Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hi all,

I would greately appreciate if somebody could shed a light on this: I cannot understand the "declined" reasons (no secondary sources). I included in my draft Draft:Santikaro at least eight excellent secondary sources to back up what I'm saying. They are in the References section: #1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 -- all these references are excellent secondary sources.

Is it possible that the reviewer who declined this did not follow those references to validate that indeed they are good secondary sources?

Probably I misunderstood something, but I don't know what.

Any pointers would be much appreciated!

Draft is: Draft:Santikaro

Thanks, -Peaceful-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceful-D (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peaceful-D, and welcome to the Teahouse!

When we speak of 'reliable sources' in Wikipedia, we mean what some call the "golden rule": significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Reliable sources usually also have to be secondary sources, which is part of being independent - the source must be created by someone who has no affiliation with the subject being written about (apart from being interested in that person or thing). If you click that link, you'll be able to get more detailed information. I've had a quick glance specifically at the references you highlighted (thank you! it helps a lot if you point out the ones you think are best!).

Firstly, since your subject is a living person, you have some more policies you must follow: WP:BLP spells these out. You've referenced almost every piece of information in the draft, which is a great start, so now we have to assess those references and make sure they all comply. Secondly, your aim is to establish that he is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are quite strict. If he's not notable by Wikipedia standards, that doesn't mean we think he's not important, or that he hasn't made an impact - he might be the most wonderful person in the world, but we can only summarize what reliable sources say, so we must look for things that have been independently written about him. With that all in mind, moving on to your sources!

1) - I don't speak Thai, so I am relying on Google Translate here. This appears to be an interview with Santikaro, which cannot be used to establish notability (not independent). You can use basic, uncontentious facts (such as his birthday or place of birth) from interviews, but nothing else, and so this reference is discounted for the purposes of deciding whether he is notable.

4) looks like his biography for a company he works for or with. This cannot be used to establish notability, as it's also not independent.

10) appears to be a private website, which is going to fall short of the reliable source part of your reference requirements as it must have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking to be considered reliable. You need something more like a well-known newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher; I don't think this website would be accepted as a source at all, I'm sorry to say.

11) is a podcast interview with Santikaro, which also cannot be used for notability due to lack of independence.

12) is Santikaro speaking about his teachings, which is once again not independent.

14) is the same website and biography-style information as 4), so the same applies here too.

15) is Santikaro speaking again, so another source that isn't independent.

16) is written by Santikaro, and thus also not independent.

I think by now you will be seeing there's a major theme running through my responses to your sources. Please understand that I do not mean to be critical of your efforts, and wish to help you out as you work on your draft. Unfortunately, BLPs are the hardest kind of article to write, so it's a tough start to your Wikipedia career. I did a quick Google of Santikaro, and didn't find any sources that would be considered reliable. Maybe you are aware of books that may have been written about him - or articles in a newspaper or magazine, or other similar works? If so, they might be usable. Otherwise, I don't think you are going to be able to get this draft published. I regret that this is the answer I have to give, but without good sources (again by Wikipedia standards), there cannot be an article. If you have further questions, please ask and either I or someone else will be back to answer you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just started happening today. I can access it while reading, but when I am in visual editing mode, I can not access the source from pop. For eaxmple, Texttext^[1]. If I click on [1], normally I can click the URL from the pop up and visit the site, but this isn't working anymore. Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I logged out, started the browser in Incognito and launched the visual editor without logging in to eliminate my user preferences or cookies as being a possible cause. Hyperlink for references still doesn't work in the reference context menu while in visual editing mode. Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like WP:ITSTHURSDAY. @Trizek (WMF), has this been reported yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing:, were you able to replicate the issue I am experiencing? Graywalls (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported last Friday, see T368119. The fix should be deployed very soon! Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not fixed. It's been disruptive enough that I've been taking a wiki break because of it. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it should be deployed tomorrow (Thursday). Check back in 24 hours? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Administrator, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request permission to make changes to my Wikipedia page. I have noticed some outdated information and would like to update the content to ensure accuracy and relevance. I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality, and I assure you that any edits I make will adhere to these guidelines. I am committed to providing reliable sources to support the changes. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your guidance on how to proceed. Best regards, Ruthisabellafh (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthisabellafh could you provide a link to the article about you? You are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but if you would like to add new information that is supported by reliable sources and is written neutrally, you can place the {{Edit COI}} template on the article's talk page, and another editor may implement the edits on your behalf. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT "your page" it is Wikipedia's article about your company Foodhub and I removed all the spam links you added. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthisabellafh In Wikipedia, you are considered to be a paid editor, as you want to contribute to the article about your company. Please read that linked page and comply with its terms (involving disclosure) before you do anything else. You can then suggest changes to the article via edit requests on its Talk Page. The edit request link will help format these requests correctly for consideration by a non-involved editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above, we read It is NOT "your page".

Poppycock. In 2019 I created a (short and feeble) article about Nudrat Afza. This was her article. It was my article. It was Wikipedia's article. (And, like every article, it was a page.)

Want a reliable source for enlightenment? The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, pp 473–475 tells us:

The range of semantic relations between the genitive NP and the head is vast, and largely parallel to that found between subject and predicate in clause structure. Some of this variety is illustrated in [54] [...]

And [54] lists, inter alia:

• i. Mary's green eyes — Mary has green eyes — [d has body part h]
• ii. Mary's younger sister — Mary has a younger sister — [d has kin relation h]
• xiii. Mary's letter — Mary receives a letter — [d is recipient of h]
• xxiii. the summer's heat — The summer is hot — [d has non-human property h]

in which "d" stands for "determiner" (which Wikipedia perversely calls "determinative") and "h" stands for "head".

And it goes on:

Mary's letter in [xiii] could be interpreted as "the letter Mary received" ("Mary is recipient of the letter"); or as "the letter Mary wrote" ("Mary is creator of the letter"); or as "the letter Mary posted" ("Mary is poster of the letter"); or it might have been written by Shakespeare, and Mary does research into it ("Mary is researcher into the letter"). The possibilities are endless, [...]

To which I can add: "the letter Mary is putting up for sale", "the letter Mary has just bought", "the letter Mary hopes to submit as evidence", "the letter announcing Mary's promotion/demotion/secondment/termination", and so on.

Wikipedia's article talk pages have well over two thousand instances of "his article", suggesting that (as everyone who's both familiar with Wikipedia and is a speaker of English as a first language already knows) this is fully comprehensible, idiomatic, inoffensive and acceptable English. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, you are free to your own interpretations of the guidelines, you can see her requests on the article talk page, moved from my talk pageTalk:Foodhub. Theroadislong (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as soon as I noticed that what was already in the article included The journey began in 2008 with the founding of touch2success, I knew that this would be bad. I've no objection to anything you write on Talk:Foodhub. It's good stuff: it's about content, and it doesn't include any strange strictures about the genitive (perhaps because instead of "Foodhub's Wikipedia page" your interlocutor writes the synonymous "the Foodhub Wikipedia page"). -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Hoary

Actually, I am just suggesting wikipedia admins to add some additional information about Foodhub, such as their acquisitions, sponsorship, and branding. Similar companies like Just Eat, Uber Eats, and Deliveroo have included such information on their Wikipedia pages. Most of the information on the current page is outdated, and I want to help update it. This will definitely increase the quality of the Wikipedia entry. I am ready to help you by submitting any sort of press release and proof for your approvals. Ruthisabellafh (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthisabellafh please respond to the messages on your talk page. Press releases are not considered reliable, and your edit request was promotional. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases can be reliable, depending on what you are writing. They aren't generally Independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @WhatamIdoing

Exactly, but press releases serve as proof of documents to support our claims. This can help Wikipedia moderators research and write more accurately, ultimately providing Wikipedia readers with updated and reliable content. Ruthisabellafh (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthisabellafh, what's in the company's press releases is likely to be on the company's website. If people want to read it, they can go to the company's website. (Indeed, a few minutes ago, I did just that. I was greeted with: The owner of this website (foodhubforbusiness.com) has banned the country or region your IP address is in (JP) from accessing this website.) Though even if PR material isn't on the website, Wikipedia doesn't want it. Wikipedia wants material from reliable, disinterested sources. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Hoary

Really Thanks for your response man !

It has come to my attention that there has been a misunderstanding regarding a link on that you have mentioned (foodhubforbusiness.com). The current link appears to be incorrect and not related to Foodhub. Actually it's B2B link

The correct link should be (https://global.foodhub.com/) which directs to the original Foodhub's business page. It contain Foodhub's global market.

From that website you can get all the above mentioned information Foodhub's Australian Website(Ex https://foodhub.com.au/?redirectFrom=global&_ga=2.68015509.583846710.1719309322-1076862730.1717155324) represents the Australian market likewise. All the PR activities were mentioned in the blog section of the website. (https://blog.foodhub.com/brand-new-tv-advert-is-officially-live-on-sky/)

Thanks for helping me Guys ! Ruthisabellafh (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthisabellafh When Theroadislong wrote that it is not your page, s/he was trying to make an important point--one that repeatedly needs to be made. A User here could create an article--and then have no say beyond what anybody else here has over what happens to that page; it could soon be edited beyond the original author's recognition. Typically, when people refer here to "my page," they mean an article about them or some undertaking of theirs (either an existing one, or the one they hope they can set up as their Wikipedia "page"); they see that article as something like a social media profile--and they're surprised that someone else can edit it, and not necessarily to their liking. But that's what Wikipedia is about! Nobody has a "page" here; there might be an article about them or their company. Yes, "my page" is an ambiguous term here; Theroadislong meant to unambiguate (I know, that's not a word) it. Your "poppycock,' and then your "analysis" apparently to reambiguate (ditto) it does not help. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many more decades do you need to create "dark mode"? 2607:F2C0:F200:1C07:E070:4EE:55F8:D26D (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP user! Dark mode exists, but has to be enabled in Preferences, which requires an account. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on a Miraheze site, it's already built into their interface (on the top right of every page), signified by a small crescent moon. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that certain Wikipedia pages in other languages are of varying quality. For instance, the German Wikipedia pages on Plato's dialogues are (almost) all Featured pages. They are, beyond any peradventure of a doubt, excellent.

There is no issue reading these pages on desktop as Google Chrome automatically translates these pages into English. However, on the mobile app, these pages remain in their original language. Is there, for lack of a better term, an "add-on" which I can add to the Wikipedia app on my phone to translate these pages into English?

God Bless. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, are you using iPhone or Android? Unfortunately I don't think there is either way, but you are more likely to find something with an Android device. Wrosh (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participating Nations 🌐 SS Mapping (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To create a subpage appended to any page you simply append a / and a suitable title to the end of the existing "parent page" like so "Main page/subpage numer 1" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SS Mapping, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not clear what you are asking, but given that "Participating nations" doesn't make sense except as a section of something, and that you have created Draft:Participating nations, and that you have created Draft:ÈreChanton - OESC, I think you are trying to create what will eventually be a subpage of an article. These are not possible in English Wikipedia: only non-articles (eg user pages) can have subpages. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am unable to like attach a link to a page of my creation, However on Sandbox I would be able to have multiple different subpages that I create as well as a main page ? SS Mapping (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you use the template {{user subpages|SS Mapping}} on your sandbox page (or on any of your pages) it will display a list of all of your user subpages (including User:SS Mapping/sandbox). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thankyou very much SS Mapping (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my relatively short time as an editor here, I've come across three articles or sections where someone who has a pet project has gone to my local paper (Liverpool Echo) with their theory, had a story published about it, then gone onto add it to Wikipedia using the story as a reference, and then the notability or credibility of the subject has gone on to be found wanting. I should say, while that sounds like a very cynical thing to do, I'm not actually accusing anyone of foul play! Rather, I'm concerned about the Echo as a reliable and independent source but the nearest thing I can find is mention of indiscriminate sources.

I feel like it must be a common occurrence, someone goes to the media, gets coverage and either immediately or at some point in the future writes about it on Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if there is already guidance on how to approach this? I'm planning to raise the credibility of the Liverpool Echo, and other local Reach plc titles on WP:RSN for this and other reasons, as I know their editorial standards are incredibly lax so I'm interested as to just how much of a problem this kind of practice is, either deliberate or in good faith. Orange sticker (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:citogenesis for some guidance on this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I learnt a new word today! This isn't quite the same though, as in these cases the journalism - in a well known newspaper established over 100 years ago - did come first. The problem seems to be that it's almost as easy to get a story in the Liverpool Echo as it is to write your own Wikipedia article. Orange sticker (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker "someone who has a pet project has gone to my local paper (Liverpool Echo) with their theory, had a story published about it, then gone onto add it to Wikipedia using the story as a reference" sounds a little like a version of WP:SELFCITE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very similar, but they've got the added authority of an 'independent' journalist as the author of the source. Orange sticker (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, assuming Liverpool Echo is a WP:RS in context, and the addition fits the WP-article per the details of WP:NPOV, it's hard to argue they do anything wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree, except that in each case I've come across it's turned out that the story was unreliable. I guess this is why I need to raise it at WP:RSN. Orange sticker (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker That may be the way to go, not much in the archives:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orange sticker, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I can't find anything specifically about this, I have often seen reviewers saying they prefer national or at least regional news sources to local ones; and that more than one source is generally required to establish notability. See reliable sources for more general discussion. Today, an article sourced only from a single local paper is not likely to get past the reviewers or new page patrol. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While watching The Avengers (2012 film) a few nights ago and following along with the Plot section of its Wikipedia article as I sometimes do, I noticed an inaccuracy. While it was asserted that "Loki escapes after killing Coulson", Coulson is still alive when Loki escapes. I therefore changed "killing" to "mortally wounding", which was correct whereas "killing" was not. Adamstom.97 reverted the change, noting that "he is still killed by Loki". I restored my edit, saying "Yes, but not before Loki escapes. It could imaginably be something like 'dealing a death blow to', but 'mortally wounding' is correct and more so than 'killing'. That the death occurred is immediately confirmed in the sentence following [thus rendering it unnecessary to mention Coulson's death as having occurred before it actually did]." Now Jgstokes has restored "killing", saying "You need to discuss this on the talk page and establish consensus for this wording before it can stand in this article. Please do so." I would generally be inclined to oblige a polite request, but I'm reluctant to do so in this case because it's a minor change, it's correct, and I don't think I should have to obtain explicit consensus for such an evidently justified edit. Since it's clearly "killing" rather than "mortally wounded" which is dubious (at least to me, and I would think to anyone), I think it's one of the other two editors here who should have to initiate a talk page discussion, if indeed anyone should on such a trivial matter. So my question here concerns who is correct regarding the article's talk page, Jgstokes or me. Do I really need to discuss the correct "mortally wounding" versus the incorrect "killing" on the talk page? Since it's a minor correction and correct, wouldn't this imply that I similarly need to discuss on a talk page every trifling comma or whatever? If I'm actually obliged to put this up for discussion I'll probably just walk away from it (which I'm sure many would approve), since I don't want either to do this or to edit-war. I don't like leaving a clear error, however, even if it's confessedly minor. Thanks for any comment. Bret Sterling (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bret Sterling, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't bothered to read your wall of text, but the answer to your question is, "Yes, you do have to". Wikipedia works by consensus. If another editor disagrees with you about what should go into an article, it is your (collective) job to reach a consensus. "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't usually contribute very much towards that goal. Please see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine; this is what I needed. I've now read WP:BRD and am acquainted with the recommended procedures. I agree with you that "I'm right and you're wrong" is not a promising approach to resolving a difference of opinion, but if you had read my wall of text and checked the film, you would have seen that I am right. (humor intended) Thanks also Maproom. I'm glad my trifling commas and omissions of same have to date been left unchallenged. Bret Sterling (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the film but I do know that BRD still applies! What you need to do now is head to the talkpage and produce evidence that agrees with you - this could be as simple as "hi, this is in the film at [timestamp]". You should also suggest your preferred wording and why, like you did here. I see you've already done a lot of this, but in case you were wondering, that's basically the normal procedure! Go to talk, present evidence to back what you want to say, discuss until consensus forms. Well done! StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Sterling, you made an edit, someone else reverted it. Now you have two options: discuss it, or walk away. It would be the same if you had added a trifling comma and been reverted. Maproom (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm wondering what tense we're supposed to use when writing about claims made by the authors of secondary sources. Past or present? Here are a couple examples:

1. In his book about cat breeding habits, Bob Yang claims/claimed that...
2. In her review of The Matrix, Michelle Zepp writes/wrote that...

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wafflewombat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Does MOS:TENSE answer your question? ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat: The last paragraph of MOS:BLPTENSE may be more applicable (it doesn't seem to apply only to BLPs). I'd also look for how similar situations, if any, are handled elsewhere in the article and try to avoid inconsistency. Deor (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My company is "Utah Health Policy Project" and my boss wants me to write an article for the main company. We have a program called "Take Care Utah" under our main company that has an article already. It is a little outdated, but it exists and names Utah Health Policy Project directly (no hyperlink, obviously). After doing some research into how to write an article, I'm seeing a few potential issues that might cause the article I write to be deleted, thus making any time and effort I put into writing it pointless.

The issues are:

1. I am too close to the company as I am an active paid employee, which goes against the conflict of interest guidelines. Would an unpaid intern be able to do this instead, or would it have to be someone completely unconnected to the organization? We have a few interns under contract from the local university, that are not paid by our company but do some work for us as needed.

2. Is "Utah Health Policy Project" notable enough to need its own page? We do host a large conference and festival every year, and there are a few articles published about us in local newspapers and online forums. Any advice on this would be appreciated!

Thank you! UhppUser (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor and open-mindedness, UhppUser. (1) An unpaid intern, or your paid self, could create a draft. An intern, even one who isn't paid, couldn't create an article. (2) It doesn't sound as if UHPP would be notable enough. However, you could (here, in this thread), provide links to what seem to be the three best sources, and we could extrapolate from these. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UhppUser. I suggest that you read the essay Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show your boss that essay as well, @UhppUser NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to publically praise you for your self-awareness and retrospection! Not every intern comes to teahouse wondering the notability of their organisation ... Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of my hobbies is looking up famous people and then information on their home towns. I have done this on Wikipedia for many years. Over the last several days when looking at locations ai Provo UT I noted that porn stars were being included in "Notable Residents". I do not consider this appropriate as Wikipedia is used by a wide range of people even those in grade and junior high schools. 2601:201:C182:1020:B103:DD1:4211:5AC4 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, here on Wikipedia, simply means "talked about in reliable sources". I wouldn't be surprised to find out that such actors are covered in reliable sources, in which case they would certainly be notable. Please note that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not censored, and may contain material that people find objectionable. Anything otherwise would be incompatible with that goal.

There is naturally a substantial amount of content that some might deem inappropriate for children on Wikipedia, as should be expected in any encyclopedia or other reference work, so parents should supervise their children if they don't wish for them to be exposed to that content. Tollens (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I can't seem to find anyone fitting that description listed in the articles Provo, Utah nor List of people from Provo, Utah to verify that their inclusion does indeed meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you are able to specify exactly what you're referring to I will be able to check. Tollens (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference if they're quite the same template and purpose?

My shortdesc was revised to short description on my revised edit of Kwek Kok Kwong RFNirmala (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortdesc is a redirect to/alias of the short description template. While yes, normally that would mean there is little to no reason to switch between the one and the other, in case of short descriptions specifically, those aliases should not be used because they cause difficulties for a bunch of gadgets and templates. AddWittyNameHere 04:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Will_Smith_slaps_Chris_Rock.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cyberpunk_2077_box_art.jpg are extended-protected. I want to propose that we change it to semi-protected; what is the proper procedure for coming to a consensus on this matter?

Assuming that using the talk page is best, what is the clearest way of wording these proposals to invite discussion? LucasR muteacc (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LucasR muteacc: The correct place to request a decrease in protection is WP:RFPP/D, after you first contact the administrator who protected the article directly and they do not respond within a reasonable amount of time (a day or two). You can see this information in the protection log ([2] and [3], respectively). Files very rarely need editing, so making a convincing request for a decrease in protection after there has been disruption to those files would be difficult. If what you actually want to do is make an edit to the page, you can instead submit an edit request, which would likely be much easier for all involved. You can use the edit request wizard to help. Tollens (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to link articles to a category I made called Pla (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it didn't send my full message, continuing: Category:Twin canopy aircraft, I'm not good at editing Wikipedia in general, so I'm a little lost with categories, (it didn't let me link my category by the way) could someone please help? (I also wanted this category to be a draft but I didnt know how) Pla (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also accidentally gave myself a wiki signature, removed now A-37Dragonfly (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A-37Dragonfly. In brief, you do not add articles to categories. Instead, you add categories to articles, and the wiki software automatically creates a list of articles containing that category. If you actually linked to that category here, then the Teahouse would be categorized as a Twin canopy aircraft. You can find complete instructions at Wikipedia:Categorization. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought it might have been that, I do have a bit of experience with adding categories to pages, thank you! A-37Dragonfly (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new wiki editor who is bilingual. This is my first time asking questions so please forgive any mistakes.

I have made an account in English, but when I edit in Chinese, the changes I make can't be linked to my account. Is there a fix for that?

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%93%A6%E5%B0%BC%E5%A1%94%E6%96%AF%E7%9A%84%E6%89%8B%E6%9C%AD&action=history

'2024年6月25日 (二) 20:39‎ Cherry567 留言 貢獻‎  32,996位元組 +35‎  →‎出版書籍：​第10冊中文版 https://www.iread.com.tw/Detail/ProdDetail/B000763399 復原 標籤：行動版編輯 行動版網頁編輯' Cherry567 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cherry567! Edits in different language versions of Wikipedia are only tracked on the language version they were made on, though a simple count is available in your global account information. zh:Special:Contributions/Cherry567 (your contributions page at that Wikipedia) does list that edit, similar to how Special:Contributions/Cherry567 lists your edits here. Your global account information is available at Special:CentralAuth/Cherry567, which indicates that you have made one edit there, and four here. Tollens (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have found some sources for an article I'm working on but they are in different languages I'm not fluent or familiar with. Does anyone know any tools to translate them so I can use them? xx feni (tellmehi) 08:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out WP:RSUE as well as Wikipedia:Translators available for translators that may be active on English Wikipedia that can help you. Some may use websites like IRC, Discord, or send translated versions through email. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FENFEN These days, online translators like Google translate do a pretty good job and are easy to use if your source is online and you can copy/paste in the text. That should give you enough of an idea whether the source is worth following up as Cowboygilbert suggests. It is not recommended you use automated translations to incorporate directly into Wikipedia articles: to do quality translations you really need to be competent in both languages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how can I undo a move performed by a different user which is not appropriate. As the move of the Jana Sena Party to Janasena Party, which is not appropriate as per common name and availability of sources. 456legendtalk 12:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read WP:UNDO. This will show steps that you can take for undoing someone's edit. Tools like Twinkle and Ultraviolet can help with undoing. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 12:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @456legend, in general you can learn about the high-level of undoing a movie at WP:UNDOMOVE. It appears that DaxServer has already moved the page back per WP:RMUM. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you very much. 456legendtalk 14:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For any passers-by, you can ask the technical move requests board for help. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did coffee had caffeine in it? 112.198.178.96 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Teahouse is a place for questions about editing Wikipedia in any namespace. Do you have a question that pertains to editing and not the scientific composition of coffee? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 12:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask general knowledge questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk, or just read the second paragraph of caffeine. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to see when a specific part of an article was last edited?

I'm looking at the article for Queenstown, Singapore, which is linked from the DYK today, and there are two images broken, making for an ugly top screen. But looking at the revision history I can't figure out when was the last time these images were OK. Al Begamut (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Begamut WP:WikiBlame may help do this for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... I think the problem edit was this one by User:Abductive which was very recent and has since been reverted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Al Begamut (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teahouse, I've been seeing this in some places where people give users who either (vandalized articles, disruptive editing, etc.) their 2nd warning but not getting their 1st warning for the common reasons (vandalizing articles, disruptive editing, blanking pages).

Is this allowed on Wikipedia? I just usually do the 1st warning first and if they persist then follow with the 2nd one, then 3rd, and so on, you get the point here.

I've seen this here and here, but something different here. Hope someone can assist me :) Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normanhunter2 The general policy for vandalism-type warnings is at WP:Vandalism#Warnings, which points out that it can be valid to go to high-level warnings and miss lower-level ones. Personally, I prefer not to use the standard templates, in the hope that a more personalised message will have a better effect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of personalized message are you talking about? Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example this one (which was to a new editor making good faith edits). Sometimes for vandalism I just use the {{stop}} template with a message when I am in a hurry and can't remember which of the standard templates is most appropriate. You must warn people (including IPs) before taking them to WP:AIV, so time can be important when trying to stop ongoing vandalism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the person just left like a warning without using the warning template? You can do that? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're not required to use the templated warnings. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normanhunter2 My approach is that 'common sense' has to prevail. If you arrive on the scene and discover an editor has made more than one vandalistic (=bad faith) edit, it's quite OK to leave them a second tier warning as their very first one. Your first example had clearly already made more than one bad vandalistic edit. See here

If someone makes some pretty appalling/damaging edits, then your first warning to them could be higher still!. Judgement is needed. You could conclude it would be pointless to let them make four more foul-mouthed edits and matching warnings before reporting them to WP:AIV. On the other hand, a first level warning is perfect for one single first edit. Add the user to your watchlist, or keep a tab open for an hour and maintain a watching eye on their edits, increasing the warnings if they continue, as appropriate. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great question, and even our most experienced anti-vandal volunteers have different approaches. My though is that going through all four levels and then blocking after a post-level-4 violation is often excessive for obvious vandalism, and I wish more users would escalate faster. Quoting from WP:UWLEVELS:

It is not always necessary for an editor engaging in vandalism to receive a full 4 warnings before they can be reported or blocked. In cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning. Alternatively, in cases of obvious bad faith vandalism, it may be appropriate to use a level 3 warning in the first instance.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a really good reference, thanks. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

plssssss..... 38.25.22.2 (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. What is it about Wikipedia you need help with? 57.140.16.8 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an account? David notMD (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! How do I add tags to an AFC draft?

Thanks mgenzac

Mgenzac (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgenzac Exactly the same way as you would to an article, for example using {{cn}}. However, the editor building the new article my not appreciate your "help" if they are in the middle of creating it and have not yet submitted it for review. There is a useful template {{AfC comment}} which goes near the top of the source code if you want to make a general point for the benefit of the reviewer or the author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mgenzac, welcome to the Teahouse!

What do you mean by tags? I'm going to guess either categories (which you don't need to on drafts: they'll usually be categorised pretty fast. There's a way to do it if you really want to, but I can't seem to find the instructions. If it's categories you want, someone else will definitely be able to link or explain.

Or do you mean a H:L (like that) to add links to other pages? If so, read H:L for some helpful hints!

And if neither Mike Turbull or I have understood the question, could you link to an example of the thing you want, or explain a bit more about it? StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for the category part at WP:Categorization#Drafts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some help on linking at certain places of an article for a category I made Category:Twin canopy aircraft, (an example right now is I would like to link to the Yak-110 to put in the category, but the Yak-110 is a variant of the Yak-55) A-37Dragonfly (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally fixed my own issue with the Yak-110 link A-37Dragonfly (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mainly asking this because while perusing a vs an mistakes, I noticed that there is a huge amount of articles which say "a oceanic" instead of "an oceanic". I mainly see this within the climate sections of various articles on specific villages and such in france. If this is a mistake, then I think something might have bugged out on whatever was used to create the climate sections. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaismagorm Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not aware of "a oceanic" being a language variant (like colour vs color). If that were the cae, then WP:ENGVAR would apply, meaning it's not OK to swap back and forth between language variants. Certainly, as a British English speaker, I'd regard "a oceanic" as deeply clumsy, and would want to correct it to "an oceanic". Maybe some of our N American editors would like to comment (though they all speak and write funny anyway. LOL.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaismagorm. An American speaking here. "An" should be used when the beginning of the following word is pronounced with a vowel sound. "Oceanic" is obviously pronounced beginning with a vowel sound, so "an" should be used. See Merriam-Webster for an explanation. A Google search shows that in actual usage, "an oceanic" is commonplace while "a oceanic" is almost unknown. Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, I guess I might as well go through the arduous process of changing those pages (unless somebody has an issue or evidence of a regional pronunciation difference) Gaismagorm (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what NM and C328 are saying here. Many of those climate paragraphs were added en masse, so it's likely it's just an error made by one or two editors. If you don't want to fix them all up manually, you might consider requesting help from WP:AWBREQ. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaismagorm Watch out, though. This search currently gives 484 hits but many of them are valid as the "a" is followed by a piped link. BTW my pet hate is that many American editors insist on writing "an herbicide" where I prefer "a herbicide". I leave well alone, in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull, "herbicide" along with "herb" is a legitimate ENGVAR issue. "Oceanic" is not. Most Americans pronounce those words with a silent "h". Please do not hate the variations within the English language. They are beautiful. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=%22a%20oceanic%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 Gaismagorm (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't show the same issue with piped links as it's not searching within the source code. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unless you mean I should mention that when posting a request on WP:AWBREQ Gaismagorm (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that number, I wouldn't bother with a bot. A few editors using your search (much better than mine) can soon remove them all. I'll volunteer to help if you ask.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah i got this, it'll just take a bit Gaismagorm (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull after 2 hours, I have finished the edits. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I'll contact you next time I have some tedious Wikignoming to do ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please don't I regret this lol Gaismagorm (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any guidance on how many images are suitable, or too many, for an article? I was casually looking at Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey and there appears to be over 40 images. More than double what it had when it achieved good article status. I don't tend to play much in the aircraft articles, but I thought I'd check guidance on this - but I can't find it. Can anyone point to an appropriate place? Don't get me wrong - I love images, and often think we should use more. But there seemed to be some unnecessary redundancy here. I've certainly seen editors culling images when there's a LOT less than 40 in an article. Nfitz (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGALLERY has a comment but no detailed advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the images in that article seem to highlight different aspects of the aircraft rather than repeat themselves. IMHO Wikipedia:Adding images improves the encyclopedia Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I deleted the third refuelling picture, which seemed redundant with one of the others. Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so can i have an example of how to properly construct an article because I'm new and sort of failing at it. Kary Nox (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kary Nox I'll give the regular advice of saying you should probably wait until you're a bit longer in the Wikitooth before you start making articles of your own, by that I mean making fixes on other articles and improving them before you take on one of the biggest challenges you can as a new user.

That all being said, some useful and quite helpful things for you would be WP:YFA, WP:BACKWARDS and WP:CITE. Another would be the layout page, which is a pretty good way to figure out a baseline for the article and I tend to use it a bunch, but if you know of any pages that are related to the subject of the article you're trying to make then you can use those as sort of a helping hand.

As an example, when making Catherine Jordan I used the articles of other Royal Naval senior officers and then as a more recent example I used the Catherine Jordan article to help me improve the page of Michael Wettlaufer. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I'm confused when it comes to adding Images in that column and add topics at the end I'm good at the writing part Kary Nox (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kary Nox Without seeing through your eyes it's difficult to tell what you're having trouble with, are there any particular parts of adding images/adding topics (headings?) that you're confused by? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kary Nox: Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you spend time looking at good articles to see what is considered outstanding on Wikipedia, and would recommend going through the Articles for Creation process after making edits to existing articles for a few months. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seem many articles self-published by those who are 'Autopatrolled' which are completely awful and would never make through the AFC process. Is it a license to publish whatever you deem qualified, subjectively? I read the page on autopatrolled but still do not understand how they get so much leniency. Thank you for clarifying. Geraldine Aino (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geraldine Aino. As far as I know, all the autopatrol user right changes is that your new creations are automatically marked as patrolled so it will not appear in Special:NewPagesFeed (and similar tools as) as unreviewed (see WP:NPP for more about that process). It doesn't grant any special approval or extra leniency. If there are issues with an article that was autopatrolled, feel free to improve/tag/discuss on the talk page/draftify if new enough/nominate for deletion as seems best. (I'm making no comment on any particular article you may be thinking of since I have not looked at them, just making general statements.)

I'll also remark that using articles for creation or not is unrelated to the autopatrolled right. Any autoconfirmed user (around for 4 days and have made at least 10 edits) is technically able to create articles directly and does not have to use the draft space/AFC process; it's generally suggested as one is learning. Skynxnex (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldine Aino, if you think someone is continuously creating new articles that are not up to a sufficient standard, you may want to contact an admin about it so they can remove the autopatrolled perm. Hey man im josh is an active NPP admin, so you might start there. But I would encourage you to be really sure you understand the criteria that NPP reviewers are looking at before you do so. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I did just that! I posted it to the group Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. No one would touch them. It was bizarre. Geraldine Aino (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's disappointing. Could you link to the thread? -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Search box? Martmain (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martmain: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find it at the top of pages. If your screen happens to be too narrow it may be collapsed into the icon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have already upload everything that needs to be uploaded for publishing -- except for a photo for the infobox which I'm still looking for.

Here is the entire draft for approval: Editing User:Eleniofillyria/sandbox - Wikipedia.

May I request that PrimeHunter Eleniofillyria (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link User:Eleniofillyria/sandbox I have added the submit template for you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eleniofillyria. Note that the presence or absence of a photo will not affect whether or not a reviewer will accept the draft. I encourage you to look for more independent sources - the first few citations in your draft are either interviews or clearly derived from Paat-Dahlstrom herself. 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. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. ColinFine for your comments and for Mr. Theroadislong for adding the original submit template for the draft, which I will still figure out how to use. Mr. Colinfine, you noted about quoting "independent sources" for the info regarding Paat-Dahlstrom. You must have noticed that the first 2 sources I quoted are well-respected, highly journalistic, independent news agencies in the Philippines, namely GMA News Online and Rappler.com (you can google these sources yourself).

Yes, they are interview pieces which these 2 established, "notable", and independent news sources have decided to conduct and interview. If they decided to publish such a piece regarding Paat-Dahlstrom, then it's probably logical to conclude that there was something definitely newsworthy on what she had to say. In fact, the person from Rappler who interviewed Paat-Dahlstrom for that article is Maria Ressa (Wikipedia entry: Maria Ressa), former CNN Jakarta Bureau Chief and included in Time 2018's Person of the Year issue of journalists combatting "fake news". I'm pretty sure her sense of genuine, un-fake news would have urged her to write a piece about Paat-Dahlstrom's mission to "democratize access to space", especially for Third World citizens.

Also Mr. Colinfine, I don't need to get information from Paat-Dahlstrom herself, as you may have suggested. All the information citing her are available online -- except for a few details. The Singularity.org citation and other work institutions she was and is currently connected with mentioned her other accomplishments. Since the lady is still living, I doubt she would have any other citation in a notable encyclopedia I could use.

So I'm not exactly sure Mr. Colinfine what other "notable sources" would you like to see, based on Wikipedia's writing guidelines? Pray advise me so I might rectify or improve on the draft :).

Again, I thank you both for your time in commenting and sharing valuable information in improving my draft. I look forward to your pleasant and helpful reply :).

Warmest regards,

Eleni Eleniofillyria (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was there evers an admin using Bad hand sockpuppets? Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but you could easily find out from Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause. -- Hoary (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a fun read! Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Resigned" tab also includes one I know of: User:Wifione who resigned WP:Under a cloud shortly before ArbCom site-banned him for multiple reasons including sockpupptry, paid editing, COI editing, etc. Even at his RFA, I recall pointing out his clear conflict of interest and possible paid editing, but he passed RFA anyway. He created multiple accounts and the Wifione account managed to gain adminship. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the name of the article on Wikipedia, but I clearly remember an article existing that showed common news websites etc and whether they are considered a reliable source to use in adding info to Wikipedia articles or not. Can someone help me find the name of it. Bzik2324 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bzik2324 and welcome to the tea house. I'm not sure if this what you mean but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (and a direct to the section down that page: WP:RSPSOURCES) is very similar. I'll note that there are many, many sources that are also acceptable and reliable (and the reverse) but this is a list of sources for which there have been sufficient discussion to be listed. Skynxnex (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skynxnex that is exactly the article I was trying to find. Bzik2324 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzik2324 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Marksaeed2024 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this article listing website domains that are explicitly not considered reliable: Special:BlockedExternalDomains Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to link the SR-71B into a category called Twin canopy aircraft, but I cannot put the SR-71 article into this category as the A and C variants would not belong, could somebody help? A-37Dragonfly (taellk) 23:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A-37Dragonfly. Categories are added to complete articles, not to sections of articles. The category should be a "defining characteristic" of the topic of the article. If only a very small percentage of SR-71s were the trainer version with twin canopies, then that is not a defining characteristic. Please see Wikipedia:Defining. Cullen328 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you A-37Dragonfly (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you can add categories to a redirect from a more specific topic to a more general one, like Lockheed SR-71B Blackbird. If you've ever seen a title in italics in a category page, that's a redirect in that category. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've added the SR-71B now, and plan to add more similar variants of planes like the SR-71B into tit A-37Dragonfly (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im not a computer guy, I WORK in a skilled trade, bro I can barely work my cellphone. Besides reading code, I sure in the hell cant write it? 216.183.151.75 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to a page where people can post questions about using Wikipedia. If you have such a question, I don't understand it. Could you rephrase it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the Chrome web browser on your mac, this article shows how to cast it to your TV. It also tells you how to turn it off. There's probably something similar for the native Safari browser, but I'm not a mac person. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find igbo writing in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimara Harrison (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Chimara Harrison, there's Igbo language. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There's also Wikipedia in Igbo '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm preparing to edit an article and in a foreign-language wiki I found a master's thesis as a source. The link was a dead one, (his former university had merged with another one) but I was able to track down the author. I emailed him asking for the new link to his thesis and he emailed me the thesis instead, with no restrictions on its use. So.... What do I do now? If I just cite it with no link, people will be worse off than I was, having no link to the original, now non-existent university... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something we can use. A Master's thesis can only be used as a reliable source if it is publicly available, and has had significant scholarly influence. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Meters (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been published published, it does not have to be online, but trying to use a Master's thesis as a source is not a great idea. Meters (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ask him if there is a publicly accessible source for his thesis. I don’t think he released his paper to a permissive license explicitly, but if he did you could upload it to Archive.org or Wikisource, and cite that.

A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A thesis should contain relaible sources for its content, so maybe you could use those sources instead. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this same change back in April per WP:RMUM. I’ve reverted it again now, but I wanted to ask somebody more experienced what to do. I don’t want to keep reverting these undiscussed moves. A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A Tree In A Box, go to WP:RPP to ask for move protection. -- asilvering (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was reading through this wiki content in hindi (link below) https://bh.wikipedia.org/wiki/मैंडारिन_बत्तख And found that the written language (Hindi) is seriously distorted and most of the sentences does not make true sense to what I read in the similar wiki version in English.

Please look into this.

Thank You! Avid-ansh (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Avid-ansh, we unfortunately cannot help with concerns about articles in other language editions of Wikipedia here. You may instead wish to ask about this at that Wikipedia. Tollens (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avid-ansh, that could be because that link is for the Bhojpuri language wikipedia. The language code for hindi wikipedia is hi. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As asilvering says, that article is in Bhojpuri bh:मैंडारिन बत्तख. It doesn't appear that anybody has yet written an article on this duck in Hindi. The Hindi article on ducks in general is at hi:बत्तख. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the Bhojpuri language before I happened to see this thread. And now, just a few minutes ago, someone left a message on "my talk page" in that Wikipedia. The message is in some language (I presume, that language), and I cannot read a single character of it. Weird! Uporządnicki (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal on Wikimedia software - when you visit another language project it automatically links your en.wiki account and often an automatic welcome message is posted. Qcne (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK: More precisely, if you are logged in at any Wikimedia wiki when you view a page at another then your account is created there (unless cookies are disabled in your browser or something). Some wikis post welcome messages to such automatically created accounts with no edits. I have a proposal at meta:Welcoming policy to disallow it. Special:CentralAuth/AzseicsoK shows all your accounts, most with 0 edits. That's normal. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter gosh. That proposal has been up for years... what's the procedure here? Do they just get ignored eternally? -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I never looked into procedural options but I clearly didn't do enough by just adding it to meta:Category:Global policy proposals. Maybe I should look at meta:Requests for comment. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, anyway, I've added my support to your proposal. I was very alarmed when I received my first such welcome - actually, that's why I have a meta userpage in the first place (so my babel boxes are visible on every wiki). -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Acadia University Cherry567 (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cherry567 Hello! If you look at that page on a laptop OR in desktop view on your device, there is a "Add topic" top-ish right-ish, that's how you start.

Looking at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acadia_University, my impression is that whoever designed that doesn't want people to start talkpage discussions, though it's technically possible with "Edit". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? Cherry567 (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly a new editor, but I'm seeing an issue that I'm not sure how to deal with. I try to assume good faith, but there is one editor who is making dozens of edits to a page every day that I feel are disruptive and who is at the same time advocating at AFD for the article to be deleted. It seems like this editor is trying to demonstrate why the article should be deleted by providing dozens of examples of why the article is problematic. Again, I try to assume good faith and accusing someone of disruptive editing may run afoul of that, but I feel like I'm drinking from a firehose to preserve the article's integrity in the face of a deluge of edits. BTW, this editor has been blocked from editing the article in question before for "persistent edit warring supported by wikilawyering on the talkpage".

Would appreciate any advice from editors with some experience with this sort of thing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr swordfish it would help if you could identify the editor in question. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant about calling someone out by name, but the details can be found at [4], [5], Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#New_Entries_Proposal, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(6th_nomination). Seems to be a pattern of WP:POINT. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help pls..... 81.2.17.144 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we cannot help you unless you tell us what you might need help with. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teahouse denizens. I've recently been editing the Allbirds page (glacially, I may add). One of my struggles is that I'm between basing it on Patagonia, Inc., Apple Inc., and Warby Parker, none of which are above B-class. It would help me understand what a number of good company articles have, and if I'm giving undue weight to anything in my edits (i.e. the legal and public reception sections). I apologise if this seems rambling. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oganguly: if you go to WP:GA, you can see 'Good articles' sorted, which should make it easier to find what you're looking for. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oganguly, please take a look at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. There are 129 Good articles about businesses listed there. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, DoubleGrazing: Thank you for the recommendations. I'll consult the Wikiprojects for advice on culling, and model on some of what I'm seeing on FAs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I am currently working on an article draft in my User namespace and I would like to add non-free images to it once the article is complete. As I understand it, non-free content that adheres to Wikipedia's policy of Fair Use should not be uploaded for use in the User namespace. The upload form states "It has to be an actual article, not a talkpage, template, user page, etc.". Does 'etc' include the Draft namespace, or am I free to upload images once I have moved the article into the Draft namespace? Does the draft need to be submitted as an AfC before I am allowed to upload images for it?

Thanks! quidama _talk 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quidama! Yes, the "etc." there includes the draft namespace, so you will not be allowed to use non-free images on drafts. You'll have to wait until it's completely moved to mainspace to add the non-free images. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you! quidama _talk 16:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Article on Game Designer Jeremy Crawford, it states that he is most well-known as the Lead Rules Designer for D&D 4th Edition. However, speaking for myself, I feel he is better known as the Lead Designer of D&D 5th edition. What is the process for changing it to mention that he worked on both? Do I need a citation to prove what someone is "Most Widely Known For"? TheSoS9k 16:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSoS9k I think it sounds rather subjective if someone has simply stated on Wikipedia that person X is most widely known for Y. They might have felt they were being helpful by saying that, but is it true and verifiable? I'd suggest just saying that the person X did both Y and Z, unless you have a published source reviewing their work that explicitly states they are most well known for something. In which case, say it and cite it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding! I do agree that saying someone is "most known for" something is a little bit of a cop-out, so I'll try and not have subjective language in my edit. TheSoS9k 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheSoS9k, it may be worthwhile to say that he played lead roles on various D&D editions. I'm not familiar with D&D, however, so the phrasing may need work. For ledes, however, try to imply the details in the body broadly. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given his current work on the 2024 Revision of 5e, I agree it might be best if we future-proof this a little and say either "various editions" or "4th edition and onward", though I would like other opinions on this as well. TheSoS9k 18:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I might as well ask while I'm here, should I add a link the the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons page when the topic of editions is first mentioned in the lead? TheSoS9k 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what it'll look like, but I get the feeling it could turn the lede into a sea of blue. There should be good opportunity in the bodies. I'm sure your judgement will be good. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for pointing that out, I was going to make both mentions of editions link to the specific subsections on the edition in question, but instead I think I'll put it over the first mention of the word "Edition" and that should hopefully clear up confusion while not making too much blue. I think if a user really wants to find out about 5th edition in particular, they can scroll down. TheSoS9k 18:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For months I've been contributing without hindrance. I only recently learned of the guideline disallowing self-citation. I've extensively cited other Joyce scholars, but it may be that most of the citations are to my book on Joyce, Ulysses and the Irish God published by Bucknell University Press. The book is available on Internet Archives. I'm not trying to sell copies, if there are any to be had. My book contains information absent from other sources, and my intent was to offer it.

I've also learned that my contribution has become too long. I've divided it into three parts, "Joyce, Shakespeare, Aquinas," "Joyce an the Eucharist," and "June 16, 1904." I realize that if my contribution is to remain, it will have to be condensed.

You should know that when I first came to the Ulysses page, it was in need of revision and reorganization, which I gladly provided. I had already worked on the other Joyce pages, which were in worse shape.

I'd like to continue with Wikipedia. I apologize for not having been as conversant with your guidelines as I should have, and for whatever inconvenience I may have caused as a result. I'd like to think that any lapse on my part would be offset by the value of my contributions.

Thank you.

Frederick K Lang Quarkny (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quarkny In my non-Joycian opinion (having read none of his work), far too much of what you added has nothing to do with Ulysses (book). Bring the ax. (and "Three quarks for Muster Mark!"). David notMD (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am having a popup on my phone saying my account Curiocurio is blocked from editing. There seems to be no problem editng on computers. I have no idea what this is for. The message reads "There are multiple blocks against your account and/or IP address". I don't believe I've violated any policies. There's no notice on my talk page. I've written a few articles with B ratings. Could someone help explain this. Curiocurio (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you edit via mobile networks at all? NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Curiocurio: Not sure if any of this applies to you, but here are some possible causes: WP:VPN says Note that if you see a block message and if you are on an Apple device, it may be because you have enabled iCloud Private Relay. If you use T-Mobile, there is some information on this page that might apply, but I think it should only happen if you are logged out Wikipedia:Advice_to_T-Mobile_IPv6_users RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Oliver Evans has a few sentences in the end of its first paragraph (in the lead) are directly copied from this Britannica article (which the article cites). I see this as plagarism, because it's not quoted and the text is directly copied. What should I do to correct it properly? Should I warn the user that made the copy? LucasR muteacc (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LucasR muteacc I've gone ahead and removed the material. It's pretty obvious that the user copy-pasted it from the Britannica article. I'll also warn the user, though they're an IP so they might get re-assigned before they see my warning. In future, after confirming the other website didn't copy from Wikipedia, you can remove the material and warn the user with template:uw-copyright. If they copied a lot of material, you can ask an admin to delete the material from the page's history as well useing template:copyvio-revdel, or by leaving a message on the admin's talk page. If it's more complicated, such as you can't figure out whether the Wikipedia article copied from the website or the website copied from the Wikipedia article, the material has been in the article for a really long time, you can ask for help deciding what to do next on the copyright problems notice board. Hope that helps, and thank you for finding this! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so for much for taking action! Could you confirm that this would be considered "plagarism", and if so, what WP policy pages should I look to for more information? LucasR muteacc (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LucasR muteacc. I want to second GLL's gratitude. Yes, that was definitely plagiarism. We tend to call it "copyright violation" or "copyvio" here. You can learn more about it at WP:COPYVIO, especially §Parts of article violate copyright. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a meta page for Wiki-Green Conference 2024 has become challenging, The reason is that the tabs for Event:Wiki-Green Conference 2024 is linked to Wiki-Green Conference 2023 and I don't know why. I will be grateful if I get help to solve this pending issue of 2023 activities repeating itself in 2024, so that I can quickly provided the necessary information to various tabs.Thank you Jwale2 (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]