Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

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 answer the "second sandbox" question, I don't really see why you would want to, but yes, you could make a sub-page for a second sandbox. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Buddy Holly) 14:54, 22 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)

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)

Thank you PrimeHunter. I prefer that when I hover over links, then image is visible. So I would try to add portraits with min 210 x 250px. One more question. Why on hovering over Manushi Chhillar show her signature, and not the portrait image? Portrait is the first image in infobox, and clearly larger than min required size -- Parnaval (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parnaval: The preview feature can only display an image if it has been selected as the page image by another feature mw:Extension:PageImages. A page can only have one page image and many pages have none. mw:Extension:PageImages#How are images scored? says:

• The ratio of the image's width to height is considered $wgPageImagesScores['ratio']
  • On Wikimedia wikis a ratio of 0.4 to 3.1 is allowed, with 0.6 to 2.1 preferred.

File:A Presidente do FUSSESP Lucia França recebe a Miss Mundo, Manushi Chhilar (41430422792) (cropped).jpg has ratio 445/780 = 0.57, so it's allowed but not preferred. The signature is in the preferred interval. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have disallowed the signature.[1] The portrait is now the page image and displayed in the preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok understood. Thank You! -- Parnaval (talk) 06:19, 23 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)

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)

Thank you. I will use the name of the channel for the article then. CanonNi (talk) 02:41, 22 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)

@Tusharhero, I also see this statistic. If I tap and hold on the indicator, an explanation pops up saying, "Based on how many times one of your contriburions was reverted (undone by another editor). Reverted edits: 0."

I think it must be only looking at your most recent edits for the count. The Wikipedia app is FLOSS, so you could look at the source code to confirm. --Habst (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

--Habst (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks. Tusharhero (talk) 13:50, 22 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)

@Samchristie05: Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe you're asking us whether the number of references in the article You Were Only Fooling (an album by Vic Damone) is greater than those in other articles you have created. According to this report you have created 42 articles - congratulations! You can use the report to compare number of references in each article.

In the future, providing a link to the article you're asking about will help other editors understand your question and provide a quicker answer. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 22 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) 02:49, 22 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)

It is impossible to choose 3 sources. I need at least 9-10 sources or the information will be unsourced. Youprayteas (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not asking you to remove the other sources from the article. But establishing notability is separate from ensuring information in the article is sourced. We want sources that establish notability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My sources establish notability though. Youprayteas (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

to reply to your second comment. I added five sources legally recognizing Caddebostan's neighborhood-ity. The first source is used in literally all subdivisions of Turkey and it is a database where you can search for legal divisions. I thought it as enough. but everyone kept saying we have no proof this is a real neighborhood even though it is and you can see from the references so I added 5 references just to prove that Caddebostan exists. I think it is unnecesarry too but eh. Youprayteas (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No one is doubting that the neighborhood is real. But again, that's separate from establishing notability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Caddebostan and Erenköy are notable enough for Wikipedia. They are redlinked in some places too, as I checked. I listed many attractions about the neighborhood and overall it is notable because there are plenty of sources about it too. Youprayteas (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Erenköy article is a work in progress though so don't review that one but I think Draft:Caddebostan, Kadıköy has importance regarding Wikipedia and is notable enough Youprayteas (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To further add to your second comment, the population of Caddebostan is over 21 thousand. There are many countries below this population, for example. I am not mentioning Erenköy because it is a work in progress, but it has over 30k which is incredibly a lot. Youprayteas (talk) 06:15, 22 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Hmm, the tool server seems to be down, so I can't redo the Kathy Ellis pic via CropTool, but I'll get it when it's available again. —holly {chat} 17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This is fixed now. Thanks! —holly {chat} 18:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Good detectiving! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 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)

Thank you @Asilvering - I'll build in more notability references. Is there a standard or just what the editing community feels is sufficient? Scottfasser (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scottfasser: There are guidelines for determining sufficient notability–the primary one being the General Notability Guideline, but others exist. It looks like you're writing about an organization and a person; consider consulting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Three independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject are generally necessary for drafts to be approved, and I do not see a basis for utilizing any particular exemptions to this standard in either case here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:16, 23 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)

For the curious: Happy Tree Friends mentions Toothy (a cartoon beaver) voiced by Warren Graff. The History section does mention Banjo Frenzy as in effect a pilot episode in which Toothy and two others are killed by being hit with a banjo. Characters are maimed/killed in every episode, but appear unharmed in subsequent episodes (to again be maimed/killed). Dean MacDonald is not named as a voice provider for any other character. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 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)

Media bias

Is there any place in Wikipedia where we can discuss media bias of popular newspapers and news channels, where many experienced editors can discuss and come to a conclusion? Nightingagleyt (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If I am interpreting your question correctly, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (for sources that are commonly used) are the closest pages you are going to get to Wikipedians assessing source bias and reliability. Hope that helps! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I know about reliable sources. My doubt is about bias among reliable sources. CNN, BBC are reliable sources. Example-In any Argentina political issue they are supporting one party while locals who read Argentina newspaper know that politicians from both parties are corrupt and violent. Nightingagleyt (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

While the linked articles do discuss bias a bit, it doesn't go in to too much depth about bias. To my knowledge (I could be totally wrong), there is no dedicated noticeboard for bias only. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No Control (1927 film)

i added a "distinguish" notice near the top of this page, I can't quite figure out the formatting around the brackets "[[]]" that allow for the wikilink of No control (2015 film) but also permit the added annotated text that I included. please help me fix this please. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

With the distinguish template, you don't need to add the wikilink brackets. The template does that itself, so you should remove the wikilink brackets you added. Hope that helps! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

no that doesn't fix it. please look at this page and see what i mean. it breaks the annotated subsequent text if i remove the brackets as you advised. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

See: No Control (1927 film) Iljhgtn (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: To resolve the issue, I replaced {{Distinguish}} with {{for}}. You could have also used {{Distinguish}} with |text= to do something like this:

{{Distinguish|text=[[No Control (2015 film)]], a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States}}

which would generate:

Not to be confused with No Control (2015 film), a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States.

GoingBatty (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

ok so pipe text was what was needed. thank you goingbatty Iljhgtn (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: I didn't know how to make {{Distinguish}} work either until I read the documentation at Template:Distinguish. GoingBatty (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

user 98Tigerius imposes his will

user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. all the changes I made were based on credible sources AGB Nielsen website on Korean drama page but he changed my changes after that he made changes as he pleased Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you see that the two of you are following the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discussing this on the article's talk page: Talk:Korean drama. That's the best place to come to a consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Babel for WikiProject Userboxes?

Hi. I recently joined several WikiProjects but can't find a template to organize them on my user page. Is there a template like Babel that I can use for WP Userboxes? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: Using {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} together will likely do what you're looking for – see the documentation page of {{userboxtop}} for all the details. Tollens (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: When you visit the user pages of other users and like their layout, you can click "Edit source" to see how they formatted their page. I've copied code from other users, pasted it on my user page, and then played around with it until it was something I liked. GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User made information

I have read through all the guidelines(I could find) of Wikipedia and as user made information becomes more prevalent I imagine there must be some way user made information(e.g Youtube) may be used if confirmed by numerous sources. I will accept a simple yes or no. Sputnik274 (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sputnik274: If confirmed by numerous reliable sources, just use those sources instead. User-generated sources are nearly always not suitable for use in any article. If all of the numerous sources you're referring to are also user-generated, the material should not be used. See WP:USERGENERATED. Tollens (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a solution, thanks. Sputnik274 (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sputnik274, there is no simple yes or no answer. Sorry. The vast majority of YouTube videos are of no value as references because they do not comply with our policies in a variety of ways. On the other hand, the small percentage of YouTube videos on the official channels of established reliable sources are also reliable sources. It is your obligation to personally verify the reliability of any source you plan to use on Wikipedia, whether it is a video or anything else. Cullen328 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Way to know source is blacklisted beforehand

It seems to me that there is no way to see a source is blacklisted, other than if it seems false. Which is not good for one's own time nor effort. It would help greatly to see a source is blacklisted immediately. I also find no guideline for this myself despite my searches through the pages. Thank you. Sputnik274 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sputnik274: You are likely looking for WP:RSP. Tollens (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sputnik274 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sputnik274, one of the most important skills of a Wikipedia editor is the ability to assess the reliability of a potential source on your own without asking. Who is the publisher and what is the publisher's reputation? Who are the members of their editorial team and what is their editorial policy? What is the reputation of the specific source, and have they won major journalistic awards or have they been consistently criticized for false reporting? These are only a handful of the questions that should run through your mind when evaluating the reliability of a source. You cannot ask about every single source. You must make judgments on your own most of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That definetly does clears things up for me, thank you. Sputnik274 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I add an Old Boy to the list of Alumni at St Bees in Cumbria

How do I add to the list? Gnidwod (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:ALUMNI. People should only be added if there is a Wikipedia article about them. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

...just to add that it may be OK to add a name of an alumnus if there isn't an article about them, but only if one or more citations are added after their entry. This is both to prove that they did indeed attend that school or college and to demonstrate that they do meet our Notability Criteria. In that case, it is OK to add them as a REDLINK in the expectation that there will be an article about them in due course. However, no suitable citations; no entry on the list! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Gnidwod, it is always optimal to mention the specific article that you are talking about, since we have 6,773,292 of them, and no human can possibly remember all of them. After searching around, I am guessing that you are talking about List of Old St. Beghians. Please let us know if it is another article. Briefly, if the Wikipedia biography of a notable person verifies that they attended St Bees School, then add them to that list article. If the person is not the subject of a Wikipedia article, then either write an acceptable Wikipedia biography first, or add references verifying their notability, or don't add them to that list at all. After all, the school has been around for 440 years, and it would be inappropriate and of no value to try to list everyone who ever attended. We list only notable alumni, which in effect means that they are the subject of a Wikipedia biography in most cases. While you are at it, you could alphabetize that list. That would be useful. Cullen328 (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the list has an existing order (note the parenthetical "by order of birth date" in the heading), rearranging it alphabetically could be a controversial move, requiring prior discussion on the talk page. Deor (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

How to add books in someone's Wikipedia biography authored by the person in the biography? I want to know so that, I can fix the bibliography section of biography pages! TheProEditor11 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11 It depends on how many entries you want to cover. For example, J. K. Rowling has a large table, where other authors have a simple bulleted list (e.g. Coral Bell). There is no reason to include absolutely everything someone published: a "selected publications" list is fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I know it but how can I cite those selected books in a correct form? TheProEditor11 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11, there are citation templates you can use. I believe the relevant one here would be a template like {{Cite book}} which you can use to format these references. a general and in-depth guide to referencing can also be viewed at Citing sources. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!!!!!! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that in this case you would put the {{cite book}} directly after a bullet (*), without any <ref> tages around it, so it will be part of the main text and not included in the footnotes/references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will make it sure! Thnx! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Where to put commas and dots

If I have a reference in the end of the sentence or phrase, should I put it after comma/dot or before?

For example: ...was established on October 30, 1923[1], to the 32nd Government...
or
...was established on October 30, 1923,[1] to the 32nd Government...
Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I recommend doing it before a comma or period. User:Cometkeiko — Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aredoros87 WP:REF gives the full guidelines, from which you can see that references always come after punctuation. @Cometkeiko please don't comment here at the Teahouse if you don't know the correct guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ll see. Cometkeiko (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, got it. Cometkeiko (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember there were articles who added references before commas and periods? Cometkeiko (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cometkeiko: You may see some articles where editors have incorrectly added references before commas and periods. Feel free to fix them when you see them. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen this specific typo/guideline get fixed by bots before. Is it possible to make a direct request for a bot to make this fix on a specific page? Do you know which bots can do it? Reconrabbit 18:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

So the first example is wrong and the second is correct?

(Eg. The dog crossed the road.)

(Eg. The girl patted her cat.) Cometkeiko (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Publishing Article - EBTRON

Hello. I can not seem to figure out how to publish this article. I moved it out of my sandbox - by hitting "Move" (article). Lisahickey (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

hi @Lisahickey and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to Lisahickey/sandbox? firstly, that article is currently named that instead of EBTRON, which you can edit by moving the page again to a different title. however, instead of that I recommend you to go through the Articles for creation process (instead of publishing the page immediately) by moving the article back to User and following the steps in that page, since they could provide you with more advice to improve your article. editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lisahickey According to your contribution history you have moved things around a bit an ended up with Lisahickey/sandbox in article space. As a new user and one that is a declared paid editor (thanks for the declaration) you should not move drafts into the main encyclopaedia but should use the WP:AfC process: see that link for the details. A brief look tells me that there are all sorts of problems with your draft and it is likely to be speedily deleted if you don't follow our accepted process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It was moved to EBTRON and I have tagged for speedy deletion, you need to go through the WP:AFC process. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is all a bit foreign to me. I had seen that other companies are listed in Wikipedia and wanted to get EBTRON listed. I did read the article links. I thought I removed the company promotion copy. Not sure what you mean by paid editor? Lisahickey (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lisahickey Sorry, I noticed that you had declared a WP:COI and I just assumed this was because you were employed by or an intern with EBTRON. The requirements to use the WP:AfC process is advised in any case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Please help me rewrite.

Help me with this caution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnoppix Tumrabert (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC) asdas

@Tumrabert: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see the article has been moved to Draft:Gnoppix. As stated at the top of the draft, all the sources are primary sources, and Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources. If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (software). Then, gather multiple sources that meet the four criteria listed at the top of your draft: "(1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth." (Click the links at the top of the draft for more information about each criteria.) Then rewrite your draft based on what the independent sources have written. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gnoppix Speedy deleted (again!) and Tumrabert indefinitely blocked. User:Gnoppix also indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion

Via my article on this page.

Link to article:Gnoppix - Wikipedia

Please help me with any suggestions.(rewrite,appeal etc.)

Wikipedia shown that

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion. This criterion also does not apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so. See CSD G11.

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:db-spam-notice|Gnoppix|header=1}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this article should not be deleted.

If you have already posted to the talk page but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.

Tumrabert (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tumrabert, and welcome to the teahouse.

As the notice says, you can context the speedy deletion by picking the button. But reading the article, the first paragraph is entirely promotional.

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.

An article should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say, but not one of the sources you've cited is independent. Please read about notability, and your first article.

A more general suggestion: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tumrabert: I have moved your article to draft space (Draft:Gnoppix) to give you time to improve it before submitting it for review. In draft space, you don't need to worry about someone coming along and deleting it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist I think the history of the numerous attempts to create this article has gone beyond a joke. Content was not only highly promotional, but also only sourced to Gnoppix-related sites. I have therefore WP:SALTed the article, meaning it will require administrator approval should anyone wish to create it in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles can be speedily deleted for a variety of different reasons, including the ones you mentioned. It is customary to place a notice on pages that have been nominated for speedily deletion while also notifying the creator of a nominated page. Speedy deletion is used to bypass the longer process of voting on whether or not to delete an article. Ishitomo (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gnoppix Speedy deleted (again!) and Tumrabert indefinitely blocked. User:Gnoppix also indefinitely blocked. Both for advertising/promotional. Sockpuppeting possible, but not raised as a blocking cause. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD: This seems wrong. User:Gnoppix is a very old account with no edits in 11 years (it created the mainspace article Gnoppix then) and there was no need to block it. The article was created in mainspace even before then, and prod-deleted and restored. For some reason Tumrabert, a fairly new account created last October, moved it all over the place between draft, main space, and User:Gnoppix for some reason. I attempted to clean up the mess, deleting the user page, moving the main space version back to draft.

While it was in main space, it was tagged for G11 speedy deletion and administrator User:Sj declined it, so it was ineligible for G11 speedy deletion again, but User:Theroadislong, who shouldn't have reversed Sj's administrative decision without prior discussion, deleted it.

And Tumrabert was deleted as an advertising-only account by User:HJ Mitchell when it seems to me like overkill given the history here.

What a mess. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Minor Linux distros are generally a mess. (Gnoppix these days is built on Kali Linux, a significantly more notable distro, which article is nevertheless only slightly more contentful.) Salting seems fine here, I didn't see the history of title-dancing (+ on closer look there really are no modern sources to be found). – SJ + 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note Anachronist I did not delete anything I am not an admin, I tagged Draft:Gnoppix for deletion and reported User:Gnoppix in good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist Gnoppix is not an acceptable username in any case per WP:ISU and WP:ORGNAME. Polyamorph (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Apologies, you are correct. It was User:Bbb23 who should have noticed Sj's prior decline of a G11 deletion tag.

@Polyamorph: Yes, it's a violation of the username policy, but abandoned accounts need not be blocked. No harm in doing so, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing a co workers page

Hi! I work at a music studio and a couple people that I work with want me to edit their Wikipedia's but when I tried in the past it either didn't save it or told me that if I tried doing it again it would delete their page. How can I edit it without any of those things happening? 38.142.212.186 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should review the conflict of interest policy and how to make edit requests if you intend to contribute about co-workers. If you are doing so as part of your job duties, the Terms of Use require you to declare as a paid editor. These things are easier to do with an account, but you must do them even if you choose to not create an account. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking.

Please note that, as a colleague, you have a conflict of interest, and as you are employed there, you almost certainly count as a paid editor, even if you are not specifically employed to edit Wikipedia.

You must make a formal declaration of your status, and then you may make edit requests for changes to articles where you have a conflict of interest.

Please remember that Wikipedia's articles about your colleagues do not belong to them, are not controlled by them, and will not necessarily say what they want them to say. If you provide independent, reliably published sources| for any information you want to add, then it is likely that whichever volunteer editor deals with your edit request will carry it out. But if the material you want to add is at all promotional, or is not adequately sourced, then it will not be inserted into the article. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You cannot edit your coworkers page because you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia takes combating promotional editing very seriously and if you persist, you will likely be blocked. Ishitomo (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Professor Mary Mellor

Mary Mellor – UK sociologist who moved to ecofeminist ideas from an interest in cooperatives. Her books Breaking the Boundaries and Feminism and Ecology are grounded in a materialist analysis.[citation needed]

This is part of a post on econofeminism. I would like to create a page for Professor Mary Mellor, can you help? 2A02:C7C:7A06:5400:D88A:556D:ACEB:979E (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, @2A02:C7C:7A06:5400:D88A:556D:ACEB:979E: you should read Help:Your first article. It will tell you everything you need to know about creating an article. If you have a WP:COI with the subject, you should disclose it, and also make sure it follows our notability guidelines. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Signing up for an account is recommended but not required. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! 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) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You should create an account, make ten edits, and wait four days. After that, you will be able to create articles without going through the review process. Note that your article will still be reviewed by patrollers gunning for adminship, hoping to boost their AfD and CSD stats. To give your article a better chance of surviving this process, make sure it has a lot of sources to make the subject appear notable. Ishitomo (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Template removal question

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: If an expansion template on an article is there, but upon research there is no reliable sources for citation/ expansion on the topic, how should one proceed in regards to the template? Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: welcome to the teahouse! I would suggest leaving it there, because who knows, maybe a reliable source will pop up one day, or is already there. Also, can you show me where you saw this? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see it anywhere in particular, just in general. Thanks! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: Welcome to the Teahouse! You have several options:

• Do nothing, as someone else may find sources you cannot (such as offline sources)
• Discuss the issue on the article talk page, explaining the details of where you researched
• If there are not enough reliable sources to keep it as an article, consider the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process (especially WP:BEFORE)
• If there are enough reliable sources to keep it as an article, remove the template and the unsourced information (with descriptive edit summaries)

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's another thing- I'm sure that there's no perfect solution to this problem, but I've found that talk page visibility has been low- I don't believe that I've gotten any responses from questions there yet. I know that this is what project pages are for, but I've only gotten a reply once there in the 5-7ish times I've tried that. Should I come here in that scenario? Anyways, thanks Batty. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: If no one responds to your article talk page conversation, you can invite editors involved in a related WikiProject to the conversation. GoingBatty (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Templates can be added to articles to notify readers of any problems the article has or any maintenance it may need. There are many different kinds of templates, which have different appearances depending on how you are accessing Wikipedia. If you want to change the appearance of templates, try adjusting your settings and reconfiguring your browser firewall. Ishitomo (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Finding low-importance articles marked with advert template

Hello! I saw a page recently that read like an article and had little encyclopedic value, in my opinion. I've marked that one for deletion, but I think there are likely a lot of articles like it. Mainly low-importance articles, or articles not part of a wikiproject. I figured out how to use deepcats to search for low importance articles with the advert template, but the search errored because there were too many categories. Is there a way to look through a subset of the results at a time to avoid that error?

My goal right now is to mark pages for deletion that have little to no encyclopedic value or relevance at present, not to revise larger, more relevant articles that happen to have some content that reads as an advert. From my experience using Wikipedia just as a reader, I've seen quite a few that don't seem to have much use for Wikipedia, and seem to exist only as an attempt to say "we have a Wikipedia article!". Written either by the subject of the article or by a fan or PR person.

So I want to look for articles that are more likely to be spam/adverts in their entirety so that I can mark them for deletion, without having to sort through as many articles that are more appropriate for a rewrite or revision. Dvallin (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but unless you download the database yourself and devise your own search to combine Category:Articles with a promotional tone with low-importance assessments, there isn't really a good way to search for what you want.

One approach would simply to be go through the articles in that category, improving or tagging as you go. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty in finding those articles that exist solely as advertisements that haven't been deleted already is that they probably are out there with little to no maintenance tags on them. Anachronist has pointed out the most straightforward way of finding what you're looking for. It may do some good to limit your search to articles that are start-class, stub-class, or unassessed. Reconrabbit 18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dvallin: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could try reviewing those articles where you have an instance and/or knowledge. You could try adding another category to deepcats, such as Category:Software and its subcategories. Another option is the Cleanup listing for WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force report bundles articles by templates on the articles. Hope these help, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There are many ways to do this on Wikipedia, mainly by searching through projects where these things are curated. Your best bet is to post your question at WP:ANI or another noticeboard such as WT:ACN. Ishitomo (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding contributions to top navigation bar?

Currently the buttons at the top of the screen (when scrolled all the way up) are alerts, notifications, watchlist, then a dropdown with more options. I'd like to add contributions to the list so I don't have to navigate through the dropdown each time. I know it's something to do with css but I have no experience with it, and I'd like someone to provide me with the code to do so, if it is possible. Redoct87 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Redoct87, welcome to the Teahouse. Saving the below in Special:MyPage/vector-2022.js should add a new link on "C" when you have the skin Vector 2022 at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It works, thanks! Redoct87 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The top navigation bar can be customized to include a number of user specific interface options that account for run time variability in nested virtual algorithms. Simply reset your data input formatting to synchronize processing speed. Ishitomo (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-vector-user-menu-overflow',
    mw.util.getUrl( 'Special:Contributions/Redoct87' ),
    'C',
    null,
    'Contributions'
  );
});

Draft: Dr. Mynampally Rohit

Hi, could you please tell me which citation is not reliable in this article?

I cited everything. am not sure what am i missing here to make the article public. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Draft:Mynampally Rohit. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying, i will remove the awards and put it under general information.'

  The doctor is a known personality in my community. As the youngest member of legislative assembly i would like to contribute his article on Wikipedia. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Nishikanthprabhu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you what your connection is with this doctor, as you took his picture and he posed for you.

Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. None of the sources you have do that. The award does not contribute to notability as the awards itself does not merit an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, i will remove the awards and put it under general information.'

The doctor is a known personality in my community. As the youngest member of legislative assembly i would like to contribute his article on Wikipedia. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

None of the citations you provided meet WP:RS criteria, indicating that the subject of your article isn’t notable. Ishitomo (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with notability guidelines on companies

Hello all, I am working on creating a draft about a online casino, Gamdom. I notice that there are a lot of independant, popular sources in both the news and casino news space that report on it, though I just have a bad feeling it's not notable enough (although it is promoted quite a lot on user-created content websites such as YouTube, and several sponsorships are/were active with them). Could I get some advice on that all? OnlyNano 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@OnlyNano: Check out WP:NCORP for the guidance on this. RudolfRed (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! OnlyNano 21:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OnlyNano. I would have major doubts about the reliability and independence of sources in the casino news space. As WP:NCORP says, Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, would you mind checking on the draft's sources and letting me know if I need additional ones? Yahoo Finance reported on their partnership with Usain Bolt, which I would say is pretty big for information. The others are either primary sources (about their legalization, etc), and independent sources (such as HLTV, a CS:GO news source) reported on a tournament they sponsored. It's seeming to be a bit more notable as I go, though I'd love other editor's input on this. Thanks! (Draft) OnlyNano 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OnlyNano. Just answering one point: no, their partnership with Usain Bolt is not, of itself, of any great significance. If the article about the partnership talks in some depth about the company (and is not just regurgitating a press release) then it might be useful. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article does talk about what Gamdom is. I have found some other interesting sources which describe it, and the founder is an editor of CoinTelegraph, which provides some background information on the company's foundings. I believe the sources should be good, but I'm going to find a bunch more to beef up the information and notability, as I do believe the company is quite notable. We'll see how it goes, though. OnlyNano 22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, Liquipedia is user generated content so not a reliable source. Yahoo Finance is a reprint of a press release so not an independent source. You need references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the company. So far, you don't have any. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep digging! OnlyNano 23:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yahoo Finance is a content aggregator. In most cases what you find there will be a repost of content from elsewhere. In the case of the cite you are using, it is a reposted press release. Press releases about Gamdom will be written by Gamdon's PR staff. They are not independent, so they cannot be used to build the case for notability. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You are strongly encouraged to disclose any potential conflict of interest you may have with the company article you intend to edit. Failure to do so may result in a COI investigation. Ishitomo (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Great advice, thanks! OnlyNano 15:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User boxes (the continuation)

hi everyone! I know this question has been asked before but I'll say it again how do you make a User box? Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Help:Userbox Maker Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Big scary floating text!! (Talk Page btw))} 21:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Tone accents in Chinese pinyin:

Tone accents in Chinese pinyin: The idea I propose is to add the tonal accents in the Latin alphabet (pinyin) used to transcribe Chinese. There are 4 tonal accents. Please consider making it a rule when using pinyin Chinese so as to convey that Chinese is a tonal language. 2603:7000:4300:DBE:7C7D:9C01:EA30:A2C4 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The policy is stated at MOS:CHINA#Romanization: English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default method of romanising Chinese characters, and at WP:NC-CHINA#Orthography: The titles of Chinese entries should follow current academic conventions, which generally means Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks.

These policies are established by consensus, and you are welcome to try and argue to change the consensus, but I don't think you'll have much success. The place to discuss this is the talk page of one of those, probably WT:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles. Please search this and its archives first, to see if there are any previous discussions on the question. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Making an article "Aziz Alili" in Bosnian

Hello, I started making the article "Aziz Alili" in my Bosnian language, after seeing no such article in Bosnian or English. Only just now have I found that the article does indeed exist in the sq.wiki domain (don't know the language). It is a fairly small article while I wanted to do a medium sized article about it. Now I'm wondering if I should translate that article or just make it anew in Bosnian like I have already started. Thanks a lot in advance. A flurry of stars (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, A flurry of stars. Each language version of Wikipedia operates independently, so we cannot give you detailed advice about the Bosnian Wikipedia. You will have to ask there. Any articles created here must be in English. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A flurry of stars. That is Albanian Wikipedia and the article is sourced to a single database entry which does not exist. It would be unwise simply to translate it into English. We have pretty tough criteria for notability (see WP:NBIO), and require good, reliable sources as the basis from which you should write any content (not vice versa).

Because this is English Wikipedia, it is not the right place to start drafting any article in another language. You should do that on the relevant language Wikipedia. Again, base what you write on published sources, not a translation of (potentially) nonsense that you might read on any Wikipedia page.

For English Wikipedia see this page for guidance on creating an article from scratch (never an easy task, especially for a beginner). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, I appreciate the help. Cheers A flurry of stars (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about COI

Ruth Ashton Taylor was my grandmother-in-law. Am I allowed to edit her page? I did so before realizing I should ask first. Sorry. Thanks, Nirva20 Nirva20 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but my interpretation of WP:CoI is that you probably do have a "conflict of interest" (given that she was a relative by marriage whom presumably you knew personally).

That doesn't mean you must not edit the article, but you should declare this COI on your User page (which you haven't created yet, but that is trivially easy – just click on your red signature name and type something to start it).

You also must ensure that anything you add to the article is cited to published Reliable sources that are independent of her or her friends/family/associates. Doubtless you know a great deal about her, but unless the information has been published, and you cite its published source, you must not add it.

If there's something in the article you know to be false that is not cited, you may remove it: but if it's false and cited (maybe the published source made a mistake), you should discuss its removal on the article's Talk page, be prepared to have your removal reverted, and then discuss the matter with the reverter – this is called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and is a normal part of Wikipedia editing. It may be that we end up presenting information from two sources that disagree ("A says this, but B says this.") allowing readers to make up their own minds.

If you have an edit and citable source for something but are hesitant about editing the article with it, present it as a proposal on the Talk page and add an Edit request template so another more experienced editor can evaluate it and make it if they think it's appropriate.

Please click through all of the blue links I've included above and at least skim the material they lead to. Hope this helps, and happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nirva20: As an editor with a conflict of interest, your best approach is to propose any substantive changes on the article talk page. You can preface your proposal with the tag {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page that is monitored by some editors.

Generally, you can edit the article yourself to make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, names, dates, and numbers. You can add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the article topic. You can revert obvious vandalism. But anything more substantive, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Burns and Porter

Burns and Porter ARTICLE was written by the subject, Sharon Burns 3MRB1 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@3MRB1: And your point is? I note that the article was created over a dozen years ago, back in 2011. Do you feel the topic isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article here? Do you see any evidence of non-neutral prose? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

needs OR & COI hatnotes. everything is unsubstantiated puffery. the only verifiable cites found occurred recently. isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article here the content should be merged with pub quiz. I use the wiki app and this cannot be done with it. 3MRB1 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

Can someone look up at my recent assessments made on the article talk pages. I would like to know if I am placing the class and importance parameters at the right place or not. And ensure that I am not missing anything to add. Thank you in advance. (Please ping when replying) 456legendtalk 23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@456legend I just spot-checked a few, looks fine. By the way, you can also use WP:RATER for this, if you would like an easier method. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, Thank you for the insights. This looks good but I need some time to understand the coding I believe. I will better do it manually for now. Thank you 456legendtalk 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@456legend Of course, feel free to do it manually, but I do want to point out that there's no coding (not even wikicode) involved with rater. All you need to do is copy this exact text:

{{subst:lusc|User:Evad37/rater.js}}

onto Special:MyPage/common.js. Once you hit "publish changes", everything else is done for you. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Okayy. I should have cared to read the entire content properly. Anyways thank you. 456legendtalk 01:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Proper way to cite online lecture slides

Hey everybody, I found an online PDF of some lecture slides presented at Johnson Spaceflight Center back in 2017, and I want to use it as a resource for the STS-41-B article. I'm not sure how I would cite it though, specifically with the CS1 Style Templates. Would it fall under {cite web} or is there a more specific template for lectures/presentations? Also, since this presentation was made and presented by and for NASA employees, would the images inside, which were presumably prepared by NASA employees, be in the public domain? SpacePod9 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SpacePod9. Perhaps Template:Cite conference might work for you. You are correct that text and images created by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties are in the public domain. This does not apply to all state and local governments. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SpacePod9. I tend to use "cite web", but see Template:Citation#Conference papers and public lectures for another way of doing it. As far as copyright, don't assume anything about who made the images. They could be using images from other sources. It would help if you provided a link to the source in question. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks y'all, this (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170002910/downloads/20170002910.pdf) is the link to the website/pdf/slides in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacePod9 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@SpacePod9: cool, we're below quota for good NASA sources :) NASA has a nicely structured reports server, which you could reference instead of the raw pdf. [2] – SJ + 06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Is an official transit map fair-use?

Hi! I'm working on this article on the REM de l'Est, a cancelled public transport project in Montreal, and I'm wondering if the official route map of the system could be considered fair use and usable in the article. Right now I've included a simple outline of the map that I made myself and it's obviously not great. I've noticed the New York City Subway page and other similar articles have maps but I'm a bit confused as to whether or not they're the official one or just really good recreations. Thanks for any help! WikiFouf (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, WikiFouf. Wikipedia's policy on using copyrighted images is much more restrictive than fair use. Please read the requirements at Non-free images. In most cases, we do not use copyrighted maps, because it is a relatively easy matter to create a freely licensed version. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks:) WikiFouf (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to add that copyright licenses can differ between transit agencies, and there is accurate transit mapping data out there that does fall under acceptable free use licenses. For example, in the United States, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics offers transit mapping data across the US that is licensed under CC-BY-3.0, which is an acceptable free license for Wikipedia. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my original answer was based on the assumption that the specific transit map in question is copyright protected. If it can be established through specific evidence that the map is in the public domain or is freely licensed, then what I said above about this specicic image does not apply. But it applies more broadly to images that are legitimately protected by copyright, which is a very low bar for anything published in recent decades. The bottom line is that we must assume that anything published in the last 95 years is copyright protected, unless we have solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

a new article

Hi, I'm working on an article and I don't seem to understand how that the reference isn't indepth as it was stated, I'd appreciate you help me figure it out Starheroine (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Starheroine, you need sources that comply with WP:NCORP. That means, among other things, that they need to be from WP:RS and they cannot be interviews. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Language issues with making a new article

Hello! I am a very new editor, and I wanted to try my hand at making a new wiki page. Some context: a wikipedia page about my grandfather (a hebrew scholar) is written in Spanish, I cannot fluently write wikipedia-worthy articles in Spanish however. I want to write the conjoining page for my grandmother, also a hebrew professor and author, but I am unsure if I am allowed to write her page in english. Thanks! Dryforester (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

hi @Dryforester and welcome to the Teahouse! an article doesn't need to be related to existing articles in English or non-English languages to be eligible for a page, however what it does require is that it falls under the notability criteria (with reliable sources to back up these claims), whether or not it is related to existing articles. however do note that since you are their grandchild, you also need to take note of the conflict of interest policy here (as you are related to them) before writing the article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

awesome! I will keep the conflict of interest policy in mind as I write :) They are both notable hebrew scholars with multiple published works and awards, I would not have thought wikipedia worthy, but I was doing a bit of googling for fun and found that a complete stranger had already made a page for one of them. My grandmother was just as accoladed and published as her husband, so I do not think notability will be a problem if his page has been kept up! Dryforester (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dryforester I didn't notice anybody providing a link to the COI page, so here it is: WP:COI. In very short summary, for existing articles, you should generally make a request on the article talk page for any edits to be made. For new articles, you should use the articles for creation process. Fabrickator (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sheesh, I now see that there was already a link to the COI page, though there's certainly no harm in mentioning it twice. ;-) Fabrickator (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dryforester. Please note that "notability" as Wikipedia uses the word is not quite the same as its usual meaning. Wikipedia is almost entirely concerned with what has been published about them (because that is what an article needs to be based on); what the person has done, said, written, created, are not of themselves relevant, unless they have been written about by independent commentators. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

large non-free file Tag

Hello, I recently uploaded a non-free promotional poster File:EXchange (Transit Love) Promotional Poster.webp for article EXchange (TV series). It got the tag large non-free file. Can anyone guide me to the correct help article about how to fix it? Thank you in advance! Shenaall (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shenaall: you can fix it by uploading a smaller version, like 320 pixels wide. My understanding, however, is that a bot comes along and does this eventually for large non-free images. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Shenaall, it is best that you downsize the file yourelf. That will show that you understand the standards imposed on non-free images. If an image is freely licensed or in the public domain, we want the most accurate and highest resolution version available. On the other hand, if the image is non-free, we quite deliberately want a low resolution version, as part of our ongoing efforts to comply with copyright laws. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unicode or… something?

Hello! I was wondering if anyone knows what the Unicode-like system is in which %20 represents a space character.

Thank you! 98.97.36.1 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Percent-encoding: it's mostly used just for URLs. Tollens (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Brunsviga

Good morning, I'd wrote an article above Brunsviga (brand of calculating machines), translating the page I made in French (with the help of translators). But I might have made some mistake, therefore the page is redirectd toward another page Odhner arithmometer : would it be possible, please, to make the page independent, I fear to make a mistake.

Best regards, Thémisté Thémisté (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Brunsviga

hi @Thémisté and welcome to the Teahouse! don't worry, if your article is accepted another editor will convert Brunsviga into the article for you through page moves. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Godd afternoon Melecie, thank you so much for your answer !

I'm going to withdraw the external links and, hopefully, the article which is a translation of my French one should be accepted. We'll see !

Best regards Thémisté Thémisté (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The conflicting "Archived from the original" and "[Original document] (archived)" formats

I'm using Wikipedia as a way to find scientific papers related to a topic such that my research is more effective.

I keep seeing an inconsistency concerning archives. For example:

"Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus". International Software Testing Qualifications Board. March 31, 2011. Section 1.1.2. Archived from the original (pdf) on October 28, 2017. Retrieved December 15, 2017.

vs

"ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018" (PDF). ISTQB - International Software Testing Qualifications Board. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-03-24. Retrieved 2022-04-11.

(from the same page - Software testing)

Happen to have very different formats. One puts the original first, and the second puts the archived first. When i'm clicking on links, this forces me to think a vital few seconds before each link, which can slow me down a lot when i need to quickly review, say, 40 sources, of which 20 are "need further investigation", and 10 are "Relevant to what i'm doing". I generally trust archived links over the original, so i prefer to link to those when it's easy.

Is there any reason for this disparity? It could be something to do with dead links, but as we all know, a lot of links haven't been checked in a while and are dead, despite having the primary, presumed "alive" link first. 56independent (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@56independent: It is indeed because of dead links. The first citation you've provided puts the original second, because it has been marked as dead, whereas the second puts the original first because it is still live. In both cases there isn't usually a need to visit anything but the first link. In theory WP:IABOT will automatically find dead links and tag them, but yes, not all of them are always tagged as dead immediately. No matter what the ordering is, there's extra work involved for somebody: if they are always in the same order, if someone is trying to read the most up-to-date version of the source they always have to check the first link (which may or may not be dead), but if they are reordered, that person can usually just click the first link. There's not really a perfect solution, and as far as I'm aware there's unfortunately no way to always display archived links first for a particular account. Tollens (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tollens With the archive web UI, it's simple to go forwards in time or visit the original site. Going to an archived version is a more involved process, especially if you don't have the broser extension with the "visit archived version" button. As such, it may be a better idea to always put the archived version first.

As for different display, i have an intresting idea. Using client-side JS scripting (which might be a bad idea), remove the HTML content of the citation and replace it with the user-preferred version. This is rather trivial given that this JS's niche. 56independent (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

What decides the article name for a building? Fame, Longevity, Newest Name and/or Common Name?

I've just been watching a documentary where Batley Variety Club as the Frontier makes a brief appearance, and it made me ask this question.

The building was known as Batley Variety Club from 1967-1978, so less than 11 years in total.

It then became the Frontier nightclub from some time in the early 80s, until it closed in 2016, so at least 30 years.

In 2017 it became a JD Gym, so around 7 years so far.

In my opinion, the article should be named Frontier Nightclub, Batley but how would I change that?

If more references calling it Frontier were added, would that be enough for a name change?

Or would Batley Variety Club name remain because it's apparently more famous, and attracted celebrities when it had that name? Danstarr69 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't post the same questin in multiple places, DanStarr69. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

ColinFine I haven't. Try reading properly next time.

I asked the help desk how to add a 3rd image to the infobox. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies: you're right. I kept going back and forth trying to find the page I hadn't already got up to date with, and saw Batley Variety Club at the bottom of both, and got frustrated. ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't an article be about the "usage" of the building, rather than the building itself? If a building changes usage over time, then each usage can have its own article (if sufficiently noteworthy). It doesn't make sense to cram numerous unrelated usages of a building into a single article simply because they physically occupied the same shell of bricks and mortar at different times. By all means mention that a particular usage has ended and if existing then link to an appropriately-name article about what followed it. Long story short, the present name is fine, but feel free to create articles about the Frontier Nightclub or the gym! 31.125.6.108 (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

31.125.6.108 I can name many articles about buildings, which have been used for many things, all of which are notable, and are all "crammed into the same article" because there's not enough information on them to have separate articles.

There's one in my head right now, which will soon have it's fourth name over the last 86 years, but still I expect people will carry on calling it by its old name, even when the new venue opens.

Another one in my head was much bigger than it is now 10+ years ago. However the new owner of the building, decided to wipe out most of its history from Wikipedia, and he was allowed to do so because hardly any references had been added. It's where a lot of famous people started their careers, but there's no mention of them anymore. It's also had many names, although they're mainly just minor name differences.

Wikipedia is partly for blame for things like that, keeping historical names on articles for things which don't exist anymore, just like Royal Mail.

For example, just the other day I noticed someone rename an article for something which has been correctly named for 16 years.

What did they rename it to?

Its old name from 16 years ago, because "people still call it by that name" apparently, even though that's clearly not true, as it would be impossible to talk about it without mentioning part of its old name.

Still, the talk page discussion agreed with him to keep the 16 year out of date name, with just 1 person disagreeing saying its current name should be used. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: You're running two discussions about the same subject in two places: here and at Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_add_this_image_to_infobox_of_Batley_Variety_Club?. You might want to consider moving both to the article's Talk:Batley Variety Club.

The current article is mostly about the variety club, and not the building, so its current title conforms to MOS:ARTICLETITLE. Bazza (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Bazza 7 This is one of the many many problems with Wikipedia.

It's a simple question in general.

But asking simple general questions here never get answered unless you add a link...

So I used the Batley club as an example for my title question. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

How to change the page title?

How can I change the page title? And why my article is always rejected. I put always references and citrates. Reni Rogacheva (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Reni Rogacheva Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afarid your article at Draft:Nord Collection fails to offer enough citations for us it to meet Wikipedia's definition of Notability. See WP:NCORP for details of how we assess this. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it deserves an article about it here. We need evidence that a company or thing has drawn the attention of independent bodies. In other words, show us links to news articles about that company, or detailed mentions in books - but not paid advertising by the company, or trade magazines. You can find further explanation of why your draft has been rejected, both at the top of that article, and on your talk page.

Regarding name changes: what page did you want to rename, and what name did you want to change it to, please?

Finally, I have left a warning notice on your talk page as you have a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST in promoting this article. As an employee of Nord Collection, you have an obligation to declare who is paying you to write this article. See WP:PAID for details how to declare that on your userpage. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A user reverted all my comments on a talk page

I tried to appeal here but someone removed my comments here as well without telling me why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1197985870

User: @ScottishFinnishRadish removed all my posts unilaterally without reason, including an edit request that should not have been removed. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have violated WP:ECR. This is not the place to raise grievances with another user, that is WP:ANI, but I urge you to consider what you are being told carefully first. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

No one has said anything to me. The Talk Page is not Extended Confirmation Protected, and I did not break any other rule. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Sea_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1197937811

This is what was removed. The user seems to be removing a lot of comments. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi CoallationoftheWilling, reasons were given both times. The first removal noted the comment was an WP:ECR violation, the second noted the post was not an Arbitration Enforcement request. CMD (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor removed the edit requests I made though. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edits were tangential discussion about North Korea, not edit requests. Acroterion (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I certainly made two edit requests asking that Saudi Arabia be added to the list of belligerents and commanders and at least one was removed. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I made one edit request and one comment about Saudi Arabia. The edit request was removed without answer, but the comment was left there. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@CollationoftheWilling, jumping into contentious topic areas as a new user is an extremely bad idea. Please slow down and carefully review what you are being told. If you want to make a request for a specific edit - no commentary, nothing else added - that is allowed, you can go ahead and do that. If you keep trying to do anything else, you're going to keep landing in hot water. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, accusing folks of sockpuppetry without evidence falls into personal attack territory. If you have evidence, you can start a sockpuppet investigation; otherwise, focus on content, not contributors. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Why aren’t Voice actors listed in a cast section on video game articles?

Is there a reason why prominent cast members for video games aren’t listed in the manner that the cast of a film are? Galahadjam (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Galahadjam, welcome to the Teahouse. See #11 in the list here. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft articles being taken and placed elsewhere without permission

I was upset that my first draft article, which I was asked to revise and resubmit (and which I am now working on), appeared on Wikitia. I am guessing that when I resubmit my article, it may appear again on Wikitia or elsewhere. Why this is this allowed or possible? I thought drafts for submission went to an internal safe space? IonaFyne (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

IonaFyne, when you make any edit, including creating a draft, you agree to "irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL." This is shown in the edit window. Sites like Wikitia can copy text from Wikipedia (with attribution), since it is released under this Creative Commons license. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @IonaFyne, welcome to the Teahouse. There are no internal safe spaces on Wikipedia, though some pages are harder to find than others. Assume that anything you publish here, anywhere, is going to be seen by others (and potentially taken for use elsewhere, as noted above). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. It would be very nice if Wikipedia did have a safe space somewhere because it seems to me that some mirrors, and Wikitia is one of the worst, specialise in taking material that specifically hasn't been accepted as ready-for-use here, and passing it off as though it were written by a "verified editor", and is therefore somehow guaranteed good. What's particularly wrong is that the CC-by-SA-4.0 license does require Wikitia to attribute the text, but so far as I can see they almost never do, and specialise in taking drafts that are then deleted here, which means there is no way to back-track and find that their text is not compliant to the license (unless you're a Wikipedia admin able to see deleted drafts). It's wrong, but it's not going to change. Elemimele (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@IonaFyne What I do to avoid this situation is to use my sandbox to create drafts (with the source editor) but I never save/publish them there. Instead, I just "Preview" them to check that the markup is OK. I then copy/paste out all the wikitext into a local text editor on my PC. By working with the only saved copy offline, I can ensure that no draft is available for others to see until I think it is ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

a reference.

Could someone send me a reference for the following link for use in a wikipedia article? https://www.loc.gov/item/2016805000/ IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@IonlyPlayz2 You could use {{cite web}} for that URL, with other parameters as suggested on the template page. However, assuming it is the picture you are interested in using, you can copy that to Wikimedia Commons as the date it was taken (1902) puts it firmly in the public domain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

... see for example File:S.S. Tionesta (NYPL b12647398-69431).tiff for a related image and how to fill in the Commons details, quoting the source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

i actually figured it out, but thank you for the response! IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

New template parameter

Hi! I've been editing far too long for this to not be embarrassing, but how do I go about requesting the addition of a new template parameter? Specifically, Template:Infobox church currently lacks the parameter sui_iuris_church, a very helpful parameter already extant in Template:Infobox diocese. I would like the church infoboxes to have an identical parameter. Since BOLD doesn't really apply to template editor-exclusive articles, is it best to make appeals directly to individual TEs or at a project page? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Pbritti. I'd say the first place to try is Template Talk:Infobox church. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Given the number of transclusions involved, I figured there'd be a different approach than on articles. I guess not! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Proto-language articles

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: is there a difference between the articles proto-language and proto-human language, and should they be merged if not? Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, UnexprectedSmoreINquisition, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just looking at the leads of the two articles, they look to be different things: the first is any of a large class of things, most of which we can have little knowledge of, but which undoubtedly existed; the second is a single example of the first, which may or may not have existed. ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: While I only took a couple linguistics-adjacent courses in undergrad, I can pretty firmly say these are distinct topics that should be covered separately. Proto-language refers to a hypothesized language from which a group of languages descend; Proto-Indo-European language is considered by many academics to have been the proto-language of Indo-European languages. Proto-human language is the thesis that a single progenitor language preceded all human language, like an Adam and Eve of sorts; this theory is generally discounted in modern academia. They are related but distinct concepts, with one describing a variety of reconstructed or hypothesized languages and the other describing a particular theory. A merge is probably unwise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving a draft to a redirect that has history

Hi, I was starting to work on a draft for an article that would be placed at Sonic Robo Blast 2, so I was going to create it as a draft and then request a move over the redirect. However, the redirect already has history showing that a lot of content was added at some point, but later it was deleted and turned back into a redirect. How should I go about turning it into an article again? So far I am the only contributor to the draft, but I'm worried about attribution if other people were to edit it and then it gets moved on top of the redirect. Reconrabbit 17:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: I would recommend that you simply copy the content of the draft into the redirect. This has the unfortunate effect of making the history of your work on the draft not immediately accessible to editors who may wish to review your article creation process but retains the redirect's history. When you copy the content of the draft into the redirect, you could (and should) link to your draft in the edit summary. Consider first moving the draft to your userspace so that it can be retained rather than automatically deleted in six months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, assuming you're referring to User:Reconrabbit/SRB2 when you mention the draft, then it's already in your userspace. I say just keep it there and follow the first couple of steps I mentioned above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Right. I asked preemptively because I was planning to move it to Draft:Sonic Robo Blast 2. Thanks for the recommendation, since I won't be doing that now. Reconrabbit 17:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does blue links turn Purple?

Greetings,

I would like to know why blue links turn purple. 170.82.210.120 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a function of your own device's browser recording websites/pages/links that you have visited. While some websites have links which won't (generally) be illuminated as having been previously visited, Wikipedia's links will turn from blue to purple if your browser is configured to retain your web browsing history. If you want to have every link turn blue again, you could clear your cookies or history in the browser, but understand that this removes other data about your browsing from said browser on your device. I recommend you do a google search about this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello my name is Amber

What is your email address is Amber Morgan 46.69.146.53 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)