Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1179#Propaganda on Wikipedia pages

I notice that although the word 'Zentangle' is on the list of art techniques here and has a slot on wikiHow (BTW, is wikiHow anything to do with this encyclopedia?), it has no page of its own. This is possibly because an organisation in the USA has trademarked and copyrighted the word, method and the materials they produce to help students to learn the technique. I suppose Zentangles could be mentioned under 'Doodle' which has a page, or, better yet, under 'Pattern' which has a page. The question for this beginner editor is ....how would one deal with the trademark/copyright situation? I guess it can't mean that I cannot write about Zentangles (or other trademarked concepts) at all, since Coca Cola, for example, has a page? I have no connection with the Z brand or the company by the way. Just trying to learn. Thanks. Balance person (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Balance person: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created.

:Also, wikiHow is not related to Wikipedia - they are two separate projects using the same MediaWiki software. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, and welcome. To add to GoingBatty's answer: no, whether the name is a trademark or not is not relevant. As always the key question is whether there is enough material independent of the organization published about it in reliable sources to establish that it is notable. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::Many thanks to both GoingBatty and ColinFine. I have actually edited quite a few pages already and done some new pages. I guess I should stop saying I am a beginner and say 'not very experienced' instead. But I have not had to deal with the trademark issue before. I am happy to read that it is not a block for inclusion, provided other things like notability, independent sources, etc are taken care of. Thanks too for the info about wikiHow! And for your speed of response. Balance person (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:::{{reply|Balance person}} We do have a style guide WP:TRADEMARK that explains how to use trademarked things in prose. Basically we write them as normal words and we don't follow the company's preferences about weird uppercasing/lowercasing, spacing, funny symbols, or whatever. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Ah! Great! That's what I have been looking for. Thank you.Balance person (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Anurag dixit Shiwgndf (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|Shiwgndf}} Hello. I've added the submission information to allow it to be submitted. You've never edited that draft, at least from your account; what is the source of your interest in it? 331dot (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sir this all information's are Collected from better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiwgndf (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

:See WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly. And WP:N on what kind of sources that are necessary for an article to "stick". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The creator of Draft:Anurag dixit is globally locked. My understanding is that therefore this draft should be Speedy deleted. Even if not for that reason, there are no valid formatted references, and some of what is presented to establish notability - for example, minor awards - is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

:The OP's account was created 2023-01-28 10:06, and these Teahouse edits are their only contributions.

:@David notMD, The page creator appears to be Akhilkumarwiki, who last edited 2022-11-27. I don't see anything in that user's block log -- do globally locked accounts not show up there? And am I allowed to state the obvious suspicion about these accounts? David10244 (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

::The block notice is visible at User:Akhilkumarwiki's Contributions (global account details) rather than User or Talk page, and appears to be due to >30 edits at Simple Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

:::Ah, I see, thanks. David10244 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

:::This account is {{confirmed}} to the article's creator. I have blocked here, and requested global lock. Please consider reporting any other accounts showing up here asking about articles or drafts on that subject to SPI. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Thanks, @Girth Summit. David10244 (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I've created a page which was declined and I'm unable to know the exact reason. How do I know what mistakes or what should be take care that it is not declined. Here is the page link:

Draft:Udapachar - Wikipedia Mogalgiddi (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, Mogalgiddi, and welcome to the Teahouse. The words in blue in the notice at the top of the draft are all links to pages which explain the terms. However, in short: your draft does not have a single citation in the sense that Wikipedia requires: see WP:REFB. The tone is unencyclopaedic, being full of evaluative language and editorialising (and even the pronoun "I"): see WP:NPOV. Another editor has suggested that it may be a direct copy of the one source you mention, and hence a copyright violation and forbidden anywhere in Wikipedi.

:I suggest reading the WP:YFA and the essay WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks ColinFine for your prompt response and providing the insight on how to draft the encyclopaedia. I will go through the links properly and get back to you for further assistance. Mogalgiddi (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:In the feedback which you have received, both on the draft page and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which give you further help. When you have read those pages, if there is something specific which you don't understand, please feel free to ask a more detailed question. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hey David thanks for your prompt response. I'll go through the links once and get back to you if any confusion. Further can I get live help while i create or edit the draft? Mogalgiddi (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Mogalgiddi, that 'draft" doesn't even start to look like an encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia. It has articles. Please read some. Then you'll start to understand what an encyclopedia article is. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::You cannot get live help. Teahouse hosts are her to advise, but not be live guides or co-authors. Reviews take place days to weeks or even months after a draft is submitted. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:::ALL subjective content, such as "He had perfect rapport with the management. His dedication and love for the school was so intense and abiding that he cared little for himself and his welfare." must be removed. ALL remaining content must be verified by reliable source references. There is so much wrong with the draft that the best path is to copy it all you your computer, delete all from Wikipedia, and start over. David notMD (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I was looking around for if the Manual of Style has a set type of headline style for citations. I read [https://coschedule.com/blog/headline-style-capitalization#basic-principles-of-writing-headlines-in-wikipedia-manual-of-style here] that the Manual of Style requests sentence case but couldn't find the actual page saying as much. Is that correct or is like other things where the MOS defers to single-article consistency regardless of style. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, {{u|Krisgabwoosh}}. Please read WP:ALLCAPS which provides some guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::So does "{{xt|sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article}}" mean it should always be sentence case or only when the article already used sentence case. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Generally, we should try as much as possible to use the same citation style that's already being used in an article per :WP:CITEVAR, and typically this is the style chosen by the creator of the article or the first primary contributor to the article. Typically, styles aren't changed after the fact unless there's a pretty good reason for doing so and there's a consensus for doing so. Personally, other than :MOS:ALLCAPS issues, I don't care too much about whether a citation uses headline case or sentence case for the title of a cited source, but some users may: particularly for :WP:FA or :WP:GA articles. I think you're more likely going to run into trouble mucking around with the date format used in citations or a complete changing of citation style than you're going to run into by changing "The Title of the Source Is This" to "The title of the source is this". If you do make such an edit and nobody reverts you, then great. If someone does revert you, then I wouldn't choose arguing about that to be my hill to die on so to speak. While I think it's important to be true to the source whenever possible, I tend to place a higher value on consistency in style and that's probably what we should strive for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Krisgabwoosh}} Note that the link in your original post is discussing the Wikipedia style for titling our own articles (and sections in them), not the style for titles of works in citations. The most explicit advice that I know about the latter is in MOS:CT: {{tq|{{section link|WP:Citing sources#Citation style}} permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used in an article.|q=yes}} There are other considerations (such as using sentence style for titles of books in non-English languages when that style is usual in those languages), and the reality is that the capitalization of titles of works in Wikipedia citations is wildly inconsistent. If you're writing a new article, you can't go wrong by using title-style capitalization for all titles of English-language works; but it's probably best not to mess with title capitalization in existing articles unless the current capitalization is grossly inconsistent and you're quite sure of what you're doing. Deor (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Is it possible to dismiss a draft that has already been submitted for review? If yes, please let me know how. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Yes. Do you mean just un-submit? Roll back in the edit history to the version just before you submitted. Do you mean get rid of the draft entirely? Edit it and replace the contents with {{tl|db-author}}. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I think that the dark mode background gadget should be changed to the hex code: #454545 as it is better for your eyes, or let the user be able to set a hex code for the background.

Best wishes,

Blutankalpha (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Blutankalpha, welcome to the Teahouse. Your suggestion is more likely to be seen and considered if you post at the gadget's talk page, Wikipedia talk:Dark mode (gadget). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::Ok will do.

::Thanks, Blutankalpha (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Just curious. If two editors have a disagreement about a certain Wikipedia policy on their private talk page, how to best arrive at a resolution? How to bring this issue to a third party so that they can offer a neutral opinion? Bostonite01310 ^talk 18:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Bostonite01310, welcome to the Teahouse. Dispute resolution covers our general procedures. We have a number of noticeboards dedicated to hashing out disputes in specific areas - WP:BLPN for BLP (biographies of living people) issues, WP:FTN for fringe theories, etc. A third opinion option exists but it's meant for content disputes, not policy discussions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:: Thant helps, thank you! Bostonite01310 ^talk 18:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I was trying to add some citations in some random article, but the main problem was that I could not find the difference in the structure of a citation between WP:CS1 and WP:CS2. The only difference between these CS that I know is that the CS2 uses citation template {{tl|citation}}, while CS1 uses various citation templates such as {{tl|cite book}}, {{tl|cite magazine}}, {{tl|cite journal}}, and so on. Did I miss something? Could anyone give me an example of a citation using two CS? It might be helpful to understand. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Dedhert.Jr}} See Help:Citation Style 2#Style. Don't worry about it unless you are writing a featured article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::@PrimeHunter I don't comprehend with that means. Can you clarify? How is that related to the featured article? Because of that, I might want to know the difference between the citation style in GA and FA. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Dedhert.Jr}} There is no general difference beetween citation styles in featured and other articles but it's usually only in featured articles that editors strongly care about having a consistent citation style within the article. In other articles it will just be ignored or silently changed at some time if you use the "wrong" style for that article, assuming it even has a "right" style. You won't be blamed and it's very low on the list of things to worry about as a new editor. So low that I suggest you just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::::@PrimeHunter I see, and thank you for the explanation. However, I would like to let you know that I was trying to fix the references in Analytic number theory. I have put some citations, but it made me struggle because it uses inline and short citations. I personally would like to change it just like the structure in Isosceles triangle, but I guess it is not possible unless there is a discussion before any modification is implemented. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t realize how short edit descriptions are supposed to be, and I made mine too long. Can I edit the description after already posting it? Helpfuldom123 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Helpfuldom123: I believe the edit summary that you have written is perfectly fine so it shouldn't need to be changed. In fact I found the summary to be quite helpful for describing what was changed and why it was changed. For more information you can read Help:Edit summary and while it isn't possible from the software side for an editor to modify their previous edit summaries, a dummy edit also works if the previous summary was either misleading or lacking. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hello, {{u|Helpfuldom123}}. Your edit summary was just fine although a trifle long. My edit summaries vary in length according to the circumstances. "Rvv" is fine for reverting obvious vandalism, but when I revert a good faith edit, I go into greater detail in my edit summary. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I cite Fandom wikis for character pages just for information about the characters? The page for Ace Attorney Characters had the vast majority of its information removed on the basis of it having no sources, so I just want to add that information back again. My name has no spaces (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:No, Fandom wikis are not reliable sources. ––User:FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:@My name has no spaces: {{welcometea}} To be more specific, the common wiki operates on user-generated content, which means it lacks editorial oversight most of the time and thus is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|My name has no spaces}}. Wikipedia has much higher editorial standards than Fandom, but even Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as references in other Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::@My name has no spaces: I think {{U|Cullen328}} meant please see WP:CIRCULAR. GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is he stated to be William George Bunter, when he is William George Samuel Bunter? May this be corrected? Thank you.

Paul R Sheridan TD BA, Grimsby, Lincolnshire, UK 79.68.125.0 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{Courtesy link|Billy Bunter}} - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::This fictional character appeared in over 1600 magazine stories. Can you provide a link to a specific story that gives the full name? Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, Paul, and welcome to the Teahouse.

:If you have improvements to suggest to an article, you can either edit the article yourself, or open a discussion on the article's talk page - in this case Talk:Billy Bunter. In either case, it helps if you have a reliable published source to cite. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::There are zero Google hits on "William George Samuel Bunter" and about 3310 on "William George Bunter". This is unlikely to be changed even if you can find a story which uses that name. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul! Note that your reliable published source does not have to be online. You can use books, magazines, and newspapers as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

How would I phrase Winkelmann, Texas is a tourist attraction located in Washington County in User:HelpingWorld/sandbox, Its a town made up of historic structures, so its techincally not inhabited or a ghost town so pretty much a tourist attraction? How do i phrase it? `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:I did a quick online search of Winklemann, and would describe it as a former tourist attraction. I found it an interesting story of how Mr. Winklemann began collecting old building to form a town, and then lost everything due to financial problems. I hope you are able to write a publishable article on Winklemann, but remember that you'll need reliable published references for everything you include. You can't do what I just did, and find some neat stuff that had been posted online. Best wishes on your efforts. Karenthewriter (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::More of a faux town than a ghost town. Possible ref: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/winkelmann-tx See List of open-air and living history museums in the United States for more than 100 example articles. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse, I find it hard to find citations for a gameplay section. (the page in reference) What would be the best way to find them? GooseTheGreat (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello {{ping|GooseTheGreat}} Welcome to the Teahouse. So, I am not 100% certain, but I believe that the gameplay description of a video game falls under the guidance of WP:PLOTSOURCE, as it is analogous to the plot summary of a book; in that case "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research." In other words, if you are summarizing the gameplay, and you are worried about not having an inline cite, you can cite the game itself as the source; though since that is implied anyways, that is not strictly necessary. However, I may be mistaken about that; if you want more detailed information about the standards for video game articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games may be a better place to get help or find information. --Jayron32 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where to find them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shawn_Flindall Carsonnetic (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Carsonnetic}}, and welcome to the Teahouse. At the bottom of the decline reason left by {{np|KylieTastic}}, it states {{tq|If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.}} This, sadly, may be the case if you cannot find additional reliable sources. Tails Wx 14:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::Social media are not valid references. I agree that there is nothing here that suggests that Flindall merits an article. I recommend the draft be deleted. To do this, put Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top of the draft. David notMD (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

There is a video game which features general information about various teams. I'm not sure how to cite the actual video game as a source for a piece of information. None of these really produce the typical citation you would see for a website with the number in the box under references - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_video_game.

Any ideas on how to do this? Seems like it has been done before, but I can't find it. KKLAccount (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello {{ping|KKLAccount}} Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a bit confused. For what specific purpose are you trying to cite the video game? Which teams? What information? I could possibly direct you to the right solution, but I'm not 100% clear on what you are trying to write in Wikipedia, and in what article, while citing this video game. --Jayron32 16:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Have you read WP:Referencing for beginners? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|KKLAccount}} I believe what you are trying to do is produce an inline citation that will show up in the list of references. This template should work:

:{{cite video game |title= |trans-title= |developer= |publisher= |date= |platform= |version= |scene= |level= |language= |quote= }}

:Make sure you are adding the ref tags around the citation. ― TUNA × 16:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks, I didn't know the ref tags had to be put on it to make it work. That's perfect.KKLAccount (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::{{u|KKLAccount}} It would probably be better to cite where the video game is getting the information, rather than the game itself- but like Jayron32 states, it's hard to know without knowing exactly what it is you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Jayron32 @User talk:Tunakanski @331dot - Issue is resolved. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKLAccount (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The company I work with doesn't have a wikipedia page, but another company with a similar name and industry but different location and background has, which is causing confusion.

Do I create a page of our company or will it count as a not notable topic and would've wasted my time. Note that the company that had the wikipedia page is no longer even active.

Helion Venture Partners is the already found page, our company is Helion Ventures Investment ltd. Helion Ventures (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:*Hello, {{U|Helion Ventures}}. You will need to change your username, because it implies it can be used by multiple persons, which is not allowed. "User:John Doe at Helion Ventures" would be fine. Go to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple to request that.

::Furthermore, if you edit Wikipedia as part of your work duties, you need to make a specific disclosure to comply with the terms of use, see WP:PAID for how to do that. In any case, you should definitely read WP:COI before editing any topic with which you are closely related.

::Onto your question, there are a few things...

::You should start by trying to find good sources to demonstrate the notability, and only if you find these sources, then you start to write. Most new users start by writing and then try to find sources, which is indeed a waste of time, as the user essay WP:BACKWARD explains. It was wise of you not to do that.

::What constitutes a good source, you may ask? Well, as WP:GNG says, it is a source that is simultaneously (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) deals with the topic in detail. For instance, an interview fails (1), a blog post by a unknown internet user fails (2), and an entry in a phonebook directory fails (3), so none of those are any good. One good source trumps a thousand bad ones in that matter. If you come back at the Teahouse page with the best sources you can find, we can tell you if they are good or not.

::Assuming you can indeed find good sources, you should then create a draft and push it through the articles for creation process. This will cause a reviewer to check the draft and sort of any technical problems (such as: where to put the page if there are multiple companies with the same name).

::Finally, I am not convinced the page you link to (the other company) should stay. The fact that it managed to stay on Wikipedia for 12 years does not mean it should have, and you should not think that the page about a similar company will stay. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles. Wikipedia is not a directory. We do not have pages. If your company does not meet our notability policies, it should not have an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::Companies that no longer exist can still be the topics of valid articles (just like dead people). However, an Articles for deletion has been submitted for Helion Venture Partners because of the weakness of the article and references. And do not forget to change your User name (or else abandon the account and start a new one) before doing any more editing. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello team, Have been trying to edit a production house page, but the article was declined saying Fully Unsourced, and it has just mentions of the name. Since our Producers dont speak to the media that often, all we are left with is mentions of our upcoming projects in the news sources, suggest a way to keep the page up please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:People_Media_Factory&action=history Deepak Alone 08:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak Alone (talk • contribs)

:Hello, {{u|Deepak Alone}}. Your draft is entirely unreferenced which violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize the significant coverage that independent reliable sources devote to a topic, and those sources should be presented as references. Unreferenced drafts are declined routinely. Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hello, {{u|Deepak Alone}}. I see that you declared a COI; if you work for this production house, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I noticed you said "Our". While this may seem like a simple thing, that would suggest that multiple people are using your account. Wikipedia accounts are meant for one person each. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Understood, will add the references. Deepak Alone 11:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak Alone (talk • contribs)

I'm writing an article and I am not able to add references other than a LinkedIn profile. Is it possible for me to add the info? Turbinas (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Turbinas, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you saying that you have no sources other than a LinkedIn profile? That will not be sufficient for a Wikipedia article. You need multiple independent, reliable, published secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject - see WP:Golden Rule. LinkedIn's content is user generated and generally unreliable. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::@199.208.172.35, I believe the OP might be talking about a technical issue. Please elaborate? Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:::If this is about your draft Draft:Dublin Institute of Spanish and the LinkedIn profile of the founder, no, that is not considered a reliable source reference, because anyone can write anything in their LinkedIn account. David notMD (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Turbinas I did a quick Google search for the Dublin Institute of Spanish and found nothing useful to base an article on. Please read this essay and you'll see why your attempt to create something acceptable has been unsuccessful so far. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

clarence besaw was born april 13 1919 his mother bertha besaw was in almshouse in new york in 1919 was looking for information about bertha besaw and her son clarence besaw know bertha mother was josephine andrew besaw bertha father was john james tallman clarence was born to bertha but his name changed to harold palmore later in his life but was looking for information when he was in almshouse and when he came to ok 64.37.26.143 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi IP editor. Wikipedia has never had an article about Clarence Besaw. Are you proposing to draft one? If so, please read carefully WP:YFA. If you need more help, just ask here in this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::IP user: I see that you made essemtially the same statement a few days ago, now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1177#clarence besaw. I'm afraid you're going to have to give us a bit more of a clue about what help you need.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm trying to create a wikipedia page for a large company that I believe easily meets the Wikipedia standards for notability, but my page has been rejected three times for failing to establish notability due to sourcing. Can someone help me by looking through my sources and IDing those that fail to meet standards? Draft:Vir Biotechnology

Thanks! Ebolaisariver (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Ebolaisariver, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article has 30 sources. Surely you can look at them and tell which are in-depth, completely independent of the company (not derived from press releases or published by people associated with the company), and published in reliable sources with editorial control. The comments on the article already provide links that explain this. If you have questions about two or three sources I would be happy to look at them. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to put a simple graph into an article. Just data points and labels are all I want to include so that future editor can just concatenate from the orginal graph when more data points are added. I was able to paste some sort of SVG code from the graph tutorial, but the previews do not look like the information will be displayed appropriately. Any help on how to do this? I don't want to just put the data in a table. Teslaedit17 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Teslaedit17, the easiest way to do a simple graph here is with {{tl|Graph:Chart}}. The documentation has many examples at Template:Graph:Chart#Examples. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks. Found that Graph template very helpful. Now to add the thousands of data points. Teslaedit17 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a page with a simple search bar (enter a topic to search for) anywhere? JohnPaulusO (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

: Try Special:Search RudolfRed (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, JohnPaulusO. There is a search box at the top of every single page on Wikipedia! We use that to find a named article. But to find broad topics you would need to use WP:CATEGORIES. RudolphRed has just pointed you in the right direction. Make sure you select 'Category' from namespace, not 'Article'. So you could type 'Fish' and search through our categories and be taken to :Category:Fish where you could then start to hone in on your preferred topic. You will also find Categories listed at the very bottom of every article. So find an article that relates to your subject interest and look through its categories in turn to find similar types of articles. Let us know if you need more info than that. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::{{ping|JohnPaulusO}} The search bar at top of pages has moved from the right to the center with default settings and you may have to click a magnifying glass icon first. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:::More specifically, if you scroll down away from the top a sticky header may appear and you can click on the link= in the top-left corner if you are using the Vector 2022 (now default) skin. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::In a narrow window you may have to click a magnifying glass at the top center when you are at top of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

We need dark mode, please!

One simple switch on top of every page.

Thanks 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:C559:A7ED:A9C4:3DCA (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

:Please offer comments at the talk page of Vector 2022. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets see here]). But you'll need to be logged on with a free user account to change any of the defaults available to you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

::Hello, thanks for your suggestion. A technical side-effect of the current skin is that it will be possible to build the dark mode. You will find more information here. Until then, what Nick wrote above is the best solution. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

::sorry, i might not be the smartest tool in the shed, but where is the switch for dark mode in the preference pane ? Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

:::@Vincent-vst It is one of the options on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets in the "appearance" section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

::::thank you Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks for the answer.

::Here is my corrected suggestion:

::We need dark mode without any registration, any account, any logging on, please!

::Thanks. 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:BD2D:F6F8:A9:3AD8 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

:::As outlined at the link given above - [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Frequently_asked_questions#Are_you_building_the_dark_mode? this link] - the devs know that folks want this feature, but it's not currently in development, and may not ever be available to IPs. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

::::That's right, maybe it could be added in the near future, but we aren't sure yet to come for. As always, there is a chance that this feature will go into development and on occasions, it will be experimented by some old editors as well. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:101D:34E7:B537:E94F (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::@Nick Moyes You said "We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences".

::Then, this link, mentioned above, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Frequently_asked_questions#Are_you_building_the_dark_mode says the feature is not in development, and further, if it were built, "we would not plan to add an in-browser toggle".

::And from the WMF, @SGrabarczuk (WMF) says "it will be possible to build it [dark mode], but until then, what Nick wrote is the best solution". (Emphasis mine.) So the WMF person's answer says it's not built yet, but we should follow your answer (Nick), which says it is available. Why is all this info so confusing?

::Even so, I turned the toggle on in Preferences, but I don't see a dark mode button at the top of any page. Why is there even a toggle if the WMF and the linked page says it "will be possible to build" this feature? Please help me understand... David10244 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

:::To clarify, I am in desktop mode on an Android tablet, using the Chrome browser. David10244 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

::::I hate to be one of those pushy editors, but ... No one has more info on this apparent set of contradictions, on whether the Dark Mode feature is already "built" or "now it will be possible to build" and "we do not plan to add..."? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::@David10244, it's a gadget, not an officially WMF-created dark mode. The latter is what folks keep referring to (it's been added to the latest wishlist, I see). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::OK, that helps. I thought I was going crazy, seeing the contradictions, with no one mentioning them! David10244 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::Linkity link: Dark mode. An experimental work by the design team + various volunteers, apparently. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::Does the checkbox in Preferences actually do anything? Is it part of the gadget? David10244 (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::@David10244, that's something I can't answer for sure. It seems the checkbox you're talking about is supposed to make the dark mode toggle available at the top of pages. I'm not sure if it works in all skins, and it's always possible you have some other thing enabled which is interfering with the gadget. Very hard for me to tell how these things work. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Ok, thanks. I'm using the new default skin that so many people complain about, but I like it. I don't have much fancy stuff enabled. But I'm good, thanks for the help. David10244 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::@David10244 Sorry - I missed your 'ping', but I had suddenly wondered if I had previously loaded up some bespoke script which I'd forgotten about. (It's easy to do and then assume everyone else sees Wikipedia the way you do). However, I run an alt-account (NM Demo 2) for just this purpose and with all the settings just as a new user sees it when they first register for an account. I can confirm that (in Chrome on a Windows 10 PC) the dark mode function can be enabled in Preferences. By selecting the tick box labelled "Dark mode toggle: Enable a toggle for using a light text on dark background color scheme", saving the settings and then going to any other page and then 'purging the cache' to ensure everything is properly loaded from my preference, I can then select Dark Mode' from the new user dropdown menu, and toggle it on or off from there. I've not checked its availability in mobile view or in desktop view on my iPhone. I will if you need me to. Does that clarify anything you were unsure of? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::@Nick Moyes That helps. I see those things now and it works. (I use desktop mode on a Win PC and sometimes on a tablet). Thanks for checking this for me; I appreciate it.

::::::::::

::::::::::I shouldn't fixate on the following two things, and I'll let it go after this comment, but...

::::::::::I am still confused about the reply in this thread, where @SGrabarczuk (WMF) says "it will be possible to build it [dark mode], but until then, what Nick wrote is the best solution". I don't understand, SG. It seems that "it" has been built, given that "what Nick wrote" works fine. Will the same feature be built again?

::::::::::And as outlined at the link given above - this is what discouraged me at first-- [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Frequently_asked_questions#Are_you_building_the_dark_mode? this link] - says the devs know that folks want this feature, but then says it's not currently in development. Weird. David10244 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::There are so many facets to Wikipedia, MediaWiki etc that it's perfectly possible there are pages floating around that are simply out of date. I honestly don't know. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::@David10244, after asking some more learned folks for clarity, I was told that the difference here is between a fully supported dark mode, custom-tailored to display all the different elements properly, being maintained and updated by actual staff (what folks want) vs. what is basically a color inversion hack maintained by whoever has the time and will to do so (what we have). As it was described to me, the former actually sounds like a fair amount of work, both to set up and to keep updated as software changes roll out. If enough folks think the current solution is good enough, the WMF will probably spend their resources on other things. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks, 199, that's the clearest and most complete answer I have seen, although you did say almost the same thing above (which I missed before). I wish the answer from the WMF would have made the distinction. Cheers! David10244 (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::I would like to agree with you other editors, it is the something that it needs to be turned on on preferences, but logging on is required to do so. But in a meantime, if you requested to be available for everyone, you need to wait further until the future. instead of asking about this feature constantly, this would happen of the founder or the staff decided to do so. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:101D:34E7:B537:E94F (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

: Yes,there is a dark mode option, but it is only available to registered users who edit. If you want to try, simply either log in or create an account in order to do so. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

::I tried, but it does not work! Learning With Ameer (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

:::If you made a number of edits, then the dark mode is enabled for you. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

::::This is not true. The dark mode gadget is available to all account holders, regardless of number of edits. It is not automatically enabled; it must be activated by the procedure described above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

:::::Just ignore IP 204.129.232.191 - they've been blocked for constantly making pointless, troublesome edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::Your device may have that feature.Cwater1 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::I think there's also dark mode in the wikipedia mobile app. WPchanger2011 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:Dark mode is very help full it will help with your eyes at night and and make the sight more stylish i hope the admin team does put in a nice dark mode. Stuuf5 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Exactly, and I would agree on this, if they add it in the near future. It would be better though than light mode. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:101D:34E7:B537:E94F (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::yes very because it will definately be better on the eyes as i stated in my previous message Stuuf5 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Can you give me some examples of dark mode? How though? I want to guess about this upcoming feature. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:101D:34E7:B537:E94F (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::@Stuuf5 Pinging this for you to respond, what are examples of this feature? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:101D:34E7:B537:E94F (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::ok so some examples of this are easier reading maybe some new settings for dark mode (and even other modes if the admins want to add that) probably some more editing features examples being like; only dark mode reading and more locks. So basically more features that come with dark mode. Stuuf5 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::slight edit i'm sorry i meant and not and and. sorry for the interruption in this post Stuuf5 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello! On Draft:Thunkable, I don't know how to cite sources. I do know how to add a reference, but I can't find any reliable sources about thunkable. If I use EveryBody Wiki and Bios as a source/external link, it's blocked. I don't know how to cite the article, and if I submit it, it's declined. What can I do about this?

Sincerely,

WPchanger2011 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:@WPchanger2011: {{welcometea}} If you can't find reliable sources that are independent from the subject, it's probably not notable as Wikipedia defines it. You've already cited sources as one would expect on Wikipedia, so I don't know what you mean by you not knowing {{tq|how to cite sources}}. I'll also say that using wikis (including Wikipedia itself) is a bad idea; user-generated content almost always lacks the editorial oversight for a source to be considered reliable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hi, so it means there's nothing I can do about it? WPchanger2011 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:::@WPchanger2011, unless you can find reliable sources, that is, indeed, the end of the line - for now. It doesn't mean the subject will never be notable, just that it isn't at the moment. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

:@WPchanger2011 A draft is supposed to be written with you collecting the independent, reliable sources first, then writing the draft using what those sources say. Most authors, especially new ones, do this backwards. David10244 (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am the creator , I started this show from scratch as creative Director and my name come on tittle montage also …so I need to update it on Wikipedia also 103.233.141.74 (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:if you want to create an article about yourself, here's why you should not do that. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::IP, you should not create an article about yourself, but you can. It is quite hard to remain neutral, and to only include information about yourself that appears in the sources that you have collected. David10244 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Subject show AJOONI

CREATOR …Trivendra Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.233.141.74 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse! I think you're saying that you want to update the article Ajooni to include that you, Trivendra Singh, are the creator. It appears you tried to do this in {{diff2|1137352977|this edit}}, which was reverted. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly. Instead, I suggest using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to ask that the information be added. I also suggest you provide an independent published reliable source with your request, so another editor can verify the information. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed on the Methaqualone (quaaludes) page, one of the references used is actually for a Frontline documentary about methamphetamine. It appears someone added the reference with good intention but either missed the second half of the word or was unaware the two drugs were different chemical substances.

I tried to delete the reference (#16 on the methaqualone page) but it seems that references are the one part of the page that cannot be edited like the other sections. This could be my inexperience too, I've only made 2 edits before, I think, so I'd appreciate any guidance that anyone could provide. Thanks. Nmetkn (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:You'll find advice at Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, @Nmetkn. I think your helpful observation could be left at the talk page of the article, and you can leave it to another editor to act on it, if you wish. You are quite right - the references sections cannot generally be edited directly. They are built up from the 'inline citations' added to text in the article, and then automatically compiled and displayed in the references section. This lets you refer to just one source many times over, whilst still only having one citation appearing in the references section.

:I will leave you a welcome message on your talk page and invite you to take a look around at making small edits to Wikipedia to get you going. It's not for everyone, but we welcome everyone who is willing to help make improvements. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Nmetkn I checked the .pdfs of the references and both are fine. Haislip / DEA worked to reduce supplies of both methaqualone and methamphetamine and both are mentioned in ref #17, whereas ref #16 only mentions the former, which is correct for that article. Whether that was included in the Frontline documentary, I can't say: the documentary is mentioned but not cited. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been working on my article for rapper Cobra Maltase and It keeps getting deleted even though it has a lot information, high criteria and notablility, It got deleted 10 times today and I'm new to this. Please look into this and please fix it. Thank you.

Link: Cobra Maltase JVMoneyMan (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:The draft is actually at Draft:Cobra Maltase, and it is certainly not ready for article space. It was deleted because you kept moving it to article space even though it has no proper sourcing, and no indication of notability. Cobra Maltase has now been salted (protected from creation) by user:Liz to prevent you from moving it to article space again. If you can create a properly sourced article that shows the subject's notability it can be moved back to article space (but not by you). Please read WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Note that statements such as "James Antonio Vasquez was born on June 7, 2005 in Brooklyn, New York" and "Moved out when he was four years old and started growing up in Houston, Texas." are not sources. Meters (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Please pay particular attention to the WP:MUSICBIO portion of WP:MUSIC. It does not appear to me that the subject meets any of the notability requirements for musicians. If that is the case then this article will not be approved, and you should stop spending time on it. Meters (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::I deleted all the non-refs and content that made no contribution to establishing his notability, i.e., video games he played, music he listened to. If you cannot find and add valid, reliable source references, there is no hope. (See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to format refs.) David notMD (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::UPDATE: JVMoneyMan blocked as sockpuppet of User:CobraMaltase (also blocked) and the draft nominated for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and am working on an existing article "Mark Bly - American Dramaturg": Mark_Bly. In the second paragraph, the tag "clarification needed" has been inserted by an editor. I have attempted to provide clarification with a parenthetical note and have added an additional citation: #18. I'm wondering if someone could take a look and if the clarification is sufficient remove the tag. If not, I'd appreciate any suggestion as to how to address the request and eliminate the tag. Thank you for your help on this and in the past. - Geoffproehl970 Geoffproehl970 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Geoffproehl970: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for improving the article.

:{{ping|Quisqualis}} Since you asked for the clarification in {{diff2|1132672126|this edit}}, would you like to weigh in? GoingBatty (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hi @GoingBatty and @Geoffproehl970; I requested clarification of the term “The Questioning Spirit”, which Geoff provided, nicely. Hence, I've removed the tag. Nice article! Thanks.-- Quisqualis (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello I uploaded a non free image and then realised that there is an obvious mistake in the file name. How do I change/move it? Thanks (File:Ziggy Shipper.jpg) Fieryninja (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

: Hi {{u|Fieryninja}}. Please take a look at :Wikipedia:File mover for reference, but only certain users can move a file. You will need to request the file be moved using :Template:Rename media. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{done}}. I've moved the file to the correct spelling. Deor (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that when using Wikidata in articles, the place boundary shows up for this for (Q790094) Avalon Beach but not for (Q5395442) Erowal Bay? As far as I can tell both have the OSM Relation data linked. Avalon Beach (2918144) and Erowal Bay (6076612). These are just two specific examples but the question applies more generally.

{{maplink|frame=yes|frame-align=left|type=line|id=Q790094|text=Mapframe Avalon example}}

{{maplink|frame=yes|frame-align=left|type=line|id=Q5395442|text=Mapframe Erowal Bay example}}

What's going on here? Ceyx azureus (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:Hello, {{u|Ceyx azureus}}. The Teahouse answers questions about editing the English Wikipedia. Wikidata, on the other hand, is an entirely separate Wikimedia project that many or most Wikipedia editors know little or nothing about. For questions about Wikidata, I recommend that you go ask at Wikidata. You should be able to find their help functions on their home page. Cullen328 (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::{{ping|Ceyx azureus}} Look at the template in the {{para|image2}} field in the infobox of the Avalon Beach, New South Wales article. That appears to be what's adding the map in that article's infobox. The Erowal Bay infobox lacks such a template. Deor (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This morning I added an album listing to the article List of 2023 albums. Afterwards, the user User:QuietHere deleted the album listing -and- went on to unilaterally delete (via redirection) several very longstanding pages for the band and their albums, arguably citing non-notability. I think the pages should be restored pending a more thorough consideration of their importance. Given the breadth of the sudden changes and my relative ignorance of how Wikipedia operates, I don't think my trying to directly discuss this with User:QuietHere is feasible. Rather, I'd hope this could be escalated to staff a/o an administrator of some sort.

Pages deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peach_(band)&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almost_the_Right_People&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giving_Birth_to_a_Stone&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flow_with_the_Tide&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Make_Me_Your_God&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappear_Here_(EP)&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burn_(Peach_album)&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spasm_(song)&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suns_of_the_Tundra_(album)&redirect=no
Isomega (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

: {{u|Isomega}}, don't worry, the pages weren't "speedily deleted" and all the prior content is still in the edit histories for those pages. Just discuss the matter with the other user, and if you can come to an agreement about notability the pages are quite easy to restore without help from admins! Larataguera (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::The (longstanding) pages were never proposed for deletion, etc., they were just summarily redirected (which was tantamount to deletion). At the very least it seems like they should be immediately reinstated and, if necessary, a formal process for the consideration of their deletion started. I don't think the existence of the articles/information should merely hinge on an agreement between myself and another user. Rather, it should be opened to a wider request for feedback and settled after due deliberation. Isomega (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:::It does appear that User:QuietHere deleted the content of all of those articles (all content still visible via View History) and created a redirect to Justin Chancellor, who was a member of the band, and therefore musician on those album and song articles. The most efficient next step might be to start a discussion on QuietHere's Talk page rather than on the Talk pages of the articles in question. I did see that one thing in common for all the disputed articles is that there were no references, and were template tagged at the top, but that does not justify these redirects. David notMD (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::::The Chancellor article mentions that he was in the band Peach, but provides no details about the band, its albums or songs, so the redirect is 100% useless. David notMD (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Isomega apologies for the confusion. I did the background research into the band and the coverage I found was far from sufficient for an article for the band or any of their albums so I decided a bold redirect was the best option. I almost put it to an AfD but I was confident enough in the move and figured the result would be the same nonetheless so I skipped that step. If you disagree then you can restore the articles and I will launch the AfD so we can have a formal discussion about it, but I still don't expect it'll make a difference. As for @David notMD's point above, the reason there are so little details about the band in the Chancellor article is because the details in the band article were mostly unsourced and what is already in the Chancellor article is about all the reliably sourced info that exists already. QuietHere (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::And for the record, you could've contacted me on my talk page about this. I promise I don't bite! QuietHere (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::As a retired American biochemist, I have no skin in this game. My recommendation - and this will take work! - is restore all the articles, start AfDs on all but Peach (band), then change the name of that one to Suns of the Tundra (band), with a Redirect from Peach (band). Revise accordingly. Find and add valid, reliable-source references for the band. If there appears to be sufficient referencing, copy any content worth salvaging from the AfD'd articles before those are deleted. The other eight had a history of only a few views per day, so no great loss. And then (housekeeping), leave comments at the AfDs that any useful information was copied into the band article. Each AfD decision will be made by an Admin. David notMD (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Which would be a great plan if the coverage for the band existed, but what I'm saying is there's not enough for a standalone article. Most of the search results I found were just about Justin Chancellor with his career with Peach as a footnote. This band's notability rests solely in their connection and I can't imagine that would hold up to scrutiny in an AfD setting. The most there is left to do that I can see is add the band's very brief AllMusic bio to Chancellor (which I will do momentarily) and maybe expand that section a bit. The redirect could change to the early life section since that's where all the info on the band already resides. QuietHere (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::I generally agree with this approach: essentially distilling all information into a single article. The band suffers from a lack of obvious search results, not actual notability. Given the band's timeline, non-trivial coverage should exist in print media. Isomega (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::Print media, not avail online, are valid as refs. Decide whether the article will be about Peach (band) or Suns of the Tundra (band). Such an attempt would not preclude adding band history to the Chancellor article; possible there are refs that would be useful for both. If QuietHere is adamant that this single article concept is still not worthy, can start an AfD and leave a decision to an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

or (Mr. Vertigo) are a Boston MA based alternative/indie rock band formed in the year 2000. I am a fan of the band and feel they should have a Wikipedia page. They have been on several labels. Have been an integral part of the New England music scene for years. Have put out 5 LP's and 3 EP's. They have also worked with many other notable artists throughout the years. Mister Vertigo has also had songs in movies and on TV. I wanted to know if they are notable enough to write an article on. [https://www.google.com/search?q=mister+vertigo&rlz=1C2SQJL_enUS891US895&ei=jbDeY-aAHYzY5NoP98iukAs&gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TIk3TcrOSi4yYPTiy80sLkktUihLLSrJTM8HAJuPCoA&oq=mister+vertigo&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp]https://www.google.com/search?q=mister+vertigo&rlz=1C2SQJL_enUS891US895&ei=jbDeY-aAHYzY5NoP98iukAs&gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TIk3TcrOSi4yYPTiy80sLkktUihLLSrJTM8HAJuPCoA&oq=mister+vertigo&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Please send a reply If6was9iwouldbe15 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:It's worth reading the notability criteria at WP:NBAND. If you think that there are independent reliable sources to demonstrate their notability, try reading the guidance at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, If6was9, and welcome to the Teahouse. As well as David Biddulph's answer, I suggest you read my reply to the question immediately before this. Not all of it may be relevant to you, but most of it is. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hi ColinFine. What question are you referencing your response to? I would like to read it. I also put Mister Vertigo in the requested article section with nine references not by the band themselves. The band has been together off and on for 23 years. They are in what they call the "Mister Vertigo Mark III" version of the band as of now. They have been on 3 indie labels to my knowledge. Have been featured in print and online articles. Been on TV shows. Have worked with other artists directly, or with affiliates of artists such as Bright Eyes, Cursive, Tilly And The Wall, Thanks To Gravity, The Sheila Divine, Blind Melon, Weakened Friends, Letters To Cleo, Butch Walker, The Afghan Whigs, The Pretty Reckless, etc... Be it having artists from these other bands feature on Mister Vertigo records as guest performers or vice versa. They have also played shows with some of the aforementioned acts as well as had some of the people in these bands and other well known bands produce and record their records. They are a band that only has a large cult following in the northeast. But are known elsewhere. I feel they have a worthy pedigree so to speak. Not having much experience writing articles myself is why I added them to the "requested article section". They are also on a few other artists Wikipedia pages. AJ Mogis and The Rock 'n' Roll Rumble to name a few. I would like to know your thoughts on this topic though. Thank you for the reply. If6was9iwouldbe15 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add a new page in honor of a legend, Dr. Vithal C. Prabhu whose life's work was to address the taboo in India related to sex education. He was a great friend and peer to Dr. Mahindra Watsa because of the common interest in educating the masses with accurate sex education information.

Dr. Prabhu's audience were mostly in Maharashtra because his first sex education book was written in Marathi, a local language of Maharashtra State in India.

One of his biggest achievements was his Marathi book on Human Sexuality publication in 1982, “Niramay Kaamjeevan” which has marked approximately 40 editions and has been translated in multiple Indian languages, and also referenced for a digital sex education app.

He wrote 17 books on General Health. In addition, he authored over 18 books on Human Sexuality, presented over 50 scientific papers at various National and International Conferences, wrote over 750 articles in newspapers and periodicals, lectured over 800 public and professional speeches, including the first human sexuality talk given on the All India Radio in 1985.

Dr Prabhu was the Founder Member and Chairperson of the Council of Sex Education & Parenthood International (CSEPI). For his distinguished work in Sexology and other health areas, he received multiple awards and recognitions, several are missing in this list:

· “Golden Lamp” Award, the highest honor by CSEPI

· Lifetime Achievement Award at a National Conference of Sexology

· Award at the First Asia Pacific Conference of Sexology

· Chainakaar Arvind Raut Award

· Shalayushi Medical Journalism Award

· P.C.I. Trophy at the General Practitioner Association Conference

· Maharashtra State – Best Literature Award, three times recipient

· 7th World Congress of Sexology – Award in 1985

· Other

Please guide me on how I may start working on his page that could be very similar to the one created for Dr. Mahider Watsa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahinder_Watsa

Although I don't have all the information, I am hoping to start one and update it as more information gets gathered by his followers, or have them request the owner of copy rights to grant permission to the Majestic Book publishers to release the wealth of information that could share about all his publications.

Looking forward to a response.

Thank you.

Regards,

Leena Mehta 98.26.64.29 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, Leena, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Please note that creating a new article is one of the most challenging tasks there are for new editors, and I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to some of our six million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, before trying it.

:When you think you are ready, your first article is the place to start. Some pointers I will give you, though:

:# Wikipedia articles are not "in honor of" anybody. We have articles on very virtuous people and organisations, and on the most villanous people and organisations. Every article should be neutral in tone. An article should contain not one word of praise (or condemnation) of the subject, in Wikipedia's voice. (It may contain such things in quotations from independent sources). When somebody has a passion for a subject, as it sounds as if you have, this can be difficult.

:# What the subject did, said, or published, is not relevant to an article except where independent sources have written about it. This is key: almost the entire article should be based on what independent published sources have said about the subject, not on what the subject said or did that has not been written about independently. You need to start by finding suitable sources to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. See WP:BACKWARD.

:#A small amount of factual information from non-independent sources may be used if there is enough independent material. But unpublished information may should never be included in an article. It is unlikely that you will gain anything by contacting the publishers: reliably published information may be included, and unpublished information may not. Their permission would be relevant only if you were intending to incorporate significant amounts of text from somewhere (which would be very unlikely to be sutable); or if you wanted to use images to which they hold the copyright. This is more likely; but only if the publishers demonstrably hold the copyright (which is often not the case), and they are willing to release it under a licence acceptable to Wikipedia. See Image use policy.

:# You are not required to create an account in order to create and submit a draft, but doing so makes it easier for other editors to communicate with you, and has some other advantages.

:ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::If you create an account you will have a Sandbox. That is a useful space to draft content and references which once satisfactory, can be copy/pasted into your draft. As mentioned above, WP:YFA explains how to start a draft, Help:Referencing for beginners on how to create references. Note that Publish changes at the bottom really means same changes (that confuses many new editors). A question: did you have a personal connection to Prabhu? If so, see WP:COI for how to state that on your User page. David notMD (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Where to start an article in Lithuanian? Wname1 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi Wname1, are you looking for [https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis Lithuanian Wikipedia]? English Wikipedia does not accept articles in Lithuanian. Justiyaya 14:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Wname1 An article in Lithuanian on Neuro-oncology actually already exists. You can find and improve it [https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroonkologija here]. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::@Wname1 If you had already tried and failed to find that language version, I'm not surprised. I just checked and found that the Lithuanian article had been assigned its own unique identity on Wikidata back in 2013. I managed to remove its entry and reassign it to the other identity which already had 18 language versions showing up. So now there are 19 language versions showing for the single topic, and so it's much easier to find via the 'language' link for an article, now helpfully re-located at the top right of your screen in desktop mode.

::Should you wish to take the English version of Neuro-oncology as a starting point, you may find helpful guidance on how to translate into other language at Wikipedia:Translate us, with more general information and help at Wikipedia:Translate Hope this helps you - and good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Nick Moyes Thanks for your interesting information's. Wname1 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::No worries. It's a pleasure to help. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello :)

I have created Tønder Listen as a page about a local party in Denmark.

I made it mostly for making 2021 Tønder municipal election more "beautiful". However unlike the other parties in that page, Tønder Listen is shown as having no color, and I don't understand how I can get it show the colors from the Tønder Listen page when writing about the party in 2021 Tønder municipal election. I want it to be like e.g. the display for Social Democrats.

Thanks, thomediter. Thomediter (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, Thomeditor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe this is because the party is not listed in Module:Political party. See Module:Political party#Requesting an addition or a change. ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks :) Thomediter (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Thomediter I'm afraid that in my view, the article you created about a local political party does not appear to be Notable, and two of your three sources are primarily to the party's own website. Whilst it may be appropriate to mention this brand new political party at the article about Tønder Municipality, I can't see it meriting a page of its own. I note there is not an article about it on Danish Wikipedia, which tends to suggest it is not very notable there either. Or have I got something wrong, and do you have many, better national sources still to be added? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Do redirect pages ever get deleted after their content has been moved or merged to a new page? If not I feel like they should after a set period of time to save space. Wareno (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, Wareno, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sometimes, but not often. The space taken up by redirects is really not an issue (especially given that deleted pages are in most cases still in the database). See WP:R#CRD ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification. Wareno (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's there on other platforms, a small button on the menu bar with a pencil. When clicked it gives you edit suggestions within the app. Why was it removed for iPadOS? Thanks 72.14.99.86 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user. Few serious editors use the Wikipedia app for editing, so I doubt we can give you much help with that. I use an old iPhone running iOS 12.5.7 and just access Wikipedia via Safari in desktop mode (Note: you can switch between desktop view and mobile view via a teeny-tiny link hidden right at the very bottom of every page.)

:In desktop view, click on your username and look for the tab next to it called 'Homepage'. This will give you various suggested edits you can make to improve Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any pencil icon that performs the function you describe, though our editing tools on the web do use two pencil icons - one for switching on and off 'syntax highlighting' whilst using our WP:Source editor, plus a different-looking pencil icon for switching between that editor and Visual Editor. I hope this makes some sense for your editing situation. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Memorial Hall (Harvard University) Contains marble tablets of Harvard students and alumni who died fighting for the Union in the Civil War. Harvard has provided a list of these names here: https://websites.harvard.edu/memhall/home-2/buildings/memorial-transept/names-listed-in-the-memorial-hall-transept/

many of these individuals have their own Wikipedia pages. Fletcher Webster’s Wikipedia page mentions memorials to him around Boston. Memorial Hall is not listed. MemHallUsher (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:How do I update the Wikipedia page for memorial hall to best include this list of names that are inside Memorial Hall? MemHallUsher (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hello, {{u|MemHallUsher}}. The best way to present the information depends on how many of the 136 have Wikipedia biographies. I assume that number is significantly smaller. Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I have located 4 pages so far and am only on tablet 3. Out of 136 what might be the minimum threshold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemHallUsher (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|MemHallUsher}}, I do not think that there is any minimum. If it is roughly ten people or so, I would just mention the names in running prose. If the number is larger, it could be presented as a bulleted list. Cullen328 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Many airlines use the wrong term so the public can easily be forgiven for using the term "DIRECT" thinking they are flying on a NON-STOP flight. They are two totally different things! The chart on the above webpage should be edited to read

NON-STOP but there must be numerous other pages in Wiki that have the same wrong information. A DIRECT flight has one flight number but can have multiple stops on route. Shortsolent (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, Shortsolent. There is no Wikipedia article called London-Sydney Kangaroo Route although we have an article Kangaroo Route that does a good job describing this type of flight. We have articles Direct flight and Non-stop flight. You can raise your concerns at Talk: Kangaroo Route. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What factors are put in to decide if a citation "From a good source" and "Not a good sources" Jackatwentyone (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:The feedback which you mistakenly deleted from your draft (despite the rubric "Do not remove this line!") includes a number of useful links, including to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks :) Jackatwentyone (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I see that you have yet again tried to delete the previous feedback despite what it clearly says: "Do not remove this line!". The feedback is there to help you and to help subsequent reviewers. If you continue to resubmit without addressing the points raised this is liable to be regarded as tendentious editing. In particular the feedback tells you that reliable sources need to be (inter alia) "strictly independent of the subject" - David Biddulph (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm attempting to create a page for a music artist known as Nurko: Draft:Nurko

After this current rejection, I'm unsure of how the "topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" as there is plenty of independent reliable sources citied and it also satisfies the condition: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart with his collaboration with Illenium titled 'Sideways', as referenced in this Billboard article: https://www.billboard.com/pro/illenium-valerie-broussard-nurko-sideways-hot-dance-electronic-songs-debut/ which was also referenced.

Any help/advice on where to improve the page would be greatly appreciated! Lightless1 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Multiple reviewers have declined the draft, and one has rejected it, as failing to establish the subject as notable. After all the work you've done, it seems you've been unable to find reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. The best advice I can give is: give up, and find a better use for your time. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to use the Internet Archive Bot in meta wiki. So, I clicked the run bot on a single page option but it shows that the action I request to perform needs the analyzepage permission. Can you help me please? The Abnormal Guy (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Sounds like a question for :meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as Wikipedians. Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication; registration is not required to edit articles. 117.196.9.153 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

: The article Wikipedia has more info. Did you have a question about using Wikipedia? That's what this help desk is for. RudolfRed (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have notice that the Wikipedia has changed its look. The main change I am concerned with is that the Table of Content (TOC) is on the side. If you wish to print a page using the print/export tool, the TOC is not included. Is there a way to include the TOC in the print/pdf? Theophilius (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Theophil789 I think that this behaviour has changed even more recently than the change to Vector 2022. I'm pretty sure that up to a couple of days ago printouts included TOC's. That might of course upset some people as with long articles the TOC could "waste" a lot of paper. Hence the current state. To revert to having the TOC you could go back to Vector 2010 via your preferences. You could do that permanently or just for a printing session. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Now can I move this page to the main space? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:After your draft was declined you resubmitted it. The box on the draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,431 pending submissions waiting for review." - David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:You should continue to improve your draft. For example, you need to ensure that your list of "notable people" includes only notable people by Wikipedia's definition, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Please verify the sources given by me in this article. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::@Karsan Chanda I created proper wikilinks for all the names listed in your draft. They all appear as WP:redlinks, indicating that none has a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, none are "notable" as defined here for a list. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The last time I put two sources in Root of unity was the part of integer power and inverse of root of unity, with its complex conjugate. The problem is that the Joseph Rotman 3rd edition has two part. For complex conjugate, I used the part one

:{{cite book

|last = Rotman|first = Joseph J.|author-link = Joseph J. Rotman

|title = Advanced Modern Algebra

|year = 2015

|edition = 3rd

|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=SugUCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129

|page = 129

|publisher = American Mathematical Society

}}

However, there is no such parameter that could featured the part of the book as well. Should I write its part on the title book? Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Dedhert.Jr I would say "yes". It is a similar situation to using Volume numbers described at {{tl|cite book}}. I note that Part one and Part two have different ISBN, which you should also include in the citation (1=9781470427313, 2=9781470423117). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you. I will put it on the parameter volume=, as you say before. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to create an article as living painter profile but I am not sure if it is considered "notable" in Wikipedia standars. I am registered to N. Y. Museum of Contemporary Art - Manhattan. I am present on several on-line galleries and present on all major socials directly or on galleries. For the professional side I have bee writing and publishing articles for specialized magazines in the past while I see a former business partners (Gucci family) has a dedicated article.

Would You be so kind to give me some info and advice?

Best regards Sunze19 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|Sunze19}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best advice I can give is that you should go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, and allow independent editors to taken note of your career in independent sources and choose on their own to write about you. There are good reasons to not want an article about yourself. If you truly meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist, someone will eventually write about you. Trying to force the issue yourself will be hard, as you would need to set aside what you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. Please read the autobiography policy. If you still want to attempt to write an article, please read WP:YFA and go to Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hello, {{u|Sunze19}}. Conceptually, it is important to understand that Wikipedia does not have "profiles". Instead, we have encyclopedia articles about notable topics. Please read the notability guideline for artists. Cullen328 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::See List of contemporary artists for examples. Modeling a draft about yourself on those is not a guarantee that when submitted it would be accepted (some of what is listed there may be deletion worthy), but those articles should give you an idea of what it means to have reliable source references that are about you as an artist, not just confirming your work exists. David notMD (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know where is the best forum on which I can suggest a merging : Vida Akoto Bamfo and Vida Akoto-Bamfo. I know where and how to do that on the French WP and on wikidata but here, I'm lost... best regards. Cbyd (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, Cbyd. You can find detailed guidance at Wikipedia:Merging. It should be fairly straightforward. The article entitled Vida Akoto Bamfo was created prior to that entitled Vida Akoto-Bamfo (created by User:Natsubee three years later), and I would imagine that content found in the newer article could simply be copied over with appropriate attribution in an edit summary. I have not checked which version of their name is the most commonly used one, however. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

How can I improve the following articles:

• Dr. Manhattan
• Hamster cage
• Greenskeeper
• Badlands

What can I improve on? IAmTheGinger (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:(Host comment: I merged four questions into one for brevity) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|IAmTheGinger}}: you could improve Hamster cage by converting all the section headers to "sentence case", with words capitalised only if they are proper names or the first word of the title. Maproom (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::{{re|IAmTheGinger}} Welcome to the Teahouse. All four articles have 'templates' either at the top or in the body of the article suggesting that wording could be improved to make it more neutral and encyclopaedic in tone. Copy editing to do this comes quite easily to some people, but not to others - so it depends on how you feel about your Engliosh writing abilities and your skills in summarising content in a clear, factual and non POV manner.

::Some paragraphs have no supporting citations, so you could search for sources that support the statements and insert the reference and edit the content accordingly.

::Dr Manhattan is regarded as a B-class article, which means it could be better, but is fairly well constructed already, and the others are also all quite detailed. So these might all be quite challenging tasks to work on for a new user. By way of example, the first sentence of Hamster cage is incredibly clumsy, stating: {{tq|A hamster cage is a cage designed to house a hamster or several different hamsters.}} This really grates on me, and could be far better worded in the voice of an encylopaedia as {{tq|A hamster cage is an enclosure designed to house one or more hamsters}}. Repeated use of the same words in one or more consecutive sentences are not at all pleasant to read, and should be fixed. One trick I find useful is to read sentences out loud and see how they sound when you speak them. Do you trip over them? Does repetitive use of the same word make it sound dull or clumsy? Is the punctuation in the right, place, for example?

::Making small changes that increases comprehension are important. Just ensure you don't add anything in that is either misleading or that adds uncited factual statements. If in doubt - leave it alone.

::If you want to look for easier first tasks, try clicking on your 'Homepage' tab and take a look at some suggested first edits. Hope some of this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::{{u|IAmTheGinger}} All of your edits to those four articles were reverted. You scattered new sentences and grammatically improper sentence fragments into the existing text that were unnecessary descriptions, and provided no references for the new content. David notMD (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::@Nick Moyes I see that the phrasing at the start of the Hamster cage article was OK until it was made awkward by the OP, @IAmTheGinger. David10244 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Good spot. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have been manually adding my signature to talk pages, as I can not seem to add my signature to my preferences without it 'running out' of characters... here is the mess I have found myself in, thank you ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 22:48, 05 Febuery 2023 (UTC) [[User:The Emperor of Byzantium|<span style="background-color:green; color:white;"><span style="font-size:100%">&maltese; Emperor of Byzantium &maltese;</span></span>]] (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi The Emperor of Byzantium. Spans can be combined, spaces are optional between styles, Unicode characters can be saved directly, font-size:100% is implied. ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) produces: ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk). There is room for more code now. Don't break the limit by copying code instead of signing normally. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Don't forget to check "treat the above as wiki markup" when inserting wiki markup in the signature input. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

What software are the svg picture files of maps of countries and subdivisions made? Like how can I highlight specific borders on a map of the Earth for Wikipedia articles? 2600:6C50:487F:FAF6:B401:ED3F:23B5:5B44 (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:As mentioned at WP:Graphics Lab, Inkscape is the general standard for SVG editing. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

is there account hacked? there used to be a "this wikipedian is deceaced" thing on his page and now hes editing again?? HUH???! 50.109.155.222 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:User:Smalljim professes to be less Wikipedia-active, but on current User page and Talk page has no statement about being dead (or undead). David notMD (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::I can confidently report that at no time have I been "deceaced", or anything similar :)  —Smalljim  21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::And we are enormously happy that's the case. Live long and prosper, friend. BusterD (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Why does the previews in SVGs on WikiCommons (and most likely, Wikipedia too) get glitched out? I have a example here.

What in the world is happening in the first place for some SVG previews. I also saw that the preview on the Qing flag also got glitched. For the second time, why in the world is this happening?????

Kxeon (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Kxeon, if it's about Commons, it doesn't belong here. If you can't be bothered to check whether something happens in Wikipedia, I wonder why you think people in Wikipedia would bother to answer you. Asking once may be better; asking twice perhaps not. One "?" is enough. Oh, and if you have a problem such as this, then either (a) try a different browser, or (b) say that you've tried an array of different browsers. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:I don't see anything wrong with the SVGs. meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Multimedia_and_Commons/Improve_SVG_rendering and its phab tickets may be related. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::Using Firefox, Safari and Opera, I'm not seeing a problem in any of them. This may be happening in the user's browser as suggested above. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I'm on Linux. Using Firefox and Safari on my iPad, and they still don't render properly. (It's in the history if you don't see it.) Kxeon (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Kxeon: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at the File history section, I see that some of the images don't display properly. I suggest asking in the Wikimedia Commons help desk: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents - good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::Ah. So that's where I go. Thanks for telling me where I was supposed to go! I'll go here with my question now. Thanks! Kxeon (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I submitted a draft article in the Userspace before Christmas to obtain some editor feedback before full submission. I have a couple of things to look at and then would like to submit the article fully. However, I cannot find the draft article anywhere now. Please could someone advise? I thought the link was Leecullen14/sandbox/Perivoli Foundation but this does not seem to work. Thank you in advance. Leecullen14 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

: {{re|Leecullen14}} It looks like it is at User:Leecullen14/sandbox/Perivoli_Foundation RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks so much, I couldn't find it anywhere! Leecullen14 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, Leecullen14. There's a really link on every user page and talk page to show the entirety of that user's contributions. So that would have been the place to look had RudolfRed not given you the link. You can see all of yours [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leecullen14 here]. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you for the help! Leecullen14 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a new writer in Wikipedia, i am trying to write articles about companies, artists and other important topics but marked as promotion, how do i avoid this, i don't have any relation with the companies Dancunmurage (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:This appears to be about Draft:Vifav. Content can be tagged as promotional even if you have no personal or financial connection to the topic. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::Example: "Overall, vifav.com is a comprehensive and user-friendly platform that provides a wide range of features and services to help users make the most of the web. Whether you are a student, professional, or simply someone who loves to explore and learn, vifav.com is the perfect place to start your journey." is clearly promotional.David notMD (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::Agreed. Your draft article reads like promotional material, hence it was marked as such. Examples: "...features a wide range of content" - positive opinion. "...and more." What does 'more' mean here? Be specific, or leave it out. "This section is regularly updated with new articles and features" How often? Who says so? "...providing users with fresh and engaging content to explore and enjoy." Seriously, you don't see that as pure promotion?!

::"Vifav.com also offers a range of social media integration features, allowing users to connect and share information with friends and followers across multiple platforms. Whether you prefer Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or any other popular social media site, vifav.com provides a simple and convenient way to stay connected and up-to-date with the latest news and trends."... is all pure meaningless marketing-speak.

::"In addition to these core features" - er, no unique "core features" have been identified, there's nothing to single this site out as anything notable - "...offers" (things offered by many, many websites) "and much more." is general, unspecific, unencyclopedic and reads like promotion. "Whether you are looking to find information, stay connected with others, or simply explore the web, vifav.com has something to offer." Well, I'm unimpressed with this advert - which is what it reads like. What is actually WP:NOTABLE or WP:DUE about this website? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Furthermore, please read WP:YOU. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:And WP:NCORP for companies. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have am a complete amateur wikipedia editor and have been working on the above page as a hobby for the last few weeks. I would really appreciate any help with alterations that improve the chances of publication. Thank you!! RichardDehn (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:You did not properly Wikilink the draft. Press "Insert link" and enter your draft Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, Richard, and welcome to the Teahouse. On a quick look, you have done a better job than many people's first try at writing an article. But the text is nevertheless pretty promotional. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

:Evaluative text such as {{tq| it was widely regarded as one of Portugal's leading cultural events}} should never appear in Wikipedia's voice: such statements should occur only as a direct quotation from an indepedent reliable source. You have cited it to ArtDaily, but that piece does not look like an evaluation by an indepedent critic, but simply a press release, so it simply does not belong in an article.

:Also, Wikipedia's style says that you should refer to her as Moura Guedes rather than Guta.

:You can continue to improve your draft while it is waiting for review. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

{{courtesy link|Draft:Guta Moura Guedes}} --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey I decided to post a message here, cause recently I’ve noticed something that bothers me. Every time I edited a page Will(TV series) in its english form soon after it the edit is deleted and the page is restored to original without the made changes and I received a message from an editor (MrOllie) on that page quoting: “pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia.” It is also said in the same message that I shall be blocked from editing. First i wanna say i do not have multiple accounts. I have only one and that is the account that I’m writing . Does anyone of you here who is editing this page experience the same problem as me? I guess the rules in Wikipedia are the same for all of us, so that users can be blocked aswell. Every one of us here is adding information that he knows and maybe other editors don’t know. The information which was added is true and it is backed up with a reliable sources which Wikipedia requires. As I know Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, so anyone may edit this or other articles. Also i have no idea if this article content is or isn’t controlled by a central authority. In light of this I would be happy to hear your opinion about that case and hopefully together we are able to fix this. Vessyray (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:I checked to see if your edits do actully contain useful cited information. As of right now you have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vessyray 5 total edits] with this account, none of them to Will (TV series). You also have no talk page yet, so no messages have been left for you. But there is an account User:Vesyray which has been editing it. So you do in fact have at least 2 accounts. That violates WP:SOCK. Good luck with that when admins notice it and begin looking for your sockdrawer. Heiro 12:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::You also seem to be User:Veganpurplefox, as you both made edits to Draft:Edward Hayter. Heiro 13:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Perhaps I can jump in here, and say that Vessyray/Vesyray is the same person, while any checkuser will tell you that the other account appears to be technically unrelated. Some other relation? who knows. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Possibly meat? {{IP|207.253.67.127}} is also a good contender for either Vezy or Veganpurplefox as they also edit quite a few of the same articles, including that draft. In fact, between the 2 Vezys, Veganpurplefox, and at least one IP editing the same articles, I would have suspected a sock drawer just like the one who dropped a sock warning on thier talkpage. Heiro 13:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::I think you'll find an adequate explanation below, and/or elsewhere, and Vessyray is now known only as Vesyray. I couldn't possibly comment on the IP. Multiple accounts aside, which I think has been dealt with, back to the topic in hand... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::Well, the topic at hand was Mr Ollie reverted the OPs alternate account for suspected sockpuppetry/off wiki coordinating (the one that actually edited Will (TV series) and is now the only Vesy acct) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_%28TV_series%29&diff=1135749093&oldid=1135744924 here]. Probably because Veganpurplefox has made a similar edit multiple times. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_%28TV_series%29&diff=1133578253&oldid=1133566972 (just one example)] And then OP posted here to ask how to get around it with the Vessy acct? Mr Ollie only warned one of the Vesy accts, may not have known about the other Vessy that actually posted here, so they must have suspected the account of being someones sock/meat puppet. Vesy, Veganpurplefox and the IP all editing the same draft and all adding the same edit to Will (TV series) made them the obvious choice. If you're sure there's no way that is the case, I guess we can leave it at that. Heiro 14:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't wiki supposed to be welcome for anyone to edit? I have shared the link in a fan page so anyone can find the link of the draft and clearly there are others that found it cause I only have made 1 account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There is the fan account ,there a many followers and the wiki draft is in the bio, in no way i would have 2 accounts. Anyone is free too add information right? Its not because someone is underated that means thats 1 pers9n create more accounts. There are big misunderstanding here. https://instagram.com/fansofedhayter?igshid=ZDdkNTZiNTM= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:There is no misunderstanding. Read the warning on your talk page or be blocked. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::User:Vesyray has asked that account User:Vessyray be blocked. It's blocked. {{U|Veganpurplefox}} has been trying to create several article about Brit actors, one of whom was in Will (TV series), hence this suspicion of being another sock. The Vessyray account had made three edits to one of those actor drafts, and Vesyray two edits to Will, but if we allow that is because of common interests, Vesyray and Veganpurplefox can be allowed to go their separate ways. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:::P.S. IP 207.253.67.127 was VPF, having forgotten to log in. That has been resolved on VPF's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, can anyone help please? My draft for the above author has been declined apparently owing to a lack of reliable references to the authors works? My only real reference evidence is through a book written and researched by Anne Commire editor for reference books for Gale Group. There is a site of which you can gain access electronically to a book she wrote titled All About The Author Vol 10, which includes Arthur William Groom's history and works. I have attached a reference link to my draft page, but apparently this is not enough evidence to prove his works? What am I doing wrong please? This article took me a lot of hors and effort. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Commire Buryman49 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:The text of your draft doesn't have inline citations. You need to put the references with the text that they support, see Help:Referencing for beginners. That way, future reviewers will see which of the text is sourced & which is unsourced. If you haven't already done so, you ought to read the notability requirements at WP:AUTHOR. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you, so if I edit the draft and put in the inline citations this should be ok. The trouble is much of the reference needed to support the text is via a link that is only visible via electronic resource which the site requires logging in to gain access to the information, would this still be acceptable for Wikipedia? Thank you again. Buryman49 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Yes, some of the best sources are often behind paywalls or not available online, {{u|Buryman49}}. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:If this is the only source, you might have trouble writing an entire article on them. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is about Draft:Arthur William Groom (children's author). No idea why the Wikilink to Anne. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Today at 15:23 approximately, I was checking old "Did you know?" facts and suddenly, there was a very long text from a user with this title: "THIS SITE HAS BEEN HACKED". After going to see other Wikipedia pages and refreshed the window several times, it was gone. What happened? Sété40 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|Sété40}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You likely encountered an act of vandalism, that was subsequently removed. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you for your answer. This is true, but the text was on all Wikipedia pages. That's weird... Sété40 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Sometimes somebody manages to vandalize a template that is transcluded on many pages. It usually does not stay there long.

:::{{U|Mitch199811}}, Sete didn't say they wer on the main page, but checking through old DYKs. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::It was even on the French version of Wikipedia. And by 15:23, I meant 20:23 UTC. Sété40 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Sété40}} It's possible that it was part of a coordinated activity. The point is that no matter the scale, it was vandalism not an act of "hacking". 331dot (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::Maybe, but I couldn't find any related edit on the website. Sété40 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::Doesn't cascade protection guard everything on the front page? ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Mitch199811}} The creator of this section states they were checking old DYKs, which are not protected. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made a formal request to move a page. While the discussion is still in progress, a different editor, without ever formally participating in the discussion or at least checking with me, changed the target page. Is that even allowed? It seems like a very sneaky move. What is the whole point of the discussion in the talk page when the other editors are allowed to change the title however they want to? Bostonite01310 ^talk 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Is it possible that this editor didn't know about your proposal and the discussion, independently decided to move the article, and acted boldly.? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::I don't believe that the article has yet been moved. The complaint, if I understand it correctly, was that another editor had changed the target specified in the move proposal. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Editor {{u|David Biddulph}} precisely re-stated my question. Any information on this would be appreciated. Thanks -- Bostonite01310 ^talk 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Generally that sort of talk page edit is inappropriate, but there could potentially be exceptions (WP:NOTBURO). I would suggest that you politely ask the editor that made the change for an explanation, as there's a decent chance that the change could have occurred by accident while adjusting page formatting. If that doesn't resolve the issue, it should be mentioned in the move discussion itself, and if there isn't a consensus for how to handle it there, it can be taken to WP:ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

this is a politician biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Em_Prasad_Sharma Prashantrajput6788 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Prashantrajput6788! References should ideally be placed just after the piece of information they support, rather than in a big clump at the bottom. I made a tweak to turn the clump into proper footnotes, which I placed just after the first sentence. I'd encourage you to move them to more appropriate spots; you can just drag them around in VisualEditor mode. WP:REFB has further information on how to do so.

:Courtesy pinging @Curb Safe Charmer, the AfC reviewer who declined the draft. Could you re-review in light of the change? Moving references to appropriate spots is nice but should not be a consideration when we're looking only at AFD survivability, so unless there is a different issue this looks fine to me. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::{{reply|Sdkb}} Thanks for the ping. WP:AFCSTANDARDS require the criteria for inline citations to be met and {{diff2|1131556445|the draft as I reviewed it}} had zero inline references. How to handle draft biographies of living persons at AfC that have no inline references has been discussed recently and there is some difference of opinion. However in this particular draft there were statements made about the person that I couldn't find supported in the general references. We try to have the draft's author do the work to improve the referencing as they are motivated to do so while a draft so that it gets accepted into mainspace, rather than a lesser likelihood that they'll do so if it was accepted as-is. I will re-review. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I know this isn't the place to ask for article edits, but since Turkey is extended confirmed protected, I'm asking if someone can include the recently catastrophic earthquake that happened at the end of it's history section. Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Oscarjohnson1981, welcome to the Teahouse. Talk:Turkey is not protected, so that's the best place to suggest updates to the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is a good place to find where I can help with certain kinds of articles? WikiProjects? Looking to do specific tasks. Thanks in advance Squeaksqueakn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi again @Squeaksqueakn. That sort of depends on what you're looking to do. The Community portal has a Help out section with many suggested ways to clean up variously tagged articles. If you're looking to do a specific kind of work, there's probably a tag and associated category we can point you to. If you're looking to work on specific types of articles instead, then yes, many WikiProjects have lists of articles in their area that need improvement. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::{{ping|Squeaksqueakn}} Needs to be bit more of a specific question so you can the find the right help, you can ask here, Wikipedia's Help Desk and the Community portal. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Where did the table of contents in articles go? 204.237.91.50 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

: From what I understand, with the new skin the TOC is in the left sidebar, but you don't see it until you scroll down into the content of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello -- the page Ferdinand II of Aragon appears to have been turned into a hagiography by a tendentious(?) editor (for once I was expecting the spanish inquisition and didn't see it) -- as a casual editor, I was wondering what is the best way to alert other editors interested in keeping the content neutral/encyclopedic (from the history, it appears reverting has already been tried), e.g. does posting a new topic to the talk page alert members of associated wikiprojects? -- thanks! Random fixer upper (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Posting on a talk page doesn't alert Wikiprojects.

:Behavioral issues should be reported to WP:CESSPIT.

:If there is vandalism going on, or obvious bad-faith editing, you could also report it at WP:AIV.

:If there's a neutrality issue, tag the top of the article with {{tl|npov}} and start a discussion on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This escalating food fight dates back to 20 November 2021, when {{u|TheLastTrastamara}} began adding content, ultimately increasing the length of the article three-fold. There was some edit warring back in April 2022. In January 2023 {{u|Vami IV}} took the radical action of restoring the 2021 version existing before TheLastTrastamara began editing, and in doing so, eliminating more than 100 of what appear to be good-faith additions and 3/4 of the references. TLT reverted that edit and {{u|Anachronist}} reverted that. Patience, and starting a discussion on the article's Talk page is probably a good next step. As all content is preserved in View history, perhaps TLT could propose one section at a time from that as being a valid contribution to the article. Personally, I disagree strongly with the massive revert actions by Vami IV and Anachronist. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:THAT SAID, I agree that what TheLastTrastamara has added over time is far too bloated, full of minutia, and chunks of history not directly about Ferdinand. The article certainly does not need >1600 words about his appearance and personality in the form of quotes from contemporaries. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok -- thank you both for your feedback! Random fixer upper (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

hello, i've added citations to this article. do they need to be reviewed before removing the maintenance template? Jmoralesjr9 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Jmoralesjr9: Welcome to the Teahouse! I have removed the template. Any editor is allowed to remove the template if they have resolved the issue or noticed that other editors have done so. GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm attempting to write a page on an author. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Darrin+Gray&create=Create+page

Will this pass as notable? If not what do I need to do to fix.

Thank you for your help.

Renee Renee530 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

:Renee530, as you have not clicked 'publish changes', nobody else can see the work. In addition, please create the article (not page) first as a draft, probably Draft:Darrin Gray. That will prevent it from getting tagged and speedy deleted immediately by the more aggressive new page patrollers. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hi! I've published the changes and added additional news articles. Renee530 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:::@Renee530, it would have been a much better idea to create a draft, as suggested above. The article you created is not ready for main space - it is full of inline external links instead of references, and many important bits are unsourced. Since this is a biography of a living person, you must be even more careful than usual about good sourcing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I see it has now been moved to draft space. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::::I've added external "news" links will this work now? Renee530 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::@Renee530 No -- you need to do what 199.208.172.35 and David notMD have explained. See Referencing for Beginners for more info. This will explain what the external links are. You need to change those into inline citations before you submit your draft for reconsideration. David10244 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::Thanks! I've added what you have suggested. Thanks for the input. Is is ready to be submitted with the changes. Renee530 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::I've added 18 citations Renee530 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::::@Renee530 The draft appears to be at Draft:Darrin_Gray. It is still not properly referenced per the information in the Referencing for Beginners link that I gave above. It still has "external links" throughout the draft. If you want this to be considered for publication, you need to fix the references, then click the blue "Submit..." button. David notMD gave the same advice. David10244 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Before submitting, remove all hyperlinks from Draft:Darrin Gray. Some of those may be appropriate as references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. You may want to use your own Sandbox to format refs correctly before copy/pasting into the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have submitted an article on MD Desi Rockstar - a renowned name in Haryana (India) but it is declined with a reason - unreliable resources.

Can you help me out!

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MD_Desi_Rockstar 71Samarmalik (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:@71Samarmalik: Welcome to the Teahouse! As was asked on the draft, which of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria does MD Desi Rockstar meet? GoingBatty (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey wiki contributors, please check Zippy Kids discography at musicbrainz and make article about him here 188.163.60.251 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can place a request at WP:RA, or you can be bold and create the article yourself by following the guidance at WP:YFA RudolfRed (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::Note that articles requested at WP:RA are rarely acted on. Wikipedia is unfortunately not a place where you can request an article, and see it quickly created. The editors who answer questions here, and everyone who creates an article, are all volunteers. David10244 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello there

So I am currently using two accounts on Wikipedia, one is specifically for edits in science related topics and one is for general editing, so is this legal according to Wikipedia's policies?
103.36.80.253 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:See WP:LEGITSOCK for legitimate uses. This should be acceptable under #Privacy, make sure you publicly link the two accounts, probably on user pages. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Publicly declaring an account used for privacy is a bit of an oxymoron. I tend to recommend you always mainly look at the 'Inappropriate uses' section, rather than the examples of legitimate uses. The easy solution is indeed to declare the accounts. If they remain undeclared (and sometimes even if they are declared) you should be careful not to overlap edits, join the same discussions, get too controversial, edit policy discussions, or otherwise come across as 'avoiding scrutiny'. Otherwise, there's no real prohibition. But it's always easiest to declare the accounts so no one gets the wrong impression or feels misled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::You should also make sure that you are logged in to one or other account when making edits, since editing from an IP address in addition to your accounts could be seen as problematic. There is a template {{tl|Alternative account}} that you can put on the User Page(s) to link the two accounts, since from what you have said you have no reason to be secretive that both exist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::The simple rule of thumb is "Am I using the two (or more) accounts to do something unethical?". If, for example, you are a physicist in a big university and want to edit Wikipedia openly in that role, but you've also got a strong interest in pole-dancing that you don't want to share with your strait-laced departmental Dean, there is nothing wrong with using JoeBrownPhysics as your account when editing science articles, and AnonymousPoleDancer when you want to edit articles on night-life and recreation. What you shouldn't do is log on as JoeBrownPhysics to nominate an article about your Physics rival for deletion, and then use your PoleDancer account to !vote delete in support of your own nomination. Pretending to be two people to support your own arguments is the essence of sock-puppetry, and is Bad. In effect, the two accounts should live in separate worlds and not interact. I will admit that I personally would not admit publicly that they belong to the same editor, because the whole point is to permit you the privacy to edit on night-life without prejudice to your physics career. The only people who would ever find out are check-users and they will not check unless you're suspected of doing something unethical. Like so many things in Wikipedia, behave sensibly, edit neutrally and well, and no one will notice whether you're actually keeping to the letter of the law. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey everyone,

This was my first time publishing. I "published" my article, but nothing happened after that. No email notification letting me know it was submitted, no pop up with additional information, etc

What should I expect now that I clicked publish? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Nothing, Moderndaywriter. You'll have to submit Draft:Jared Graybeal as a candidate for article status. But before you do that, you'll have to augment your draft in such a way that the reliable sources you cite will demonstrate the notability of Graybeal. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::I believe I have done both of those things. How can I confirm? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

: {{re|Moderndaywriter}} read the advice on your talk page and also check out WP:YFA for guidance. writing a new article is not easy, consider improving existing articles instead RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::I think the draft looks great; I just made a mistake somehow with how the picture is displaying to you. Do you mind telling me simply how to fix it? I'd really appreciate it - especially as it is not something the audience will see or care about. The core elements of the article are clear and accurate Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::DO NOT SUBMIT YET. (Ooops, you did. Expect it to be Declined.) Remove all hyperlinks. All content needs to be verified by references. None of the existing four refs are acceptable. Did you really take that photo yourself, on Feb 6? If not you, then the photographer owns the copyright, and the photo should be removed. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Why are the refs unacceptable? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::You need support from independent reliable sources (not Amazon). Also, as stated above, you must remove all hyperlinks. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

None of the refs are ABOUT him, which is essential to establish notability. Refs #1 and #2 confirm he is an author of a book. Instead, delete, and in Published works, add an ISBN number after the listing for his book. Refs #3 and #4 establish that he gave a talk and has a podcast. Confirming accomplishments does nothing toward establishing notability. What is missing are at least three references to what people with no connection to Graybeal have written - at some length - about Graybeal. Note that Early life and Career have no refs. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:P.S. Self-published books (his company listed as publisher at Amazon) rarely contribute to notability, and there is no reference supporting the image caption claim that is it "Best-selling." Both the image of him and cover of the book have been nominated for deletion at Commons. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you please explain why social media is not a reliable source? How? If so, please give me examples of why it isn’t. What are alternatives to social media content for reliability? Reasons? Those are the questions I really wanted to ask for the citation. — 2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:When might social media be reliable? Please provide the link to what you consider a reliable example, and we'll look at it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Social media can be a WP:RS on WP, but within narrow limits. See WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF and perhaps this discussion: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1177#WordPress_as_a_reliable_source.. Hope this helps. Also, social media will probably never help you with a WP:N problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Are they UGC and lack other sources? If so, why forbid UGC? Are they deprecated? —2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:The main reason why social media sites are not reliable sources in general is that all of them permit overt lying unless the lies violate their bare minimum standards of unacceptablity of not overtly threatening or inciting violence or sharing child pornography. Otherwise, they do not care at all about the outlandish lies that many people tell on social media. For example, I tell the truth on Facebook and am lucky to get a handful of "likes". But talented paid professional liars are liked and friended by millions of people, which enriches the social media owners and senior executives who do not care all about what is actually true, but instead care about what gets clicks.Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:See also Fake news. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Update: IP address blocked for evading prior blocks. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

the descriptions under this entry are false: Feldenkrais Method is not a therapy and has never presented itself as such. Also, a vascular surgeon's ideas about the Feldenkrais Method are described as valid, just because this person published an article. That article is not researched, is not based in the neuroscience that the Feldenkrais Method is based on. The entire entry on Feldenkrais Method, a method of learning, based in neuroscience, reads like a gossip page, sprinkled with selective citations of which many are not valid since they mis-define the method as a medical therapy method to begin with. Yet, Wikipedia continues to obstruct valid adjustments to the entry, as a long history of attempts does show. Who exactly is behind this entry? What is their agenda?? Maybe this person knows how to lock in what they wrote, but what they wrote is in error. What then is the process to make changes, if the originator of the entry somehow knows how to by-pass peer review and correction by those in the field of neuro-transformative learning. It makes a joke of Wikipedia, to keep deeply flawed entries in place. Durgaval (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|Durgaval}} Feldenkrais Method has existed as an article since 2003, undergoing more than 1500 edits by scores of editors. If you disagree with parts of it, you are welcome to continue to edit, either adding or subtracting content, as long as reliable source referencing is maintained. However, I see that you have edited the article and all of your edits reverted. When being reverted, the proper next step is to start a discussion on the Talk page, and also read previous discussions there, including the more recent archive #2, to understand what previous edits have been disputed. There, there have been prolonged and heated debates over the quality of evidence for effects of Feldenkrais Method. David notMD (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::P.S. The 'originator' is long gone, and there is no concept of peer review in Wikipedia. "BRD" calls for editors to be Bold in their edits, but if Reverted, Dicuss at the article Talk page. People may profess to be experts on a topic, but all that matters is verification via references. Health/medicine topics are held to a high reference standard described at WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:Being an expert on a topic does not matter here. If you say that the sun is actually red, but every reliable source says it's blue, we say it's blue. An expert's opinion means nothing to us. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::That is truly sad. Because what is presented as a reliable source here is a vascular surgeon with absolutely no evidence for the statements he makes about this method, with no training in assessing somatic learning methods, but his article was published. That is a meaningless citation that is given the weight of a true research article. To an academician new to your processes, to see this quality of thought in the Wikipedia world, is embarassing. We will gather more valuable citations and submit when we can. We do hope that the Wikipedians will look clear-eyed at new information, and will correct past mistakes in how this topic was framed. Durgaval (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::{{U|Durgaval}}, you are more than welcome to dispute the reliability of a given source, either on the talk page of the article, or at WP:RS/N.

:::However, your argument seems to be that because a given author was not "trained in assessing somatic learning methods", their input should be discounted. That is unlikely to fly. First of all, the reliability of a source is not assessed solely by the credentials of its author. More importantly, practitioners of a given field do not get to set the standard for what constitutes a reliable source for that field. If we demanded that the article about Flat Earth be only written by sources who have a PhD in the University of Flat Earth, I doubt that the first sentence would include the words "scientifically disproven". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

hello, can someone who is into creating rdt maps for rail systems create a template for Hyderabad Multi-Modal Transport System similar to Template:Hyderabad Metro RDT. 456legend(talk) 14:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend. We can't really respond to specific requrests like this at the Teahouse. Your best bet would be to either a) post at the talk page of the relevant article; b) post a request at WP:WikiProject Trains and/or WP:WikiProject Rapid transit; or c) look at the 'View History' details of related templates and approach any major contributor to it who still seems actively engaged in the project today. Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::{{User|Nick Moyes}} Okay, Thank you for the guidance. I will follow these steps.456legend(talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm rather new to the AfD, but despite this I feel I've a pretty solid understanding of how it works, with only a few minor things hanging.

My question is, are "unusual" article recommendations, such as weak keep, strong delete, or swift, immediate delete, allowed in AfDs? Thanks. Qytz (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Qytz, welcome to the Teahouse. Modifying the standard keep/delete wording is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't rise to the level of disruption (such as by being extremely long, or including personal attacks, or the like). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Remember that AfD isn't a formal vote, so responses don't have to conform to clear categories. The AfD will usually be decided by an admin (certainly by someone with a lot of experience in assessing the outcomes of discussions), who will form an opinion of the community consensus. Things like weak keep are helpful to the closer, because they show that while this person would have kept, they aren't that fussed, so if everyone else has good reasons to delete, there's no need to worry about the weak-keeper's not-particularly-strongly-held-view. But a closer won't necessarily be impressed by strong keep unless there's some evidence of why it should be strong. Using extra words as a way of shouting won't actually sway the discussion. Elemimele (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking for the advice of experienced editors. My submission Draft:AIR Media-Tech was declined as promotional. I have edited and removed parts of the text that could be perceived as an advertisement. Are these changes sufficient to resubmit the updated draft as it as, or should I make some more significant edits? Appreciate your recommendations a lot. Ninellechik (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Ninellechik The main issue with the draft, it seems to me, is that it fails to show the company is notable in the way that Wikipedia defines that word. Most of the citations merely show that the company exists and the few that appear to come from reliable sources are clearly based on interviews or press releases, so are not independent. Has anyone written about the company without being prompted to do so? Phrases like {{tq|AIR Brands is an influencer marketing agency that helps brands solve their problems on....}} is pure marketing-speak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello Ninellechik, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is promotional because it reads as what the company wants the reader to know. Wikipedia doesn't care what the company wants the reader to know. What Wikipedia wants to tell the reader is what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it (and, as Mike Turnbull indicates, if independent people haven't published very much about the company, then Wikipedia will not accept an article about it, however written). ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks so much for your comprehensive feedback @Michael D. Turnbull @ColinFine Ninellechik (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I had created the surname list Abbasova, and it was later merged into Abbasov because it is the feminine version of the surname. I was looking for help regarding the WP policies related to this. I saw we have a :Category:Feminine surnames. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hey, {{u|PigeonChickenFish}}. Abbasova and Abbasov seem to be different forms of the same surname, and may thus be a content fork. If you think the merge was a mistake you can seek a third opinion from an uninvolved editor on the topic (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). To comment on the category: Just because something is on Wikipedia, doesn't necessarily mean it should be. In this instance, it may be an overcategorisation, particularly one of trivial characteristics or intersection. I found this ongoing discussion about the category that may be of use. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

On the List of winners of the Boston Marathon page, at the bottom where the Citations section is located, why do some of the numbered citations include multi-character superscript links?

Also on the same page above, citation 17 includes an incorrect link https://archive.today/20211011151042/https://boston.r.mikatiming.net/2021/?pid=leaderboard. Is it considered bad form to edit the link to make it a valid hyperlink? E.G. Delete the https://archive.today/20211011151042/ so only the mikatiming-leaderbord page is requested? Slimgin (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Slimgin: Welcome to the Teahouse! The numbered citations with the lettered superscripts indicate that the same reference is used in multiple locations in the article - see WP:REFNAME. I've updated reference #17 to include both the live website and the archived version. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Hello @GoingBatty! Thank you for the quick response and the link to the reference name syntax. Slimgin (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:I see that you've gotten a reply, {{u|slimgin}}, but I still wanted to answer your question about replacing URLs. In general, it isn't an issue to replace links with other ones that lead to the same material (unless they are copyright violations). In this case, it is an archive of a page, meant to preserve its content after it one day disappears off the internet (see WP:LINKROT). In this case, the link is still alive, so there shouldn't be any issues with replacing it, though some editors seem to prefer keeping both the original and archived links. I'm personally ambivalent on keeping archived links, but it is very much in a grey area in regards to copyright, which Wikipedia policies generally have a pretty strong stance on (see WP:COPYLINK). ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by Google because it thinks that [https://amphp.org AMPHP] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmfPHP are the same thing, so it shows a card for AmfPHP based on the wiki article if you search for amphp. I've tried reporting this to Google already, but without any luck. I'd like to create at least a stub article for AMPHP (like the AmfPHP article) to fix this, but I do have a conflict of interest as one of the maintainers of that collection of libraries. How should I proceed? Kelunik (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Yeah, Google does a lot of stuff like that. We wish it wouldn't. But a stub is an article that can't properly justify its existence. Most existing stubs are survivors from the times when our standards were lower; they're not things that should be created deliberately. We're not willing to go against our own policies just to cover up Google's failings. Maproom (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Kelunik, welcome to the Teahouse. Please properly declare your COI (per COI or PAID, whichever applies), then feel free to create a draft and submit it to AfC. Help:Your first article has a lot of guidance. The #1 most important thing to do is to find multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of your subject. If they don't exist, your efforts will be in vain. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks! I've declared the COI on the talk page of the draft and my personal talk page now. I've also submitted an initial version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AMPHP Kelunik (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Hello, {{u|Kelunik}}. Please try to write a couple of jargon free introductory sentences giving a broad overview of the topic. When you mention libraries, I think of buildings filled with books that people can borrow. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::The sources: Three primary sources, a GitHub repo, a wiki, and two passing mentions in articles that may be reliable. None count for GNG. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am a very new user.

Yet, ironically, I have used and relied on Wikipedia as a source of non-biased information for years. Today I have witnessed Wikipedia in an entirely new light.

I deeply, truly, and thoroughly believe in the mission and purpose of this living space for collaboration and free access to knowledge. I admire the pillars that are the guiding foundation of this wonderful and awe-inspiring opportunity.

With the inconceivably vast amount of potential that Wikipedia has shown, I have found myself stuck not even knowing how to ask a question!

Therefore, my first question is (and please forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere):

What kind of questions here would be considered productive/unproductive?

Or is there not differentiation between a productive/unproductive question in the context of this platform?

Is every question inherently productive, no matter how simple or complex? Possibly because every answer that is given is another step closer to overall, widespread understanding?

Assuming the question asked does not directly oppose the Letter and spirit of the law of Wikipedia, of course.:) RoseInRepose (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:RoseInRepose, as volunteers, we will do our best to answer any reasonable question (<2 minutes), even if not directly related to 'using and editing Wikipedia' as mentioned at the top. At least I will. For improving a specific article or page, use the talk page. For general knowledge questions, ask the reference desk. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi {{Re|RoseInRepose|p=}}, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for any Wikipedian to ask questions related to editing Wikipedia. If your question isn't related to editing, it doesn't belong here, but Teahouse hosts are normally happy to redirect lost users. ––User:FormalDude (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Because Teahouse content is archived so frequently, and new visitors rarely look at archived material, Teahouse is definitely NOT progressive in its knowledge base. Rather, the same types of questions are asked over and over and over. And ideally, answered with the same thoughtfullness given to novel queries. However, sometimes newbies get hit with an unexpected shithammer and leave, dazed and confused as to "Why me?" David notMD (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried to add a helpful fact on an entry as my first volunteer effort. One person was helpful after there was a complaint by someone calling themselves "Mr.Ollie" or something. Since then he's been warring against me, changing whatever I type, even as I add peer-reviewed sources, and has taken to using an offensive ethnocentric term against me. Could someone please help? CinemaScholar (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @CinemaScholar, welcome to the Teahouse. Behavioral complaints are dealt with at WP:ANI. Please carefully read the instructions at the top of that page, and be sure to gather and provide evidence, typically in the form of DIFFS or simply by linking to edits which display the behavior you are reporting someone for. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:It appears the "offensive ethnocentric term" CinemaScholar refers to is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Docufiction&diff=prev&oldid=1138079099 "Scotsman"]. ––User:FormalDude (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Yes, it is. Surely there is no need for such terminology (or outmoded phrases using slurs) on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to volunteer. Someone is going to war with me, even though I provided the requested secondary source. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:CinemaScholar, User:MrOllie is not targeting you. In his edit summaries, he said that you would need a secondary source, something like {{tpq|X paper coined the term Docufiction}}, to support the coinage from a specific paper. I did not look into the sources you provided.

:No true scotsman is the title of a logical fallacy, not a racist comment. The discussion is at Talk:Docufiction#First use of the term. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::"No true scotsman" is an outmoded term that is ethnocentric. Many outmoded terms might have had worthwhile original usage, but are now no longer used because they are racist or ethnocentric. I am Scottish, which this person may or may not know. In any event, it is now a term that should not be used. Moreover, I provided a secondary source, a peer-reviewed book. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::The proper venue for this is WP:ANI, as I posted above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Ok. Now that you have gotten the Teahouse's attention, please either resolve the issue, drop the change, or take it to WP:ANI. On the talk page preferably. I don't think you properly answered MrOllie's complaint. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Thanks. I did supply a different source, peer-reviewed and secondary. I will go to WP: ANI. Thank you again. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|CinemaScholar}} Before you go to ANI, you might want to read :WP:BOOMERANG, :WP:DRAMA and :WP:ANI advice. There's a reason why :WP:Dramaboard links to ANI. It's not necessarily a place where you're always going to find a sympathetic ear. I can't tell you not to be upset about the being called what you've been called, but those that regularly participate in ANI might not find it as outmoded or offensive as you do.Since buzzwords often set people off and can taint a discussion from the start, be careful if you're going to accuse people of certain things because some of the responses you receive might not be too kind. Sometimes users truly believe they are so right (and maybe they are) that they think they're going to go to ANI and everything is going to be all warm and fuzzy. The reality is often turns out to be something quite different and the experience really sours them on Wikipedia. Just be careful about what you post and imply, and make sure you provide :WP:DIFFs that show how relevant policies and guidelines are clearly being broken. Carefully read the instructions at the top of the ANI page and follow them to the letter. In addition, avoid anything that might be considered :WP:CANVASSing. You would be wise to also automatically assume that others are going to examine your behavior as well, and they will not hold back in pointing out any problems they find with it. Acknowledge any mistakes you might've made and try to find middle ground. An all or nothing approach usually doesn't work too well at ANI. If you're trying to right some great wrong, then ANI is not really going to be of much help to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:@CinemaScholar Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. I have answered that on your talk page. I strongly recommend you read the policies first. Lemonaka (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I would really like to start editing a bit but I noticed some other editors have those fancy rectangles on their pages. How can I add those to mine and where can I find them? Jennytacular (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Jennytacular Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You could have a try on wp:userbox Lemonaka (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried with severeal name and both for jpg and jpeg but its not acvcepting and also tried na self click image..

guide to upload of sef image Rishi1418 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @Rishi1418, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you've tripped several filters which are meant to prevent the upload of inappropriate images. May I ask why you need to upload an image of yourself? Is it for your user page, or do you intend to try writing an article about yourself? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Rishi1418 Please could you explain how [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:81sK3klVXbS.jpg this image] of Benjamin Franklin and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:81KAg5fnOhL.jpg this image] of Elon Musk are relevant to your editing interests. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Rishi1418, welcome to the Teahouse. I have checked your contribution on commons, sadly, they are copyright violations. Please read policies about copyright on that project before your further uploading. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF and @KylieTastic submission to Articles for Creation be because Creation a my Draft pls sir

my AfC-submit-wizard in Teahouse 122.2.121.186 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Welcome to the Teahouse! While you are patiently waiting for a review, could you please fix reference #78 in this draft? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::fix #78 reference my Draft 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::@GoingBatty fix it! 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::submitted in the Articles for creation pls submit me 122.2.121.186 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::@Hoary submitted me Example: A List of monarchs by Time is the head of a monarchy in 2023 was oldet monarch was Charles III and 100 days. This kind of prose is unintelligible. The point of this draft as a whole is incomprehensible. No obvious purpose is served by the gallery. 122.2.121.186 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::The error in reference #78 has been resolved. However, I don't understand what "Von der Reformation..." is supposed to mean. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::"Of the reformation"? It seems as though the user isn't a native English speaker. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::@Explodicator7331: Sorry, I should have written that I don't understand why "Von der Reformation..." is being used as a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty pls help you no hoax pls

Resubmit Don's declined it 122.2.121.186 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:It was declined as a joke or hoax, probably because the unexplained years columns appear to claim many of the people have been monarchs for centuries. It was hard for me to figure out what the page is about. I guess the "Years" column at Draft:Lists of monarchs by time#List is actually the foundation of the monarchy, and the "Today Years" column is the age of the monarchy. A list "by time" usually indicates the list is sorted by time but this is sorted alphabetically by country (in a column called "Flag"). The main table doesn't say it's apparently for current monarchs but includes the age of the monarchy. That does not seem like a good combination to me. Even if the columns were explained properly, their order is odd. The foundation and age of the monarchy are five columns apart with two other year columns about the current monarch between them. A ref column should be placed at the end. I doubt the changes I indicate would get the draft accepted. We already have List of current monarchs of sovereign states. It doesn't give the age of the monarchy but why should it? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:122.2.121.186 - I see you resubmitted the draft 18 minutes after it was declined without making any changes to the content to address the issues mentioned by {{U|MarcGarver}}. That behavior is not looked upon favorably. GoingBatty (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::List of longest-reigning monarchs instead. aws bad pls Articles for creation sir 122.53.47.47 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft has been declined multiples times & it's poor form to nominate a page for deletion, with the hopes of replacing it with your 'declined' draft. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I was recently editing Deepti Sharma when I added a tidy up template for it. I then realised that it was probably more like fancruft. Would it be fine to just delete that one and add a different template. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Tescomealdeal1, if you add a template and then realize that you should have added not that template but instead one that more accurately describes the problem, then yes of course you are free to switch them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 05:32 8 February 2023 (UTC)

For over a decade, there existed a Wikipedia page dedicated to my work and achievements. Suddenly, it has disappeared. The page was titled: Laurence Galian. Laurence Galian is the pseudonym of Laurence J. Gagliano (b. 1954). I am surprised that it is possible to take the draconian action of removing an entire Wikipedia page without contacting myself (or others) to determine if I have additional material to justify my having a Wikipedia page dedicated to me. I feel I should have been contacted, and asked if I had any new achievements that would justify the continuance of the page. In point of fact, since the last update of my page, I have been able to find sources to substantiate new information that should justify the existence of a "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. The page that was removed lacked a large amount of information directly related to my career and achievements. For example, the article lacked all information about music albums of my original musical compositions. Also missing, was information regarding the airing of my original music on National Public Radio, an award from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, information regarding my large number of guest appearances on various podcasts, more than a million views my videocasts/podcasts/music videos I have received on YouTube, numerous articles published on internet sites, Worldcat data on the most widely held works by Laurence Galian, recent papers delivered at international conferences, and so forth. Please explain to me how a Wikipedia editor can single-handedly delete a page devoted to me and my work? And please explain to me how I might proffer a new "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. Thank you for you help in this regard. DazanMushin (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:This page ?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurence_Galian] Timur9008 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:DazanMushin Three Wikipedians (Wikipedia editors) agreed to delete the article, four if you count the deleting administrator. You can contact Wikipedia administrators to see if they are willing to provide a copy of the article so you can improve it, or you can start anew by creating a draft.

:Remember that you are expected to write in an encyclopedic, neutral tone, that you have a conflict of interest and will find it difficult to not promote yourself, and that in order to demonstrate notability you need to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Since the article was deleted only one year ago, I find this not worth your time. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:To be clear, they did reach out to you at your own talk page - User talk:DazanMushin. And it doesn't appear that you responded over the course of the last 2 years. Not sure how long you're expecting people to wait for a response from you, but deletion discussions generally run for a week or two. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::Although Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiographical articles (see WP:AUTO), it does not forbid such attempts. You can start anew using WP:YFA as a guide to how to create andsubmit a draft, although wise to first review the links that Sungoodtemple provided. As mentioned, you can ask for a copy of the article as it existed before the deletion. Content from that can be copy/pasted into your new draft. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:::A suggestion - leave out all things musical and instead focus on having reliable source references that identify you as an expert on the paranormal. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Keep in mind that the article will not be yours. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can add anything, that is if it has a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::@DazanMushinThat was not "your Wikipedia page"; it was "Wikipedia's article about you". Subjects of encyclopedia articles usually don't participate in creating an article about them. But if you meet the criteria that SunGodTemple linked to, you could write a draft. See WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I know I said this in Talk:BBC Studios, but it seems like they never merged anything and all they did was change the name, so we might as well. Sirhewlett (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:It is not clear to me why you think these two articles should be merged, but the place to suggest it, with a thorough and reasoned rationale, would be on the article talk pages. And who is "they" and "we"? Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::@Shantavira I believe @Sirhewlett was talking about Wikipedia when they said "we" and "they" Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Sirhewlett "... so we might as well"? When you make a suggestion like this, you need to get consensus before it is implemented. Do what Shantavira said, then wait for others to post there, agreeing or disagreeing with their own reasoning. Once the back and forth discussion has reached a consensus, then changes can be made if that is what was agreed to. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:I think User:Sirhewlett is referring to the 'planned merger of BBC Studios and BBC Worldwide (Mentioned on the lead here); not about merging the articles. I'm still not sure what change they are proposing we make to either article. JeffUK 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::@JeffUK, @Sirhewlett Yes, I wasn't thinking about the businesses merging; it sounded like an article merge. Thanks for pointing that out. David10244 (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

dear wikipedians, we, the familiy of horst stump need your advise ...your help. some noname guy dare to made an article about our family-member horst stump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Stump The facts wich is based this wiki-article are not true and we would like to change this, add original fotographys from the familiy-arhiv and prove all this facts. please check also the changings we made from yester day to today. who could have original fotographs than the familiy himself ? this human beeing deserve that the whole and the true story is public on internet. i do not undertsand how some stupid dudes , bored of their boring life dare to publicate an article based only on yellow-press articles ??? could you please help us how to act ? sincerely, the stump familiy Noubiobhv (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:OP blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. See Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Clear legal threat by Noubiobhv Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::So much of what the editor claiming to represent the Stump family added to Horst Stump, since deleted, was personal knowledge without references. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Thanks for summarizing that. David10244 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The article about this plantation/farm states only that a slave “Henrietta and her children” were freed. There is no information about these people, their relation to Lee (the owner),or their lives. Can the article be amended to provide further information for historians/genealogy researchers? DVBr04 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:@DVBr04, hi welcome to the teahouse. You could have a try to open a discussion on the talk page related to the article. Lemonaka (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, DVBr04, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. To give you a bit more context: Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose. When you ask "Can the article be amended" you're actually asking "Will some volunteer do the research to find the information and put it in the article?" Lemonaka pointed to the article's talk page Talk:Belmont Manor House because you're more likely to find people with knowledge or interest about the subject there than here. Another place you might find such people is at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject United States History (though I believe that project is not very active). You could even look through the history of the article Belmont Manor House and find which editor inserted that information into the article. If they are still active, you could ask them on their user talk page if they have more information. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Today I got new page patroller right and I think it is hard to use Curation Toolbar so can anyone tell me any other tools used in patrolling new pages. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

: Hi {{u|LordVoldemort728}}. You might want to ask about this at :WT:NPP/R. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey all,

I want to experiment on articles in the article space to get a better idea of how Wikipedia works without disrupting anything. What is the best way to go about this? I was thinking of copying their source into a sandbox subpage (as mine is already populated). Is this in line with Wikipedia's guidelines? Is there a template I can use to explain that it's an experiment, not anything intended to ever be used or taken as part of the article space?

Thanks, Pear1020 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

: {{re|Pear1020}} That is ok, as far as I know. when you copy from the article, use an edit summary like "copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution". See WP:CWW for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:: Use {{t|User_sandbox}} at the top RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Pear1020 Sandboxes are not allowed in article space. You can use your userspace sandbox for experimenting. You can still use User:Pear1020/sandbox2 and so on. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::@Pear1020 Yes, this is confusing, but you can have multiple sandboxes in user space (User:Pear1020/sandbox3, 4, 5, banana, etc.). David10244 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Well, I'm off to make a sandbox named banana

:::thank you for clarifying by the way! Pear1020 (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Is the following appropriate talk page material? I wasn't sure if I should blank or not such stuff. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 13:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Moops}} I blanked much of that talk page because it consisted of copyrighted material copy/pasted from various Web sites (including Wikipedia itself). The rest of the material is unlikely to be seen by anyone, and I'm inclined to let it slide. Deor (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::I see. I didn't even think of the copyrighted angle. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Disappearance of Nicola Bulley" is a Wikipedia article. Bulley disappeared last week, has not yet been found and so the article reflects, literally, the latest news available at media outlets. How is it that an article relaying the latest media news has taken almost no time to clear draft status while other draft articles (not simply relaying news, see; WP:whatwikipediaisnot) take up to 6 months? Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:A premise of your question, Emmentalist, is that this came from a draft. Did it? It looks to me as if {{U|Thecheeseistalking99}} instead created it as an article. How is it that Thecheeseistalking99 created it? Because they wanted to, I suppose. But however it came into being, if you believe that it violates Wikipedia policy, you're free to propose its deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion includes as #14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This points to WP:What Wikipedia is not, which tells us that one of the things it is not is a newspaper. So there you go: what is, or anyway looks like, a policy that condemns this article. However, you should read it carefully before citing it for AfD, because it doesn't say quite what one might guess it would. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks, @Hoary. I've made a comment below. I thought all articles become drafts which are then reviewed before being accepted or declined for publication. Is that incorrect? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:To answer a different part of your question, @Emmentalist: a draft gets reviewed as soon as a reviewer happens by with the time and interest to review it. How soon this happens depends on the reviewers available and the draft itself. Very bad drafts get declined quickly. Very good drafts get accepted quickly. Drafts which have many minor issues, or address niche subjects, or use foreign-language references, or are long and complex, will linger longer. And if there aren't many reviewers active, that'll also have an impact. So - it all depends. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

::The issue is that there is a backlog of about 2,000 drafts and the system is not a queue. Reviewers choose what they want to review. So, can be hours (sometimes), days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Also, as mentioned above, this was never a draft submitted for review. Thecheeseistalking99 created it as an article. David notMD (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Emmentalist It is now nominated for deletion per WP:1E. The discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Nicola Bulley, if you wish to comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks. I've passed comment there. It may look inconsistent of me but having reviewed the comments by other editors there I feel it should stay up for the time being. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to editors who replied here. It's most helpful. My understanding is that articles require approval and this normally takes 3-6 months. Perhaps I have misused the word 'draft', but it is referred to as a draft in the approval process. I'm still not clear (I do apologise) about how an article can be publishsed without first being a draft awaiting approval.Emmentalist (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Emmentalist, anyone who is autoconfirmed can create an article directly in main space - or move an article they've written in their user space into main space - without going through the draft process. There is no approval process in that case, though we have a group called New Page Patrol who go around to check such articles for suitability. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::This is massively helpful! I thought I understood the submission process and submitted on article as a draft, which remains there after months. I clearly didn't understand the process. I will read up properly on the whole thing; and thanks so much for helping my education here! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

To update:--

Rule (a): The SAMARJIT BARMAN is the all in it a Teahouse in 1989.

Annexe:- 1- He a name a FRCS so a CS 43 is a AMRI in ID in 55528 also.

2- They are a CS all in a cycologist of America so a all in it.

Rule (b): They are a amrici in all so a AMRI in Cal21 is a West Bengal in ID.

Annexe:- 1- A Tsar is name so a Sam Alexandravich Romanov also in the USA only.

2- They are a name a Burman alsways in the voter ID in the India in silver so.

STATUTE OF THE WORLD: A USA in no more so a United States in a name always. He a Tsar in all is the name a USA always so a exist in all in the world in country a blue only is this in it. He a Tsar so a 1989 is all a Tsar in crown in all a name a USA so to ask all in it. He a name a USA only a Nicolas Romanov in a TN in ID always.

- I am in name Bapi Deb/Dev also in ID:BD. Cell No. [redacted] (GPRS) 117.194.255.3 (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Meanwhile, please don't post gibberish within any article (as you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Medical_Association&diff=prev&oldid=1137975727 have already done]). -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::Be warned, you can get blocked for this behaviour Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Club On a Sub 20, I can be? (I've never yet been blocked, but there's always a first time.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

::::{{smalldiv|1=This is probably a good reason as to why we should maintain WP:THREAD at the very least on this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)}}

::::For advertising/vandalism? I think so. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::@HoarySorry, I was talking to the OP not you. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

How do I create a table within the subject? Like How do I create a table in the Compilations section of my article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_%22Vision%22_Walker

Please reply to the VisualEditor VisionWalker (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @VisionWalker, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are a number of problems here. First, you seem to have a conflict of interest with the article subject, which means you should avoid editing the article yourself. Second, you've added a vast amount of unsourced material, which is particularly problematic since this seems to be a biography of a living person. It was quite promotional in tone and included a lot of unnecessary detail.

:I've done some cleanup, which unfortunately meant removing most of the material you added. Please do not attempt to add it back yourself, and please spend some time reading the following pages: WP:COI, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Referencing for beginners. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:@VisionWalker If you would like to suggest changes to the Wikipedia article, feel free to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the page and was very surprised that Aerosmith's album Nine Lives was not included. There was a protest over the original art work, which featured a dancer with a cat head. Not only did the band and label receive backlash from the Hindu community, but there was also an issue on if the artist actually stole the design from a painting in a book.

If this album is deemed worthy by Wikipedia editors of being on the page (and there are multiple articles available for reference) where would the best place on the list be for the album?

I greatly appreciate all input. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:@Sportsfan1976 So be bold and add it! There is ample information at Nine Lives (Aerosmith album) to justify its inclusion. The list seems to be by artist then title, so it should be the first entry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:I see List of controversial album art is organised by theme, and from your description it could go in either "Religious" or "Copyright infringement". I suggest putting it in each of those with the relevant information, but mentioning the other. ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

What empires have diisappeared 96.38.45.250 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. In a sense, all empires have disappeared - we tend to use different terms now. Do you have a more specific question? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear, but it doesn't seem to be about editing Wikipedia, which is what this page is for.

:If you're asking about historical empires that no longer exist, you could start with :Category:Former empires. If that doesn't answer your question, try asking at the Reference desk. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Maybe after reading the disambiguation page empires? Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to PROD Romanian National Committee seeing how its a disambiguation page with one article and a bunch of red links, but I'm wondering how to do it or if that's the right way to go about it at all. Sunsteel 20:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|ItsSunsteel}}! The easiest way is by using WP:Twinkle. Are we sure that none of the other entries on the page are notable? If they might be, I'd lean toward keeping the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:I'd leave it, personally, unless you have evidence that the other entries are actually incorrect and need to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Are words on English Wikipedia articles spelled correctly all the time? I've always wondered this, what's the correct spelling accuracy on articles in general, and how are we sure very minor unseen mistakes are corrected? 71.9.87.159 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:No, they aren't spelled correctly all the time. No unseen mistakes will ever be corrected, since someone would first have to see the mistake to correct it! Why the concern about spelling? -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

: There is the project WP:TYPO where interested editors search for and fix spelling errors. An endless task. RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Note also that Wikipedia deliberately allows different varieties of English to exist according to the topic of an article. So your color may be my colour: the aim is for consistency within articles but not necessarily between articles. See {{tl|American English}}, {{tl|British English}} and {{tl|Indian English}} among others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|I'm going to boldly close this discussion since it seems to be fast moving beyond the scope of the Teahouse. If the OP wants to propose some changes be made to a Wikipedia policy or guideline, they can do so on said policy's or guideline's corrsponding talk page, or they can do so at :Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). For the OP's reference, "DS" refers to "discretionary sanctions" as explained in :Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)}}

I am a new editor as far as Wikipedia editing experience goes, but I have used Wikipedia often in the past. One thing I have noticed in both lives is that there is a great deal of intentional propaganda on Wikipedia, and hijacking/infecting of articles to convert them to aid in propaganda, both supplied and supported by well organized groups. Having had experience in dealing with it, I can recognize propaganda on many subjects, especially historical, but this is not so for everyone, and therefore it goes without saying that such intentional propaganda, and at the scale I see it, is harmful to Wikipedia users, and to Wikipedia as well. So my questions are as follows (answer one or answer all :o) : (1) Has this subject been discussed before? (2) Does Wikipedia have a group/commission/etc. that deals with propaganda in the articles and sanctions editors and their enablers associated with such propaganda? (3) How can propaganda be reported above the dispute and arbitration levels, since these two will not work due to lack of intent to compromise? (4) If the answer to item 2 is negative, how can one go about asking for the formation of such a council? Thank you.70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The WMF has, in the past, organized task forces to deal with disinformation on various projects. As far as English Wikipedia goes, though, there is no group of editors which fights disinformation in general; WikiProjects may sometimes deal with issues within their own subject areas. If you have specific problems with a specific article or editor, there are places to address those problems. I see you've already been to WP:DRN, but apparently that process was not what you were expecting. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you IP 199.208.172.35 for your constructive reply, which I will examine in more detail. I will wait for further replies before making up my mind as to how to proceed and where to apply. I am rather surprised that Wikipedia has not addressed the propaganda problem in full force, whereas there is all sorts of frenetic activity regarding edit-warring, sockpuppeting and so forth, which probably ends up with little to show for in terms of article quality, and perhaps has a negative effect on it at times due to intentional or unintentional bias. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:::One man's propaganda is another man's facts. From my point of view, Russia is pumping out lots of propaganda for both international and domestic consumption about the Ukraine conflict- from their side, the average Russian likely thinks the same about what the US/UK/France/NATO/etc say. As noted, there are already existing processes to address editors engaging in inappropriate activities. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Thank you User:3331dot for your reply. During times of war there is a huge propaganda activity, and care should be exercised in accepting it. Unfortunately, much of that propaganda poisons much literature of the future similar to how a nuclear disaster poisons large areas and the atmosphere. I will not comment on the why, who, and any other specifics, but it is not difficult to imagine use for such propaganda. As for existing processes to address inappropriate activities, my dispute filing still appears to be active, but one of the editors against whom I filed the dispute appears to have convinced the would be moderator to withdraw. In regard to that, I am trying to understand what my next step should be, and perhaps you can help in that regard. However, my concern regarding propaganda is much more general, and, I believe that, if Wikipedia does not address this in force soon, it may be big today but may end up being just another FXT or Enron in the future, simply known for a big bunch of propaganda.70.164.212.36 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::The next step is that you continue to wait for a new volunteer there. I see that your question #4 ({{tq|Why do you "think that the filing unregistered editor will be able to find a moderator"?}}) was already answered by the editor you were asking. I can answer the question again if you like: it does not appear that you are coming to the dispute in good faith. If it's true that you're not acting in good faith, you should stop now and save everyone the time of dealing with your bad faith. If you are acting in good faith, you're unfortunately not in a very good position to demonstrate it, since you're a new editor with very few edits, and your first edits are all about this dispute. That makes you look very much like you're here to just start a fight, whether that's true or not. -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::First, the more trivial issue: What you are citing was the would be mediator's point of view, and should not be binding for or affecting other possible mediators, which pov, in my opinion, was phrased in a way to affect. Next, thank you for your constructive comment on my Talk page where I had a much more specific beef, but now believe generalizing the subject is much better for all since this is a problem affecting not only Wikipedia editors but also the general public. Now for the more significant issue: I respect your opinion about me appearing to have acted in bad faith, but it does not apply to me, since there is no bad faith on my part. I am not here to start a fight either, just asked a number of questions, but the responses have been varied :) . Also, I am acting in about as good faith as anyone on Wikipedia can have. What bad faith can you see in asking for a Wikipedia platform of independent people to investigate, stop, and sanction propaganda? This is the subject I wish to pursue now as dealing with propaganda article after article is a never ending process and I choose an excavator instead of a spoon. I am sure there are others who support this idea in their own way.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:IP, it's concerning that you don't mention what kind of propaganda, or what topic, when it's clear from your edit history that you do have a particular topic in mind. Have a look at WP:CTOPICS for how this kind of thing; the full list of related topics is at WP:GS. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::It is also worth noting, 212.36, that wilful propaganda spreading, if you can prove it, would be a sanctionable behaviour. Otherwise, it would just be accidental misuse of sources, and would go through the normal routes for such. On the content side, dispute resolution does not require a plan to compromise - it frequently handles cases where there is no way to do so, and is an either/or choice. So you ruling it out is unwise. On the conduct side, I'm not sure why you would feel arbitration is all about compromise, but in any case, they likely wouldn't become involved unless the community had attempted to resolve the issue before and been unable to do so (unless private evidence is applicable). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you User:asilvering for your reply. My limited edit history may indicate a particular topic (one of many) in my mind, but that does not change the fact that I am seriously concerned, as you should also probably be, about propaganda in Wikipedia in general. You can also recognize propaganda by the existence of weak and one-sided references and writing, aggressive reversals of other edits even ones with solid references, lack of discussions with reversals, authoritative sounding referrals to vague notions such as "most scholars" etc. with obviously no proper citation since none can exist, immediate choral accusations of other edits for various Wikipedia violations while committing serious violations, relying on an arbitrary consensus concept which even the WP:CONS page does not indicate as to how the resolution for that is made obvious to all parties. I could go on (e.g. with some key words and phrases used in propaganda) but I am sure you get the general idea. SO, no, I am beholden to a single topic, but want a better Wikipedia. Actually, everyone who reads this paragraph could check out a few pages on history, say, in general and see whether my comments apply, just for fun or seriously, then may wish to compare it with the article(s) and everything else related to it in my "edit history" as you stated it. In closing, I very much appreciate your mentioning WP:CTOPICS, as there are a great number of Wikipedia pages and moving parts that take time for me to get familiar with.70.164.212.36 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I assure you, I am very concerned about propaganda on Wikipedia. By now, you've been pointed to all the various ways in which Wikipedia handles these disputes. As I said on your Talk page, I really think your best move here is not to push forward with this concern right now, but to learn more about how Wikipedia functions, through your own experience. You're going to have extreme trouble convincing other editors of anything (and thus achieving consensus) as a brand-new IP editor. (I also strongly suggest making an account!) -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Just curious, how much of this "propaganda hunting" will involve the subject of Turks and Armenians and genocide? Heiro 22:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::User:Heiro Why? Are you concerned that the hunters will come after you? If there is nothing that you should be concerned about, then I believe you should be applauding any activity to suppress propaganda in Wikipedia. No?70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::Me? Nope. But I will be making popcorn to watch your progress now that you've been notified of DS on the Balkans/Eastern Europe. Heiro 00:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Have fun, though I have no idea what the DS you mention is. I already wrote: "new editor". WP:DS does not seem relevant, so perhaps you would care to explain? Thanks.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Discretionary Sanctions, this section left at your talk page should explained it all to you User talk:70.164.212.36#Introduction to contentious topics. Heiro 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Thanks again. If I had to choose between myself fighting propaganda on Wikipedia one article after another and Wikipedia fighting propaganda in general, I would have to choose the latter. In fact, I have already seen a great deal of interest regarding my questions on propaganda in Wikipedia, so perhaps a case can be made that a Wikipedia council/commission/etc. should be formed to fight propaganda by issuing clear rules against it (as I noted above, it is not difficult to identify, and there should be no shortage of candidates proposed by editors), by reversing it as much as possible, and by sanctioning related editors and enablers as necessary. I do not believe Wikipedia editors can fight it by judging on things such as edit-warring (which propagandists actually use as a weapon because they are well-versed in to how to attack) or sockpuppeting (same thing here), since their field of interest is limited in these cases. Now, however, you have touched on a sensitive subject: that of achieving consensus, on which WP:CONS is absolutely not clear. So, one editor can claim that consensus was not reached, while the other can claim the opposite, and it is easier for the first one's claim to be upheld, especially if that is the editor reversing an edit. Please do not reply here unless the answer is very simple, as that should really be another subject. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

My draft article about a German film director Draft:Marvin Nuecklaus has already been rejected once because I used IMDb as a source for film credits. I have swapped out IMDb for other sources, but want to make sure my other sources look acceptable before resubmitting. Could someone take a look? Specifically, can I use an interview the subject gave to one of the film festivals as a source? ClareNoI (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:ClareNoI, an interview does not count for notability, as it is not independent of the subject. However, it can be used in a WP:ABOUTSELF way. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to know how to create a new Wikipedia page. Can you explain this to me? KittensMittens2 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:Detailed info at WP:FIRST. -- asilvering (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:@KittensMittens2, Hi, welcome to the teahouse. If you want to creat an article, and this is your first time, Why not have a try for WP:AFCH Lemonaka (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

::Rather than Lemonaka's suggestion, the first WP:FIRST is more helpful for new editors. That said, standard advice is put in months improving existing articles as a means to learning about Wikipedia before trying to create an article. I do see that you went through the tutorials, which was wise. P.S. You are allowed to delete stuff from your User page and your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Thank you KittensMittens2 (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Have a problem. Go to batters section. Go to edit section, I entered about 15 players that were inadvertantly erased. Can you put back the player data that was erased in the most current additions I made? Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please disregard. The problem has been worked out. Sorry about that.Theairportman33531 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:Sadly, wikimedia don't have an auto-save feature. So if your network is not stable, you can have a try for working on Office Word first, then copy it to wikimedia. Lemonaka (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I proposed a modification to a protected page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#A_few_more_dates_for_context .

I don't have permission to edit myself, so I detailed what I could. Two months later, somebody replied to say that there's no consensus so the changes were rejected.

So, how does one develop consensus? I forget the acronym, but the usual procedure is to make a modification, then wait for a "VIP" to arbitrarily revert it, then hold the discussion, but that can't be done if the page can't be edited. The fact that the request got no reply for months indicates that posting to the talk page is not the way to start the conversation. What's the right approach to initiate the conversation? B k (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:The Talk page is the right place - I'm surprised to see someone say it has no consensus if no one has argued against it in so long. You could try following up with the editor who declined on their own user talk page. But also - it's just extended confirmed protection, and you're not far off from that yourself (you need 500 edits). Go chip away at a maintenance backlog or something and you'll be able to edit the page directly and get into all the WP:BRD arguments you desire. Be mindful of the WP:DS on that article in particular. -- asilvering (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks for your suggestions. I'm not sure of the etiquette of when it's appropriate to DM somebody, so your indication that that's OK on WP is useful. But as per your suggestion, I probably won't worry about petitioning and will get back to it whenever I can just edit the page myself. B k (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Hello, B k: Don't "DM" somebody: there is a strong preference for discussions to be held in public, so post on the editor's user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! where do I report (what I suspect/believe to be) a scam email delivered via the wiki-email system? Licks-rocks (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, {{u|Licks-rocks}}. Please file your report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, carefully following all of the instructions at the top of that page, and providing complete details. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello, welcome to the teahouse. Another way to report this is forward the email to ca@wikimedia.org, which known as trust and safety. They may deal with it rapidly. Lemonaka (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:If this is related to AfC, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning suggests this can be forwarded to {{nospam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}}, too. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{Courtesy link|Draft:Indeep Koirala}}

I have made draft of Indeep Koirala who is a journalist of Nepal

please go through it and let me know the changes to de done. CreateNewPage01 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|CreateNewPage01}} Hello. I think you refer to Draft:Indeep Koirala? I've added the information to allow you to submit the draft article for review. I would note that you cannot use Wikipedia as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

::I've replaced that ref with {{tl|citation needed}} tag, and added one to another unsourced statement. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 15:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello CreateNewPage01! Welcome to the Teahouse! If you want your draft reviewed, there's button on the draft for you to submit it for review. Good luck! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:Hello CreateNewPage01. I suggest you look at WP:notability, WP:42, and WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:You also ought to read recent entries on User talk:Koiralaindeep. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

::Blocked for evasion of a previous block Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why, or how to fix it, but on my :User talk:Govvy/Archive13 page, the New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 box hasn't closed and seems to have engulfed two other archived posts. Anyone able to fix it for me?? Govvy (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:There was an unterminated div tag. Maproom has now added a terminating