Wikipedia:Teahouse

I'm looking at a List article (List of military electronics of the United States) which is currently 226,025 bytes and growing. There is a hatnote that the list is "very long", but when is it too long? How should an article with this much info be efficiently split into sub-pages? Thank you in advance. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 05:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to split it into parts for the different branches which would shorten the List for each branch. Synonimany (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might work except most items on the list are used across multiple branches. Not sure how we could accomplish that. My question was more like “should it be split” at this point? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one list for cross-branch equipment and one for each branch, could that work? Synonimany (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if for example this works, it should be split, as it would be more searchable and readable, because this would make the lists shorter. Synonimany (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, you agree it is time for splitting the list. Is that right? If so, I’ll try some things offline and eventually work something out. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this list is too long. Good luck. Synonimany (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to edit articles using the UI even though there is something that says this article is bad for X, Y, and Z, I see that other users have already fixed the problems on the articles. How do I make good edits when there are no more edits to make? Wikihelper59 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikihelper59, the Wikipedia:Task Center has a list of articles needing different edits. I believe you are intending to "Copy-Edit" to help improve articles. There are resources to help you there. Have fun! CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikihelper59 Citation hunting is always a good way to find articles to edit, that and it'll help you learn how to make citations properly. There's also plenty of stubs out there, just waiting for someone such as yourself to improve them. I always find it useful to go through Wikiprojects like Military History or Videogames, looking at their stub class articles. You can find those here: Category:Stub-Class military history articles Category:Stub-Class video game articles.

If you're so inclined, WikiProject Military History actually has lists of articles that need specific improvements, so you really can fill your boots if you know where to look. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks! I appreciate having so many places to start Wikihelper59 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know an account known as @BigMac, which is currently a McDonalds restaurant burger. The Wikipedia terms of service and the rules say that advertising users are not allowed and should be blocked, like accounts like @Rationalwiki. Am I allowed to block the user? Karrenswates (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User "BigMac" last edited 19 years ago. Is this user really worth our attention? -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only WP:ADMINs can block users. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were an admin(istrator), then you might be allowed to do it but you would not normally do it. User BigMac does not seem to pose a risk of doing anything wrong, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karrenswates, there is no account that I can detect, blocked or unblocked, called User: Rationalwiki, even though that is a website well known among skeptics. Why use that particular example, which is evidence of nothing? The hamburger account has not edited since before many college sophomores were born, and has never once edited to promote the big burger chain. Do you really think that investigating this ancient account is a good use of volunteer time? Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 'Bigmac' is a character in a popular series of children's books. Perhaps the account was named after him: naming accounts after fictional characters is quite common. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went into @BigMacs account, and according to the account, @BigMac was born in a McDonalds restaurant. Karrenswates (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just visited the Summary History for Music for the Requiem Mass to correct a link and didn't realize I had set off such a reaction from an unregistered user. I personally felt that their edits were unnecessary, not an improvement, and in some cases, lessened the content: [1], [2]. I reverted with a Summary stating: "Not an improvement. No RS provided. Out of context." It was met with: F*CK OFF, and Maine Artists - is this another page you think you OWN ??? It's a shit page anyway and needs a lot of work, with or without my help. You and your ilk really need to be identified and BANNED permanently from Wikipedia editing." I still do feel that this user's edits are unproductive or non-contributing (and in some instances: incorrect): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_for_the_Requiem_Mass&diff=prev&oldid=1230533027. I do not wish to revert or edit back for fear of further eruption. I have never encountered this user before and think that this must just be a pattern that they have experienced with other editors on WP. Thoughts? Maineartists (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maineartists. All editors (even unregistered accounts) are expected to follow WP:CIVIL as best as they can, but sometimes people don't. Perhaps they're just having a bad day or perhaps they just don't care. Either way, you can pursue this further at one of the administrator noticeboards if you want, or you can put in your rear view mirror for now and hope that's the end of it. Either way, if you feel the edits that were made were not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you can revert them or start a discussion about them on the article's talk page; in this case, the latter might be a better approach to avoid edit warring. Anyway, edit summaries (good or bad) aren't a substitute for talk page discussion when it comes to content disagreements among editors; you can't force the other person to participate, but they can't ignore a consensus established in such a way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a user warning to the IP account's user talk page. I'm not an administrator, but anyone can add a user warning if they feel one is warranted. How the account responds to that will probably provide an indication on what to do next. If they continue to attack and insult you, you can seek assistance at WP:ANI if you like; however, you might want to look at WP:ANI advice before doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marchjuly. I appreciate it. Maineartists (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for not noticing that the edit in question was made five months ago; however, for future reference, there's generally no point in I or anyone else adding a user warning or seeking administrator involvement with respect to something like this so far after the fact, especially when the account in question hasn't edited since then. I suggest you just ignore this and continue to try to improve the article in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If the IP comes back and repeats the behavior, deal with it then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maineartists, there are various comments that I could make, but perhaps first among them should be that the pair of edits you point to -- plus another that told you to "fu#k off" [such coyness in spelling!] -- were made five months ago. If an IP number behaved obnoxiously months previously but doesn't seem (even with a different number) to have reappeared thereafter, I'd just ignore the behavior. Secondly, you say: "I do not wish to revert or edit back for fear of further eruption." I suppose that on occasion I refrain from editing to improve an article because I'm pretty sure there'll be repercussions that, however wrongheaded, will waste my time. But I have no fear of eruptions. It's the erupters who tend to injure themselves, swiftly and grievously. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary This is extremely helpful. Thanks for taking the time to answer from a personal level. I appreciate it. Best. Maineartists (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come when people make accounts they aren't immediately on the search page. And, when they hover over their name, it doesn't show. 1 love nations (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1 love nations. It's not clear what you mean by search page. If you provide a specific example of the problem you're experiencing, someone might be able to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you would search yourself and find you but, that doesn't happen do you know why? 1 love nations (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the Wikipedia search bar Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you are looking for your name on Wikipedia after creating an account when you use the search page? Tesleemah (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do 1 love nations (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that situation put User:1 love nations or put a user filter. Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're searching for User:1 love nations, that won't show in the search results because you've not yet created a user page. If you search for User talk: 1 love nations, you'll get a result as that page exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 1 love nations (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Courtesy link: Horsepower

In the page I find the text "DIN 66036 defines one metric horsepower as the power to raise a mass of 75 kilograms against the Earth's gravitational force over a distance of one metre in one second"

It's been sixty years since I finished High School Physics, but I have a vague feeling that this text should include "measured at the Earth's surface" or similar? Thanks, Chris Greaves 96.30.182.81 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 96.30.182.81 (Chris). If you're able to support such a change with a citation to a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia), you can either (1) be WP:BOLD and make the change yourself or (2) be WP:CAUTIOUS by proposing it at Talk:Horsepower. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That reliable source must be the DIN 66036 because of the beginning of the sentence. 176.4.228.65 (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to using Wikipedia, despite this account being 4 months old because I was inactive and decided to use my account again. I like to edit my user page: user page by adding more templates. What are some great templates I can use because I am curios on how Wikipedia works. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While noting that the main purpose of this project is to develop and maintain encyclopedia articles, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries may be what you are looking for. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Where is the archive for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy?

Thanks, JohnRussell (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had quite a look around there, and I can't find one. My guess would be that as a "speedy" process it is not archived, the same way we do not archive speedy deletion nominations. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to create archive 1? UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the instructions anywhere,all i could find applies to AFTER something got archived already UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the one-step instructions at Help:Archiving (plain and simple). Dan Bloch (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well,I would not like auto archives,i would very much preffer for me to select myself what gets archived on my talk page UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 19:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Archiving a talk page#Semi-automated cut and paste procedure. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elli/OneClickArchiver is very easy to use. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnsungHistory The script linked by Just Step Sideways works well. It will add "|Archive" buttons to each section of a talk page. When your "/Archive 1" page starts to get full, you'll need to add Template:Archive basics to your talk page. The script/button will also work on any page archived by User:lowercase sigmabot III (which I think includes all the noticeboards). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe too specific to ask for the Teahouse, but I'm wondering if there's any precedent for mass-deleting redirects that shouldn't exist, even if they are probable. There's a norm with taxa articles that they should remain redlinks instead of redirects so that 1) the parent taxa can easily wikilink all of them, and 2) any interested editor can easily determine which of these don't yet have articles. Our template for this specific kind of redirect even reads "Note that the practice of creating redirects from species names that could be articles is strongly discouraged." I'm looking at the article List of Chlaenius species, and I have no idea what to do here. Most of the links are blue, but these overwhelmingly lead back to Chlaenius, a few lead back to List of Chlaenius species, and seemingly only one actually leads to an article. Usually when there are one or two of these, I just create the articles, but there are literally hundreds of them. Is there any easy way to mass-delete these so they can properly function as redlinks? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed at the Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion or at the WP:Village pump. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping, @TheTechnician27 Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wrote a draft of a page, and it was rejected. I wondered if anyone could give me more feedback on my sources. I thought that they were pretty good! Specifically, I included a Wall Street Journal and a Forbes article that were about the subject.

Can anyone give me more information on what I can do better?

Here is the draft of the page: Draft:Impel

Thank you. LilyXChloe (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LilyXChloe Hello. Can you describe your relationship with the company? You claim that you personally created the company logo and personally own the copyright to it. Policy requires you to disclose a connection(WP:COI) and the Terms of Use require disclosure if you are an employee or otherwise compensated by the company. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify (as someone who had no involvement with this article's rejection), the "Forbes article" (incorrectly cited as being written by someone named 'Forbes Georgia' when that's simply the publication name) is actually just a press release disguised as Forbes native content. This WSJ article seems like it reasonably contributes to notability but cannot substantiate it on its own, while this one seems to get its information from a press release and likely just falls under WP:CORPTRIV. Just my two cents, but pinging SafariScribe to apprise them of this discussion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft just summarizes the routine business activities of the company; not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows what sources say makes the company notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was Declined, which is less severe than "Rejected". David notMD (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just created a new musician Wiki page and its ready to be posted online. Having trouble with publishing it, even though all the changes have been saved and I hit the "Publish" button, it is still not coming up online. Is there something that I'm missing here? Thanks in advance. Dan Vadim Von (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited your user page, which is not article space and doesn't appear in search engines. I think you confused creating an article with creating an account. Did you intend to adopt the name of the person you edited about as your username? New accounts cannot directly create articles and need to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Your draft can be moved in to draft space if that's okay with you. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I created this page about myself. Can I move the entire block of content into Article Wizard? How can I move it into draft space? Dan Vadim Von (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft autobiography must be moved, either to your "sandbox" or to draft space. And a tip: remove the promotional junk ("legendary", "prestigious", etc). -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Adjusted the wording. How do I go about moving the content into either the sandbox or the draft space? Dan Vadim Von (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so. One moment 331dot (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to Draft:Dan Vadim Von. Your draft is completely unsourced and highly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable musician. Most people have great difficulty doing that about themselves. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For help with sourcing, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have been working on an article draft

Draft:Curtis School - Wikipedia

Please provide feedback or help to improve it before i submit it Mangoflies (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get feedback is to submit it- but I must say that it reads as a promotional brochure for the school. If you were to submit it now, it would be declined quickly. "Mission and values" is wholly unencyclopedic as it's just what the school says. A Wikipedia article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about the school. You only offer one independent source, which is far from establishing that the school is a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot

Would you like to help find reliable sources because there are quite a few out there Mangoflies (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoflies, this board isn't for recruiting people to help with your draft - we're just here to help with how Wikipedia works, generally. You can find a list of known reliable (and unreliable) sources at WP:RSPSS, and plenty of information about what you're looking for in a source at WP:42. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find reliable sources for you. If you want to write about this topic, you need to be the one to do the work. You have gone about this backwards; you wrote a text and are now looking for sources to support it- you should find the sources first and have them in hand before you begin writing. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mangoflies. Please note that 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) 22:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like some advice on grammar if possible.

As background, I'm mainly doing typo correction but also ventured into very basic copyediting on a couple of articles to get more experience.

I recently edited a couple of paragraphs on Yukio Mishima & was watching for feedback to see if I'd misunderstood anything, and there have been some corrections that I've taken on board. There is one I'm having trouble with, however.

My use of the word "whilst" was removed an "extreme Britishism" - it's only a few diffs down in the history, but let me know if you need a direct link.

I've been checking the MOS for guidance but had trouble finding much beyond British/American spelling differences. I'm totally fine & understand how that side of things works, but I'd like to know how to approach differences in grammar so I don't make the same mistake again. Do you have a link to the relevant part of the MOS or any advice on how to approach this in future?

Many thanks for your help! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally lean toward simpler language. "While" means the same thing and is more common. There's WP:POETIC and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary, but neither of these go into depth. If you're asking about language variants in general, the rule is just to stick with whatever's currently used in that specific article. I'll say that calling something an "extreme Britishism" seems a little prejudiced, but it can probably just be ignored. Thanks for your copyediting work! As someone who makes more than a few mistakes when writing, it's incredibly helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien Thank you for that, I was thinking it was because the term was a little too flowery, but the reference to it being "extreme" made me panic that I'd violated some specific rule! "While" would work better in light of Wikipedia:POETIC so I think I'll stick to using that in future, thanks again! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 70+ year old Brit, and the use of "whilst" strikes me as archaic. Maybe it's current in some other English-speaking nation? Maproom (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn’t anything to make a new article about because nothing is notable. Mangoflies (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoflies: Don't worry, there are definitely reliable topics out there with no article about them. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but I find that list to not be the best for truly reliable topics. In my case, I like to look at articles about plant genuses and create an article about one of the species listed there—see Sonchus, for example. But you don't have to create articles—we have a plethora of other things that need to get done at the Task center. Cheers ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Relativity

Most of the stub articles are unreferenced junk that just needs to be deleted. Mangoflies (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoflies: Not necessarily. There are lots of stub articles that could be improved to a much better quality. And, no, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need to be deleted, and most of the time it doesn't. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity I had to put a stub up for deletion and many people were agreeing with me. There was no reliable source, or even a source at all, and nobody could find any.

I don't understand how a topic that was this un-notable even made it onto the platform Mangoflies (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that a lot of these stubs were created 10-15 years ago when the bar was much lower. This leads to a dissonance between the standards back then and the standards of today. I hope this helps you to understand. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, improving existing articles is often more productive than creating new ones. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien

all of the good juicy articles are already class A or event FA Mangoflies (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast, vast majority of articles are not. "A class" isn't even really used outside of a few exceptions, so I get the impression that you haven't taken a very close look. Consider skimming the lists at WP:VA4 for some of the "good juicy" ones. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoflies Have you come across this page yet: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment. If you click those links for the counts of stub or start class articles, it will take you to a huge list. Each Wikiproject has something like this. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Mangoflies. Wikipedia has tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of seriously bad articles which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today.

Many of them should be deleted because their subjects simply don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Some of them should not be deleted because their subjects certainly are notable, but the current article does not cite the relevant sources. And there are many in between, whose subjects may or may not be notable.

Getting one of these up to an acceptable standard - or getting it deleted if it cannot be - will in my opinion add more value to Wikipedia that twenty editors who haven't yet learnt about topics such as notability, verifiability, reliable sources or neutral point of view all creating drafts and trying to get them accepted. It will certainly take up less time from reviewers and new page patrollers. ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help Harry-Shaun (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a welcome template on your talk page with various links to helpful pages for newcomers. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at Arthur Ingram (died 1742) for a bit now. It caught my attention for the weird title, but it seems like he fails a claim to notability, except for the fact that he was a British Member of Parliament.

On one hand, I cannot find any actual other information about him other than in the article, which seems like nothing that should hand him a wiki article. On the other, I am ursure whether being an MP is enough to claim nobility. Wikipedia:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians says that "Members of the devolved legislatures of the United Kingdom are presumed notable." I'm not sure if that means MPs are notable?? Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" but also "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels [are presumed notable]," which I think includes British Parliament. And lastly, List of MPs elected in the 1715 British general election has every MP that does not have a wiki article in a red link, suggesting that that article should be made, for the fact that are MPs.

I need someone else's insight on this.

Qwaabza (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the last quote you give above would definitely qualify as 'notable' (by status, rather than by available published documentation) a Member of Parliament (of the Kingdom of Great Britain, as it then was) – this is a National-level office, one step above the also-notable members of the devolved legislatures of the UK; the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the London Assembly (which of course did not exist in the 18th Century).

I suspect that more sources might exist for Arthur Ingram somewhere, but they would probably need deep research to find, perhaps in libraries or local government archives covering Horsham, for example, or in Parliamentary records, or in newspapers of the period (the first daily newspaper had begun publishing in 1702). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I guess it's just a underdeveloped article rather than a non-notable one.

Qwaabza (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I’m working on a draft article for AlwaysBeSmile, a musician, which you can find here: Draft:AlwaysBeSmile. I would be very grateful if someone could take a look and offer any advice on improving it. Specifically, I’d like guidance on meeting notability standards and ensuring the article is well-formatted and ready for submission.

Since I'm editing on a mobile device, any tips for mobile or VisualEditor would also be very helpful. Thank you so much for your time and assistance!

Warm regards, AlwaysBeSmile AlwaysBeSmile (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AlwaysBeSmile, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission looks like it is an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which is allowed on Wikipedia but is generally avoided due to problems in providing a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in your writing. I took a look at it and I can already see issues in verifiability due to lack of reliable sources. It can also be grounds for deletion under WP:SELFPROMO due to your username and the fact that an administrator can tell that it's you. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AlwaysBeSmile. Everything stated in a Wikipedia article must be verified by a reliable reference. You can’t just state things that you know (for example: AlwaysBeSmile is a musician), you have to cite a newspaper or magazine article, or a reliable website that isn’t directly connected to AlwaysBeSmile that gives that information. I would suggest you read Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. If you can’t find good reference it may be too soon for an article on the subject. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AlwaysBeSmile, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that 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.

This tends to make it very very hard to write an acceptable article about yourself: even if you can find suitable independent sources, you then need to forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you know they are wrong. (see WP:verifiability, not truth). This is difficulat for most people. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello~~~ I propose merging [[User:Wuwenhao19960507/sandbox]] into Unemployment in China. The edit history of this article is significant due to its specific time points, which are very important to me, so I wish to retain it. This is my first time editing Wikipedia, and while I understand some of the rules, I'm not fully familiar with the process. Hence, I'm requesting assistance from an administrator to move the content properly. If there are any issues with formatting or content, please let me know and I will promptly make the necessary adjustments. Thank you for your help! ~~~~ Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuwenhao19960507 Thank you for wanting to improve the article. The content in your sandbox seems to me to be well-sourced and comprehensive. If I were you, I would copy/paste each section of your sandbox one-at-a-time into the existing article, using the source editor and placing each section where you judge it best fits. An admin is not needed as the existing article is open to editing. The existing edit history of the article will be retained: your additions will then appear as new entries. As usual, if anyone reverts part of your new content, you need to discuss that on the Talk Page of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestion and will follow your advice accordingly. Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a bot in Wikipedia but i need assistance and help. Can you please explain how to make one? Thanks. Karrenswates (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karrenswates. Unsurprisingly, the shortcut WP:BOT takes you to Wikipedia:Bots, which includes a section called "How to create a bot". Read that entire page, paying close attention to that section. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want a bot to do that is not already done by existing bots? David notMD (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that special page on Russian Wikipedia called "Global user account vanish request," and it might be some feature that could be hidden on other wikis. How does Global User Accounts vanish in CentralAuth, instead of being blocked or globally-locked but the entry is visible. I just want to know about that policy - 𓆩♡𓆪𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘢𓆩♡𓆪 ・ ︶꒦꒷ 💬・✏️ ꒷꒦︶ 08:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sellena8053: see Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. MKFI (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, read the article and it's just user-requested vanishing in good faith. What about bad faith vandals that are requested by CheckUser, or in extreme cases, Arbitration Committee or WMF Office to redact the offending account from the public archives as a result of long-term abuse? - 𓆩♡𓆪𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘢𓆩♡𓆪 ・ ︶꒦꒷ 💬・✏️ ꒷꒦︶ 12:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sellena8053: I am not aware that can happen. Wikipedia:Oversighters can suppress individual edits, but this is different from account vanishing. Vanishing specifically does not remove edit history, it only renames who performed the edits. MKFI (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are famous, but they don't have a Wikipedia page so maybe we can do that. Rollingonthefloorwaackin (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollingonthefloorwaackin. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to try writing an article (not a wiki), please read WP:Your first article and follow those instructions. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Rollingonthefloorwaackin, and welcome to the Teahouse. 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) 23:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I submitted content to publish an article about my page. It was neutral, describing my biography. But its rejected. How can a person publish his article? Ashutosh Kapoor (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Kapoor, no, your deleted draft was not neutral. It was overtly self-promotional, not at all neutral, and very poorly referenced. Please be aware that self-promotional editing is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Try social media sites instead. Cullen328 (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Kapoor Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or otherwise tell about yourself; please see the autobiography policy. You also edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for you to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user only(not anything and everything about yourself). 331dot (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My draft for Woven Finance was declined, please i need help Emmysimple (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmysimple. What do you specifically need help with? All the information you need is in the decline notice at Draft:Woven Finance. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

this is the report, what do i need to do please. this is my first time posting Emmysimple (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmysimple Are you affiliated with or associated with Woven Finance in some way?

You need to find independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this company and describe how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. These sources should not be the reporting of routine business activities, press releases, staff interviews, or the like. Ideally you should have such sources in hand before attempting to write a draft, see WP:BACKWARD.

We usually advise newer users to not dive right in to creating new articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. It's best to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, to help learn how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. I might suggest using the new user tutorial as well. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago I was editing the article about Redout and I added a description of the plot and a description of the game modes. I did a similar thing with the ship classes for the article about Wipeout 2048. Aside from the fan wikis, there isn't much information about these kinds of things. Do my edits count as original research, since I basically paraphrased the in-game descriptions? ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is that this would be similar to the Plot section in an article about a novel (for example) where the text of the novel serves as the source, which the editor (you) rightly summarises and paraphrases. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction in general, and check out the articles listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Video games. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, video games is one of the search domains for which the {{find sources}} template is tailored. For example, see

• Find video game sources: "Redout" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

This should help generate a lot of sources you can then use to expand your article. Mathglot (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I’m looking for a new photo for Oliver Stark, the photo on the page was taken in 2011 and not very accurate of his current appearance. I am struggling to find a photo that is allowed to be posted on the Wikicommons, could anyone help me find one? TIA <3 Olivergrandeee (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Olivergrandeee (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivergrandeee: Your best bet would be to either meet Stark and take one yourself; or contact his agent and ask them to release a suitable image under an open licence (you may include a link to WP:A picture of you). Note that permission to use an image "on Wikipedia" is not sufficient). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivergrandeee Interestingly, the image currently in the article, File:Oliver stark14.jpg, has a tag from the c:COM:VRT folk saying that it was copyright of Stark himself, which means he must have been in touch with them to agree its being licensed. Hence he may be amenable to providing another photo. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While updating article, would it be wrong of me to take the information from website and make ChatGPT write an encyclopedic summary and paste it on Wiki, and then check and scrutinize it thoroughly as I would do with my own edits and publish it if I find no mistake, nothing wrong and no wrong interpretation? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no, then the case of '5% of new articles on Wikipedia are AI generated' would be slight less to worry about. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's thoroughly scrutinized, it's not violating any wikipedia policy. But LLM text is often... crap. So ymmv. The other trouble is that LLMs can parrot copyrighted text without you realizing it, so check for that as well. All in all I think it will take you longer than simply writing the content yourself the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-10-19/Recent_research

For my tuppence-worth, it would be wrong to paste it into an actual Article, because this would then be present for a period in Article Space (with likely inaccuracies and hallucinated references) before you had checked everything in it, but it might be acceptable to paste it into a Draft and check it there. Even better might be to work on it on your own device, and transfer it to Wikipedia (as an Article or, preferably Draft for Submission) only after you have checked and copy-edited everything.

Others may disagree. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Paste, check, publish" means it won't hit mainspace before it's checked. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that it is well known that LLMs rely on Wikipedia as a source, and thus including an LLM summary may mean including a Wikipedia summary, which my trigger WP:CIRCULAR issues as well as WP:WINARS. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Yeah, so I mentioned that I am intending to take the information from a reliable external source and just use LLM to summarize it. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do that when you can just summarize the source in your own words? Your English seems fine. Using LLM seems to be not only a waste of time for Wikipedia, but also a waste of time for you. You could go to whatever trouble it takes to add such a summary to the article, only to have it completely reworded or removed altogether by the very next person who edits the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a article about Fire colors but idk how to make refrecnes 1,250,261,161a (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1,250,261,161a You may not need to make an article from scratch, which is in any case a difficult task for a newcomer. You could add well-referenced extra information to articles like Fire and Colored fire. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article for the Scots song "Cam Ye o'er frae France", and felt as though the way the meaning of the song was written was inefficient as well as sometimes incorrect. I was hoping to change the formatting significantly, and was wondering if there was any permissions or the like I needed to do this. I am a new editor but its not an important page by any means (the last time the talk page was used was in 2014). Any tips/info would be greatly appreciated. RazorPantherz (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RazorPantherz We encourage all editors to be bold at making changes, bearing in mind that subsequently they may need to discuss their edit if reverted. That's the process described at WP:BRD. The main thing you need to watch out for is that you don't engage in original research. Any change you make beyond simple formatting, needs to be backed up by reliable, published sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my topic i am trying to make an draft about is lacking sources, there are indeed sources, such as the oficial IBM website, but they do not directly reference it, just site technologies it includes TheABCDEL (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheABCDEL, please read Wikipedia:NotSource. You did not find external sources referring to the device anywhere in Draft:IBM 003. Drdr150 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is editing other users' talk page comments inappropiate? Cyber the tiger (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Usually, editing other's comments can be seen as inappropriate because it's almost "bending what someone says", and when someone changed what someone else says, that comment may take on a different meaning. E_F⁵ 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberTheTiger You will find more information at WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberTheTiger: Perhaps if you provide an example of when you think it should be OK for someone to edit another's comment, it might be easier to answer your question in a more specific way. For example, your original post contains a spelling error and many people would see "correcting" that error as something that should and needs to be done; Wikipedia, however, doesn't hold talk page posts to the same publishing standards as it does article content and recommends not making such editorial changes because doing so can create more negatives than positives. For sure, some might not care and actually welcome such corrections, but others might feel offended by them because it makes them feel as if their posts are being graded in some way. So, Wikipedia tells us to live with such mistakes as best as we can and seek clarification when they somehow might affect the meaning of the post. Generally, Wikipedia only suggests we edit or remove posts made by others when they're serious policy issues involved (like a personal attack against another editor, posting of someone's personal information, copyright violations, etc.) or perhaps to fix a formatting or syntax error that's impacting the page as a whole or how the post is being displayed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what do you do when a map provided by Wikipedia clearly indicates that a bird doesn't reside, breed or go near a certain area, yet it has been placed as a member of that area?

List of birds of Gauteng

Pertaining specifically to both the old and new world parrots where the map shows a clear gap around the area that is Gauteng, the only time you will see them in the wild is if someone has lost them as pets. But if this is to be true, then why not add cockatiels and budgies to the list because the only other place to see them in the Johannesburg zoo.

Yet they are they not the only birds that have been erroneously placed in this list but unfortunately maps are not provided on all of these, Flamingos, pelicans, ostriches and storks are not residents of Gauteng. I'm an avid bird enthusiast who resides in Gauteng and dream that they soar or roam freely around my province, but there's a difference between fact and dreams. Jayveesee (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it's hard to prove a negative. What you can do, in general, when you see a problem like this, is remove the content and leave an edit summary that explains your reasoning, along with the magic words: "unsourced content". Now anyone who wants to add that back in has to follow WP:BURDEN. In theory. In practice it may become messier, in which case you can always come back here for advice. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help mate.

I tried it, but for whatever reason once again it's been restored to how it was.

Not going to bother anymore. Jayveesee (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you forgot the magic words: "unsourced content". It's time to go to the article talk page, and explain there. Tag in the users who are reverting you, and explain what's up, and why that map isn't a reliable source for whatever reason. And don't forget to log in before making edits. -- asilvering (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayveesee. A thing to remember is that maps like this only try to represent what is usual, and are too small scale to show fine detail. In the case of birds which – surprise! – sometimes behave unusually, get lost, or get blown by contrary winds over long distances, even across oceans, there will always be some of a particular species occasionally showing up in some places where they do not routinely visit or live. At some level, this may happen sufficiently often to be worth noting in texts and lists, but not so often as to show on distribution maps.

Also, changes happen in the climate (etc.), and in species' distributions as they respond to the changes. Since neither existing distribution maps nor textual descriptions get automatically updated, some of them will be out of date, and may disagree with one another. It would be nice if all of these maps, texts and lists were regularly checked against the latest published scientific/ornothological information (the same goes for non-bird species as well, of course), but there aren't enough volunteer editors who want to do it, so we depend on editors like yourself to notice particular anomalies like this, investigate, and update the material if and as necessary, always citing Reliable sources, of course. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that particular page is extremely well maintained as after both my brother and I tried to fix it twice each, yet it keeps being restored to it's incorrect glory. I don't know how much wind there has to be to have brought the invisible ostriches we're supposed to have in the province that I reside and have constantly roamed around in for 35 of the 43 years of my life, but perhaps I should partake in some smoking habits before leaving the house to be able to see them.

It's no wonder more people are refraining from using the website, imagine a kid being an enthusiastic future ornithologist wants to see flamingos, pelicans and a few of the raptors that are on this list only to have the bitter disappointment of coming to the realisation that they can only be seen in sanctuary at the zoo they've already seen so many times before. I thought our edits are supposed to repair mistakes, not spread misinformation... Jayveesee (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You - or rather an IP address which is presumably you, or your bother, but logged out - are removing entries including those tagged as "(A) Accidental – a species which has been recorded 10 or fewer times in Gauteng". So you wouldn't reasonably expect to see them often, or at all, but they have been there at some point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the IP address is blocked, and given edits like [9] rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my brother, he's not a very tactful person, and the reason for me signing up as an "editor" to show things can be repaired with reasoning and conversation.

Thanks for the suggestions. And yes, as I have at multiple occasions have stated the only place you will see live flamingos in Gauteng is in a sanctuary or the Johannesburg zoo. Jayveesee (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all the species you removed, but our own article on Marievale Bird Sanctuary in GP has a picture of a flamingo there; and eBird has 852 records of the species in the province; and 3893 records of Green woodhoopoe; many for each with photos. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it for someone else to repair in the meantime, as I still am busy learning how to edit properly and effectively for the benefit of the readers before delving back, if it hasn't already been repaired by that time, to fix it appropriately without having anyone having any issues with the edits I make.

Once again thanks Andy Jayveesee (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is removing the deletion tag from a page you created yourself wrong? Cyber the tiger (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally regarded as deceptive, @CyberTheTiger and goes against the spirit of consensus. If you disagree with the deletion, you should instead engage in the deletion discussion to explain why the page meets Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines. qcne (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exception would be deletion via a WP:PROD, where the page creator can certainly stop the proposed deletion and subsequently engage in a consensus-building discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberTheTiger,you do not own the page you created,you can object off course,providing a reason of why it should not be deleted ("I created it"will not be excepted),but removing the deletion tag is when a major consensus is met UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 19:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address socking? An IP address is not an account Cyber the tiger (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SOCK:

Sockpuppetry takes various forms:

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address qcne (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the same article or Talk page from an account and logged out so as to appear as an IP address would give the impression that two people are involved. David notMD (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be directly sockpuppetry (technically,as the policy does not say anything about that),but still,disruptive editing is not ok UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 00:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the multiple reliable sources for being rated C-class (see Wikipedia:Content assessment) have to be cited inline, or can they be listed in a general references section (i.e. the article is tagged with a {{inline}} tag)? Mrfoogles (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the article I was trying to rate when I thought of this was Differential optical absorption spectroscopy, although I've now put it as Start because it only really has one subsection. I've run into this a couple times, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would class that as start for the same reason. As for C-class, some wikiprojects care more than others, and most don't really care much, so in general you're free to go by vibes. Typically I'd say that B-class is what requires inline citations and C-class doesn't, but it's worth keeping WP:MINREF in mind - we mostly don't require inline citations anywhere. Even in Good Articles, strictly speaking. (Though most reviewers will be pickier.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely to be challenged" is kind of a nightmare of a criteria, though -- almost no statements are ever challenged in obscure articles, while essentially any statement made on the United States page must have at least 2-3 citations, in practice. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're telling me. -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a template for Cult groups, so I started creating one in my sandbox. Then I discovered it HAD existed at one point, but was moved to Template:New Religious Movements. There's a 12 year old archived discussion in which they decided to perform this move. To me, the conflation of Cults with New Religious movements is a ridiculous error, and perhaps libelous, as not all cults are specifically New Religious in nature (example the Manson Family). Having The Branch Dividians in the same template as the Latter Day Saints is ludicrous. Wikipedia instructs to use the most common term for titles and the term Cult is extremely common in reliable sources. So it seems to me we have a big missing page in Wikipedia in this regard. I'm looking for thoughts on how we can rememdy this. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might try asking at WT:NRM for interested editors. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy pop goes the weasel My issue is this would be very duplicative of the NRM (already massive) one and a term that is far, far more likely to result in edit wars. The term is also extremely contentious without a great definition - what exactly a “cult” is varies so widely from source to source that creating a consistent navbox from any one of them is a nightmare. What will be the basis for inclusion? Any group that has been called a cult ever? Or are we going to OR our way into deciding which ones are Real Cults? Seems bad. I agree with you about the Manson family but honestly sometimes the less strictly religious groups are still classified as NRMs, like Landmark Worldwide. And I don’t think it’s odd with the Mormons - plenty of people would edit war over including them in any prospective cult navbox so I don’t think that would solve the problem. They’re also often accused of being a cult. See why the cult leader category was just deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current solution is factually lacking and misleading... I read the old discussion from 2012. We have a responsibility to be complete and factually accurate. As Wikipedia is built upon reliable secondary sources all we really need are reliable secondary sources that refer to a group as a Cult. It's an error to conflate all of it under the banner of Religion, particularly when we're forced to leave major Cults out of the existing template: For example we have NXIVM, a major recent example of a non-religious Cult referred to by reliable sources as a Cult. I cannot understand why there's so much reluctance to use a template that lists Cults and related topics when the articles on Cults already refer to them as Cults. Wikipedia also instructs us to use the most common term for things and while everyone knows the word Cult and it appears in reliable sources with great frequency, for more than "New Religious Movement". New Religious Movement simply does not equate to Cult and vice versa. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy pop goes the weasel There are plenty of secondary sources that refer to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any religion at all, as cults. So is the scope going to be any group that has ever been described as one? What is the inclusion criteria? And if not, what is the definition? We don't have a List of cults, or List of groups described as cults, for the same reason, because there was no agreement on what constitutes one. A navbox based purely on a contentious label is bad. And no, under some definitions they are more or less one-to-one, Landmark Worldwide is non religious and is often called a cult, but has also been described as an NRM. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just finished working on Costa da Mina and for some reason two of the three images that I've used to illustrate the article don't appear while viewing the article, but they do when I'm editing in the visual editor. Does anyone know what may be causing this? I don't believe I've ever encountered this issue. Thank you! BaduFerreira (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BaduFerreira I restored the two images by removing the alternative name of Elmina Castle. Possible that {{ }} inside a file description 'broke' the image. David notMD (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See |cat=no at Template:Lang#Syntax and usage. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaduFerreira: I have used |cat=no when {{lang}} is used in link text.[10] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting, I've never noticed that template field. Thank you for the help to the both of you. All the best BaduFerreira (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been removed and I'm looking for help to get it published successfully. I have removed all peacock words and think the tone is appropriately encylopedic. I've had some issues with references, too, but am doing tutorials to learn how to fix those problems. Here is the link: Draft:Mary Rutan Health

Thank you,

Stella Worth Stella Worth (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stella Worth, this is getting better, the tone has improved a lot. Part of the trouble, though, is that you have some promotional content - even if you just give the bare facts for some of this, it's not really encyclopedic. Picture it like this: many articles submitted to Wikipedia are effectively never substantially edited again after their creation. What in this article would still be useful in ten years? -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Worth, it's unclear what the subject of Draft:Mary Rutan Health is meant to be. Is it the hospital? Or the health cnter? Or the nfp? Maproom (talk)

I have been doing suggested edits on Wikipedia and many articles say "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information". I don't understand where in the world does this article contains this subject because they haven't help me get started to this platform. So I need more understanding about this. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NicePrettyFlower: That message is displayed by {{peacock}}, one of many cleanup templates. The subject of an article is just whatever that article describes. For example, the subject of the article Pennsylvania is the US state of Pennsylvania. Does that answer your question? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for making a good example. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I'm not being bold. However, can I make a redirect to the Communist Action Organization in Iraq page? Rager7 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rager7: Yes – since your account is autoconfirmed, you can make redirects. Did you have a particular redirect title in mind, such as CAOI? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of titling the redirect to "Iraq Communist Organization", but CAOI is also good title for redirect. Rager7 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is self explanatory: For example: 𒆳𒀭𒊹𒆠. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RedactedHumanoid, if they're salted I imagine that this is because they (A) have been found to appeal to certain trolls and (B) don't seem to have any encyclopedic use. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So titles that contain characters that aren't in the BMP don't have encyclopaedic value, or am I getting that wrong? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is more to stop trolls. If you wish to create an encyclopedic article that uses a salted title that doesn't not touch on technical restrictions, have a draft ready either in your sandbox or draftspace and request a move accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual characters may be accidents and not vandalism. In either case, it probably shouldn't be in a page title. Administrators can still create meaningful titles on request. By the way, it's called blacklisted, not salted which is protection against a single specific title. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Courtesy link: Blood vessel § Structure

i found out that Krogh’s dilemma that helped formulate the capillary recruitment hypothesis. is false and this video explains why i'm to lazy to edit wikipedia about it if anyone wants a crack at it feel free to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgo7rm5Maqg Noaski5 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Blood vessel, the original estimate by Krogh for the cumulative length of blood vessels in the human body is stated and referenced, followed by a revised much shorter estimate, also referenced. There is no need to consider a lengthy YouTube video as a reference. HOWEVER, at Blood vessel, the reference for Krogh is wrong and needs to be replaced. David notMD (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably would be better off discussing this at Talk:Blood vessel since that's where you're likely going to find someone familiar with the subject matter. You could also be WP:BOLD and fix things yourself. Finally, stating you're to lazy to edit wikipedia about it when you're not too lazy to post about here at the Teahouse sort of rings hollow, don't you think? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source but the specific channel you provided is, however it is in a nutshell, according to this essay (Wikipedia:Oversimplification)it is discouraged UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 19:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's what I want to do, this is related to the 2024 US presidential election results Theprez11ue (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to make a level-headed, well-informed, persuasively referenced objection to an article, you're free to do so on that article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i accidentally made a category and i would like to sincerely apologize for doing so. i would like to be a serious editor but if i keep making mistakes like this and the times where mobile edits remove content how will i become an editor rather than just a fool on this website? how do i fix this and prevent further problems on the site? Avienby (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avienby. Proofread your work and think very carefully before clicking the "Publish changes" button. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid editing when sleepy, when distracted, or after having ingested alcohol, a narcotic, a hallucinogen, etc. If you realize that, moments previously, you accidentally created something (an article, a category, whatever), simply blank it. It will then be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

idk Emirates380 boeing (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emirates380 boeing: I'm not sure what you mean by 'Fala', but if you want to discuss the reasons why the page User:Emirates380 boeing has been deleted, you may want to read the message User:Hey man im josh has left at your Talk page first:

User talk:Emirates380 boeing#Speedy deletion nomination of User:Emirates380 boeing.

Also, please be sure to read detailed rules linked there (′section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion′ and ′Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service′). --CiaPan (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether to add {{Citation needed}} to an article I submitted for review, or just remove the material needing a citation.

This is for an article on a living person Draft:Gary Stockdale

Some material is poorly sourced and so needs to cite a more objective source. The material is NOT controversial. I am hoping that I or someone else will find a better source at some point. I see 3 options here:

1. Add {{Citation needed}} after the poor source citation.
2. Replace the poor source citation with {{Citation needed}}.
3. Remove the poorly sourced material.

Which option is best, or another option? Dr.bobbs (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.bobbs The policy for biographies of living people says that all material that could be challenged must have an inline citation, or should be removed. While you are tidying up, please remove all the external links within the main text. There can be an external links section at the foot of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In South Florida, there is a Census Designated Place called Biscayne Gardens. It is in Miami-Dade County and has around 40,000 residents. For whatever reason, both Wikipedia and Google Maps has this place as Golden Glades. This is a legacy error but now the Census Bureau has corrected the name, and the county government, and just about everyone else knows the area as Biscayne Gardens. (Biscayne Gardens Park, Biscayne Gardens Elementary School, Biscayne Gardens Chamber of Commerce, etc.)

I tried to edit the Golden Glades Wikipedia page and had some success, however, I could not figure out how to make Wikipedia land on a dedicated Biscayne Gardens page even though most of the references are corrected. Basically, there is no such place as Golden Glades, and if someone wants to look up Biscayne Gardens, there should be a page called Biscayne Gardens, and not be directed to Golden Glades.

Does the whole page need to be copied into a new page titled Biscayne Gardens, or does it have to be done over? Can the actual page name be changed?

Any help in this regard is greatly appreciated. I am a member of Biscayne Gardens Civic Association and a concerned citizen wanting uniformity and consistency as several important downstream end-user rely on this information.

Thank you very much! Any help is greatly appreciated! Golden Glades, Florida John.corina (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've moved the article over the redirect; now at Biscayne Gardens, Florida. Deor (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! This is amazing. However, I see there are still references to Golden Glades in the article that should be Biscayne Gardens instead. For example, the label of the front page map shows Golden Glades and should of course be Biscayne Gardens. There is also a replacement needed in the Demographics section. The only exception being, just above "Geography" on the front page, it states, "It's also the location of the Biscayne Gardens Interchange..." That needs to be changed to the Golden Glades Interchange as that is what it is actually called and was really the source of the Census Designated Place name confusion. If you would be so kind and make these changes that would be great or if you think I can do it I will try! Thanks Again! John.corina (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John.corina: I've made those three changes. If you see anything else that needs fixing, feel free to make the neccessary changes yourself. Deor (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gang, first time caller. Some recent edits to Paul Williams (comedian) have added a section for a game between friends he reportedly created and mentioned on an episode of a podcast.

Personally, I don’t feel this information has any encyclopedic value - it seems like a casual podcast anecdote, the punchline to which has also been included in the text. But that’s just my opinion. I can’t really find any policies this inclusion is actually violating. It’s uncited, sure, but that’s easily resolved. Maybe WP:NOTDIARY?

Is there anything I’m missing, or is this just a case where the content of Wikipedia isn’t at my personal discretion? Geesi (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it should be removed per WP:UNDUE, also it's currently not cited to any sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that one, though my interpretation was that it specifically referred to giving undue weight to viewpoints. I do see now the mention of aspects, though it isn’t really elaborated on or defined in the rest of the policy.

I feel I should be looking for some sort of “Wikipedia is not exhaustive, not everything someone says or does is automatically notable for inclusion, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill, etc” policy, though I recognise notability guidelines refer to the articles themselves and not the content within.

I’ll still hold off for now, but thanks for your take! Geesi (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're looking for WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that one too. It sort of applies, but seemingly isn’t used in the context of BLP, and more guides away from unnecessary lists or data. I even thought about WP:NOTPLOT within that, but I don’t think such a creation really qualifies as creative work.

I’m pretty sure I’m massively overthinking this. Thanks for your input as well. Geesi (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the classic Wikipedian move of citing UNDUE when I really mean WP:MINORASPECT, the adjacent part of the NPOV policy that deals with details/aspects as opposed to viewpoints. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that fits perfectly! I’ll admit I glossed over the balance section as I naively assumed it was all about balancing viewpoints. Unfortunately another user has jumped on the edit, but thanks very much for your time! ☕️ Geesi (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did wikipedia recently changed the default font or something? Suddenly everything looks clean and can't pinpoint exactly why. VihirLak007^hmu!/_duh. 15:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

right column "labels" info does not currently contain all the entities in the narrative. had multiple failures trying to report directly to Volunteer Response Team 2603:8000:BE00:AAE8:2912:4952:62BE:ED35 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. The c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team are people who sort out copyright issues on Wikimedia Commons, not those who respond to edit requests on en:Wikipedia. You can either edit the article Boney James yourself or make an edit request on its Talk Page. You may find the Category:Boney James albums helpful in listing his main albums, all of which have individual articles here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you request a rollback (and not the permission to become a rollbacker) to someone who has the right? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ExclusiveEditor, there is no such place. It would usually be preferable to instead simply revert whatever edit you're looking at yourself, with UNDO, Twinkle, or any of the other various tools available to non-rollbackers. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would've been great if more groups were added to recently active groups. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, rollback doesn't really allow you to do much you can't do without. In the vast majority of cases, you can revert edits in a few clicks (rather than a single click with rollback) to the same effect. The only case where rollback is needed is to revert large removals that happen to remove something on the spam blacklist, but it is usually better to review these by hand. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors who replied before me are pretty much right. Another use for rollback is if a user has done, let’s say, 50 very quick unconstructive edits to different articles, rollback is usually the best way to revert them all. Such users can be reported to WP:AIV and the blocking admin can deal with it. For other cases, Twinkle is enough. win8x (talking | spying) 20:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesanyone else see the malformed {{cite web}} located at the end of Draft:2007 Greensburg, Kansas, tornado? It looks like this:

• Our+%E2%80%9CPerfect+Storm%E2%80%9D&rft.date=2024-02&rft.aulast=Sweet&rft.aufirst=Mary&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fkcmh.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F02%2FGreensburg.pdf&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ADraft%3A2007+Greensburg%2C+Kansas%2C+tornado" class="Z3988">

Not sure what's happening, it looks perfectly normal in the visual and source editors. Also seems to look fine on mobile. E_F⁵ 16:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine here (desktop view). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine (mobile Web view) Synonimany (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to edit an existing es.wikipedia if I am logged in on canadian wikipedia? I just want to add a photo to an existing biographical article. I had assumed they are all one gigantic wiki, but maybe I'm wrong? EarthMother52 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthMother52 You global contribution history shows only this edit. Accounts are indeed global, so you should be able to use the same logon to edit on other-language versions. Note that each has its own policies, so those for es.Wikipedia will differ from ours. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EarthMother52. There is no such thing as the Canadian Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is for all English language speakers worldwide. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I wanted to add a photo to a wiki page devoted to a relation of mine but first of all I am only able to view it on es.wikipedia translated into English. It does not even appear in a search of English language wiki. So when I go to the page via es.wikipedia it doesn't recognize that I am signed in. On top of that issue I don't see any "upload photo" option anywhere. Sorry, I am brand new here. EarthMother52 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There are a few things to consider here. Different language versions (English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, etc.) are independent communities which often have different policies, although you do share one account on all of them. Regarding photos, there are two ways to do it. You can upload them on Wikimedia Commons, which hosts freely licensed pictures that can be used on all Wikipedias. You can also upload them on one specific language version of Wikipedia under what is called "fair use", meaning the picture is copyrighted but an equivalent free picture cannot be created, which is very rare.

If you wish to upload a photo of someone you know, assuming you took it yourself and are okay with having it under a free license (meaning it can be reused, modified and commercialized while giving you proper attribution), you can upload it on Wikimedia Commons. However, editing the article directly is not recommended (on English Wikipedia, there are the conflict of interest guidelines, although I don't know if they are identical on Spanish Wikipedia). It is best to go on the article's talk page and put an edit request there, noting that you know the person and took the picture of them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one of my DYKs was promoted but then pulled down for what I believe is an unreasonable reason. I already reached out to the Teahouse for assistance (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1239#Question_2), and I also sought guidance from one of the most respected Burmese editors, Hybernator (User talk:Hybernator#Question). I revised the article as much as I could according to his suggestions and believe the current version is sufficient. However, the DYK promoter User:AirshipJungleman29 continues to raise issues and pose endless questions. I’ve been patient and polite, as advised by our leader in the Burmese Wikipedia Group, who mentioned that AirshipJungleman29 often challenges Burmese and Chinese editors in the past. So, I keep my desire.

I’ve explained that Asian religious traditions differ significantly from Western ones, and if my article has problems, similar questions should be raised on articles like Sita or Rama, who are also characters from the epic Ramayana, just like Kusa Jataka. I even added an analysis section as requested by AirshipJungleman29. He is still not happy with the improvement. I’m struggling to handle this situation and would prefer not to reopen the case, but I can’t ignore the difficulties being imposed on me. Should I request input from ANI editors? Even if he doesn’t agree with me, I believe he should respect Hybernator. I can't tolerate this kind of rudeness. Wikipedia is a global community where any issues can be discussed openly to resolve them. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DYKTIMEOUT: "unpromoted nominations over two months old may be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and promoters."

Well, all the DYK reviewers were too busy to review my nomination within the two-month period. By the time it was reviewed, I had no internet access, but I tried to respond promptly once I was able to get online and addressed the issues. Despite my best efforts, they ultimately rejected the nomination per NLH5. The delay in reviewing the DYK is not the nominator’s (my) fault, as the reviewers seemed too busy and neglected it. If they had reviewed my nomination within one or two months, I would have had enough time to make any necessary revisions for approval. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hteiktinhein. As it says near the top of WP:ANI, This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What you are describing is a routine content dispute, and ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. I do not think that you would get a friendly reception at ANI. There are several other forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe he has sufficient knowledge of Buddhist cosmology to make content judgments based on his own opinions. At the very least, he should seek input or request comments from a Pali Canon expert or experienced editors on Buddhism, like Redtigerxyz. If a Pali scholar disagrees with the quality of my article for DYK, I will willingly withdraw it. A Christian editor may not fully understand Buddhist cosmology. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hteiktinhein, please let me know who your leader in the Burmese Wikipedia Group is, and what exactly they said about my attitude to Burmese and Chinese editors. You can ping them to this discussion if necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is afraid of you. He said, 'If you (meaning me) write even a small negative comment about him, he’ll take it to ANI for a personal attack and lobby to get your account banned. So, no matter how angry you are with him, you have to stay quiet and respond politely.' That’s why I’ve decided to keep my anger to myself. I won’t be submitting any more DYKs after this experience, as I don’t want to deal with you again in the DYK process. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hteiktinhein, this is a collaborative project. It is completetely inappropriate for you to say that our leader in the Burmese Wikipedia Group said something negative about AirshipJungleman29 and then refuse to say who that supposed "leader" is. Transparency is an important social norm on Wikipedia. Back in October, right here at the Teahouse, I gave you a detailed analysis of the problems with your article. Others gave you feedback too. You cannot blame other people if you did not take the advice that other editors offered. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy111 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate seeing actual examples of hatnotes using About, For and Other uses, especially examples in which the reader is referred to a disambiguation page. I'm having trouble implementing the general usage instructions in the template pages for these. Johsebb (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this by going to the appropriate template page e.g. Template:About and clicking on "What links here" in the left hand menu column. See for example Alpha. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I want to create a new page, but I couldn't find how to create it. Can you help? Ahmetdese (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and many people who dive right in as their first task as a new user end up disappointed and frustrated as things happen to work they spend hours on that they don't understand. I don't want you to feel bad- it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge as to how Wikipedia works by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel as to how things operate and what is expected of article content. I would also suggest using the new user tutorial as well.

New accounts cannot directly create articles- if you want to dive right in despite this advice, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. You should first read Your First Article, and gather independent reliable sources to summarize in an article. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your information. Enjoy your work. Ahmetdese (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmetdese You have created a draft at Draft:2024–25 TFF Second League, but it has minimal content and no references. David notMD (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is related content at TFF 2. Lig, with a link to an article about the 2007-08 season, which may serve as an example. David notMD (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting the policy name here at WP when an editor argues: "Well, they do it over at [this] article - so we should be able to do it here on this page." The policy states: "Just because one article does it, doesn't mean you should." I just can't remember the WP:??. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maineartists! Is it WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, Perfect4th! Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT could also apply in the case you've described above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse, I have been trying to create a expanded and more complete version of Brighton Applefest. I have 3 main questions. 1. At the bottom it is listed as a stub, what is the way to add my rewrite? 2. Can someone please read the new version at User:CF-501 Falcon/sandbox. 3. Once read over, would the page benefit from an exact list of all events hosted during Applefest?

I hope this is the right way to ask for help. Thanks CF-501 Falcon (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CF-501 Falcon, I was about to say "remove the colons from the ends of the headers" from your draft. But more simply, remove the headers. However, add the header "References" to the bottom. I don't see why the by-law is worth mentioning. Remove dollar amounts. Copy the result. Set out to edit the current article, but simply blank it. Paste in the content of your draft. "Publish" it, with an edit summary such as "thorough rewrite". (NB this procedure is usually not a good one; but here, it would work well.) Please do not add "an exact list of all events hosted during Applefest". -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoary, I have done as you said. Should the "this page is a stub" be deleted? Can you also please check the article? Thanks CF-501 Falcon (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I come across sub-standard material, and see that it came from an editor who is now blocked due to lack of competence in the subject and undisclosed alt accounts, is it ok to lean in the direction of just deleting the material rather than trying to salvage it? Mikewem (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mikewem, You would have to evaluate the article for notability before nominating for deletion, Most importantly you will need to do WP:BEFORE to be sure there are no sources outside the article to reflect their notability.

To cut the story short, while you may raise an eye brow on previous articles created by blocked account, you will need to evaluate critically and be more neutral in your judgement before nominating for deletion. You might go through WP:Notability to see if the subject meet up with the notability guideline. Tesleemah (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewem, if the editor was (under a different username) blocked at the time, then the material is the result of block evasion and should be deleted. If the editor wasn't, and the material was added to an existing article, then you can either (A) remove the material or (B) revert the article to the state it was in before the material was added. (So which, (A) or (B)? Well, how extensive were the dud additions/changes, and how extensive have been the subsequent worthwhile additions/changes (by other editors)?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem, in one of the areas I consider my own speciality, I keep coming across several editors (or maybe the same editor under different guises) from waaaay back, who are now banned. But that is not to say that everything they contributed was erroneous. In fact, quite the reverse; they added huge volumes of good material, sometimes well-sourced, and sometimes not so much. If we were to apply today's Wikipedia standards to everything they did back-in-the-day, Wikipedia would shrink to a quarter of its current size. I prefer, whenever possible, to assume good faith (WP:AGF), and rescue whatever they added, which often involves simply adding proper citations.

Wikipedia has recently lost a much valued editor with 100,000plus good edits to their name, after a dispute on core policy. Some editors might have lost their rag and started abusing everyone in sight, leading to a ban. As it happens in this case, the editor chose to retire themselves, and Wikipedia is a poorer place without them.

Of course, if you have come across someone who created an account on Monday, and starting deliberately damaging Wikipedia from Tuesday onwards, then maybe you are right to treat them differently.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On United States Virgin Islands, in the infobox, I don't know why for area, the km² comes first, but for population density, the sq mi comes first. 50.204.47.99 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask at Template talk:Infobox political division. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because area is given in both units whilst population density per sq.mi. only (so it has to be recomputed to 1/sq.km., and may be that's why that value is given as secondary)...?

|  area_sq_mi = 133.73
|  area_km2 = 346.4
| 
|  ...
| 
|  population_density_km2 =
|  population_density_sq_mi = 653.6

Just guessing. --CiaPan (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I put sq mi first on both? I also want to do that on Guam. But Northern Mariana Islands has km² first. 50.204.47.99 (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by omitting area_km2 to get conversion from area_sq_mi with sq mi displayed first.[11] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Bravo! CiaPan (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how to change the name of my drafts Ryecaliii (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryecaliii. In order to change the title of a page, you generally need to WP:MOVE the page; moreover, in order to move a page, you need to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Since your account is still too new to be autoconfirmed, I've moved the draft you were working on in your user sandbox to Draft:Echinamoeba thermarum. In principle, drafts submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for creation belong in the draft namespace and most likely the same move would've been made by one of the AfC reviewers looking at newly submitted drafts. You can continue to work on improving your draft while it's awaiting review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryecaliii, it was very nice for Marchjuly, who is a helpful editor, to move the draft for you. That being said, the title of a draft is by far the least important part of a draft, because the title is always going to be changed if the draft is accepted. Your draft looks very promising to me but I will leave the determination to an AFC reviewer. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update my earlier post Ryecaliii, your draft was reviewed and accepted by an AfC reviewer. The article can now be found at Echinamoeba thermarum. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would like to check as to whether the addition of Elon Musk on the Musk article's disambiguation header (as per edit) is in conflict with any specific style guidelines? I have noted an ngram search result showing considerable correlation, yet this explanation was apprarently not accepted by User:Paytonisboss who reverted my edits and cited WP:RS, which doesn't quite make sense in this context for a disambiguation header. Now I'm not quite in a position to edit due to 3RR and the other user did not respond. 151.192.43.70 (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hes not related to the musk to what i found in my reasurch best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's precisely because the topics are not related that there is a need for disambiguation. Considering that many readers today searching for "Musk" might be looking for Elon Musk more than any other meanings conveyed by the "musk" word (as supported by the ngram search), adding this additional notice helps them, and one direct click is more helpful than having to go through an entire disambiguation page. 151.192.43.70 (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored 151.192.43.70's edit to the hatnote, for the reasons advanced above. Deor (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm working on an article about a species of spider described in Beiträge zur Araneologie, a German journal. However, I am regrettably not fluent in German, which adds considerable difficulty to reading the article in question. I have therefore relied on the assistance of Google Translate for this matter, however, translation software does have its limitations, especially regarding topics such as arachnology with highly specific vocabulary and a limited database available. Can I still use this article as a source even though it has been translated, or would it not be appropriate owing to the potential inaccuracy of the information gained from translation? Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such software has certainly gotten better over the years, but it's still not without flaws as explained in WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. You could try different online sites to see if they roughly translate the original German the same way and then pick the best. FWIW, you don't need be able to read the source at the level of a native speaker as long as you're reasonably confident it's reliable and you're using it in the right context; if however, you want to be cautious, you can (1) discuss the source on the article's talk page, (2) seek assistance at WP:Germany or (3) seek assistance at WP:TRANSLATORS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that link is exactly what I was looking for! I should've searched for machine translation instead of translation software. I think I might have understated my ineptitude in German though, I really don't know a word of it. I gather that this is a reliable source as it's cited in the World Spider Catalog, and I plan to use it for describing the spider in question, which seems like the right context. I'll check if any translators can help. Thank you so much! Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that machine translation tends to be far more accurate for everyday language than it does for technical and specialist language. Particularly where an everyday word has a specialist meaning in the technical context, or where a word has two alternative meanings and the context is necessary to know which applies, machine translations often make a complete and utter hash of it. Machines struggle to resolve linguistic ambiguity.

But the good news is that if you are a subject expert on spiders, this may compensate for your lack of German. Although we are not supposed to write from personal knowledge or experience (a big problem for experts who "know" that they're right), having expertise means you know the contexts with which the machine translator struggled, and you might be able to untangle the machine's mistakes. You can use the machine translation if you can convince yourself that the source really does say what you think it says. As a trivial example, if the machine translation tells you a fly has hairy radio aerials, you're probably justified in describing it as having hairy antennae. If it tells you that the fly has a double-lobed bathtub, you are probably doomed, unless you know enough of the original language to work out what alternative translations are available for the original word that gave rise to bathtub. Elemimele (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - I've drafted an article about Draft:Winifred Reuning. I figured that someone with a glacier named after them would be notable, however, most of my information is from obituaries. I'm not sure I should submit it to the AfC process. Would someone mind casting an eye over it & let me know if she is notable. There's not much more information that I can add to it. Blackballnz (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blackballnz, it looks good to me; but I'm not a reviewer. One comment: the reference currently numbered 3 is to an issue of a journal. It should use the "cite journal" template, and include a page number, while still giving the url of the archived version. I'd do this myself, but I'm using a laptop right now and finding it awkward. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maproom, I will make that change to the reference. Blackballnz (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Blackballnz, but it doesn't look good to me. Not yet, anyway. There are obituaries and obituaries; don't cite "Dignity Memorial". I'd expect to see her written up in newspapers; do you have access to any newspaper archives? Small point: I'm pretty sure she wasn't born to a prof emeritus or even a dean; rather she was born to somebody who later became both. Those points aside, what's in the draft is good; I do think though that the draft needs more evidence of (Wikipedia-defined) notability. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackballnz I checked The Wikipedia Library for Winifred Reuning but, unfortunately, all I could find was mentions of her (no details) as editor of that Antarctic Journal. Usually if someone has received write-ups in US newspapers the library would have something. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was a glacier named after her? (I haven't looked at your draft, so please excuse me)

I see a possible parallel with Enola Gay Tibbetts, who is primarily notable because her son was the Captain of the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb used in anger, on Hiroshima. A large portion of the world has heard of Enola Gay, not least because OMD wrote a song with that title, but it doesn't make her notable; the Enola Gay article is all about the aircraft and the mission.

If that helps, great; if not, never mind.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WendlingCrusader, sorry to disagree, but there is absolutely no correlation between Enola Gay Tibbetts and this subject.

Why wouldn't this pass at the very least GNG? She received the National Science Foundation Award and was one of the first women to deploy to Antarctica. Plus: "From 1980 to 2005 she was editor of the Antarctic Journal of the United States, and her name appeared on every masthead from 1980 to its final issue in 2005." Not to mention the obvious: "The Reuning Glacier in Antarctica was named after her." I wouldn't call a tribute celebration in The Antarctican Society an "obituary". It is an RS that covered her career (posthumously). This is a good strong stub that I am confident others will contribute to as more sources are found. Maineartists (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like my Wikipedia page to go offline for for a few days for private reasons. Please can you help me? Okapiheads (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Okapiheads, welcome to the Teahouse.

I am unclear about your question. Do you mean a biographic article that is written about you? Articles can't be "hibernated", but in certain circumstances non-public personal information on a biographic article can be supressed.

You have no other contributions other than this Teahouse question - so let me know if you mean something else? qcne (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Okapiheads Other frequently-asked questions for biography article subjects, describing what they can do, are detailed here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike,

There is a Wikipedia page about me. I didn't put it up nor have edited it. Is it possible for it go offline for a few days? Or be taken off "for editing purposes"? I am about to enter a country that is not particularly friendly to journalists. Perhaps I am being overly cautious but it would make me feel better. Is this possible? With thanks. Okapiheads (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okapiheads Either it will be available to read, or it won't be- articles are not removed from public view temporarily. If you want to argue that you are not notable and the article should be removed period, you can do that. (see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) 331dot (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Okapiheads I don't think that is possible, just as you couldn't temporarily shut off an online article about you at The Times. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and you would have to check whether there are also articles about you in other-language Wikipedias, which you can do by navigating to the article in English and clicking on the "Wikidata item" link that's usually on the right. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Okay, I understand now. Is it possible at least to remove the photo affiliated with it? And also remove the date of birth which is actually partially wrong as it happens? Okapiheads (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Okapiheads We certainly don't want incorrect DOB in articles. If you email me (which you can do via my UserPage), and confidentially provide the article name, I'll remove that information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mike. I have emailed you as suggested. Okapiheads (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

churchill braved withering fire on the veld,

and you won't look at your own reflection

you dog-faced pony soldier

is this how you honor the sixth house? 130.74.59.192 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my user page, Wikipedia suggests some edits for me but I've mostly gotten articles that are stubs or need more sources. I'm not particularly good at fixing either of those things, but I am really good at finding small grammar mistakes (such as mixing up "your" and "you're" or adding an apostrophe when pluralizing or bad capitalization) so is there a way to filter to articles that just need help with spelling, grammar, and the such? ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ApteryxRainWing Welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as though you might like to join the Guild of Copy Editors. We always like to have WP:WIKIGNOMEs! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ApteryxRainWing: You might start with Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by month, or similar categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite place to go for that would be the "Help Out" section of the WP:Community portal. Perception312 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can i join Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Academy? TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CVA. 130.74.59.192 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are barnstorm and what do they do? TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Barnstars. 130.74.59.192 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]