Helpmechoosehappytf: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have a suggestion to improve an article, and don't want to change it yourself, please start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Edits not showing up

Hi, I recently tried to make an edit on the page Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom, giving more info on the Kingdom of Hungary. I made my edits, hit publish, got the little pop-up saying "Your edits have been published," scrolled down, and they weren't there? I then went back in to the edit page to see if something went wrong, and maybe re-do my edits, but my edits did show up on the editing page - they just wouldn't show up on the article page. Does anyone know what's going on? Thanks, Rj1255 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

hi @Rj1255 and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to the Kingdom of Hungary entry? it didn't display due to some errors with the table. in a table, |- denotes a split in the row of a table, and since your entry was after a |-, the code parser thought it was just a row break instead of a full entry which meant it did not display. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thank you. Yes, that was the one. I am new to this and was trying to imitate the layout of other entries. It worked for a couple entries but I guess I made a mistake on that one. Thanks a lot! Rj1255 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)