Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

Suppressing a footnote tag

 Courtesy link: Template talk:Physical constants#A second-level shared reference idea

TL;DR: How can I can generate reference list entry from within a template invoked in the article body while suppressing the visible tag () that <ref>...</ref> would generate?

This is for use in a template that includes a reference, but currently a shared part of that reference is quite long, and if that template occurs many times (as it frequently does), the duplication creates an unnecessarily long and repetitive references list (see List of physical constants for an example). It would make sense to have a single subordinate reference that all of these link to via the |work= citation parameter, and I want to "invisibly" generate this shared reference entry and bluelink to it.

If I'm in the wrong forum, please redirect me :) —Quondum 23:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what you mean, but would Template:SfnRef be of help? ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not quite. It simply generates an anchor for embedding in the citation proper. I would still have to manually create the actual citation in the reference list at the end of the article, which must be avoided. <ref>...</ref> used in the body of an article does provide something that will be inserted in that reference list, but it displays the link in a form that I don't want. If I use that, I will have a superscripted footnote tag within the citation that references the shared citation, which is not the format that I'm seeking. —Quondum 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me give an example:

I want to implicitly generate the bulleted line once only when either of first footnotes is generated, and not have it displayed. —Quondum 03:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Quondum, I'm not sure what you mean by "implicitly generate", or how something could be bluelinked to a line that is not displayed. I think the exact thing you're looking for is not possible, since it sounds like it involves a template placing wikicode in multiple places on the page, which can only work if you're wrapping the entire body text inside the template (this is why we have {{atop}} / {{abot}}, {{hat}} / {{hab}}, and see also {{citation needed span}}). I could be misunderstanding the problem statement, but it seems like the thing that will get you closest to what you're wanting is the shortened footnotes as suggested above, which will involve manually adding the full citation once each onto each article transcluding the template. Folly Mox (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox, I seem to be having difficulty getting my meaning across. In the following, I almost achieve what I want, where what follows the periods would be generated by a template:

Aside from the awful use of {{sfn}}, the only problem is that the "^{^ a b} , " should be suppressed. Even the reference highlighting (when you hover over a link) works correctly. Notice that the full citation is not manually added, and that {{sfn}} has been used to fold the multiple copies of the full citation that are created by multiple template invocations into one. —Quondum 17:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Quondum, I do understand what you're trying to achieve finally (probably more my own misunderstanding than any miscommunication on your part), but I'm afraid what you've already come up with is considerably cleverer than anything I would have imagined. The html markup of the hopback links probably have their own class, which you might be able to set to style="display: none" by wrapping the full citation information bit of your template output in <span/> tags? Apart from that I'm out of ideas. Another venue may know better than I. Folly Mox (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

They do have their own class (mw-cite-backlink) but you don't have access to it, because it it is generated by the mw software when it interprets the <references> tag and not something you have access to in the wikicode. The footnotes are an ordered list (<ol class="references">) and each of the numbered refs have a list tag element (<li>) with an id that is targetable by the refs or sfns in the body; for example, the id for note #2 is "cite_note-2" and for note #3 is "cite_note-3". This means that in theory, you could adjust your common.css and target note #1 with "display:none", but that would work only for you and nobody else, and only as long as the inline refs or sfns on the page didn't change in number or order, so essentially is completely unworkable. Beyond that, you'll notice I didn't mention the id on the li-tag for note 1, which you would need to use in common.css to disappear the backlink for that note, and that's because it isn't "cite_note-1", it's this monster:

<li> tag for note 1. This is hidden, because the code line is probably three or four times your window width.
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTE&nbsp;<cite_id="CITEREFCODATA_2018">CODATA_2018,_[httpphysicsnistgovcuuConstantsindexhtml_"CODATA_Internationally_recommended_2018_values_of_the_Fundamental_Physical_Constants"],_''NIST_Reference_on_Constants,_Units,_and_Uncertainty'',_[[National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology|NIST]],_20_May_2019</cite>-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^

so this whole approach is untenable for multiple reasons, imho.

However, I'm wondering if we don't have an XY problem here. If you'd like to step back and restate what it is you are trying to accomplish with your template, functionally speaking, rather than in terms of its implementation, there may be a completely different approach that will get you what you want, without having to get into the weeds like, "how do I suppress display of citations that the mw software is designed to display and that isn't accessible in the wikicode?", which I believe has no solution. Try starting over from scratch, and ask your question again. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking definitely an XY problem, now. I think maybe the question should be something like, "How can I avoid duplicated footnotes when using template {{Physical constants}} and take advantage of standard consolidated footnotes in the References list?" – does that sound right? Trying to divine your question, I started looking at the design of {{Physical constants}} and {{Physical constants/data}}, and that's what I'm guessing your underlying question really is, but I can't know for sure.

Before getting too deep into it: yes, this is the wrong venue; this should be moved to Template talk:Physical constants, or maybe the Templates WikiProject, if multiple citation wrapper templates are involved. But at first glance, what I'm guessing might work, is a way to take advantage of normal, named references. For that, you'd need to provide a refname in your */data table, and a way to access the name from the template code, neither of which is very difficult. For example: the ref */data for 'bwien' is <ref name="physconst-bwien">{{cite web ... }}</ref>, and param |ref= in the template only allows the values no and only. Why not change the */data, so that bwien also has |refname=physconst-bwien, and add a new allowed value in the template code for |ref= of named (or, reuse, etc.) and when the user provides that value, then you pick off the |refname= value out of the data table? Then the mw software will consolidate them all for you, as it is designed to do, and you won't have any more duplicates. Seems like that ought to work. Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm subscribed, so no need to ping me, but not sure if you are, so, ping: Quondum. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, this looks promising and you seem to have divined the intent. I'll experiment using the new information that you have given me. I can see the outline of the approach that you are suggesting. My code above is definitely a hack (not acceptable for mainspace use), and your understanding of the consolidation functionality is part of what I was missing. I may ping you at Template talk:Physical constants if I get stuck (I came here because I hoped to get beyond the few watchers there). —Quondum 21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Best practices tip regarding venue: what you can do in that case, is start the discussion at Template talk (or wherever), then add a section here entitled something like, "Feedback requested at Template talk:FOO for a reference question" along with a brief sentence or two about your problem, and a link to the discussion. And you could duplicate the feedback request at WP:WPT, WP:VPT or other venues, if needed. Good luck, and lmk how it's going. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah ! WP:VPT is the forum I would have posted in, if only I had remembered it. Goes to show just how rusty I am. On practice, yes, I should be familiar with that (I've seen it enough), but my brain doesn't seem to be firing on all neurons lately. —Quondum 00:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How fecal transplant is performed?

What kind of physical limitations are there for this process? For most organ transplants you can just take one organ out of someone and put it in someone else. But for fecal transplant wouldn’t you have to line up the anuses? And what if the donor doesn’t have to defecate? Would you have to wait for them to need to defecate before you could initiate the transfer of feces from one anus to another anus? Windolson (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Windolson. This type of question isn't really what the Teahouse has been set up to handle; the Teahouse is really only intended to be a place for asking questions about Wikipedia (particularly Wikipedia editing). More general questions such as this can be asked at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but you might also want to take a look at the Wikipedia article fecal transplant for some general information. However, it's very important that you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that basically anyone with Internet access can edit, which means that the information it contains might not always be the most accurate or the most up-to-date. So, if you have questions about a medical condition or a medical procedure, you might be better off, as explained here, to consult a medical professional in your area whose expertise is in whatever you'd like to know about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Windolson: Welcome to the Teahouse! If the article Fecal microbiota transplant doesn't answer your question, and you think the answer should be a part of the article, you could ask on the article's talk page: Talk:Fecal microbiota transplant. Suddenly I'm not in the mood for an evening snack. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Try a vegemite sandwich. Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Windolson If you want to get information about the transplant or how it is done, you can go to Wikiversity. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Brief description of the process now on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Fecal_microbiota_transplant#Technique Cs california (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Shannon Taylor (actress)

I'm a bit confused how this was declined. Meets WP:BLP with awards, noms and has plenty of significant RS. Am I alone here? If so, why? Filmforme (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I would reach out to the user who declined this. Lectonar (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Filmforme The reviewer probably looked at the first two sources you used extensively. The first seems to have been written by her parents and the second is based on an interview. Both are in a very local source and neither contributes to demonstrate her wikinotability. You need better sources that match these criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Refs 3 & 4 are near identical in content, suggesting derived from band press release. Ref 5, only picture caption makes mention of Shannon. Which 3-4 references are about her, at length? David notMD (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Being "2nd assistant director" and a Producer on We All Die Alone does not mean the awards are relevant to an article about her. Delete all mention of the film. David notMD (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. @Lectonar I did reach out but haven't heard back yet. And they had already referred me to here for questions. @Michael D. Turnbull @David notMD It looks like they had removed some sources about the subject in the news related to COVID, perhaps because it wasn't related to their career? I removed several non-trivial refs related to their awards for that film, but they have an Emmy win and two nominations for other work. I would think that plus the significant RS would do it, but I'll keep digging. Filmforme (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m bored

Hello. Could you tell me a daring story of online image campaigns starting problems on Wikipedia? Or of long time vandals? Of influential sock puppets, and sock empires? Or maybe of outside conspiracies playing out on wp? I am really just bored. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: Hello! Perhaps, Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays would be of interest to you. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh you are my hero. Indeed, this is all I need. If anybody else wants to answer as well, though, it won’t bother me. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:LTA is where long-term abusers are described. You seem to be regularly bored. Why not use the WP:Task Center to find useful things to do? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Il come back here when I’m bored again. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

See User:Willy on Wheels this is one of the most prominent cases with lots of copycats. He just went around using the random button and then added "PAGENAME on wheels" to the page and bypassed bans using public proxy IPs. This was possible in early 2005. There was a April fools where he was nominated for Admin. -Cs california (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for help with content editing

Draft:Altay Şükrü Yılmaz Hello dear wikipedia editors!

Can you help me with my article in draft form?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11s3zjgp_f&hl=tr Tartou (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Answered on the AfC Helpdesk - please do not make multiple topics. Again, it is up to you to prove notability. Qcne (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

How to separate quotes for one reference

Hello! I'm new and need help... Could you please tell me how to separate 2 quotes from 1 source for 1 reference, or if there are Paragraph1 with TopicA and needs no quote but Paragraph100 with TopicB needs QuoteB (both of them use the same source, cite web, therefore they will be placed under 1 reference)? I'm looking for something like... for example, Reference number 3, has 2 cite webs, and we can use * with enter to create a list under Reference number 3.

Reference

1

2

3

• cite web
• another cite web

4

And then, how to:

Reference

1

2

3^ab cite web

• ^bQuoteB

4

Do we have to write QuoteB manually outside the cite web without |quote= ?

I also want when we read the whole article, for Paragraph1 (with TopicA) we click ^[3] and QuoteB not show up.

English is not my first language but I hope you can still catch the idea from my words... Miracle for0110 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I can understand. But maybe Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations helps? Maproom (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes! That was I meant by 3^ab cite web. But moreover, I need to add a quote, relevant to just 1 of them.

This case for a further example:

3 = a source for all about cats (cite web)

^a = descriptions of their fur at Paragraph1

^b = descriptions of their sounds at Paragraph100

then a quote "Meow meow meow".

How can we make it clearly that "Meow meow meow" belongs to ^b, not ^a?

Because no sign with that little ^b near the quote in reference...

The result will be like: 3^ab Jerr, Tom (2 January 2023). "All About Cats". Comfypillow. Retrieved 2 January 2024. "Meow meow meow"

And if there's also "Soft soft soft" for ^a?

What I have tried: 1 cite web allows 1 quote, not multiple. Miracle for0110 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

multiple quotes for one citation are not possible. ltbdl (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

...oh. And how about to put more ^a or ^b near the quote? Is there any way, perhaps? Miracle for0110 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't find that many good references

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

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

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

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

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

Bored again

As above, I am bored again. I’m going to ask you a genuinely useful question now. Is en.wp more liberal (I.e economically), possibly even neo-liberal, and more conservative, in short right-wing, than it is (reformist) socialist (social-democratic, democratic socialist) or communist (Marxist, far-left)? I have realized that some articles here on en.wp are largely different from their French or Spanish counterparts. Also, why is the German Wikipedia so professional? Please do not answer with, "You should ask there", or something like that, please give me an actual response. Was there ever a poll done of editors and their beliefs? Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly you need to get a hobby, Encyclopédisme. Arguaby you are misusing this forum. Meanwhile, Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I do have a hobby. Multiple ones actually, and one of them is editing wikipedia! Anyway, I’m coming back to wikipedia once I’m bored again. Be ready. Also look at the archives of this forum, this is not vandalism, I was told so, as I am doing this with good faith, ask Jimmy Wales, my friend from Yorkshire. He happens to also edit Wikipedia. Thanks for your answers and cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said it was vandalism, Encyclopédisme. But this forum is for answering questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Discussions of philosophy (even philosophy of Wikipedia) are not on topic here. ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ow sorry I didn’t know. My next question will be on how to create a template, when I’m bored again. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We try to be null and neutral, see WP:NPOV Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (DANTE) 22:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Zegler Wikipedia photo

Hello! I recently took a photo of Rachel Zegler that I was wanting to use for her wikipedia page, as her current one is quite old. I've never uploaded on here before, so I have some questions. If I upload this photo, do I still own its copyright? Can it be used in any other official media like websites or magazines without my permission? Sorry if these questions seem silly, but I am very new to this! Thank you in advance. Brutallygolden (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you continue to own its copyright. But you licence it for use on WP, and that licence also allows it to be used elsewhere without your permission. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

So, if I check the third option on Commons. The one that says, “requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license”. Does this not cover it from being used anywhere else? Thanks for replying! Brutallygolden (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That merely requires the downstream user to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license. Not to approach you for permission. The minimum licence requirement for WP is an open licence allowing for commercial use. You can force the user to give you credit. You can require them to use the same licence if they wish to distribute your image. You cannot stop them from using the image, nor require that they approach you for permission. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Brutallygolden, and welcome to the Teahouse. To expand on what Tagishsimon says, you will be required to license the image with WP:CC-BY-SA or a similar licence - see that page for details. ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias in article about Great Barrington Declaration

I think this article does not meet the usual standards of Wikipedia. To begin by labeling the Declaration a "fringe" notion is pejorative and question-begging. Even Francis Collins, who with Anthony Fauci, tried to cancel the authors and this Declaration, apologized a few days ago for his actions. Gregory Pence January 2, 2024 I have written about this topic and my book was even praised by Anthony Fauci's wife, Christine Brady: (Redacted) Pence (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This is not the best forum for this kind of question. You'd be better off asking about it on the article's talk page, found here: Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. In general, I would avoid promoting your own book on Wikipedia's talk forums, as self-promotion is frowned upon here. Thank you. sawyer * he/they * talk 00:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Creating a biography

How to I use my account to create a biography of my own life and cerdentials? NordicRedAmericanBjorn (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

credentials* NordicRedAmericanBjorn (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia does not allow users to write strongly discourages users from writing articles about themselves, which you can read about here: Wikipedia:Autobiography. Thanks! sawyer * he/they * talk 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That's actually not true. The first paragraph of the guideline reads:

Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy.

Links and formatting in original, though the nuances between writing and editing may be pretty similar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying haha. The original comment implied (to me) creating a new article about themselves, rather than editing an existing one, which 99% of the time ends up being a means of self promotion and is pretty clearly not encyclopedia-building. sawyer * he/they * talk 02:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@NordicRedAmericanBjorn: Welcome to the Teahouse. As Sawyer-mcdonell linked above, writing an autobiography about yourself on here is strongly discouraged, as more often than not that type of article turns into a resumé, which is not what Wikipedia is for and generally gets deleted rather quickly. It would be far easier to set up a personal site for yourself to do so. If you're so inclined to persist nonetheless, I strongly suggest you read through Your first article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello NordicRedAmericanBjorn. It is important to know that if a Wikipedia article about you is published that article won’t belong to you. Anyone who can find reliable sources about your life can edit the article, even if that means adding details that you’d prefer not to have in the article. And if good references are sourced you cannot remove what others have added,You may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for more information on that. Also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not may be of help. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For articles about people who are alive, all factual statements - for example, colleg/university degrees - must be verified by independent references (see WP:42). Everything you know to be true about yourself is excluded unless people with no connection to you have published about you. Your website - no. Your publications - signifant ones can be listed but do not contribute to establishing notability. Interviews - no. David notMD (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Article improving

Can someone help me improve my article so it can be published Draft:Cavalli Williams-Simpson Jasper colins (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Your draft has a few issues, namely with sourcing. The draft only cites two sources, neither of which are great for an encyclopedia. Generally links to self-published and promotional websites like LinkedIn and Instagram aren't ideal, especially when they're the only sources, because they're not reliable or independent of the article's subject. Secondly, the subject doesn't demonstrate Notability as defined by Wikipedia. I'd suggest you read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Your first article for more information on how to write a Wikipedia article. The person who decides to review your draft will also give you tips. Good luck! sawyer * he/they * talk 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Major issues: Sentences such as "He continues to grace the rugby field, bringing his seasoned skills and unwavering passion to every match." are forbidden unless this is a quotation from a published source, used as a reference. Look at articles about other rugby athletes to see what is OK. David notMD (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're not sure how to pitch an article correctly, one option is to look at other, pre-existing articles about similar people. Make sure you find a good one, and then use a similar tone and approach in your article. But it's not even worth trying unless you can find some good, independent sources writing about the person; otherwise the article is almost certain to fail when transferred to main space. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

rejected submission

My submission was rejected due to unreliable sources. My source was the Spanish version of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's translation refers to Germania Rodriguez as "his". Since I personally met Germania, I know that she prefers the pronoun "her". This is the only change I made, yet it was rejected. I've no further ties to Germania, & do not profit from correcting her pronoun. Please clarify how Wikipedia's policy rejects its own sources. AcidFreeBase (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia doesn't accept itself as a reliable source, because anyone can edit it and it's not always 100% accurate. This policy is outlined here: Wikipedia:CIRCULAR. I hope that helps! sawyer * he/they * talk 03:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow. So Wikipedia is not reliable. Since I personally, as first-hand source am not reliable, how can I clean help remove all content in Wikipedia that references second-hand sources, such as all history > 100 years ago? AcidFreeBase (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would you do that? Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Read WP:RS. particularly WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Meters (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And what article are you referring to? There is no Germania Rodriguez on English Wikipedia. We do have Germania Poleo, about the journalist Germania Rodríguez Poleo, but I see no undone edits concerning gender. There was Draft:Germania Rodriguez Poleo , which was deleted as an abandoned draft in May 2023, and and again in November 2023 (after having been refunded). Meters (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@AcidFreeBase: That is correct: Wikipedia is not reliable for its own purposes as it is user-generated content. Secondary sources are needed to establish wikinotability, which is the foundation of every article on here. Please be aware as well that policies and guidelines differ across different languages, and what may be acceptable over on the Spanish Wikipedia may not pass muster here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the article Germania Poleo uses the terms "her" and "she", and has since it was created in October 2023. Meters (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

AcidFreeBase, your draft has never been rejected. It has been deleted twice due to six months of inactivity. I am sorry, but you seem to have some significant misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. Please read and study Your first article, as well as the core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

AcidFreeBase While I believe what you say about the person that you met, that's impossible to independently verify- verification is an important principle of Wikipedia. This is because anyone can post any claim about a topic here. We need sources that we can verify. We can't verify your personal word no matter how accurate it is. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Third Party

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

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

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

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

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

Aspiring Wikipedian Seeking Guidance on Reviewer/Adminship Path

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publishing a visual diagram update on the Haneda Runway collision

Have been partially working in the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision since the start of the incident. But lately haven't been able to publish an recent change due to the semi protection layer, which is meant to block off any unnecessary edits or vandalism. The update I was gonna publish is related to the positions of the wreckages (both aircrafts) and the spot where both planes have collided on Runway C (16L/34R). The visual post have been referred of BBC's article and some aerial footages to correctly place the markings on the SVG file (which can be fixed still afterwards for any mistakes).

So I request for some help to get the diagram published please. Any help would be really appreciated. Detektiv Prime (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Detektiv Prime Hello and welcome. You may propose your edit on the article talk page(Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision) in the form of an edit request, see edit requests for instructions. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Detektiv Prime, if you have made an SVG file, then the place to upload it is Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. Once it's at Commons, a Wikipedia article can include it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

their later attempts to include an svg into the article had tripped an edit filter three times, which triggered an alert on WP:AIV, which was definitely a false positive. They have since asked for assistance on the article talk page and help has been rendered. – robertsky (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikilove

Can Wikilove option be removed from a user (to receive) and if so how can it be retained? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi — can you elaborate on your question? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

On the User pages there is a black heart that is for showing appreciation to the user for their work. Mine is not there. I am part of a student WikiEdu group of editors and made some mistakes. My original article is now live and without warning tags. However, I fear I have lost credibility and may not be able to edit with credibility going forward. Is there a way I can get back to good standing or should I just give up? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

it's not there because you can't give wikilove to yourself. ltbdl (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense...that is a relief. I thought I might be on the verge of being blocked. Whew! Thanks WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation (Generic name or News desk)

Hi all! i hope you are doing well!

my question is, Many times articles are posted by the "news desk". That means there is no generic name. What to do in such a situation? Is the author's name necessary in a citation? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman: Hello! I think the author's name is optional, so you don't need to write it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you @Deltaspace42, So if we leave that blank then there is no problem in citation? And are dates etc. also optional? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman: If we are talking about "cite web" template, then the only required parameters are URL and the title. Template:Cite_web#TemplateData has a table with parameters and there is a column that says which parameters are optional or not. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you. @Deltaspace42 Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

From {{Cite magazine}}:

To cite a magazine article with no credited author

{{cite magazine |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title= |url= |magazine= |location= |publisher= |date= |access-date=}}

This just puts an HTML comment in place of the optional author= parameter, but it will inform future editors that the author was not omitted by accident. It shoulod work just as well in {{Cite news}}. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 11:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Verbarson Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on article I created?

Hi all, hope you’re all well.

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

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

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

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

A state of boredom

How can YOU create a template NOW? Is it difficult? I wonder who made the choice of creating templates. What is the computer code of templates? Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: Welcome to the Teahouse! Help:Template has a lot of good information for you. Some templates are simple, and some are quite complicated. Templates are created in MediaWiki, the wiki software that Wikipedia uses. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How do i make a side table on a matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and what CAN i name it?

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

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

How to tackle poor sources for sports biography of living person

Hello,

I'm trying to improve this article on a Football Player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Moran

I noticed that for the player's career history the sources are all fan sites. My current understanding of source reliabilty is that these are poor sources and that for biographies of living persons the standards for source reliability should be fairly high and that unverifiable infomation should be removed quickly.

I deleted the section as I was unable to find reliable sources for this infomation. This deletion was then reverted.

I considered tagging the poor sources but I realised if I did this there would be a situation where that whole section was unverified.

Was there a better way I could have handled this situation? Have I misuderstood what is acceptable on Wikipedia? How would you recommend I approach this situation? OneMillionGuineaPigs (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@OneMillionGuineaPigs: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Steve Moran regarding the sourcing, and invite the editor who reverted your edit to the discussion. The two of you (and potentially others) can come to a consensus on how to move forward. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will try this! OneMillionGuineaPigs (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ian Charles draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

notibility check

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unoccupied person feeling weary and impatient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

invisible commentmobile

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drawings relying on copyrighted sources?

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

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

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

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

Donation Receipt

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

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

unable to publish article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GIF

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

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

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

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

Final remedy to boredom

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it considered bad practice to skip multiple lines?

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

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

ISBN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[insert very important topic here]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving Pages Between Different Language Wikipedias

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

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

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

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

My edit to a page was replaced with completely unrelated info

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

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

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

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

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

Heath Ledger

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

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

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

How to edit a template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insert wikiproject 1

insert wikiproject 2

} }

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

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

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

Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it a kind of promotion on Wikipedia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can't convert dollars/oz to cents/gram

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

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

The help message didn't help me too much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving articles to articles which already exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remsense留 09:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:History Radio

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

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

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

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

SPLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

uploading image to wikipedia turns horizontal

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

Deleted page but I want to try again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Can't Find References— Should I Remove?

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

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

Length in FA articles

Article: Letterpress (video game)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

william shakespeare

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

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

Use of the [unreliable source?] tag

Hi there!

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

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

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

Hello TenToe. The policy at Wikipedia:PROVEIT says:

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

So

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

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

Hi Rjjiii,

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

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

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

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

How to get military service photo into Wikipedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

Disable something in my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Confused on how to post a translation for community review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help please!

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: Draft:Music Man Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I fix a wiki-link

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

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

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

Quoting an opinion?

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

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

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

Removed Post, Referred Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, I see.

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

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

What to do?

Hello,

I am seeking advice regarding the page Center for Inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tidying User Page

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

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

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