Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177

Archive 1170

←

Archive 1175

Archive 1176

Archive 1177

Archive 1178

Archive 1179

Archive 1180

Reliable sources

I would like to know if any of these are reliable?

https://www.ecartelera.com/personas/edward-hayter/

https://www.filmweb.pl/person/Edward+Hayter-2316457

http://tviv.org/Will/Cowards_Die_Many_Times

https://trakt.tv/shows/will/seasons/1

https://www.cine.com/actores/edward-hayter

Thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy to Teahouse hosts; this is relevant to Draft:Edward Hayter. David notMD (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable is not the only issue. The draft already has multiple refs confirming that he has acted in several films and TV (Will, Burning Men, Touching the Void...). All these you have listed appear to do the same, without any content about him. And why the first two above, not in English, for a British actor? The weakness of the draft is quality of refs, not quantity. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, thank you! I am guessing that reliable sources can be in multiple languages, not just in English, that why I added them. Veganpurplefox (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I haf made the changes, i hope its better! Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Other languages are OK, but should only be used in English Wikipedia if English refs are not available. To me, it appeared that equivalent English refs were already in the draft, and that adding non-English was of no additional benefit. Again, quality, not quantity. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

And still, too many of the refs are URLs versus properly formatted according to Wikipedia guidelines. David notMD (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

can you explain in detail what this means "refs are url versus properly formatted "? That would be helpful to understand what it means to make the changes Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox Most weblinks should be wrapped up in a citation template. The most generic one is {{cite web}} but there are others like {{cite news}} and {{cite magazine}} which might be appropriate if that's the type of source you are using. See WP:CITE and its links for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I had made the change in the first sentence of the career ,is it fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox Yes, that's the general idea, although you could have added the author's name (i.e. the person who did the interview). I've tidied up a few of the other URL-only entries using the bot that is invoked from the tool menu on all article pages that is called "expand citations". This improved things but some still need work to be full citations including stuff like access-dates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you, I will look up to try to find the name of the interviewer, and access-date is it the date the interview was released? Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox No, as you will see if you check the template's page at this link {{cite web}}, |date= is used for the date of the publication to the web and |access-date is the date you read it there. That's needed in case the URL suffers from WP:LINKROT and someone is trying to use archives like the Wayback machine to find a copy that resembles what you saw on the date you looked (bearing in mind that some webpages change frequently). Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

wrong photo

why is Wikipedia using Michi Kobis' photo for Miiko Takas' photo? Ms.Taka died today and Ms.Kobis' photo in being used for the Bio of Ms.Taka.....thats Laughable 98.22.30.189 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that a photo in the article Miiko Taka is actually a photo of Michi Kobi? If so, which photo, and what makes you believe that it's of Kobi? -- Hoary (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hoary! I think the IP Editor is correct & are talking about the main profile photo of Miiko Taka. That photo is definitely a promotional photo for Cry for Happy (1961) however it is Michi Kobi pictured instead of Miiko Taka. Wiki commons has more photos from this movie & they get the ID correct in the others, like this one. Which actually contradicts the single shot that's being used for Miiko Taka as you can see the same woman from that amongst the four ladies, third from left at the back, wearing the same kimono but this time correctly identified as Michi Kobi. Notice Miiko Taka is in that group shot & is wearing a kimono with a distinctive dark sash pattern from her left shoulder to right. To confirm that it's the group photo that is correct you can see Miiko Taka wearing that kimono in the film & mentioning her character name (Chiyoko) in this YouTube video, right here. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I see another Editor has replaced the misidentified image with one of Miiko Taka now. LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Good good. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ian and Anthony

I personally believe that they should get their own Wiki articles, but I am not the person that'll make it happen. Drjump! (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drjump! ? You need to be much more specific about who you mean if you are serious about encouraging others to write on that, or any other, topic.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No matter. There is rarely any point in encouraging others to create articles. (They're busy with whatever happens to interest them.) If you think that a subject merits an article, then create a draft for it yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See Smosh. Given that is their creation, are you still of the opinion that separate articles are warranted? David notMD (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Best method for Promotion of article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Czar#Proposed_merge_of_Spontaneous_order_into_Self-organization 110.174.102.124 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a request or question, it's not comprehensible. You may wish to express it in a different way. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: Spontaneous order and Self-organization are separate article with proposed merges in 2019 and March 2022. David notMD (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Laptop or cell phone edit

If I edited an article using phone, can I go back using laptop? Right now I can't get back using same password. Maura curran (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Maura curran and welcome to the Teahouse! You should be able to, so just make sure you're entering all of the information correctly. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you can be logged in from multiple devices. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maura curran: When logged in simply visit Special:Contributions/Maura curran on any device you have signed into and all your previous edits will be available. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 04:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus or official view

I am aware it is an opinion of some individuals who claim and paint an image that Hong Kong doesn't belong to China legally and I can respect that. But I am not too sure such loaded statements can also be in Wikipedia. The article National anthem of Hong Kong seems to reject Chinese soverignty and instead recognise China as a "controlling state" instead of being the mother country. Is that correct to not refer Hong Kong as part of China but instead as an "occupied territory or dependant" and that China is nothing more than a "controlling state"? I think it's wrong as it seems too much of a loaded political opinion that's not supported officially by international bodies. And "occupied territory" implies it's illegally attained and not really recognised as part of China.

Apologies if I haven't researched enough but my current understanding is that Hong Kong is in fact recognised internationally as a sovereign part of China. And no international body recognise Hong Kong as not part of China or an occupied territory like Crimea. So if Hong Kong is not recognised as an illegally occupied territory, is it okay to add such statements in despite there are no sources to back that up? But just the unofficial Pov pushing of a few editors?

Also one more question is that if a singer is from Hong Kong, China. Do I call him as a Hong Kong singer or a Chinese singer? I think the wiki rule of Manual of Style (MoS) is to list the country. But am not sure whether to list Hong Kong or China as the country. Thank you. BTStruth (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@BTStruth These are the sorts of questions that might be better directed towards the experts who are members of the relevant Project, via one of their Talk Pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

BTStruth, a question. If "no international body recognise[s] Hong Kong as not part of China", why does Hong Kong continue to appear as a separate participant in the Olympic Games? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A Regional Festival

Hi,

I want to write an article about a regional festival, so, what things that I should keep in mind while writing this article. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Perfectodefecto! Has the festival been written about by regional media? You'll want to make sure that there are sources available that satisfy the notability guideline for events, or otherwise there's a high chance the article will be deleted. Beyond that, WP:Your first article has useful general advice. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Daily photo since birth --continued journey for more than 24 years and still continued.

i want to write an article about sweet memories by photographs ,a children growing day by day seeing his daily pics since his birth still continuing almost 24 years now already included in limca book of records with all preserved photographs Dotindore (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Dotindore and welcome to Wikipedia! It is unclear exactly what you're asking, but I can give some general advice: before creating an article, make sure to read Help:Your first article and make sure the article has reliable, independent, and notable sources to establish notability. After all, we can't have every topic in the world here, only the topics that are notable. Happy editing! Helloheart (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There have been a variety of one-photo-per-day projects, Dotindore, and there might be enough about these to warrant an article. But before you embark on a draft, you'd better get accustomed to improving articles that already exist. -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See Noah Kalina and Everyday (video) for articles about Noah doing 21 years of selfies. Note that both have references (about Noah, about the project). No references means no ability to successfully create an article. You writing about "sweet memories" would be considered original research, and thus cannot justify an article. David notMD (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a conceptual similarity to Boyhood (2014 film). Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE suggests that an article already exists, and indeed we find two: lifelog and lifestreaming. Shells-shells (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

editors inappropriately removing existing citation or changed content

I came across a couple of edits where I felt editors made changes inappropriately; in one case, some other editor had just recently added a claim without adding a corresponding citation, and though the claim was verifiably true, another editor removed the claim.

In the other case, an editor modified an existing claim and simply removed the pre-existing citation.

These both seem to me to be counter-productive behaviors, i.e. if an appropriate citation has not been provided but you can't be bothered to provide a citation, them the next best thing to do would be to add a {{citation needed}}. Am I thinking about this the wrong way? Fabrickator (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fabrickator. If you believe that the content is truly relevant and enclyclopedic, then restore it with a reference to a reliable source and an explanatory edit summary. Best practice is to look for a reliable source, but that is not required. It is the obligation of anyone who wants to restore contested content to provide a reference. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator, I would check the revision history of the article to see what edit summary the editors who removed the content left. That might help explain why they made the edits and inform how to proceed. We can help you interpret if it's unclear. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Translation of Articles

I just translated an article from Russian into English and it is currently a draft. How do I publish it and make sure it is connected to the other versions of the article in other languages? The article is User:Pianolettuce/Alyona Shvets if that helps. Thank you so much! - Pianolettuce (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pianolettuce: Look in the left sidebar of any article (including your draft) and you'll see at the bottom a heading called "Languages" with a gear icon to click on. That allows you to specify links to the same topic on other-language wikis. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pianolettuce, you can put {{subst:Submit}} on top of your draft and wait for someone to review it. OR you can WP:MOVE to mainspace yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I believe I moved it, but when I try to find it, it doesn't come up. If I go to Russian Wikipedia, there is an option in the languages bar to click on English version and it works. How do I make the article able to be seen without going through Russian Wikipedia? Thank you again! - Pianolettuce (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pianolettuce If by "find it" you mean on google etc, it's because new articles don't show there before they have been checked by WP:New pages patrol, or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again! - Pianolettuce (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Malika Saidkhhodjaeva, founder of www.energy.uz

Malika Saidkhodjaeva родилась в 1972 году, в городе Tashkent, Узбекистан ин формер УзССР . Образование — высшее. Окончила Ташкентский Государственный технический Университет по специальности инженер энергетик, Закончила аспирантуру по специальности Макроэкономика, защитила диссертацию в 1996 по теме " Влияние тарифов на электроэнергию на макроэкономические процессы в энергетике" и получила ученную степень Кандидата Экономических наук в 1997 году. Экономист энергетик, доцент, имеет более 70 публикаций. Dr. Malika Saidkhodjaeva was named one of the world’s “50 key women in energy” by Commodities Now magazine in association with consultant Linda Rader and corporate sponsors Accenture and Jacobs Consultancy in 2001. It was one of the first worldwide Award in Energy World. She was the representative of Uzbekistan who get the recognition in Energy World. She is first time in the history, where Uzbek women nominated to this level of Award. A ceremony for the honorees will be held Feb. 14 during the E-World of Energy international trade fair in Essen, Germany. She also placed first in the “Innovation” category, one of five categories in which winners were selected. Dr. Malika Saidkhodjaeva (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Dr. Malika Saidkhodjaeva and welcome to the Teahouse! are you trying to make an article for yourself? unfortunately, we discourage the creation of autobiographies. more about why can be found at that link, but the short is that it is hard to write about yourself while complying with the policies required in article creation like neutrality and verifiability with reliable sources|. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are not Malika than you should abandon this account and start a new account with a different name, as it can be presumed from your name choice that you are Malika. If you want to continue, see WP:YFA for how to create and submit a draft for review. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

New reference to the article

Can I add a reference to the page Through the Looking Glass for exhibitions on 150 years of Alice in 2015 year, because it's missing and not listed in Wikipedia article page. This is the reference link: https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/alice150/alice-in-wonderland/early-editions/macmillan-looking-glass Thanks! 80.72.73.95 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@80.72.73.95 Hello, welcome to the teahouse. This edit seemed already have been done by others. The next time when you want to edit an article being protected, you can request for help by using {{edit semi-protected}} Lemonaka (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not doing this anymore, because I was mistaken. It was for three days! I'll be careful next time. 80.72.73.95 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize, I contributed for good reason! I'm learned, good and responsible adult person. 80.72.73.95 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

USer has now been blocked for DE and being a troll. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf What is "blocked for DE"? Since this is the start of the postseason playoffs in the US National Football League, all I can think of is "Defensive End".  :-) David10244 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Article quality

Who gets to classify articles as stub class, C-class, B-class, good article and featured article, and on what criteria? The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 14:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Bestagon Hello Hexagon! Up to and including B, the criteria are similar but somewhat Project-specific, see for example the links in the templates at Talk:Joan Maloof. Any editor (including article creator) who feels they understand these criteria can add or change class as seen necessary, on this level it's informal.

WP:GA and WP:FA however, are formal processes which starts with someone nominating the article for the "honor", and then spends time and effort improving it at the direction of a reviewer, when one volunteers. Failure is possible. One can also nominate a GA/FA for "demotion." Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks for the reply. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Microelectromechanical systems

"Ordinary plasma etching operates between 0.1 and 5 Torr. (This unit of pressure, commonly used in vacuum engineering, equals approximately 133.3 pascals.)" 2001:14BA:16EF:8600:419D:8C29:41A3:7EB6 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC) In the same article however "Ion milling, or sputter etching, uses lower pressures, often as low as 10−4 Torr (10 mPa)" shouldn't it be 1333 Pascals? Ty in advance!

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I believe you're referring to text shown here. I can't comment on whether you're right, but may I politely ask you to raise your concerns directly in a new thread at Talk:Microelectromechanical systems where editors with knowledge on the subject can assess the issues you've raised and fix the article if there's an error? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone can't do superscripts. The text is slightly confusing in first mentioning 0.1 and 5 Torr before, in parenthesis, reminding the reader that 1 Torr = 133.3 pascals. It then writes that the pressure is 10-4 Torr when they meant 10^-4 Torr, which, multiplied by 133.3 gives 0.0133Pa, i.e. 13.3 mPa. Elemimele (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Subject: Dr. King's sister; Christina King Farris

Error: The article states that Christina was married to Issac from ( 1934 -2017 ) correction request . She was born in 1927, therefore, she could not have married him at the age of 7 years old, in 1934 . 172.112.74.9 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(1934–2017) refers to Issac Newton Farris Sr. birth and death dates not his marriage. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That said, I agree that it is a little ambiguous, I've removed the confusing part and added a reference to that paragraph. (we already have his death date and age at death so it was also mostly superfluous) JeffUK 17:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Additions in Tilia entry are all deleted under the name of RW

Hello! All my recent additions to Tilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilia) have been deleted under the name of RW. The greatest species of Tilia is found in Asia, but there is no information about Southeast Asia in the Tilia entry. How happy I was to be able to make some related shares in Tilia entry these days, but these shares have been deleted. Can you please help me to restore after understanding what I shared? If there is a problem with my English, can you please help to improve it? Best regards, Ping an Chang (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ping an Chang: Your edits were reverted by @Eric. You could ask him or discuss it on the article's talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude Thank you very much for your reply! Best regards, Ping an Chang (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Error on my part. See Talk:Tilia#Additions_in_Tilia_are_all_deleted_under_the_name_of_RW. Eric ^talk 14:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: talk:Tilia § New additions regarding Tilia in China - the section has been renamed. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

About the article i started

Hello hope you are doing well, i am not an experienced user but i started a draft article Draft:The Future of Pakistan which seems to be notable to me, just need any further assistance on this one, Regards WIMBPLY [B] (IDC) (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

To prove that it's notable, you need to find independent sources that talk about it. This means that they can't be connected or associated with the authors or publisher. If there isn't press coverage of the book, then it's probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. For more information, you can read this page that talks about what makes a book notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@WIMBPLYBIDC, given that the book came out in 2011, there should be adequate material written about it in reliable sources. What you have so far might be termed a "sub-stub", which is more like a brief directory listing. What does a reader (who presumably understands that The Future of Pakistan is a book) gain from turning to Wikipedia for more information? You can flesh out this article by reading what has been written about the book in those reliable sources and summarizing it. Quisqualis (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quisqualis thanks for the advice, i have got a content that will make it a worthy of approach for the people who are looking for the information about the book. I will be working on it from now. Regards WIMBPLY [B] (IDC) (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia Essay

How do I create an essay, rather than an article? I tried doing it through the Articles for Creation review process, but it was denied. The instructions at WP:ESSAY weren't that helpful, so how do I create an essay.

Oh, and the draft was this: Draft:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not social media. Don't know if that helps.

AugustusAudax (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. We already have Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We only really need one page on what Wikipdia is not otherwise we could have lots of pages on all the things it is not. What is your rationale for repeating what is already a clearly established policy? Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

In terms of 'How' you create one, you just create one; if you read the rejection you'll see it's because essays do not need to go through the 'Article for Creation' review process, on the basis they are not articles. It may be a good idea to create it in your user space e.g. go to User:AugustusAudax/Wikipedia_is_not_social_media and click 'create'. JeffUK 18:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello AugustusAudax, thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Another difficulty with your essay is that there is a long quote from a song that I assume has been copyrighted. Copyright law can be rather confusing, but you are allowed to use a short direct quote from copyrighted material (in the U.S., that is anything published in 1928 or later) if you properly cite who the writer is. Opinions differ, but when I write for Wikipedia I limit my sourced copyrighted quotes to no more than one sentence.

I hope this helps. Being a Wikipedia volunteer can seem daunting, with so many rules to learn, but once you understand the basics it can be a most satisfying way to help spread knowledge. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@AugustusAudax, Yankovic is 100% correct, in any case. Quisqualis (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding Edit requests

So I have just recently disclosed myself being a paid editor. I understand that I cannot simply edit the article I created once it is already in the mainspace. If I want to edit or update the page, I should use the "request edit" template. Now, my question is, what if I want to edit a different Wikipedia page that I did not create but wants to include the page I created to that page? Okay, to make things clearer, here's the sample: I want to add Douglas Cumming, the page I recently created, to Category:Writers from Winnipeg page since he grew up in Winnipeg. Do I still need to use the template, or am I allowed to edit it right away without the need to use the "request edit"? Please advise. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bmjc98. Why did you blank your userpage, which contained disclosure of the articles that you have been paid for? Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Because of the template. I realized the template should be added to the Talk Page to make it work, but I already added it to both now. You can verify it. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bmjc98, you'll want to look at Categories to see how they work. We add articles to categories, which you can do as you write the draft, but make sure to disable the categories. Problem solved?-- Quisqualis (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I will check on this. Thank you. Will get back to you shortly once I read the categories. Thanks. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'd do in your position, though there's no guarantee it's right. Firstly, per Cullen328 I'd restore your disclosure of paid editing, also on your user-page. Tell the world anywhere you can, and the world will trust you more! Then I'd add the categories to the article, even though it's in main-space. My reasoning is that you can't avoid main-space editing with categories, because either you need to wait until the article is in mainspace before you add them, or you need to use Quisqualis's suggestion, but even so, will need to remove colons and do bits and pieces with templates to do it tidily. Since categories should be fairly uncontroversial, and it makes common sense that you should be able to complete the article as intended, even though you can't subsequently edit it, the addition of categories in mainspace really amounts only to part of the original creation (which is allowed), and it doesn't make sense to generate clean-up work for a volunteer gnome unnecessarily through strict adherence to the letter of the law. But I'd do all this with a suitably apologetic and humble demeanour, ready to give way to any editor who objects, and I would be up-front in the edit summaries about what's going on. Honesty is always appreciated. It was good that you came here to ask. Elemimele (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeti Airlines Flight 691

The "In the news" section of the main page and the article state that there are 72 deaths. However, there are at least two reliable sources that state that there are "at least 68" deaths. See Talk:Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691. Until the number of deaths is final, can someone clarify the main page to reflect the uncertainty? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! This topic is being discussed at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, which prompted the change to 72 deaths. Your input there would be helpful. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you know

Did read 'BorgQueen Help' 60.241.54.238 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi from:https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=60.241.54.238 (knitwit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.54.238 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about using Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Category page

Can someone please move the content of Category talk:1987 Oregon wildfires to Category:1987 Oregon wildfires? 184.21.204.5 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Should I make a section in the gooseberry article to describe flavor?

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=gooseberry+flavor

"What Does a Gooseberry Taste Like? The flavor of gooseberries depends on how ripe they are, with green gooseberries being more sour and red/purple gooseberries being more sweet. Most describe them as similar in taste and texture to grapes, but more acidic."

That's from the first Google result. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:E445:7020:6E62:E5E9 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

IP user, Welcome to Wikipedia. In my opinion, just taking someone's word for the flavor, found on a random culinary website, is just using a random person's original research. Better to quote someone like James Beard, Marion Cunningham or another recognized expert. This could include books on growing fruits and berries. And be sure to cite the source properly.-- Quisqualis (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweetish Hill is a clickbait blog and is not a reliable source. In order to add content about the flavor of gooseberries, you need to cite an actually reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a book called Cold-Hardy Fruits and Nuts: 50 Easy-to-Grow Plants for the Organic Home Garden Or Landscape that appears to be a much better source for the flavor of gooseberries. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

IP Editor, I recommend you go to your library and look in a comprehensive cookery/desserts book, like The Joy of Cooking or similar. Or a book on fruit growing, as all I can find is sites like Quora and dot-coms. Cold-Hardy Fruits and Nuts was more how-to-grow rather than how-to-eat. Quisqualis (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Mihail (musician)

Hi evereyone ! I have noticed that one of Romanian-Moldavian famous singer (that I'm listening to) doesn't have an wikipedia page so I've decided to create one. I have used all the reliable sources in order to back up information about him. Could someone please check and move this article from sandbox to the maine page ? In case if there are any mistakes or sugest about editing please advise. Thank you for your time Noon Twist (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Noon Twist, I've moved the draft to Draft:Mihail (musician) (and I have also retitled this section of the Teahouse). -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ! Once it's moved to Draft is there any procedure to be taken in order to move this article to the main page ? Noon Twist (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Noon Twist, but first you need to do a bit more work on it. I hope that you've checked that each of the numerous links to Youtube is to a video that indisputably was uploaded by its copyright holder. (I'm not saying that some of the links are to videos that were not: I haven't started to look, and anyway might well not be able to judge.) Youtube and other external links may, if appropriate, appear within references or a list of external links, but they mustn't occur in the main body text, and your draft has a lot of such occurrences. And although it doesn't much matter, for English-language Wikipedia, references go after periods, commas, etc, not in front of them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it. Drjump! (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why can i trust wikipedia?

Why can i trust that wikipedia is a trustworthy source and not just a some site where pepole can easly spread misinformation. 91.233.50.107 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You can't, because Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, and explicitly says so – see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source: this is why a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for other Wikipedia articles.

It is not a reliable source because anyone is allowed to edit it (unless banned for vandalism or other misbehaviour) and anything you read might have recently been entered incorrectly by someone, either mistakenly or maliciously. That said, almost every new edit is usually scrutinised quite quickly by one or more editors with particular interest in the article concerned, because they have placed it on their Help:Watchlist and are alerted to all new edits on it. If any new information is not cited to a reliable source, they may revert it (or if it looks plausible, they might search for, find and add sources to cite it to).

Wikipedia is meant to compile and summarise information taken from reliable sources, not be a source in its own right, so if you have any doubt about something stated in Wikipedia, you should WP:Verify it by checking the cited source(s) for it.

Of course, people often try to use Wikipedia to spread misinformation (which they may genuinely believe), but as soon as such efforts are noticed, they are combatted in various ways, up to and including blocking the people trying to do it from editing further. Wikipedia has 20 years' experience of dealing with such problems, so has become quite good at it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So basically, it is not easy to create misinformation and have it remain in an article. The more high profile an article (Donald Trump, Joseph Biden), the more likely there are a multitude of editors who have set their Wikipedia settings so that they are notified of every edit. If effect, Wikipedia self-corrects. But is it true that with 6.6 million articles in English Wikipedia, millions are in error, out-dated, inaequately referenced, have refs that no longer work, biased, vandalized, etc., etc. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize the knowledge of the topic, not be used as a source for students to cite into that. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's a view on that: Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• You can't, and shouldn't, trust Wikipedia blindly. You should examine the sources provided in an article for yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• The article on Reliability of Wikipedia is a useful source (although something of a paradox!) JeffUK 15:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  And Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you google "is wikipedia reliable" these are among the top results, so they have to be good, it stands to reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• So, the problem is that "trust" being discussed here is being used as a binary "either/or" contextless thing. That's not how trust works. Trust is both multi-dimensional, and exists on a continuum, and is highly context dependent. Do I trust my children? It depends. Do I trust them to be left home while I go to the grocery store for an hour? Do I trust them to be home alone while I go on a two-week cruise? Context matters. How old are my kids? What do I know about their character? There's lots of things I need to know in order to assess whether or not I trust something or someone. So, should you trust Wikipedia? It depends on what you are trying to use Wikipedia for. Are you looking for information which is likely to be stable, uncontroversial, and easily publically available from numerous other sources as well? Are you just trying to learn something for idle curiosity or to settle a bar bet or write some trivia questions for a game night? Then yes, it's trustworthy enough in those cases. Are you trying to write a term paper for your history class? Are you trying to decide how to vote in an upcoming election? Do you have a funny growth on your leg you want to know how to treat? No, it isn't trustworthy enough for those use cases. Find better sources of information. --Jayron32 17:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  I may save a link to this thread for future use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If I want some basic information on a subject, such as "is a certain famous person still alive?" or "when was an old TV series broadcast?" I go to a Wikipedia article and assume the basics are correct – if the data has a reliable reference. If I want more in-depth information I check the Wikipedia article's references and External Links. Often that leads me to a source for further details.

If a topic is important to me, and it has a rather poor Wikipedia article, that's when I step in and find reliable references that allow me to upgrade the article so others can easily obtain good information by reading the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an excellent source for sources. Rather than blindly accepting the wording of the articles themselves, I often go to the sources and dig deeper there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We write a lot about the reliability of sources, and whether Wikipedia can be trusted, but in the end, it comes down to you, the reader. Years ago, I watched a TV program made to educate teens about the reliability of the media. The program makers filmed a school, the cook, the kitchens, the kids talking about the food, and then they presented the same stuff in two different ways, changing the camera angles and contexts and putting it together either to make the cook look like a cordon bleu chef creating the high-point of the school day, or to make the cook look like an evil layabout intent on regenerating prison food of the worst possible standard. The point was that all sources have their viewpoint, their bias. It is our job as the viewer to consider what we watch and read, accept that even the most "reliable" sources still stand somewhere, and we must listen to lots of sources, use our brains and judgement. Think of a court-case: it's not a situation where the jury believe the witness because the judge determines he's reliable (though the judge may offer guidance); the jury look at the witnesses and work out for themselves what they believe happened. So when it comes to reliability, the buck doesn't stop with Wikipedia, it stops with the reader. Yes, this is a site that can be edited by anyone, but it's a site that can be corrected by anyone. Weigh that up, and decide if you think it's as reliable as, for example, a research paper, which is supposed to be written and reviewed by an ethical, well-informed professional, but might still end up in Retraction Watch. If Wikipedia misleads you, it's because you let it. Elemimele (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has most of the information in one place which can be convient. Keep in mind that are are disclaimers when using Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Wikipedia is not always reliable ut luckily it is sometimes accurate.Cwater1 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Todor Dimitrov Tokicha

Hello!

I'd like to create a Wikipedia page of one of the most successful music composers in Bulgaria - Todor Dimitrova - Tokicha! I have been waiting for approval for months! It says it has been declined! What do I need to do now?

Thank you! 31.205.79.42 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, since there isn’t a draft yet, it would be best to create one. Second, make sure your article has good references, from reliable sources that confirm notability of the subject. I would be willing to work on this as well, if you would like help. Raltoid (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Raltoid,

Thank you so much for your help! I've created a draft in English a month and It was declined! I'll write it again tomorrow, and I'll be extremely happy if you could help me!

Is it a problem if all of my sources are in Bulgarian instead of English?

Thank you. Todordimitrovtokicha (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Todordimitrovtokicha Welcome to the Teahouse! Where is the draft that was declined? If you are writing an autobiography, see WP:AUTO. If you are not Todor Dimitrov Tokicha, then please change your username per WP:IMPERSONATE. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Todordimitrovtokicha, I hope that you have now read and digested either WP:AUTO or WP:IMPERSONATE, depending on which is applicable (and one of them must be). In addition to what GoingBatty has written: No, it doesn't matter if all your sources are in Bulgarian. What matters is that they are what English-language Wikipedia regards as reliable, and one of the requirements for reliability is that, in order to back up anything important within the draft/article, the sources are independent of Todor Dimitrova-Tokicha (not written or published by him, for him, or with his cooperation). -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article!

 Courtesy link: Draft:Roy Patrick Streamer

Need help! I wanted to edit and publish an article about Roy Patrick Streamer, but its not acceptable for publish. I dont know how to fix this error, so if anyone helps me out with this error would be great! Farsiexplain (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the Comment, three of the five references are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Can you find other refs to support the facts? This may be just WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Farsiexplain I have decent editing experience, and could probably help you get the article published, if you want. Just an offer. Raltoid (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Raltoid How you are gonna edit? Farsiexplain (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Farsiexplain Edit isn’t the right word. You have sufficient information on the page, but you need some sources, which I can help find for the page. Raltoid (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Raltoid It will be help full if you do that for me! Farsiexplain (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked for promotion. CodeTalker (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

delete

Hi Salvio, I see that you've deleted my recent wiki page as well as my draft within the sandbox. Could I perhaps be given the opportunity to retrieve the draft within the sandbox such that I can edit the content? Apadana1401 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not coming back because of copyright violation (and lesser cause, blantant advertising). David notMD (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft Article

I submitted for comments a draft at User:Ldm1954/sandbox. The response was that

1. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.
2. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.

The problem with these comments are they they are very vague, and not specific enough. When I grade BS or PhD students work (or review papers/proposals etc) I always provide sufficient detail. Can someone please provide me with specifics.

Thanks in advance. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Myra Masie Marks where you will see that I have provided specifics, also on my talk page where you asked the same question. The career section has a single sourced sentence relating to a”dance date”. All content requires reliable independent sourcing. Non encyclopaedic informal tone includes content like “a few months shy of her 17th birthday” “Unfortunately, towards the end of her first year” “received a great honor” “made a name for herself “ “the premier organization for those in advertising” “Maisie remembers….” “had to leave LSE as money was tight “ Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ldm1954, the draft article, given its length, only has 14 inline citations. More are expected, generally one per paragraph. In addition, the tone is overly promotional in some parts: ... during her professional life where she started as a shorthand-typist, rose to owning a small advertising space company. She held major positions in a large number of professional organizations in the advertising sector from the late 1950s to when she retired in 1985. can be hardly called neutral. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not mean to be nasty, but...

The statement "major positions in a large number of professional organizations" is fact, born out by the citations in the charitable secions. For instance chair is a major position.

Similarly the statement "where she started as a shorthand-typist, rose to owning a small" is also fact.

She received an MBE in acknowledgement of these facts Ldm1954 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

In this particular case, 'rose' sounds like you are writing a narrative. Not what Wikipedia is for. I would omit the shorthand-typist part. The body of her work is in advertising, so that should be explicated most in the lead.

The words 'major', 'large number', and 'professional organizations' are vague. I would just explicitly say the most important positions, with the other less important ones placed in the body, somewhat like The Beatles discography. And of course you will need sourcing for any positions mentioned in the article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I just responded in part to this to Theroadislong. If you want to "source" the positions you go to the History of Advertising Trust (a museum) which has them all. This is not a web cite. For completeness, the relevant part of her work was charitable. She was not paid for any of the positions mentioned, these were all volunteer. This is what it takes to get an MBE. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone. Colorful, emotionally engaging writing does not belong in a serious encyclopedia. As one who grades student papers, you must know what I'm saying here!--Quisqualis (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We cannot in Wikipedias voice call a position a major one, we would just state the dry facts she was chair of whatever it was, it does NOT need qualifying. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually I completely disagree with you about colorful, emotionally engaging writing. It does belong in dry science including student papers. Scientific papers can be far dryer than Wikipedia.

I will do some reluctant editing. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't find a single source in the draft which supports any of the content and writing about your mother is a VERY clear conflict of interest, which you need to disclose. Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to disclose that relationship

As I have added to the comments, if you want to validate the various positions she held then you will have to go to contact the "History of Advertising Trust". I have contacts, but I won't disclose them on a public page. Of course you can confirm that she received an MBE. I can send a copy if appropriate (which I do not think it is) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Ldm1954, "The words 'major', 'large number', and 'professional organizations' are vague." By contrast, "passed away" isn't vague: it's unambiguously a euphemism for "died". So say "died". (Ditto for anything similar.) When describing your subject after she adopted the surname Marks, refer to her as Marks, not as Maisie, unless of course you either need to distinguish her from some other person named Marks or are quoting directly. (And what was her previous surname?) In places this is oddly vague; for example She retired and sold the business in 1985, although she stayed on as a director and consultant for another year. While she retired from formal work, she took up ballroom dancing from Silver to Gold, 1st, 2nd and supreme then qualifying and teaching for many years. One example of many is Dance ballroom, Latin and sequence at The Great Hall, Civic Centre, Bromley, on August 16, 2007. (Citing "Article in the NewsShopper".) I don't understand either what this was or what it was an example of. And I get the impression that "NewsShopper" merely regurgitates stuff from elsewhere; if so, what's the article title, periodical title and date of the original publication? -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about 'professional organizations'

She was born Myra Maisie Marks -- and married Arnold Marks.

The item in the NewsShopper is an advert -- I will clarify (mea culpa) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ldm1954, when you write When I grade BS or PhD students work (or review papers/proposals etc) I always provide sufficient detail, I assume that you are paid for your work. Here, you are dealing with volunteer Articles for Creation reviewers who are dealing with a gushing firehose of poorly written submissions. And you have given them another poorly written submission to deal with. Your draft includes vast swathes of unreferenced content, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. Your draft also violates the other two core content policies, the Neutral point of view and No original research. Have you clicked on and read the blue links in the notice declining your draft? Have you read and studied Your first article? You have a lot to do. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Any tips

Any tips on getting on reaching 500 edits? Im looking for answers. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You are already far, far over 500 edits (although a majority appear to be to your own User and Talk pages). Why do you ask? David notMD (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I only have 133 edits to main as im typing this. Any tips on making lots of edits to 'main'. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet You should make edits to an article when you see something that is wrong or needs to be improved. Tips for making edits would be: write clearly; include sources; read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Does that answer your question? David10244 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BloxyColaSweet, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find WP:Editcountitis a useful read. ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I just wanna be useful. Im addicted or anything. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Im just going to grind on edits. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet "I'm addicted or anything"? That's confusing. The next one says you're "going to grind on edits". Are you trying to reach 500 edits just in mainspace, and if so, why? What is the purpose? David10244 (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Its my passion to be a reviewer/patroller. I really have been making alot of sub articles non-stop. I just wanna be useful. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And that's why I pointed you at Editcountitis, Bloxy - not really about the "addiction" but about editing for the sake of it. Every edit you make in good faith to improve Wikipedia, big or small, is "useful" - even if somebody disagrees and reverts you: you can either learn from their reversion, or engage in a discussion and potentially both learn something. An edit that you make just to get your number up is probably not useful.

And, while I'm on the subject, making one small but significant improvement to an existing article - especially, providing a good reference where there isn't one - is far, far, far more valuable that most attempts to create new articles. ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Im taking Editcountitis as a grain of salt, Its a humourous essay. Im not doing it just for the 'count', I just wanna be useful and become a reviewer/patroller page. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Try to edit as many pages as you can. Make sure there are good edits. An edit is an edit, it counts even if it gets reverted. It is best to edit the article in one edit. It is best to avoid edit farming, an act of editing the same page multiple times in a short amount of time. Preview the page to ensure there are no mistakes, so you won't have to edit the article.Cwater1 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you BloxyColaSweet (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

how do i create a new watchlist

Could someone please help a computer novice. I want to create a few new watchlists to keep all my topics separate for easy reading. I have one watchlist and would like to create more and is it then possible to transfer one page into a newly created watchlist. Thanks for your help. Kph23 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You can have only one personal watchlist, but you can create multiple public watchlists. See Help:Watchlist and Help:Public watchlist for full details. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Signature error

My signature looked correct in my Preferences, but it was incorrect when I replied in my talk page. A possible reason is the length of my signature is just 2 bytes from the 256 bytes restriction. However, there are three links in my signature--my username link, talk page link and contributions link but only the talk page link had an error--the text appeared black and the link was disabled. It's a little bit strange, but why is the exact reason? IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 09:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:IntegerSequences, It looks fine here! As per Help:Self_link, you can't link to a page from itself (there may be a way, but a basic link doesn't work, e.g. Wikipedia:Teahouse . Which is why it doesn't work on the talk page. JeffUK 09:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this file eligible for Commons?

Is this video eligible to be uploaded to Commons? The caption says it's a Royal Canadian Air Force training film and looks pretty old. This template says media published by a state entity in Canada 50 years ago are in public domain.

Shubjt (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's dated MCMLIX = 1959, can't comment on the Canadian copyright rules though! JeffUK 09:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WHY DELETE MY ARTICLE

PLEASE RETURN IT BACK TO IMPROVE Apadana1401 (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Apadana1401 Please do not "yell"(use all capital letters). 331dot (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does- that is considered promotional here, you do not have to be soliciting customers or selling something. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself(such as through interviews, press releases, or announcements of routine business activities). Wikipedia is only interested in what those completely unconnected with the company say about it. Please read Your First Article.

If you work for or have an association with this company, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Need a feedback or suggestions

An inbox for Indian states and Union Territories

There is some work, Template:Infobox Indian state or territory

Please give a review or  suggestions or point out the mistakes. I think this template has many mistakes and some tasks are not fulfilled with documentation, my knowledge of Wikipedia markup language is not enough, it is inspired by other present templates and infoboxes. I am willing to contribute and need some assistance. ( Please do not nominate it for deletion. I am willing to work on it ) Thank you Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do "native_name" and "native_name_lang" assume that the particular state (or whatever) has just one "native name"? If that's the assumption, it surprises me. The article Nagaland tells us that:

Other than English, Nagamese, a creole language based on Assamese, is widely spoken. / The major languages spoken as per the 2011 census are Konyak (244,135), Ao (231,084), Lotha (177,488), Angami (151,883), Chokri (91,010), Sangtam (75,841), Bengali (74,753), Zeme (71,954; covering Zeliang, 60,399 and Zemi, 11,165), Yimkhiungrü (74,156), Chang (65,632), Khiamniungan (61,906), Rengma (61,537), Phom (53,674), Nepali (43,481), Kheza (34,218), Pochury (21,446), Kuki (18,391), Chakhesang (17,919), Assamese (17,201), Bodo (12,243; covering Bodo 7,372 and Dimasa 4,871), Manipuri (9,511), Sema (8,268), etc.

Within that, "are" should be "were", the claimed precision would have been ridiculous even when published, and perhaps two or three of the languages may have since become extinct in the area; but that would still leave twenty or so "native languages", and I've no reason to assume that they'd share the same name for Nagaland. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hoary , Thank You very much for your suggestions. Yes, you are right, many states might have more than one native name, as you mention one example . I will add a parameter for native_names. Tojoroy20 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

can anyone think of a possible illustration for empath?

‌ Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Psiĥedelisto and welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe some sort of chart? ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 23:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto Welcome to the Teahouse! When I do a Google search for "empath" and look at the images, I see a few images of two human heads in profile facing each other, with some kind of image "connecting" them. While those images may be copyrighted, someone may be willing to create a new one for Wikipedia. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

... with the slight proviso that we are not here to provide a gallery-window for artists to promote their work. The benefit of a pre-existing image is that it will be linked by its context to "empath" (while a piece of artwork produced by a Wikipedia editor is only linked by the editor's say-so), and feelings won't run quite so high when someone replaces it with a different image that they think is more representative. Elemimele (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: What about one of those piccys from the galaxy brain memes? (not the exact ones, obviously, but ones like them) -- something like this for example. I think 2017 is retro enough for it to be cool again now. jp×g 10:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: that's a great idea lol Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Viv Graham

Could someone review the Viv Graham wikipage, there are numerous unsourced + slanderous posts on this this wikipage, have removed some myself. The enire article needs to be cleaned up. --Devokewater 12:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe he is sufficiently notable for an article at all, nor would The murder of Viv Graham (the standard alternative to a personal article) be notable. Proposal for deletion started here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viv Graham JeffUK 12:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Candy (Indian web series) and Dharavi Bank (2022 web series)

I have created the articles with references as per WP:RS but editor MrsSnoozyTurtle moved it to draft page and tagged in the draft. May I know in AfC draft can anyone tag such tags? Also, I want to know for what it was moved to draft space. I haven't jumped into article creation in a day, rather I have studied Wikipedia articles and worked for references at the initial stages. I have created articles via AfC. But user MrsSnoozyTurtle here made allegation against me of sock puppetry. Someone please assist me and file a WP:SPI against me. I had no other account, but I contributed as an IP user some years back. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Letter grade? What's this mean?

What's the letter stand for for example in Category:B-Class_articles and A class etc? Are the A ones more "superior/important"? Somebody please explain this to me. Hgh1985 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hgh1985. Please read Wikipedia:Content assessment. In all honesty, most of these grades are of little importance and can be assigned by any individual editor. I often upgrade stubs to start, since stub is sort of a badge of shame, and if the article is moderately informative, I think it should be start at least. But almost no active editors care at all whether an article is rated B or A. Good article and Featured article ratings are taken a bit more seriously, since peer review and social capital is involved. In other words, do not worry about it very much unless you want to write articles of the highest quality level imaginable. You know, spending months of work and hundreds or thousands of dollars/pounds/euros on books about a single topic. Or living very near a world class library. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hgh1985, here's an overlapping but different opinion. A-class articles are so rare that you can forget about them. Stubs are just sad. Start-class articles should be worth reading. And so forth. But Cullen328 is right in that the distinctions between Stub and Start, between Start and C, and between C and B are of concern to few people. GA and FA are taken seriously (on occasion, so seriously that the nitpicking can be pretty funny). The instructions for GA reviewers clearly say that the highest quality level imaginable is not a requirement for GA (whereas it is a requirement for FA). Currently I have a GA candidate up for grabs; its content is largely based on what I found in just three books, none of which cost me much (they totaled just tens of euros) and all of which I'd anyway bought well before the notion of pushing the article up to GA class entered my mind. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Fewer than 2% of all articles in English Wikipedia are GA or FA. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

AfD Analytics Tool

Saw a cool tool a while ago that showed AfD voting records (and the final outcomes of the votes versus their votes) for any given user. I believe it was hosted on ToolForge, does anyone have a link to it? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

TheManInTheBlackHat, I believe you are referring to the AfD Statistics Tool. HouseBlaster^talk 06:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's it, thank you! TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Submission Declined

Hello, my submissionof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ossama_Hassanein was declined stating tha Wikipedia is not an executive Linkedin. Appreciate if you can advise on what to change edit to be able to submit successfully.

Thank you,

A AhmadAmr78 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! At least 3 of the four sources you use on the draft are primary sources, which are only acceptable on Wikipedia if a number of criteria are met (see link below). Plus, your sources only seem to confirm that Ossama Hassanein exists, which does not establish notability as defined here.

For more, you can read Wikipedia:Primary sources, Wikipedia:General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Regards. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Black / African-American MOS

Sorry if this is more of an MOS question, but I want to find a quick answer as I revert vandalism, and just wasn't sure what an article ought to have generally. Black, or African-American. When the person in question is American of course, so this would never apply to a British black person etc. Here is the edit that made me think about this for reference. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops It's always best to follow what sources state, and sometimes even to put the wording in quotation marks if you feel there might be an issue. In this instance the source clearly uses the phrase "two young black men" in their report. We have no idea if two of my countrymen from here in the Uk were holidaying in America and decided to attack this person. So it would be your assumption as to their origins, so should be avoided. But when any words are likely to be met with disapproval through their use, then quote marks allow you to avoid putting any of your own interpretations on the situation, or of causing offense. As is always the case, care is needed to think through the implications of what you're writing. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent answer and helps a lot. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops Great to hear! I should add that if you were describing the subject of an article in its lead paragraph, then I'm sure African-American would be far more appropriate. Or, much better still, just state their nationality. As today is the anniversary of his birth, take a look at Martin Luther King Jr. to see how this is addressed there. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a good example article for such use. TY again. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

BFDI

Can we make an article for that? Drjump! (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you mean by "BFDI", Drjump!, would you be able to use reliable sources to demonstrate that it satisfies notability requirements? -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drjump! Are you referring to Battle for Dream Island? GoingBatty (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes @GoingBatty, yes. i. am. Drjump! (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's possible if it can overcome the issues from a few years ago at Draft:Battle for Dream Island and you can provide reliable sources which provide significant coverage. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one SO much better than the idea I had. It's only mistake was being called Battle for BFB in the title instead of Battle for Dream Island. Just retitle it and accept it, the only things I should be partially or wholly credited for are the ones I did that I said i partially or wholly did on my profile. Drjump! (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Battle for Dream Island (American web series and franchise). Drjump! (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drjump! See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island. GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We also have Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests#Battle for Dream Island which states a request will have to be made at WP:RFPP with evidence that acceptable sources exists. This has had enough disruption that it is a black listed title in both main and draft space.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Drjump! and welcome to the Teahouse! as another fan (well, to an extent, I no longer actively participate in the community, but I used to), I've seen countless attempts to make an article and have seen them from both the Wikipedia side and the OSC side. I have also discussed it a bit, here's a post from a a few whiles back regarding this topic:

a long while back (maybe 2017 or so, during an attempt by the discord community to create an article), I did a search to help with article creation and if I recall correctly, there was no sources that came close to being reliable. even today it doesn't have reliable sources, the only news article I can find is a Forbes Contributor article on that Fandom Fantasy Food contest where jnj basically pulled their fans to victory, which is not exactly reliable and does not even have significant coverage since it focuses on the contest itself.
I think this is one of, if not the defining example of fame =/= notability. bfdi has a giant fanbase enough to spawn lots of fanfics and shows inspired by it, wins popularity contests, episode 1a has 63m views and the compilation of its first season has 20m, jacknjellify has 1.2m subs, yet it has absolutely no significant coverage in reliable sources and nothing backing its claim to notability unlike other webfics such as Homestar Runner, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, Hazbin Hotel, and Eddsworld. and I'm not saying this as someone against the creation of a potential BFDI article, as I would've planned to make one once I had enough experience with article creation, but (surprisingly for a 10yo web series) it's still too soon to make one.

A Google News search reveals three hits for it now, which apart from the Forbes article mentioned above also now includes a Sportskeeda article-tutorial for Find the Markers, a Roblox game that's inspired by the show but doesn't have WP:significant coverage (in other words, doesn't focus on) of the show itself, and Sportskeeda isn't even an acceptable reliable source even if it was - discussion, and a third Vernon Morning Star article that also doesn't have significant coverage of the show itself but is focused on a cartoon fan.

Unfortunately, Battle for BFDI (which currently has an active draft) also falls into the same pitfalls due to this, and being a specific season of a show that doesn't have an article yet means it's less likely to have one.

tl;dr, despite going on for 10 years and having a sizeable fanbase it still has a general lack of sources which are required for notability and this an article in Wikipedia. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing there are other wikis than Wikipedia that covers this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, since that article has been deleted for too many times and its title has been protected for sure. It didn't meet the notability guidelines even though there are links to it. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for being considered an involved editor

I was rereading Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions and I'm a bit confused with the criteria for being an involved editor, specifically with the third one. "You are considered involved if: [...] You have ever closed such a move request." – What exactly does this mean? MaterialWorks _(talk) 18:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MaterialWorks. I agree that the wording in isolation is vague, but in context, I think that it means "You have ever closed such a move request about the same topic." At least that's how I read it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability and People notable for only one event

I am a novice user of Wikipedia editing. My uncle Ben Bruce Blakeney has a page below relating to one event in Japan. A former employer of mine, Howard P Ladd, has a full page that includes his entire life history. Can you confirm that the limited page for Ben Bruce Blakeney is probably due to being notable for only one event, or could there be some other reason? As his nephew I have many more details which could be included for Ben Bruce Blakeney. Thank you! 

Ben Bruce Blakeney

Howard Ladd Sblakeney (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sblakeney. You have a conflict of interest as a family member, but since he died about 60 years ago, it is probably manageable. Disclose your COI on the article talk page. Write neutrally. Any content you add must summarize what published, reliable sources say. You cannot use your personal experience or family stories in any way. Please read No original research. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Very clear answer.  Sblakeney (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Restore

Can you restore my talk page?
I deleted by mistake. i want to collect Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody help me out? Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 19:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @TheManishPanwar, and your talk page doesn't seem to be deleted, but if you could provide some diffs I'm sure I could, or another editor could, restore it if there is a problem. You could even do it yourself. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 19:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sir please restore my talk page. Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 19:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly was deleted? I'm not sure what to restore because everything on your talk page seems to be fine. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 20:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart, I want to restore my old conversations. Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Everything before this edit? --ARoseWolf 20:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I can restore your old conversations, but can you tell me which ones? I found these: are any of these the ones you mean? [1][2][3][4][5] There are no archives for you, so this is all I found. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf, since my talk page was created Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I want to know what was my mistake. Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Maybe it is possible to restore all discussions but from what I can tell that's going to take a lot of volunteer time. Perhaps an admin can assist but for we editors all we can do is take each individual revert of discussions and add them back in so as to keep the discussions you currently have as they are. That seems like a monumental task for a volunteer editor here to do. You, of course, can do it yourself. --ARoseWolf 20:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheManishPanwar: Click the "View history" tab to see the page history [6]. It displays red numbers at edits where the page became smaller. The numbers show the size change in bytes. You removed content in seven edits. Click "prev" to see what you removed. You can click "edit" at the previous version to get the full source text of the page before the edit. Then you can copy content you want to restore, edit the current talk page by clicking the "Edit" tab, and insert the content. It takes some work for seven edits. Sometimes an edit can be reverted by just clicking an "undo" link but it doesn't work here due to conflicting intermediate edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Thank you So Much Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 20:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@AmandaNPMaam/Sir Please help in this issue.

Recover Editor-Erased Paragraph: Possible?

Wikipedia Friends,

As a nearly new editor, I just erased the first paragraph of an article and thereby killed all the footnotes and bibliography entries for that paragraph and the 21 pages of new material I added on behalf of a scholar. Is it possible to go back and restore that first paragraph (and thereby everything else) to its former state? If not, what to do now?

signed, Bull in China Shop

Polyphemus2 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Polyphemus2: What article? I don't see it in your edit history. You should be able to go to the article's history page and choose undo. RudolfRed (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Polyphemus2, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:Contributions/Polyphemus2 shows your only other edit by your acount here at the English Wikipedia and it didn't erase anything. Are you referring to es:Especial:Contribuciones/Polyphemus2 at the Spanish Wikipedia? If you want to revert everything you did including to remove what you added then see Help:Reverting. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Mittens

Hi there again. Following on from last time, I have found some new references. Could someone tell me if I should wait longer or if the draft would pass GNG now? Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte Welcome back. Two copy pasted paragraphs in national newspapers - presumably from a press release, and lots of insider websites? It doesn't look like a notable topic to me. It may belong as a line or two within Chess.com, but that's as far as it goes in my view. (WP:COI declaration: I just tried it out and the bloody thing beat me!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've been waiting for more sources anyway so what's a little more waiting. If not, I've already got a post on the Chess.com talk page asking what could be used in case no more sources come out. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops - let me be clear: I wasn't accusing you of copy/pasting. The FT and Guardian journalists both clearly pasted in the same text from some press release into their own newspaper column. Sorry if I accidentally implied otherwise. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry Nick, I didn't think that. I always try to put things in my own words on Wikipedia. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Live Events

I'm a fan of a drag race series called Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings. I have been unable to find much info on past results so I figured I would create Wikipedia pages. I've been watching the televised races and taking notes of who won each race, the schedule and the standings. Since this info is televised but not really available on the internet, is it possible to use the show as my source? My articles were recently moved to draft due to no citations. Thanks! Kash2112 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI Draft:2020 Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings, Draft:2019 Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings, Draft:2018 Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings are the drafts being referenced. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Kash2112, yes it is possible per WP:PRIMARY#3, but it is preferable to use a published source for better WP:V. You have yet to prove the notability of Street Outlaws: No Prep Kings. You should probably create an article for the show as a whole, which will have more references supporting it than the individual seasons. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Jeff Beck should be listed in the recent deaths

Can you direct me to information about how to do that, please? Ctterminator (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Ctterminator and welcome to the Teahouse! Jeff Beck is under consideration for Recent Deaths in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Jeff Beck, which is currently getting supporters after the article was cleaned up a bit. you may add your thoughts there. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm new to this. I saw an omission and wanted to have it corrected. I don't understand what articles needed to be cleaned up before he can be added to the list of recent deaths. Aren't we talking about simply putting Jeff Beck's famous name on the list? Or does the entire article about him need to be perfected first? Ctterminator (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent Deaths is a way to highlight improved articles, it isn't just a list. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Ctterminator (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I have edited the article it, Pl help me make changes and write in wikipedia format?

how? Soonuu (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soonuu, just click "Publish Changes..." and it will save. - From Dents (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

can you edit and send me Soonuu (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Precisely what problem are you facing with Draft:Krishna Ballesh, Soonuu? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soonuu: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177. I have deleted your comment as this is not the appropriate venue to put draft content. It appears you've already managed to submit the draft and have had it declined. You may ask Teahouse regulars for their opinions as to what could be improved, but very rarely will someone here help you write a draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

who can help to edit my draft Soonuu (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You can do a lot yourself, Soonuu. Start by removing all but the first two items on that long list of external links. Continue by asking yourself how "shehnai maestro" and "shehnai virtuoso" are more suitable than plain "shehnai player". (Tip: They are not.) Continue by changing mid-sentence "He" to "he". Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that this article has been deleted 10 times now including two deletion discussions. It's probably time to give up. Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

De facto vs de jure census population in settlement articles

When adding the census population of a settlement to its article (be that a village or city), is the de facto (who is actually there?) or de jure (who has their legal address there?) preferred, or both? Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 03:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian: The population is whatever reliable sources report it as. Maybe I am misunderstanding your question, can you clarify or give an example? RudolfRed (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You could put both populations in the article, if some sources report X people have addresses there and Y people actually live there. RudolfRed (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed I'm looking at populations in an official census document which has de facto population in the left side of the table and the de jure population the right, so I'm unsure which to use when they're both presented in the same manner by the same source. – Olympian ^loquere 03:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian: This is just my opinion, but I would say de facto is the more meaningful number. Thousands of people in a community of a million may have post office box addresses and don't live there. Those who actually live there are who make up the community and its economy. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The location of a college or a prison or a military base in a community come to mind. David notMD (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How to correct a small error in a .png file?

On the page "Spherical harmonics - Wikipedia", the image file "Spherical Harmonics.png" is almost correct except that the orbital on the far right of the third row (d orbitals) is identical to the orbital on the far left of the same row. I believe the orbital on the far right should be rotated 45 degrees in the horizontal plane, as you can see if you compare that image file "Spherical Harmonics.png" to the image file "Sphericalfunctions.svg" where the orbital on the far right of the third row (d orbitals) is visibly different from the one on the far left. My problems are that I don't have sufficient expertise to correct the image and that I have only edited a wiki page once before for a misspelling of a person's surname. So, I lack experience navigating the wiki page editing process.

I also lack expertise in quantum mechanics to be positive about the correct orientation of that far right orbital other than certainty that it is different from the one on the far right. Somewhere in our community I am sure there is someone who will say "oops, of course it should be such and such", but it would be impolite to fob off the task of correcting it when theoretically I may be able to do it myself. But I would prefer to confer with someone to be sure that the correction is a 45 degree rotation and not a 90 degree rotation. Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rendel B. Moshe I would suggest posting your observation on the talk page of the image's creator, as, without the software used to create it, the image will be difficult to modify. That talk page is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inigo.quilez.

You might also verify whether others are seeing the same error by posting at Talk:Spherical harmonics-- Quisqualis (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Rendel B. Moshe: if you're right, and I've understood you correctly, the image could be corrected by mirroring the orbital you refer to, and (more difficult) tweaking the grayscale background near it. I could do this myself. But it would be better and easier to contact Inigo.quilez, who created that image. Maproom (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the image is correct, you can see that the far right orbital is 45 rotated with respect to the far left one.

I agree that due to the short camera length (strong perspective), the fact that we see the right one from its left and the left one from its right sort of compensate each other and feels like the same. 23.127.162.118 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That was me, the author of the picture btw. I have recomputed the image with a longer camera lense, the difference between the extreme harmonics is more noticeable now. But I am failing to find how to update the picture in wikimedia. Any help is welcome. Inigo.quilez (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, found out how to reupload. The difference is more clear now. Also I uploaded it at 1080p rather than the old 720p, to keep up with the times. Inigo.quilez (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Inigo.quilez btw, can you render the image in 4K? The picture is still pretty blurry on 4K screens which are becoming more and more common. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Reuploaded at 2160p (4K) Inigo.quilez (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You did good; the pictures are clear and intuitive. I got delayed while trying to understand if the issue was how to visualize a rotation in an imaginary plane for a mathematical figure in a complex domain. You cannot imagine the relief I felt that you had addressed the issue before I even figured out what to write you. Thank you for your initiative. Rendel B. Moshe (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you use ChatGPT on Wikipedia?

Hi. I'm new to this site, and I've wanted to edit on the Basic English Wikipedia. There is a list on what words compromise Basic English, and as a little experiment, I fed GPT an article on the English Wikipedia and asked it to translate the text into Basic English, replacing any complex words. It did it really well actually, to the point where it could easily be passed as a man-made article, but I wonder if this is a violation of policy, to use a bot to create content in this way.

I haven't used it to edit anything. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this a few days ago. Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1175#Usage_of_ChatGPT. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Refer this discussion. You might also find this one useful. TL;DR: It is not preferable to use ChatGPT as a source, or any other bot-genetrated content for that matter. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I've read both of those links through, and I do think Wikipedia should establish an organised, official policy on the use of AI. Honestly, all of this terrifies me.

I think we should place more value on human voices, not artificial ones. For this reason, I won't use GPT, and I wouldn't want anyone else to until we establish a consensus on this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:PrecariousWorlds This sort of semi-automated task may be a good use for something like ChatGPT. If I understand what you've described, you're not asking it to create new content, only to strictly translate content from one writing style to another. Assuming you then validated the content manually before uploading it I don't see a problem with it. Of course, 'writing something in simple English' means a lot more than just replacing the words, so it may not produce high quality content that's actually easier to understand for less proficient readers, but again that's for you to decide before uploading. Could you show a sample of the output in your user page somewhere? JeffUK 14:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind if I post a sample here?

The page in question is Ancus Marcius. My goal is to add information about Roman rulers not present on the Simple English wiki.

This was the excerpt:

Ancus Marcius was the legendary fourth king of Rome, who traditionally reigned 24 years. Upon the death of the previous king, Tullus Hostilius, the Roman Senate appointed an interrex, who in turn called a session of the assembly of the people who elected the new king. Ancus is said to have ruled by waging war as Romulus did, while also promoting peace and religion as Numa did. Ancus Marcius was believed by the Romans to have been the namesake of the Marcii, a plebeian family.

This is what ChatGPT produced out of it:

Ancus Marcius was a king of Rome. He was the fourth king. He was in charge for 24 years. When the king before him, Tullus Hostilius, died, the leaders of the Roman Senate chose a leader for a short time. This leader then called a meeting of the people. The people chose the new king. Ancus Marcius was known for fighting wars like Romulus did. But, he also wanted peace and religion like Numa did. The Romans thought Ancus Marcius was the reason for the name of the Marcii family, who were not from a noble background. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welll clearly that falls very short of the standard that we would expect. was in charge should be "ruled". for a short time means very little. This leader? What was his name? like Romulus did? What was that like then? like Numa did? Who? The Romans thought What, all of them? Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, this excerpt was designed for the Simple English Wiki, so it's bound to be simplified. And many of these criticisms are the fault of the article, not ChatGPT. But yes, it would probably require a lot of proofreading before publication. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, I am reminded of Randall Munroe's book Thing Explainer. {The poster foremrly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@PrecariousWorlds There has been more extensive discussion of whether ChatGPT can/should be used on Wikipedia which is summarised in today's Signpost article. That article includes links to an ongoing forum for setting the policy. Any editor can comment there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me! I'll check it out PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT spake thusly: "Ancus Marcius was a king of Rome. — No, he very probably wasn't. He may not have existed at all. This is the problem with Artificial Bullshiters: they produce text that seems superficially plausible, but in actual reallity is plain false. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Ancus Marcius was the legendary fourth king of Rome" isn't exactly clear that he may not have existed either; garbage in garbage out! ('Legendary' is ambiguous, especially if you don't already know that Roman history is shrouded in folklore.) That he "he very probably wasn't" the fourth king of Rome is superficially plausible but also not supported by the sources. JeffUK 08:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To play Devil's Advocate, how do we know Titus Geganius Macerinus existed, for example? The only sources we have of him are from 400 years after he served as consul. How can we assume he really existed, he might've just been a mistake by Livy. On the contrary, there is a lot of oral tradition and many different sources all throughout Roman history who made it clear Ancus was a real king of Rome.

I think we can treat Ancus Marcius like he was a real person who held the office of rex in the seventh century BCE, while also making it clear that we cannot really know for certain. I don't think the AI was entirely wrong here. Though, I think a lot of proofreading will be required in order to publish something it wrote. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Emoji pronunciation

I have not been able to find an acoustic pronunciation link for the word "Emoji." Whereas in many cases a small loudspeaker symbol is shown and a voice pronounces the word, I have not found this sort of link. I would like to know the correct pronunciation and feel this word is one which should have a link in the Wikipedia definition as well. Ralphdno (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ralphdno and welcome to the Teahouse! This link should be helpful. Happy editing! ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary is generally better for determining pronunciation than Wikipedia, which tends only to provide less obvious pronunciations. See wikt:emoji. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ralphdno, when a word is borrowed [that's the term] into one language from another, the borrowers are under no obligation to retain the original pronunciation. (Indeed, as different languages have different phonologies, it would be odd if they did retain it.) Emoji comes from Japanese; and if you're interested, Japanese pronunciation: [emoʑi] or something close to this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

template

I've added adequate links and references to this bio - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Braathen&editintro=Template%3ABLP_editintro#Biography

Can you help me remove the template box above?

Thanks! Cynecitta (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the links you added because we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links for more information. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright of kinetic / auto-creative sculptures?

Hi all, I recently uploaded a photo that my brother took (he has given me the OK to upload it to Wiki Commons if this question passes) of David Medalla's Cloud Canyons sculpture: here. I have uploaded it as fair use to cite in the article on the artist. However, I would like to hear people's thoughts on whether it would actually be OK to upload it to Commons, i.e. there being no copyright infringement. I understand that images of sculptures in the US (the photo was taken in Chicago) may be infringing copyright, there being no freedom of panorama. But given that the sculpture itself is ephemeral (foam spews out of plastic tubes, thus the sculpture is constantly changing and the artist has no control over its shapes once turned on) it arguably lacks the fixation requirement to be copyrightable (of course, I am not a lawyer, so this is all just a guess). I would love to be able to upload it to Commons, so it may be easier for others to discuss his work in the future. Thank you to anybody who may shed light on this! Kting97 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kting97: you should definitely ask that question at either WP:MCQ or somewhere on Commons. That being said, here are my thoughts.

Admittedly, I am not a US copyright lawyer, but I am not convinced by the argument of fixation. If I go to a concert, record it, and post it on Youtube, I am certainly guilty of copyright violation, even if the concert venue made no official recording and the concert itself is not a fixed form. Similarly, here, even if the exact state of the foam-fountain is transient, any photograph becomes a fixed recording of it.

It could also be argued that (even if the foam is a ever-moving) the arrangement of plastic pipes, pedestal etc. is above the threshold of originality and hence constitutes a (fixed) copyrighted work. The threshold of originality is after all fairly low.

For those reasons, I believe the transfer to Commons is impossible. That being said, it should be able to stay on Wikipedia - a still image (of kinetic art) should certainly pass the threshold for NFCC #2 and #3. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply! Definitely noted on the concert analogy, and you've pretty much answered my question. Will still move this question over to Wikipedia Commons to hear more thoughts on it this :) Unsure how to close a query on Teahouse but to whoever else is reading this you may do just that. Thanks again! Kting97 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussions here normally just 'close' themselves when nobody responds any more. Within three days it will have moved up to the top of the page and eventually be taken off and archived by a bot. We only ever proactively close a discussion whilst it's on this page if hosts deem a matter has gone on long enough and has strayed into the realms of no longer being appropriate, and is generating more heat than light. We might then place a 'closed' template around it. It rarely needs to happens, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Balance

God also has a left hand.......... yes ? 110.174.50.79 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this is the Teahouse, a place for asking simple questions on how to use/edit Wikipedia. I'm afraid this isn't the right place to ask this. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Do reviews work as reliable sources for authors?

Hi, I'm researching a few authors to write their biographies for Wikipedia. For many of them, the best available references online are the book reviews published by reliable, and some not so reliable, sources.

Do book reviews, such as those available on Kirkus, count as reliable sources? Here is one for example.

Thanks! UMStellify (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, UMStellify. Book reviews in reliable sources are often the best references for articles about the books themselves. Whether or not they are good references for an article about the author depends on how much the review says about the author (and whether what it says about the author is independent or comes from a blurb or press release). ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much what was confusing me. This is helpful. Thanks! UMStellify (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, UMStellify. See the entry about Kirkus at Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which suggests they may be reliable. However, you asked about writing biographies of authors. Book reviews do not count as WP:RS in that context, nor does the author biography published within them, as these are written by the authors themselves. A number of different reviews of books in mainstream or respected media/journals might help towards proving notability of the book itself, but not the author. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not like to disagree with other Teahouse hosts, but in this case, I disageee. One of the criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR is The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). My interpretation is that an author who has written several books that have each received several reviews in reliable, independent sources has created a significant body of work, and that all of those reviews are evidence of notability. As for Kirkus, see WP:KIRKUS. The main Kirkus reviews are OK, but "Kirkus Indie" is a pay to play scheme. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What Cullen328 said. Further, the notability of an author of stuff worth reading (as opposed to mere "personalities" who get their names on books) is based not on their youthful arrest for joyriding, their suspension from university for paddling naked in the fountain, their early penury and McJobs, their serendipitous/questionable but anyway profitable find of somebody's discarded (?) Rolex, their canny early investment in some outfit named eBay, their arrest for slugging a paparazzo, their relationship with Jesus, their marital infidelities, their successive Ferraris, their (lack of) taste in interior furnishing, their dyspeptic tweets, blah blah; but in what they write. And if what they write has won intelligent commentary in/from reliable sources, then you're very welcome to summarize this. (No cherry-picking, please. Feel free to ignore the crass reviews, but don't exclude reviews, or major parts of these, just because they're unfavorable, or indeed just because they're favorable.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@UMStellify: If I may offer a counterpoint: I once wrote a draft about an best-selling author. However, all of the independent sources I found were about the books. The reviewer declined my draft, suggesting I recast it into an article about the books, and indeed, it was a better article by following that advice. It is now published as Gameknight999. All the sources in there now were in the original draft about the author, and it was weak, in spite of Cullen's quote of WP:AUTHOR, which I think he's interpreting a bit liberally. Meeting a criterion in WP:AUTHOR doesn't necessarily mean that the author is notable, but it suggests that notabilty is there. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A tangential word of caution. Book reviewers in even the most reliable of sources sometimes include details about an author, which they may have taken from material commonly printed by the publisher on the rear flap of the dust jacket or elsewhere in the book's end matter. Such material is frequently written, and will nearly always have been vetted, by the author themselves (unless the book is a posthumous publication). It is obviously, then, not independent of the subject, will be highly selective and positively biased, and may be largely or completely fictional (such 'potted bios' are often supplied for pseudonyms of single or collaborating writers who 'invent' a persona so as not to disclose their identity). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You've got to differentiate between notability and writeability here too. An author can be notable but it's still impossible to write anything about them. If Joella di Cardigan-Schmidt publishes a whole string of massive best-sellers, but the only information about her that we can glean from the best reviews is that she apparently lives in a toadstool on the moon and sings to her pet Ankylosaurus every night, then it's 99.9% certain that no one has any biographical information from her that is independent of her own fictional creativity. The fact that multiple reviewers in great places say that this toadstool-dweller has written an amazing book makes her notable, but it doesn't give us a reliable source to write anything about her, beyond "The book reviewer of the Times thinks she lives in a toadstool". So we either do what Anachronist suggests, and write about her books instead, or we give up and accept that someone can have sources that make them notable without having sources that tell us anything we can write. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of interesting viewpoints. I think it is best to summarize it this way:

1. Book reviews from reliable sources, such as Kirkus, are useful indicators of notability for authors
2. Book reviews generally provide more information about the book, rather than the author
3. Biographical information from book reviews should be used with caution because it might not be entirely independent of the subject
4. If most book reviews provide information only about the book, but not the author, and no reliable, significant, and independent biographical information about the author is available from other sources, it is best to create an article about the book rather than the author
5. Book reviews, positive and negative, should both be used with caution and in balance, presenting both views with objectivity, or simply summarizing the contents of the book using the reviews as a source

I hope I didn't miss anything.

I'll read some more about this and see if I can find some authors who would fit this criteria. The three I was reading about fail point 4 as per this summary.

Thank you all for replying. UMStellify (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It's my understanding that as long as you are giving factual information on the subject, then it can be written in the article on said subject/author. If the book review is in fact just stating the facts and not a formal opinion on the matter. Yes? Squeaksqueakn (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing the font on Arabic Wikipedia

The default font used on the Arabic Wikipedia page is pretty small and difficult to read, Why do you not use another font like the font used for the Moroccan Darija Wikipedia 2001:8F8:1B2F:A4C2:7821:1633:9FFE:22EA (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. English Wikipedia editors has no control over Arabic Wikipedia, which is a separate project. Please ask the question at Arabic Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP Editor. I appreciate your concerns, but this is English Wikipedia and we have no control over what other language Wikipedias choose to do. Registered users can choose what 'SKINS' they use to optimise their browsing and editing experience. These are selectable in Preferences > Appearance. I hope this addresses your concerns and that you find something that you do find easier to view. Sorry I can't help more. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You might be able to look into WikiData? I saw that there was a place for translations, etc. Squeaksqueakn (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Images while signed out

Can I upload an image while signed out? 73.100.172.152 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Only account holders who have become autoconfirmed can upload files - in other words, no. But you can make an upload request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Offensive talk page

Hi all. I was patrolling recent changes when I noticed User talk:Theenglishman124. They had quite a lot of swears on their page, so I blanked the page in an attempt to stop it. They keep reverting my edits saying that they were "harassing themself". I dont really know what to do in this situation. Could someone else please take a look? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No need, they have now been blocked Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Subsequently successfully appealed block by promising to be good. P.S. Swearing allowed, as long as not about other editors. David notMD (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: I advise you to refrain from editing the comments of others, especially on their own talk page. Repeated instances of that can be grounds for blocking you. Wikipedia is not censored, and as long as personal attacks aren't involved, profanity is allowed; it is possible to swear and still remain civil. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Just want to add that this has all been handled now by User:Zsinj who commended me for this after I asked if what I did was right on their talk page. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

As Wikipedia isn't censored, you may come across material you don't like or may be offended by. As long as its not directed at another editor, profanity is allowed here. As above people can remain civil whilst using swear words. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 04:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry bout this. I didn't think that this would count as censorship. I'll be more careful in the future. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: If you see something that you don't like, avoid the page you saw it on in the future.Cwater1 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to say but there are disclaimers to Wikipedia.Cwater1 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieving a Deleted Article

I worked on an article Prince Ofosu Safah of which was deleted. kindly retrieve it for me thanks.Jwale2 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jwale2, welcome back to the Teahouse. The place to try requesting a copy is WP:REFUND, assuming it meets the criteria outlined there. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: Prince Ofosu Sefah

Note that it was deleted via an Articles for deletion consensus, so it's definitely not going to be going back to mainspace for now, but someone at REFUND might email you a copy or revive it to draftspace if you have definite prospects for overcoming the previous problems. DMacks (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you @DMacks looking forward to the email to revive it at draft. Jwale2 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with edit request

Hello Teahouse! I'm struggling to find editors to review a COI edit request I posted back in November on the Issue One Talk page. I've already left notices about the request at several WikiProjects (including WikiProject Politics & WikiProject Organizations) and on the Talk pages of editors who have been active with the article in the past, but I haven't received any responses. Is there anywhere else I can reach out to for help? I know the COI requested edits backlog is high and I'm not trying to jump to the front of the line. But my request seems pretty straightforward, so I'm hoping to at least get some feedback. Any help you can provide would be appreciated! AR at Issue One (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there @AR at Issue One. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I personally feel by coming here with an enquiry asking why the request has not been fulfilled, it does actually seem that you are trying to jump to the front of the line. Please understand you will need to wait until an editor decides to review the edit. I have taken a cursory look, and I would not accept that edit request as it is. Some of the points raised appear to be interpretative rather than directly supported by the source. I greatly appreciate you disclosing your COI and following guidelines and thank you for reaching out. Someone else may take notice of the edit and review for you, but until then you will please need to wait. Thank you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk Page

Can I put whatever I want on my talk page? Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some Talk page guidlines at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. So long as whatever you put on your talk page follows those guidlines and any applicable Wikipedia policies, it is totally fine to put it on your talk page. Greshthegreat (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Prev

What's prev mean on articles/pages revision history page? 71.9.87.159 (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It shows the changes from the previous version. See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist email notification

For pages/articles I put under my personal watchlist, is there an option for me to get email notifications for every revision change update about that page/article? Hgh1985 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hgh1985. Special:Preferences (not the "Notifications" tab) has the option "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". If you don't view the page after getting the email or mark all pages as visited then you don't get more emails about the same page. This cannot be changed. See more at Help:Email notification#Watched pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Uploading a photo of a public figure for an article specifically about that figure

Hi — I'm just querying about image rights and appropriate uploads for articles about public figures. I'm editing an article on the architecture curator Beatrice Galilee and would like to add an image. There are many images of her online, some used on multiple different platforms with attribution that's a little tricky to track. What are the appropriate steps to make sure any upload falls within the guidelines. The page for David Adjaye and the Wikimedia commons file "David Adjaye (c) Chris Schwagga.jpg" may be a good example of the sort of image I am wanting to upload. That file uses Attribution-Share Alike International 4.0 licensing — is that all I would need to include to use, say, this image?: https://www.dezeen.com/awards/2018/judges/beatrice-galilee/

Thank you! Researchat (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Researchat. The only person who. an freely license a photo is the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Unless you have written evidence to the contrary, you must assume that every photo you find online is restricted by copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As for the photo of David Adjaye, that looks like very dubious licensing to me. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! @Cullen328 & I agree... Researchat (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

this essay might be of interest to you wikipedia:Requesting_free_content JeffUK 19:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah — ideal. Thanks a bunch Researchat (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I need help with article decline Please.

I am trying to submit my company (khmer tv) to wikipedia but get decline becasue my refernce is 1. Not in-dept 2. Not reliable 3. secondary; 4. strictly independent I found this company (Diya TV) which is not different from my company and is listed in Wikipedia. My company is a legal California corporation, and the name is a trademark with the USPTO. This is my first time working with Wikipedia. Please help me make the necessary adjustments to be able to submit to Wikipedia. Thank you very much Paybypintony (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paybypintony Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of you, and determine whether they demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you would first declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the posting. What prompted me to post the article is that this company, "Diya TV," which is similar to Khmer TV, has an article on Wikipédia. If you google "Diya TV," you will see it in Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Khmer TV should be recognized since it is the first and only TV that is broadcasting in Khmer in the US. Paybypintony (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Paybypintony, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like a lot of people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It's not a directory or social media, where you can "submit" or "post" your company. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutral articles about subjects which meet its own criteria for notability - which most people, most companies, most products, most organizations, don't. It mostly comes down to whether several people, wholly unconnected with you and not prompted by you, have published significant coverage of your company. If not, then an article about your company will not be accepted, however it is written, and any attempt to do so will be a waste of time.

If such sources exist, then an article about your company is possible: you are discouraged from writing it, because you are likely to find it hard to be sufficiently neutral, but you are not forbidden from trying.

If such an article is created, whoever writes it, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say (including any sources that are critical of the company), not on what you or your associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the posting. What prompted me to post the article is that this company, "Diya TV," which is similar to Khmer TV, has an article on Wikipédia. If you google "Diya TV," you will see it in Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Khmer TV should be recognized since it is the first and only TV that is broadcasting in Khmer in the US. Paybypintony (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Paybyintony That certainly could make it notable- but there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company to summarize. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows-others must choose to write about your company on their own so we can summarize what they say. Mere existence is not enough for an article. Wikipedia is not a directory or form of recognition. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me where to find an independent, reliable source to write about the company.

I don't want to list the company on Wikipedia as a directory, but for its representation of the Cambodian community. Paybypintony (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paybypintony Wikipedia is not a place to "represent" a group. That would best be done at your social media of choice. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paybypintony Please see other stuff exists. That might help you understand why your draft should not be compared with other existing articles. David10244 (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.tevdapress.com/?mod=news&id=1691&authorid=225

Ranjdar Grawy (ranjdar makhded mustafa)

Freelance Journalist, Human Rights Defender, Broadcaster , Graphic designe

He is Co-founder Tevda Press and the editor chief of the TEVDA PRESS Ranjdar Grawy (ranjdar makhded mustafa) (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ranjdar Grawy, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is strongly discouraged, because most people find it extremely difficult to write neutrally about themselves. It is much better for you and for everybody else if you do not try. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody will write an article eventually.

If you are determined to try to create the article, then I must tell you that almost nothing in your sandbox is of any value for a Wikipedia article, and you should throw it away and start again. This is because you have been writing from your own knowledge. But that is not what Wikipedia does: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Instead, you should study your first article and about notability, and then should assemble the independent sources that are required. Then you will need to forget everything you know about what you have done, and especially about what you think or believe, and write an article based on what those sources say about you. (Don't forget sources that are critical of you, if these exist).

Do you see why this might be difficult? ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Quality

Would most Wikipedians prefer quality over quantity ? I refer to: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) RfC: Quality Wikipedia rather than "building the encyclopedia" 194.223.29.253 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

hi ip user! which proposal are you referring to, are you looking at the Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content thread? 💜  melecie  talk - 11:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Quality_Wikipedia_rather_than_"building_the_encyclopedia".. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I also refer to:

Category:Wikipedia_essays_about_building_the_encyclopedia 194.223.29.253 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:I just don't like it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Building the Encyclopedia" does not mean 'Quantity over quality', in fact it's quite the opposite. It means 'contributing in good faith to the encyclopedia, however you can.' This may mean creating articles, adding content in line with the policies, editing and improving existing articles, or contributing to policy and procedure discussions. JeffUK 12:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia values verifiable information about notable topics from reliable secondary sources over living truth as you might see it. This means a lot of facts are ignored or unsuitable for the encyclopaedia until they are published in certain ways. HerrWaus (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

how do you...?

hi, sorry if this has been asked thousands of times, but how do you make a new article/page? I want to make one about the processes that some cheeses from norway are made through, and a few interesting facts as well, but I don't know how...? ~Tallulah (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tarulliah Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, 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. I suggest spending 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 be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you so much! I submitted the article and fingers crossed it is found good enough! ~Tallulah (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tarulliah If you want this draft to be considered for publication again, you need to rewrite it to use an "encyclopedic" tone. When you have done that, click the blue "resubmit" button. But make sure you have read and understood all the information that GoingBatty linked above. There's a lot of stuff to read. David10244 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP Policy

How does the biographies of living persons policy work? Mast303 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mast303, are you asking how efficacious the policy is? If so, you'd probably be best off looking for academic papers about Wikipedia. (Sorry, I can't recommend any in particular.) Or do you have a question about something that's said within that page? -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mast303 It "works" mainly in the sense that experienced editors will often remove material from articles which are not in line with the policy. The most common example is when some "fact" is stated about the person which is not backed up with an inline citation. Wikipedia prefers verifiability, not truth. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Upload image

Hello, can you please upload this image in Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack)? https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Music122/v4/a4/38/44/a43844c6-6b22-7443-0e54-7b71692df661/794043210532.jpg/316x316bb.webp 191.113.204.86 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! While it is OK for an album cover to be included in the infobox of an article, it cannot be used in a draft. (See the "one-article minimum" mentioned at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]].) If you can update your draft to include additional published independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the album to show how the album meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, and your draft becomes an article, then it would be appropriate to upload the image to Wikipedia. Hope this helps, and good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would upload the image, but i am an anonymous user and we can't upload images. Please upload it yourself 191.113.204.86 (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

When/if the draft has been accepted and it moves to mainspace, you should add relevant projects to its Talk Page. Members of those projects are then likely to upload a suitable WP:NONFREE image (or you could use one of the Project Talk pages to make the request, as these are archived more slowly than this Teahouse page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You can also make the request for the upload at WP:FFU, where volunteers who specialise in doing uploads and know about the copyright issues are available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting Undo issues...

I'm watching a page that was created with false claims but with media coverage of the false claim.

Now, the truth has come out and editors corrected the falsehoods with the truth.

The supporters of the false claims, keep reverting the page to its original state.

This has happed about 7-8 times.

How are these "undo revision" wars resolved? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:9CFC:250F:AADD:8284 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring is never a good idea. Try WP:DR or WP:ANI. Also note that Wikipedia supports Verifiability, not truth. Even if the claim is false, if supported by RSs it should still be included. RealGucci (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the fact is now verified but the lie has more media coverage. Some of the coverage of the lie now mentions the truth. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:9CFC:250F:AADD:8284 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Living_Truth is the "most" powerful truth... Wikipedia should encompass it...60.241.201.38 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

SITUATION: At Jessica Nabongo the text identifies her as the second Black woman to visit every country, while refs 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 state that she was first. The correct information, supported by other refs, is that she was second, and Woni Spotts was first. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

But Nabongo's people going to keep reverting the page back to saying she's first. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:9CFC:250F:AADD:8284 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to have settled down now with the correct information that Nabongo was the second. I'm surprised to note that no-one though to discuss the issue on Talk:Jessica Nabongo as per normal method of seeking consensus but instead just edit warred. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Submitted article about Michael Leonard Healey - writer,painter/stage, TV Producer/Director/Publisher

A colleague submitted this article about me 15 (FIFTEEN) months agao. Since Wikipedia claims to process submission in about six months, why this delay please. Mike healey Strawlitter (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Strawlitter, welcome to the Teahouse. Is this about User:Ladybythebeck/Michael Leonard Healey? That page has not been submitted for review to WP:AfC; in all likelihood, no one is aware of its existence except yourself and the person who wrote it in their user space. Unfortunately, submitting it now will likely simply result in its being declined; there are numerous problems, including sourcing issues and a large number of inline external links. Your colleague should review Help:Your first article and declare their conflict of interest with the subject (yourself) per WP:COI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How is Vector 2022 deployed?

WP:VECTOR2022 says that the change will take effect between 15:00 and 16:00 UTC, January 18, but 24 hours will be needed for the changes to propagate across most pages, and some rarely-edited pages may need three days. I guess is there an automated program to traverse all the articles by sorting them by pageview and recent edit count? IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 03:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@IntegerSequences I didn't think that the articles themselves needed to be updated, but from reading that link, I am probably wrong. Maybe another Teahouse host will know and can give a better answer. David10244 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @IntegerSequences. This may refer to the caching of some pages which is done by the Wikimedia servers. The best way to find out for sure would be to either ask on the talk page at the place you linked, or perhaps at WP:VPT. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Further feedback on declined draft article about the Serco Institute?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Serco Institute.

Hi, The draft article on my page was recently declined. It would be great if anyone has some specific advice on how to improve this article. I know I need to improve the quality of the citations used, which makes sense. However, if anyone has other tips or feedback then that would be greatly appreciated. Constance Constance52 (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Constance52 Hi Constance. I'm afraid that my advice would be to start again after throwing away all the current draft. Read WP:BACKWARD and you'll see why that's likely to be best. You have made the error of basing almost everything on statements made by Serco themselves and almost nothing written about Serco in reliable sources, as required to show notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Many thanks, I'll do that. Constance Constance52 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Template substitution

Why should some templates (such as user warnings) be substituted? Mast303 (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Mast303, please see Wikipedia:Substitution. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Basically it would be unfair if some bits of text changed retrospectively. A non-substituted (transcluded) template displays text that can be changed in future (by changing the template). So if you issued a templated warning "you really shouldn't have committed this very minor error; if you do it again you might receive a tiny-tiny trout-slap", the editor receiving this warning has a reasonable expectation of a tiny-tiny trout-slap. If they then find themselves blocked, and look back at their talk page, to find that your message has mutated into a vast stop sign, a skull-and-cross-bones, and a statement "You have committed a hideous crime and Will be Blocked without warning if you even think about doing that again!" then they may feel aggrieved, and that the goal-posts have moved unfairly. So warnings are substituted, such that the text remains a fair record of the original warning. Elemimele (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele Hey, I learned something today, and I wasn't even the one who asked the question! David10244 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

When Wikipedia knows what editors are thinking, then we can stop vandalism! David10244 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also templates that don't work as intended if they're not substituted, such as those that exploit the nowiki workaround to get signatures to display inside them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Redesign question

Possibly a link to a 'Redesign - what went where' page from the MP for a few days to help regulars and occasionals.

Also with the MP - a clearer link to the 'other language WPs' (as this is variously useful). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jackiespeel, welcome to the Teahouse. Such suggestions would best go on Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 or the MediaWiki equivalent (link at the top of that talk page). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

PDF download link, and table of contents, are missing / have vanished.

PDF download link, and table of contents, are missing / have vanished.

It was working yesterday. Today it looks different and many useful things have been lost.

Does anyone else have also this problem? Can it be fixed please? Thank you if you can.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk)

The default skin has changed, and things may be in different places. You can use the old skin if you create an account and set your preferences to the old one. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Log in issues

I'm a long time member and financial contributor. Suddenly I can't log in nor create a new account. I've forgotten my user ID and password, but the sit's recommendations don't work. Where do I go to get someone to plug me in? 2601:2C7:780:88F0:2561:F6B7:F290:AE6F (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for donating, but we editors have nothing to do with the donation process. If you have forgotten both your username and password, and for some reason cannot create a new account(if you can edit this page you should be able to create an account), you may request a new account at WP:ACC.

You could try examining the edit histories of articles or pages you have edited to see if you recognize your username, which may help you to remember your password or at least request an email to reset your password(if you attached an email to your account preferences). 331dot (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

newton.com.tw

what is the reliability of this website newton.com.tw When i googled it says, "Chinese Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia website involving all Chinese knowledge fields, providing you with the latest and most complete Chinese encyclopedia entry knowledge." I'm not aware whether its user generated site or not. Can it be considered reliable for citing as a source for a Chinese artist? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a wiki, so it is probably user-generated. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Arorapriyansh333 newton.com.tw appears to be a mirror of Baike, which is an equivalent of Baidu's wikipedia, therefore user generated content -> not reliable. For the link you have shared, the corresponding Baike link is [7]. FWIW, it might be an unauthorised mirror of Baike, given that the website is required to display some sign that it is taking content from Baike and that Baike is not operating on a copyright-free model according to Baike's user agreement, therefore linking to this website is potentially WP:COPYVIOEL. – robertsky (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried different browser, apparently there have been changes, and is isn't just me.

The pages look and feel dumbed down now. No side menu. No search box. No tables of contents. Things I used to use frequently on are now gone. I am very sad.

Will these be added back soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The default skin has changed today. The features you mention still exist, but are in different places and in some cases collapsible and need to be opened. If you create an account, you can set the account preferences to the old skin. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, please refer to the previous two posts you made here on this subject, just above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a side menu, but you have to click the three horizontal lines at the top left to see it. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Stuck in mobile view

Hi! Wikipedia appears to be misdetecting my browser (Firefox on Linux) as a mobile phone. I've tried using the "Mobile view" link at the bottom of the page to switch to the normal mode, but it's not working. This is probably the first time it has happened for me. Sorry if this bug report should be somewhere else, but this issue is making it difficult for me to navigate Wikipedia. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This may be related to the change in default skin for the full version of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? If it's a known issue are there any known workarounds yet or do I just have to wait a bit? To clarify, both en.wikipedia.org and en.m.wikipedia.org are in mobile view for me. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)

IP editor, this is not a bug - you are seeing the new desktop skin, which does resemble the mobile skin. There is no way to change it back without signing up for an account and then specifying the old skin in your preferences. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a desktop skin, or if it is, it's displaying incorrectly (and the editor is broken?). If there's more info anywhere, please give a direct link as it's difficult to navigate due to the issue. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

More information is at Vector 2022. Feel free to leave feedback on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 - there is also a link to the MediaWiki talk page at the top). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. If how it's showing up for me is intentional, then this is just absurd. Hoping it gets reverted soon. 91.129.102.72 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is crazy. Why did a mobile skin get forced on desktop users? On a standard 16:9 display half the screen space is wasted and empty, while the article is left feeling cramped and squeezed in. It's claustrophobic and barren at the same time. And if I snap the window to one side of the display, to give shorter lines for reading long passages, it hides half the UI like the table of contents.

Why did something that wasn't broken need to get "fixed"? There's a reason desktop and mobile had previously different skins. 2607:FEA8:2D24:8900:0:0:0:151C (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

More information is at Vector 2022. Feel free to leave feedback on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 - there is also a link to the MediaWiki talk page at the top). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If you sign up for an account, you can switch back to the old skin via your preferences. There are some workarounds for IP editors, but this will more or less be the default for us now. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Has the desktop view changed?

The look of Wikipedia looks different to even yesterday; it's resembling the mobile view, even though I'm on a computer. After reloading all my open Wikipedia tabs, I have the new look. Is this a thing for everyone or is there a problem for me? BhamBoi (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: It's a thing for everyone. Since 15:00 UTC today, Wikipedia has changed its skin sitewide. You can change it back to the original appearance in preferences. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it only got worse the more I used it and it was really hard to navigate. Glad there's a fix. BhamBoi (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So far, I agree. It took me forever to find the "watchlist" link. And all my tools and styling are gone. I guess I have to move some css and js pages over. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, seems this new thing is universally hated. It'll be fun to watch the fallout. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how such a bizarre change took place. The narrowing of the page narrative has thrown tables and adjacent content into chaos, making previously balanced pages look extremely messy. I trust common sense will prevail with a restoration of the wider page format. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed one cool feature, though. When reading through a long page (like this one) the left panel shows where you are in the table of contents. Maybe there's a CSS tweak I can put in my css page to fix the width issue.

I'm going to force myself to use this for a week. Who knows, I may discover other interesting features. If I still find myself missing the old skin, I'll go back. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: I have fixed the CSS so the page width is improved. You can copy my User:Anachronist/vector-2022.css to your vector-2022.css page if you want to try it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: Nevermind, it looks like the same thing can be done with a checkbox in your Appearance Preferences. Deselect "enable limited width mode". ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I just changed it back, a lot of my scripts that impacted visual things broke (Cite Highlighter), and I preferred all the linkes at the top easily accessible anyway. BhamBoi (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 is the talk page for the new skin. It's probably the best place to register any and all dissatisfaction - the dev types, or at least those in contact with them, are probably monitoring that page pretty closely at the moment. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had a banner appear on the front page telling me about the change (in addition to advance notice at the top of my watchlist). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

AFC Log

I've seen other AFC reviewers keep track of AFC submissions in an AFC log; is there a way to install this? Tails Wx 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx you can set the option in the Preferences link in the AFCH box on any drafts. – robertsky (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Robertsky! Tails Wx 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User page edition

Probably not a good time or place to ask, but would someone happen to know how things like userboxes work, and what info might be worth putting on those pages? Besides the most basic functions the visual editor has, I'm more than a little lost. cogsan (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Cog-san! Welcome to The Teahouse! You can check out WP:UPYES for what is allowed on a user page. I believe it also has some links you might find helpful to answer your question more in depth. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The big userbox stash(tm) is linked there too, so I can "borrow" it.

I guess a good idea would be to not bother with more sensitive details (like my nationality, job or extensive recipe list), and just describe my online identity instead. cogsan (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Email

If you and another user both have the "Allow other users to email me" option on, how would you be able to send a Wikipedia "email" to that other user? Hgh1985 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hgh1985: Hello! To email another user, you can go to Special:EmailUser. Happy editing! HouseBlaster^talk 05:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hgh1985. One thing you should understand about sending emails this way is the other person's email address won't be revealed unless they choose to respond via email. They may decide to respond via your user talk page or they may decide not to respond at all. Some users may not be currently very active or may not be checking the email address they used to register for their Wikipedia account very regularly. So, you might want to check the other user's contribution history to see whether they've been active recently or add a template like {{You got mail}} to their user talk page if it's something really important or time sensitve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Another thing that has caught me out when I was contacting a user to ask them to send me a copy of a source (a .pdf) which they had offered is that you have to include your own external email address (assuming you want them to reply there) in the message you send them. Wikipedia emails don't allow attachments, for obvious reasons, and don't disclose the sender's email address, only their username. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: That has changed since that happened—now, your email is disclosed in the "reply-to" field. However, you still cannot add attachments. What you could do today is request the .pdf by email, so that they have your email without posting it on-wiki. HouseBlaster^talk 20:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"New look" not working consistently

I get the "new look" on the Wikipedia main page, and on articles that I reach by clicking on a main page link, but articles that I reach another way, by clicking a link other than on the main page, or through the search box, still display in the old style. Using "Edge" browser. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:D85D:FD1B:D4D3:D33B (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The new skin isn't being rolled out all at once to avoid putting too much strain on the servers. Eventually all pages will be consistent, but it may take up to three days. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. For a while, it might be a good idea to have permanently visible notice at the top of each page saying new design is being unrolled, blah blah, with a link to the page all about this that may exist somewhere. The first time I started Wikipedia today there was banner, but I dismissed it, or it went away of its own accord, and now I do not know how to revisit that information. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:D85D:FD1B:D4D3:D33B (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that banner was the announcement. Making it permanently visible - unable to be clicked away - would, believe me, cause a ruckus the Wikimedia Foundation does not want. I don't know how persistent it is, I clicked it away immediately myself (I already knew the change was coming). More info is available at Vector 2022 if you're interested. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Contentious subjects" discretionary alerts

I feel like a chump having to ask this question after 60,000 edits, but I don't have time to find the elusive directions: How do I give an editor whose problematic edits are falling with IPA discretionary sanctions the mandatory templated warning? Why is this so hard? Thanks, y'all! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Julietdeltalima. The link is Template:Contentious topics. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

PDFs

Why can't I create a PDF anymore? You have just become irrelevant for me if I can't. 147.136.249.114 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about the Download as PDF option which was in the old sidebar? It still exists, but the new skin has a different default setup for the left hand side. You can access the original sidebar by clicking the three horizontal parallel lines in the top left corner of the screen. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The option is in the sidebar, which you can make visible with the button at the top left. It will move to the right side of the page somewhere next week. Also most browsers allow you to create a PDF from the print dialog of ANY webpage. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Images

What kind of pictures can I upload to Wikipedia, in this case I took all of them with my camera so it's entirely my work, but they are just casual photos of life in general. What photos can't be uploaded on Wikipedia, and once they are uploaded is there a way for the uploader themselves to delete it if they personally regret it later on for whatever reason? Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oscarjohnson1981, the photographs that can be uploaded (to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia) are those that would clearly have utility for Wikipedia. Most "casual photos of life in general" do not have such utility. Having uploaded a photo, you may not change your mind about its availability to the wide world. What would be your purpose in uploading "casual photos of life in general"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oscarjohnson1981 There may be photos from your collection that are of value to Wikimedia/Wikipedia but you need to look at each critically and ask yourself "what does this photo show that isn't already available in dozens of other photos?". Perhaps you have visited somewhere unusual or photographed a notable person whose article here currently doesn't have a suitable image because none has been released with a Creative Commons license. For example, I've taken literally thousands of photos but have uploaded only a small number, such as some of those now used in the article on Smoking Hills, which I knew few others would have visited. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oscarjohnson1981 A lot of Wikipedia pages have requests for suitable images. This is described at the help page "Wikipedia:Requested pictures", of which the "See also" section gives links to maintenance categories for identifying pages with such requests. Look through those and see if any of your images would be suitable and if so, upload them to Commons and link them in. Also, look through the requests for locations near you or subjects which interest you and take your camera whenever you think you might be in a position to fulfill one of those requests. Philh-591 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Bulk changing all NBA pages

How would I go about proposing a change to every applicable NBA player page? On most other sports reference sites, the career statistics chart is marked with a star on the years a player made the All-Star Game. This would be a beneficial change, as All-Stars are a major award in the NBA. Being that Wikipedia is normally the first thing to show up when you google a player's name, the slight clarification to a player's stat section would be well-met.

Note that All-Star information is already categorized on the sidebar, it would just be a matter of going through and marking the stats table for ease of access. Would I just have to go through and do that to as many NBA players as I can? Rananth0207 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rananth0207, I think you would have to do that manually, however, there may be a way to change the Userbox template for all NBA players. How? I'm not sure. But that might be an option. I would be game to help out. You can shoot me a message on my talk page if you'd like. I just finished up writing an article and need something constructive to do around here lol. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rananth0207, welcome to the Teahouse. A good place to find and discuss such things with fellow basketball enthusiasts would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking to deWP

I want to put a link in an article in the English Wikipedia to a page in the German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4music how do I do this as a reference? Thorcouper (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Thorcouper! Welcome to The Teahouse! Using wikis as a reference is not allowed. If the English and German articles are the same topic, then they should get automagically linked via Wikidata. If they are different topic, but related somehow, perhaps linking it in the article in a natural way like M4music is good enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If there isn’t an English page, just a German one can it be done with the automagic link creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorcouper (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Thorcouper. As UtherSRG said, you can't use a Wikipedia article as a reference; but you can insert a Wikilink to an article in another language. The best way to do so is to use the template {{ill}}.

{{ill|M4music|de}} displays as M4music: as long as there isn't an English article, it shows as a redlink, but gives you the blue link to the de article; but if somebody creates M4music in en-wiki, it will automatically change to appear like a normal Wikilink. ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ColinFine, I fixed the capitalization in your example. DMacks (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My search has suddenly become case-sensetive.

I don't know what I changed, but suddenly all my searches a case-sensitive. (See: WP:Case sensitivity: they shouldn't be, and they also weren't earlier). This also happens to me while I'm signed out. BhamBoi (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BhamBoi. I can't replicate this; it's pretty busy at WP:VPT today (to say the least), but a post there is still probably the best way to start figuring out what's going on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Naming of files

In the intersex article, there is a map showing "Legal prohibition of non-consensual medical interventions". The name of the file is "Protection of intersex children from harmful practices" (emphasis mine). Is there some established... thing for naming files in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 20:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Grimmchild. The image is maintained on Wikimedia Commons, not here. So we have no control over it. For any image where I feel the title is either wrong or misleading, I would first raise this at the images 'discussion page' (See here).

It would need an administrator there to effect any agreed change. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Grimmchild. Nick is right that the file is on Commons, and you would need to make a request there. I get the impression that Talk pages are not used a great deal in Commons, so I don't know that a discussion there would be seen by many.

If you go to the commons page c:File:Protection of intersex children from harmful practices.svg, there is a "Move" button (which is accessed via "More" for me) where you can request a move (which is how a name is changed). The Commons renaming policy is at C:COM:File renaming, but on a quick look I don't see this case covered. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Criterion #5 is the closest (though maybe not uncontroversially close enough). You'd have to make the case that "non-consensual medical interventions" are not reasonably considered "harmful". DMacks (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. I avoided mentioning requesting a name change because, for the life of me at the time, I couldn't think what the process was there. Senility is setting in, methinks. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Kurzgesagt article

So I added some info about the reliability of their videos. However I do not have the skills to write it down and I realized that what I did write made me sound like a conspiracy theorist. So in the edit summary I told people to look at the talk page where I explained my problem. However when I tried to make a new topic on the talk page it didn't show up. Why is that? Also please help me write it down. I sell eggs (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I sell eggs, Talk:Kurzgesagt is not broken for me. Maybe try to go into source mode and add the section heading yourself like this:


==Section title==
content ~~~~


Also, the claim is unreferenced, and distorting information is a pretty bold claim. An IP editor has reverted the edit. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How many edits?

I've been dedicating myself to Wikipedia and have been making lots of contributions and doing my best at doing my best. On every edit I make sure that it is high on quality from the best sources. I'm just curious to see how many edits I made to Mainspace. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi BloxyColaSweet the answer is 317 - go to "contributions" and at the bottom click "edit count" to see lots of stats about your editing - Arjayay (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello BloxyColaSweet, and welcome to the Teahouse. Feel free to check your Namespace Totals. Tails Wx 23:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

clarence besaw

ewas born to bertha besaw in 1919 she was admited to almshouse in franklin county she had a baby named clarence besaw in 1919 i would lik to know about that time about bertha besaw and clarence besaw her maiden name was bertha tallman her mother was josephine andrews tallman her father was john james tallman she lived in malone franklin new york she was admitted to almshouse on may 9 1919 she was born in bangor new york 64.37.26.143 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm not sure why you inserted this information. We have no article on Clarence Besaw, so I don't know what you are wanting to add it to. If you are considering writing a new article, please look at your first article, and BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is Vector2022 default?

Hello from el and en.wiktionary. I have a username, but also keep a 2nd browser alongside, with no login. Table of Contents is so hard to find, plus other issues (cannot hop from one language to another etc). I have congratulated you on resisting Vector2022 here, but sadly, I see today that horrible new skin at my screen. And I am curious to see the vote, or procedure of endorsing Vector2022 as default in the English Wikipedia. Presuming that it is not a command from somewhere above.
If any of you think that making a trial skin default is not a good decision, you could join the mediawiki discussions, like I did, at "Let the public decide".
Thank you for your hard work, From el.wikt, Sarri.greek (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Sarri.greek. You can read the 2022 RfC here, and the page on Vector 2022 is here, with many links to more information and a talk page that is chock full o' talk right now. In the end, I think, it was a command from above that the community decided to not fight too hard. After all, account holders can switch it off at any time. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the links provided, 199.208.172.35. I moved this question at Wikipedia_talk:Vector_2022#Why_is_Vector2022_default? Sarri.greek (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You can always change your personal appearance via the Preferences toggle, and the Appearances button. I personally use the Monobook skin. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @AdmiralAckbar1977:, I have. But Sir, that is not the question. The question is a) Wikipedia_talk:Vector_2022#Why_is_Vector2022_default?, and b) if this decision if forced upon wikipedia, why do readers do not have an immediate, visible choice-button? Thank you. Sarri.greek (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there anywhere I can voice my opinion on the new default layout?

I'm not really a big fan of it and hurts my eyes a bit Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pyraminxsolver: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177. You can go to Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

...additionally, if and when it does get rolled out, you may always change your layout back to Vector (legacy) in the Preferences. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Madonna

FYI

 – Split sections. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

how old is maddona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.226 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177.. You may be interested in the Madonna article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Madonna is 64, but this is for answering questions about Wikipedia. Do you need help using or editing Wikipedia? ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

...if you have any questions regarding non-Wikipedia topics, try out the reference desk. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How 'Bout a House for Coffee drinkers

60.241.201.38 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the above line not in large type ? .. I used the sandbox and it was large in there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.201.38 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to create a new section, I doubt they would though, as I believe “Teahouse” is often a place for discussion, Though you can propose this on the Idea Lab. Happy Editing! -I Followed The Username Policy (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the header. IP editor, if you want to discuss renaming the Teahouse, you could make a proposal on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Teahouse). There have been some discussions on the subject over the years, occasionally serious, occasionally less so, but the current name seems to serve our purposes well (though it does sometimes get confused with "treehouse"!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I found these.... Well, from Wikipedia, (Redirected from Village pump).

Wikipedia:Teahouse, from Wikipedia, (Redirected from Wikipedia:Coffeehouse) 60.241.201.38 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the first thing you're referring to is. The second thing, Wikipedia:Coffeehouse, is what's called a redirect - see more at WP:Redirect. They are created so that people searching for something, but using a slightly different term than the actual article/page name, can still find what they're looking for. If someone is looking for the Teahouse but doesn't quite remember what it was called, they might try "Coffeehouse" instead, and they'd be directed here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WE now have a Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Thank the "ghost in the machine"... 60.241.201.38 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump 194.223.29.253 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Help

why does wikipedia look so weird? tell me how to do screenshots for windows and ill show you. Allaoii ^talk 19:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Allaoii The default skin changed today, see Wikipedia:Vector 2022. It was announced it was happening but people may have missed it since we are being flooded with questions. You can change back to the old skin in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks, i hope this gets fixed soon. Allaoii ^talk 19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Allaoii, this was entirely intentional on the part of the WMF developers, so there's not really much to be fixed, but if you want to leave feedback, you can visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Without a table of contents how can a get a URL link to a specific section?

I used to see the link the the table of contents and I could copy the link to send to someone. Now it is no longer there. How can I get the link now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The table of contents still exists. It should pop up automatically in the blank space on the left side of the screen. There's also a little symbol at the top of pages, next to the title, which lets you expand/collapse the ToC - the symbol looks like three bullet point with lines next to them. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone told me the table of contents is there. But I don't see anything.

All I see is the basic page text. There is no table of contents. Nowhere. I scroll up, down, left, right, nothing.

So without the table of contents how can I find the link to a specific section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is a section titles you can use Foo#Foo2 to link to the section. Replace Foo with article title and Foo2 with the section title. Slywriter (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Without the table of contents how can a get a URL link to a specific section?

I asked this question a while ago, but the only response is that the table of contents is there. But it isn't. At least not for me. I do see a small picture with three dot and three lines, when I point the cursor to it is shows "Table of Contents" in a small tool tip box. When I click on it, a light blue box appears around the three-dots-three=lines thing, and that is all. No table of contents appears.

Note that the white space on the left of my screen is very narrow, less than 1cm, so if a table of contents is supposed to be there, then it is so tiny that it is invisible for me.

And I am still trying to find the link to specific sections. I used to get them from the table of contents. Where are they now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177. I tried hiding the table of contents on the side and I saw that appears to the left of the page title. Did you enable Javascript on Wikipedia? That could be a potential reason as to why you're not seeing anything when clicking on the icon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you enable Javascript on Wikipedia?

Tenryuu asked: Did you enable Javascript on Wikipedia?

No I didn't. I haven't made any changes to my settings. None whatsoever. Yesterday the table of contents was fine. I made no changes. Today the table of contents (and so many other things) is/are missing.

This is a Wikipedia problem, not mine. I didn't change anything. Please don't blame me for changing a setting or enabling something. I didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Using company self-published financial statements as a reference

I am currently creating a page for a small community bank named Canandaigua National Bank & Trust (CNB). Though CNB is large enough to be listed on a publicly traded exchange, it instead opts to offer shares through sealed-bid auctions administered by the bank. Consequently, CNB issues annual financial reports akin to that of a 10k statement that would be filed by a publicly listed company. Here is their latest 2021 report for reference. In my page I reference the 2021 financial statement published by CNB several times. Do you believe that since these financial statements are self published by the bank that I should not use them as references? My draft was rejected and I have a feeling that this was likely the cause. Wsloth (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wsloth, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use self-published sources for relatively minor, uncontroversial, information such as share capital. They will not contribute towards notability, which depends on independent sources. For assessing notability, Wikipedia doesn't care whether a company's share capital is large, small, positive, negative, or fraudulent: all that matters is whether there has been substantial independent writing about the company. ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wsloth: That financial statement includes a report from an independent auditor (eleventh page of the PDF file), and in that sense it can be considered similar to a "peer reviewed" academic journal article. An independent source has verified the report, so I would say this is OK to cite as a reference, but it would not count toward notability of the bank. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the auditors are paid by the organisations to write the reports, and they only audit the information that is presented to them, even though they are 'independent' (Of course both can be said for many peer-reviewed journal articles too.) But I would agree that for factual information they should be a good source. I would tend to treat the 'CEO Statement' etc. (before page 11) in any financial report as promotional blurb and be very wary to repeat anything in there JeffUK 06:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wsloth Financial reports don't show that a company is notable, just that it exists. David10244 (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

New screen format for Wikipedia

Does anyone know if there's a way to reduce so much white space on the left side of the screen? It covers 20% of the screen. I'm using a computer. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Its the new default skin. You can go to your preferences and change the skin to Vector 2010 and it will go back to the old look. RudolfRed (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Sundayclose, in case you want to keep the new skin Vector 2022, you can personalize your experience and use the full width. Please read our FAQ to know why the width of the content is limited. Thank you. Zapipedia (WMF) (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Search box disappeared.

The search box disappeared. Previously there was a box to type searches into, now there is nothing.

Is it just my problem? I don't remember changing any settings, but all the pages look different now, with fewer links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP! Welcome to The Teahouse! Yes, the default skin has changed. The search box is now top left (ish) instead of top right. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has changed the skin. If you sign up for an account, you can use your preferences to change back to Vector 2010. That's what I have done. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @113.211.131.143:, you can look at the presentation of the new skin here with animated gifs to help you to find new features. Fewer links at first sight for readers is a design choice, please visit our project for further information. If you have any question or feedback you can contact the Web Team here.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I change back to the old look?

I've been reading wikipedia for years and this new look is unusable. How do I change back? 2600:1700:6033:9290:5C92:C513:509D:703A (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the teahouse! To move back to the old skin, you'll need to create an account and go to preferences. Once there, go to the appearance tab and select Vector 2010. Hope that helps! echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @2600:1700:6033:9290:5C92:C513:509D:703A:, you may also use a bookmarklet! :) Copy that code and just replace "monobook" with "vector". Please visit also this talk page for more information. If you want familiarize with the new look, there is a presentation on the Wikimedia Foundation website.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

how do I change the title page - it says Draft

how do I change the title page - it says Draft then the title , will this change when/if the page gets accepted .thanks VoicNoir (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

VoicNoir Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, if the draft is accepted, it will be placed in the main encyclopedia instead of Draft space(which is why it says "Draft:", which cannot otherwise be removed). I would ask you if you have an association with this company. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How can I turn off the annoying "V" and upside down "V" in the bottom right corner?

Moving my cursor over the two "V" things says "Skip to bottom" and "Skip to top". I already have "Home" and "End" buttons on my keyboard so I don't need these on my screen. They overlap text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.131.143 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Which skin are you using ? Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177. This is a result of the {{skip to top and bottom}} template. I personally don't use them either, but you can use a third-party adblocker to block the elements for yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

oh ok, thank you Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Pagination

Recent changes have reduced my Wikipedia page to a narrow column more suited to a 24" monitor than the 32" screen I use. Half of the screen is now blank with the content squeezed into the central third of the screen. How do I undo this? He10393 (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi He10393. Assuming this is related to "new" appearance Wikipedia took on sometime yesterday or today, try taking a look at WP:Vector 2022 or check some of the threads above this one since many people seem to have similar questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it! Restored to Vector Legacy 2010. So, how many Wikinauts have done the same revision? He10393 (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well done on your part, but I'm not sure it was necessary to start a new thread just to let everyone know you figure things out. So, I combine this thread together with your previous question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @He10393, in case you want to keep the new skin Vector 2022, you can personalize your experience and use the full width. Please read our FAQ to know why the width of the content is limited. Thank you. Zapipedia (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

how can I replace a portrait photo of a person with a more updated one?

how can I replace a portrait photo of a person with a more updated one?

Gikas Hardouvelis

Oknbg (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oknbg, the rule of thumb is that any random picture you find online can't be used on Commons (or Wikipedia), because copyright. Copyright generally belongs to the photographer, and that person can upload their own images on Commons if they wish, but you can't put other people's work there as "own work."

So, if you have more recent pics of him you have taken yourself with your own camera, you can upload them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How can I rename the title of my article?

I want to rename my article User:Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen into Pingo Magazine Besides, I'd like to upload an image to my infobox which keeps on being removed. I do have the copyrights, however. I do not understand. Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You have to use the Move function, if you have the rights, if not, head over to WP:RM (Requested Moves) BhamBoi (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of problems here. First, by "rename my article", I assume you mean that you want to place the user page you created in main space - in other words, to make it an article here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you have cited no sources and therefore have not demonstrated that the subject is notable. Your prospective article would not be accepted in its current state. Also, the image you uploaded was deleted as a copyright violation.

Please read Help:Your first article and WP:Donating copyrighted materials to get an idea of how to proceed from here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks a lot. My wish is to change the title of my article from User:Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen into Pingo Magazine. Besides, I want to upload an image (Pingo Ducktales in the infobox). I did not violate any copyrights as I own this photograph. Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen, as outlined here, simply stating "I own the copyright" is not enough in this case. You must prove it by the method described. You should also address any conflict of interest (WP:COI) that may be involved here. For your article, I recommend going to the Article Wizard and following the steps to create a draft, which you can then submit to Articles for Creation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see Hoary has moved it to draft for you. And also accidentally moved your talk page with the COI notice on it - Hoary, could you, um, put that back? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted, O user whose name I can never remember. I'd intended to prise the user talk page (which of course should have been left in situ) from the user page (for moving); but it seems that this was thwarted by either caffeine deficiency or simple senility. Now fixed. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries, I can't remember my own name half the time (a few 1s, a few 9s, whatever). All is now well in Wikipedia land except Vector 2022. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the longer I look at this draft, the stranger it seems. I've commented on a couple of its oddities, but there are others besides. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen, the magazine seems to be titled Pingo, rather than Pingo Magazine. The draft needed to be moved not only because you wanted it to be moved but also in order to comply with Wikipedia's rules. As has been stated above, if this were published as an article, it would soon be a candidate for deletion, which would be an unnecessary waste of your and others' time. In view of all of this, I've moved it to Draft:Pingo (magazine). Now please read WP:COI. (If this seems indigestible, you might approach it via Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks Hoary. I believe I fixed all the bugs. I read the Conflict of Interest guide and read through copyright violations. I believe, this article (including the photograph which I want to upload) does not collide with wiki's or anybody else's rights. In case you are fine with the article how it is now, I'd like to give it a try and open it to the world wide web. Andrea Charlotte Elisabeth Hillen (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You haven't yet added sources that demonstrate that the magazine meets the requirements set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) or WP:GNG. It will not be ready for approval until that is accomplished. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Why am I getting the mobile view on desktop?

I'm getting what appears to be the mobile view on my desktop. I'm not on en.m.wikipedia.org, but it looks like the mobile view. It's not exactly the same as the normal mobile one, but it's definitely not the desktop site. 172.58.35.35 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, the default desktop skin for Wikipedia has been changed to one which does resemble the mobile view. If you sign up for an account, you can switch back in your preferences. Otherwise, you (and I) must cope with the new default. There is a width toggle if the white space is one of the issues you're having. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you! I don't mind it; it just surprised me. It was just weird to load Wikipedia and have it not look like Wikipedia. 172.58.35.35 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah - I had precisely your experience when I powered up the old encyclopaedia earlier this afternoon. I was convinced I was in clinical mobile view before I worked out what had happened. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You can know more about this change at Wikipedia:Vector 2022. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please point out my mistakes in detail.

I found out there are several mentions-but not registered- of the topic from wiki pages so I'm currently trying to add of it but it has been denied, Honestly I have no idea what's wrong I should fix further. If somebody points out my mistakes in detail, it would be appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RLottie Wuming421 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleting a Helpdesk request and re-adding it at the bottom doesn't speed things up, it only means that you wait longer for an answer. - X201 (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wuming421, it's extraordinarily simple. You don't provide good sources of information about your subject. Are there some? If so, then here, in this "Teahouse" thread, provide links to the best three of them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wuming421, and welcome to the Teahouse. As well as what Hoary has said, you might find WP:BACKWARD helpful to read. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking to help where its needed

Hello to all. I am looking to help in Wikipedia and help with articles. Where is a good place to start? Squeaksqueakn (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Squeaksqueakn. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Community portal. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thank you. I'll be looking into this more today. Squeaksqueakn (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Different language sources

Hello, so, I was trying to find sources for the article Vach, so I went on the German Wikipedia and I found many sources there. I was just wondering if I may use those sources for the English Wikipedia? Thanks. Regards, Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello...indeed you can; see WP:NOENG. Keep in mind that they still have to be reliable sources, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Dinoz1. Lectonar is spot on. I created this article using a large number of sources that were in another language. It is essential to be able to read that language sufficiently (and/or to understand the limitation of translation tools) to be able to interpret the sources correctly. Blindly putting them in without actually assessing them is not a wise thing to do. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just coming in from the sidelines...as a long-time sufferer over at pages needing translation (although these are articles, not the sources)...please try to avoid translation tools except for the most basic needs. Even the much flaunted DeepL isn't really up to the task :). Lectonar (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all! Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Doubts about the copyright status of a 2019 photo in the article Lucile Randon

The main photo from 2019 in the article Lucile Randon is licensed as having been released into the public domain by Gerontology Wiki. I have several doubts that this is true however, and am leaning towards it being removed due to it being copyrighted.

Anyone can edit the gerontology wiki, so the photo doesn't belong to that wiki itself as far as I am aware. The person who uploaded it to the Gerontology Wiki licensed it as puiblic domain there, but did not provide proof they are the copyright holder. Many of the photos uploaded there are copyrighted and can be found elsewhere online, so clearly no one is actually checking copyright status on that Wiki. Also the person who uploaded the photo to Wikipedia has a different username than that of the user who uploaded it to the Gerontology Wiki.

Should the photo be removed until it can be confirmed that it really is in the public domain? Or never added back if it is proven that the photo is still copyrighted, or it's supposed public domain licensing cannot be confirmed? Greshthegreat (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Greshthegreat Welcome to the Teahouse! The primary photo is located at Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LRandon.webp so I suggest asking at the Commons help desk at Commons:Commons:Help desk. Thanks for reporting the issue, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ask at the Commons Help Desk. Greshthegreat (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The image has now been moved to en-Wikipedia, which allows non-free files (from Commons, which doesn’t). Even there it might not be safe - a discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2023_January_19#File:LucileRandon2019.webp. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Explain?

What the actual fuck happened to wikipedia's UI?! It's so damn ugly now! How do I change it back?? 172.78.190.61 (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's because of WP:Vector 2022

You can change the skin back in your settings. Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

go to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences and change it back to Vector Legacy 2010. Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that this is only possible if the user has an account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, you're correct, I didn't see the IP Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see theres quite a bit of people unhappy with this. sorry for swearing, but this new skin is a chore to navigate, so thanks for your help on changing it back. 172.78.190.61 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

ok i guess im making an account then 172.78.190.61 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

done. Vectorskin2010fan (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The new skin is not so bad, and maybe better in some ways. But, those who like it will stay (mostly) silent, while those who don't like it will be vocal about it. David10244 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

im just happy wiki is nice enough to allow u to go back to the old one. so much nostalgia with the 2010 skin. Vectorskin2010fan (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the opposite: this is inspired by some people complaining "Wikipedia doesn't look modern enough", while everybody who was happy with it (the way it was) stayed silent.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh please change it back. I'm on a PC and it looks tiny now, hard to read, with loads of annoying white space on either side. Before it filled the screen and was easier to read and use. A massive backwards step. 86.158.8.189 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. Feel free to leave feedback at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 - there is also a link to the MediaWiki talk page at the top. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Easiest thing to do is to create an account and go to Preferences → Appearance → Skin → Vector legacy (2010). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please let us change Wikipedia "skin" without logging in.

I sincerely hate the new layout. I will not get used to it. I can change it in the Preferences. Fine?

Not fine, because I am usually not logged in to Wikipedia. In fact, I can't remember my password, and the password reset isn't working, so I had to create this account to change the layout and make this comment. (I have a semi-extensive edit history.) I use Wikipedia on many computers and it's not sensible to log in to each one.

Please give us the ability to change the "skin" without logging in. You don't have to save the skin preference in the database. You could save it in a cookie for logged-out users. This would make it possible to, on each computer, switch the skin over to the old, readable one without having to log in every time. I believe this would not be complex to implement.

I see there is a talk page for the new layout, but this is not a issue concerning the new layout (because I have no feedback about the new layout; I simply want it to go away), it is an issue concerning Wikipedia's skin feature. If there is some other place that would be more appropriate than this for filing Wikipedia feature requests I can post there. NoFlatDesignEver (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

NoFlatDeaignEver Please read Vector 2022, and use its talk page to give comments about the new skin, which your question is related to. It isn't possible to do as you ask, nor is it as simple as you claim, there are privacy issues involved. Please also understand the difficulty in accommodating every human on this planet in website design, and that it is impossible to please everyone. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Old layout seemed to accommodate every human on the planet fine NoFlatDesignEver (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @NoFlatDesignEver, welcome to the Teahouse. Some workarounds for IP editors are described here. The "add a cookie" suggestion has been made by others, but it seems to be infeasible. The best place to give design feedback right now is the talk page for Vector 2022, that's where all the important eyes are. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Richard Cadman Etches

I would like to write a biography of Richard Cadman Etches who was an 18th Century entrepreneur and British spy. Reference to him already exists on Wikipedia but he does not have a biography devoted solely to him. I would like to correct that. My question is that because I have written a book about him "Hero in the Footnotes"published by AuthorHouse, and because it is possible that he was a very distant relation of mine, will I be allowed to proceed with the submission and quote from my book (which contains unique information about him) in the process? Michael Etches (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Etches. Since AuthorHouse is a self-publishing platform, your book is not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SELFPUBLISHED for details. You have a clear conflict of interest that you should declare on your userpage. You probably are familiar with the reliable sources about this person. Read Your first article and submit a draft to to Articles for Creation process. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Regarding your possible family connection to Richard Cadman Etches, you should read our conflict of interest guideline, particularly the section on writing about family members.

Regarding your book, AuthorHouse appears to be a self-publishing platform. As such, it is not a reliable source and it should probably not be cited on Wikipedia for anything regardless of your conflict of interest. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Michael Etches and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a very good question and one that is not easy to answer in a way that doesn't sound insulting to all your research efforts. You may now be one of the best experts on the subject, but (as I see has already been stated above whilst I was drafting my response to you) you would indeed also be regarded as having a very big Conflict of Interest, especially as you would want to be citing your own published/self-published book.

Now, I wouldn't want to totally discourage you in writing about a historical figure, but it does need to be a path trod over with extreme care to avoid accusations of self-promotion or WP:COI. Firstly - and most importantly - can you cite alternative published sources about this historical figure that demonstrate that R C Etches is, indeed, notable by Wikipedia's standards (see WP:NBIO)? Having found them, you should still follow guidance at WP:COI to declare your COI, and then very carefully prepare a draft for submission to WP:AFC. It would, of course, be ideal for any new editor like yourself to learn the basics of what we're about before ever trying to start upon the very hardest task here - that of creating a new article from scratch. Just experience with basic editing is something well-worth acquiring before ever embarking on such a task. Actually avoiding putting in personal interpretation, conclusions and uncited facts is far greater when an expert tries to write about their favourite subject, than when an unconnected editor tries. I note that one of your Amazon reviewers flagged up poor citation as an issue, and that's something we would not want to happen here.

Were I to have got that far with getting a very basic, successfully reviewed article, I would leave it for others to work on, rather than try to expand from my own book. We would then expect someone with a COI to make an WP:EDITREQUEST with very specific recommendations for piecemeal changes that other, non-involved editors can assess, rather than editing a page directly. I think we had similar concerns with a biographer wanting to make very minor (but important to them) changes to an article about polar explorer Tom Crean, if I remember rightly. But because I'm in Derbyshire and have a passing interest in Joseph Banks (with whom I see there is archived correspondence), I might be willing to help guide you a bit in creating a basic article about this person from alternative sources, rather than your own published work. You can reach me on my talk page (link in my signature) if you want to discuss further. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume it's the same person mentioned at King George's Sound Company. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be useful sources:[8], Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Nick, many thanks for your helpful comments. Yes, I would have quoted from my book when writing my article but my prime objective was not self-promotion but rather to make RCE's life and exploits known to a wider audience and to help future investigators who might well come up with knowledge about him that I don't possess. My book is called Hero in the Footnotes because I found it extremely difficult to discover much reference to RCE and, when I did, it was mainly contained in footnotes and glossaries. I ended up consulting over thirty published sources, all of which are listed in the book's bibliography. I was therefore confused by the reviewer (not a verified purchaser btw) who complained that I should have paid more attention to citation, because not only is the book I quoted from contained in the bibliography, but I have referred to it and its author in the text itself. I feel that I could write a basic article derived from the alternative sources which would meet Wikipedia's requirements. I would also declare my conflict of interest and not use any part of my book as a source. But the problem would be that in all of the books I have read many of the facts are incorrect, even his birth date. The correct details only appear in my book which I cannot use. I'm not sure how I'd be able to overcome that? I will now take up the suggestion that other editors have made and write a draft for Articles for Creation and proceed from there. Mike. Michael Etches (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

References

how to search for a random article

how to display a random article? 108.226.166.117 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Click the random link on the side of the top of the page. Or use Special:Random I like Astatine (Talk to me) 20:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. That option is in the main menu, which sometimes doesn't appear uncollapsed on a page. If you don't see it, click on the symbol at very top left which looks like three horizontal lines. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That too, thanks for the backup I like Astatine (Talk to me) 20:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello I need help creating a public figure Wikipedia page

Hello, We are wondering how to get in contact with an editor for a high profile US producer with 23 years of films and tv produced, and a US film and tv distribution studio with over 350 films released. Most films have a wiki page but the the company when mentioned is unclikable since there are no page associated on Wikipedia. Thank you for helping! 2603:3020:1AD5:B020:C08B:8D55:F6E:40EE (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia has articles, not "wiki pages". Wikipedia is not a mere database where existence warrants inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. A company merits an article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. It is possible that a company's products(like films) merit articles while the company itself does not. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, even without a conflict of interest. Please read conflict of interest and paid editing, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you could list some of the films that already have articles - that would give an indication of notability. It's entirely possible that sources used in those articles (such as in production sections, etc) may be able to support and be used in the article you're after. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A person with a "high profile" is probably connected to things to which she is important. For example some years ago I noticed that Alice Bowman was nowhere mentioned in any WP article, much less was the subject of an article. So, I mentioned her near the bottom of the article about her most famous project, and pretty soon other editors decided to make an article about her. Of course, in the case of your person, you may be using "high profile" in another sense, which is likely to make it more difficult. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please put the table of contents at the TOP of the page.

Koro Neil (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koro Neil, the folks who answer questions here at the Teahouse are not at all in charge of layout decisions in Vector 2022. Please direct such suggestions to the talk page for Vector 2022, Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How to add a statement next to a "See also" link?

I've just added a See also section to Bournemouth Airport.

The See also section includes a link to Bournemouth Aviation Museum.

Why have I added it? Because the museum was located at the airport from 1998 until 2008, when it moved further away.

How can I add the statement – located at the airport from 1998 until 2008 so that it appears to the side of the link? Danstarr69 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Danstarr69, welcome back. Just add the statement to the right of the link. There are examples here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

When I add it to the right of the link in source mode, it gets added underneath the link in visual mode. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69, the {{See also}} template should not be used in See also sections, per its documentation. Just format the link with a bullet point, per the MOS page I linked. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović

Hey! I've been working on this draft for a while; I'm requesting assistance from here to fix additional fixes/reference issues. Thanks! Tails Wx 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: If you click the blue "help" link in the reference error, it will give an explanation. For example: Help:CS1_errors#generic_name. In the case of reference #24: first=Tim Butcher,historian,writer,Special. Change this to |first=Tim |last=Butcher and it should work. RudolfRed (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also noting if all the sources in the draft are reliable as well. Tails Wx 22:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The new look of Wiki

how do i use the regular site the new look and style makes it hard to find stuff and well feel like imb which i left do to it being hard to use there,,,, when i type a film it lists stuff that isnt a film etc here now the old way was right to the point ,, now its hidden and jumbled and makes you wana give up on the info.... 184.19.60.43 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The default skin("site") was changed. If you create an account, you can select the old skin in your account preferences. Please see WP:VECTOR2022 for more information. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. You can watch a presentation of the new skin here, complete with animations. There's also a list of features, with pictures, here. Maybe one or both of those will help you navigate the new skin. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Darwin Awards and Wendy Northcutt

Hi, I was reading about Wendy Northcutt and the Darwin Awards. While there is an article about the awards, there isn't one about Northcutt herself, even though she is quite notable. Is there a reason for this? I've tried to look for one but haven't been able to find any discussion regarding this matter. UMStellify (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

UMStellify, here, in this "teahouse" thread, provide us with links to the best three web pages that are about Northcutt and not about, or only peripherally about, the Darwin Awards. Then we'll see if she seems to be notable. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wendy seems to be notable for her website and book and nothing else. Our article about the Awards seems to cover everything notable about her, so imho that suffices, rather than another article covering essentially the same things. - Roxy the dog 11:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary A previous conversation here at the Teahouse suggested that if the works by an author are notable and widely covered/reviewed, and provide sufficient information about the author, then the author is also notable and can have a Wikipedia article. The articles about her would all include substantial information about the Darwin Awards since that is what made her famous in the first place, no?

@Roxy the dog Isn't that true for almost all of the authors and celebrities out there? While their work is covered by individual articles about their books, movies, and tv shows, they do get biographical articles about themselves even though it contains the same information. Just trying to understand how it works. UMStellify (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not true, no. Roxy the dog 12:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy. There are many example of works that are article-worthy whereas there is not sufficient published content about the creator to warrant an article.David notMD (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@UMStellify You said "The articles about her would all include substantial information about the Darwin Awards since that is what made her famous in the first place, no? No: absolutely not!

An article about an Award focusses on the award, and can mention its creator. But the article about its creator must focus on that person, and not go off at a tangent to cover the Award (again). Whilst the Darwin Award is notable in its own right, only if sources exist that demonstrate its creator is also notable in her own right can we have an article about her. There is already a WP:REDIRECT from Wendy Northcutt to the awards. Without evidence of suitable good-quality sources that meet WP:NBIO, that will have to suffice for now. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think she could be notable as a creative, as per: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals however that doesn't mean she meets the general notability requirement that we actually have sources talking about her! Maybe you could see what sources you can find that discuss Northcutt herself in detail, and see if you think there's enough material to put together an article? JeffUK 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

UMStellify, you say: @Hoary A previous conversation here at the Teahouse suggested that if the works by an author are notable and widely covered/reviewed, and provide sufficient information about the author, then the author is also notable and can have a Wikipedia article. That's pretty close to something that wasn't merely suggested but rather was actually said, and said by me. I wouldn't sign my name to your version (I'd want to tinker with it first), but I don't have a major objection to it. However, you continue: The articles about [Northcutt] would all include substantial information about the Darwin Awards since that is what made her famous in the first place, no? The question isn't of what made her famous in the first place. It's of what she has been known for. If she has been known primarily for the Darwin Awards, but also (as demonstrable via newspaper coverage, etc) for her ultra-endurance running, her anti-antivax activism, her series of "Sonia the Scientist" books for kids, her podcast, her prize pumpkins, then an article about her would be appropriate. If OTOH her renown is just for the Darwin Awards (however remarkable and meritorious these may be), and all you'd be able to add is the usual humdrum biographical stuff (born in year A and town B, majored in C at university D, etc), then there's no reason for an article about her (and I'm puzzled by why you'd want to construct one). -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary Ah, I just realized that it was indeed you who said that. But, you're right, that is pretty much the kind of information out there - the humdrum biographical stuff. I came across her name while browsing through the Women in Red redlist index for writers from America, did some research, and wondered why she doesn't have a biographical article. It makes sense now. Thank you. UMStellify (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How do i speed up a deletion request?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i am the copyright holder of an all rights reserved image on this website i am having great difficulty getting removed. could people please help me find the relevant policy relating to illegally hosted copyright images? this is an all rights reserved, commercial for-sale photo that currently has a deletion article yet only 2 people voting to delete and the vast majority voting to keep it against my wishes!

also, how can i speed up the process as it is taking much too long for what i believe should be a simple speedy deletion due to copyvio! i see anyone can close a deletion request. as the copyright holder what is stopping me from closing the request right now and declaring that the photo should be deleted?

thanks for your time VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

VoidseekerNZ Copyright violations should be handled as described at Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Information for copyright owners. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is occurring at Commons, which is separate from English Wikipedia. You can try their help desk at Commons:HD. However, the deletion discussion notice at Commons:File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg is clear that this is not a copyright violation issue as you uploaded the photo, stated it was your own work and then released it under the CC license. Continued removal of the photo from en-wiki by you under those circumstances can be considered disruptive. I would also refrain from claims of copyright infringement as the photo has been released under a permissive license and as long as Commons chooses to host, it's use on English Wikipedia is permissible. Slywriter (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

i never did any such thing as i have stated multiple times, and i take offence to the insinuation that i just gave away my all rights reserved works for free. just because your website erroneously added a free licence to my photo does not magically make it so. it is still a commercially, for sale, photo.

how do you even know i took it? is it common practise around here to just believe every person who claims they took a high resolution one of a kind photo of a rare snail without any form of fact checking or validation? what if i stole the photo? there are clear and significant doubts on the validity of that licence and anyone who continues that ludicrous attempt is just ignoring the material facts of the case.

" it's use on English Wikipedia is permissible."

i want to make it ABSOLUTELY clear that wikipedia has NO PERMISSION OR RIGHTS IN ANY CAPACITY to use my images. i have NEVER given wikipedia my permission to use my photos and this is flagrant copyright violation. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Have a nice day, as you seem to only be concerned with insisting that it is someone else's fault and couldn't possibly be your own error. Regardless, the software didn't do anything. It takes a human and the logs are clear on what account a human conducted the upload from. Slywriter (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

VoidseekerNZ, you are on the wrong website. The photo, as you know, is on Wikimedia Commons, a separate project with a separate team of administrators. The decision will be made at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg and nothing you say here will have any influence there. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, i can see im on the wrong website. so perhaps if someone could actually be helpful and assist me in removing my illegally hosted images from wikipedia we could wrap up this whole mess and i can be on my merry way and let everyone get back to whatever productive things they'd much rather be doing than reading this drivel. :( VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What we are telling you is that we cannot help you with your concern and that you must address it on Commons. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

yes but can you point me in the direction of relevant policy perhaps? i made a couple of specific requests in my first post in this comment thread which have been ignored, i was hoping to get a reply if it was possible. no worries if not, thanks for your time. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The correct location to discuss is here, but I see you're already found that page. The terms of use can be found at [9], which include the irrevocable release of submissions under CC BY-SA 3.0. VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ: As others have stated, we cannot help you here on the English Wikipedia when the issue is on Commons. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

ok, my apologies. where is an appropriate place to ask for advice regarding copyright matters? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ: You can try [email protected] and letting them know the release under a free license was unintentional. I suggest being straightforward with them regarding what happened and not repeating claims that this was a compromised account, etc. VQuakr (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

before making any drastic actions i want to be informed on the copyright procedure on wiki if possible VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ, are you asking about the procedures on Commons or on English Wikipedia? Assuming it's the former, you could start here. The place you should really be asking about Commons is on Commons - editors here are much less likely to have experience with their policies. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Look - How do I increase the font size? I can barely read it.

Problems with the new look. AncientBrit (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AncientBrit: thank you for reporting this issue. I would like to help you, can you describe me what happens exactly, and what browser/layout size are you using? There is a shortcut which is not working for you with Vector 2022, but which is still working with Vector 2010, or something else? FYI, a task is open on Phabricator to increase the font size to 14px to 16px to, you can follow it here. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I am using Firefox 108.0.1 (64-bit), on a 27-inch iMac (2017), running Monterey 12.6.1. AncientBrit (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@AncientBrit: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177. Most browsers have a native feature to increase text size; usually holding down Ctrl while scrolling up or down on a mouse wheel enlarges or reduces it, respectively. Does that work? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes - I know.

I don't want to enlarge my entire desktop - and lose the edges - just to consult wiki. It seems to me a pointless and negative change. What's the point of all the excess white space in the margins while useful and relevant information is squeezed off the bottom? Exactly what problem were you trying to solve? It's just pointless. Change it back. AncientBrit (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, zoom level is domain specific, so it won't affect other sites. I've been using the new skin for months and at my zoom level I've gotten rid of significant margins as a personal fix. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-Existent Pages with Mention on Disambiguation pages

Hello, I'm planning on merging a page (Sibirsky (Rural Locality)) with (Sibirsky) As I was advised with a previous question, in which I would follow the Wikipedia policy

WP:Be Bold, but there are many non-existent pages, should I include them? I Followed The Username Policy (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:I followed The Username Policy,

It seems like places are the one kind of redlinked entry that is tolerated in disambiguation pages. So if it was fine in Sibirsky (rural locality), which is a DAB page among localities, then it would be equally fine in Sibirsky, which is a DAB page that would (after your edit) include those localities. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Red links are acceptable on DAB pages if there is also a blue link that includes the red-link. Every entry should have a blue link. Simplified advice can be found at WP:DDD with detailed guidance within MOS:DABPAGES at MOS:DABRED. Gab4gab (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Lock sign on references

Hi, I've seen that some references have a lock icon to indicate paywalls and similar content. How do you add that to a reference? Lampyscales (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lampyscales, welcome to the Teahouse. Typically you would change the url-access= parameter to "free", "registration", "limited", or "subscription". See Template:Citation#Subscription or registration required for details. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Lampyscales (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Password help

My friend forgot her password for her Wikipedia account but she remembers she had her Gmail email confirmed with the account but it seems there isn't a "forgot password" feature for Wikipedia on the login page. Help? Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oscarjohnson1981: Direct your friend to Special:PasswordReset. For future note, the "forget password link is underneath the login button. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Updating a profile name

Hello! I am wanting to edit a name because the person is divorced and is now using their maiden name (Lisa Arrindell)?

Please advise.

Lisa Arrindell Anderson Terrimontrel (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Terrimontrel,

I see you have since found Wikipedia:Requested moves and made a request there. And User:Station1 has handled it. The page is now at Lisa Arrindell, and Lisa Arrindell Anderson remains as a redirect to it (in case someone is still looking for them by the married name). Thanks for pushing to get it updated! DMacks (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Constanza Navarro Meza article

Hi, I want to ask you to approve for a wikipedia article the biography of CONSTANZA NAVARRO MEZA. She is a well known living person. Her website is [10]https://www.constanzaoficial.com

References about her international television appearances are the following:

https://gluc.mx/entretenimiento/2022/4/28/la-voz-kids-2022-quien-es-constanza-navarro-participante-del-equipo-de-paty-cantu-50120.html

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/constanza-navarro-meza-pasa-a-siguiente-etapa-de-la-voz-kids-8327454.html

https://www.meganoticias.mx/s-luis-r-colorado/noticia/la-pequena-constanza-navarro-es-seleccionada-en-la-voz-kids/325733

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/invitan-a-apoyar-a-constanza-navarro-desde-la-explanada-municipal-8320046.html

https://www.pressreader.com/mexico/tribuna-de-san-luis/20211016/281831466922992

https://www.meganoticias.mx/s-luis-r-colorado/noticia/reconoce-alcalde-a-constanza-navarro-como-orgullo-sanluisino/326544

https://www.tribunadesanluis.com.mx/local/alcalde-recibio-a-constanza-navarro-participante-en-un-programa-de-tv-8240950.html

https://youtube/hsYppXHu-_k

https://youtube/8JYrMme9IDo

https://youtube/gpdNMDqWHGU

https://youtube/NPZw5kvdTuo Gelowiki21 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There are constraints on my time and energy, Gelowiki21; and therefore I'm not going to think about, let alone view, all of those. I imagine that I'm typical of people reading this request of yours. Putting videos aside, please nominate the best three sources among those you list above. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at the guidelines at WP:GNG and see what you think. No one will approve an article before it's written! -- asilvering (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Gelowiki21, you have provided three links on my talk page. I quote:

1. www.constanzaoficial.com
2. https://gluc.mx/entretenimiento/2022/4/28/la-voz-kids-2022-quien-es-constanza-navarro-participante-del-equipo-de-paty-cantu-50120.html
3. https://youtube/hsYppXHu-_k

The first is the subject's website, so it's not a reliable source. The second is pretty insubstantial. The third doesn't even work, and presumably it's supposed to be some Youtube video. (I asked you to put videos aside.) If your three are the best three, then your proposed subject is not notable; and if she isn't notable, no article about her can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: It seems like the YouTube link was supposed to be to https://youtu.be/hsYppXHu-_k. Unknownst to many, however, the youtu.be shortcut domain is on the spam blacklist, so linking there does not work unless you obfuscate the link. The target video should be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsYppXHu-_k. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Victor Schmidt mobil. And it turns out to be a variety show: it can't be cited as a source. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Take out that buttons on top right

New skin is nice. But one problem. That buttons like talk, preferences, sandbox. . . etc everything needs an extra click. How do I make it visible directly (probably at right side where whitespace is there). -- Parnaval (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how, and it may take some custom CSS or Javascript. Perhaps ask at WP:Village pump (technical)? – Anon423 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Correcting grammar, but not content

When I look at some of the pages in need of grammar/editing, I feel confident I can make them a bit better, but I am very hesitant to clear the previous author's work in the interest of preserving the original information. I am not an expert on some of the topics of the pages that need copy editing, and am worried about losing information. ScipioAfricanusAtZama (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahhouse @ScipioAfricanusAtZama! WP:BEBOLD. If you are worried that some terms have technical significance, you can raise a question on the respective WP:TALKPAGE. In any case, you can never overwrite history, because all edits are permanently recorded and can be reverted/viewed. Happy grammar improvements! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would actually strongly advise against being bold in this situation - it's very easy for accidental misinformation to sneak into Wikipedia this way! If you are worried that your edits might materially change the meaning of the sentence, get a copy of the original source to check! If you can't understand or can't find the original source, leave it for someone who can. There's absolutely tons of work to be done on the encyclopedia, and you can easily find things to edit that don't leave you completely out of your depth. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to second user:asilvering here. When I'm unsure I understand the content I usually avoid improving the grammar/formatting (and possibly ossifying misinformation or adding my misunderstandings). The thing to do here is to verify by checking what the cited sources say; you also have full rights to completely remove anything dubious and uncited, though I usually try to find and add relevant references. – Anon423 (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anon423, @ScipioAfricanusAtZama I'm with Anon here--I think it's possible to fix grammar and spelling issues without changing meaning, and without being a subject-matter expert. If an article says "there was five ship in the harbor" I would feel confident changing that to "there were five ships in the harbor". If an article spells "blueberry" as "bluebery", I would also feel confident fixing this. I find these kinds of errors often, but I have occasionally run across things that look wrong where I was unsure of the intended meaning. In those (rare for me) cases, I leave that part of the article alone. David10244 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

... Yes, of course, that's exactly what I meant, if it wasn't evident in context. I'm addressing mostly those cases you mention in which the writing is so bad as to impair comprehension. – Anon423 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In those cases (which I've sometimes wrestled with), there's no easy way other than to consult the sources, which may be easy or – not, and/or to look for an additional reliable source which might clarify the matter. Sometimes the article in question has been translated from one on another language's Wikipedia, and the difficulty is caused by poor translation: if that's the case, and you can read the other language sufficiently well, that original-language version might help. Otherwise the best you could do might be to put an appropriate template, such as next to the offending text, which someone with the article on their watchlist might respond to; or you could open a new section on the Talk page discussing the problem and adding an Edit request template. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.65.248.217 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Starting new articles about people prominent in a specific community or region

Hi, I'm quite new to creating new articles but have edited numerous articles without an account. I was wondering what would be the right approach to create articles about people prominent in a specific community but have little coverage in mainstream media, something which is necessary part of the references section.

Please guide. NamkeenChai (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@NamkeenChai: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. 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 be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I have been editing for just under a decade now but never created new articles. I read both "notability" and "Help: Your first article" among some other pages related to creating pages hence needed to make this post in confusion. I think I'll start a few drafts and get help from experienced editor. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What specific community? You might be able to ask editors at whatever relevant WikiProject for advice. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, the communities in the valleys of Karakorams. The region is home to only 2 million people but there is only a little coverage on Wikipedia about their work and contributions. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether "coverage in mainstream media" is "something which is necessary part of the references section" depends a lot on what you mean by "mainstream media". Take books for example. If by "mainstream" books you mean the kinds of books that are stocked by [physical] bookstores, then most of the books I cite would not be mainstream. If OTOH you mean the kinds of books that are bought and stocked by at least some university libraries, then all, I think (and hope), of the books I cite would be mainstream. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary, I think they mean bias exists and when plenty of "mainstrean" resources are owned by people that do not belong to a specific community - they won't be giving any good coverage to it. For example, it is very hard to find good coverage about Indian Muslim scholars in mainstream Indian resources such as The Hindu and others. Discussions about them are mostly limited to books and things that are "less mainstream" and are perhaps also closely associated. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a reasonable guess, TheAafi. However, if I were looking for material about a scholar, I wouldn't assume that there'd be anything in the newspapers about the person, regardless of nationality, ethnic affiliation, or religious belief. Well, NamkeenChai, what kind of sources do you have? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources are newspapers and magazines in Urdu language. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to use Urdu sources to write English-language Wikipedia articles. -- asilvering (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! NamkeenChai (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was also meaning to mention sources that are not in English language specifically. Should those references be used to create articles in that specific language or can be used in English articles as well? I've yet to explore the Wikipedia practices multilingual sources. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

By mainstream media I mean English newspapers and new blogs, etc. that do not cover stories about the communities that I mentioned. This is not limited to people only, it also includes major events as well. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerning using non-english sources, please see WP:NOENG. Keep in mind that they still have to be reliable sources, though. Lectonar (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That helps. I'll start a draft and see how it goes. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox

Why is there no option for the visual editor feature when editing the main Wikipedia experiment sandbox page? Quaker1889 (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quaker1889: You can use the visual editor on the sandbox by using the button in the sandbox header. There is no link in the actions menu, however, because the Visual Editor is not configured to be active in the Wikipedia: namespace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Error: Librarian field in Infobox Library

Hello!

I just noticed an oddity trying to do an infobox following Template:Infobox_library. The librarian field doesn't seem to be working. It is included in the examples, but looking at the example on the side, it doesn't show. Do you know why, if it should be fixed, or what I could do? I wish to include the editor in chief of a digital library.

Thank you in advance,

Tsiluciole (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I do notice this but I'm not sure if Teahouse volunteers are best people to be asked on this. I have added your query at Template talk:Infobox library#"Librarian". ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tsiluciole: To clear this up. I've checked the template and there is not a librarian field in that template, there never has been. Someone edited the template documentation and added the field name without adding any code to the actual template to handle the field. I've edited the documentation and removed the non-existent field. If you think the template would benefit from having that field, then follow the link to the template talk page and start a discussion about adding it. - X201 (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @TheAafi for starting a talk page and @X201 for checking the page!

Do you think the director field could work for the editor-in-chief? Tsiluciole (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Vector

How can I change back to the old look of Wikipedia? I'm not used to the new skin so it makes browsing feel weird and I much prefer the old look. 24.207.44.76 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You can change it back at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences BhamBoi (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi, that is not available to IP editors. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize. I was just trying to be helpful 🥴 BhamBoi (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you sign up for an account, there is no way for you to switch back to the old skin except by manually adding ?useskin=vector to the end of URLs. There is a width toggle which is available to IPs as well as those using an account. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's awfully disappointing. Thanks for the great tips 199. Do you know where or how I could access the width toggle feature? 24.207.44.76 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The toggle should show up at the bottom right of your browser window once you've widened it enough. It looks like a small, segmented square or cross inside a slightly bigger square. Unfortunately you'll need to re-toggle it every time you navigate to a different article or page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @24.207.44.76: you may use a bookmarklet! :) More information here. Hope this should help.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

One popular solution is to use a userscript manager browser addon with a userscript that automatically adds &useskin=vector (or monobook if that's your preference) to wikipedia URLs. Countless such scripts are available at sites that host userscripts, for example here. This also allows you to easily share wikipedia links with the proper desktop skin. But unfortunately, these userscripts may interfere with your ability to edit wikipedia depending on their implementation. Sad to see wikipedia join the list of sites that are unusable without userscripts/styles. - 88.113.111.225 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving a Page

Hello!

I am trying to move the Perseus Project for it to become Perseus Digital Library, seeing as this is the terminology used in all citations and references (and is more precise). There however already exists a page named Perseus Digital Library, which is used to redirect to Perseus Project, which means I cannot do this. What can I do?

Thank you in advance,

Tsiluciole (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If you believe this move is uncontroversial follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves. If you're unsure if someone would oppose to the move, or want community concensus before moving it, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done It's been done now, in case anyone reading this thread is interested.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Using photos as a source

How can I source a statement which I know to be true, but is not written anywhere online. For example, the locations of the groups in the Schuster Laboratory are outdated, but the new locations are not stated on any website. I can provide a photo of the building's layout displayed in the foyer, which gives the new locations. RSP13 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@RSP13 You can use {{Cite sign}} to reference such signage. You may optionally include a photo of the signage only if you took the photo yourself or the photographer explicitly licensed it apropriately. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@RSP13 I find it odd that an encyclopaedia would cover the floor-location of the groups, since WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. I also find it odd that one group is apparently on the 0th floor: is that some sort of group joke? So why not just remove the floor designations? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Repeat citations

Is it possible for the same reference number to appear in difference places in an article using Visual Editor? When I enter a source more than once it appears with different numbers. Mcljlm (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177. If you're using the visual editor, after you click on Cite, click on the Re-use tab and it will pull up the current references being cited in the article. It comes with a search field to easily look for the one you want. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

how to cancel account

i would like to cancel my account 75.134.189.254 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. Accounts can not be deleted. You can request to be WP:VANISHed, if eligible; otherwise, simply stay logged out and never use your account again. You can even scramble the password and remove any attached email address if you want to make it very permanent. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP! What kidn of account are you referring to? If you're referring to a credit card account then Wikipedia cannot help you there. If you're referring to a Wikipedia account those cannot be deleted (Or in your case, cancelled). Simply just abandon it and that's all you need to do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

direct sources

hey everyone, I added a a small text and reference to an article. The text was summarizing that Elon musk has stated that he is pro train, and as a reference I used the tweet in which he stated this. This has been reversed because "Twitter is not a reliable source". I generally agree but in this case I think that it is because it is the way that musk communicated this.

Can anyone explain why this isn't a reliable source regardless?

Thanks everybody! GXBaum (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@GXBaum According to WP:RSPTWITTER, consensus is that Twitter can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF type of citations, which is probably the case here, assuming the tweet was from Musk's own account. If you believe your addition is important, you should take this up with the editor who reverted you via Talk:The Boring Company, as part of our standard WP:BRD process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and helpful response! GXBaum (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted, and I am open to rethinking that with this context. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you! I appreciate your support to wiki GXBaum (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a team effort. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Mobile view on desktop

Hi. On my desktop system I am getting delivered the mobile view. I tried deleting all cookies, but it persists. What can I do to get it back to normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.110.245 (talk • contribs)

Hi, you are probably mentioning the recent change that happen regarding Wikipedia's appearance. SEe Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for more information. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to switch back except by setting up an account. Feel free to leave feedback on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 - there is also a link to the MediaWiki talk page at the top). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. So much wasted screen space. Feels like reading through a straw. Very claustrophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.211.110.245 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A widescreen version is still available to IPs - just widen the browser window enough and a toggle, which looks like this: , should appear in the bottom right. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You have to do this _every time_ though. Wtf? 73.7.176.82 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a single page with all the rules for editing Wikipedia?

Hello, I've been trying to be bold, as the article states you should, but I am finding my edits being reverted. I was curious if there is a manual for editing. Thanks! Drdr150 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of different policies, guidelines, and advice essays, and they can get a bit overwhelming. A good start would be the simplified ruleset, which gives a brief summary of all the major ones and links for more info. Wikipedia is very much "learn on the job" and don't be afraid to make mistakes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drdr150 There are already a lot of links from your own Talk Page, which you should read when you have time. Provided you are not deliberately vandalising pages, no-one will object to you making a few mistakes as a beginner. We have a key process summarised at WP:BRD which you should certainly read, as WP:BOLD is not the whole story. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Drdr150, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of such pages. But you can ask here for help, and people will guide you to the relevant policy page. For your edits to Towel Day, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates. With your first edit to Nepenthe (video game), you added a whole sentence but wrote the misleading edit summary "A mild grammatical fix". Maproom (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drdr150: There are two lists.

Wikipedia:List of policies is a list of pages containing all of the rules that should not be broken.

Wikipedia:List of guidelines is a list of pages containing all of the rules we strive to follow as best practices.

Hope that helps. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for an article

There is no entry currently on Wikipedia for David Alan Cooper. He is the principal French horn for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Fieber solo horn of the Berlin Philharmonic. Thinking he should be on Wikipedia. 73.45.85.33 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• former Solo Horn of the Berlin Philharmoniker.

73.45.85.33 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question is, does he meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that enough has been published about him in reliable sources to ground an article? If so, then an article could be written; if not, then no article will be accepted.

This being an entirely volunteer project, editors work on what they choose. You are free to try writing the article yourself - see your first article - but it is a tough challenge for people who are not experienced Wikipedia editors. You may post a request at requested articles, but in truth the takeup there is extremely low. Probably your best bet to make it happen would be to find the necessary reliable independent sources about him, and then post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians - what you will need to be doing is stimulating somebody into wanting to write the article, so it would be helpful to show that you have done the groundwork to find the sources that establish him as notable. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

At French horn, look at notable players for examples of referenced articles about playars. These show the quality of references needed. David notMD (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WordPress as a reliable source.

A new question for you: Is WordPress a reliable source for articles?

If it is not a reliable source, would you both explain and elaborate the reason? What about pages that explain?

Also, what are examples and pages of how reliable WordPress is? Should they be used as a source?

Are you going to research WordPress anytime soon?

Sincerely, 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. According to this list of common sources, WordPress is considered unreliable as it is a blog hosting site. To be considered reliable, a source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, someone other than the author(like an editor) reviews what is written before publishing. That does not usually happen with blogs. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I can know and understand, but although an expert or a professional uses this site and publishes articles on WordPress, does that mean they can still be cited as sources since experts can be described as being a masterpiece of working on those posts with good explanations? How though? Were they fact-checked? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. If, say, Neil deGrasse Tyson has a WordPress blog, his blog posts are unlikely to be fact checked before publication. The argument to use it anyway for something about astronomy is that he is pretty good at astronomy. No source is 100% correct all the time. Context matters. If a company or person has a WordPress page as their official website, then that page can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The other thing to consider is that it is rarely (if ever) going to be the best source to use for such information. If Neil deGrasse Tyson says something about astronomy in his WordPress blog, it will only be something which is already published elsewhere first, and in that case, go back to the source! NdGT is not going to be using WordPress to publish his own original astronomy research; such information would be published in reputable astronomy journals and the like. If NdGT is using WordPress to expound upon astronomy facts discovered by others, well, go to the original source! There are a lot of "yeah but, what if..." type hypotheticals involving self-published sources like "expert-written blogs" that look reasonable at a first glance, but fall apart upon analysis. Sure, "hypothetically we can trust it to be reliable enough, but practically it never happens that way" is usually how it goes in nearly all such cases. --Jayron32 19:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Also true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You do have some good points. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WordPress can have uses per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, but it doesn't happen that often. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, since it is largely user-generated with little oversight. The same goes for Twitter and Substack. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino What about the Blogger and Tumblr?  Are they even good sources for information for facts and material? Why does WordPress lack general oversight and it is user-generated? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because anyone can use it. There are few guidelines. And -- since you asked -- Blogger and Tumblr are also not reliable. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:USERG. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I have a blog on Blogger. I write about empirical math, science, engineering, gaming. What I write is reliable as far as I know, but there is no way for you to know for sure. My blog is really just for me to use as a reference to past projects I did and ideas I had. If I ever saw someone cite my blog on Wikipedia, I'd remove the link. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I need a citation for a statement in an article about (After some quick googling) water... rocketry... what. There really is a blog for everything! Amazing. casualdejekyll 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: You found it? Well, please don't cite it! Actually, 5 years ago I did offer to share some of my work at Talk:Water rocket#New additions: Fins and Predicting Height, but got no response. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Casualdejekyll @Professor Penguino @Jayron32, I got a link to show you, it is this: https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2020/11/why-are-book-to-film-adaptations-always-so-bad

I'm just wondering what I got from the WordPress site. But does this page have correct information and facts? If so, should I cite it? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

According to that website, they are a student-run, student-funded newspaper at the University of California. See WP:RSSM. If you want to cite it for something like "The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential film series ever made." you should probably get a better source. Stuff like "There was a lot of potential for “Vampire Academy” to become a great film" is Analissa Nunez opinion, and not very useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If this site was student-run, then what other websites are student-run that are considered reliable by editors? Why was this statement "There was a lot of potential for “Vampire Academy” to become a great film", not useful, although it was an opinion and why it can't be included in articles as sources? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• You can perhaps find more WP:RSSM at Category:Student newspapers if you try. If they're student-run I have no idea, if that interests you, you'll have to do the research.
• See WP:NPOV, and specifically WP:PROPORTION. Why include the opinion of this college student? There may be a good reason, but it's not obvious to me. That something is online does not in itself mean it's good as a ref on WP.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That example is an opinion piece, and generally we don't cite opinions. We make occasional exceptions if the author someone with known expertise or is notable in the field the opinion is about. The author in this case is just some random journalism student expressing an opinion. The article is well written and I agree with some of the opinions, but that doesn't matter. We can't use that as a source for anything, even with attribution. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Another point you have out there, maybe I think that we should try to find a very reliable journalism, if not have an article written in an unbiased view. And there is an article that an author has written without only expressing opinions, then there is a chance I might use it as a source for this part in sooner or later. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 What in those two pages like NPOV are for? Should articles maintain a balance of view? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not seek to maintain a "balance of view", which is to say Wikipedia never tries to give all viewpoints equal weight, rather it seeks to give viewpoints their due weight, as assessed in reliable sources. If all reliable sources agree on something, we report it as-is in Wikipedia's voice. If there is disagreement, but only from unreliable or dubious sources, we don't report it at all. We don't seek to report all possible viewpoints, only to represent as accurately as possible the breadth of what all reliable sources generally say. That's what WP:NPOV means. --Jayron32 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Both Blogger and Tumblr don't consider themselves as reliable source for citation on this article, since anyone can create it without fact-checking it and both of them mostly consist opinion based on their words and questions. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Also, thanks again for notifying me as well. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say no, that is because WordPress is mostly UGC and they lack fact-checking information for reliability. Also read the posts from other people have. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:CD9B:1D0E:A169:4C27 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that is a good one,  others know that this site is user generated and lacks editorial insight for information. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino @Anachronist @Jayron32  And also, what happens if I cited WordPress as a source into articles, will it get reviewed or it will be accepted as a source, although it isn't a reliable source as a blog site? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the depth of review you are likely to receive from something like WP:AFC draft review, it is unlikely to be an acceptable source for anything there. I mean, we're being too nuanced and precious about edge cases here. To a first approximation, don't use wordpress blogs as sources. Just don't. If that's the best you can find, it isn't good enough. --Jayron32 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The first one you got was draft, but what if I cite WordPress as a source on an article that is not a draft while editing and I just add information from the WordPress blog? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't do that either. As I said, while there are, maybe, possibly a really rare edge case where a WordPress blog might could kinda sorta be reliable... Don't worry about it. If you never ever ever use WordPress as a source, you'll be fine. No one will object. --Jayron32 18:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Always understandable. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Are you going to answer my recent question? I asked for it above here. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

So, you need to be specific as to what you are trying to say. Are you making an unadorned statement of fact, or are you reporting on the opinion or assessment of something? For example, are you looking for a source to say "The sky is blue" or are you looking for a source to say "Blue is the prettiest color for skies to be?" Are you writing text in Wikipedia's voice, saying something like "Blue skies are the best possible skies" or are you reporting the assessment of someone else "Jane Doe believes blue skies to be the best." The appropriateness of a source needs to be assessed against what is being written in Wikipedia. Be specific. What are you trying to write? Tell us, the EXACT wording you intend to put in the Wikipedia article, and let us know the EXACT source you got for that wording. That's what we need to assess here. --Jayron32 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't confuse a "balance of view" with WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. We don't give equal weight to all sides, we give weight in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist That is right. No need to confuse balance of view it with undue info. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

At least you can agree on some arguments that registered users and editors give out why isn't it reliable and some examples provided. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:2C48:FF99:4B78:7672 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but just to know, thank you for answering my question about WordPress being a reliable source and some example provided of why it isn't. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for all the questions. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome IP! -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:A8C7:5154:6E76:2E8A (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WordPress was good but ip users 112.206.188.139 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Normally, I would say this, but WordPress is mostly user-generated content and there is no way for if the information is real. Check this perennial sources page for more information. Happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B162:5E41:F0E3:AA79:AD5E:1B1B (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox

need go to Sandbox 210.23.189.236 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

wut -- Someone-123-321 (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

a sandbox pls edit to Wikipedia:Sandbox — KFC (🔔 • 📝) 06:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, that makes sense. -- User:Someone-123-321 (chitter chatter, I contribute) 06:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Creating a page or a draft

The page "Nanoemulsion system" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Nanoemulsion system" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

I realized when creating an article, I get two options as shown above; 1. create a draft and 2. Create a page. I have been using the first option. I am wondering if I can also use the second option and at what point. I would also appreciate a link that shows the difference between the two. Kelmaa (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kelmaa. The way I understand it, a draft is created in a different namespace (section of wikipedia) to articles. If you create a draft, you have to either move the page or submit it to articles for creation to publish it as an article. Creating a page puts the edits immediately into the article (main) namespace. They still need to be reviewed though. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your history is two drafts accepted, one declined. Consider continuing to use the AfC route until you are more experienced. Schminnte's comment is that direct-to-article efforts are reviwed by New Pages Patrol, where those can be approved, kicked back to draft, nominsated for articles for deletion or Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

...and it's worth adding that AFC review is a lot gentler on new users, who get helpful feedback and a chance to work on their draft and to resubmit when ready. If it's shoved straight into mainspace and is bad, it'll simply get deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Kelmaa and welcome to the Teahouse! Registered users, or users who have been on Wikipedia for at least 4 days and have made at least 10 edits, can make articles directly instead of having to submit a draft as an Articles for Creation draft (per this discussion, if you're interested). I couldn't find a link for you, but there are a few differences between the two: first, a draft is in the draft space while an article is in the main mainspace. It's actually "mainspace", but "main mainspace" is catchier. Also, if I created a draft about a band called "Tomato soup band," it wouldn't show up in Google or any search engine. If I created "Tomato soup band" directly, once the article is marked as patrolled, it will show up in the search engines. You can create articles directly, since you are in the registered user group. Hope this makes sense. Happy editing! ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 22:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kelmaa I note there is already a page called Miniemulsion. This appears to me to cover precisely the same topic as the one you are preparing at Draft:Nanoemulsions system. Would you not be better advised to expand the existing article, as we do not allow two pages to exist on the same subject? If I have misunderstood the differences, so may AFC reviewers. You may therefore wish to clearly explain your rationale on the talk page of your draft. I hope this assists you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback, I really appreciate it.

@Nick Moyes, I was considering that but I was not sure if it would be Ok. I was waiting for a review on my draft to see if the reviewer would recommend that. I will delete the draft and improve the existing article Kelmaa (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good move, as we always encourage the improvement of existing articles, no matter how bad they may seem to start with. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hosts: In this message, "The page "Nanoemulsion system" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Nanoemulsion system" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Shouldn't the second occurrence of page be changed to article? David10244 (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@David10244 I take your point, but that message also applies to other non-article pages (Drafts being a good example). So I think it seems to work fine as it is and probably covers all the bases. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Isn't the piece "or you may create the page XYZ directly" referring to articles and not drafts? The phrase before that uses the "draft" route, right?

We're often telling new editors that they aren't creating a "page"; they are creating an "article". We often add that "page" is a social media term while "article" is an encyclopedia term.

And I see your point, but is there any better way to give the message? If we call things that are usually articles "pages" in this message, we are being inconsistent when we tell editors that these things (at least the things that new editors are most concerned with) should be called "articles" and not "pages". David10244 (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a question of how general the message extends to namespaces, because I have a feeling this message shows up in places like Talk or Wikipedia from how Mediawiki works. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. David10244 (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I have a page that's mainly Wikipedia humour, but also incorporates some misc humour.

For example, let's say User:Someone-123-321/Humour was a real page, and focused on Wikipedia humour (although has some trivial, non-offensive general humour that's not aimed at Wikipedia). Would the "general humour" bit make the page disallowed, or would it still be allowed? - Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST may apply. Heiro 02:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 The aforementioned link has the following:

The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

Emphasis and links in original. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why is there an entire category dedicated to pages containing WikiHumour? Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The same paragraph that I quoted from also states: Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. Links removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Technically, said page would be referring to wikipedia in "some way", as it would be mostly humour pertaining to Wikipedia. Someone-123-321 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Someone-123-321. Editors who are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia based on their long term track records are definitely given more leeway with their user pages than new editors. You have only made 39 edits to encyclopedia articles at this time and yet you are lobbying to write humor pages. I suggest that you make at least 1000 productive edits to encyclopedia articles before writing humor pages. Otherwise, you are at risk of developing a reputation as an unserious and unproductive editor and this is actually a serious project. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to delete my user pages, ig User:Someone-123-321 (chitter chatter, I contribute) 08:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted my user-pages as U1. Only my main page is here. Happy now, @Cullen328? Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 08:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Help improving this page Draft:Yayzy

Hi, I'm writing this page of a company Draft:Yayzy and was wondering how I can change these bits so I don't get refused again and again because it sounds like an advertisment. Any help greatly appreciated. Jerry3zs (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Jerry3zs! Welcome to The Teahouse! There are a few items you can read to help you out. Since you are writing about a company, WP:NCORP is a good place to start. Per WP:BACKWARD you should not try to write an article as you would read it, but should start with the most important items (from an encyclopedic sense) first. After reading those two, one of your reviewers suggested reading WP:SOLUTIONS as well. In brief: What is notable about the company? Answer that question, and the rest should follow. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jerry3zs While you are waiting, please move the refs after the punctuation. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey David10244, thanks for checking my work

I updated the refs after punctuation can you check please?

for the awards enumeration at the end, would look strange if citations are after comma, what's the standard there?

Thanks again Jerry3zs (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jerry3zs Even in the list of awards, ths refs should be after the commas. It looks normal once you have read Wikipedia for a while! David10244 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, thank you for the feedback Jerry3zs (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Create page, please

Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack) is only a draft and not a Wikipedia page, please make it a page 191.113.196.245 (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't have "pages", we have articles. I've added the information to the draft required to submit it for consideration. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Unable to add {{CNONE}} to a part of a table on Cross Island Line

Hello! I found a glitch where you can’t add {{CNONE}} to a section of the table describing the stations on Cross Island Line or else it’ll show wiki-text. Can anyone advise me on how to fix it? Thank you! Brachy0008 (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brachy00008: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I am not familar with that template, but I do need to question if you've been typing the name using the correct capitalisation? It should be {{CNone}}, and not {{CNONE}}. That will make a heck of a difference, as the second option does not exist. But I can't advise on its actual use - hopefully other might if you confirm that you still need further help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Mediawiki message delivery

How to make the mediawiki message delivery go in my talk page? Thanks in advance ball deletor. 14:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC) ball deletor. 14:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by -tynjee (talk • contribs)

-tynjee please make sure that your signature links to your user talk, and has some resemblance to your username. See WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

ok tynjee 14:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@-tynjee: It depends. MediaWiki message delivery is a system account controlled by the MassMessage software extension. Generally, most regular mass messages will have some sort of onwiki subscription list (e.g. here for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost) to which you can add yourself to to get a talkpage message by MediaWiki message delivery the next time that message is sent out. The sole exception I am aware of are the yearly arbitration commitee election notices, which are sent to all eigible users as far as I am aware. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

How to challenge a summary ban?

Hi have been summarily banned for FIVE months for making a completely uncontroversial, minor edit by adding a new sentence with new detail on an existing article along with a sound reference. I am new to editing, but took some time to familiarise myself with the guidelines and am utterly flabbergasted at what appears to be draconian, arbitrary measures implemented without any discussion! A very off putting experience which has undermined the democratic nature of the Wikipedia platform in my eyes. What to do for an inexperienced newby like me?? BLM123 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@BLM123: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177. As far as I can tell, your account has never had any editing restrictions imposed on it. Did you make this account as a workaround? If so, you should be aware that this would fall under sockpuppetry which would be grounds to block the account you're on right now. I am going to assume you've been partially blocked from editing a page, in which case you're best off filing an unblock request from the account that actually has the block. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@BLM123 From what you say, you have evidently been operating at least two accounts for the last two years, and have continued editing articles from this one up until yesterday. You should cease that immediately. Then, in order to request an unblock of your main account, you should log on as the original blocked user. There, at its talk page, you should make an unblock request, per the instructions provided there. Explain your reasons for asking to be unblocked, and addressing any concerns raised. An administrator will assess your request and make a decision. I will shortly be blocking this account per WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, but you may still edit the talk page to provide a link to your master account. I, or another admin, will then be able to follow that and asses your unblock request. I hope this makes sense. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• BLM123 Wikipedia is not a democratic platform. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• For the Teahouse-curious, BLM123 made a series of edits to Tariq Jamil on 20 January 2023, all reverted (not minor and not uncontroversial), and a batch of edits on 10 June 2020. No evidence at Talk of a temporary block, or mention of another account. Appears Nick Moyes is seeing content not viewable by non-admin. David notMD (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @David notMD That's not strictly true. By their own admission (see above), BLM123 has had an account blocked for 5 months and has come here asking to be unblocked. I check BLM123's block log, and there are no partial or complete blocks in their history. Therefore they must be using another account of which we are unaware. I repeat: by their own admission they are using BLM123 as a second account (sockpuppet), and thus I blocked them, leaving what I hoped was a clear explanation on their talk page to request an unblock of their main account. I'm not a WP:CHK, so can't tell which other account they have been operating before it was blocked. But I would gladly look at their block for them if I did know. It's possible I did not give them the usual leeway I normally do when someone breaking the rules posts at the Teahouse, but I feel I administered the blocked appropriately, based on what they said here. As always, I'm happy to unblock or have another admin unblock if they - or you - feel I acted inappropriately, or too harshly. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, on BLM123 to identify what account has "been summarily banned for FIVE months". David notMD (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing sandbox article title and moving it to Wikipedia

hey all. I am new here. How can I move a sandbox article (which I think is ready to be reviewed and published) and change the title? thanks! Evita2023 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Evita2023 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. According to your edit history, you have no edits to your sandbox. The best way to submit drafts for review is to use Articles for Creation to create and submit your draft for review. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use that process; it's a good idea in general unless you have much experience in article creation. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now. Just click the "submit your draft for review" button on the screen. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks a lot, I could move it to the review section. Evita2023 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything further, it is successfully submitted. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

perfect. happy weekend! Evita2023 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Redesign

Can you undo all of this? I'm not sure I will be donating anymore because the site has huge usability and accessibility issues now. 73.7.176.82 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. IP users are stuck with the new skin for the moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"for the moment"? details!

feedback: this is awful, to the point of being unintelligible and unusable. if it were better, I would not have much to say, but this is worse. it wastes space (important to many people ITRW), and is more difficult to read.

and I rarely login anywhere I go. it gets in the way, one of the problems with trying to track more than (I will enjoy this part) the IP: 100.14.162.51 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See above for where to direct your concerns. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding Company and Personal Profiles

Hello, I am looking to add a company profile on wikipedia and also one for myself, Are there any guidelines handy that I can follow to ensure that they do not get declined when I post them? Shvite (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Shvite Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have profiles, not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia is not a place for people(or companies) to tell the world about themselves. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(people and companies). Please read Your First Article. If you truly feel you can set aside everything you know about yourself and your company and only summarize independent sources (not press releases, interviews, routine announcements), you may go to Articles for creation to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The Terms of Use also require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Creating an article is as simple as writing one. I would suggest first reading Help:Your first article, and make sure your article is well sourced with a lot of reliable independent sources. Serratra (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Serratra is not correct. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks at Wikipedia. New editors are strongly advised to put in months of improving existing articles first. Especially as it appears you want to write about yourself and a company (presumably one you are connected to), please do not waste reviewers' and administrators's time without gaining experience first. At best, your efforts would be Declined. More likely, those would be Speedy deleted, leaving no trace behind.

Too late! Shvite's effort was Speedy deleted for andvertising/promotional and the account indefinitely blocked. You can appeal the block, but best to promise to never attempt to create drafts about yourself or the company, if there is to be any chance of success. David notMD (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"How to change back" doesn't explain how to change back.

Specifically, it doesn't tell how to get the table of contents back. None of the options have the table of contents, making articles, particularly longer ones, far more cumbersome and slow to navigate. Why this backward step? If your answer offers a justification for the change, then it's wrong.

Ironically, when I wanted to check if this topic had been already covered here, I looked for the table of contents. Not there of course, I'm an idiot, will take too long to find it, so you're getting it. Koro Neil (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Koro Neil, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to return to the previous skin, you'll need to go to Preferences → Appearance → Skin → Vector legacy (2010). That will restore all the old settings. You can restore settings piecemeal by making alterations to your css, but that's a much more complicated process. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Koro Neil Please understand that it is challenging to design a website that is perfect for every individual. The skin underwent years of development and testing with community input. Input is still being solicited at the talk page for Vector 2022. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably not much point in saying this, since the response is apparently an automated one, and doesn't address my specific concern about the table of contents. I have now discovered the table of contents, counter-intuitively way down at the bottom of the left-hand column. Could I encourage you to bring it high enough up the page to be visible when you open the article? I think I will add this as a heading-only new topic. Koro Neil (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koro Neil, neither of the folks who replied to you is a bot, but you're not going to reach the skin developers by posting here. Problems with a skin should be posted either to WP:VPT or the talk page of the skin itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no way of identifying a "skin" as the thing I'm having problem with, or of knowing that the "skin developers" are the people I need to reach. I am learning here for the first time that they exist, and I have no idea what they are. Computer professionals all too often assume too much knowledge on the part of the general public. It's like when they say "Just scan the QR code," and you know what the words mean, but haven't a clue how to do it. Koro Neil (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koro Neil Just to answer your question. You can toggle the TOC in articles to its new position in a column on the left (on a PC) by clicking on the icon at the top left of the page, left of the Wikipedia logo. The two options now are to see only the TOC, which stays visible as you scroll down the article, or to have the "old" menu options first and then the TOC. Give Vector 2022 a chance: you may like it once you realise how it works (details here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koro Neil: More specifically it's the found to the left of the page title. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Rule of thumb for positioning the table of contents

As you scroll down the page, you should always reach the TOC before you reach the first heading in the actual article. Koro Neil (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

My wiki page

[[Matt Perry (rugby [[Matt Perry (rugby Hi there , my name is Matt Perry ( rugby) I would like to know how you could help bring the table of statistics back to my wiki page for my rugby Union career - ie name, birthplace , number of games for bath , England etc … ? Thanks 86.147.108.103 (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly it is NOT your Wiki page, it is Wikipedia's article about you, secondly you have a conflict of interest so should not be editing the article at all. You can submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Matt. The best way to request changes to an article of which you're the subject is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

When should an article show pronunciation?

On the article Rob Ickes, it says that his name rhymes with "bikes" and I'm pretty sure that is not how pronunciation is normally shown on Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure what to do, since I'm unfamiliar with IPA (though there are guides here that I'm sure I'll get the hang of), and not even sure if there should be a pronunciation guide (although I'm pretty sure the source used for it was this https://robickes.com/about/). Should I simply get rid of it, or can it stay, or should I make a pronunciation guide using IPA? Is there some sort of criterion for if an article needs a pronunciation guide?

Balnibarbarian (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Balnibarbarian, if his name does indeed rhyme with "bikes", then it's /aɪks/. Anyway, the pronunciation won't be obvious to people (like me) who don't happen to know it, so your suggested addition would be worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Balnibarbarian: I added in the proper IPA based on Hoary's stated transliteration. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all! Balnibarbarian (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Cerro Blanco confusion

Today's (January 21, 2023) featured article is Cerro Blanco. The first three sentences are "The Cerro Blanco is a caldera in the Andes, . . . It is a volcano collapse structure. . . It has been active for the past eight million years . . ." I think this is misleading - the caldera has not been active for eight million years, it is a structure, which cannot be active. I do not think the name is synonymous with the feature. The linked article is headed "Cerro Blanco (Volcano). I don’t know why there is the parentheses, it is a volcano. It may be that those in the field don’t add the word volcano after every volcano's name, they all know that Cerro Blanco is a volcano. But those outside of the field do not. I think the first sentence should be "The Cerro Blanco volcano, located in the Andes, is noted for its unusual caldera, a volcanic collapse structure rarely found in volcanoes. . . The volcano has been active for eight million years . . ." Wis2fan (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Wis2fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you think there is something in an article which can be improved, you're welcome to either edit it yourself, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Cerro Blanco (volcano)). If you make the edit yourself, and somebody disagrees, they will revert your edit, in which case you can then open the discussion on the talk page: see WP:BRD.

As for the article title: we use a term in parenthesis to distinguish between articles about things with the same name. In this case, Cerro Blanco (volcano) is distinguished from Cerro Blanco, which is about the mountain. Again, if you think this should be changed (or even, the two articles merged) please open a discussion on the talk page. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wis2fan I've only skimmed over the article very briefly, but I rather tend to support your suggested alternative wording. I get the impression the article has suffered a fair bit of vandalism today, so when it settles down I do think you should raise this. I know Jo-Jo Eumerus has done a lot of work on this and other volcanic articles to get them to Featured Article status, and that they'd appreciate your observations. As has been said, the best place is actually to raise it at Talk:Cerro Blanco (volcano). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do think that "structures" can be "active" for some time, since the structure is a volcano and volcanoes erupt. The title is as ColinFine said, there are numerous things called "Cerro Blanco", more than one of which has a page here, so we need to specify which Cerro Blanco we are talking about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, upload this poster

Please, upload this poster https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yt2MebbhcMz8qO_rylSAWsHG4J-ssqjJ/view?usp=sharing in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, it has the billing block and is the DVD cover. 191.113.196.245 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you register an account, you can upload the picture yourself. It’s just one of the many reasons that registering an account is encouraged! Serratra (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Writing a biography page of someone who avoided the public eye

My uncle was adamant about being private, unlisted phone number, hardly any trace of his existence online. However, he was one of the founders/authors of guassian, the lead scientist for hundreds of peer-reviewed publications and cited hundreds of thousands of times. He recently passed and I would like to memorialize him. Due to his lack of online media presence, I wonder if this article would be rejected. I am his niece, he had no children. Skyhawkgrl410 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If he was the lead scientist for hundreds of publications, there is a very strong chance that he meets the guidelines at WP:NPROF, and would be eligible for a Wikipedia article. However, you should be familiar with the guidelines at WP:COI. -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Skyhawkgrl410: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not have to be online, offline sources are accepted as well. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I started the article and submitted with some references. There was indication that an option to have a wiki volunteer edit it/write it would be smart given the COI but I do not see that option. Does it comes when my submission is reviewed in a few months? Skyhawkgrl410 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, given that you have declared your COI, you are fine to continue without an independent co-author. Just remember that facts must be verified by references. SeeHelp:Referencing for beginners on how to format refs and insert those into the text. P.S. Be as complete as possible before submitting the draft, because once accepted as an article, your path to additional editing gets complicated. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Skyhawkgrl410 I took the liberty of unsubmitting your draft Draft:Joseph Dannenberg. As written, it would be declined. Learn how to reference properly. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See Hunter College, section Notable Faculty, especially those that are/were scientists, as it may give you ideas about what to include. Did Dannenberg receive notable science awards or honors, or was a member of important science societies? David notMD (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skyhawkgrl410 Thank you for starting this article. David notMD has given you good advice, and I just want to add that while you should add this information if you have it, it shouldn't be necessary to demonstrate his notability (ie, his eligibility for an article), since his citation counts are indeed very high. Because I am confident in this, I have created a Wikidata item for him here: Joseph Dannenberg (Q116286474). When your article is finished and moved out of Draft space, this Wikidata item will link various metadata about him via Template:Authority control, which I added to the bottom of the draft. You are welcome to add to it, but be aware that this is not a draft, and information in Wikidata populates various other online databases like libraries etc very, very quickly! If you have something to add but you're nervous to edit it "live" (I don't blame you), feel free to write on the Talk page of Joseph Dannenberg (Q116286474) and I can get to it for you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up terminology: on Wikidata it's not the "Talk" page, but the "Discussion" page. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skyhawkgrl410 The very large number of citations are owing to the fact that Dannenberg was one of many authors of some widely-used software (see Gaussian (software) and this IUPAC definition). I think he certainly will meet one of the criteria at WP:NPROF and I've added two other of his highly cited papers to a "selected publication" section. My other suggestion would be to look on Hunter College's website via the Wayback machine, since he was presumably mentioned there in the past with more detail than they currently have. Note that Wikipedia is not a site to use to memorialize anyone. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was my article declined?

In the reviewed article it has been mentioned by the reviewer that the references do not show that the subject qualifies for Wikipedia. The article is about a famous Indian Actor , what mistakes should i avoid to get my article approved?

Draft:Saleem Zaidi Syedamanal (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've met the notability criteria of Wikipedia still my article was declined , can you help me sort out this issue and get this approved? Syedamanal (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Syedamanal, I quote:

This submission's references [...] do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject [...]

Perhaps we'll be able to sort out this issue if here, in this "Teahouse" message thread, you point out three such sources. That is, three sources that each have significant coverage about Saleem Zaidi and are in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of Saleem Zaidi. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Syedamanal, If you truly think the sources you've used fully meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR, you should click the blue Resubmit button at the bottom of the Submission declined template and wait for another review.

I am not a reviewer, but I doubt your sources are adequate. I am not sure if the three sources you've referenced qualify as WP:Reliable sources, but in any case the second and third are clearly based mostly on one or more interviews with the subject; they are therefore not independent of him, which is one of the criteria necessary for them to support notability. The other reads like a potted biography typically issued by a publicity agency working on his behalf, which would also not be independent. It may simply be WP:Too soon in this actor's career for enough reliable and independent sources to have published sufficient material about him. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.36.247 (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Now what can i do to fix this problem ? Syedamanal (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Syedamanal If you have exhausted all the sources you can find (i.e. already used them) and you have not yet shown that the notability threshold is reached, then there is nothing more to be done. You should abandon the draft for now and come back to it in a few months when you may have found additional useful sources. the draft will still be there: they only get deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There are some other sources but there's change in the spelling of the subject's name , can i use those links ? Syedamanal (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Syedamanal as long as they are talking about the same person, that should be fine. Non-English languages are allowed too. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

alright thankyou Syedamanal (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Impartiality

How do I get attention drawn to a 'quality' article in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) ? 118.208.122.36 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: You made a contribution to WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Quality_Wikipedia_rather_than_"building_the_encyclopedia". If you want to make a futher comment on the topic of "quality", it would be best to go ahead and do so here at the Teahouse rather than continue what is now a closed discussion. Please give sufficient detail that others will be able to understand any comments you want to make. If you have a concrete proposal you could of course make it in a new section at the Village pump page instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

how do i log into my old wiki page account?

how do i log into my old wiki page account? It does not recognise my email and name 79.72.155.134 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You seem to be a bit confused: Wikipedia does not have the concept of logging into a page. But I assume you mean you're having difficulty logging into your account.

What you need is your user name, which is not usually your email. If you can't remember your username, then it's difficult. If you can remember any articles which you edited from that account, you could look through the history of one of those articles, and see if you recognize your user name there.

With your username and password, you should be able to log in. If you can't remember the password, and the email you registered with the account is still accessible to you, then you should be able to get it to send you a password reset message.

But if you cannot recall your username, or cannot remember your password and didn't set a valid email, then there's no way to recover your account, and you'll need to abandon it and create a new one. ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If you go to Special:PasswordReset you can enter your email address, and it will send you the username associated with that email (if you enabled email for your account). RudolfRed (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know that, RudolfRed. Thank you. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Everyone seems to believe im either being paid or that i know the person in real life im editing the Draft: Edward Hayter but its not true. I am just a fan trying to make him a wiki page as he doesnt have one. I am autistic and when i have an interest on someone i research them all day and all night ,editing and reseaching him and watching his movies makes me really happy . I dont know what to do cause no one seems to believe me, like how could i know them in real life if i live in canada and them in the UK. It doesnt make any sense why people think this. They are just my favs Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Veganpurplefox, welcome to the Teahouse. When a new editor appears on Wikipedia and their entire interest seems focused on one specific subject, especially if they start adding a bunch of stuff about how great that subject is, other folks get suspicious that they have some kind of conflict of interest (COI). Being a big fan of someone or something isn't a COI, but it does look like much the same thing to an outside observer. As a fan, you need to be especially careful to keep your enthusiasm in check; focus on writing in an encyclopedic tone and including only facts of encyclopedic interest. This isn't an easy skill to master, which is why more experienced editors often recommend not starting out your Wikipedia career by attempting to write an article, but by making small improvements to other articles and getting a feeling for how things work. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, how do i prove them wrong then? How do i write in encyclopedic tone? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox, that's mostly something you have to learn by reading well-written articles (focus on ones that are rated GA or FA) and paying close attention to the words being used. There are two things you can read that might help, though: TONE and Manual of Style/Words to watch. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I wil look into these! But also having a specific language impairment its quite hard for me to write well, if i had extra help that could build a good article that would helps me so much Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox, the best place to find people who might be interested in helping to improve a draft or an article is a relevant WikiProject. For instance, there's WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and many more. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox You can't really prove that you have no conflict. But, on your "User" page, you can state that you have no conflict with (whatever other editors are asking about). That should take care of the issue. David10244 (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I made a bio a couple of days ago explaining why I created a wiki account, would it be fine how it's written? Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox I am not sure; someone else will have to answer that. David10244 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Veganpurplefox, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I were editing what you've written on your user page, I would make some changes, but as an expression of what you want to say it's fine.

The only thing I'd say is that I discourage ever talking about somebody or something "having a Wikipedia page", because in my opinion that encourages people to think of these articles as belonging to, controlled by, or for the benefit of, the subject - none of which is the case. I prefer to say "an article about X". Many experienced editors don't agree with me that this is important, however. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

How long does it take?

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

How long does it typically take for a published article to go live? I know it needs to go through consideration, but I think I submitted a couple weeks ago and want to make sure I submitted correctly. Thank you! Mamaofonebear (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mamaofonebear, and welcome to the Teahouse. You wrote a draft article, but you wrote it in the wrong place (your user page), and you did not actually submit it for review, so probably nobody has seen it but you.

I have moved it to Draft:Don Miller, and added a header that will allow you to submit it when it is ready (which it is not). You need to read about Notability and find several reliable sources that are wholly independent of Miller and of any of his employers, and contain significant coverage of him. You also need to read about how to format references.

Once you have submitted it for review, the message will tell you that how long the review takes is unpredictable, and could be months.

I also need to ask: what is your connection with Miller? You uploaded the photo, and described it as your own work; and when a new editor immediately launches into the challenging task of creating a new article, they very often have a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That depends on how long it will be accepted, and it ranges from days to 1 week. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:A8C7:5154:6E76:2E8A (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn’t take longer than a few hours. Happy editing! Serratra (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Acceptance of a draft can take months. Especially if the draft is as non-ready as this one is. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mamaofonebear. I see that you have submitted your draft, without taking much note of my advice. I guess that it will be reviewed quickly, because it can very easily be declined. None of your three references contributes to establishing Miller as notable: the first two are not independent (they're from a former employer) and the third is neither a reliable source nor does it contain significant coverage of Don Miller.

The scan of an obituary you included is problematic for several reasons. First, it is almost certainly a copyright violation, which WikiMedia takes very seriously, and I have nominated it for deletion from Commons for that reason. It is also useless as a reference because it does not identify the source or the date. In fact, if it were useful as a source (see below) you could cite it by providing bibliographic information such as title, author (if known), publication, date, and page number: (see REFB for how to do that): a link or an image is not required.

However, an obituary of his father is unlikely to be of any use in an article about the son. Not even the mention of his son Don is relevant, because we have no way of determining whether that is the same Don Miller. Equally, the article about his father's visit is irrelevant. An article about Don Miller needs to be about Don Miller, not his father. If you can find a reliable source that mentions Bruce and Don as father and son, that is clearly about this Don, that would be acceptable to mention who his father was. It would still not contribute to his notability, though (Notability is not inherited).

I see you have also not responded to my question about what your connection is to Miller. ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)

I've received this message

Editor's summary: Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)

I even messaged the editor, in which the editor replied "Thank you for submitting your draft article to Wikipedia. I have a suggestion that might help improve the chances of your draft being accepted: please try to find at least three reliable sources that have in-depth coverage of the subject matter of your article. Reviewers often look for a good number of high-quality sources when evaluating draft articles, and having a strong foundation of well-researched information can make a big difference in the review process."

However, I have read and believe I've met the notability guidelines. Further, these articles are from reputable newspapers and magazines (Euronews, Rollingstone, NME, etc. Could any experienced editors try and help?

Pertains to this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Psients Lorposralem (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked at some (not all) of the cited sources. The AESCA link seems to be completely uninformative -- or am I making some mistake? The other cited sources that I looked at were mildly informative. (For one thing, they gave Psients' real [?] name, which, surprisingly, the draft fails to do.) What they say is interesting, but they don't say much. Perhaps it would be better to wait a year or too two, until Psients becomes better known. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC) [typo fixed Hoary (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)]

These are good points.

- I've removed AESCA for brevity.

- Added Psient's real name.

- Found more sources and added relevant details Lorposralem (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lorposralem, Draft:Psients uses interviews as sources, although they are not considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia's (contestable) content. Also, much of the article appears to be repeating the exact words of Psients in Wikipedia's own voice. That isn't considered to be WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC in tone.-- Quisqualis (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Tables

How do I add a table to a page? Mast303 (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Mast303, please see Help:Table. If something in it is hard to understand, feel free to ask about it here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please also familiarize yourself with the manual of style before you add tables to any articles. Stryxnar (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

how to create an article?

I tried to create article but its not approved. Anyone can help? 203.186.173.222 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you haven't indicated the title of the article, we can only give you general advice and refer you to the advice at Wikipedia:Your First Article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Shantaviral has good advice here. You should read all of the information in the link they posted, and also read the articles linked to by that article, before you attempt to make your own article. Stryxnar (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing a patent

I'm just getting started on learning to edit, my apologies if this is obvious, I did not see a template for citing a patent number, would I consider a patent an article or other form of published material? 10346Charlie (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@10346Charlie Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{cite patent}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

For the other half of your question, patents are a bit iffy. Yes, they get cited (otherwise there wouldn't be a template) but they're very much primary sources, and you'll generally be citing them when you're either talking about the invention or the inventor, so in either case you're looking at a document written by someone very close to the subject, with no peer review. The risk with patents is that they can't be used to do much more than establish what the inventor claimed, and when. But ideally if the invention is notable enough for inclusion here, someone else will have written about the inventor's claims and when they happened, so we shouldn't really need to go back to patents ourselves (risk of original research, see WP:OR). Elemimele (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 10346Charlie. My father and one of my brothers and one of my sons have worked on various patents and patent applications. But even an accepted patent is not evidence of notability. It is very well known that most patents are financially unsuccessful and the patented devices and processes are pretty much forgotten within a few years. Obviously notable patented inventions are covered by far more reliable sources than their patent applications. Accordingly, patent documents like this have limited use and in particular cannot be used to establish notability. I have cited patent documents like this a handful of times in biographies of people already established as notable, to document that the person in question had a "sideline job" as an inventor, always in combination with a reliable independent source discussing the invention in question. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A Teas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Beverages have been served.

---

theres cup of tea

theres tea in a teahouse in wikipedia tea shop did want teas drink it the cup of teahouse 112.206.222.144 (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navajcmer (talk • contribs)

drink it! Navajcmer (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

good a tea 119.95.107.49 (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with you, others said that it has flavors. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, even if it is either hot or cold. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer sweet instead. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5D6A:BCF8:EA20:EB5E (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind having one. Milk with half sugar please PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well anyone wants tea for sure. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:39D5:AE22:288A:67FD (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Teascup has 2 handles to be balanced, right?, oops, I correct that..

Refer: Intercultural communication principles **talk** 110.174.50.79 (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Just like most of us. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The tea is good. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Wow, that tea is just delicious, plus there are flavors served such as Iced Tea or other uses. You can still drink that, but it would be way too refreshing for you. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I want tea, it tastes good as coffee and chocolate milk. People should consume tea also. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I like tea and coffee, although not at the same time. David10244 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's salty, I'll have three cups back to back. NamkeenChai (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that should also be sweet too. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Really good tea, but I don't think it fits in the TEAHOUSE. Maybe try playing in the sand? User:Someone-123-321 (chitter chatter, I contribute) 07:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

drink was a tea JC — KFC (🔔 • 📝) 06:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, even have a snack with crackers. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:A8C7:5154:6E76:2E8A (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Really better if it comes in a variety, then it will be refreshing. —2600:1010:B162:5E41:F0E3:AA79:AD5E:1B1B (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox for Indian states and union territories

Can I get feedback about this infobox wrapper, and can it be used in Indian states and union territories article pages ? Template:Infobox Indian state or territory

What are the things that are not properly and nicely done? Please help me to improve.

Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tojoroy20 Welcome to the Teahouse! Template:Infobox settlement/doc contains an example of how the infobox would be displayed. You may want to add something similar to Template:Infobox Indian state or territory/doc. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll add it.  Thank you very much. Tojoroy20 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

printing does not work with the new CSS and more

Could you please, PLEASE change back to the "old" CSS? This new one works badly when printing, because the Table of Contents cannot be avoided and it takes MUCH place on paper, which is a waste. Furthermore, the limitation of the width of the page (CSS max-width:) makes it difficult to read the text because one has to change to the next line too often. One other thing: The menu to change language should be avoided, to prevent the need to click twice to get to a new language. Have a plain list of languages, instead — not in a menu! I change between several different languages dozens of times every day … Thanks in advance! Regards! 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:72 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:72 and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unfortunate that you've been having issues while printing. I don't have the power to change anything about the new design as I'm just a regular volunteer here. You could register an account to change back to the old interface. I'm also going to ping Patafisik (WMF) to see if they have any advice, as they have offered comments on other threads here related to the redesign. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Click on "Download as PDF". Look at the PDF, deciding whether you need the list of references (which for a good article can occupy far more pages than does the body text). Print only those pages that you want to read on paper. -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:72:, thank you for your feedback. I'm sorry you are not appreciating the language button and other features. Please read this discussion about how to Use 2010 Vector as an IP. Detailed answers:

• language button: the Web Team has been working on it with the Language Team, doing iteration after tests with users, please read this page for more information. list of languages: The Language Team is working on the Compact Language Links of the Universal Language Selector. "With compact language links the list that is shown initially is made shorter by showing a subset of languages the user is most likely interested in" (on Phabricator). Logged-in users can turn it off.
• menu and double click: please read the explanation why menus on Vector 2022 skin intentionally do not open on hover here and here. Logged-in users can personalize their experience with the hover.
• max width: please read here how to change the max width (logged-in and logged-out)
• printing or not the TOC: previous discussion and tasks about it here, here and here. Logged-in users can personalize their experience with the gadget "Print options" to control how pages are printed. Too much place for the TOC when printed: I can reproduce it, but not with "Download as PDF", only with "Printable version", and only clicking on the link. If you open the "Printable version" in a new tab the message displayed is "The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.". --Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Im stuck in timeless look

i pressed change to old look then i saw that there were different looks you could change to i pressed timeless to try it out and now the button to change look disappered im stuck AKKADe (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AKKADe:, the button is displayed only on Vector 2022 as default skin. You can change your skin here in your Preferences.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! AKKADe (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Help

I need help editing my Wikipedia page and not sure how to go about doing this. Any help is appreciated. Metalforlifeforever (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Metalforlifeforever, you have two drafts, User:Metalforlifeforever/sandbox and User:Metalforlifeforever/sandbox2. Choose one. Remove all boldface other than that at the very start. Remove all italicization and CAPITALIZATION that's used for no particular reason. Move each reference so that it comes immediately after whatever it's referencing. Oh, and only call it "my Wikipedia page" if you want to chuckle at an indignant comment. You're supposed to sound very deferential and call it "a" (not your) "Wikipedia article". (Being fully aware that possession is seldom implied by use of the genitive case, and that every article is a page, I'm merely amused by this nonsense.) Don't forget to take a long look at the page WP:COI, so you can digest it and its implications. And now, back to work on my own page.... Hoary (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I cleaned up the first sandbox, but all of the refs need to be moved into the text, following the content that is verified by the ref. When you think the content is as good as it can get, submit to Articles for Creation for a review (which will take days to months to happen). You can continue to work on it while waiting for a review. If declined, the reviewer will leave a comment on what is needed before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia App Translation

I have downloaded the Wikipedia app (and the beta) and i am trying to translate a page into German, but i can't see how to do that on the app. How do you add translations on the app? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActuallyYahweh (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of page, where it should go. David10244 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ActuallyYahweh, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, there are no shortcuts for translating Wikipedia articles: creating a translation is just like creating an article, except that you are choosing to take some of the text from an existing article in another language (in which case you must attribute it appropriately). If the original article meets the requirements of notability and referencing in the target Wikipedia, then you may translate the whole article, including its references. But often this will not be the case (standards are not the same between different Wikipedias, and even in English Wikipedia there are thousands of substandard articles which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review now), and you will need to more or less start from scratch: see WP:translate us.

As for working on the app: I've never done more than minimal editing on the app, so I don't know. But I very much doubt that there's anything on there to make translating any easier. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@ActuallyYahweh: If by any chance what you're looking for is the ability to read articles in different languages on the app... you can use search for what you're looking for then click the EN button in the top right to add additional languages. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Welsh Place Names on Wikipedia. Should they be in Welsh or English?

I've looked a few Welsh places on Wikipedia recently to find out exactly where they are, and some of them are confusing, because sometimes they use Welsh names, and sometimes they use English names. I can't remember what most of them are however one of them is Plynlimon which has it's English name Plynlimon as the title, has Plynlimon as the heading in an infobox about summit heights, and has Plynlimon written once more in the article, whereas the Welsh name Pumlumon is written many more times. It should be one or the other imo. I believe all Welsh place articles and all Welsh noun articles in general, should all be in English. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at this comment a number of times, but hesitate to comment as I think it is a complicated issue. Is it a predominantly welsh-speaking area of Wales? Is the welsh name on the name plate when you approach the village? If both welsh and english are on the name plate is the welsh first. If the answer to both questions is "yes", then I think the name of the article should be the welsh name and used throughout. I agree that the name should be the same throughout the article. However at the start of the article it could read "A (the title of the article) - B in the other language" - e.g Pumlumon - Plynlimon in English. --Bduke (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69, if this is a matter you think should be brought up and addressed, then the place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69 I think Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names answers this. In other words, they should be whichever name is most commonly used in English sources, but consensus is key, and if there's no obvious common name, it's something that needs discussing per topic. Once we agree the name, then that is what we should use in e.g. the infobox and lead as the primary name. JeffUK 09:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If the name of something isn't used in english we should use the english name as well. We are the English Language Wikipedia after all. -Roxy the dog 09:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 Especially since there is a Welsh-language version of Wikipedia, with over a quarter of a million articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)