Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Can anybody with an Instagram account help me

Resolved

 – My friend told me it's April 2018 QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

I recently edited the Baby Gronk article to include {{Infobox Instagram personality}}, but I also want to add the years_active parameter.

To do this, I need to know when the Instagram account was created, however I can't do this due to me not having an account myself. If anyone with an Instagram account can check @maddensanmiguel, click the 3 dots, then "About This Account" and either tell me or update the article, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It says:

maddensanmiguel

Date joined: April 2018 CompyN (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Contact creator of a Wikipedia article

Is it possible to contact the person who wrote an article? I am trying to get a submission accepted for David Black, a TV writer/journalist/author, but have been told I was "peacocking." I plan to rewrite but I was thinking it might be easier if I was in contact with the writer of the new [March 2024] article about David's wife, Barbara Weisberg. Any and all suggestions are welcome. JoClarke100 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoClarke100: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can see who contributed to an article by clicking on "View history" at the top of the page. It doesn't seem that the user who created the article, Asifelf, is active anymore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks so much. JoClarke100 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

JoClarke100 Editor User:Significa liberdade editted the Barbara W article more recently and is currently an active editor. David notMD (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct venue to discuss Latin names in University infoboxes

I've noticed uncited and poorly cited Latin names of Universities in the infoboxes of multiple Universities. I've attempted to partially this issue by adding citation-needed inline notes. This has been reverted in two different articles. Additionally, sources are provided that demonstrate that the university translates its name that way, not that the latin name is commonly referenced, despite Template:Infobox university stating that that's the standard.

Where is the correct place to establish a consensus on whether or not uncited Latin should be removed, on whether a university seal is a WP:RS for this purpose, and on what we should do in the case where two universities claim the same latin name as in the case of University of Brussels? Does the template documentation for the field named "latin_name" demonstrate a consensus on anything here?

Ideally, I would like to remove a lot of incorrect Latin or a least tag it with citation-needed, but I suspect that there might be a right and a wrong way of doing this, so I'll hold off pending guidance. McYeee (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

McYeee, it's not the job of Wikipedia to evaluate or comment on institutional (or other) proficiency/incompetence in Latin. (And even supposing for a moment that you and other Wikipedia editors are indeed more proficient at Latin than are many institutions, why would you be more eager to tag defective names as needing citations than you would be to tag well-formed names?) Also, if Université libre de Bruxelles and Vrije Universiteit Brussel both call themselves "Universitas Bruxellensis", why does this concern you, and why should it concern other editors? (I believe that both also call themselves the "Free University of Brussels"; if I'm right, should this sharing of an English name also be a cause for concern, and if so, why?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for your patience. I feel like there's probably a policy somewhere that I'm just a bit too dense to find or that this is should be obvious for some other reason. I'm not trying to be intransigent, but it seems like there is a disagreement about what would improve the Wikipedia, and there are editors (not just me) on both sides of it.

My use of the phrase 'incorrect Latin' was poor wording. I'm not concerned with a proscriptive standard much less "institutional (or other) proficiency/incompetence", but I would expect the Latin name to have seen actual use for Wikipedia to call it a name (or for the documentation of Template:Infobox University to be changed). It does not concern me that two universities claim the same name, but it seems slightly misleading to list a translation without mentioning that the name is used by another similarly notable university as well. I would have a similar objection if the article university said "(from Latin universitas)" rather than saying "(from Latin universitas 'a whole')... universitas magistrorum et scholarium". As a general rule, when introducing a translation, it's my understanding that other relevant senses should be given where doing so reduces confusion. Can we do so here in a footnote to the infoboxes? If not, is this general rule wrong?

To address your second parenthetical, I think "Free University of Brussels" can refer to either university (or the union of the two), but I’m not as concerned for the following reasons. Both articles have headnotes linking to each other (and the university that used to be both of them), and the wording of these headnotes suggests the correct conclusion that the name refers to both. Additionally, the titles of the articles are the disambiguated names, and at least one article explicitly mentions that the English is shared. Nothing like this is mentioned for the Latin. That’s not to say that the articles couldn’t be clearer. I would argue that they should say "lit." not "English" to clarify the meaning of the parentheticals.

What about the easier case where the phrase Wikipedia gives as the Latin name of a university doesn’t appear in any reliable sources I know of and doesn’t appear on the seal in the article and a cursory search doesn’t turn anything up? Is it reasonable to tag with citation-needed then. Would word-by-word translation be original research? Would a neologism created for this translation be original research? What about a non-obvious choice between synonyms such as Californiae vs. californica or meridiei vs. austri? (See University of Southern California where editors responded by removing the Latin when I added the citation-needed tag) What is the correct response when someone removes such a citation-needed tag without providing a source? I would have thought that this would be a relatively straightforward application of WP:V, but I suspect it's more complicated.

Thank you for your time, McYeee (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand a lot better, McYeee. I can't cite a source for this, but my impression is that most Latin (or quasi-Latin names) of universities are used by nobody other than the respective universities (and particularly the more blatantly commercial arms of those universities, branding the Latin names on beermats, pennants, panties, rock, whatever). I'd be surprised to see any Latin name appearing anywhere else, other than in web pages listing trivia, or of course Wikipedia articles. I'm not entirely sure I'd agree to getting rid of mention of that of any university whose founding postdates the 18th century, but this does sound sensible. Do you know of examples of a reliable source claiming that the (pseudo?) Latin used by a university is wrong (broadly defined) and that the right Latin name is (and NB not merely should be) such-and-such which is different? Again, it's not Wikipedia's job to translate names, unless perhaps those translations actually explain. Thus the article Freiburg im Breisgau starts by saying that in Alemannic it's Friburg im Brisgau, in French it's Fribourg-en-Brisgau; and in English its name literally means Freecastle in the[a] Breisgau, but it doesn't suggest that the last of these three is a name that anyone uses. I suppose that somebody might like to know that a Latin name is shared by two separate universities in Brussels; if you think that this is indeed worth saying, how about pointing it out via a footnote (Template:Efn)? -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't expect that the consensus of reliable sources is that the names that there are correct Latin translations that are distinct from the (quasi-)Latin the universities use. The consensus of unreliable sources seems to be that at least some of these are quasi-Latin, not Latin and that there are not real Latin names of these universities at all; but I haven't been able to find a reliable sources that make a claim one way or the other. The only reliable source I've found making a claim close to what you're asking for is the Crimson complaining about out one instance of Harvard saying Harvardiensis instead of Harvardiana. [1]

I expected the phrase "if commonly referenced" in the description of the field "latin_name" in Template:Infobox university to be dispositive, but my understanding is that there is no consensus that my interpretation of the documentation is correct.

I've added the footnotes; thanks for pointing me to Template:Efn. At least for now and unless someone tells me otherwise, I'll just focus on quasi-Latin for universities that seems to only exist on Wikipedia and its mirrors. I expect people to argue that these translations don't need a source, and when this happens, I'll just point to WP:V generally. I think this answers all my questions.

With gratitude,

McYeee (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent image preview in search bar

When searching in Wikipedia's search bar, the image preview for countries/territories/etc is almost always its own flag. However, when searching for the country of Niger the preview image is the world map showing where Niger is. Is this an issue to be fixed? How would one go about fixing it?

The only other country I could find that doesn't use the flag for the preview is Nepal, which uses the national emblem maybe because the flag doesn't show up well on a square preview Placeholderer (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Placeholderer. The image is selected automatically by mw:Extension:PageImages which usually picks the first image (excluding small icons) and that's often the flag for countries. However, mw:Extension:PageImages#How are images scored? says "images smaller than 119 pixels are weighted highly negatively". That's the width and the flag in Niger is only 100px. That's smaller than most countries for two reasons. The coat of arms of Niger is wide and displayed next to it. The flag is close to square and displayed with similar height as the coat of arms so the width becomes relatively small. It could be "fixed" with an infobox parameter to display a larger flag but we don't design infoboxes with page image selection in mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My article has been deleted

My article Diiodosyl sulfate has been delete because it have no sources .But clearly i add some sources .So why was it deleted? Thank you. Junurita (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Junurita: Are you looking for Draft:Diiodosyl sulfate? C F A 💬 14:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Junurita (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yay , now it become a article in wikipedia!!! Junurita (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Congrats! C F A 💬 14:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Junurita (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Clashing birth years on the same article

Hello helpful people,

I am a bit confused.

So, the page in question is Paul R. Andrews, and well, the very first sentence of said article says that this guy was born in 1926. Well, later on in the article, it states that he was born 20 years prior in 1906, which is weird. I don't plan on fixing either, because I don't know which one is right and I don't feel like making the situation more confusing (or worse). The sentence that states that he was born in 1906 has a source but how accurate it is I cannot tell.

Any ideas? Villaida (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been bold and updated the lead to match the 1906 birthday, which is what the Harvard source states. Thanks for pointing it out. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! This was fixed by Macaddct1984, who corrected the date to 1905, to be consistent with the Harvard Business School reference. In the future, if one date is supported by a source and the other isn't, please take the one that is supported by the source. If both are supported by sources, you probably should take the most reliable one (though I'm not 100% sure). Happy editing. Grumpylawnchair (talk)

This fellow "received an undergraduate degree from Norwich University cum laude degree"; he had a career described as "culminating" in his retirement from that career; and this article doesn't deign even to start to say what he did. (He spent his working life at Prentice-Hall. How would Prentice-Hall have been different if he hadn't existed? After reading the article, I have no idea.) This article is terrible, Villaida; if Paul R. Andrews interests you, perhaps you could improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Nominate it for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Who, David notMD, me? First, anyone proposing to nominate it for deletion should search for reliable information on Andrews. That's not something I'm willing to do. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor who created Paul R. Andrews has another shoddy article: GBT Technologies, tendentiously created without improvement directly in mainspace following back to back AFC declines, which the author blanked from their talkpage. PRODded in January, tag removed by unregistered editor. I suspect it's not been AfDed solely because no one wants to do an NCORP BEFORE on some dumb AI company, but maybe I'm projecting. Folly Mox (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies to Hoary - if I feel that way then I should take up the task. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No probs, David notMD. (I've pled sloth; anybody else can too.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Good sleuthing, Folly Mox. I've resuscitated a worthwhile comment on the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox (or anyone): GBT Technologies is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GBT Technologies. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hoary: nah, not really. This Paul Andrews article isn't the type of subject matter that I find interesting, but I do agree that it is asking for improvement. Villaida (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Importing Gallery pics into Microsoft Word

Here is a typical gallery picture code for importing into MS Word:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Datacenter_de_ARSAT.jpg

Datacenter_de_ARSAT.jpg is about thumbnail size in the gallery, with a caption.

When imported into Word the picture increases size many times, with no caption.

How can the imported picture be adjusted in size to something closer to the original size together with the caption? ----MountVic127 (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MountVic127. You are asking about transferring data from a system which is not Wikipedia (though it is related), to a system which is nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. This is really not the place. I suggest you ask at Commons: try C:COM:Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you're seeing is the original size. If you want a smaller version, do you see right under the image at File:Datacenter de ARSAT.jpg, Size of this preview: 800 × 534 pixels. Other resolutions followed by links to various image sizes? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Getting an Article declined, Even though there isn't a currently existing article for that thing

I was making a Wikipedia listing for a Smaller Soccer (Football) Club in America, Around 3/4th division i think, and there was No article for it, so i decided to research up on it, And then i used the (small) findings to attempt to make a wikipedia around it, It got declined, It conflicts me, Why would it be declined if the one having declined it has no intent to contribute to the subject, Or if one hasn't been made since the start of wikipedia (which is like, a long time ago), So i am wondering why it was declined? Poliosisisd (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Poliosisisd: Welcome to the Teahouse! The reasoning for the decline was shared on your talk page: the topic of your draft wasn't shown to be notable because it lacked multiple reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage of the club. If your "findings" were only "small" as you put it, the subject simply may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Not everything that exists in the world needs an article here—Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer interested in hurricanes?

Hey everyone, I’m wondering if there are any known sockpuppeteers with a particular interest in hurricanes or meteorology topics? I’ve spotted someone who is clearly gunning to become an admin and it just doesn’t sit right. The last thing I want for the community to be nearly fooled again a la the Eostrix RfA. Musinure (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there @Musinure! There is one person that I am aware of (who I will withhold their name) who does sock puppet in areas specializing in tropical cyclones and hurricanes. I will tell you right now though, that User:Zzzs is most likely not a sock puppet. I would also refrain from personally attacking other users, even if it is on your own talk page. Hope this helps! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Zzzs. C F A 💬 03:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

New editors can and do learn much quicker than you'd think. It doesn't always mean they're a sockpuppet. We have to assume good faith when there is no evidence of anything otherwise. C F A 💬 03:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Musinure Why are you suddenly accusing me of being a sockpuppet? All I did was remind you to follow WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL so you don't run the risk of being blocked. The long term goals is to motivate me to contribute more to the encyclopedia, not to speedrun adminship. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Penalty for not notifying editor?

I just discovered that an editor posted a question on the neutral point of view/noticeboard that mentioned me, though not by name, very explicitly. They did not notify me of this, despite the bold, bright red text at the top telling them to do so. What can I do about this? Is there a penalty? It was posted hours ago and they had every opportunity to tell me, but didn't. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A warning that points out the lapse would be appropriate in this scenario. Since you are contributing to the discussion there's no point in notifying you now. Polyamorph (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Polyamorph

Unfortunately, I attempted to warn this user twice about assuming good faith. They deleted the warnings, re-added the offending statement and accused me of "pestering" them. I think any warning (certainly any from me) would fall on deaf ears. I am glad I noticed, but their statement had been there for the better part of a day and it is only really chance that I saw it. They evidently had no intention of obeying the rules. TanRabbitry (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue to report user conduct. I refer you to WP:DR. Polyamorph (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Does reviewing the accuracy of an article's sources qualify as 'original research'?

User:Dronebogus recommended I ask this question here, as I believe they are prematurely closing my topics in the talk page of Libsoftiktok. Some of the article's sources, and thus the article itself, contain claims which I believe to be easily identifiable as factually inaccurate. Dronebogus argues my method for fact-checking these sources constitutes 'original research', and subsequently closed the discussions without anyone else weighing in on the matter.

I am not asking for any information to be included in the article, my intentions were to remove the inaccurate/dubious sources. This appears to not only be allowed on Wikipedia, but encouraged: WP:RS clearly states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis". How exactly are you supposed to review the factual accuracy of a claim made in a news story without examining the story's sources? CodingApe (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not going to get involved in this page, but I'll try to answer your question. Generally, the answer is yes: "Fact-checking" reliable, secondary sources' claims yourself is original research. Wikipedia bases itself on verifiability, not "truth". Unless the sources you are considering have a record of being unreliable, there is no reason to doubt their claims. That is not our job as Wikipedians. We are not journalists. You can find sources that have had their reliability previously discussed at the perennial sources list and the New Page Patrol source guide.

I would recommend finding a different topic area to edit in. Contentious topic areas always bring out the worst of editors. C F A 💬 14:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and what if the sourced article contradicts itself? Does using the contradictory claim from the article count as 'original research'? I don't understand why it is acceptable to selectively pull claims from articles and then block discussions regarding other claims the same exact article made. CodingApe (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel for you. But if my time as an IP-editor has shown me anything is that WP is a convoluted, big, and bureaucratic place with many arcane rules that gatekeep newcomers from adding. You have faced one of them, it seems.

WP has this list of Wikipedia:Rsp they call "perennial reliable sources" and the way it works is by having experienced editors vote on consensus over what source is reliable and what isn't. So, for political topics, a source like Fox News is not reliable for WP, doesn't matter how factual an article might be. Conversely, CNN is considered reliable. This means a CNN article can be awfully wrong but since it is from a reliable source, it is good enough for WP.

The only way to eliminate a factually wrong article from a WP article if it comdes from a reliable source is to find other reliable sources contradicting the claim and even then you might get a both-sides kind of sentence.

Again, I feel for you for I have seen many times factually wrong information being kept on WP since "reliable sources" say so. The only thing we can do is either protests the RS directly, find other RS that contradict it, or just leave.

Hope this explains things a bit.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarity on why references are not considered notable

Hello! Trying to create this page: Draft:The Harbour School.

Was declined because references aren't considered notable though they are just articles about who and what awards were won.

Thank you Ths 2024 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ths 2024: for notability per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (usually interpreted as 3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ths 2024, it is topics that must be notable, not references. References must be reliable, not notable. Consider the Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer published in Germany from 1923 to 1945. This vile hate rag was highly notable because it is studied in great detail by historians of Nazi Germany but it is utterly unreliable because most of its content was a pack of lies. Learning to differentiate between notable and reliable publications is an important skill for Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Minor awards - not themselves subjects of articles, example Nobel - do not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright on "remixed" works

Title may not be accurate, copyright is very confusing for me, sorry!

I am writing a draft article on graffiti characters, and in my research I learnt about the influence of Vaughne Bodē's comics on early modern graffiti and I realised I've seen his characters painted in my local town. I wanted to take a photo for the article, but figured that as Bodē (or his son now) owns the copyright to the character, that wouldn't be appropriate.

However, today while browsing graffiti images on Commons, I've found lots of photos of graffiti works with characters from The Simpsons, Dragon Ball Z, and Looney Tunes, sometimes drawn very much in the original style. Are these works okay because they're "remixed"? In this case, would it be okay for me to upload a work with a character of Bodē's in a graffiti piece? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Notcharizard, you'd be much better off asking this question at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do that. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard, see also commons:Commons:GRAFFITI. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We have freedom of panorama in my country, so it's fine on that front, thank you though! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Time to decision on an edit

Hi there,

I recently added a reference for an article. How long does it usually take to get a feedback? And when will the changes take effect if the edit is accepted? Nebyudan (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nebyudan. If you are referring to your edit to Khat, it was reverted because another editor concluded that the reference that you added does not comply with WP:MEDRS. Any medical claims on Wikipedia must be based on the highest quality peer reviewed medical references, since people's health is literally at stake. If you disagree, make your case at Talk: Khat or in a discussion with the editor who reverted you. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode

Dear help-users, I'm a German user. However, I use the English Wikipedia from time to time. I want to deactivate the dark mode. It seems, it is only in place on the English website. I cannot find a setting to turn it off. I activated once when it was displayed to me as "new feature". Please help - or improve the visiblity. The blue links on black background are illisible. I don't have a wikipedia account. Thank you for your help. 80.149.243.69 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, the 'Appearance' menu is found either in the side panel on the right side of the page, or it can be minimised into an icon (looking like eyeglasses) in the horizontal menu on top o the page. Judging by your question I'm guessing it's not visible in the side panel, so you should look for the eyeglasses near the top. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The eyeglasses symbol was it! I didn't try it because I thought it would be related to a feature for saving/following the page (related to an account).

Indeed, it cannot be found under the hamburger menu on the top left. That was suggested by other help articles. There is a settings icon, but only on the very main page, and it does not include the dark mode.

Thanks again! 80.149.243.69 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Publication on Wikipedia

Hello,

I am trying to publish the following page:

Draft:Khalifa International Award for Date Palm and Agricultural Innovation#cite note-1

   Do you think the page is suitable for publication on Wikipedia?

   English is my second language; can you explain in simple way the mistakes I made and how I can correct them? Bilalkiaai (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bilalkiaai I can see several problems. First and most important is that you uploaded the logo of the organisation to Wikimedia Commons and claimed it was your "own work". Is that really the case? Did you personally design the logo, which is subject to copyright? Second, you have put a number of social media links in a section above the references. These external links should go below instead, in a section just called "External links" (see WP:EL). Third, there seem to be excessive citations for some statements. Please remove those that don't meet these criteria. You can then submit the draft to get comments from experienced reviewers. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bilalkiaai, if you would like to get your article reviewed by an experienced editor, you can submit it and an experienced editor will review it, then will leave a note on your talk page whether the draft was declined or accepted. Although, I see a lot of problems that need to be fixed there, having a look at the draft, it has a section that has links to social media sites on that particular topic, I'd suggest creating section "External links" for social media sites. However, I'm not super experienced at Wikipedia, but know a few things to help less experienced contributors here. Hope this helps.

PEPSI697 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, additionally, I would suggest you use {{Infobox award}} instead of a wikitable at the top. This would be better from a technical/accessibility standpoint. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Citation-related questions

Thank you in advance to whomever reads this! Following these rather demeaning, self-righteous responses from MrOllie on their Talk page regarding the reversion of multiple citation-focused edits I made to a page with an excessive citation template (Qnet), I am posting to the Teahouse for some guidance as they requested.

My goal was to help resolve the citation template on the QNet page and then make it better as I have done with many other pages. However, after the extensive reversions, I am now unclear on how to proceed. I would greatly appreciate any help to clarify and/or mediate this situation, as this issue has not extended to similar edits I've made to other pages. A few questions:

1. Are press releases considered low-quality citations? My interpretation of the citation policies is that they are rarely acceptable to use, but MrOllie's explanation was vague, and they wouldn't expound further - I was told they were "not interested in reviewing [my] other edits or answering general questions".

2. If dead links are not properly archived anywhere online, how can they be "fixed" or an "updated URL" be found, particularly for dead sites, 404s, and non-existent archival links? I only removed citations that were not able to be found anywhere online - even in archives. Again, I was trying to remove low-quality and excessive citations.

3. I don't believe any editor should be actively discouraged from editing a page, especially when they've only asked for productive feedback to help resolve a page's long standing template (as well as help the page's readability; the Controversies section on the Qnet page is borderline unreadable with outdated and overdetailed language, none of which I've even attempted editing yet). My questions to them were not based on a lack of basic knowledge, but rather a desire to understand the mechanics of their decisions in order to improve the quality of my edits across Wiki. So how can I provide productive edits to this page, work towards resolving the template, and improve the page quality?CiKing101 (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

First, the replies by User talk:MrOllie were informative and neutral. Please apologize for your characterization as "...rather demeaning, self-righteous responses..." or you will not get any help here. Wikipedia policy is dispute content, but do not disparage the person. To reply to just one of your questions, press releases can be cited for non-controversial facts, such as location of a company, number of employees, etc. David notMD (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

CiKing101, MrOllie has taken some trouble to give you good advice. Like David, I don't understand why you criticise him for it. But if you choose to criticise him in public, you should have the courtesy to let him know that you're criticising him. (With this reply, I am pinging him, so that he'll be aware of this thread.) Maproom (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

From your edit history, I see that you have put in efforts to improve articles that are tagged as having excessive citations. Most of that work has not been reverted. For the article in question, given reverted, the advised step is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article rather than here. David notMD (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for guiding me on how to handle this situation. I apologize for any negative tone in my initial message. My intention was not to disparage MrOllie but to seek clarification and I let my frustration show.

Press Releases: I will not clean up press releases that are being used for acceptable for non-controversial facts going forward. Thank you!

Dead Links: I have been focusing on removing citations that lead to dead links, particularly when no archival versions exist. Is this an appropriate policy? Any additional advice on handling such citations would be appreciated, especially when reliable archival links cannot be found.

Improving the QNet Page: I will post on the QNet talk page regarding specific citations. Given my track record on other pages and your guidance, hopefully we can get some more movement toward removing the template.

Thank you again for your guidance. CiKing101 (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@CiKing101 See WP:LINKROT, if you have not already looked at that guidance. There are many archive sites and the fact that you haven't found one doesn't mean that none exists. If you remove a dead link in a biography of a living person, then policy would suggest you also have to remove the text it supports, which is not a good idea. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox

Do other wikipedia language versions also have a sandbox feature like on English Wikipedia? Specifically the Indonesian Wikipedia one. 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 11:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheBrowniess: It varies. The Indonesian Wikipedia does not have it and that's the default. It's added by including the wiki in the wmgUseSandboxLink list at https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. The T numbers refer to requests to add it for a wiki, e.g. phab:T103643. Requests for configuration changes like this usually require a link to a discussion showing consensus at the wiki. The only thing the sandbox feature does is add a convenient interface link to a user subpage. You can create and edit such pages yourself without an interface link, e.g. at id:User:TheBrowniess/sandbox or any other name. You can create as many as you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello TheBrowniess, the answer is yes, other Wikipedia language versions have a sandbox feature. if you go to WP:SANDBOX and you click on the languages button, you can see that other language versions of Wikipedia have sandboxes too. For Indonesia Wikipedia, yes.

PEPSI697 (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's very likely that you can create a sub-page of your UserPage at other-language Wikipedias just as you can here, which is a more persistent way to experiment and develop articles. The main sandboxes get cleared out very frequently. See WP:ABOUTSAND. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help this user who says they are blocked?

I've been trying to help Rakel Helmsdal (talk · contribs), who wants to edit Rakel Helmsdal. They now say they are receiving a message about being blocked, so I said I'd post over here to see if someone can help them. They of course have a CoI, but I'd like to find a way in which they can be supported to request edits to the article about them. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

User now says they are not blocked, but I think they could do with some support anyway. I don't seem to be getting through about using request edit. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tacyarg <3 It seem, that the unblocking request worked after all! I am not blocked any more :) Rakel Helmsdal (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rakel Helmsdal Please use the edit request wizard on the Talk page of the article about you. You might benefit also from reading a FAQ page and the policy at WP:OWN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Photos - removing those that are there without my consent and replacing them

Hi :)

I wanted to ask, if somebody could help me with photos of me that are on Wikmedia commons. They are old and I want them removed. I have never given any consent to have them put up there, so I suppose, that I am allowed to have them removed? I have tried and tried to do that, and have some photo, that I have given consent to replace them, but it seems not to work :'-( Rakel Helmsdal (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to link to the page: Category:Rakel Helmsdal - Wikimedia Commons Rakel Helmsdal (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You will probably be able to get better help with this issue at Commons; their help desk is here. Relevant information to your situation is at this link: Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people Reconrabbit 12:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Rakel Helmsdal, one of the easiest ways to get them removed is to make a deletion request in Wikimedia Commons. Be sure to read the removal requests section. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rakel Helmsdal: You may not be able to get them deleted (you are a (semi-)public figure and they were taken at an event with no obvious reason to expect privacy - your consent is not needed); but you can supply a better one and ask that Wikipedia uses it instead; see WP:A picture of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was my article about a community club deleted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Syedzarrarshah?markasread=322260028&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-DoubleGrazing-20240807120900-Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Draft:YouthClub

Syedzarrarshah (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the link to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11? Ping to @DoubleGrazing if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång.

Hi @Syedzarrarshah: I declined this draft, and it was subsequently deleted, for being purely promotional. Wikipedia articles should summarise what independent and reliable third parties (ideally secondary sources) have said about a subject, whereas this was written from the perspective of the organisation telling the world about itself. (It was also far too long and detailed for an encyclopaedia article. Although that wasn't the reason why I declined it, it would have required a comprehensive rewrite to bring it up to acceptable standards.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The "needs additional citations for verification" on Golden Chariot seems to be addressed

Hi everyone, I have added WP:RS citations on this page for Golden Chariot. Overall I feel this problem has been addressed. Can I remove this tag? or if anyone wants to chip in some more citations? ANLgrad (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@ANLgrad The tag was added when the article looked like this. I would say it's much better now. My only other comment is that the first eight current cites are only mentioned in the WP:LEAD, which suggests the lead is not summarising the rest of the article correctly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Yes that's true. I see that too in the lead. Will try to address this. ANLgrad (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why has my sandbox turned into a redirect article?

My sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Notaoffensivename/sandbox&redirect=no has turned into a redirect. Notaoffensivename (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Notaoffensivename: Articles prefixed by "Draft" are preferred for Articles for Creation submissions so they are in the same location as all the other articles pending review. The redirect in your sandbox is leftover from when a reviewer moved your sandbox to Draft:Omar N. Bradley airport. You are free to remove the redirect if you wish. C F A 💬 18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, how do i remove the redirect and use my sandbox again? Notaoffensivename (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it for you. Happy editing, C F A 💬 22:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

When I used to open the sandbox, the editing would automatically come up and i was able to put my articles on Afc. But now, it no longer does this. Could i get some help? Notaoffensivename (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added the submission button to your sandbox. You can edit it by clicking here. Once you write a draft, you can click the blue button at the top of your draft that says "Submit the draft for review!" and a reviewer will check out your draft. Let me know if you have any other questions. C F A 💬 22:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NCBI genome ID

I'm adding the genome infobox to veggie pages. For some reason, the NCBI genome ID of tomato, which is 4081, opens a tobacco virus page. For reference, see cucumber, where 1639 opens the appropriate cuc page on NCBI. Is this an issue with Wikipedia or NCBI got their wires crossed? If someone can fix this, please do. Thanks! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 20:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Intriguing! It looks like the issue is the difference between an NCBI "taxonomy ID" and "genome ID." For Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), the 4081 ID is actually its taxonomy ID, as shown on NCBI. There are multiple genomes corresponding to this taxonomy ID, as seen here. The reference genome is GCF_000188115.5. I went ahead and replaced taxId = 4081 with taxId = GCF_000188115.5 on Tomato and now it functions like the cucumber page - it brings up a list of all the Solanum lycopersicum genomes.

I'm not sure why the Cucumber page works using taxId = 1639; when I try using the genome ID of its reference genome (GCF_000004075.3) instead the link works in the same way, bringing up Cucumber genomes. A user on the Infobox genome talk page implies that there was a relatively recent change in how NCBI handles lookups by genome ID; this may need more digging into! In any case, the Tomato page should now correctly link to Tomato genomes on NCBI. — nmael ^talk 22:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 23:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

dispute

Hi, I am in a dispute with one of the editors. I made a page for a living person. the editor decided that this person was not "noteworthy" enough to get a page. However, by wiki definition it says that a person who receives a "major award" is considered eligible for a wiki page.

The subject has just won a Tony Award for Best Musical this season on Broadway. The editors argument is that it doesnt count because there are many producers as opposed to, for example best actress.. it's one person who gets one award. This show a complete ignorance to how the broadway world works and how shows get on their feet. It is actually IMPOSSIBLE for only one person to produce a broadway show. a broadway show is ONLY produced by a team of people. so her argument is absurd.

I did the other edits that she required. IE: removing "all the past work so it didn't look like a resume" and added more documentation that this person is an actual producer and has actually won the Tony but she is now ignoring me and the page is sitting without comment.

id love some help here. it seems like whoever this editor is, they are making random judgements about something they don't understand fully. advice? Childrenandart (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Heya @Childrenandart, welcome to the teahouse! Could you send the page link (just do [[Page name here]]) so that I can take a look for you and give you my thoughts :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sooo, I've taken a look, and I will say that ultimately based on the conflict of interest discussion on your talk page, you have a connection to the subject, and submitting a page "on her behalf" is a conflict of interest which needs addressing. I advise that you review WP:GNG and find more sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

that is not actually the conflict. I am a listener to the podcast. I dont know her personally and I sent her a note on social asking if she minded if I uploaded a wiki page. that is the extent of it. which I explained before . Childrenandart (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

also I just googled our of curiosity if a person an start a page for a friend. I am not her friend but here is the answer

Anyone can create a Wikipedia page for someone, as long as they follow Wikipedia's guidelines. However, it's important to keep in mind that creating a Wikipedia page can be a complex process, and it's not something that should be taken lightly. so I am curious what the problem is.. Childrenandart (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"as long as they follow Wikipedia's guidelines" includes the conflict of interest guideline, which typically requires disclosure. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

is that basically just putting in writing at the top of the page that I am a listener to the podcast?

{{connected contributor | Childrenandart is a listener of Stages Podcast and a fan of the show. I am not paid to write this article}}

Like this? Childrenandart (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but if you're "submitting on her behalf" according to what you said on your talk page, which counts as a conflict of interest, so you should disclose it as mentioned in WP:COI on the article talk page. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 21:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

please let me know if what I did is sufficient before I resubmit. many thanks Childrenandart (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not paid to write it. I just want to because I love the show. so is the above statement what you want? and do I put it on the actual wiki article? Childrenandart (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I added what I believe you wanted. please let me know if the is sufficient. Childrenandart (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Good to see you took the advice to stop by at the Teahouse. Anyone who is involved may wish to take a look at User talk:CFA#tony award, User talk:CFA#Who is CFA?, User_talk:Childrenandart#Managing a conflict of interest and WP:DRN#Draft:Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks. C F A 💬 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a few comments at this point. First, the Wikipedia community is aware that production of a Broadway show is the work of a large team of producers and co-producers. It isn't helpful to suggest that the Wikipedia community is ignorant of this fact. Second, I didn't find Ms. Fairbanks's name in the list of co-producers on the Tony Awards official web page. Verifiability is a core policy, and I am having a hard time finding independent verification that she was one of the listed members of the production team. Third, when you said that "we" could send a photograph, there were two problems. If you are not working with or for Ms. Fairbanks, why did you use the first-person plural pronound? Also, sending a photograph, or other documentation, to a reviewer, does not provide verifiability, because the evidence has to be available to a reader of Wikipedia, not just to a reviewer. So why did you use the first-person plural pronoun? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not accusing the entire community of not knowing how a broadway production works.. I was telling CFA that she/he didn't understand because she said there were so many producers that it didn't count as a Tony award. here is a link to playbill that states her name on the list of producers and winners.https://playbill.com/article/the-outsiders-wins-best-musical-at-the-2024-tony-awards. it is also stated in the Boston globe article ( I am sure they verified)

I have reached out to Fairbanks o social media and asked if she minded if I did a wiki page. She said it was fine. this is why I assumed if you need photo proof she would send it along. that is where we came from. I am not being paid to do this. If a photo is not documentation then please see the article above which names her on the list and I put other documentation on the article itself as well. Childrenandart (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Childrenandart I have read this thread and also looked at the contributions you have made. You have an obviously great amount of energy. However, most is devoted to arguing. Some is devoted to suggesting you will report an editor, one line suggests that loads of people report them.

I hope you will consider turning your energy into first leaning about Notability (not noteworthiness, a term who is meaningless here) and then about Verifiability, and then using that knowledge to edit here, not to argue here.

You are caught up with rights and wrongs. Instead please edit productively once you understand the two links I have given you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have edited. I have done everything they asked me to do. What I am arguing is against the point that it is not considered a Tony win. By wikipedias own definition it is a Tony win. I added the to another conversation just a few minutes ago. every edit that was requested, was done. if you have a further suggestion on what is needed I am happy to include it. Childrenandart (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Resubmitting to a new editor while original ed. is on break?

Hello wiki angels! I have a question about the resubmission process after updating a declined page draft.

The draft page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahyad_Tousi, and I've added a slew of reliable sources thanks to the editor's feedback (I stupidly did not realize that iMDB was not a reliable source, so have rectified this) and also added more information overall to show notability.

However, I see on the editor's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SafariScribe ) that they may be taking a break for the time being, and they seem to have a backlog of people resubmitting their drafts and then complaining about having their questions unaddressed. Is there a way I can kindly request a review from another editor while User:SafariScribe is on hiatus?

I also see a recent post about this editor here in the Teahouse which reinforces my concern that I may be resubmitting into the void. Many thanks for your guidance! Plethora12 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Plethora12, submissions and resubmissions just go in the same general pool. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I had misunderstood. Thank you! Plethora12 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Mahyad Tousi now an accepted article. David notMD (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Omorgus Reiterorum

Hello. I have created the page for omorgus reiterorum and there is a very lovely looking image of this species available at Zenodo, but I am unsure as to whether or not this image would be allowed to be added to the Wikipedia page due to the licensing rules and my overall stupidity when it comes to said topic. While other pages have similar looking images (Omorgus granulatus, Omorgus subcarinatus), I would much rather ask here and risk embarrassing myself than not asking. If anyone is able to tell me whether or not the image can be used your help would be much appreciated! Aquaquaticat (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aquaquaticat You may only upload images here if they have a suitable licence which allows it. Than you for saving yourself embarrassment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What would the Zenodo photo of Omorgus Reiterorum count as? In the information sidebar of the photo it says 'Photos courtesy of David Král and Jiří Hájek, copyright NMPC.' As I am not sure what that means please could someone explain it to me? Is it okay to use on the wikipedia article? Aquaquaticat (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aquaquaticat, and welcome to the Teahouse. In nearly all cases, we can use photos only if they are free for anybody to reuse or alter for any purpose - that is part of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, to make information free for anybody.

In practice this means one of: 1) the image is in the public domain because it is old enough that copyright has expired; or 2) the copyright owner has explicitly put it in the public domain (this is unusual, but many images produced by employees of the US federal government, for example, meet this); or 3) the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA. Most images you find on the internet (and elsewhere) do not meet any of those conditions, and so cannot be used - unless you contact the copyright holder and they explicitly agree to release them - see donating copyright materials.

There are some edge cases, but this is the basic framework. See image use policy for more detail. ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your helpful responses. I appreciate the help :) Aquaquaticat (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

how long does it take for a draft to be REVIEWED after being submitted?

how long does it take for a draft to be REVIEWED after being submitted? just wondering... Gorillafan101 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gorillafan101: Unfortunately there is almost always 2500+ drafts waiting for review at any given moment. There is no "queue" for reviews; drafts are reviewed in no specific order. It could be days, weeks, or sometimes months. Don't let this discourage you, though. There's plenty of other stuff to do in the meantime. C F A 💬 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For your latest, it was reviewed and declined in just over an hour - declined for little content and no references. David notMD (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi

I am new here, and i don't know what to edit and how to edit, i will be happy if someone guides me thro the edges, i hope you will enlighten my edit journey ... Duolingoiscat (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Useful links now on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to get an edit request more attention when the response time is quite long?

I understand that being patient is important on Wikipedia and we can’t constantly check this site for edit request or replies 24/7, but it’s still really frustrating when you make a request for an edit and it’s either ignored or the discussion quickly fizzles out before a resolution is reached. Is there a way to raise more attention to an issue you have (without being annoying), or do you just have to wait and hope for the best? Sorry if this is a bit petty; I just have no good idea on what to do when I encounter a situation like this. LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no formal way to get attention to an edit request, but a few pointers:

1. If you ask about it then then link to it or tell us what article so we don't have to guess.
2. If you mean [2] then
   1. Three hours is not a long time to wait for an edit request to be actioned.
   2. You didn't actually make a formal edit request. You simply started new thread with your opinions of changes that might be worth making. If no-one responds (in a reasonable time) you can take that as a lack of agreement. Meters (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If the page is part of a WikiProject you can ask for input at the appropriate project. See WP:PROJDIR. If all else fails you can opena request for comment. See WP:RFC. Meters (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I do not mean the talk page on the Syrian Civil War; there are many examples, but I was mainly thinking of my talk page on the Nigerien crisis. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Checking article before resubmitting

Hi there, I recently had a new article submission declined. I have now edited the article to include more sources and make the tone more formal and encyclopaedic. I'd like some advice to see if this is now acceptable before resubmitting. Draft:Abodo Wood. ValerieCo (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Abodo Wood is a company that cuts down trees to make timber. The fact that such timber was used to architecurally significant buildings - what you deem "Products" (refs 6-11) - has no place in the article. David notMD (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You have also asked this at the AfC help desk. Either venue is fine, but please don't ask at both, as that just duplicates the effort. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ValerieCo The table of awards has hyperlinks serving as references. Hyperlinks are not allowed. Additionally, minor/modest awards (those that are not themselves sujects of Wikipedia articles) can be listed, but contribute nothing to confirming Wikipedia-notability. However, all awards for buildings that used Abodo Wood products need to be removed. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Using Instagram as source

I have read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources and found that users were discouraged from using Instagram as the source. Nevertheless, I found an Instagram account (@makamindo) that posts famous Indonesian tombstones. The account owner visits cemeteries and takes pictures of notable Indonesian tombstones. This can be a good source to be included in the subject's Wikipedia page whose date of death is missing. For this situation, can I cite from @makamindo's Instagram account? Faldi00 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Faldi00. I'm afraid not. A random person claiming to visit cemeteries and take pictures is not what Wikipedia would describe as a reliable source. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Faldi00 On the other hand, we have a specific citation template {{cite sign}} which can be used for gravestones and we have a large category for them at commons:Category:Gravestones. This suggests to me that if you uploaded such a photo to Commons, we would assume good faith and allow it to be used as a source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the answer is less clear than some may think. There is general consensus among editors that Findagrave.com, an otherwise unreliable user-generated website, can be used to cite gravestones when there is a picture. I don't really see why the same wouldn't apply to Instagram, but it's obviously better to try and find another source. C F A 💬 14:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess you shouldn't use Instagram as a source, I'm afraid. But if you can find the source the instagrammer is using, and if it's reliable, you can definitely use it. You can also try to search up for the information they've provided. If you find out any reputable source that resembles any of the information that they've provided, you can use it too! Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia! Oleeveeya (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating a page for a company with reliable sources

Good morning,

I hope all of you are well,

I would like to create a page for a company called TSplus as they are not on wikipedia (yet).

I found a few sources but I am not sure if they enter in the valid sources for wikipedia guidelines and requirements.

Could one of you kindly let me know if they are ?

If so, I am happy to share them with you.

Have a lovely day

Mariam MariamEssafi (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

MariamEssafi Hello and welcome. Creating a new article (not a "page") is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. It is usually recommended that new users first gain experience and knowledge by spending time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea, too.

Feel free to share your sources. Are you associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you very much for your response,

I have done a few edits already to gain experience and it has been very interesting so far.

I will look to do more of them.

I am not associated with the company but find it interesting as a first subject to write about.

The sources I found are the following :

https://www.capterra.co.uk/software/217414/tsplus

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/307089/20240807/empowering-smes-with-cost-effective-tsplus-remote-access-solutions.htm

https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/04/11/2861606/0/en/TSplus-Remote-Support-Awarded-With-Multiple-Badges-from-Gartner-Digital-Markets.html

https://midhudsonnews.com/2024/07/31/tsplus-enabling-secure-and-efficient-remote-access/

https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=3_cc-session_905ec134-aa58-45c4-86c1-1c90931ad426

https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/05/01/2873275/0/en/TSplus-Remote-Access-Wins-the-Spring-2024-Leader-Award-in-Remote-Desktop-Category-from-SourceForge.html

https://channeltimes.com/press-release/bd-soft-joined-hands-with-tsplus-as-exclusive-country-partner-for-remote-support-for-indian-markets/

https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/681530758/tsplus-corp-and-mspaa-join-forces-as-premier-partners-to-revolutionize-msp-solutions/

https://www.newswire.com/news/the-tsplus-web-app-brings-remote-desktop-connections-to-ipads-and-21640801

Thank you very much

M MariamEssafi (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Without even looking at them, I can tell you that press releases and annoucements of routine activities do not establish that this company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I undertand,

thank you very much for your response,

So, none of the above mentioned linkes are valid for an article on wikipedia right ?

Thank you MariamEssafi (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, none of these are appropriate. They are all press releases or announcements of routine business activities, mostly written in glowing marketing speak(I've now looked at some) 331dot (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I see,

thank you very much for the information :)

I will look at something else to write about :D

Have a nice day !

M MariamEssafi (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MariamEssafi, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

In my experience, editors who start working on Wikipedia, and try to create an article before they are ready, have a frustrating and miserable time.

I remember in my early days, how I desperately wanted to "make my mark" by creating an article, and looked for something I could write about that wasn't already there. Now I know that creating articles is not the only way to contribute: I have been here for nineteen years, and made 25 thousand edits, but I have only ever created a handful of articles.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi and thank you very much for letting me know,

this is very helpful,

have a nice day ! MariamEssafi (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've been around about as long as ColinFine and I also have created only a few articles. Mine are listed on my user page. Many of them are stubs. Some got merged into other articles.

@MariamEssafi: The way it works for me is, if I look for something on Wikipedia and I can't find it, then I might try to write an article about it. Or if I like something that has no Wikipedia article (such as a good book I read recently) I'll look for sources to see if it's notable, and write about it.

You did the same for a company, and I commend you for doing it correctly: Find your sources first. You tried to write the article forward instead of WP:BACKWARD. Most new editors try to write an article backward, by first writing what they know and then looking for sources. You did it the proper way. The problem was that the sources you found don't comply with the Wikipedia:Golden Rule. Read through the Golden Rule page and you'll know what to look for next time. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft

Draft:Tropical Storm_Maria (2024) a new typhoon on JMA edit a pls my draft on 2024 Pacific typhoon season @ChrisWx @MemeGod27 112.209.9.48 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft says Tropical Storm Maria, is an ongoing storm. This is not acceptable. Please read MOS:NOW. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Add Contents Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024)#Preparations and Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024)#See also 112.209.9.48 (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#14:34, 8 August 2024 review of submission by 112.209.9.48 ok? 122.2.115.63 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Mobile browser editing caveats

Hi, I use Firefox for Android to edit, and I have a few questions:
1. How can I indicate an edit is a minor edit?
2. How can I edit an entire page in the mobile editor? Switching to desktop mode works, but is inconvenient.
Thank you! Crystalespeon (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crystalespeon:

1. I don't think you can, I haven't found the option myself. Maybe other editors can help.
2. Click on the three-dot hamburger button on the right, then select "Edit full page".

Broc (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crystalespeon and Broc: (why not) I found a weird workaround: go to the page history and undo a really old edit. Usually, this will fail with a red message to the effect of This edit cannot be undone... (and so on, blah blah blah), but underneath will be an interface that looks like the desktop source editor but fitted to your mobile device screen. It has the entire article's source code and the checkbox to mark the edit as minor! As a general note, this technique is less effective for editing one section of a very long article. Hope that helped? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crystalespeon, I myself edit from mobile and use chrome browser and i think I have the answer of your questions.

• To indicate an edit as minor, i simply switch to visual editor (after working with source editor). Then you can find the checkbox to mark your edit as Minor Edit.
• In my browser whenever i try to edit, its only load a single section, so i click on top url bar and at the end of url editor/0, i replace with editor/all.

Hope you find that helpful.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

How to make the cool signatures?

I want my signature to look like this: hypersilly ^(talk)

However the normal one is still there: Hypersilly (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hypersilly you can follow WP:CUSTOMSIG. Broc (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please also make sure to use a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 to ensure accessibility per WP:SIGAPP. Broc (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

constrast ratio? what are those Hypersilly (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hypersilly: "Note 5" at WP:SIGAPP, which @Broc referred to above, answers your question. In summary, make sure there's enough contrast between the text and the background. The example you used above does not meet accessibility requirements. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

i just found out that on dark mode my signature looks better and on light mode it looks bad

im so sorry!! hypersilly ^(talk) 12:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

well for me it looks visible enough but still bad hypersilly ^(talk) 12:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hypersilly For readability, I'd recommend tweaking the colour values, it is a strain on the eyes on light mode. And it's not particularly helpful for other editors if your signature causes eyestrain! Qcne (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

does this work? hypersilly ^(talk) 04:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That could work, @Hypersilly, as long as it does interfere with how the surrounding text displays.

On another note: as you're a new editor here, I would suggest you to focus your efforts on editing Wikipedia rather than your user space and signature. You can find tasks suitable for everyone at the Wikipedia:Task Center. Broc (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The credibility of the source

Is it possible to refer to the newspaper "Чуйские зори" https://mokoshagach.ru/socialnaja_sfera/539/? It is referred to by some historians in their writings (https://www.google.ru/books/edition/Народы_Сибири/nT_jAAAAMAAJ?hl=ru&gbpv=1&bsq=чуйские+зори&dq=чуйские+зори&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.ru/books/edition/Ėtnograficheskoe_obozrenie/hNwiAQAAMAAJ?hl=ru&gbpv=1&bsq=чуйские+зори&dq=чуйские+зори&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.ru/books/edition/Литература_о_Горном_А/Af4VAQAAMAAJ?hl=ru&gbpv=1&bsq=чуйские+зори&dq=чуйские+зори&printsec=frontcover) 185.66.30.204 (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources where you can find out if it been checked to see if it reliable or not. Note: Not all media outlets are listed here such as the one above you stated.

However, when in doubt, check to see what other sources say on the same topic. If information on the same topic is roughly the same, then it is possible that the information is accurate. If the information is different (such as numbers not within the same range), then it may or may not be reliable.

This is my opinion when it comes to dealing with reliable sources. Soafy234 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this newspaper is not on the list of reliable sources 185.66.30.204 (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Absence of presence on WP:RSN does not mean it is or is not reliable. It simply means the community has not discussed it before, as is common with non English language sources. And WP:Foreign sources are absolutely permitted. Do you have any reason to doubt the credibility of the source for the weighted claim? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Height information

Hi my son is a footballer and the height given on wiki is incorrect, how can this be changed as its having a detrimental affect on his career ? Thanks 155.190.60.28 (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Answered at the Help Desk. Please don't post in two places at once as this wastes volunteer time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Does not matter if he is your son and you therefor know how tall he is, the reference says 1.86 m so you cannot change it to 1.95 m without a reference. (Did he grow recently?!) David notMD (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

i made a user box

User:Charcoal Zenith/userboxes/BFDI can you add this to the appropriate userbox list please. btw i know that bfdi isn't on wikipedia but please dont delete this userbox Charcoal Zenith (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Charcoal Zenith There's no reason to delete it from your userbox page as it doesn't break any of our rules. I'm not sure it merits being added to WP:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical at this time, although there could be a case for creating a section there for YouTube channels. You could maybe raise this on the relevant talk page? But you rightly recognise this YouTube channel does not have an article about it, so that could well be a reason for keeping it off the more publicly available alphabetical list. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have my own list of userbox creations, but I don't recall putting them on some other list. Surprisingly, some of them have been used by others. I don't use any of them myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I can not open facebook on my pc why

I can not open facebook on my pc why 105.116.3.124 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP user. We only help stuff with Wikipedia, not Facebook. If possible, you could at least reach out to their help center? Meltdown reverter (mail) 18:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@User talk:Meltdown reverter I realize, of course that it changes nothing--that Wikipedia Teahouse, or Wikipedia in general, cannot help with Facebook problems. But I have to note: you suggested--you ACTUALLY suggested--reaching out to Facebook "help center"??? AH, HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA ... (Sorry, gotta catch my breath here.) Uporządnicki (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the helpfulness of Facebook's help center or whether you can use it if you cannot open Facebook. You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing but you should be much more clear about the problem, e.g. something like "I get this error message when I try to view this url in this browser on this computer in this country" (Facebook may be blocked in the country). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

2nd chance

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

---

I would like to come back as a good user, to show I have good intentions, and the disruption I did was only due to the desperate feeling of feeling rejected. What can I do? Please help. 78.210.91.91 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am guessing your registered account was indefinitely blocked. Your path back is to appeal that block. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you very much for your answer. I appealed the block via UTRS. However, it is some time now and it is still not been considered. Could you kindly review it? 78.210.91.91 (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not an Administrator. A few Admins visit Teahouse now and then, so if you identify your blocked account here, you may get action. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD My account is globally locked. Does this change anything? 37.161.205.250 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD Id you want to know, my account is "14 novembree" 78.210.91.91 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Visible anchors

Hello! I could use some help with anchors. On List of Harry Potter characters, the name "Bell, Katie" links to the visible anchor "Katie Bell" on the page Dumbledore's Army. I would like to make this happen for other names, such as Susan Bones. I created a visible anchor for Bones on Dumbledore's Army, but cannot figure out how to link to it from the "Bones, Susan" entry on List of Harry Potter characters. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflewombat: You might be asking about a piped link. This is what the Katie Bell link looks like: [[Katie Bell (Harry Potter)|Bell, Katie]]

See WP:PIPED RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This is different from a normal piped link. Something else is going on here that I can't figure out. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflewombat: It's a normal piped link: [[Katie Bell (Harry Potter)|Bell, Katie]]. The target article Katie Bell (Harry Potter) is a redirect to Dumbledore's Army#Katie Bell.

As the article Susan Bones is a similar redirect, you can achieve your link using the same method: [[Susan Bones|Bones, Susan]]. Bazza 7 (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what happens when you click on the Susan Bones link? For me, it takes me to the Members header on the DA page, instead of directly to the Susan Bones anchor. In contrast, the Katie Bell link takes me directly to the Katie Bell anchor on the DA page. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That is because the redirect Susan Bones points to Dumbledore's Army#Members and not to Dumbledore's Army#Susan Bones. ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thanks for spotting what is now obvious but wasn't yesterday.

@Wafflewombat: I have updated Susan Bones to point to Dumbledore's Army#Susan Bones. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

olmypic = olympic ?

When because of the processes of WP this is all you can provide others what should more advanced editors get upset about the effort to improve articles? This is a question with loads of implications about the various communities in WP. Is there a place for this discussion in WP. If so where. And let's not get out of hand about the point about registered users and those who remain editing with an IP.2603:8000:D300:3650:C896:8524:E457:4714 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just as @Walsh90210 stated on your talk page, what you're saying is difficult for us to understand. Please clarify what you're trying to ask so we can help. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

CommissarDoggo, first I thought that this had been spewed out by a 40-year commemorative Mark V. Shaney, but I realize now that it's an "insert the punctuation" puzzle: "When, because of the processes of WP, this is all you can provide others, what should more advanced editors get upset about -- the effort to improve articles?" I still don't follow the whole thing, but in the meantime I'll try not to let my points get out of hand. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It apparently started with a confused edit request only saying "olmypic = olympic" at Talk:2024 Summer Olympics#Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024. The article doesn't say "olmypic" now and didn't at the time of the request unless it was transcluded from another page which has since been fixed. The IP apparently never saw the alleged error in the article but in an unspecified search somewhere. Now the IP appears upset that the non-existing error wasn't explained in the reply which asked for clarification. If you think an article has a problem then make sure the article actually has the problem when you make an edit request, and state the request clearly like "change olmypic to olympic", if the page actually did say "olmypic". If you only saw it in a search then say which search and where you made it. A search of "olmypic" in all English Wikipedia articles currently gives no result. I see no problem in the used Wikipedia process here and no reason to start a wider discussion about the process. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding the situation is understood and the resulting assumptions well expected. Your apology is accepted. There was at one time very recently that a search on "olmypic" would have shown there being at least four articles having it, a chart or template that. A usual search at edit level would not reveal it. Attention was called to it and most but not all instances were fixed when the person who had that capability did so. The person that fixed most of the situation evidently did not return to WP in time to finish the string of requests but another editor seemed to take offense to being brought to a situation like i wasted their time, that they did not look into further except to bring into the situation vandalism accusations. That has to be the most irritating trait found with so many editors especially toward IP editors. Their curiosity could not be satisfied in mere seconds so they jumped. Evidently WP if you correct the appropriate source will auto correct all the others without proper documentation in that particular article history. I dont know because i am not as invested in the technicalities of WP as others. All that needed to be done by anyone questioning an error request is to review the history and if the system does not acurately reflect the history that is out of my hands and quite frankly not my problem because normally when something goes amiss, I receive totally unnecessary abuse probably because i am an IP editor. The histories will show that someone spend more seconds reviewing the history and you want me to believe that your word overrides mine concerning the facts. Okay, from my view point there are those that are in this to rack up edits, vast quantities of reverts and spend mere seconds on it. You can feel this by their expression and automatic template warnings. The mere inkling of vandalism brigs this forth. Maybe paying attention is different than jumping on the wrong assumptions cause by previous editing battle scars with people who use IP's. Thats an issue you get to resolve. So as bold as i may be having just said that I do not appreciate being called a liar and a vandal maybe we can all cool down and whoever has the capability look into why, if it did occur something imported into an article such as a chart or template that contains an error will be auto corrected if the origin is corrected and not be reflected in the history. Just to stop the abuse at this point I know there will be those that cannot help themselves and say, "If only they had ......" You want me to bring to your attention what appears is a technical glitch in the system when there are others with far more time invested in WP than me to not have previously encountered it? I could always fall back on it being recognized as a perceived act of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:D300:3650:1CAD:4D01:BB0:C1B1 (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I did some non-trivial tracking and finally found the old error which was in a transcluded part of another article and fixed in [3]. The fix was a few minutes after your original edit request but before somebody else asked for clarification, which was perfectly reasonable to do when the request was vague and the error wasn't there anymore. Instead of clarifying, you reverted the request for clarification twice and reactivated the vague edit request, both times when the error was not in the article. Search updates are sometimes delayed. There is no way to tell whether a Wikipedia search would have reported the error at the time of the reverts. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The request was not vague if others completed it. End of point. Move on.2603:8000:D300:3650:1CAD:4D01:BB0:C1B1 (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

AWB problem

I tried using AWB but it keeps loading a permission error that reads along the lines of "this user does not have enough privileges to make semi-automated edits"? What does that mean? My name is on the check page and last time I check I have more than enough privileges to make such changes. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wolverine XI. It's a general error at the moment. See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#AWB Permission error. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It worked for me to update AWB as suggested there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Should I create an article for Colin Puetz?

Colin Puetz does have a German article dedicated to him but there's no English Wiki Article dedicated to him. I'm confused about whether I should create an article about him.

Draft:Colin Pütz - Wikipedia Oleeveeya (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oleeveeya, if a subject merits an article in the Wikipedia of one language, this doesn't mean that the subject also merits an article in the Wikipedia of another language. This proposed subject is a living person (and a minor to boot), so you'd have to back up every assertion about him with a reliable source. Can you do that? -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I can do that! But can I use the sources (most of which are in German) used in the German article about him, alongside the sources that I've found out by researching? If yes, then I can certainly do it! Oleeveeya (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If a source is reliable, it doesn't matter at all that it's in German (or Spanish, French, Finnish or whatever). Of course some websites are bilingual, and you may find that in addition to the German-language page cited in the German-language article there is an English-language page; if so, please cite the English-language page. Good luck with the draft! -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary, but I want to put a bit more stress on the quality of the sources. Yes, sources in other languages are quite acceptable, but they must still meet the triple criteria of being reliable, independent of the subject, and having significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42).

Most of the sources in de:Colin Pütz are inaccessible to me (they give 404 errors), but looking at the citations, I suspect that most of them are either not independent of Pütz, or do not contain significant coverage of him. I may be wrong, but I urge you to look at them critically in this way.

If you cannot find at least three sources which meet all those three criteria, then you will be unable to establish that he is notable according to English Wikipedia's criteria, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the article in DE too...one source that could have been useful, the one from the Kölner Stadtanzeiger, is 404ed. The one from the General Anzeiger Bonn, ist just a passing mention. The rest are mostly about the subject of the article playing a young Beethoven in a tv/film production. None of the sources available would help in establishing notability in the way English Wikipedia sees it. But let me invite you over to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English: we have some lovely translations from German waiting to be checked :). Lectonar (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, in that case I'll keep finding sources that'll hopefully help in establishing notability. In the mean time, I'll check those translations from German! :) Oleeveeya (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Could someone continue to write and publish an article based on my draft?

I have started a small draft for a future article by Matías Díaz Padrón, the respected art historian. I don't want to upload an article that doesn't comply with the rules, and I can't make progress. TruPiGo (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it from User talk:TruPiGo to User:TruPiGo/Sandbox. Probably not. There are many problems with this. By contrast, Edward Lucie-Smith is a tolerably good article (not a very good one) about an art historian. Notice how the important part is written in paragraphs, which contain sentences, each of which has a subject and a predicate. By contrast, the lead of your draft doesn't have a single sentence. (Also, I'm amazed that such a high percentage of this man's works have titles in English.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

More urgently, TruPiGo, you can't simply upload a file to Commons and say that it's by a friend. The friend (the artist) is the only person who can copyleft it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. TruPiGo (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The answer to your initial question is, yes, in principle, but not necessarily in practice. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and many people typically work on an article. When a draft is in your own sandbox, others will not normally touch it unless you invite them to; if you move it to draft space, say Draft:Matías Díaz Padrón (which is red because that draft does not currently exist), then people other than you might be more inclined to work on it. But (apart from this discussion) almost nobody would know it existed, and so again it would depend on you inviting people to work on it.

You can invite people, but will they come? You haven't given any reason why anybody should want to spend their voluntary time working on this subject. Perhaps somebody reading this will get interested and go and research him; but more likely not.

On a more general topic, editors who try to create a new article before they have spent much time learning about Wikipedia's requirements often have a miserable and frustrating experience. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For the Publications list, I recommend reducing this to no more than ten, and including references, i.e., the journal publication information, for each. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works

Hello, any useful pages about how generally wikipedia works? i.e. 5 pillars, notability, etc. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Try Help:Introduction, and then put the phrases you've already mentioned after "WP:" in your search, eg WP:5 pillars. ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does every perm have to require 500 edits? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You have had an account since 2021 and have made more than 1,000 edits. Any reason you are asking beginner-type questions? David notMD (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

ar.wikipedia.org - breach of Wikipedia standards

All the articles in ar.wikipedia.org (Arabic wikipedia) are at present headed by a banner talking of genocide in Gaza, alleging targeting of hospitals and schools etc. How does one report this propagandizing and gross breach of 'neutral point of view' to the Wikimedia Foundation?

Smerus (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smerus Please see https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/ Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smerus Some prior discussion at m:Requests_for_comment/Violating_the_Neutral_point_of_view_in_Arabic_Wiki Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smerus: an established user like you should not be using the Teahouse for complaining about things that have literally nothing to do with English Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Editing and correcting company Wikipedia entry

Hello everyone,

I am *brand new* at Wikipedia and I would like to ensure our company's Wiki page is completely up to date and accurate. I realise that making direct edits is strongly discouraged and I am keen to ensure that we comply with applicable policies relating to transparency. I'd like to disclose that I did make some small edits (correct the name of the CEO, number of offices, current Board of Directors etc). Could I please ask for a kind volunteer to independently verify these?

9 August 2024

• curprev 12:17, ‎ AlexWalsterNVGS talk contribs‎  37,693 bytes −1,985‎  →‎Merger with Ultragas ApS (2021 onwards): Removed this section and will instead submit an edit request. undo Tag: Visual edit

8 August 2024

• curprev 07:45, 8 August 2024‎ AlexWalsterNVGS talk contribs‎  39,678 bytes +1,990‎  Added a section about the merger with UltraGas ApS. Changed office locations to 5. undo Tag: Visual edit

31 July 2024

• curprev 15:34, 31 July 2024‎ AlexWalsterNVGS talk contribs‎  37,688 bytes +38‎  Updated the Infobox with correct Executive Officers, added the address of the head office undo Tags: Visual edit Disambiguation links added

AlexWalsterNVGS (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Kudos for declaring your paid connection to Navigator Gas on your User page, and also for submitting a referenced change request on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Is NewsReports a reliable source to use for Wikipedia

I need help with my first Articles for Creation draft about Bendy in Nightmare Run and i'm having trouble finding a 3rd reliable critic's review to meet WP:GNG. So far i have pinpointed to 1 "reliable source" but i'm not sure if it really is.

The draft has only 2 reliable critic reviews and the 3rd one was a bad Common Sense Media review. I spoke with my reviewer and they did say TheGWW doesn't seem reliable. I've concluded that Dreager1 also doesn't seem like a reliable source. OliDaHoli (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OliDaHoli, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Reliable sources noticeboard is a better place for asking about the reliability of specific sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

VPN safety?

Probably know the answer but wanted to ask anyways. I just realised that there's free WiFi at my dorms. It's fast and free and made me decide to end my costly mobile internet plan at end of month and just rely on the college dorm's free wifi. But I always use VPN when using public WiFi for safety reasons. But I noticed that VPN IP addresses are blocked on Wikipedia. Is there any possible way to edit with a VPN, or just impossible and should forget about it? It's a shame because I want to edit Wikipedia via the free WiFi but also prefer safety. Sorry if this is a stupid question. 49.180.211.104 (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you can request IP block exemption by emailing checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org, but you will need an account for that. C F A 💬 15:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow. So it's actually possible? Ok, I will try them then. Thanks and cheers! 49.180.211.104 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll add something that may not be immediately obvious: registering an account here can give you more anonymity and privacy than editing without an account, because you can decide how much or how little you include in your username and profile, and your IP address will not be exposed to all and sundry. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How can I make this better?

I am trying to write a page a Chris Hemsworths fitness company but i keep getting told it sounds like a promotion. can some help on how i can improve it to sound more information? User:Dmo143/sandbox Dmo143 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dmo143, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like many new editors, you have taken on the noticeably challenging task of trying to create a new article without having spent time learning about Wikipedia's requirements. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

Specifically, you have written an article that says what Hemsworth and his company want people to know about them. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Few, if any, of your sources meet the triple requirement of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). Unless you can find some sources which do, Centr does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should not spend any more time on it.

If you can find sources, then the next step is to forget everything you personally know about the company, and write a summary of what those independent sources say. That is unlikely to be promotional. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to add that there is a roblox game made after brookhaven georgia and is very popular millions of players but it got reverted

can anyone do a more constructive version of mine so it can get added. thank you or give me tips on how to get it constrictive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookhaven,_Georgia2A02:1210:8601:5C00:D1DC:6443:BACE:EFD1 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

please HELP 2A02:1210:8601:5C00:D1DC:6443:BACE:EFD1 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

When you add information to an article, you need to include a source. Check out WP:REFB for how to cite your source. RudolfRed (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much. 2A02:1210:8601:5C00:D1DC:6443:BACE:EFD1 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Something went wrong.

I was editing The Californias if it were to becomes its own country and this message popped up:

An automated filter has identified this edit as attempting to cite Wikipedia as a source. Please be aware that Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reliable source, as that would be a circular reference. If you are confident that your change is appropriate, please click 'Publish changes' again. If you were not adding a reference to Wikipedia, please report this error.

If The Californias were to become its own country, it would rank 36th as most populous country. It would be ranked in terms of nominal GDP as the world's fifth largest economy, behind Japan and ahead of India with $3.937 trillion GDP. The Californias as its own nation would be ranked 49th largest by land area in the world, with a size of 219,819 square miles. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

it got instantly fixed can you help me with mine the fix said: An automated filter has identified this edit as attempting to cite Wikipedia as a source. Please be aware that Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reliable source, as that would be a circular reference. If you are confident that your change is appropriate, please click 'Publish changes' again. If you were not adding a reference to Wikipedia, please report this error. 2A02:1210:8601:5C00:D1DC:6443:BACE:EFD1 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, the problem here is exactly as the edit filter describes: you're trying to use wikipedia as a source. Don't do that. If you want to cite another Wikipedia article, instead go to that article, find the information you want to cite, and look for the citation that article uses. You can use that one instead (once you've checked to make sure that it does actually verify the fact.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your first reference is an attempt to cite the Wikipedia article List of countries by population (United Nations). That is not permitted. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I was trying to link to the articles. I can see the problem, because I was trying to link, but cite it by accident. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It happens! Don't worry about it. If you're using visual editor (not the source code one), just highlight the text you want to have the link on it, then click the chain icon. You can then type in the name of the article you want to link to. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I could do it like this.

If The Californias were to become its own country, it would rank 36th as most populous country. It would be ranked in terms of nominal GDP as the world's fifth largest economy, behind Japan and ahead of India with $3.937 trillion GDP. The Californias as its own nation would be ranked 49th largest by land area in the world, with a size of 219,819 square miles. without citing to its own wikipedia page. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's all great - but do please also provide a citation for this information. Go ahead and borrow one from the pages you're linking to, like I suggested, and that will be fine. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If The Californias were to become its own country, it would rank 36th as most populous country. It would be ranked in terms of nominal GDP as the world's fifth largest economy, behind Japan and ahead of India with $3.937 trillion GDP. The Californias as its own nation would be ranked 49th largest by land area in the world, with a size of 219,819 square miles. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the Californias page with my sources. It would be cool if some people made it in the cartoon as California Republic combining California, Baja California and Baja California Sur.

Even then, I learned NOT to sources Wikipedia articles. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we use Instagram as sources if it quoted.  174.135.36.220 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Usually no - since almost all Instagram accounts wouldn't be a reliable source. Sometimes an Instagram post is reliable enough for your purposes (eg, you want to say "the president's Instagram account said blah blah"), but if you can get something else, you should try to do that, since Instagram posts can be removed or locked at any time. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Can IMDB be used as a source?

I'm currently working on an article for a voice actor, but it seems like IMDB is the only source for the actor. Teamsonic2011 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Teamsonic. With rare exceptions, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Please read WP:IMDB for an explanation. If IMDb is the only source you can find, I suggest that you select another topic. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Teamsonic2011. I’ve used IMDb as a place to start researching. If, for example, IMDb says Andy Actor worked as a voice actor in Adventure Movie IV, you can do online searches for “Andy Actor in Adventure Movie IV” and see if you can find a review, or some interview, published by a reliable source, that mentions he worked on the movie. Best wished on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Should someone be alerted?

Someone on “(redacted)” needs possibly life threatening help. See the description of this edit of user 187.190.19.240. Do we need to report this or alert someone?109.38.138.23 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For future reference please use WP:EMERGENCY. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I have notified them and suppressed the edit. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been oversighted(stronger than what I can do) 331dot (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oke thanks, I didn’t know that. If better for privacy reasons, you might also remove the address from my edit? 109.38.138.23 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

ahh is already done, thanks 109.38.138.23 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

My draft got rejected

Dear all experts, kindly please help me creating articles that won't get rejected here. I am sharing two links of the drafts I have recently republished. However, I look forward to receiving your expert advices and feedback if there is still something lacking in these articles please and I will really appreciate if you could help in editing the pages for landing to the main space. Here are the links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hilary_DeCesare?redirect=no and Draft:Russell Dalgleish Sehar Awais (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sehar Awais, the first thing to do is ask the reviewer why they rejected your article. Qcne, it was a while ago, do you remember why you did that? Personally, I wouldn't have rejected that one outright, but this is the first time I'm seeing it and maybe Qcne has some knowledge I don't in this regard. For both articles, you need some more reliable, independent sources to show that they are notable. Have a look at WP:N for more in-depth explanation of notability. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sir I have seen some citations on randon stub articles in the mainspace and some of them also have used references which if I am using,are considered unreliable. Is there some mistake I am doing in the way of citing a link? Sehar Awais (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Also there are some articles in which they accept references to amazon and goodreeds but if i do it, they say tiu can't... Am I being marginalized? Sehar Awais (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If you see any articles that use those as references, please edit the article and add copy-paste {{Unreliable sources}} at the top. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you the same person as @Abeeha Awais? That editor asked about Draft:Russell Dalgleish just yesterday at WP:AFCHD. ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is my sister. She tried working on it too but couldn't get anywhere Sehar Awais (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Refs to Amazon and GoodReads are not acceptable. Their existance in other articles is wrong. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How to courses

Hi all. I was active on here about 7 years ago. Back then I found a course on here that taught you how to do everything on wikipedia. Id like to do that again. Thank you Jo Mercurio 567Eights (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @567Eights, I think you might mean WP:TWA? -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 567Eights (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@567Eights: Check out WP:TUTORIAL. RudolfRed (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Queen Of Psalm 45

What sources are reliable in this version to know? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_of_Psalm_45&oldid=1238705608 English Mary (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That depends on what you are using the sources for. Many of them are primary sources, which Wikipedia tries to avoid in favor of secondary scholarship, but some may be useful to document the opinions of the authors or the official teaching of a given denomination. There are also lots of other problems with this text, including POV issues and level of detail, which are why I dropped a lot of it when merging into Psalm 45.

If there are important facts with reliable sources, we can add them into Psalm 45, but keeping one article means we don't have to explain the context twice. This obviates the need for the "Narrative" section in the old version you linked.

To take just one section, for example, I'm not sure what "In the vision of Saint John" even means when it says "Some claim that Saint John saw the event of the Assumption in Psalm 45." I don't think The Catholic Defender Blog is a reliable source for the official views of the Catholic Church, and I'm not sure this unclear connection being made by one random person is notable enough for an encyclopedia. -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Handling bare URLs

Hi, I have been correcting bare URLs from the backlog using ReFill tool and manual correction. There are pages where the bare URLs are dead (404 or Server Error) and are not present on Web Archive as well. I haven't updated such links. But What should be done in such cases? Shouldn't one remove those and replace them with a template since the actual URL is inaccessible now? Waonderer (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Waonderer: No, don't delete it. See WP:KDL. Use the {{deadlink}} template as shown there. RudolfRed (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't deleted any such links so far. Just that, the presence of makes them appear in the Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations despite having checked them previously. Does adding remove the links from the bare URLs backlog? or will they still appear? Waonderer (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Waonderer the categories are populated by the presence of the templates, so using {{Dead link}} populates Category:Articles with dead external links. Assuming you remove the {{Bare URL}} tag and there are no others in the article, then it will be removed from that category. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we use social media like Twitter, Instagrams, etc. if it sourced by quoting?

Can we use Instagram as sources if it quoted? 

Like let say "My reason for Medicare for All support is that it can saves dollars, people don't get denied having healthcare and that waiting times get less" quoted by Senator James Goldman on Instagram.  174.135.36.220 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

I would look into {{Cite Instagram}}, it has been used for quotations before! (See an example from Hall and Oates)

Be careful in the future as citing Instagram is not generally accepted. For future consideration, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, WP:SOCIALMEDIA, and WP:INSTAGRAM provide more information on reliable sources and use of social media in citations. Citing Insta for a quotation should be fine.

Be careful that your quote is also appropriate in the context of your article! I'm not familiar with the Manual of Style and guidelines for articles about political figures but I'm sure you can find some information at WikiProject Politics.

Happy Editing, Wandering Ponderer (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The answer is generally yes as long as it is attributed properly and it is their official account, but secondary sources are always preferred. C F A 💬 03:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I got one: I was editing Jovanka Beckles for her politician positions. I was thinking that her quotes about her support about Medicare for All and her endorsement from Union of Healthcare Workers. is this fine?

"Our current healthcare system has placed corporate profit over people, both patients and workers, time and time again.

Honored to receive the endorsement of National Union of Healthcare Workers and join them in the fight for higher wages, safer staffing levels, and single-payer healthcare! #TogetherWeWin" 174.135.36.220 (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it is properly attributed in-text (e.g. "Beckles posted a statement on Instagram") as a quote from Instagram. C F A 💬 04:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Now I have finished editing. 

Here is the comparison: Jovanka Beckles: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia 174.135.36.220 (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy language is WP:ABOUTSELF, which is precise about what is permitted and what isn't. It says that self-published content like tweets and Facebook posts are OK as long as The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; It does not involve claims about third parties; It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and The article is not based primarily on such sources. So, it is problematic for her own thoughts about healthcare policy, since that statement is self-serving in the context of her campaign, and unacceptable regarding the National Union of Healthcare Workers, because they are third parties. Vastly better would be an independent newspaper report analyzing her health care stance and reporting on the union endorsement. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Assistance in Creating/Updating Author and TV Show Creator Page

Hello Wikipedia Community,

I am seeking assistance in creating or updating a Wikipedia page for myself as an author and creator of children’s TV shows. I have published three books and produced several TV shows for kids. Here are some details about my work:

Books Published (albanian language): “Mëngjeset janë parajsa“ (poezi, 2018) - "Heaven is another morning" (poetry, 2018) „Qyteti Qiellzi“ (prozë poetike, 2020) - "Black Sky City" (poetic prose, sci-fi, 2020) „Qielli i shpirtit“ (poemë, 2021) - "Sky of the soul" (poem, sci-fi, 2021)

TV Shows for Kids: I've been working for 12 years in MRT (Macedonian Radio Television) which is a public broadcasting organisation and there I have worked as an author and presenter. These are my original titles:

„Eja në përrallën tonë“ (2015-2018) - "Come to our fairytale" (2015-2018) „Zbavitemi dhe zbulojmë“ (2019) - "Having fun and uncovering) (2019) „Pirati mjekërrzi“ (2020) - "The Black beard pirate" „Arushi dhe Bretkosa“ (2020) - "The Bear and the Frog" (2020) - Tv puppet like show „E drejtë apo e gabuar“ (2021 – 2022) - "Right or wrong" (2021 - 2022) „Bota e përrallave“ (2023) - " The world of fairytales" (2023)

I was granted achievement award for the show "The Bear and the Frog" by AJM (Association of Journalists of Macedonia), UNDP and Swiss Embassy for Educational and Creative approach for raising awareness in children regarding the environment. Some of my shows are accessible in the following YouTube Page: UC36A3Uy9VCn37qqhV4bh_MQ

Animated illustration:

I worked with the following artists - Antonio Arangelovic (illustrator), Marina Avramovic (editor) and Adem Karaga (actor) and produced an animated ilustration by visualising the first chapter of my book "A dying world". You can see this in the next link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LR9q8EhqRs&t=1s

Media Coverage: MRT (Maceodnian Radio Television) interviewed both of my books which can be found in the following links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oltm8DhzL1M&t=617s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL4yImvpq2A

I understand the importance of neutrality and verifiability on Wikipedia and would appreciate the community’s help in ensuring that the page meets all guidelines and standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Asdren Çeliku Asdrenceliku (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asdrenceliku, we typically discourage people from writing autobiographies on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:AUTOBIO for more information. Usually, when people want to write autobiographies, they don't actually meet our notability guidelines, and it's a waste of their time to try. It looks like you might actually be eligible for a wikipedia article, though. You may have some luck on Albanian or Macedonian Wikipedia; I don't know anything about them, so that's all I can say there. Are there articles about you and your books/shows in newspaper articles that are available online? That's what most English Wikipedia editors would be looking for. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asdrenceliku, we can do something in Albanian, but give us some time. I'll also point this to Macedonian Wikipedians. Arianit (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have just answered the same question on the Help Desk. Please do not post the some question in several places: it just wastes volunteers' time. ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Indexing and patrolling (way to nominate article for patrol?)

I recently moved the article "Kikuo" to the mainspace, and I know there are several pages in need of patrolling by the new pages patrol, but I was still wondering if there was a way to nominate it for patrol sooner so that it can be indexed by search engines. I understand that articles older than 90 days are indexed, but the article's subject is currently on tour and it would be more helpful if it were indexed sooner rather than later. No biggie if this is not possible, I was just wondering <3 Wandering Ponderer (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wandering Ponderer: I've marked it as reviewed because I see notability, but I will note that a lot of the listed sources are unreliable (YouTube, Genius, Tumblr, Twitter, Spotify), which is something you may want to work on. I've tagged it as such for now. C F A 💬 04:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wandering Ponderer, I noticed that you wrote the article's subject is currently on tour and it would be more helpful if it were indexed sooner rather than later. Please be aware that being "more helpful" to a performers current tour is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which explicitly forbids any advertising, marketing or public relations activity. Our purpose is to neutrally summarize notable topics, not to help performers or actors or artists or entrepreneurs or politicians or dentists or surgeons along on their careers. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had no intention of advertising him or his tour. In fact, the article's 'tour' section is the shortest on the page! I genuinely thought that the English-speaking public (be it tour-goers or whoever) might benefit from encyclopedic information about him given that he's a Japanese artist with little English coverage. Nevertheless, I will definitely ensure that the writing is neutral and purely informative. Thank you for the advice! :) <3 Wandering Ponderer (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will address those sources ASAP, thanks for the heads up and the review! <3 I'm still learning all the Wikipedia etiquette, so the advice is greatly appreciated :D Wandering Ponderer (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

possible out of date text/image on the citation needed info page

I wanted to insert "citation needed" for the first time, and I went to the citation needed information page to learn how to do it. That page says "You can add a citation by selecting from the drop-down menu at the top of the editing box," with an image of a "cite" drop-down menu. However, I don't see a "cite" drop-down menu when I edit; instead, I had to poke around and discover that if I used the "+" drop-down menu, chose "template," and then filled in "citation needed," that would enable me to add "citation needed." Am I supposed to be able to see a "cite" menu, or has that been replaced by the "+" menu? If the latter, it would be good to update the info page. I wanted to check here first to see whether others see a "cite" menu and also find out who I should ask to make the change. Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion, it sounds like you're getting confused between adding a citation and adding the "citation needed" template. You use the cite button to add the citation, not the template. In any case, there should be a "cite" button on your editor, whether you're using Visual Editor or the source code editor, so I'm not sure what the problem is for you there. I just checked and I can see it on both editors myself. -- asilvering (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right; I misinterpreted what I read. It was the Citation Needed info page, and I wasn't expecting to read about adding citations, so I misinterpreted that sentence as if it were talking about adding "citation needed" instead of adding a citation. My mistake. That said, when editing I see a citation button with a quotation marks image, not a citation drop-down menu with a "cite" image, so that sentence and the accompanying image on that page are still out of date.

Also, it would help if the info page explained how to accomplish this when using the visual editor in addition to showing what's involved when using the source editor. Thanks again. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, FactOrOpinion. Most information pages can be edited by anybody, so if you see something that can be improved on one, you're welcome to improve it. (Of course, just like everywhere else, somebody may not agree with your improvement, and then you can have a discussion. WP:BRD applies here as well). ColinFine (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

ColinFine, thanks, I was hesitant to modify an info page. But if I'm going to do that, where do I find an image of the quotation marks button to replace the current "cite" drop-down menu image? Also, I'm not sure if the way that I introduced a "citation needed" tag using the visual editor (i.e., by clicking on the "+" drop-down menu, choosing "Template," writing "Citation needed" in the Find template box, and then clicking on the top response) is the most efficient way of adding this template using the visual editor. Is there a more efficient way? If my description is the way to do it, then I'd also need to find an image of the "+" drop-down to add, and perhaps also an image of the template icon and a search box. Thanks for your help. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, FactOrOpinion. I have no idea of the answers to these questions. Every page has an associated talk page, where people who are interested in the contents of that page tend to hang out. Perhaps you would get an answer if you posted there. ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that, though if someone else happens to read this exchange and knows the answers, I'd welcome them! Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion, I find Visual Editor really annoying for adding templates in general, but there's a bit of a shortcut if you type {{ (make sure you have the cursor where you want the template to appear in the text when you do this). That brings up the template window immediately. For the image, you'd have to make one yourself with a screenshot. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, thank you. I'm not as used to using the source editor, though I'll sometimes use it or simply open it to view someone else's edit, in order to see how that person accomplished something I want to learn. I'll think about taking a screenshot and learning to upload an image. I'm going to wait a bit, to see if I get any response on the Citation needed Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can edit the draft

IP Editor was not able to, or not willing to, ask a coherent question. No useful discussion was happening. (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed by DandelionAndBurdock. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Tropical Storm Maria (2024) was declined by @CFA the draft has copy Rules 1. talk page 2024 Pacific typhoon season 2. link current revision [4] 3. edit and fix [5] 122.52.68.94 (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Is this a question, a request, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024)&action=edit this is a question @Hoary add Preparations and See also on the Contents edit it This section needs expansion. You can help by Japan. and See also 122.52.68.94 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Questions typically take the form of "How can I...?", "Where is the...?", "What does... do?" or similar. If you're not going to make it clear what you're asking then it's not going to be possible for anyone to help you. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC) How can edit draft? @DandelionAndBurdock Find reliable sources Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024) on JTWC. edit ok? in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject References 122.52.68.94 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC) You've clearly already found the edit button, what else do you need to know? -- D'n'B-t -- 07:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC) OP in the Philippines, to the (very limited) degree that I understand your edits, they seem to be attempts at running updates on the weather. One thing you need to know is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news service. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC) @Hoary hello hurricanes and typhoons draft:Tropical Storm Maria (2024) was declined by User:CFA so Japan and See also selections edited? 122.52.68.94 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Here in Japan it is now 10 August 2024. The draft (about a storm in 2024) says "Weak rainfall hiting [sic] Japan on August 12", with a "citation needed" flag. Are you asking somebody here to provide a reference for a future event? -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC) @Hoary * Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and [6] add to fix it? 122.52.68.94 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Copy-pasting the notices at the top of the article isn't communicating anything. Just say in your own words what it is that you want. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC) edit to provide a references? the event edits can help you @DandelionAndBurdock links: Japan. and See also 122.52.68.94 (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Vote Not helpful Vote all users edit or not edit Closed on Aug 20. edit the draft named draft:Tropical Storm Maria (2024) 122.52.68.94 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Example: Edit ~~~~ Not Edit ~~~~ Vote the Draft Edit Draft has ok edit? 122.52.68.94 (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC) There is nothing to be voted on, there is no decision to be made, you haven't asked a coherent question. If you explain what it is that you want, then we may try to help. If you're not going to do so, then there's nothing we can do to help. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Anime Legends: The Timeless Icons of Japanese Animation

Lengthy blocks of content do not belong at the Teahouse, which is instead a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia

Anime has evolved from a niche hobby to a global cultural phenomenon, captivating audiences with its unique blend of art, storytelling, and emotion. Among the myriad of series and films produced over the decades, a select few have risen above the rest to become true legends of the medium. These anime not only shaped the industry but also left an indelible mark on pop culture worldwide. Let's take a look at some of these iconic anime legends that have stood the test of time. 1. Dragon Ball Z (1989-1996) Creator: Akira Toriyama Few anime have achieved the global reach and influence of Dragon Ball Z. This series brought the concept of epic battles, power levels, and larger-than-life heroes to the forefront of anime culture. Goku, Vegeta, and the Z Fighters' battles against powerful foes like Frieza and Cell have become legendary, inspiring countless adaptations, video games, and merchandise. Dragon Ball Z not only set the standard for shonen anime but also introduced many Western audiences to the world of anime. 2. Naruto (2002-2017) Creator: Masashi Kishimoto Naruto tells the story of a young ninja, Naruto Uzumaki, who dreams of becoming the Hokage, the leader of his village. The series explores themes of friendship, perseverance, and the struggle to overcome personal hardships. Naruto became a cultural phenomenon, with its deep lore, memorable characters, and iconic battles making it a staple in the shonen genre. The sequel series, Naruto Shippuden, continued the legacy, further solidifying its status as an anime legend. 3. Sailor Moon (1992-1997) Creator: Naoko Takeuchi As one of the most influential magical girl series, Sailor Moon revolutionized the genre with its strong female protagonists, engaging storylines, and a perfect blend of action and romance. Usagi Tsukino, aka Sailor Moon, along with her fellow Sailor Guardians, have become cultural icons. The series' impact on both anime and global pop culture is undeniable, inspiring generations of fans and setting the stage for future magical girl series. 4. Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995-1996) Creator: Hideaki Anno Neon Genesis Evangelion is not just an anime series; it's a cultural milestone. With its complex narrative, deep psychological themes, and groundbreaking animation, Evangelion pushed the boundaries of what anime could achieve. The story of Shinji Ikari and the battle against the mysterious Angels is layered with symbolism and existential questions, making it a series that fans and scholars continue to analyze to this day. 5. One Piece (1999-Present) Creator: Eiichiro Oda One Piece is not just one of the longest-running anime series, but it's also one of the most beloved. Following the adventures of Monkey D. Luffy and his crew as they search for the ultimate treasure, the "One Piece," this series has captivated audiences with its rich world-building, diverse characters, and epic story arcs. With over 1,000 episodes and counting, One Piece shows no signs of slowing down, continuing to be a pillar of the anime industry. 6. My Neighbor Totoro (1988) Diretor: Hayao Miyazaki While not a series, My Neighbor Totoro is a film that holds a legendary status in the world of anime. Directed by the legendary Hayao Miyazaki, this Studio Ghibli masterpiece is a heartwarming tale of two sisters who encounter magical creatures in the countryside. Totoro, the film's titular character, has become a beloved symbol of childhood wonder and imagination, making the film a timeless classic. 7. Attack on Titan (2013-2023) Creator: Hajime Isayama Attack on Titan took the anime world by storm with its intense action, intricate plot, and shocking twists. Set in a world where humanity is on the brink of extinction due to giant humanoid creatures known as Titans, the series explores themes of freedom, sacrifice, and the human condition. Its gripping story and unforgettable characters have earned it a place among the greatest anime of all time. Conclusion Anime legends are more than just successful series; they are cultural milestones that define generations and influence the future of the medium. These anime have transcended the screen to become integral parts of global pop culture, inspiring countless fans and creators alike. As anime continues to evolve, these legends will remain as timeless examples of the power of storytelling and artistic expression. Aneesh Ishaq (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Mere flatus. Example: Let's take a look at some of these iconic anime legends that have stood the test of time. As opposed to timeless anime icons that have become legendary, legendary anime timelessness that has become iconic, et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as citation

There is an article using wikipedia article as citation. As far as i know it's not accepted per Wikipedia's term. see: 2007 in esports.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 07:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Removed -- D'n'B-t -- 08:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Thanks–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Page creation

My article wasn't approved because submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Bamidele Collins (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Your article doesn't relate with Wikipedia policy. see more: WP:MOS.----kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 07:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

(e/c) That is correct. Do you have a question? You have been supplied withh helpful links on your talk page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Need help adding citations from Japanese Wikipedia

For a fatal 1991 accident in constructing a train line in Hiroshima, Japan (Astram Line). I found an international source from LA News, but an article from Japan gives another perspective and may mention the station name, which the US source didn't.

So, I might need help adding citations properly from the Astram Line page of JP Wikipedia. There was even an article detailing the accident. I can't get the hang of translating the Japanese citation accurately, even knowing |translated-title, |script-title, etc.

The reference I wanted to move to English Wikipedia looks like this

曽根悟（監修） 著、朝日新聞出版分冊百科編集部 編『週刊 歴史でめぐる鉄道全路線 公営鉄道・私鉄』 30号 モノレール・新交通システム・鋼索鉄道、朝日新聞出版〈週刊朝日百科〉、2011年10月16日、25頁 RFNirmala (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you know Japanese? if yes then please translate japanese text.

–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 08:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

RFNirmala, am I right in inferring that (even via Google Translate or similar) you haven't read the source you hope to cite? If indeed you haven't, you're trusting that ja:Wikipedia article to be a reliable source for what the cited (Shūkan Asahi) source says. But Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. (i don't know Japanese, and using Google Translate might do a wrong in translating) The source seemed uncontested in JP Wikipedia. Still, I can just leave the article as is, and let the citation stay on JP Wikipedia. Where's a more appropriate place to have edit requests like these? RFNirmala (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

RFNirmala, if you want to use the same references as japanese wiki, it's ok, if that reference is in japanese language then use another parameter |language=jp at {{cite web}}.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 08:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How to add a reference with a PDF

Hello everyone,

I've been working on a new Wikipedia page for an emerging artist who I believe has a fascinating history worth documenting. I’ve collected some government documents that I’d like to use as references, but I’m unsure how to properly cite these PDFs in the references section.

Could someone please assist me with this? IlEssere (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Them being .pdfs isn't all that different to them being .html pages. - if they're avaliable online you'd be using something like {{cite web}} with the URL of the pdf in the url= field. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I received a PDF file from a government department that’s supposed to be available online, but for some reason, it’s not accessible right now.

I have the document, but it doesn’t work with a simple URL upload. Is there another way I can share it or upload it? IlEssere (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Not really. I'd just use {{cite document}}, filling out as much as you can. If it's a document that's avaliable to the general public on request in the same way that a library book is, then it's a reasonable WP:OFFLINE source. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me with this. I really appreciate it! IlEssere (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How to cite a pdf from an e-mail

Hello. Is it possible to source a PDF off of an e-mail into an article? Its in reference to KC Int'l Airport and the URL bar says C:/Users/(My first name)/Downloads/MCI%20Traffic%20(4).pdf. MCI traffic(4).pdf. No website indication. Is it possible to source the PDF into the article? Need help here. Thank you for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531: Sources must be published so that readers can check them for themselves. I tried to access that PDF but cannot as it's on someone's PC's hard drive. So it's of no use as a reference. See WP:PUBLISHED. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531 All Wikipedia sources need, by policy, to be able to be capable of being verified by readers. That doesn't mean the source has to be online: it could be from a book only available in a few libraries, or a newspaper published many years ago. Clearly, a .pdf only you possess doesn't qualify. So, where did you get the email from? Maybe the person who sent it to you found the .pdf online somewhere and you could track it back via the Internet Archive, for example. Without much more detail, it is difficult to help further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

One last option here. I do have the e-mail from where I received the PDF; it is: (redacted)

He works at MCI Airport. Would this help?Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Theairportman33531, I have redacted that email - please do not post anybody's email on this highly visible page. Neither his name nor his position nor his email is of any relevance whatever. Verifiability is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and says that every single piece of information in an article should be verifiable by anybody anywhere in the world. (They might need to order something from a major library, or pay to access a non-free website, but they can in principle find a source for the information). Unpublished information is not acceptable, irrespective of who wrote or holds it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine that email is still visible in the log – have you requested REVDEL? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No I haven't. I wasn't sure if it was necessary (I don't know if scrapers go through the history). Do you think it is? ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Didn't realize that. Thanks for everyone's assistance in this matter.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit on article regarding Talc.

Talc

I have issue with a sentence on this article specifically

"Stringent quality control since 1976, including separating cosmetic- and food-grade talc from that destined for industrial use, has largely eliminated this issue, but it remains a potential hazard requiring mitigation in the mining and processing of talc."

The referenced source is poor. Quality controls introduced in 1976 were not stringent, were designed by the industry and are still the same today. I can find recent academic article where asbestos is still found in talc products. Any amount of asbestos is harmful so if it is still being found today the issue has not been largely eliminated.

I tried to edit including some references but it has been reverted back.

How do I proceeded. Davekp (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Which edits were yours? The only edit you have on this account, Davekp which is the above one to the Teahouse. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think they're referring to this edit which was reverted by Catfurball. C F A 💬 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

When reverted, the next proper step is to start a dioscussion on the Talk page, including an invitation to the editor that reverted your content. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

replying to an extended-confirmed-protected edit request

There are two pending extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on the Tim Walz talk page [7][8]. Both use Fox News as a source, which is not WP:RS for political news per this entry on the Perennial sources list. I tried looking up whether there are RSs for these proposed edits. For the first request, all other sources I've found say something like "Fox News reports that ...," so the answer is no. There's also a related discussion elsewhere on the talk page. For the second request I've been able to find another source that is a RS, so I'm OK making the change and citing the other source. I haven't ever responded to an an extended-confirmed-protected edit request before, and I'm wondering if it's acceptable for me to post a reply to each (explaining that the first request will only be approved if a RS is found for it and pointing out the discussion elsewhere on the page, and explaining that I'm carrying out the second request because I've been able to find a RS), and if so, how to do it. I tried looking this up, and the closest I found was [9], which makes me think that I set the parameter to "yes" and then can reply using a reply button. Am I understanding right? I'm just not clear on how to proceed. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: Your understanding is correct. Also, see {{EP}} for some helpful templates you can use in your reply, but that is not required. RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Help needed to satisfy review

I was told that my contribution might be biased given I'm into automotive area and to seek help to make sure the article can get approved. I'd love any help I can get to get the article approved as I've spent considerable time to get it to the area it's at now and would hate that my time is wasted. If anyone can help both completing the document so it can get published and also coach me through any suggestions that I can apply to my writing so I can make other edits in areas I'm passionate about successful.

The page I'm looking help on is Draft:CARiD.com

Thanks for your help in advance. Prts-fan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Prts-fan. Your challenge is to establish that the company meets the stringent notability standard Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This requires references to reliable published sources that devote significant coverage to the company and are entirely independent of the company. GlobeNewswire and Business Wire are press release distribution services and are not independent and are of no value in establishing notability. Routine listings from the Better Business Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission are not significant coverage and are of no value in establishing notability. So, seven of your ten sources are of no value in establishing notability, and the other three appear to be routine coverage of funding and acquisitions based on information furnished by the company, and their independence is dubious. I see no independent reporting. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a whole lot. I'll work on removing those citations and looking for ones that would actually work. Prts-fan (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

ترجمه کتاب از انگلیسی به فارسی

چطور می توانم کتابم را ترجمه کنم Shadokht99 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please Ask question in english language because its english language wikipedia. However After translating your text through Google translator i think you are asking a question regarding your book, that you want to Upload.

Do remember this is an encyclopaedia and not a book publisher. ask question about encyclopedic matter and any other Wikipedia related questions.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the short description displayed?

Title. I used to think it showed in the page preview when you hover on a link like the Olympic Games - but clearly that does not show the short description (did it ever?), instead it shows part of the lead. So where is the short description actually visible? – 2804:F1...26:12E9 (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

They're mainly used in the mobile app where they appear beneath the title and in searches. They also appear in suggested searches below the title on desktop if you have the Vector 2022 skin selected. You can view them in articles on desktop if you enable the Shortdesc helper gadget in Preferences. C F A 💬 18:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

They're also visible when you're making a link to other articles using Visual Editor, and in a few other editor-facing places like that. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is vandalised

Article of Karimganj College is vandalised by some IP editors. protect that if possible.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@KEmel49: The article hasn't been edited since May? C F A 💬 18:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

see Edit history. and look after the edits done by IP accounts.
kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please link to the diff or be specific about what problem you are seeing. Better yet, just WP:SOFIXIT yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The last IP edits were in February. Why don't you just fix the issue yourself? I don't even see one. C F A 💬 19:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

[10], [11], [12], [13] and [14] are some of diff. I am fixing it but the problem is that they might do that again.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

None of those IP addresses have edited since—what makes you think they plan on editing the article again soon? We generally try to protect pages for as short of a duration as possible, to encourage positive contributors to edit. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 19:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The sum of IP edits between June '23 and May '24 seems about as inoccuous as you can get. There really doesn't seem to be any issue here at all. -- D'n'B-t -- 05:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Dark mode

Is their one for desktop? I don't see spectacle icon near top (however I saw one when using a vm with another country location and not logged in). ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Under your preferences, check the gadget section, dark mode is there. Also, I think if you are using Vector 2022 skin, there is a dark mode setting for that. RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I use vector 2010, but to see if there is dark mode here, I switched to vector 2022. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 22:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

list: Film series = Film franchise =/= Movie franchise = Media franchise :article

list: Film series = Film franchise =/= Movie franchise = Media franchise :article

4 pages on the same topic should be re-organized

perhaps:

Film series becomes List of Media franchises

Film franchise and Movie franchise become Media franchise

98.248.161.240 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The word media encompassses a lot more formats than just films and/or movies. HiLo48 (talk)

I think what the IP was pointing out was that movie franchise was a redirect to media franchise, which is clearly incorrect. I have fixed this. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

New typhoon?

Same editor as above (#Can edit the draft) who seems unfortunately incapable of asking a coherent question that people can understand. I'm guessing translation issues. Cremastra (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Name the typhoon is Dindo on philippines why Invest 95w? 122.52.20.31 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're asking, and it doesn't seem related to Wikipedia. Do you need help with a specific article? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Were you here yesterday asking about another storm? What exactly are you trying to do here? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC) You may want to ask that question at the Talk:2024 Pacific typhoon season. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC) @Midori No Sora Maria and next name? Typhoon Year 2024? 122.52.20.31 (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia this time? -- D'n'B-t -- 04:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC) IP address, I'm not sure what you are trying to ask here. If you have questions about the typhoon name, please consider taking this to the article's talk page. This page is for users who need help editing Wikipedia. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC) @Midori No Sora the question is Son-Tinh and Dindo 2024 See Talk:2024 Pacific typhoon season#Copy 122.52.20.31 (talk) 11 August 2024 (UTC) I still don't understand what your request is. Dindo is the next name that the PAGASA will use for the next storm that enters its area of responsibility. The TD that is current active south of Maria is nowhere near that area, therefore its not used. Along with the name Son-Tinh, the active storm is still a depression so it's not named yet. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 08:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're asking. If you specifically need the name of the storm in the Philippines, then it should be entered into the Philippine Area of Responsibility and assigned by PAGASA. Right now, the storm is far away from the Philippines. HurricaneEdgar 08:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Consider my article

My article Iodine(III) sulfate has been proposed for deletion by Graeme Bartlett.But it was contested by another editor. You can consider my article and give an opinion to me.Thank you very much. Junurita (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well @Graeme Bartlett, proposed deletion, stating that the sources provided don't appear to actually mention the substance being discussed. I noticed that Kasumov 1997 does mention I₂(SO₄)₃ in passing but calls it by a different name, Iodine Sulfate. On the other hand Bauer 2021 doesn't mention Sulfates or SO₄ at all. If you use inline citations, tying specific claims to specific sources - then it would be clearer why you think those sources are relevant.

Per the general notability guidlines there should be at least one source that discusses the topic in depth (more than just one passing mention). -- D'n'B-t -- 05:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked the sources, and they are about different substances, including organic derivatives. The Kasumov reference has the substance mentioned with one line in a table 1, but says nothing about it in the text. Where do you get the facts from: 1 that it is yellow; 2 that it darkens in air; 3 that it is decomposed by water; 4 the methods to form it ? If there are writings supporting these statements please let us know what they are. I check out all the new chemical articles to see if the chemical is real, and sometimes there are substances that are not real that get articles written. Since the proposed deletion was contested, I will have to decide whether WP:AFD is the way to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Junurita: As an aside to the comments above, you would do well to cite your sources inline; Easy referencing for beginners shows you how. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

just wrote an article about that here as well. I think you wrote this because you have a feeling of injustice... you are not alone. Is there a high authority here? you name the person that deleted your points but is there like a committee where one for help? or only the teahouse here? I love the name of teahouse here! :-) The Art Collector (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, The Art Collector, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure how your comment relates to Junurita's post, but I will attempt to answer you. No, there is no "high authority" or "committee", unless major issues arise about an editor's behaviour (see WP:ANI for that).

Disagreements between editors about content are normal in editing Wikipedia, and are generally handled by consensus, according to BRD, and if necessary by dispute resolution.

I realise that some people may feel resentful about their work not being accepted. Sometimes this is a matter of them plunging in and doing significant work without having first spent time learning how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

Sometimes this suggests that their primary intention is not about the common goal of creating and maintaining a wonderful shared source of knowledge, but about a personal goal, so they see a disagreement or revert as an attack on themselves, rather than a communal attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you for the time for your reply. I see what you mean. Yes I was not planning to write an article, at least not now. I am already in this stressful situation only by making improvements to existing articles. flying cars is not my field and I use the metaverse that is why I know what I am talking about. Finding sources and so is fine, I understand now that I cannot quote a part of an article and mention the article as reference. I do learn. And only by practice one can learn. Although when I make several improvements and all is simply deleted shows that whoever deleted it is not reading. The part where in 1994 Queen Elizabeth II is visiting a place and this becomes Virtual Tour should either be checked by the reference I found or simply be deleted. So whoever delete my improvements should spend time in improving themselves or deleting strange information that is in an article.

I respect other people s work so I will not dare to delete things. It is not my place. So I try to find the reference, which I managed after some effort and then even that is deleted. You see what I mean?

And now I cannot even go back to the article to edit it well. Should not everyone's goal here to make improvements? The Art Collector (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont know what you say. Junurita (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Veering drastically back on topic @Graeme Bartlett, based on this reply I don't think inline citations to back up the claims in that article are coming any time soon - so an AfD sounds the right course of action. But additionally I am confused as to what exactly is going on here. Junurita has created another article with no inline citations. Why is that? Did the claims in that article come from the same place as the claims in the first one? Could Junurita enlighten us? -- D'n'B-t -- 18:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that just because something is on Esperanto Wikipedia, does not mean it is suitable for English Wikipedia. Draft:Nitrosyl hexafluoroantimonate writes about a chemical that does actually exist. So Junurita could put effort into this. Also diiodosyl sulfate is real, and could do with more inline footnote citations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for bother you . I has added inline citration into this article.Thanks for remind. Junurita (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Deleting talk page post

Hello,

I made a talk page post that I ended up wanting to delete, but would it be okay since two people responded? This post was not on my page. Thank you. Dantus21 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing a comment to which others have replied is a problem because it would make a mess of the discussion. See WP:TALK#REPLIED. DMacks (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume that this goes for posts that are the start of new topics too; aw shucks, but life goes on. Dantus21 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If nobody has replied after you started a new topic and it's not very long after you posted it, it might be ok to remove it (this is noted in that TALK guideline). When I'm in that situation, I usually just post a response like "nevermind, I fixed it myself". But it would really depend on why I would be thinking about removing it. DMacks (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dantus21: You can always indicate that you wish your comment to be ignored by using the {{Deleted text}} template. So this comment no longer applies. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this citation method accepted?

Is citing a book multiple times without short citations acceptable? For instance, in this article, there are no footnotes, so each citation for a book repeats the entire book’s info, see citations 28 and 32 as an example. I feel this citation method is excessive, but I want to make sure it is depreciated before I do anything to it. Dantus21 (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there's no prefered citation format - so long as it's done consistently within the article. So this is technically fine. Though a way to make it more consise would be with {{reference page}}. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that you may change the citations to use instead of citing the whole book again, assuming that the article cites whole books without short citations. Is that correct? I just want to make sure I didn’t misunderstand anything. Dantus21 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't drastically change the citation style without talk page consensus. Combining two refs to one named ref with page numbers should be okay though. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

References, links, templates, editing a draft

Hello, as a part of my translation practice I've translated five articles here on wiki. However I have trouble understanding how to add references, templates and links into the article when translating, and on top of that how to edit a community published draft - when I attempt to do so from my published translations section inside of the translations menu, the draft it opens is completely empty, unlike the drafts that I have published which are very much not empty. Can I ask if anyone here has advice for me how to edit a draft post-community publishing, and how to add references, links and templates to drafts? Here's links to the article drafts I published (all in English):

• Draft:Zoltan Toman (missing template, references, notes)
• Draft:Most Lake (missing template, references)
• Draft:Jan Dobrovský (missing references, intro template)
• Draft:Choustník Castle

thanks in advance! Praxe1 (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Praxe1 Welcome to the Teahouse. I only looked at the Toman draft but my comments probably apply to the others. You need to read our detailed help on how to insert references. I suggest you delete completely the section "Relatives of Zdeněk Toman". On the English Wikipedia, we might have individual articles on other notable individuals who happen to be relatives of the article's topic but we wouldn't include their biographies except by wikilinking them, or maybe as brief comments if they were not themselves notable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Rejected Submission Help!

Hello,

I am new to writing wikipedia pages and I was wondering if I could have help editing mine. I would also like more suggestions on how to make it better! link: https://w.wiki/AtLp

Thx,

Phe Phever (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Phever As you have been told, if your proposed article do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then it has no place in Wikipedia and no amount of help with editing can overcome this. You need to find those sources before you begin writing the article, and base the article on those sources. Please see WP:YFA. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Phever (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The notice left on User:Phever's sandbox says "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article...", yet the draft includes the sourced statement "earning herself the Korean Music Award's Hip-Hop and R&B song of the year.", which seems to meet WP:NM; however, she is not listed at Korean Music Awards#Best Rap & Hip Hop Song. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Phever, and welcome to the Teashouse, and to Wikipedia.

I'm afraid that you are having a common experience for people who start editing Wikipedia, and immediately try the most challenging task there is. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Abs Cbn is reliable source?

https://news.abs-cbn.com is a reliable? At news? 122.52.82.165 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ABS-CBN is indeed a trustworthy and reliable source overall. It has a long history of journalism and is one of the most popular news outlets. However, if you choose to use it, I would greatly appreciate it if you could cross-check the information. Please be so good as to maintain neutrality, as news outlets are often not entirely impartial. Like any media outlet, ABS-CBN has faced controversies and challenges, so may I request that you exercise caution while using it. Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. May your day be delightful! Oleeveeya (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

How to delete the wikipedia page

How to delete the wikipedia page 2405:201:E00B:3826:5586:F532:F060:A3B4 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends what kind of page, which page and why, dear IP. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop trying to delete pages. The Battle of Bhima Koregaon (film) has "film" in the title so it's obviously about a film and not the actual Battle of Koregaon which is linked in the opening paragraph. You also blanked Help:Log for no reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a hatnote directing lost readers wouldn't go amiss. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's contrary to hatnote guidelines: "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." As PrimeHunter says, there's no way one would be at that page unless one intentionally chose the "film" page-name. It's not ambiguous and it's not reachable by mistake/typo. And if it's not what one wants by the time one reads the first setence, the second sentence indeed tells the reader exactly the link to follow. DMacks (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page for my business

hello Wikipedia family How do i go about creating a page for my business so that i may be found on Wikipedia. Help Natbernardin (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Natbernardin Judging by Draft:Amixie Solutions inc, which may shortly be speedily deleted as being mere promotion/advertising, I'm afraid that you will have a hard time trying to create an acceptable article. Wikipedia is not interested in what businesses want to say about themselves: that's what a business website would be for. Instead, it seeks independent, published commentary from sources that are reliable and unbiased. You have an obvious conflict of interest which makes it difficult for you to be neutral, which by policy Wikipedia tries to be. Please read all of these links and this one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Elmer W. Harris

The page on Elmer W. Harris is completely false. LINK: Elmer W. Harris He is NOT a fighter Ace (has 3 victories needs 5) and almost all references are false and or re-written or completely not relevant. The writer has a complete lack of understanding of a what a fighter ace is. Out of respect for those REAL fighter aces this page needs to be removed ASAP. I am the national gate keeper for all fighter aces victories and qualifications as exec. dir. of the American Fighter Aces Association. Please help. Regards. Gregg Fighterace2 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fighterace2: Please discuss this at Talk:Elmer W. Harris. You will need to cite reliable sources to substantiate your claims; Wikipedia is concerned with what such sources have published, not individuals' personal knowledge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Of wait, you did. Please don't raise issues in more than one venue; it wastes volunteers' time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

My bad. I will learn. Fighterace2 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

My problem is this article has false references with actual meaning twisted or not relevant, hundreds to thousands of books do not include this man as an ace, official USAF victory credits is three victories and you need five according to Wiki definition and our organization (American Fighter Aces Association see link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fighter_Aces_Association) who is the official U.S. gatekeeper, etc. etc. Family members and friends of pilots do this fake all the time and its a little scary to me all this non factual stuff on many levels gets a page made? Anyway, lets get this removed. How? Thanks Gregg. Fighterace2 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Fighterace2, the primary author of that article, User:WikiDon, was indefinitely blocked 16 years ago for a variety of misconduct. That is another possible indication that the article may well have problems. As a preliminary step, I have tagged the claim of being an ace and the claim of eight kills of enemy aircraft as dubious. I lack expertise in the field but I suspect that the misunderstanding originated from crediting planes strafed and destroyed on the ground as counting toward ace status. The World War II section of our article Flying ace says Some U.S. commands also credited aircraft destroyed on the ground as equal to aerial victories. Is that accurate? Could this be the source of the controversy? As for processes for removing the article, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Fighterace2, the article was created 19 years ago in August 2005 when Wikipedia's standards were much looser. I have checked with Google Books and was unable to find anything describing him as an ace. I did find a paragraph about him in the March 1954 issue of a magazine called The Air Reservist that says he shot down three planes in Korea and received the Silver Star and the Distinguished Flying Cross. In 1954, he was a commercial pilot for now defunct National Airlines. This ace claim appears to be bad original research by an over eager Wikipedia editor 19 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion of this article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Respecting people s work

Hello everyone,

I am a newcomer... maybe not for long. I do not know everything about everything... but I do master some topics well and so then when I see something I want to contribute. I just had 2 articles that I tried enhance one about a flying car where REDACTED403 deleted my contribution and one about virtual tour where Sam Kuru deleted my contribution.

• Moller M200G Volantor
• Virtual tour

The task I received from wikipedia was to update the articles because they were outdated. I did so. - The article about flying car was talking about things from more than 20 years ago. Meanwhile that company went bankrupt and seemingly had received funds from a Chinese company and they are busy building things. A lot of information on the website of the inventor of that flying car. I added the reference. It was deleted. - The article about virtual tour is also outdated. I added a part about the metaverse and the new technologies... which is the evolution of the virtual tour today. I "quoted" a sentence of this article in wire and used it as reference: https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-the-metaverse/ I also corrected some mistakes in the old article and found some references and citations. All was deleted in one click saying I am doing copyright issues. I guess it is about the quote from the article. Fine then I can change that, even find other sources and so. Nonetheless the subject is there and correct. It was simply all deleted and now the article is still outdated. I tried to go back to fix it. I am not even allowed to edit it anymore! Now among the information there was a fun fact related to Queen Elizabeth II and it needed a reference. It took me a while but I found it: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=4082

---> RESPECT PEOPLE S WORK! I might be new here but I do things consciously and respectfully. I spend a lot of time searching and looking up before I write or change something. And what I get is simply: DELETED. Of course I am not as experienced as all of you here and for sure I can make mistakes yet my sources were good sources and I have my university degrees. Without a proper detailed explanation and a chance to fix my mistake how can I learn for future? At least whoever deletes it should rework the full article do the research him/herself and make it better. Own your actions! Also maybe do not delete everything... but a part. Or send an alert or so to tell whoever updated the information to adapt it better.

So what now? Was that my short contribution to wikipedia? Will I get answers here? My first time I message here. At least I will be able to say I have tested all parts of wikipedia. I have to admit that right now I have a very bitter feeling!

Thank you everyone for the patience. Solutions? The Art Collector (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like part of the problem here is copyright. You say on your talk page "You deleted it because I used a sentence from the article of wired? [...] It was a good summary to bring the content up to date." No matter how good a summary it is, it is still a violation of copyright and plagarism, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter. The key is to rephrase it. For example, if I'm citing a source that says:

Nicole Sumner was born in Paris in 1967, but moved to England with her family three years later. There she graduated from the University of Birmingham with a degree in astrophysics.

Instead of just copying that, I might write:

Sumner was born in Paris, France in 1967. Her family immigrated to the United Kingdom in 1970, where Sumner attended the University of Birmingham. She graduated with a degree in astrophysics.

16:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Cremastra (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes thank you. I understand plagiarism as copying without mentioning, that is why I thought we put the reference. But yes of course I understood that now, so will change as the example you give. I have no problem with making mistake and fixing them... my issue is the way it is simply deleted without a patient explanation for new comers... and also now if I want to fix it I cannot. Somehow I cannot edit that article anymore. So how do people learn doing a good article if we cannot see through the article we took under our wing?

Also fine to have it deleted if then it is at least updated... but no, the article is still not updated as it should and so everyone is frustrated. I am frustrated because my work is deleted entirely (even the parts that are not related to copyright) and I am not allowed to fix it, the person that checked is frustrated because I complain and must think he/she doesn't want to lose time explaining to a newbie like me, you are frustrated because you have to go through reading my complaining and the user/reader is frustrated because the article is not properly updated. :-( The Art Collector (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright violation are different things, The Art Collector. Plagiarism means taking credit for someone's writing as your own, without crediting them, whereas copyright violation happens when you reproduce material (beyond brief quotes that are within the limits of fair use) without the permission of the copyright holder. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Art Collector First of all, welcome to the Teahouse!

I'm afraid it can be initially frustrating when, in all good faith, you try to improve an article, only to have your first few edit undone (=reverted). We've all of us gone through those frustrations (usually caused by us not fully appreciating how this site works, and the rules everyone expects us to work to).

I think you've encountered the situation where you've gone and found sources of new information and added information to an article without actually citing that source in your edit. So anyone else who reads it has no idea whether it's your personal opinion, or is actually based on a good, Reliable Source. Adding a citation is really important, though we do tend to be very wary of user-generated websites as sources, preferring more definitive or academic sources. For example, I'm not sure whether myheritage.nl falls into that category. But if you can cite books, academic periodicals or museum websites, that would give your edit much greater credibility, with less chance of a 'revert'. Unless it's a straight copyright violation from another website, your edit, even if reverted, will always be present via the 'View History' tab for that article. So, it's easy if you do get an edit undone to go and find a source to add and use your same text again, rather than starting afresh.

I think at least one of the messages on your talk page was from an automated bot, which always sounds impersonal. But we all utilise them because there are relatively few active editors and over 6.5 million articles to maintain and improve. Leaving individual messages can be incredibly time-consuming, so many other volunteer editors use templated messages to explain what they've done. Please don't take any of the reverts or comments as a personal criticism of you - rather, please see it more as guidance to encourage you to contribute more effectively next time. But, I do agree, that they can come across as rather harsh in some instances (tough love, perhaps?).

Those of us who come out the other side of having some of their first few edits reverted continue to make enormous contributions to this encyclopaedia. I hope this will apply to you, too. So please carry on and pop back here if you want any further help or feedback on anything you've done. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

oh thank you for your human reply. yes exactly the feeling I have. thank you for sharing.

Also thank you for the tip of the view history tab. That is great to know after not to have to write the whole thing back. I will look that up. Thank you so much.

Like I explained in a private message I was updating the information. The article is about "virtual tour", we are in 2024 and so since the last years things changed in that field.

It is like if we were talking about book reading and that meanwhile the internet has been invented and we do not update and talk about online libraries and google or amazon selling books online. About the kindle that is a new way to read books. etc...

How do I manage now to edit the article again, without the copyright issue of course?

Thank you so much again for being nice. The Art Collector (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Simply try again. See WP:CITE for guidance on citing sources, don't copy text verbatim, and don't even use close paraphrasing, use your own words. Don't add personal commentary or your own view, just summarize what reliable sources say. It is also preferable to use WP:Secondary sources rather than WP:Primary sources.~Anachronist (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you for the help. and the patience to read all the complain I wrote. Well noted yes, now I know for the copy right. See thanks to you all explaining I learn. Someone else also explained about the BRD rules and so. The Art Collector (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Add comic based on a Wikipedia page

I am creating comics (using text and image AI) on various wikipedia topics, and each comic is based on the wikipedia page content. I believe the comics provide value for someone to learn about a dense or complex or uninteresting (to the person) topic and can motivate them to further learn about the topic. Self learners, students, parents, teachers and others could find great value in this.

I wanted to know where best I can direct people viewing a wikipedia page to the corresponding comic.

Relevant details:

I have a mix of free and paid topics, and am not sure about the policies around commercial content. As of current thinking, I am open to making more comics free if commercial links are frowned upon. I truly believe this enhances the experience of visitors to a wikipedia page.

I am using as a source the content of the wikipedia page, and available AI tools for text and image generation

I am not directly using any other images than what the AI image generators create. I do take efforts to avoid any images in the comic that violate any known problematic aspect: legal, social, ethical, policy, copyright, trademark, etc. However, I have no control or knowledge of whether each image created by the AI generator violates any such facet. I will fix or remove any serious issues in a comic that are reported.

The text in the comics is generated entirely based on the corresponding wikipedia page content. AI text and chat models are much better than AI image models. The text does seem accurate across the comics based on my (often limited) knowledge of each topic but there may be (extremely) rare discrepancies there as well. Again, I will fix or remove any serious issues that are reported.

There are sometimes multiple comics based on the same topic that are variants on the same topic.

The comics are currently very simple in format and layout, but will get richer over time.

I am creating more comics on other topics, and will add them over time.

Given all this, I am trying to decide what is the best place to enable access to these comics from corresponding wikipedia pages. Some options I considered, based on studying wikipedia docs and guidelines:

1. External links on corresponding page to the comic

2. A wikiproject - though most of the existing ones seem to be based on a single topic

3. A new section that provides link to other media or specifically comics

If you wish to review the kinds of comics, here are links to some (currently) free comics to look at:

Aurora based on Aurora

Wright brothers based on Wright brothers

Sydney Opera House based on Sydney Opera House

Mathematics based on Mathematics

Renewable Energy based on Renewable energy

Please suggest options to connect wikipedia to these kinds of comics.

Thanks! Rcanand (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Rcanand, and welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly, it's great that you are using Wikipedia content in a different way than we're used to. You are entitled to do that under our Creative Commons Commercial Licence. However, be aware that you might need to credit Wikipedia if you are directly using the text. You can find out more about this at WP:Reusing Wikipedia content, and I think you should definitely include a link back to the relevant Wikipedia articles for people to get further information. Ah, OK, so I've just downloaded your Aurora comic and can see you've already attributed content to Wikipedia - so thank you for that. It looks quite fun and interesting, targeting a young audience with bright AI images and short, punchy text, so I do wish you luck with this.

Unfortunately, regardinging linking to you comic from Wikipedia pages, I'm afraid that is not possible. If we were to encourage that, we would end up with outwards links to innumerable forms of the same article, non of which would be likely to add anything to the encyclopaedic nature of that article, and would simply be a form of free promotion for others. So I would not want to see any links in articles, though I do wonder whether if it takes off, there might be potential for a short article about them in our internal newsletter, the Signpost. It will contain a link to the editors, though I would wait until you can provide some stats and information about interest generated via the number of downloads, etc., once you get going and it has taken off.

It certainly sounds like a fun project, and I wish you well with it, though I'm sorry we can't help you further by promoting it here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rcanand. You are free to reuse (most) Wikipedia content, for any purpose (including commercial) as long as you follow the rules - see reusing Wikipedia content.

However, I think it is unlikely that the Wikipedia community would accept you putting links to your work in Wikipedia artcles, however valuable your work might be. I think before you try that, you should open a general discussion at one of the sections of the Village pump, to get community consensus (I'm not sure which section would be best). ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

These might be good to link from the Simple English Wikipedia. I really don't see how they'd be appropriate here.

You need to fix that annoying auto-advance that doesn't allow anyone to view certain frames for more than a fraction of a second. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Contributing to an extended protection article

Hi there,

As a part of a university assignment for medical anthropology, I am required to contribute towards a Wikipedia page by adding to a topic relevant to my field. The topic I am working on is Morgellons, a page that is under extended protection. Unfortunately, I have only just signed up to Wikipedia, so I haven't been registered for 30 days or performed 500 edits. Consequently, editing my chosen topic seems nearly impossible at this point. The addition I want to make meets Wikipedia's policies on writing (it is neutral, extremely well cited, etc.), and I would be making it clear that it is a perspective from my specific field.

Is there any way this can be achieved? Are there any alternatives (i.e creating a new sub-page related to Morgellons)?

Any advice or assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Horan8199 Horan8199 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Horan8199, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's unfortunate that the article has extended protection - presumably because of the relative contentiousness of the topic. Whilst you will not be able to edit the article directly yourself, we do have a process of making an EDITREQUEST on the article's talk page. Please read that link to understand the process, and the need to offer a clear, well written and well-cited request for addition. I believe you would use the Template:Edit extended-protected, which contains documentation on its use.

You might also wish to add a brief description about yourself to your userpage which explains you are a student on course X at at Y university, aiming to contribute under an assignment to Z article(s).

The only other alternative I could suggest - and it's one I wish more university staff would suggest - is the ability to create a 'dummy article' in your own sandbox which your academic staff could judge directly. OK, it wouldn't ever replace the existing article, but it would be all your own work from start to finish - and thus a great learning opportunity. And parts of it might also be suitable to add to the existing article - perhaps towards the end of your coursework here, or via an edit request as mentioned above. I would suggest discussing that approach with your course supervisor if you think it might help. You are permitted to make any number of sandbox pages (so long as they relate to the purpose of Wikipedia!). So, User:Horan8199/sandbox could be the one you might wish to start with. (the hyperlink is red because the page doesn't exist yet, but will turn blue once you start editing and 'creating' that page). You would, in effect, be following the processes outlined at Your First Article and Articles for Creation, albeit without ever completing the processes of submitting a draft into the mainspace part of Wikipedia because a page on that topic already exists.

Finally, it might be worth mentioning that course leaders and tutors are able to create a way of monitoring the work of all their students' contributions by enrolling them at https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ It's not essential, but it's a good way for tutors to support student work. If you have any further difficulties, do feel free to ask further questions here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, @Nick Moyes!

That is all clear, and should help me progress. I will do my best with the information you have provided and work from there.

Your time is greatly appreciated, and thank you once again.

All the best! Horan8199 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Horan8199, can you let us know a bit more about this assignment? What level/year is it, and what country are you in? I assume you won't be the only student experiencing this problem, so I'd like to give a heads up to the folks at WP:EDUN. Depending on what school you're at, we might be able to offer further assistance to your teacher. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, @Asilvering.

I can't believe the amount of assistance I am receiving! Thank you very much.

I am in Australia, attending Deakin University (Victoria), this is a level 2 anthropology unit (medical anthropology). The assignment topic is self selected. I have chosen Morgellons as my topic. It is a group project, and virtually all the work is done (too late to change now, unfortunately!). The prompt was to find a contested topic and edit / contribute to a Wikipedia page from an anthropological perspective whilst adhering to the core content policies of the platform. Essentially, we are not trying to contest or change anything, we are simply required to contribute to the discussion from a viewpoint which is not always present. If I had understood editing factors like extended protection I may have chosen differently, but I am here now.

Thank you for your time and offer of assistance. I appreciate it greatly. Horan8199 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much! And honestly, it's probably better that you chose something that was extended-protected. That means your edit will have to be checked by an experienced wikipedia editor, so you don't need to worry about a passing patroller coming down on your head like a ton of bricks for doing something suspicious in a contentious topic area. If you can, warn your fellow students about WP:CTOP if your instructor hasn't already. I understand you to mean "contested topic" in the normal use of those words, but if any of you edit in "contested topics" by the Wikipedian understanding of those words, you can expect to get some alarming talk page warnings. It will all work out in the end! Just keep in mind that when a bunch of people start editing together on something contentious, wikipedia's "immune system" kicks into overdrive. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Horan8199 Vis-a-vis Morgellons, I recommend you review the archived past proposals for changing the article and/or adding content. There is a LONG history of heated discussions. Much resolves around whether proposed references meet the WP:MEDRS standards. Also, you wrote "...we are simply required to contribute to the discussion from a viewpoint which is not always present." Discusions are what takes place at the Talk pages of articles, not the article proper. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @David notMD.

Thanks for your help. I have gone through the history and found nothing that proposes anything similar to the work I have done (as far as I could see). I have made all efforts to be neutral and not take a 'side', as much of the history demonstrates.

Yes, I did write 'discussion'. I should have been clearer and said 'contribute a valid and supported viewpoint to the article'.

Thanks again! Horan8199 (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Horan8199 In that case, there's absolutely nothing stopping you discussing improvements (either with or without suggested text alternatives) on the article's talk page. That isn't protected in the same way as the article is. Just keep the talk focussed on improving the article, stay polite and reasoned, and avoid wandering off into other off-topic areas, and you should be fine.

In fact, any supervisor ought to be delighted to see a student discussing issues with other editors and backing up those discussions with citations in the talk page. (You can use Template:Reflist-talk at the bottom of any talk page post in which you insert citations. This is really helpful as it keeps the reference list purely within that single topic thread, rather than make all the references simply appear at the very bottom of the talk page, irrespective of what other topics are subsequently added.

I would add that it would also be 100% OK should you simply decide to use your own sandbox for discussing the merits and weaknesses of the article, and for suggesting alternative layout or content. Once you've done that, and your course tutor has reviewed it, you might even find that a simple link to it and a few notes on the talk page could be of use to other editors interested in the article long after you've moved on to other things. Whatever you do - we're always here to help and support keen editors, and we wish you and your colleagues all the best. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Horan8199 Perhaps for extra credit you and your classmates could improve the Medical anthropology article. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. Thanks, @David notMD!

Aside from the research and writing, learning to create the contribution according to relevant guidelines is the most important feature of the project. It is not absolutely critical that the contribution appears on the Morgellons page, specifically (and it is not our intention to create friction in a contentious area). Are you suggesting that our work could contribute to the 'case study' section in the Medical Anthropology section, or perhaps to the section discussion Culture-bound syndrome?

The continued advice from people has been incredible. I never expected this much help. Horan8199 (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Deleting something

Hello. I am afraid I have made a mess trying to nominate RMA Gold Airways for deletion. I tried the manual way but it got very complicated then I tired XFD from Twinkle. Now there are two deletion pages (2nd and 3rd). Can someone please help? Thank you. Ansett (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I fixed it: removed (3rd) from the daily log, deleted that discussion page altogether, pointed the article itself to point to (2nd) for the discussion, and updated the pointers from the del-sorting pages. DMacks (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Bias in article?

I do apologise if it is glaringly obvious but I was wondering if the 'Present Singa' section in Singa the Courtesy Lion is biased for the following reasons:

1. It use phrases that might be biased such as "the emphasis now shifts to Singaporeans, who are called upon to channel their inner Singa and spread kindness in a more intentional way". I mean, "channel their inner Singa" seems a bit unusual, doesn't it? Also, it uses inclusive language for Singaporeans only such as "where it imparts values like graciousness and compassion to our primary school children and preschoolers."
2. It is uncited. Compared to its previous revision , the current section is uncited and seems to lack detail in regards to the 'Singa Resigns' campaign.

Thanks, @Imbluey2 ---Please '@' my username so that I get notified of your response (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I did some cleanup and removed an entire unsourced section that added no value. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist I mean I wouldn't say that uncited section has no value. I do think that the status of Singa the Lion in the present has no value whatsoever but I think the 'Singa Resigns' campaign does have some significance. Please '@' my username so that I get notified of your response (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

need help adding photos to a Wikipedia page

Is there a way to get help adding photos to Tamara Murphy's page? She's a beloved Seattle chef who died Saturday. I did what I could to update her page. There are lots of published photos, including ones on today's Seattle Times article about her, but I don't know how to add photos. Terra Plata Facebook page also has lots of photos Are published photos ok to post w attribution line? EllenKuwana (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

PAGE IS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamara_Murphy

EllenKuwana, you ask the copyright holder of a photograph (normally the photographer), to upload the photograph to Wikimedia Commons, either (A) copylefting it according to one or other of the (very permissive) licenses that are acceptable to Commons or (B) waiving all rights to it and donating it to the public domain. (You may think "That's too much to ask. I'll get the photographer's OK for me to upload it and I'll say that I've done this when I upload it." No. That's not going to work.) Once a photograph is at Commons, it can easily be added to an article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

My wikipedia page is not getting approved despite its extreme value

I recently published my thesis in astrophysic field after getting its coyright and wanted to put this on Wikipedia using my decade old account. I am getting declined. Help me to put this new theory on Wikipedia for free public access NEOKALIDAS (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi NEOKALIDAS,

Wikipedia is only for reporting on topics that have already been published in reliable sources. It is not a place to publish your own theories, analysis of others' work, or similar personal reports. Those are all called "original research", and are not accepted here. If your idea has merit, publish it somewhere like a journal or website where others can review and critique it. Once it gains traction and is accepted (or discussed in detail by others in similarly-published form), it might meet the requirement of notability to merit an article on Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Submitted a draft for a new article; feeling anxious about approval

Here's the draft: Draft:Dirty Elegance

I want to create an article for the somewhat obscure musician "Dirty Elegance", but I'm not sure my draft has enough wikipedia-approved sources. This is primarily due to the fact that there is hardly ANYTHING out there about this dude, which is probably why there isn't an article about him already. Any recommendations on edits I can make? Theguy002 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Theguy002 if there is hardly ANYTHING out there, they are likely not notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Should've figured. At least I found this cool now-defunct website:https://web.archive.org/web/20071001103802/http://dirtyelegancenyc.com/

Live and learn Theguy002 (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

[edit source] seems to be gone despite me being logged in, only visual edits can be done

Hi, yesterday when I made my last edit I was for some reason logged out of my account, now that I'm logged in again I only seem able to make visual edits. ★Trekker (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@StarTrekker Welcome to the Teahouse. There are two ways to resolve this.

Firstly, either editing tool always offers you the ability to switch back and forth. Look for the grey sloping pencil on the upper right of the toolbar in either editor. Click that and you can switch between them.

The second way to fix this permanently, is to go to your Preferences settings and find the Editing tab. Look for the options for "Editing mode" and change the dropdown to "Show me both editor tabs". You will now always see both options. Why this isn't the default setting, I really don't know. Hope this helps. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes It works again. Thank you so much Nick!★Trekker (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Be_Bold apply when doing WP:CSD?

Is WP:Be_Bold encouraged when making a WP:CSD to a page? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet Hi there again, Bloxy. I'd say the one time not to be bold is when putting up an article for deletion. My view is to err on the side of caution and not to rush to delete a potentially useful article. We have some guidance at WP:BEFORE in which we require editors to do some investigation of their own prior to marking an article for deletion. But, of course, if it's obviously a useless page, then yes, act with common sense and mark it for speedy deletion. It will still be down to the admin who responds to your CSD tag to decide whether or not to act upon it. Maybe WP:AFD is a better option when you're not sure about an article's merits. Then 'Before' really does apply there. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the page I CSD'ed started with the header "Unbeatable Prices: Electronic Components for Sale!". It sounded like they were promoting something. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet In that case, there's no need to worry about 'Being Bold' just CSD it ASAP as Unambiguous promotion or advertising. Case closed. See the CSD criterion G11 for this at WP:G11. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia views

Hello. I was wondering if there were any websites avaliable where you can see how many views certain Wikipedia articles get on a day-to-day basis. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Roads4117, the best place is https://pageviews.wmcloud.org —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, that was exactly what I was looking for! Many thanks! Roads4117 (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How to Effectively Manage Multiple Sandboxes?

Hello everyone,

I'm particularly interested in Greek contemporary art, a subject that seems to be underrepresented on Wikipedia. I've been working on several related pages within a single sandbox, but it's becoming quite chaotic.

To manage this better, I've temporarily saved each page idea to my desktop. However, I'm wondering if there's a way to create multiple sandboxes for different pages to keep things organized on Wikipedia. IlEssere (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@IlEssere: You have User:IlEssere/sandbox. You can have User:IlEssere/sandbox 2, User:IlEssere/sandbox 3 and so on, or name them by subject: User:IlEssere/sandbox Foo. You can make links like that on your user page to keep track of them and start new ones. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)