This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Request for Feedback and Assistance in Revising Draft
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Expert Team
I hope you're doing well. I am reaching out to request your help in improving my draft article, Draft:Sarbjit_Singh_Jhinjher, in light of the recent feedback provided.
The reviewer pointed out that the submission does not adhere to the formal tone expected for an encyclopedia article, and I would greatly appreciate your advice on how to rewrite it in a more neutral and encyclopedic format. Additionally, I have been advised to refer to a broader range of independent, reliable, and published sources to strengthen the article.
Could you please assist me by reviewing the draft, particularly focusing on:
Ensuring the tone is formal and neutral
Avoiding any "peacock" terms or language that promotes the subject
Suggesting improvements to improve the overall quality and adherence to Wikipedia's standards
Your input would be incredibly valuable in helping me align the draft with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback.
A sample (the section "Village Leadership"): From 2013 to 2018, Jhinjer served as [Why "served as" rather than plain "was"?] the Sarpanch [There is no reason for this to be boldface.] (village head) of Jhinjran, where he contributed [What did he contribute?] to the development of infrastructure [Water, electricity, sewerage, phone, wireless LAN, ...?] and improvements [What kind(s) of improvements?] in the village’s quality of life. And what is the (reliable and disinterested) source for all of this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
A different view: served as is correct and normal and commonplace English usage. In American English (at least), it is the standard way to refer to a person holding a political office, a judgeship, or a military rank. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Unsure as to whether article is actually been submitted for review.
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Conflict of Interest, New Editor, Already made edits - eek!
Latest comment: 7 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion
I am an associate member of the Society of Graphic Fine Art, and was asked by the committee to update the Wikipedia page. I have made significant changes to the article, which contained inaccurate and inadequate information. Naturally, I believe that I maintained a neutral position, but I am aware that it is not my place to judge this. I need help with this, please!
I know that I need to declare this conflict of interest. I located the UserCOI template and I understand that this goes on my user page - but where and how?
What do I do about the edited page? I think I need to put a COI declaration on Society of Graphic Fine Art - again, I'm not sure where or how. Does another, impartial editor review my changes? Or do the changes need to be rescinded?
I now know that I should not make any more edits on the Society's page (apart from very minor ones).
I have no idea why somebody thought it was a good idea to list roughly 150 artists who participated in the organization's 1921 exhibition, referenced to the organization's own 1921 catalogue. Wikipedia articles about an organization should summarize what reliable sources entirely independent of the organization say about it, with very limited exceptions. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
My first thought is the fact that so many of the artists who participated in the first exhibition (1921) are subjects of Wikipedia articles reflects on the importance of the organization at its origin, BUT it is possible, nay likely, that these people became Wikipedia-notable for careers that extended long past 1921. So delete the list! David notMD (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, there is very little available material that doesn't trace back to the Society, one way or another. It's a little bit ... niche, should we say. I take it that mission statements etc are one of your exceptions?
Hello, @Smnczz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the links in the decline notice. In summary: your citations are not properly formatted (bare URL's) which makes them hard to evaluate (see WP:REFB). But "Gazzetta Officiale" is almost certainly a primary source, and does not contribute to establishing notability. You need most of your citations to meet the triple criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Review
Latest comment: 7 days ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Greetings,
Any professional editor able to review and provide suggestions to get my article published?
@Anniebeau I have removed all the external links from the body text, as these are not normally allowed. I also fixed a couple of archive errors and did a bit of tidying up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I am unsure what is considered "unreferenced" as I ensured each bit of information was noted with a reference. That is why I have about 18 news articles documented.
@Anniebeau, you have quite a lot of sentences in the Career section that appear to be unreferenced. If they are in fact all referenced by the next given citation, you may want to think about combing them into paragraphs and/or using named references so it's clear where the information comes from. Generally, if there's no citation on the end of a sentence, and it's not a part of a longer piece of information, that sentence is likely to be considered unreferenced. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
In the current version, here is some of the unreferenced text:
A 1967 graduate of Wayne State University, Yessian taught speech and English for four years at Detroit's Redford High School. He left education to pursue a music career.
In 1971, Yessian Music opened in a 300-square-foot office, once an old bait shop in Farmington. He called local car dealers hoping to interest them in purchasing a custom jingle to promote their business.
Yessian wrote theme songs for sports organizations including Detroit Pistons, Detroit Red Wings, Detroit Tigers and Los Angeles Dodgers.
In the 1980s, Yessian met songwriter David Barrett (Composer "One Shining Moment") with whom he composed numerous songs including a collaboration on "I See Wings" a song written for Yessian's documentary and symphonic work "An Armenian Trilogy".
Reliable sources for a topic in software development
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It's extremely hard if not impossible to find any source other than primary sources or a topic in software development.
So I added a few sources that are not "reliable" just to satisfy secondary sources rule.
What exactly counts as a reliable source and is it possible to make a secondary source rule exception for topics are related to software development since an unbiased view is less of concern due to rational nature of software development compared to things like politics and past events.
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia isn't a place to just tell about something- it's a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about something, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If a topic isn't written about by independent reliable sources, it can't be on Wikipedia. There are other websites with less stringent requirements where people can just tell about something.
You can certainly work to obtain consensus for a carve-out in policy for software development, but it would be a long, difficult process- and I don't think it would work, as it would lead to every topic seeking a carve-out, rendering policies meaningless. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
But this policy has been created to reduce amount of bias right?
While I do agree, I think software development should get a exception due to sometimes only source being the project itself.
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
if anyone’s watch the 900 days without Annabelle documentary, I feel like Rafael who was the first president of his country also tried very hard to help this case and I think that deserved to be realized in his page! I just don’t know how to write it good..Rafael Escuredo66.129.196.190 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. If you have an improvement to suggest to an article, the article's talk page is the best place to make the suggestion. Your suggestion is more likely to be taken seriously if you cite a reliable published source for any information you wish to add. (I have no idea who Rafael is, or what that documentary is about, but if you want to cite it you need to establish that it was published/aired by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking). ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion
States in India do not have flags or banners, they have their emblems or seals, most containing the Emblem of India. In the Page of Government of Punjab, India, Due to no evidence, I deleted the image claiming to be the banner of the State Government. I 've never seen it in use in any of the Offices, Website, Notifications, Events, Buildings of the Government (I've been to many). The user is the uploader of the said file, he was the one who first added it, and he did the same again. What should be done? VeritasVanguard"Seeking truth in every edit"14:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Recently i added a Government banner in the infobox of the Government of Punjab, India, but now an user keep deleting it citing that Indian states don't use banners but in reality Indian state governments use banners to represent the state government. We have a whole article on Wikipedia on this topic (List of Indian state flags), I don't want to start an editing war, what i can do now? Shubhdeep Sandhu (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@Shubhdeep Sandhu: I've moved a related discussion down and put your question under it. The above advice applies to you, too: [start] a discussion with the user on the article's talk page to ... provide a reliable source that explicitly supports the claim that the image in question is the state's banner. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 10:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352 I have said , and will state again 'That states in India do not have flags', they have seals/emblems that they use. This is misleading to upload a file namely 'Banner of Punjab' when there is no use by the said government. The user in its Commons File deletion gives 'Indiamart' a selling platform, vexilla-mundi.com & other unknown, Facebook (unreliable) sources. VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit"14:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
does a COI still exist if you haven't had contact with someone for 25 years?
Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I'm thinking about improving the article of someone for whom I worked 25 years ago. Is that still a COI, or is the COI no longer significant, since it was decades ago? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I haven't had contact with my dead grandfather for longer than that, and I'd still have a COI.
You're right, I worded the question in my heading poorly, as some kinds of COIs clearly continue to exist no matter how much time has passed. I'm not going to memorialize him, just try to improve his article a bit, as it's currently a stub. I believe that I can be neutral, but am trying to figure out whether I need to declare a COI and only post edit requests. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
FactOrOpinion, as I see it, the question of a conflict of interest is not a yes-or-no, black-or-white question in most cases of writing new articles or major expansions of existing articles. Instead, it is a continuum. If an editor is motivated to do the work of finding and evaluating and summarizing the reliable sources about a topic that interests them, then it can be said that they have at least a weak or mild conflict of interest about that topic. I was born and raised in Michigan and have lived in California for over 50 years, and have worked on many articles related to those two states. Back in June, my wife and I had a wonderful ten day visit to Alaska and I have since written and expanded several articles about Alaska. My favorite article that I have written about Alaska is Wooden halibut hook, a topic that I had never heard of six months ago but which fascinated me when I saw them in two museums in Alaska. I think that my conflict of interest is mild even though I took two of the photos in that article. When I was a young man, I was a California mountaineer. As a new editor, I wrote a biography of Jules Eichorn, a climber that I took a two week trip with, along with about 15 other climbers in the late 1970s, and I took the photo in the article of him as an older man, 40 years older than me. And now I am older than he was then. I never heard from him again. I suppose I have a conflict of interest but I think that it is minor, because the article includes none of my personal experiences, and instead summarizes the reliable sources that I cited.
A major problem occurs when the conflict goes beyond minor or mild, and interferes with the editor's ability to comply with Wikipedia's core content policies. The relevant language in the WP:COI policy is While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined if they were married to one of the parties. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. So, we need to use common sense and recognize that "can trigger a COI" is not equivalent to "always triggers a COI". If an editor can and does write content that is verifiable, that avoids original research, and that complies with the neutral point of view, then common sense tells us that the conflict of interest is mild and manageable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Cullen328, thank you for that elaboration. I always try to abide by WP's PAGs and seek guidance when I need it. I appreciate how much time you and other experienced editors invest in helping people out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
How is an articles importance in a Wikiproject debated?
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion
How do I rate their importance then? I doubt that many are interested in any of the subjects besides Colossal Biosciences due to them constantly making headlines, being endorsed by various governments, educational institutions, and celebrities. Judean date palm is also a plant, which doesn't gain much attention as a de-extinct animal as bucardo or soon to be de-extinct such as the woolly mammoth or thylacine. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Some wikiprojects have specific criteria for rating importance, such as WP:DOGS on their Assessment page, but no such criteria seem to be established for WikiProject Extinction, other than major extinction events are "top" importance. I would rate the importance of the mentioned articles based on how much literature on the subject appears to exist at a glance, or as Just Step Sideways stated above, however important you believe them to be. If it ends up being controversial, then the resulting discussion can start to establish what each level of importance should be applied to. Reconrabbit00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I will add that most readers or editors do not bother looking at the importance. So it is not worthwhile to get too stressed about the rating. For top or high importance, it may reault in the article being selected in a subset publication for some purpose. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately the table is of little help. What are the criteria for "must-have", "minor", etc? Importance could be defined in terms of number of accesses -- via which, of course, Taylor Swift would be of vastly more importance than, say, Universe. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Can Chatgpt/similar GPT be fused with Wikipedia? Will help in solving instant doubts
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I am an active user of Wikipedia and this question recently struck my mind. I wanted to convey this idea to Wikipedia community to bring up a creative update.
If the community was interested in having ChatGPT write Wikipedia, then the community would have likely already made bots that do so. We are interested in the sum of human knowledge, not the sum of what knowledge LLMs predict humans to possess. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I didn't understand your question exactly, but ChatGPT has entire Wikipedia (only mainspace) in its datasets. It also may have other sections/namespaces in its datasets. Gemini accesses Wikipedia in real-time. —usernamekiran (talk)16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Editor change?
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I was trying to work on an article the other day when I noticed a difference in how I edited. Previously, I had the visual editor, but instead I now was editing the source of the page itself. I'm pretty limited in my ability with the source code, and is there anyways to revert back to the visual editor? Did I accidentally change something in my settings? Therguy10 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@Therguy10 When you're in the source editor, there's a little pen button on the right, if you click on that, you can select the visual editor. You can also change the URL directly by changing "&action=edit" to "&veaction=edit". I hope this helps! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi. If you are on a talk page, VisualEditor does not work. If you are editing an article, just go to the dropdown menu as listed here
When will the newly created page be searchable on Google?
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion
On Wednesday, I created a page for academic painter Stano Bubán on the English Wikipedia Stano Bubán. I want to ask when this page will be searchable via Google? It can be searched on Wikipedia, but it is not searchable via Google yet. Thank you for your answer. Jozef Heriban (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
The article Stano Bubán looks like it is in good condition, but there are two problems. 1. there are no links to it from anywhere else on the website, and 2. it does not seem clear that you own the copyright to the photos of him, particularly his first photo that looks like it was professionally done and the painting he did at the end of the page. Reconrabbit16:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@Jozef Heriban: Hi. Google, and Wikipedia are two different websites. An article becomes eligible for being indexed by Google (or any other search engines) after it is "reviewed" here. The time taken to be indexed after the review, is totally up to that particular search engine. —usernamekiran (talk)17:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
What are user talk pages really for?
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I know what article talk pages are for, but what about user talk pages? So far, mine only has trout notifications and some notifications from a bot who harasses me every time one of my Teahouse threads gets archived. I had one person stop by and leave a message about an article I was working on at the time as well. Are user talk pages specifically for Wikipedia-related things or can I use mine for more general conversations and small talk with anyone who stops by? I ask because I saw someone else's talk page and they were talking with someone about their favorite character from a book series like it was a normal forum thread. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions15:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@ApteryxRainWing: user talk pages are for communication between editors regarding Wikipedia. The communication should generally take place on article's talk page, or concerned/relevant wikiproject, or venue where it can be seen by a larger group of people who might be interested in that discussion/situation. User talk pages are mostly used for notifications, and one-on-one communication. Also, I'm not sure if you know the exact meaning of "harassment". If you want to stop the bot, there are clear instructions in the message itself. —usernamekiran (talk)16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 days ago13 comments6 people in discussion
There's a fantastic little game called Smile For Me, developed by LimboLane. I bet you're wondering "Hey, if you want this to have a page so badly, why not do it yourself!?" I gladly would, but I am severely inexperienced. As you may not know, I have only been on Wikipedia as an editor for less than a week. I just wanted to bring this fantastic little game to light and hope some people agree with me. Thanks, Wikipedians! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I had a similar situation with the game Redout 2. If there aren't any major publications like IGN or Kotaku running multiple articles on it, then any article made about your game will get nuked when it's checked for notability. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions19:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I have no experience with using this tool myself, but you can check out WP:AfC and see if they have any resources to help you develop this article. Don't be afraid to contribute, people are very willing to help! /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 20:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
@GracenC, I'm not sure what you mean by "tool"? AfC isn't a tool, it's a process that editors who cannot create articles in mainspace can use to create articles. Experienced editors review the articles and accept or decline them based on whether they meet some basic standards, like WP:N. I wouldn't suggest that anyone use AfC if they don't have to - if you create an unsuitable article in mainspace, the patrollers from WP:NPP will notice it and give you suggestions or move it to draft space. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, that was poor word choice on my part. Also, thanks for the information; I was under the impression it was recommended for all new editors to go through AfC rather than just publishing to mainspace. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 03:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Personally, as an AfC reviewer I wouldn't recommend it. If you submit to AfC, you have to wait until a reviewer sees and accepts your article for it to get to mainspace. Sometimes that can be a long wait. Meanwhile, if you create directly in mainspace and your article wouldn't pass AfC, NPP will draftify it (so, you'll end up in the AfC queue in the end anyway), and if it would pass, they'll mark it as patrolled, maybe with some maintenance tags, and you won't have had to wait in the AfC queue. -- asilvering (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I have to disagree with asilvering. I also review AFC articles. And even though I am an experienced editor, I have submitted an article or two to AFC just to get a reviewer's eyes on it to gain suggestions for improvement. NPP is overwhelmed, they do not catch every problem, and a lot of junk that should never have been in main space ends up staying there.
There are no deadlines on Wikipedia for stuff like this. If I have to wait 3 months for a draft to be reviewed, so be it, I don't care, I am in no hurry to get my articles published.
Yes, it is recommended for new editors to go through AFC. Bypassing AFC potentially creates needless work for others to clean up after you, if what you created in main space isn't actually ready for publication there. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to my own articles in the context of NPP. Looking at what I wrote, I can see how it would come across that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
If the above exchange confuses any new Wikipedians: I think it shows an acceptable difference in opinion. If anyone wants yet another, I would've suggested going to the Video games WikiProject, showing them three sources, and asking if the subject seems to satisfy criteria for a standalone article (what Wikipedia calls "notability"). Especially with the changing landscape of gaming journalism (the and video game industry in general), what sources are reliable or not may not be obvious. If the answer is "not notable", then it saves you the effort of writing a draft (per Anachronist) or an article (per asilvering). Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 14:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments6 people in discussion
I need to get a bio of my pastor on Wikipedia, but I don't really have a way to footnote anything. He has books with bios on the back cover and he has an outdated bio on his own website. I made a simple bio on Wikimedia Commons site for Dr. Larry Ollison, and that's about all I really need on Wikipedia. I need it because on the streaming site for LarryOllisonRadio.com, when you click on Larry's name, the software searches for that name on Wikipedia. Right now it finds Barry White who has a son, with the name Ollison. Can anyone here help me create this bio on the main site?
A "buy it here" page? No. An article about a person needs to cite sources that provide in-depth coverage about that person. See Wikipedia:Golden Rule for the kinds of sources required. That one you cited doesn't meet the criteria, because none of the information there is independent of the author or the book, and none of it constitutes "coverage". Even if all you could find were book reviews, that suggests that the book may be notable, but not the author.
Also, what you're asking is basically to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform (or a way to fix technical problems you are having with publicity that isn't a problem for Wikipedia), and that sort of purpose is prohibited. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
If the image is free, then it can exist on commons and does not need to be on enwiki also. If it is non-free, it is forbidden to be on commons and also does not seem to satisfy the limited cases where non-free content is allowed on enwiki. The licensing and origin really needs to be clarified, and usually only the photographer (or someone else specified by a contract the photographer has) can make a valid license release. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information about how to figure out who owns the license and how they can release it for use. DMacks (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Atlantic306, usually no. We require the sources to be published, and MA dissertations are rarely published. Doctorate dissertations are sometimes published, but should be used with care. More info at WP:DISSERTATION. qcne(talk)21:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I found an image that is crucial for illustrating early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan, which is directly relevant to an article on Wikipedia about the origins of the pandemic.
What is the rationale that it's legal to upload this image under a fair use claim? The image is copyrighted, but I believe it falls under fair use for educational purposes. Does this justify uploading it? How can I ensure that I meet the requirements for fair use on Wikipedia, and are there any additional considerations or guidelines I should be aware of?
If you're asking about this map, then I think you're going to have are time justifying it's non-free use per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. The map of China itself is almost certainly not eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Maps and satellite imagery because outlines of countries and place names are elements typically considered eligible for copyright protection; so, someone could essentially create their own map if they want. It's the way the data the map's based on is expressed visually that might be eligible for copyright protection, but the same information doesn't necessarily need to be expressed using this particular map or any map at all for Wikipedia's purposes; it could be expressed as plain text, in a Wikipedia:Table or in some other form. If this map itself, however, was the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources (either because others thought it to be accurate or perhaps thought it to be inaccurate), then that might be a way to justify its non-free use, but just wanting to show it as a map because it's a map is probably not going to be enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
U.S. govt sources not credible for bio of U.S. diplomat?
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi folks, I’ve been working on a bio page for a prominent international official, draft here.
The sources myself and other drafters have cited to document her career history are mostly from the U.S. government (the White House, the Congress, the Department of State) or from auxiliary roles she held in international bodies as a diplomat.
Existing wiki bio pages for U.S. officials who have held the same position(s) or even more junior ones use the same types of sources. I’ve linked to examples of those bio pages in the draft’s talk page.
However, I’m stuck. Several editors have rejected the draft bio because the sources aren’t sufficiently independent or credible, and they’ve suggested newspapers as alternative sources. Unfortunately news coverage of most diplomats’ careers doesn’t exist, so beyond what’s included in the media section of her page, I haven’t found sources such as the type they have recommended.
How do I reconcile the reality of the sourcing (which has seemed legitimate enough to substantiate other bio pages) with the recommendations from editors?
I’d appreciate advice re: what makes the existing sources in the draft not credible, and overall, what kinds of additional sources are needed to verify a living person’s bio when the majority of their career is documented by government and government-adjacent sources.
Thanks in advance for the guidance. 🙏🙏 This is my first attempt at major drafting and it seems this is a bigger project than I had intended. Lfdigests (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Lfdigests, I'm going to leave a message for one of the reviewers on the Talk page for your draft. I'm not going to have a lot of time during the next week, but will try to check back. I would think that she should be presumed notable by virtue of her high position in the OECD, though I could be wrong about that (and I'll ask about that on the Talk page). I don't have time to dig in on the references, etc., but I suggest that you look through the "Publications, remarks, and media" section (which you'll need to trim) and see if some of those confirm her notability (per WP's definition of notability), in which case you can use them as references. For example, I would think that the 4 minute NPR interview with her about the US's global COVID response is that sort of reference (the interview isn't about her, but she's seen as an expert, and NPR is an independent reliable source). Edited to add: As I think about this more, I'm less certain that that helps establish her notability, since it's not significant coverage of her, only significant coverage of the US international COVID response; I've asked SafariScribe about that on the Draft Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I noticed he is in digital romantic comedy series on YouTube and he has a small role maybe a guest role. I want to add this on his filmography but the only source i can find is the full episode on YouTube. What can I do if he officially appeared but there are no other sources regarding this. What can I do? 122.55.235.127 (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
If the actual owner of the show published it on their own YouTube channel, then you could consider it an 'official' primary source and cite it. If it's just a video that some random youtuber uploaded, then you can't cite it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
You more than doubled the length of the English article without adding any references. I do not see why the article should not be nominated for deletion. Are there no refs in the Swedish version that would help verify the English version? David notMD (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there are no references in the Swedish version that would help verify the English version. The Swedish page only has a reference for a different statement I did not translate. The Neco-Arc (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@The Neco-Arc: Thanks for trying to improve the article, but I think it needs sources more than anything else. Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject. You suggestedhttps://monoskop.org/Interactive_Institute, but that is a user-generated wiki (i.e. unreliable), and the links there are all associated with the Interactive Institute (i.e. not independent). If there are no independent reliable sources that cover the Interactive Institute, the article will be deleted, so expanding it is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Also, while this is a moot point if the article is deleted, this paragraph you added has a very promotional tone:
The institute creates results by combining art, design and technology. By exploring and integrating these three areas, the institute strives to achieve innovative results that not only develop and question interaction and communication between people and their environment, but also challenge traditional perspectives and ways of thinking.
Each Wikipedia language has its own standards for neutral-point-of-view content and references, so even if what you added was a translation from the Swedish Wikipedia, the wording (and lack of independent references) cannot exist in English. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
True, it has a promotional tone. I did not know that that website is a user-generated wiki, and I cannot find any information about it other than that page, other than its website (through wayback machine, as the original website has been merged into another) and a page about a project by the institute, with little information on the institute other than some pictures of its project. As I cannot find any reliable sources on this institute itself, but it is part of RISE, I will redirect it to Research Institutes of Sweden. Thanks, The Neco-Arc (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Malik Jamroz Khan for deletion
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Good Morning
I created this page regarding a know figure of our small area, who also happens to be my great grand father. The article contained only his bio and achievements made during his life time. It was created more than a decade ago. There was nothing controversial since it only had the bio of a known person with zero material objectionable to anybody. I know now been informed that the article has been ' nominated for deletion'. One wonders how can that be?? How can a non-controversial person, passed away in 1964, with few words written on his bio can be nominated for deletion???? Mujeebkanju1 (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Being controversial isn't why articles are nominated for deletion nor is being harmless a reason to keep an article. Articles are nominated for deletion when they don't meet our standards for notability. Many older articles fell through the cracks and nobody got around to nominating them for deletion; there are nearly seven million articles here. The editors who discussed it all concluded that it was complete missing reliable, independent sources about Khan and that no improvements had been made to remedy the situation for 15 years. Can you provide three good sources that are primarily about Khan and that are both reliable and independent? If so, you can always try and write a new, compliant article and submit it to Articles for Creation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Senran Kagura Burst Re:Newal a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Senran Kagura Burst Re:Newal. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.
Hello! I created the Draft page but then realized a page for it already existed that all it did was redirect. So i thought the best course of action would to move the draft data to the existing article. But it recommended tranferring which I can't do because the page already exists. So i was hoping to add the draft data to the existing article. KaabiiRamen (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying KaabiiRamen. Given that the draft you want to move has already been declined once by an AfC reviewer, it's probably not a good idea for you to try to do so yourself even though it might be technically possible for you to do. Moving the page yourself at this point could lead to it being nominated for deletion if another user shares the AfC reviewer's concerns about the draft. If you're not sure what those concerns are or how to address them, you could ask the AfC reviewer who declined the draft for clarification, or you could ask for help at WP:AFCHELP. For what it's worth, there's no limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted for AfC review as long as the same declined version doesn't keep being resubmitted over and over again. Moreover, if an AfC reviewer approves the draft, they will take care of all the cleanup associated with moving the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi again KaabiiRamen. Given the comment just added to the draft's page by Anachronist, I definitely don't recommend you try to move the draft to the mainspace, but instead try to look for better sources to help establish the subject's Wikipedia notability per WP:NSOFTWARE. Moving the draft to the mainspace yourself almost will certainly, at the very least, lead to it being draftified but could also lead to the article being nominated for deletion. If you're having a hard time finding appropriate sources yourself, you could try asking for help at WT:VG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Academic Notability
Latest comment: 6 days ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Before I (User:RomanVilgut) post my question, I would like to be transparent about my background. I am a communications officer at the University of Graz, the second largest university in Austria with over 400 years of academic history (~28,000 students, ~3,200 academic staff including teaching). My role is not primarily editorial, it is not my main job to edit Wikipedia. However, now that I have a user, I have been asked several times to help with Wikipedia. I have therefore marked myself as a 'paid editor' in order to demonstrate my commitment to maintaining the highest standards of transparency within the Wiki community.
One of our professors in the field of nano-robotics and nano-chemistry has requested my assistance in translating his Wikipedia page on the German Wikipedia (de:Leonhard Grill) to the English Wikipedia. He is a full professor with an impressive publication record in top-tier scientific journals, including Nature and Science. He has also received numerous accolades, particularly the ERC Advanced Grant, the most prestigious grant in the European Union.
Upon reviewing the notability criteria for the English Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)), I came to the conclusion that Criteria 1 a, d, e and Criteria 5 a, b, c appeared to be met. I therefore proceeded to create the page on the English Wikipedia Leonhard Grill.
Some days later, a user added a maintenance template to the page, offering constructive feedback on the notability and citations. I added some important citations and initiated a dialogue with the user on the talk page, Talk:Leonhard Grill. The user set the bar quite high in terms of notability and told me about his extensive experience in reviewing academic pages.
I then asked which criteria he felt had not been met, and the response I received made me a little cautious. I then checked the user page, where I discovered that he had revealed his true identity (which I also did). I believe he is a researcher in nano-robotics, emeritus. It would seem that he is engaged in the same scientific field as Leonhard Grill. I am also somewhat sceptical because when I look at the pages of faculty members at his university, I notice that those very high standards he is using are not always met.
I feel he may be applying different standards. However, I felt that users who are not familiar with me might perceive a potential conflict of interest on my part (which I personally do not see), and so I decided to step away from the discussion.
I would therefore be grateful if the wider Wikipedia community could take a look at the page and the talk. I would be grateful for any support from experienced wiki users who might conclude that the notability is high enough. I would also appreciate any tips and tricks they could share, as well as guidance on which sources should be added. We already have plenty of sources, but I would prefer not to overwhelm the reference page.
But if experienced wiki users conclude that the notability is not high enough, I will respect their decision and not challenge the deletion of the page.
What is lacking are references to what people have published about him. In English Wikipedia, describing his research, with references to his sci poblications, adds nothing to establishing Wikipedia-notability. OK to list minor awards, but again, not estabilshing notability. Delete the Weblinks section for same reason. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. So to conclude for me. It makes no sence to cite all his papers, that proof in what groups he worked? Cited should be works, that cite his work?
What still puzzles me: How can a habilitation paper on the FU Berlin be no proof for habilitation (plus the fact, that he is a faculty member - I found the official journal of his appointment and cited it)? What other proof would be acceptable, a scan of the document? RomanVilgut (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
2nd Question. For undergrad and Phd there is a "citation needed". Both Papers are avaiable as hard copy in the library of the university of Graz. Is the link to the entry in the library-catalogue accepted as citation? RomanVilgut (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@RomanVilgut Regarding notability, we only require one of the listed criteria to be met. In my opinion, his award of the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology is sufficient to pass criterion #2. The article can cite self-published sources (e.g. your website) for non-controversial material: see the guidance at WP:ABOUTSELF and of course can give a limited account of Grill's research. However, the biography should mainly cover his background, education and personal life. The article should not aim to be a cv but can mention highly cited papers, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Per comment from Mike Turnbull, common to have a section titled Selected works, to include perhaps 5-7 publications. For academics, the university they work at often has a biographical sketch for faculty members, with information such as education; that would serve as a citation. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
An administrator named Queen of Hearts fixed the template's syntax; however, there's a difference between proposing an article for deletion (what you did) and nominating an article for deletion. Anyone may WP:DEPROD the article (i.e. remove the proposed deletion template you added) for any reason or no reason at all; if that happens, don't re-add the template because an article can only be proposed for deletion once. If, at that point, you still feel the article should be deleted, you will need to start a regular AfD discussion and explain why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Validity of an Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists article
Latest comment: 6 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I would like to consult your views regarding a discussion on Turkish Wikipedia about an article deletion request. I am advocating for it to keep, while the other editor argues for its deletion. Although Wikipedia in one language does not directly bind another language, I need to ask this because the editor in favor deletion has referenced a rule from English Wikipedia. To eliminate any confusion, I am crossing out the irrelevant parts. My question is related to the status of the article on English Wikipedia.
or the listed schools should be removed, as they believe the list can only include entries with blue links. (Thinks that blue links indicates notability. However, WP:CSC explicitly contradicts.)
I will explain the position I am advocating for based your views. For now, I would like to know in your opinion schools in NYC article complies with the rules in terms of its list feature and the schools it includes. TarantaBabu (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@TarantaBabu: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1242. We can't provide feedback on the policies of other language Wikipedias, even if users decide to cite something from here. The most I can tell you to do is to be familiar with the Turkish Wikipedia's policies and base any argument you have on those. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are you asking whether we think the list is notable, because the Turkish version of is undergoinging a deletion discussion? If so, we can't help you with that - every wiki has their own policies and notability guidelines. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can anyone support another editor with Arturo Muñoz (intelligence)? The subject of the article, Arturo Guillermo Munoz (talk·contribs), is not happy about the hyperbole in the article. There is also a lot of unsourced information. I started stripping it down but realised there wouldn't be a lot left, and his career is not something I'd have the expertise to find new references about. The user suggests that maybe there shouldn't be an article on him at all; I'm not able to judge notability in this topic area. Many thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 days ago10 comments8 people in discussion
I’ve been trying to add new information on the Wikipedia article regarding Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act, though I don’t know how to edit via the simple and direct way (without the brackets and other characters used for Wikipedia functions). If someone could help me out with adding this information or do it for me, that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, LordOfWalruses. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then you need to learn how to create references to reliable sources. It is not that difficult. Please read and study Referencing for beginners, and if you have any specific questions, ask then here at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing; I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion I caused amongst other users. If you could send that link to my talk page so that I can always know how to access it (even when this conversation is removed), that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
@LordOfWalruses, if it helps, you can put links to any handy Wikipedia things you want to be able to find easily on your user page. You can access your user page by clicking on your name either at the end of comments or on the top right of your screen. Your user page link is currently red, which means the page doesn't exist yet, so you'll start off by simply creating the page and adding whatever you like. Mine is full of links I find useful; you're welcome to investigate and use 'edit source' to see the Wikipedia coding I used. That should help you understand how all the linking shenanigans work! Feel free to post on my talk page if you have any questions about how I set it up. Welcome and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Dear StratGrammarTime, I would like to ask you for help. I use the icon in the upper left corner of the page to link information and quotes from external websites. For example, I am currently trying to create a page about the academic painter Stano Bubán
Editors keep pointing out to me that I am using the wrong way of linking. I have asked several times in various discussion places to send me a link to generate the correct templates. So far, no one has sent me such a link. My question is: Is there a template generator to link to external websites? I assume that there certainly is one. Please, could you send me a link to generate the correct templates? Thank you. Have a nice day. Jozef Heriban (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@BadEditor93 The easiest template to use is {{cite web}}. See that link for the parameters it takes. The URL for the .pdf goes into the |url= parameter and you fill out others like the title, date and authors from the content of the .pdf itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
touch n go
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1242. If this is about the Malaysian Touch 'n Go card, we cannot help you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the OP meant to say 'my' as the letters 'T' and 'Y' are next to each other and its not in uppercase. In that case, if you provided an email and have access to it, you should reset your password. Otherwise, you have no choice but to create a new account and (if you remember the username) remember to state somewhere that you were formerly edited under another username and to explain the situation, WP:COMPSOCK. JuniperChill (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
How would you mark an article for good?
Latest comment: 6 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I know that some articles are marked as "good" across the website. (about 0.53%?) How would I go about trying to nominate an article for being good? And if it's rejected, would I be given feedback on how to improve said article?
Well into the future, if I was to try to make a different article good status, how would that work? I really don't have any article in mind but for future reference that could be helpful. Therguy10 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
It is an independent part of the LMU in Munich. I'm not sure which notability criteria would apply to a semi independent part of a university, with its own staff etc. There are external sources about it, but not much as it often happens with academic institutions themself.
Hello, @Kristbaum, and welcome to the Teahouse. The four sources above contribute absolutely nothing to notability for the Centre, as the first three are not independent, and the last is a mere listing (and probably not independent either). You need three or more sources each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Searching for a good place for article creation ideas
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello TeaHouse!,
I am new to editing and writing on wikipedia but there are some topics that I believe should have articles but don't. I am afraid to write an article on some of the topics as I am by no means an expert. However, I was wondering if there was a forum, talk page, or any kind of location that I could post some of these ideas in hopes that someone may want to write an article but is looking for an article to write. What is the most appropriate place to post suggestions like that? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Middle Mac CJM While in theory that should work, the reality is that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of proposed article topics and very, very rarely are any taken up. If you believe a topic deserves an article then WP:YFA is the path. That said, there is a strong recommendation to gain experience improving existing articles before essaying to create. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Why do some categories on some pages seem unremovable?
Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hey Teahouse! I have some question regarding an article I'm debating on creating.
The article I am debating is on the effects of Millennium Force, particularly in the station and queue. Throughout the main article on Millennium Force, there are some references and notes regarding station effects and history, a lot of which was added by me. However, that only scratches the surface of what there actually is and has been. I'm just unsure as to whether it fits in the main article, and I believe I could create a sub-article of sorts explaining the information in a much, much better way than there is now.
For example, under the "station" heading, a note is mentioned about 3 sets of dispatch audio. It had citations to the audio and the fact that there may be more, but that's it. In reality, those audio sets have a deeper history, such as the decade old promos that they came in.
This is prevalent again with the in-station projectors. I mentioned that they had been brought back in a new but limited fashion, but didn't get to touch on the history of them, or why they weren't even working on the time. (I even emailed Cedar Point's spokesperson regarding this and got a good answer with info!)
There is just so much interesting and deep history regarding the queue, station, and cable lift effects that don't get mentioned at all in the main article. I have and can get more citations for all of the info, but I just don't know if it would qualify for Wikipedia. Like would I have to take some existing information regarding the effects from the main page? Or could there be some brief info on the main page with all of the in-depth info on a "sub-page"?
@Therguy10, it sounds to me like this is the kind of thing you can add to the main article, rather than something that ought to be added as a WP:SPINOUT. In general, the way this kind of thing is approached is by working directly in the "parent" article and only spinning out if it gets too long or overdetailed. Regarding emailing CP's spokesperson, did they send you to some resource online, or did they just answer your questions directly? Unfortunately, since personal communication isn't externally verifiable (see WP:V), we can't use it on Wikipedia. But if you can find that information in reliable sources (WP:RS), you're good to go. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering The email I received confirmed what I had suspected with already reputable sources, but I wanted to be 100% sure before adding anything to Wikipedia because no official announcement was made about it. Tony Clark (the spokesperson) just gave me additional details; things that I had already gathered but was happy to hear confirmed. (You can actually email him yourself if you need more verification)
And as far as adding the information I have goes, if I typed up an article draft of every single bit of info, (with all of the reputable sources and citations, of course) and then added it to your talk page, maybe you could you review it and decide whether or not it should go into the main article or spin-off? Or is there anyone else I could find help with? I'm comfortable with either option in adding to the main article or to a spin-off, but I'd hate to gather up all of my sources and citations just for it to be undone.
It's really hard to review drafts on a talk page, so please don't paste it there (also, my talk page is kinda long so that will be extra annoying). My advice would be to work directly in the article, but not to make all of your changes in one go. Add a paragraph or maybe only a couple of sentences at a time, and see how that goes. That's easier for other editors to review, and will be less disappointing to you if someone objects to your additions. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I should warn you that, because that is a Featured Article, you may receive some pushback for changing it, simply because you're changing it. If that happens, just know that it's not about you. Come back here for more advice and we can help you untangle whatever happens. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
According to View history, the article has 95 'Watchers' who purportedly check on their Watchlist every time they log in (albeit many are likely no longer active editors or Watchers). The Talk page of the article is a better place for discussion if reverted. On a more general note, pot3ential content can be true and reference-verifiable but not seen as improving the article. See the essay Wikipedia:Fancruft for thoughts on this. David notMD (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
My edit got reverted despite it being accurate
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, my edit got reverted despite it being accurate. The edit being "To Pimp A Butterfly was met with universal acclaim" on Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp A Butterfly" due to it being the highest rated album on "RateYourMusic" and it indicating universal acclaim on "Metacritic", so now i'm just wondering on why it got reverted since i think it's completely accurate? Elijahjb306 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi AlexTheWikipedian. I believe if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of a Wikipedia page while using the mobile Wikipedia site, I'm pretty sure you're given the option to view the page in "Desktop mode". If you click this, you should see the page as you would see it using the regular Wikipedia set up, and be able to edit just like you would edit any Wikipedia. Be aware, though, that your mobie service provider might be using an IP proxy that is blocked from making edits per Wikipedia:Open proxies; you can view pages fine, but you just can't edit them. So, if you go to desktop mode and still can't edit because the IP address your account is using has been blocked, there might not be much you can do except try Wikipedia:IP block exemption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@AlexTheWikipedian: I've never used iphone, but given their reputation, I think first you would need to upgrade, or buy some accessory. I'll post a serious answer in a few hours. —usernamekiran (talk)03:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
AI Aided Suggested Edits (adding links between articles)
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi there. I have a question about using a book as a reference in my draft. The book is named "Valiant: Many Hands, One Vision" published by Walkerville Publishing in 2009. We have an ISBN - I can provide if necessary. However, the book is not available to the public, and you can't purchase it online. If you search for the book you can only see the cover, but it is not being sold anywhere. Can I use this source if other editors can't verify the information in the book?
@AliceMaiAnh, I assume you are working for the company and they are willing to put it on their website. It depends on if the company owns the copyright to this privately published book. It would be easier just to have some company history on the website to use as a source for facts. The bigger issue is finding sources that are completely independent of the company in order to show that it is notable enough, that is well-enough-known, to have a Wikipedia article. Currently all your references appear to be based on press releases. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Another thing: This page of Walkerville's lists "Valiant: Many Hands, One Vision, with Marty Solcz". Draft:Valiant TMS tells us "Founder[:] Michael G. Solcz". And so as well as probably having little or none of the checks imposed by a traditional publisher, it appears to be co-written (or perhaps even written) by somebody with a COI. All in all, publication of the PDF on the company website (or anywhere else) wouldn't help. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
General References
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, how do I format general references into an article? My draft already has some in-line citations, but I would like to make my general references display properly. How do I insert them without getting the little bracketed number (the ones that look like this [1] but smaller) in-line citations do? AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Say there's a conduct issue that I tried (possibly badly) discussing with the user and didn't manage to convince them that it's an issue, the issue also didn't improve but it also seems too minor-ish for ANI... is there an alternative step that isn't the drama board? Is there a way I can ask a third, neutral, opinion? – 2804:F1...02:ACA0 (::/32) (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@CF-501 Falcon That's the sort of detail that appears on an organisation's own website, which is already linked in the infobox of the article. If any of these is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia then that might be justification for mentioning them somewhere in the text but otherwise I think it is non-encyclopaedic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
In the article for Walmart, I wrote a sentence in the History section about them ending their DEI program and delisting gender affirming products for minors. I originally cited an ABC News article, but I found an article from the Associated Press, which I believe is a more reliable source when it comes to current events. As of my edit, both sources are there to back up my sentence but I kind of want to get rid of the ABC citation since AP is a better source. Should I get rid of it and leave the AP citation, or leave it alone with two citations? Additionally, to avoid any confusion in the future, does Wikipedia have some sort of tierlist or something for sources that ranks how accurate and reliable they are? I know we have one for bias, but I am not sure about accuracy. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions14:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi! If this is a problem, both sources, should be clear, as said by the reliability chart. I have placed some screenshots below to show you.
Thank you. For future reference, is it a good idea to have multiple citations on a claim, especially one about a recent and/or controversial development? On the surface it sounds like it adds credibility to my statement but having too many sources might impact readability because of all the blue superscript numbers. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions14:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Made an edit there to bundle both references to a single number. This leaves both sources in case one is more accessible to a reader. You can re-order them if it makes a difference. Just change the 2 to a 1, and the 1 to a 2 for quick change. I think if you're missing #1, the template does not produce the desired result. Alegh (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not interested in editing.
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm not interested in editing.
So I don't want all these pages that have to do with editing. I just want to do searches. And I couldn't find anyplace where to do it. I created an account as I thought that was the only way to do searches only to find that the magnifying glass icon is for searches and it was there all along. But in the meantime I have all these pages having to do with editing, is there a way to get rid of them? Terry W Ryder (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Even if you don't intend to edit, an account may help you use Wikipedia without having to see fundraising banners. I can't be certain what pages having to do with editing you refer to, but I'm guessing one of them is the newcomer homepage. You can disable the newcomer homepage and related features in your preferences > user profile at the very bottom. Perception312 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Sandbox seems to be not working
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello,
I want to write a wikipedia article. I can't seem to get the sandbox to work. I want to write the article in the sandbox and then submit it for approval.
Could anyone provide the exact URL or a link that is sure to help me write the article in the right place?
Article_wizard seems to make a draft, but the draft is not in the Sandbox, is that correct?
I want to write 2 articles. Can I have 2 or more articles in the Sandbox?
Thank you for your help. SpecialistWikiEditor (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe you may be conflating the general Sandbox, which is for everyone, with your personal sandbox, which is not. You can make as many concurrent items in your personal sandbox as you like, but items in the general Sandbox will likely be overwritten within minutes. Does that answer your question? DS (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@SpecialistWikiEditor I stongly recommend you use the article wizard to create a draft article, rather than your sandbox, but you should see a link to your personal sandbox at the top of any Wikipedia page. You can create as many drafts as you wish. Shantavira|feed me14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
If I try to do this using the "About" template, I get:
This article is about aliasing in statistics, in particular fractional factorial designs. For other uses, see Aliasing (factorial experiments) (disambiguation). There is no such disambiguation page. I don't see a way to use extra arguments to do what I want.
The templates "Other uses" and "For" are not helpful here, either, and I'm assuming that I would need to write a unique headnote for this purpose.
@Johsebb What you need is {{About|aliasing in statistics, in particular fractional factorial designs|other uses, see|Aliasing (disambiguation)}}. Copy/paste this directly from the rendered text, as you don't need the nowiki etc. you see in the source code. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Is it reasonable that a reader would wind up at a page titled "aliasing (factorial experiments)" if they wanted some other meaning of the term "aliasing"? If not, then WP:HATNOTERULES #3 advises not to have a hatnote at all. DMacks (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 days ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hello ! Anybody can say me if there are a way for an automatic search for red links ?
When I see an article with red links. If there are articles about the topic available in another language than English.
I create an interlanguage link.
I'm unable to translate into English because I'm not a native speaker of this language and my translations could be too literal.
I can translate from English into French but not the reverse.
Therefore , create an interlanguage link is a good beginning but I don't know if we can search these links with internal search engine of Wikipedia. Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.util'],function(){mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb','//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Search?search='+encodeURIComponent(mw.config.get('wgPageName')),'Wikidata search','t-wikidatasearch','Search the page name in Wikidata',null,'#t-wikibase');});
Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I’ve been reading WP:Graphs and Charts and WP:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles and it’s all quite confusing and I’m now wondering can I create graphs on excel following the guidelines listed on “How to create charts for Wikipedia” and then upload those to commons or is that classed as copyright infringement. I really don’t know if that’s okay or not and I’d prefer to find out before trying it. Thanks N1TH Music (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to create graphs from scratch in Excel or other programs and upload them to commons. Because you are the creator, you can declare whatever license you like (though only files with open licenses would be allowed). Be sure you cite the source of your data. Unlike creative graphical works or writings, pure data cannot be copyrighted, so your graph would not be infringing on the publication that contains the data you used (assuming you are not literally recreating the same graphs that publication has). DMacks (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
What is the origin of the data you are graphing? Did you get it from a newspaper, a journal article, generate it by a math equation, make it up yourself, etc. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi N1TH Music. Copyright issues aside, your graphs shouldn't be a way for you to incoporate your own personal research into an article. So, if you're going to create a graph based on your own personally accumulated data, then others are most likely not going to want that in the article unless you're a really well-established content expert who is recognized as such by reliable sources. At the same time, if you're going to use data from a third-party source, you should make sure that source is considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes and clearly say where the data comes from. You might be able to upload your graph to Commons because Commons is mainly considered with the copyright status of the content it hosts and not so much how such content ends up being used; Wikipedia, on the other hand, is equally concerned about both, and there's no guarantee it will end up being used in Wikipedia if others feel it adds no or just very little encyclopedic value to an article. In other words, you may have seek a consensus on the article's talk page to add the graph if someone feels it's not really an improvement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Darth Stabro: This is just my personal opinion. A better question ask might be to ask why is there even an image gallery needed in that article. Image galleries can, for sure, improve the quality of an article as explained in WP:GALLERY, but too many images can also overwhelm the text of an article, particularly a shorter article. Multiple images showing the church as it looked in during roughly same time period probably don't provide the reader with twice or thrice as much encyclopedic value as seeing one image of the church, and other images could probably be incorporated into sections of relevant article content to better establish context. There can be a tendency with respect to image galleries to keep adding more and more images because it tends to be easy edit to make, and many see it as a case of more always being better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Taco wikilove
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Will they ever update and add some new wikilove? Especially would be interested in a wikilove burrito and a wikilove taco. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The WikiLove is mainly controlled be the community, so technically anyone can update it anytime. You can just create a "WikiLove Burrito or Taco" template and add it to the list if you like. Cheers. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 08:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Hii, I have doubt on blocks and unblocks
Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
at this [2] a user got blocked for being WP:NOTHERE but I am of view that merely because the person expressed unpopular opinion there, he should not get blocked from editing as per WP:NOTHERENORMS - Expressing unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner -
@Ankraj giri, I hear you about WP:NOTHERE blocks. I really don't like them, myself. You can always go ask the blocking admin about this kind of thing, but I'm not sure I'd suggest that a new editor do that. In this case, though, I can understand this block pretty well, so I'll explain it: this person was never at any point engaged in what we're all trying to do here, which is "building an encyclopedia". Look at their contribution history - all they ever did was talk about this one issue. Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussion. Established editors say things like "no IPs should be allowed to edit wikipedia" all the time and don't get blocked for it; saying that isn't a problem. Wasting everyone's time is. -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to argue if as long as the person is not harming Wikipedia, vandal edits or edit battles then should they not be allowed to stay on the site. I myself have limited time, I got free just yesterday and thought I would roam around wiki only to find a burning forest here. I wish best for editors and wiki, good luck! I just hope that the day when I get blocked its not without me being heard :-) Thanks for response as always TeaHouse is best place to come! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk )18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
If you get blocked, you can appeal through various means, principally on your talk page. An independent administrator will review the decision. The process is mentioned on that blocked user's talk page, and they get more details when or if they try to edit again. The 'community' doesn't really entertain unblock appeals from third parties, since we always need to discuss things with the original blocked user. However, you as a third party are allowed to question the blocking administrator and ask them to review their decision, by visiting their talk page. There's also nothing stopping you in principle from urging the blocked user to appeal, on their talk page. I'm not recommending either here, in fact I'd probably recommend against both; I'm just explaining the process. The short answer if that if a user wants to appeal they have plenty of opportunity to do that. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
"Indefinite" means there's no fixed end time, but that also means that a block can be very short - it's basically "forever, or until you successfully appeal". In some ways it's less harsh than a block for a month or so, since you're not terribly likely to be let out of a time-limited block early, but you can be let out of an indef as soon as you've satisfied an admin at unblock appeals that you don't need to be blocked anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I am an adminstrator who has issued quite a few WP:NOTHERE blocks. For me, a typical example is an editor who has registered a profane, trolling sexualized username and then sets out on a campaign of profane, trolling sexualized vandalism. Either policy violation deserves an indefinite block but how do I choose between one or the other? I will block for NOTHERE and note the two (or more) reasons in the block log. Often, violations of the WP:BLP policy are involved as well. In my personal practice, I want to see two or more policy violations to use NOTHERE. Without delving too deeply into the specifics of this case, evaluating which pattern of editing is disruptive and blockable is the job of an adminstrator using their discretion and good judgment, and if another adminstrator decides that unrelenting axe-grinding is enough for a NOTHERE block, then I will not object to the label applied to that block. Quibbling about the specific block reason of a justified block is not a good use of volunteer time. Any editor who sincerely believes that they have been blocked unfairly, or that they have repented, is free to file an appeal which will be reviewed by another administrator. If I believe that my concerns have been adequately addressed, I never object to the unblock. But feeding trolls is a bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Adding articles to Wikiprojects
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am something of a Dinosaur when to come to IT Tech !! There is a page relating to a feature in my/our village with some total inaccurate information -- Caton Oak a link maybe ?
How do I alter it to make the info correct ? Don't want to mess it up !!!
1, It says the tree is routed in the River Lune - its not its close to 1 mile from the Lune -- it is situated in a Mill Race man made stream take from Artlebeck a tributary of the Lune.
2. It states the blacksmith used to set up his forge there - He did not the Forge /Blacksmiths shop was in Farriers Yard some 150yards away and backed onto the Croft drying grounds -- closer to the tree.
By the Way I am now 80y lived in Caton all my life so did Dad and Grandad, I remember the forge, blacksmith, the carpenter next door, etc etc
Hope someone can point me in the right direction
Thanks John Redhunter350 (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
What you know to be true is not evidence enough. It is not clear what reference verifies that the oak tree in question was "rooted in the River Lune", and so, perhaps, you could change that text to the mill race. As for your second point, reference #5 states that a blacksmith would set up near the tree, so you would need a better reference for where he did set up in order to justify removing mention of the blacksmith. Or else change the first and leave the second. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Technical question: is there a reason why at Special:UserLogin there is no "Show password" button?
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. When logging in, I noticed that there is no "Show password" button when doing so. I do realize that this may be due to several reasons, namely: 1) it would be unwise to have someone peer over your shoulder in a vulnerable café table as you enter your password, and 2) perhaps MediaWiki hasn't accomodated for this feature yet. Could someone let me know why this so, and would it be wise to implement this in the near future? Thanks. — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 02:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz, @Ahri Boy – Thank you both. For one, yes, I do realize that using a password manager is simply more convenient in this case. The other thing is that when typing my password (I have it memorized) I was thinking exactly about RexxS' (hoping for his return) use case in that Phabricator ticket (obviously, I would never type it out in a café with the hypothetical password shown in thin air). I suppose I'll make do with what I have, though, as this is a relatively minor issue (at least for me). — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 15:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, there's a part of an article that is inaccurate and I'd like to remove it. What's the best way to proceed please?
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Gaëlle Ibrahim – Could you provide me with the link to this article? In most cases, the simplest solution is to fix it yourself (the sentence is not going to fix itself anyway). If the article is one you cannot edit, most of the time you can request an edit on the article's respective talk page. Just make sure if you are fixing it yourself that you make sure that the statement is indeed verifiable with a reliable source (for reference: a peer-reviewed research paper is reliable, a reputable news source is reliable, but a disinformation outlet or "I said it myself" is not reliable). — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 16:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Help with new article
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hello. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. Please see the advice left by the reviewer. Wikipedia is not a cookbook; Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. I'm not really seeing a claim to notability in the draft- that a database includes this beverage does not confer notability unless you have independent sources that detail the significance of this. It's true that there must be an article to include it in the list article, but it must be notable. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
After cutting what obviously does not belong in a cocktail article, there is not enough left to establish Wikipedia notability. Look at other cocktail articles to get ideas of what to incorporate - if references can be found (if not, abandon the effort). David notMD (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: You claimed that the image is your own work, but it is copied from the copyright protected Kindred Cocktails website. David notMD (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
What if someone with a COI doesn't reveal so?
Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
What if someone with a Conflict of Interest to a subject writes about it but fails to or deliberately doesn't mention about it in their user page? Randomdude121 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Typically, if someone's not willing to disclose that they have a COI, there are other issues with the quality of their edits as well. DS (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Randomdude121: You can't force someone to disclose they have a COI; moreover, WP:COI is a guideline that users with a COI are encouraged to follow, but they're not required to do so. Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and such editing can lead to an account being blocked because disclosure is required by Wikipedia policy. So, if you suspect an editor of having an WP:APPARENTCOI, you can follow the guidance given in WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest and encourage the editor to be as transparent as possible about any connection they might have with the subject because doing so will make it not only easier for others to help them, but more than likely make others want to try to help them. You don't want to come down like a ton of bricks on the other editor, at least not right at the beginning of your interaction with them, but instead make them aware of Wikipedia's concerns about COI editing and ask them to try to follow the COI guidelines. If they don't and their edits are otherwise no problem per relevant policies and guidelines, there's no really need to push the matter COI any further. It's only when someone with a COI starts making inappropriate edits that their COI tends to become a problem; in such cases, their problematic edits can be dealt with in the same way as problem edits made by any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have 2 things to ask. First about the tags on talk page which is used to give the class to any article eg:stub class or start class. Can these classes be given only by user with any specific user right? If not, then how do we know and how do we use it or give it ourselves to any article. I saw many such articles which were expanded from stub class to start class or c class but they are haven't been updated there. So, I am really curious and it would be immensely helpful if I would have the knowledge myself of how and when to use those.
Secondly, there is a YouTuber named Nitish Rajput. He is very prominent in India. A year ago, a article was made about him but was deleted using PROD. May be at that time he wasn't notable. But then also in the deletion discussion then, some editors said that he might be notable after some time. Although, the article was then deleted. I want to ask and request the AfC reviewers out there, to check now if he's notable or not and would it be justified to create a draft on him and submit it for AfC. It takes a quiet long time to create any draft and article and so, it would be very helpful for me to know that it would be good to create a draft or not. AstuteFlicker (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know whether this is the best place to bring this up, but I notice that some editors place brackets around ellipses. Their point presumably is to show that the ellipses were not in the original language being quoted. But that doesn’t make sense, because, if bracketed ellipses were the convention, then bracketed ellipses could have been in the original language being quoted, if that language were quoting something. I believe that readers should assume that ellipses without brackets were not in the original, unless the person quoting inserts "[ellipses in the original]." Brackets should not be placed around ellipses. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Hoary (talk). Thank you for the cite. It indicates that my suggestion is already Wikipedia's rule: "When an ellipsis (...) is used to indicate that material is removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed. (See § Ellipses for an exceptional case.)." Therefore, I will feel free to remove brackets around ellipses (except in the exceptional case), and, if anyone complains, to cite the rule. The exceptional case referred to is, "Square brackets may be placed around an ellipsis that indicates omitted text to distinguish it from an ellipsis that is part of the quoted text: She retorted: "How do I feel? How do you think I ... This is too much! [...] Take me home!". In this example, the first ellipsis is part of the quoted text and the second ellipsis (in square brackets) indicates omitted text." Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Partial translation of an English article already existing in French
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to extract information from English articles to put them in existing French articles.
I am thinking for example of the article about the language "Talysh" on the French Wikipedia which is not as complete as the equivalent in the English language version.
How to translate without copying and pasting. The beta version of the tool to translate articles with the English text on the left and the French text on the right is not suitable. I tried. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Do templates in the {{more sources}} family like {{one source section}} and [additional citation(s) needed] require a new section on the talk page? Somebody removed templates that I added and their edit summary said "drive by tagging", but I thought "drive by tagging" was about things like {{POV}} where the changes required are more debatable or less obvious? Is there a clear list somewhere of which tags need discussion? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with using a single source in a section, as long the source is reliable and comprehensive and verifies the content. In my view, if you believe that the section needs additionsl sources, the best practice is to explain why on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
How about some tea and cookies?
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I edit the Three Prisoners Problem. It appeared shortly then Jochen Burghardt "Undid revision" adding "should be discussed on talk page before." How do I discuss on talk page?
"Latest revision as of 06:50, 21 November 2024 edit undo thankPublicly send thanks?ThankCancel
Jochen Burghardt (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 1258634392 by Kicab (talk): should be discussed on talk page before
Tag: Undo" Kicab (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Each article has a talk page where you can go to discuss how the article can be improved. Starting a discussion first is often a good idea when you want to make major changes (see WP:CAUTIOUS for the relevant policy). On desktop, there should be two tabs below the title of the article: "Article" and "Talk". Clicking "Talk" should take you to the talk page, in this case Talk:Three prisoners problem, where you can click "Add Topic" or "Edit Source" in the top right to start a new section for discussion. Perception312 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I went to the talk page and added my proposed major edit and submitted. I don't know if you can check whether I did that correctly. Kicab (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I am looking at the article about Pygame and wonder if maybe we should put the tutorials in external links, maybe in tutorials subsection? Wouldn't it be more readable and easy to access that way?
I might be wrong, though... :) this is why I am writing in here :)
the important question is, external links leading where? To some YouTube channel gaining viewers/revenue because of Wikipedia? To some fishy website? I would be comfortable only if it is their official website — pygame.org —usernamekiran (talk)19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Rosemary Jacobs
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I'm currently making an article on her (victim of colloidal silver) and have asked her for permission to use her image on it. However, if she allows it, what should I do next? Tavantius (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Note that the subject of a photo isn't necessarily the copyright holder- typically it's the photographer. Not that its wrong to ask the subject, just that the photographer needs to grant permission, unless they reassigned the copyright. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
She is mentioned by name as a person who had permanent skin discoloration due to colloidal silver at the article Argyria. I see no potential for an article about her, even though other people with argyria have articles about them. Her activism against quackery medicine is probably not sufficient enough to justify an article either. David notMD (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Films - (Music too?) - Response - Critical Response - [Should have historical format]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I come here to Wikipedia for information of all sorts! lol In movies is see under "Response"(sometimes reception) and then "Critical Response."
I'm seeing a decent amount of 'unformatted' content here where there should be all formatted content in "(Film)". First off we have to go through a bit of history and the cinematic publishing history; IE: VHS, DVD, Blu Ray, Streaming Services. If memory serves me then about 1982 (Video Disks?) was when VHS started to take off with local 'mom & pop video rental stores.' And Blockbuster (1987?). DVD's in the late 1990; Blu Ray and Streaming services last.
Now with that out of the way lets look at "The Exorcist" (1973).
Sure if you've seen it you've heard the controversies but I lived through them! lol I like that format, given what the movie IS! I also like "After release" subtitle(?). So that's a decent 'historically accurate' account.
Now if you look at "Forrest Gump" (1994) you'll see "Critical reception" start the first paragraph with "Rotten Tomatoes" which by the way wasn't even active until 4 years later. Then it goes into: "Ebert" of the Sun Times, but doesn't mention "Siskel & Ebert"... Too many times I see: "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes" and that makes it look like 'Wikipedia' is upselling Rotten Tomatoes. Least I get into "They weren't even around." At least I'm glad I don't see IMdB here especially because of the "Rings of Power Fiasco!" What I'm getting at is that this 'reception' should be historically accurate as well as in historical order. Cadamier (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
You are free to be WP:BOLD and amend such articles to your preferred arrangements (and reference-cited contents). If someone disagrees with any of your edits they will Revert them, and the two (or more) of you can civilly Discuss them on the article's Talk page and form a consensus. This, the WP:BRD cycle, is a normal way of improving Wikipedia.
Note that you will make mistakes and likely have them corrected. This is inevitable with such a complex, evolved project as Wikipedia: erring and being corrected is one of the ways that everyone learns how to edit here, so don't take it personally. Before you start, you might want to study Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Cadamier. The reason why you see Rotten Tomatoes used so frequently in film articles is that they are a specialized News aggregator focused largely on movie reviews. They are perfectly capable of aggregating reviews for movies released long before that website was founded, and there is nothing improper about that. As for Siskel and Ebert, they never worked together to review movies. Each reviewed separately and then they had intense debates. Please read WP:ROTTENTOMATOES and WP:IMDB for the consensus among editors about the general reliability of the first for aggregating professional reviews and the general unreliability of the second for most things. Personally, I consider subsequent release dates in various formats to be far less imprortant encyclopedic content than critical commentary about films. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
How to cite a National Park Service Documentation Form?
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 days ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I now have a lot of sites I want to visit on occasion, such as my mentor's Talk page, some of the policy and guidance information like conflict of interest, and how to add images. Does Wikipedia have a Bookmark feature, as do Chrome, Safari, and other browsers? Augnablik (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
As for stuff that's unlikely to be updated but that you want to keep track of, I, as an Opera GX user, tend to simply have the tabs open in one of my workspaces so I don't have to go rummaging through my regular browser bookmarks. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@CommissarDoggo and @ColinFine, thank you both for your ideas. I think Colin’s suggestion comes a little closer to what I was thinking of, but I should mention that after I posted this question here in the Teahouse, I thought to ask my mentor if perhaps there was a way to make a request of the tekkies to create a feature.
In his reply, he mentioned the Wishlist. I’ll probably try that, though I know there’s no guarantee of a Wiki Bookmark feature ever being created — and of course that will take awhile. So I’ll try out all 3 of your suggestions, starting by trying to set up a User sub-page first. Augnablik (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@ColinFine, @CommissarDoggo, @Usernamekiran, just as follow-up to our discussion here ... today I was reading some informatiion about the Sandbox and came across this: "Sandbox Organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, and list of tools."
I haven't personally, no. I keep the stuff I want to make on my user page in my own personal to do list, plus because I use Opera I just have all of the pages I think I'll need open. CommissarDoggoTalk?13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@CommissarDoggo, why “because I use Opera?” Anything special about that browser, or did you word your comment as you did only because you just meant to point out that you keep a browser open at the same time as you work on Wikipedia? Augnablik (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Augnablik Basically, Opera GX (or regular Opera if you wish) allows you to have multiple "workspaces" (basically just groupings of tabs) open at the same time. When you close and then re-open Opera, say, if you shut down your computer and turn it back on again, all of your tabs will still be there when you turn on Opera again, just not loaded so as to avoid turning your computer into a bonfire. It's really handy for dealing with Wikipedia. I'm sure there are browsers like it, this is just the one I use.
I have three different workspaces for Wikipedia, the first is the one I'm in right now as I type this, Wikipedia. This holds all of the policies, guidelines and templates that I use when simply editing Wikipedia, alongside my watchlist and the recent changes tab for recent change patrol. My second is for page projects, which is pages I'm either actively working on or gathering sources for. The third is for my userpage, it includes stuff like userbox pages, userpage templates and other such gubbins.
In all three of these workspaces alone, I have around 30 tabs open, just not all loaded up. It's definitely worth looking into if you want to keep pages ready. CommissarDoggoTalk?00:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Augnablik: I heard about it for the first time as well. I keep the links on my subpage as a lot of them are categories, and special pages. For rest, I use watchlist, and the custom watchlist mentioned above. —usernamekiran (talk)18:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts on an article about my parents' band?
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
I'm looking for some advice on whether or not I'll be able to add a Wikipedia article about a band my parents were in in the 80's. The band was called "Legacy", they were a bluegrass and folk music band that played mostly Northern Virginia, DC, suburban Maryland, and only small venues like folk music festivals, old mills and farms... local stuff. There aren't many articles or "secondary source" coverage of them as they were very small, but I'd like people to know about them, and I'd like to publish some of their music (albeit not well recorded or produced). The guidance from Wikipedia about new articles is that it should be "notable". I'm not sure they were ever big enough to be "notable", although they certainly are to me and my family, and a large group of folk music fans around the DC metro area.
I'd like to create an article about them, and curious as to whether that could be done without citing "secondary sources", as just none exist digitally. They were active from about 1981 to 1988.
Hello. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic- that's what we're about. If you have no sources, there cannot be an article here. If you just want to tell the world about your parents' band, you should try social media or another website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Note that sources do not need to be online, as long as they are published and publicly available, like magazines in a library. But I get the sense your parents band probably does not meet WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Note that 'Legacy Band, DC' is an existing band that (according to their website) "Is an elite music group performing in the Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia region. Our band covers Top 40 hits, fiery versions of Soul, smooth versions of Motown, head nodding versions of Pop and some good ol’ country!"
This is liable to complicate searches for published information about a former band of the same name operating in the same region, and has the potential for a 'turf war' over any putative Wikipedia article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Username change policy questions
Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. Going over WP:UNC, it mentions that one would be better off starting fresh on a new account if the current one has “few or no edits.” What is the cutoff there? 78 is really small in the grand scheme of things, but it’s not literally a few—it’s several dozens. Further, if starting anew is the route I take (I’m not actually sure what, or if, I’d want to rename to yet,) is there anything I should do with this account to be sure I’m not mistaken as a sockpuppeteer? Thanks in advance! Velvetune (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
If you are attached to your edits, then I would keep the account and just rename. If you want to go down the alternate account route, as long as you are not using multiple accounts to do bad things and you are open about it, you should be fine to have multiple accounts. ✶Quxyz✶02:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Velvetune: Hi. Do you want to keep the two accounts connected, or do you want a WP:CLEANSTART? You will be considered sock puppeteer only if you use these two accounts at the same time for bad purposes, without disclosing the connection. If you create a new account, then post on older userpage: "I stopped using this account, now I use 'new account'". On new userpage, you should mention "Velvetune was my old account". I think 300 edits would be enough for renaming the account. —usernamekiran (talk)07:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Usernamekiran! Having the two accounts connected would be fine, I have no reason to seek an entirely clean start. It just comes down to this username no longer feeling like me—Wikipedia is the only place where it remains my username (barring Cohost, which is read-only now.) Not a feeling I can put into better words than that, to be honest. I did entirely forget about that policy though, so thank you. Velvetune (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Velvetune: in that case, you can either wait till you have 200-300 edits, and have a rename, or abandon current account with mentions on both the user accounts. —usernamekiran (talk)18:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
there are many users, but I recently remembered Scs. Their old userpage redirects to Scs, and on Scs, they have mentioned their old account. —usernamekiran (talk)18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Citations / Referencing changing when in edit mode
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I came across an article where something strange was happening with the citations. The first two citations read [1][6].
I clicked into edit mode, and to my surprise, the first two citations (in exactly the same place) now are [1][2]. The list of references is rearranged too: the article that was listed as 6 in read mode is now listed as 2 in edit mode.
Thank you so much for your reply, this is very useful to know.
I clicked the overall edit button at the top of the page, but what @ColinFine said makes sense -- the references were probably in an info box, which didn't count for the overall edit, causing the 2-5 references to disappear when I hit edit. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @Daphne Morrow, and welcome to the Teahouse. The numbering of citations is of no significance, and is allocated on the fly by the rendering software - in order of their definition in the article, I believe.
So the oddity you saw might mean (as an example) that the first five citations were all in an infobox (which appears before the text in the underlying source), and then the point you noticed reused no. 1, and also defined a sixth one.
I suspect you were editing only a section (as CanonNi suggests) and so it numbered only the citations defined in that section's source code. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this explanation. I think this makes it likely that when I hit the overall edit button, the references 2-5 disappeared because they were in an infobox. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
First sandbox
Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion
@Rickypriv: For User:Rickypriv/sandbox, you will need to base the text on what others have said about the band. Currently it has no sources, and all external links are published by the band. Secondly it is using puffery, like "top-tier", "passionate", "talented", "strong". Promotion is not allowed in Wikipedia. When the draft is ready for review, you can add {{subst:Submit}} and an AFC reviewer will see if it is suitable to be an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Rickypriv, here's a sample from the version after your recent changes: Known for blending diverse musical styles and visual storytelling, the group has become a fixture in the DCI World Class lineup, with notable productions that challenge and inspire its members artistically and personally. This is PR puffery. But Wikipedia is not a PR conduit; it's an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @Rickypriv, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I have added a header to your sandbox, which would allow you to submit it for review. But as Graeme says, it would be a waste of everybody's time for you to do so now.
Your draft is written WP:BACKWARDS, as usually happens when editors who have not spent time learning how Wikipedia works plunge straight into the challenging task of creating an article. Please understand that Wikipedia has absolutely no interest in what you know about the Corps (or what I know about it, or what any random person knows about it): it is only interested in what has been reliably published about it - and mostly, what has been published by people who have no connection with the corps.
A significant number of searchers have their device set to all caps (due to either habit, forgetfulness or inadvertance). Such redirects lessen the annoyance of their otherwise correctly spelled query failing (which they may blame on Wikipedia). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello everyone, I have a quick question. I frequently switch between different internet connections, such as my home Wi-Fi, office Wi-Fi, a friend's mobile hotspot, or my university's Wi-Fi, and I use these to contribute to Wikipedia. Could this cause any issues? Baqi:) (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Google maps shows two adjacent locations named Oaklawn Plantation, a little over 2 miles apart – neither are in either Natchitoches (the city/county) or Natchez, though they are closer to the latter.
Recently Cullen328 moved the article (i.e. changed its title) from "Oaklawn Plantation (Natchez, Louisiana)" to "Oaklawn Plantation (Natchitoches, Louisiana)" and then back again, on the grounds that "It is closer to Natchez".
I can't speak with experience about the USA, but certainly in the UK, a postal address does not define a geographical location. Postal addresses are allocated according to the Post Office's administrative convenience: for example, I had some friends whose postal address came under Shrewsbury, Shropshire (in England), but who were actually located just over the border in Wales.
After re-checking Google Maps, Oaklawn Plantation refers to one historic building and grounds whose location is named as Natchitoches, and Oakland Plantation to another, some 2 miles away, whose location is named as Natchez – neither are within the map-shown limits of either town/city/county, but both are in Natchitoches Parish. The latter is also in the Cane River Creole National Historical Park, FWIW. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Improving article
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
how to improve my editing ? I've done my best to get all the links in addition it was an old series back in 20 years ago, references are rarely found Alvini1223 (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, can someone please take a look at User:Floralfuryxx? I've reverted an edit of theirs (their first one) & took a look at their Talk to bring it up, but now I'm not sure what to do. Most of their edits are disruptive (uncited speculation akin to a Fandom page) & there are very similar edits from IP's that I'm also a little concerned about. Weirdly, they've added an unblock notice (probably written by LLM) to their page despite not being blocked that I can see? They've continued with the unsourced/disruptive edits after being warned so I'm not sure how best to proceed, do you have any advice please? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The current source(s) support(s) only a small part of the text. If sources have been added to support most of information please remove this notice and use [citation needed] to mark any information that remains unsourced.
But that is not a good description of most articles I have seen with one source, and I have also seen sections where it doesn't describe the problem well. I more often see one source supporting only a tiny part of the page or section, and the rest is completely unsourced.
Sort of. I have changed one or two "one source" tags to that, and that is what I put inside the "multiple issues" box above. But it is very vague, and it doesn't have a comment or reason field to point out where the problem is, only search terms? I made a version of top box for a section where there were a large number of citations, but those were all on about 20% of the information shown. I often see articles or sections where "more sources" fits, but the top box fits better. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest to keep both, but it all comes down to the reference.
For the full list of common references, click here
Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 14:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Cypriot Ground Forces[1]
.jpg)
Courtesy link: Pygame
