Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241

How to cite a quotation in a cited work?

Suppose the work I want to cite (call it A) contains a quotation from some other work (call it B) and I want to include the quotation with a citation. If I simply cited A, it would appear as if the words are those of the author of A, while in fact the words are those of the author of B. In academic works I have seen handled by adding the words "quoted in" or the abbreviation "qtd. in". What is the recommended way of handling this in Wikipedia? Dsiedler (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dsiedler. I'm not sure what the best way to recommend would be, as I've never needed to do it. But my approach would be to ensure the text prior to the quotation set the scene correctly, and used our 'blockquote' template. Example:

Smith in his seminal work (=publication A), referred to remarks that author B had once written about him, stating:^{[ref A]}

"I once read in one of his books that author B distrusted me, and referred to me as 'a lying toad'. I found his remarks hurtful and not appropriate for an academic of his stature."

I think it's more important to give citation A, than to attempt to cite source B (as that can/or should be found within source A. But, if that isn't sufficient, it looks from the documentation for Template:Blockquote that we permit nested quotations. I've not tried that, but see here for further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an example would make my problem clearer. Here is a block quotation that originates in work B, but which is quoted verbatim in work A. That is, the quotation is not the words of Grey Owl's biographer Smith (A) but of Grey Owl himself (B):

Grey Owl's big hopes for the summer film are evident:

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.^[1]^{: 177–178}

Somehow the citation should indicate that the words are not Smith's but Grey Owl's. I suppose I could write the reference as this:

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids. (qtd. in ^[1]^{: 177–178})

Looks ugly to me! So I'm looking for a better solution.

A blockquote in a blockquote isn't a solution here since the quotation doesn't include any text of A except the verbatim text of B. Dsiedler (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dsiedler. That is how I have seen this done before (not in Wikipedia AFAICR) - except that I don't think the abbreviation "qtd" is common enough to be clear. I would do exactly as you have done, with the word "quoted" written in full.

If you think that is too ugly, you could move the "quoted in" from the text to the citation, by putting it within the <ref>...</ref> but outside the {{cite book}} or whatever. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea and puts the words "quoted in" in the right place, as part of the footnote, not as part of the text in which the footnote occurs, but I use named references, which require that the body of the reference be defined in at most one occurrence of the reference. I'd have to split the references to Smith's book into two lots, one with the words "Quoted in" and one without. Not very attractive.

Actually, the Cite software template should provide a way of handling this. Dsiedler (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dsiedler, you can use the {{harv}} shortcite template within a <ref> tag, to produce something like

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1990|pp=177–178}}, quoted in {{harvnb|Doe|2005|p=12}}</ref>

↓

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.^[2]

This seems to do what you want! Let me know if you have questions. Remsense留 04:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dsiedler, each of the templates used on Grey Owl have a way of handling this.

{{blockquote}} has an |author= parameter where you name the author of the quotation even if you cite it to another author's book.
{{rp}} has the |quote= parameter which will show in a tooltip that pops up only when you hover your mouse over the page number. Most readers will not see the tooltip but it would allow a fuller and messier quotation if needed.

I don't think it's necessary to include full citations for both Grey Owl and Smith, as long it's clear that Grey Owl is quoted and Smith is cited. There is also a template specifically for citing a quotation within a {{cite xxx}} template, but again it's likely not needed. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who came up with numerous creative solutions! None of them really worked well in my eyes, but thanks anyway. I think I'm just going to make it clear in my text that introduces such quotations what is due to the author of the cited work and what is due to anyone else he quotes - unless it's clear enough by itself. Dsiedler (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold 45.93.20.249 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Smith, Donald B. (1990). From the Land of Shadows: the Making of Grey Owl. Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books.
^ Smith 1990, pp. 177–178, quoted in Doe 2005, p. 12

are academics no longer allowed on wikipedia

I started a page for Dr. Skip Rizzo from USC and it was deleted under the premise that it was advertising. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. Should I delete all academics I see on wikipedia or was this a mistake? Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: Welcome to the Teahouse. As I am not an admin I am unable to see what your draft originally contained, but if it's been deleted under the G11 criterion, I presume it presented Rizzo in a non-neutral manner or ended up looking very much like a CV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(in this case, the latter) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Draft:Dr. Albert "Skip" Rizzo consisted entirely of bullet points and was essentially a CV. There was no prose content. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on wikipedia but in my experience, if I want to teach someone how to do something, isn't it better to give them consgtructive feedback rather than punish them for their ignorance? I'm here to build an encyclopedia and not to play games of trial and error. If Skip is not welcom on your website after being cited in academic litarature 20,0000 times please show my how Elyn Saks and Jackie Gmach, my colleagues have a page on wikipedia and you haven't erased them. What am I doing wrong and how can I correct it? Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: It's less Skip is not welcom [sic] and more how the information was presented and referenced. As admins have stated earlier, your draft resembled nothing like an encyclopedic article. A common refrain at venues like the Teahouse and the Help Desk is new editors such as yourself are recommended to not create articles or drafts as one of the first things on this encyclopedic project.
I'd suggest that you not start working on a draft on this site until you've become accustomed to what the project considers good articles (some of which become featured if they're exemplary). The number of attempts to (shamelessly) promote a subject by an editor who may or may not have a conflict of interest in a day surpasses single digits, so a fair fraction of the community on this site views new subpar drafts by new editors with suspicion.
You mention that some of your colleagues have articles on them here. If you have a conflict of interest in regards to Rizzo, you should disclose it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: Hello! Should I delete all academics I see on wikipedia or was this a mistake? Don't delete all academics, that would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your article was speedy deleted under the WP:G11 section for speedy deletion. You might want to contact Ben MacDui who removed the page. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of articles exist about academics. Criteria for notability is explained at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). David notMD (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See University of Southern California, section on Faculty, for many examples of faculty who are topics of articles. Albert 'Skip' Rizzo may qualify, but the burden is on you to use neutal language and valid references. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780, as an administrator, I could read your deleted draft and can therefore attest that the draft bore no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. You are welcome to try again, but I encourage you to read and study Your first article before you start. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zaverbhai H. Patel

Dr. Zaverbhai (1903-1989, PhD Uni. of Illinois 1933) was a wheat research scientist. After retiring from a high position in Indian government, he started wheat experiments, for 30 years, at his own expense for no personal gain but for the benefits of poor Indian farmers. He rented farms or his experiments, and developed a wheat variety which gave 17% more yield than any other what variety developed by the Government scientists. He was modest so he named the variety LOK-1 (Lok = common folks), instead Zaver-1 as suggested by many. His research was of Nobel Prize category.

His invented wheat variety is known to most researchers and farmers throughout India. Many articles by eminent Indian writers have been published about his work and his sacrifice.

His life story is inspirational.

I have his biographical article, in PDF, in Wikipedia format of similar biography (10 pages). It has main photo with dates, education etc. It has other related photos with wrap around text. It has 23 independent references and 14 article of further reading. References are from eminent writers and other scientists.

I believe he meets the notability criteria.

I am not good at uploading articles, with photos etc. in Wikipedia.

So, I need help.

Can I send the PDF article so that your editors can help publish the article? Quitesage (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this answers the question, but i do see a request at AFC for this article to be created, so it is actually in the wiki already. The reviewer had some feedback, such as reading this, that article could be helpful, and resolve some of your issues.

How to do a blockquote on a talk page

How to do a blockquote on a talk page Samorost1 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay just found it, just put in <blockquote>-tags. Samorost1 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: You can alternatively use {{tqb}} or {{tqbm}} if you prefer. Tollens (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's nice, thank you :) Samorost1 (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens i tried the "insert template" button/popup searching for "quote" but the one thing i tried (the first result) gave an error "due to absence of TemplateData" so i gave up. now checking again i don't even see "talk quote block" on there. is it missing on purpose? i guess talk pages aren't that important. weird though that the first template that comes up is one that has no "template data". 🤷 Samorost1 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: Welcome to the Teahouse. You should still be able to use it even if TemplateData hasn't been assigned to it. It just means you'll have to input the parameter fields manually. Usually when it comes to templates it's less cumbersome to add/edit them in source editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: thank you. sounds plausible but i obviously can only add/edit templates in source that i already know. Samorost1 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: Well Tollens mentioned the template above, so you know about it already. Most templates have documentation on how to use them, so I'd suggest reading up on that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: No need to be a douchebag. I was telling you what I did **before** I asked here. I was telling you that it lead to an **error**. I already **used** the template Tollens gave me. I know, your neckbeard is probably itchy and whatnot, but maybe don't assume everyone else is stupid? Is today the international day of the cunt or anything? This has to be the 10th exchange today that was like this. Samorost1 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samorost1: If I came off as standoffish, I do apologise, but I will ask you to dial back on the personal attacks like referring to another user on here as a douchebag, as that is sanctionable, and strike that. I have to wonder how you're using the visual editor on a namespace like talk pages, as it's intentionally suppressed there without a little URL finangling. Your only edits today were to this page and Talk:Percentage point, so I fail to see how this would be the 10th exchange today that involved you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article rejection

i gave multiple refrences, 10+, but got message - This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significantcoverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Txtasad (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Txtasad: The references provided unfortunately don't meet those criteria. Refs 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 all appear to not be independent of the subject, ref 1 does not mention the subject at all, and ref 3 contains only a passing mention. Ref 6 appears very questionable – not only is the interview structured in such a way that it verges on non-independent, the site which hosts it appears to simply host anything (see the next "Mastering Character Development with DND 5e Backgrounds" and previous "Quizlet-Like Apps: Discover Best Education Tools") so this is quite possibly a self-published source. I notice your username appears related to the person you are writing about – if this is you, please be aware that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged. Tollens (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first, thanks for your response and clarification. reference 1 mentions with name, photo and a small under our pioneer 2014-2016 section (nit sikkim wdc). For 'appear to not be independent of the subject' do u mean they talk on the same subject? and for ref 6 how do i prove it otherwise? ref 3 - passing refrence - there are multiple publication published similar release, so can i club them or can't use them at all?

Thanks once again Txtasad (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Txtasad. The entire purpose of a reference is to allow a reader anywhere to verify some information claimed in an article.

Your reference 1, as Tollens said, does not even mention Asad - except, it appears, if you pick on a button and then another button, that the reader has no way of knowing they are expected to pick.

But even if I pick that button and then that other button, this is what we call a "passing mention". It says that he was "technical team". It does not verify so much as a single word of He did his graduation from National Institute of Technology (NIT) Sikkim , an institute of National Importance in India, majoring in Computer Science Engineering. He was instrumental in pioneering Web Development Cell and actively contributed to institutes website. It is therefore a useless reference, and the paragraph is unsourced.

LinkedIn and Instagram are not reliable sources, because there is nobody exercising any kind of editoral control over them. Anybody can claim anything they choose on media like those. (I'm not saying that what those particular pages say is false: I am saying that a reader has no way of knowing whether they are accurate). If the only source you have for some information is on social media, then the information does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

Like most people who make the mistake of trying to create a new article in Wikipedia before they have spent the time to learn how Wikipedia works, you have created your draft BACKWARDS: you have written what you know, and then looked for sources. The only effective way to write an article is first to find the sources (that each individually meet the criteria in the golden rule), and then to write an article based on what those sources say, not on what you know. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that was quiet clearly explained. thanks a lot:) will do the needful Txtasad (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hello, I joined Wikipedia a few years ago as a novice editor and I would edit existing articles. After a few months, I got into fixing vandalism edits through the WikiLoop DoubleCheck link that I would access from the Task Center. Unfortunately, I became super busy and had to go offline. I'd like to start where I left off but it seems the WikiLoop DoubleCheck link is broken. Is this a problem from my side or has this application been disabled? And if it has, how can I continue to check for vandalism? Nocturne 963 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears busted. I would use the antivandal script (rollback required) or use Twinkle with recent changes. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you so much! Nocturne 963 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can provide verification for an email reference source?

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchelstown, I supplied a footnote source (to an email I received from an official body), but since then someone added '[verification needed]' to the footnote source (currently footnote no. 11). Please advise what further verification I could supply? I could share the original email but that would take up a lot of textual space. Thanks, John J. Mullins Jjmullins (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjmullins: Hello! If this email isn't published anywhere it can't be considered a reliable source. And I don't think it would be acceptable to just post the email itself on the Wikipedia page. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

By verification I assume the editor was asking for verification that the email was legitimately from the organization. As noted previously, emails are normally not reliable sources, so you most likely need a better source.

Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought by giving the name of the official body and the date of the email that the source email could be checked by a reader.

As original research was undertaken by Ireland's Chief Placename Officer to solve my enquiry, and as he did not publish his research finding elsewhere (to my knowledge), I believe that his email is the only source of that information available. As a result of my enquiry, he added the Irish language version to the official website at https://www.logainm.ie/en/1410655, but that does not explain the etymological link, which he did in the email he sent to me on completing his research on the matter.

It would be a loss to the local community not to publish the result of that original research.

I am still open to advice from you. Jjmullins (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Now that it is published you may use the data in the source.

Geardona (talk to me?) 15:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you could reach out and get it published somewhere this would clear all of the issues up. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jjmullins, please read No original research, which is a core content policy. Unless the contents of this email have been published in a reliable source with editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, it cannot be used on Wikipedia in any way. I suggest that you contact a reputable local historical society journal to see if they would be interested in publishing an article about the etymology. Once published, it could be used as a reference on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will contact Ireland's Chief Placename Officer and ask if he publishes findings in any journal.

Thanks.

J. Mullins Jjmullins (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fields empty

If some fields remain empty inside the infobox, can we remove them? Like I have done in this. Please guide me. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if a field is empty you can remove the parameter.

Happy editing! Geardona (talk to me?) 17:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geardona, Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Youknowwhoistheman: I'd give somewhat different advice. Unless there's some special reason to remove them (such as inapplicability in a specific article), it's better to leave the unfilled infobox parameters alone, because someone may come along and want to fill in one or more of the fields later. That's easier if the parameters are already present in the infobox. Deor (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor, yeah. Thats's great idea. I fully agree with you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an English page to a Romanian and Hebrew page

Dear team, My grandmother, Dorothea Livio, unfortunately passed away recently.

She was a famous Jewish singer from Romania living in Israel. There are already two exisiting pages of her, one in Romanian and one in Hebrew (included below for your reference).

Now I would also like to add an English version, however, as I am new to wikipedia I am not sure whether I should make an entire new page, of if I can somehow recylce the Romanian of Hebrew page and only provide a translation. Many thanks in advance for you help and consideration.

Romanian link: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Livio

Hebrew link: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%90%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95 Noamcosla (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noamcosla May her memory be a blessing. English Wikipedia has different (more strict) requirements than Romanian or Hebrew Wikipedia. There is a guideline at WP:TRANSLATE but first you need to establish secondary, significant sources per WP:42. It is not relevant that there exists other editions in other Wikipedias. Doing a quick glance, I saw there was no WP:INLINE citation to verify any specific statements, which is not possible in English Wikipedia.

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noamcosla: Please don't ask at both the Teahouse and the Help Desk in order to prevent duplication of volunteer effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Help:Translation which includes all relevant information. Lectonar (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to add HotDefaultSort?

Please help me for the gadget HotDefaultSort. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Youknowwhoistheman. User:BrandonXLF/HotDefaultSort is a user script and not a gadget so it cannot be installed on the Gadgets tab on preferences. Follow the installation instructions on the linked page. Others cannot do it for you. "common.js", "skin.js" and "global.js" are links in the instructions. Just pick one of them and come back if it doesn't work. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a person was born with a different name than the one they use now, should their birth name be mentioned?

As an example, the New York Times reports that Haim Roet was born Hendrik Roet. Should his biography page on Wikipedia start with the phrase "Haim Roet (born Hendrik Roet) is...", or should I omit his birth name entirely from the article? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnR1Roberts: Hello! The birth name could be mentioned in the infobox and in the "Early life" ("Biography") section. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnR1Roberts: It depends on the context. See WP:DEADNAME, it has some guidance on when NOT to include the birth name if it is different. RudolfRed (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RudolfRed that's just reminded me, that I'm pretty sure that's the reason why IMDB also decided to add that feature (if I remember correctly), unless they're completely unrelated, as IMDB Pro members can now hide their birth names from their profile.

A few years ago I stumbled across a film and TV actor (on IMDB's community forums, before Col Needham blocked me for pointing out the uselessness of his staff, and blocked all my other emails as soon as he noticed me) who was trying to get a load of his older credits removed (no doubt because he was embarrassed about them being films made by students).

I notice that a lot with student films in general, the people involved don't seem that bothered about them, no matter how good the films are, so people like me go around adding the countless missing credits.

He claimed the people in those films weren't him...

So I went and found those films, along with all of his filmography profiles on websites like Spotlight, Mandy, StarNow, Backstage etc, updated most of them, and posted his profiles on the forum to prove it to everyone else, and on his profile.

I also added his 5+ name variations.

And I archived everything on The Wayback Machine and Archive Today as I went (as I do with practically everything I add nowadays), and when I finished.

Then my computer decided to wipe itself when I clicked on a Vimeo video.

A few days ago I stumbled across his profile again.

The 10+ short films he claimed he wasn't in (including the 5+ I added) are still on his profile (as unlike Wikipedia, facts are harder to remove from IMDB), however his birth name has been hidden from some of those productions, so it now says "as another name."

There's also 1 or 2 films I didn't get around to adding before my computer wiped itself, so I might add them soon just to annoy him, as they are facts after all. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is my user page promotion?

Hey all,

I noticed on one of my edits to my userpage, there was a tag called Possible self promotion in userspace. Could someone take a look at my userpage (no promotion is intended, and I have no affiliation with the project, I just favor it a lot) and let me know if I should remove the logo?

Regards,

Lou '''Wiki''' (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyNano, hello! That tag is added by an automated filter that is imperfect. Your userpage does not look like self-promotion to me, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Cheers! Remsense留 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That would make sense as it is a commercial logo. Have a good one :) '''Wiki''' (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OnlyNano, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I agree with Remsense - I suspect that the filter was tripped by you putting a commercial logo on your page, but I'm only guessing.

However: if indeed you intend to document my life on this page, I would warn you against this. A user page is for telling about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. A small amount of biographical information outside your Wikipedia career is acceptable, but please check WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPYES. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'll check those pages out, and make sure the text I put on my userpage follows those guidelines. Much appreciated! I may consider linking a blog if I feel the need to write more than just general biographical information, and info about my Wikipedia career. Cheers! '''Wiki''' (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyNano, your user page looks OK to me -- but your signature does not. Please make it read "OnlyNano". Gods know why people need to "personalize" their signatures, but if you want yours in yellow on black, or decorated with a rainbow-colored unicorn or whatever, then that would (probably) be OK, as long as it's readable as "OnlyNano". ("Probably", as it would depend on such matters as the dimensions of the unicorn.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed that up! OnlyNano (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions

Reading the article Sergei Rachmaninoff I am surprised to find, in addition to factual material, several personal opinions concerning Rachmaninoff's music, all of which reference a single book by someone named Max Harrison: [Rachmaninoff: Life, Works, Recordings (2006)]. According to Amazon, Harrison has written one other book on a classical composer [The Lieder of Brahms (1972)], and a large number of books on jazz. Looking at Amazon reader reviews of his Rachmaninoff book, my impression of the most useful of these, both extensive and thorough, are the two 2-star reviews. I'm not at all sure that Mr Harrison's personal opinions, alone, are appropriate for this WP article, certainly without a wider consensus. Several days ago I posted essentially this same notice at Rachmaninoff's talkpage, but I suspect that page is rarely monitored. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: if you're curious, Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff presently has 418 watchers. This number doesn't translate neatly into engagement, but it's some indication. You can see this information easily if you enable the XTools gadget in your preferences. Remsense留 02:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milkunderwood, if you think that reader reviews of a book on the Amazon book (and everything else) peddling website are of any value whatsoever on Wikipedia, then I must inform you that you are incorrect. We do not rely on user generated reviews on Wikipedia in any way. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course I understand your point. Looking at Amazon simply provides context for deciding whether Harrison's opinions on Rachmaninoff's music can meet Wikipedia's standards. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Cullen328 has found a professional review of Harrison's book, praising its reliability. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Max Harrison are cited by several dozen other articles. Someone wanna make that link turn blue? DMacks (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the section on Sergei Rachmaninoff#Interpretations and some of the other sections have somewhat of an inappropriate tone and state opinions as facts. Galobtter (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is exactly what bothered me. If the article had said in the text that Max Harrison believes Rachmaninoff's (whatever composition, or music in general) is (whatever), this would be perfectly acceptable. Instead, there are only citations to "Harrison 2006 p. ---", leaving it to the reader to check the citation, figure out who Harrison might be, and whether he might be at all reliable. First, he has no article or stub in WP. I certainly agree that Amazon is not an acceptable source for WP, but it's a easy place to find out what an author has published. (His Rachmaninoff book seems to be out of print, and is quite expensive.) And when you find that he has written only two books about classical composers (Rachmaninoff and Brahms) but many books about jazz, this does not inspire a great deal of confidence. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milkunderwood, if you want to make the argument that Harrison's book is not a reliable source, then Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the proper place for that. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about reliable sources. No, I accept your finding that Harrison's book is reliable. What has always bothered me is there is nothing in the text of the article itself to indicate that. If you look at Galobtter's post here, and what I said in my reply to her, immediately preceding your post of today, that should be clear. Please know that I very much appreciate your ongoing help in this discussion, both here at Teahouse and at the Rachmaninoff talkpage. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture for Infobox

Hello!

Could you please tell me which kind of video on youtube that we free to take a screenshot from? Press and fancam? Interview at event and exclusive interview at the magazine's office? How can we know if there's a copyright that not allow us to create a picture from the video? Miracle for0110 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If something is not explicitly released with a free license, it is under copyright and cannot be freely used. We may not take screenshots from any video that hasn't been explicitly freely licensed. Remsense留 02:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miracle for0110. The standard YouTube license is too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes, but YouTube does give those uploading content the option of releasing it under a much less restrictive Creative Commons license that is OK for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. You need to check the YouTube video's description to see how it is being licensed. If it says that the video is released under a "Creative Commons" license it should be OK to take a screenshot and upload that screenshot to YouTube. I say should be OK because it depends on whether the content is 100% the original content of the YouTube uploader. Some people upload content that is a WP:Derivative work (i.e. content that incoporates copyrighted content created by others), and this makes taking screenshots a bit trickier because there might be multiple copyright holders involved. Some people also mistakenly/intentionally license their uploads as Creative Commons even when they don't own the copyright on it. So, it's best to look for official YouTube channels in which the uploader is pretty much without a doubt the sole copyright holder of the content they've uploaded. For example, all the content on Wikipedia Media Foundation's YouTube channel would, for the most part, be something you could take a screenshot of and upload to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly @Remsense Thank you!

I opened the source from Lisa's picture for example and saw the licence that you mentioned. Miracle for0110 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miracle. One rider to MarchJuly's answer: not all CC licences are acceptable for Commons: some CC licences include "NC", for "non-commercial", and Commons does not accept those. The Lisa picture seems to be OK. ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Docs in References

I am currently writing an article, and I found a court document that gives name and marriage infromation. However, I cannot find a website that holds the documents. There’s a Google Books page on it, but attempting to use the auto-generated citations doesn’t work.

While searching, I found a webpage, which had a file inside of it. After transferring that file to my Google Docs, I discovered it was the court document. It’s an official court document, but is on an unofficial service.

If I were to publicize the Google Docs file, which contains court document information, and link that as a reference, is that allowed by Wikipedia, or will I ave to find another method of referencing these documents.

If necessary, Google Doc with court document here.

If knowing the article I’m working on is necessary, it’s located in my sandbox. Roasted (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind Roasted (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roastedbeanz1 Here's the link which contains the PDF file [1]

Here's the link to the PDF file itself [2]

There's also other websites like this [3]

Which contains a DOC file [4]

Just copy the urls, and use them as references. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roastedbeanz1, referencing a document does not necessary mean supplying direct access to it. For numerous reasons, I would not supply the Google Docs link when referencing the document—just use a template like {{cite document}}. Remsense留 04:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a Google Books page on it, but attempting to use the auto-generated citations doesn’t work. Just enter the citation information manually. See Help:Referencing for beginners. It doesn't matter if you don't get all the formatting right, just the title, author, year, publisher, etc, just like if you were citing something somewhere other than a Wikipedia article draft.

Also, do be aware that relying on primary sources such as court records may indicate other sourcing problems with your article, and some editors may not accept them. Folly Mox (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I was wondering if there is a job where I look through articles and revert vandalism. TheTeam219 (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheTeam219. Please read Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. You may want to reconsider your username. Team accounts and shared accounts are not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My username is just a random username I chose, but if you want I can change it to something else. TheTeam219 (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTeam219 yes please do change it, usernames that imply a group are problematic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Thanks for the heads up! TheTeam219 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my name? TheTeam219 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTeam219 since you have a pretty new account, you can just abandon it and start again with a new username. You can leave a note on your userpages saying you've done so. The more complicated way is explained at WP:RENAME. -- asilvering (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok [[User: TheTeam219| AntiVandaliser2024 ({{User Talk: TheTeam219}} (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the page to English

Dear All,

I need this page to be translated: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvin_Pa%C5%9Fayev (it has Azerbaijani and Russian versions, but not English) Could you guide me, please how should I proceed?

Thank you Jung808 (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Translation for starters. Lectonar (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, read that carefully. Note that what you put on en-WP needs to meet the requirements of WP:N and WP:BLP, among other things. English WP may have stricter rules than some other WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPA transcriptions of names

Why are only some names on wikipedia given an IPA transcription? It seems to be very inconsistent which names are given an IPA transcription and which ones aren't. If it is a just a matter of nobody has provided one yet, would it be looked down upon if my only contributions to wikipedia was to add IPA transcriptions? I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, I have never contributed before. Thank you. 120.16.106.36 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly a matter of "nobody has provided one yet"; but it's also a matter of estimated usefulness. There are many articles about, say, James Smiths; but their writers may well assume that most readers will already know that each would be /ˈdʒeɪmz ˈsmɪθ/ . [Sorry, too lazy to add the tie atop dʒ.] You're most welcome to add IPA where appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! This is absolutely the place for you to start asking, so you're on to a good WP-start. Does MOS:LEADPRON and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate_use help any? Inconsistency is very common on WP, we have 6,769,363 articles and 115,329 active editors, so please make improvement where you can, WP:BOLD is the law of the land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, the answer is indeed that nobody has provided one yet. I think you would be welcome to provide them - make sure you read and understand WP:MOSPRON first. ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a article

please help me to delete a article. I made it, but there are a lot of references that are not accurate and reliable and we are doing harm to the person and reputation.

This is the article

Stefano Černetić Bajsikus (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bajsikus: you have proposed deletion ('PROD'), now you need to give it a week. You could alternatively have taken this to AFD, but that usually also takes a week. Speedy deletion has been declined. Not much more to do now but wait. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should add that if you were hoping to create an article praising this person, and others have found somewhat more critical content to add, then this is the nature of Wikipedia articles – they can, and often do, take on a life of their own. I'm not sure that not liking the negative content is a particularly persuasive reason to delete this article, assuming of course that everything is properly backed up by reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the PROD. It's not that I've formed a final view on whether I personally think the article should be deleted, but looking at its history, deletion would clearly be controversial, so although it was fine to PROD in the first instance, this one needs discussion. The correct place for that is AfD; please do start an AfD discussion. This is also a process that will take at least a week. Elemimele (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've AfD'd it; Bajsikus, feel free to go to the deletion discussion and make your case. The link is on the article. Elemimele (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated File:Stefano Černetić.jpg for deletion as a possible copyright violation (cropped from a published image). MKFI (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of my article has been declined

I would like to know additional information as to why this article was refused publication. Is it really poor sourcing, or does the tone of voice of the whole article need to be adjusted as well. Alternatively, is there something else in particular that is preventing the article from being published? Lyncher24 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for other editors - the user is working on three drafts, but was probably referring to Draft:Quality Unit, declined today. Greenman (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyncher24 The draft needs to be less promotional and does not demonstrate notability. Read comments left by the declining reviewer. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decline notice seems clear enough. It is both. As the notice says, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement" and "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". I suggest using the links from the decline notice and following the guidelines there. Also, please see WP:COI and declare accordingly. Greenman (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I am working on a page that needs a citation and I do have a credible source, but it is an email from someone who is affiliated with the organization can and how do I use this? Cyprus76 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have them publish it on their website, this would count as WP:ABOUTSELF. Otherwise it is not verifiable. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willie "The Lion" Smith

I am bringing this here because the Talk Page does not receive enough eyes. Recently an editor changed a 20 year long standing article name and Talk Page name from Willie "The Lion" Smith to Willie "the Lion" Smith stating MOS:THENICKNAME. However, this was not a "nickname" for Smith. It was a stage name and was printed as such in media, reviews, programs and on album covers, etc. Even Smith himself use "The" when he signed autographs. Similar to the WP article Bruce Springsteen where "The Boss" is capitalized. This should fall under Common Use. IMHO the section in MOS on nicknames is far too simplified and should not apply across the board for all names. I do not believe this change should have happened on Willie "The Lion" Smith page. Maineartists (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maineartists. You have correctly opened a discussion on the article's talk page. What you didn't do was to ping Popcornfud, who is the other editor who we know is interested in this question - I have done so here, so they should see this entry, and hopefully go to the talk page and engage in discussion with you. Please wait several days before doing anything else. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does a article become availible to public or is displayed afte completion ?

Hi there,

I had a question regarding articles that have been completed but do not show up in google searches, Like is there a criteria for a article to be verified or after some time it gets automatically becomes availible to Public?

just like this article which i made 1 monthe ago. 2023 Lakki Marwat operation. Rahim231 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rahim231. This is explained here: Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. Hope that helps! Qcne (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the "Page information" on that article, you will see that it says "Indexing by robots: allowed".

This means that Wikipedia has done everything it can towards the article showing up in external searches. We have no control over what Google and other search engines do with it. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahim231 and ColinFine: 2023 Lakki Marwat operation does not currently allow external indexing because it's newer than 90 days and hasn't been patrolled. "Page information" (action=info) can be wrong as mentioned at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). The only reliable method to test whether indexing is disallowed for an article is to look for noindex in the HTML of the rendered page. 2023 Lakki Marwat operation says <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know that. I was expecting to find something in the Page Information that specifically said whether it had been patrolled or not. ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible for extensions like mw:Extension:PageTriage to interact with Page information but they don't always do it when it would make sense. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Rahim231 (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

editor forgets to sign a comment

if an editor, whether a username editor or IP editor forgets (or simply fails for some reason) to sign "~ ~ ~ ~" their comment, can I or should fill that in for them, and if so, how do i do that?

this was one example that i see of that here. "No A description of a public figure's politics that comes from any non-academic publication should always be viewed with suspicion. Doubly so if the publication also has different politics. Using a description like that as part of the lead in that person's bio is naive at best. There's a reason the page for Socialism doesn't contain a quote describing it from the Financial Times." (unsigned) Iljhgtn (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: Hello! Use this: Template:Unsigned. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if it's an IP editor, use Template:Unsigned IP. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that did it. i am grateful for the assistance. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload image in article?

I want to write an article but there is no option to upload a image, Please help.. Count with me (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Count with me. Your account is too new and too inexperienced to upload images or to directly create an article. Also, the references and the text are far more important than images. Please use the Articles for Creation process to draft your article, but it would be a good idea to spend some time improving existing articles first. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

account question

hello everyone! I was wondering if you can make a custom account image, if so how? Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jude marrero. You can upload an image if you are the copyright holder and you agree to freely license it. You can then add that image to your user page. Or, you can use one of tens of millions of freely licensed images at Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by account image? The above assumes you want to display a photo to everybody on User:Jude marrero. Do you instead want to replace this icon for yourself next to your username at top of pages? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes! Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jude marrero: Add code like below to your CSS. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.vector-user-menu-legacy #pt-userpage a, .mw-ui-icon-userAvatar {
  background-image: url(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/OOjs_UI_icon_userAvatarOutline-progressive.svg) !important;
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
}

The CSS page is visible to everybody so others can see which image you choose if they look at the code. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain about WP:COMPUNITS

I disagree with the policy WP:COMPUNITS . More precisely, the rules on using IEC prefixes with byte units: KiB, MiB, GiB; at the bottom of WP:COMPUNITS. What is the proper venue for complaints and suggestions? I think that international standards should be respected. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: Start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is an entire soapbox. I'm all for international standards, but this is even above my powers, at least at this moment.

By the way, all the aruments are just wrong (IMO), probably because the argument for IEC and against the "majoriy" and "status quo" is not an easy one to make correctly. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun to to read the arguments there, at least that. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: in the "Archives" box on the left side, all the discussions on binary prefixes end somewhere in 2009.

Where are newer proposals, newer attempts to introduce binary prefixes? Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: Archives box on the *right* side. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: it's worth noting that the calculations you are presenting at [5] are not something that can inform article content per WP:CALC. Those require interpretation and must be sourced. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that it depends on the interpretaion of WP:CALC . WP:CALC is pretty vague, and can be interpreted such that it fully supports my case.

Also, I think that my interpretation of WP:CALC is better, because it matches better with the generally accepted notion of what "original research" is .

Also, about that particular link that you have mentioned to my computation: the actual changes that were made to the article are not much different to the values present in the source of data. Even if WP:CALC does not apply, it will still be easy to change the three affected numbers so that they match the values explicitly mentioned in the data source. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: WP:CALC says Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. From my experience I am suggesting that it is unlikely that this standard would be found to apply. If you feel that WP:CALC applies, it is incumbent on you to positively establish consensus for its applicability. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move this discussion to my talk page, or wherever, if it becomes too long.

I have a consensus: noone complained that the computations are incorrect. I think that is a "consensus". If someone complains, he can discuss the computation procedure with me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who participated in the discussion, this is not accurate. I disputed that they were routine, and that they were a meaningful reflection of sources.
Moreover, you lack consensus to such a degree that you have an open case at DRN about it. Remsense留 21:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to dispute the accuracy, the results, or something like that.

Disputing that the computations are not "routine" is just your opinion. WP:CALC does not say where exactly is the boundary of "routine", where is a limit. For example, I consider as "routine" everything less than 500 characters in ANSI BASIC, not counting whitespaces. Perhaps, WP:CALC should be made more unambiguous. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: Disputing that the computations are not "routine" is just your opinion. No, no, no, this is quite wrong. Once someone has disputed whether the computations are routine, consensus does not exist as described at WP:CALC. It then becomes incumbent on you, the one proposing to incorporate those calcs, to establish consensus. You do not get to demand an affirmative rebuttal of someone showing you where those calcs are wrong (or indeed, wrong at all: they can be completely correct and still unacceptable to include in the article unsourced). Consensus, as described at the linked policy, is a critical concept to understand in order to be a successful editor on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to read again on "consensus", but I'll need some time to do that. I'll need at least 24 hours, I might be unavailable during some periods in the meantime.

But, in short, I think you have conflated two different things into one.

There is a difference between:

1. Whether the computation is accurate and correct, on that I need consensus, that's what WP:CALC says.

2. Whether the computation is routine, or whatever else: on that, I don't need consensus. Because, that is not defined by WP:CALC, so anyone can claim anything he likes about whether a computation is "routine" or not. Well, not entirely, like: for routine, there should at least be some kind of consistent application of the meaning of "routine" across the entire Wikipedia. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think that you have helped me a lot to understand WP:CALC, so thank you for that.

I don't know whether it is relevant, but let me just quote this sentence of yours from our discussion:

"The example given for a relative standard is mathematical articles, where significantly more complex deductions and derivations maybe considered 'basic'." Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, thanks fot the notice, I like to discuss things. Nothing better to do, I guess. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change name of a article in wikipedia

Hi, I want to change the name of a article in Wikipedia but i am getting error. Pavankalyan Yadav Panga (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavankalyan Yadav Panga: Please provide some more information such as what article you are trying to move, the new name, and what the error is. RudolfRed (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisim/Spam over in a deletion page

Hey, over on Articles_for_deletion- Stefano Cerneti we have a troll or vandal, or somebody with a very obvious COI, or something else entirely, no idea. I'm new here, and don't what to do, I removed the spam, but I would appreciate help from a moderator or admin or somebody similar. Thank you!! TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 21:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TransButterflyQueen, and welceom to the Teahouse. Thank you for drawing it to our notice. This has already been raised above, at #Delete a article, and a number of people are looking at it. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal website

Hello, is it OK to use a personal website if you are looking for the opinions of a person. For example I am creating an article for Hirsh Vardhan Singh and could I use his campaign website Singh for President | About Hirsh (hirshsingh.com) in order to get information about his views. Casper king (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Casper king (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Casper, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested in his views, except as they have been discussed in independent reliable sources. 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.

You may use his website for limited uncontroversial factual information, see ABOUTSELF. ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thankyou this makes sense. Casper king (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does the clean up mean

When you move a page, there's this instruction to clean up and makes mention of default sort etc. What exactly does this mean and how does someone clean up after a move? Heatrave (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heatrave. Please see WP:Cleaning up after a move. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heatrave: The message is MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. Blue text is links. "clean up" links to the above. It's a general message for all moves. Today you moved Draft:Priority Insurance Company Limited to Priority Insurance Company Limited. Such draft moves may not involve general move cleanup but can involve draft-specific cleanup which isn't mentioned at Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move, like removal of {{Draft categories}}. A bot should automatically remove it if it isn't done manually. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an improvement?

I'm fairly new to editing, and so I'm unsure if my edits at Dwaun Warmack were an improvement. I chose it because it was a somewhat interesting topic I didn't feel too strongly about, and I tried my best to fix parts of the article, but I'm pretty sure that there's a better way than what I did. Does anyone have any suggestions? (Also I don't think this is the right place to put this question, but I don't know where would be better.) ItTollsForThee (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ItTollsForThee, you've improved it. Before you arrived, it was written in a peculiarly windy style -- a particularly delectable morsel is Claflin University launched the Pathways from Prison Program, a key program housed under our Center for Social Justice, similarly embodies a number of Claflin’s guiding principles, most importantly Commitment to Valuing People (my emphasis) -- and it still reeks of somniferous PR-speak; I've attended to the opening paragraph and you could do more of this elsewhere in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems will arise with stuff such as Warmack has participated in a variety of professional development opportunities including [blah blah], whose meaning (if any) is obscure: Did he give lectures, merely join seminars, or what? (One way to improve this would be to delete "a variety of professional development opportunities including", but alternatives may well be better. Actually I'd be tempted to remove the whole thing.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, large parts of the article seem to be copy-pasted from various different sources, hence the unusual wording. I wasn't even sure if some of the information needed to stay at all, but rather than remove the content, I wanted to preserve as much as possible. Thanks for the help with this though, as it was the first set of 'substantial' edits I had made to an article. ItTollsForThee (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, ItTollsForThee. Keep at it. I notice that while a lot of this appears to be sourced, a lot of the cited sources are hardly disinterested. And the article says things whose meanings are obscure, e.g. In 2000 Warmack was inducted into Omicron Delta Kappa as a faculty/staff member at Delta State University. For a start, faculty members are members of the (academic) staff, so we can simplify this. I've no idea what the ΟΔΚ stuff is about; perhaps just "In 2000 Warmack joined the staff of Delta State University"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combating False information about my organization

Hello. I am beset by a very unusual set of circumstances here. Buckle up for this one! I am the son of the late Chief Hawk Pope. A great man in my eyes and in the eyes of many others for his accomplishments in life. In short, He succeeded in reviving a nearly lost group of Shawnee people in our traditional homeland of Ohio over the course of his life. Through the knowledge that his grandfather gave him as a child as well as the partnerships he would come to have throughout this nearly impossible task, he managed to reform the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band. Suffice it to say that in the process of him accomplishing all that he did, he acquired quite a few friends as well as enemies. During and after gaining state recognition for our tribe, he was met with fierce opposition from a most unlikely source. Far to the west there are three "federally recognized" tribes of Shawnee people who saw his accomplishment as a threat to their status and authority over certain monetary interests. None of which were of any concern to my father. None the less they have taken it upon themselves to attack him and now myself as well as our tribe for decades. On the wiki page for my people, I have been in a constant fight with someone to maintain factual information. It's slander and I'm not sure how best to combat this. Please let me know what I can do. Thanks. 71.213.174.28 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your contribs, I think this is about I think this is this about United_Remnant_Band_of_the_Shawnee_Nation. Start a discussion on the article's talk page. If you can't get consensus from other editors, WP:DR may help. Read WP:REFB for guidance on how to insert references for any changes you want to make. RudolfRed (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given excellent direction by @Discospinster:. Heed it would be my advice to you. Any information you wish to add MUST BE cited. Please see WP:RS.Regards, Aloha27 talk 01:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images

This is my first time I'm uploading three images:

I'm trying to upload them to the Commons, but it does not have a license. This is redrawn from the sources I cited in the summary. Would someone like to teach me how to do so? Also, should I choose "my own work" with the reason of redrawing from the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dedhert.Jr. These look to be made from simple geometric shapes, so you can append {{PD-simple}} as the license. Do you have an option to 'Export to Wikimedia Commons' on the top of the file pages? gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo Thank you. I have click that option, but it states in the following:

This file cannot be imported to Wikimedia Commons because it is not marked with a compatible licence. Wikimedia Commons does not allow such files. This might be resolvable, but most probably means the file is not compatible. Please consult the Wikimedia Commons community policy and talk pages about licensing.

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: You might need to append the license first. It is Template:PD-simple, which you can produce with {{PD-simple}}. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo I have added the template into those three. What should I do next? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I think the 'export to Commons' link should work now. If not, let me know. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo Thank you. But how do I make those features is similarly to the image of File:Square pyramid net.svg? It shows the author for its own work, summary that contains description of the image and the sources. I have once did not click the option "as my own work" for those three. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: Hmm. If I understand, you want the files to have a summary like File:Square pyramid net.svg. It will list you as the uploader, but you can clarify where the originals came from in the summary description. I would just add the summary after the file has been transferred over to Commons. If that's what you mean. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo Thank you. I have no idea how this works, but I could probably need assistance. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I could try to export one myself if you like and you can see what I do. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo Okay. I'll leave it to you. Also, can I remove no-license-tag in those three? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I've exported the File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg. The tag disappears when it is moved. But the summary has to be filled in. I based it off of the File:Square pyramid net.svg, but you might want to change it. It could also use categories, but I won't be much help there. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: You're welcome to remove the no-license tag when there's a valid license in place. But it won't be necessary as the local file will eventually be deleted once the files are exported over to Commons. You can see the Commons file here. I'll leave the other two files for you. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo Okay. I will try the rest. But I could ask for any help anytime. I appreciate your tips and assistance as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobonobo Sorry. One more thing. I did not realize that the square pyramid net actually may be viewed in the commons, which may be featured in many Wikipedia languages. Is it possible to do with those three as well? Can you help me with this one? I have looked at the comparison in the chain of triangular bipyramid. Regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: Once the files are exported to Commons they will be accessible for use from any language edition. So, File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg is already there (even though we still have a copy here). After the other two files are exported, they will available across all the language editions as well. I believe the local copies will be deleted eventually, but can be marked for deletion with the tag {{db-commons}} as well. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you so much for the tips, assistance and explanations once again. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just ask if you have any other questions. Good luck and happy editing! gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobia in a file name

I am looking at a wikimedia link and it seems like the file name is a transphobic threat telling the creator to commit self harm. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trans_pride_flag_Serbia_basic.png

Could anyone confirm if thats just a caption or the file name or not & please change it? When I go edit it, it tells me my ip will be public. Not my favourite idea considering the subject of discussion. Thank you ♥ 96.53.182.201 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it was vandalism added as text to the page (not part of the file name), and has been removed by someone else. Thank you for pointing it out! Tollens (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the message about your IP being public is that that's the way Wikipedia attributes edits to articles by editors who have not registered and logged on. Registering and logging on actually gives you greater privacy on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages when reverting edits promoting the same religion I follow

It's fairly common for editors to try to promote their religious beliefs on Wikipedia articles; of course, this is an NPOV violation and should be reverted. When I post warning messages on user talk pages, if their edits were promoting the same religion I follow (I'm a Christian), is it appropriate for me to say something along the lines of "While I agree that Jesus is the Lord, Wikipedia articles should not endorse particular religious beliefs because of our neutral point of view policy"? It might make the other user more receptive to the warning if they know I'm not just reverting because I disagree with them, but I'm not sure if warning messages should also be neutral? Luke10.27 (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke10.27: It's perfectly acceptable to post just about anything on talk pages as long as you remain on-topic and civil. Certainly you could use this wording in a warning if you want to; there's no requirement for talk page postings to be neutral. Tollens (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll do that in the future when it seems appropriate. Luke10.27 (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to know how this goes for you. My experience with more tailored messages has been pretty mixed. In a memorable handful of cases it's resulted in a protracted conversation that ends with being accused of being part of some sort of conspiracy. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke10.27, I get what you are saying, as well as the good-faith intent behind it, but I have mixed feelings about whether including your own sympathies is a good idea or not. Explaining our core principles such as WP:NPOV to a user on their talk page should stand on its own and have the same weight regardless who is mentioning it. By indicating you're in the same club as the user, are we subtly training them to pay less attention when a subsequent message about Wikipedia policy is placed by someone who is not? However, I can't think of a policy- or guideline-based reason not to do what you suggest, so you're pretty much on your own, here. But like Asilvering, I'm curious how this will go. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t get into my account

Hi there, TheTeam219 here, I put in a request for my account name to be changed, but now I can’t get in. Please help! 2A01:599:443:3E16:F1C4:490:DB8E:BE47 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, im in, I forgot that it’s not antivandaliser, but its antivandalism2024, sorry about the confusion, you can delete my request! AntiVandalism2024 07:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiVandaliser2024 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Your name is not AntiVandalism2024 (which hasn't even been registered here), it's AntiVandaliser2024. Or anyway it was when you were logged in as AntiVandaliser2024 that you wrote the above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I said you can remove my inquiry. AntiVandalism2024 07:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiVandaliser2024 (talk • contribs) [reply]

As you are now AntiVandaliser2024, you have another reason to stop signing your messages [[User:TheTeam219 | AntiVandalism2024]], or indeed anything other than AntiVandaliser2024. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my signature AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AntiVandaliser2024. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how can i amend a text

i want to delete : andersen university under the list of mill degrees Billythebest (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

After some searching I have found what I think must be the article you are talking about, List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. (It would have been helpful if you had give the precise name of the article).

That lists Andersen University (California) as unaccredited, though it does not specifically say it is a diploma mill. It cites two apparently reliable sources for that classification, but I admit that they are some years old, and things could have changed.

If you believe that the institution should not be on that list, please make an edit request on the talk page Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. But please be aware that Wikipedia works on a basis of verifiability: that entry is cited to two reliable sources. In order to justify removing it, you will need to cite a reliable source wholly independent of Andersen, sufficient to overturn or supersede the existing sources. Your personal knowledge and experience, or unpublished documents, will not be enough. ColinFine (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may add that I can't find anything at all about Andersen University in a search, which makes it seem dodgy. --ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where to mention changes to CC-BY figures

If a figure has a CC-BY-4.0 license, one of the terms of the license is to indicate if changes were made.

If I upload a figure to a Wikipedia article and change it a bit, where should I mention the changes I did? In the article itself, the caption, the Wikimedia page of the figure or where? User579987 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can mention the changes on the Articles talk page, is my advice, but I’ll leave it to the Teahouse staff! AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User579987 It depends what you mean by "a bit"! Any material change you make to an existing file on Wikimedia Commons should result in a new file there in which you claim authorship of the derivative but describe in the file history what the source file's name was and what changes you made. Even simple crops of a picture to extract (say) a person's face should mention the original. The full-size picture should not in most cases be over-written as it may be needed elsewhere. Commons has a useful crop tool which does the attribution for you (compare the pages on Commons for File:Hazel Reeves 2019 (cropped).jpg with File:Hazel Reeves and maquette.jpg) Note that Commons has its own Help Desk at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright where you should ask about any image you are unsure about. The folks there can advise on technical details: for example you can't generally take a CC-BY 4.0 image and make a public domain derivative of it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I…

Make my own WikiProject? Or can only WikiStaff make projects? AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AntiVandaliser2024, hello! according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject:

WikiProjects exist in the project namespace and can technically be started by any auto-confirmed user. However, to avoid the proliferation of unused and underutilized WikiProjects, it is strongly recommended that those interested in starting a WikiProject read the guidance below and propose their project at the proposal page.

I recommend you follow the rest of the advice given on this page. Best of luck! Remsense留 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Remsense. If you need any help, for example with reverting vandalism, let me know on my talk page. AntiVandaliser2024 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiVandaliser2024: Note that there is no "WikiStaff". We're all volunteer editors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiVandaliser2024: Also, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is a WikiProject that you might find interesting. GoingBatty (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Foundation Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation exists and has paid staff but their function is not to be Wikipedia editors, nor Administrators. All that is volunteers. David notMD (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new article about a live writer without a lot of references

hi there. i am writing an article about an iraqi writer i read most of his works and i want to write an article about his life. but as he is not famous i cannot find a lot of resources about him. also the resources are in arabic. when i use these resources the wikipedia editor reject my article. is there any one who can help me complete my article with the reference that i have to make the article acceptable? thank you for your help. by the way this is my first article in wikipedia. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English. You may use sources in Arabic, but they still need to provide significant coverage of the topic and show how the writer meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, thank you for your message. i am trying to add some resources in Arabic but everytime i add more resources, the editors rejected my article. i will try to add more resources and i will be thankful if you check it. thank you for your help. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @EvgeniyGolubev, if there are not many resources about a writer, they probably do not meet our notability guidelines. That said, if you can find professional reviews of his work, that will count towards his notability. These can be in any language. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, thank you for your message. i will try to add more resources and i will be thankful if you could kindly check the article. i read that you are pro in Englsih. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EvgeniyGolubev: Hi there! Are you referring to Draft:Mohammed Abd Hassan? I see you uploaded the photo and certificate as your "own work". What is your relationship with Mohammed Abd Hassan? GoingBatty (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoingBatty, thank you for your message. well, this is my first article in wikipedia and i am learning. About Mohammed Abd Hassan, he is one of the writers that i have read most of his work, and i am trying to translate his short stories to english and spanish. i haven't met him but i heard about him and the group Basrah at the end of the 20th century. i chose him as the first writer to write about from the group especially after reading his last book ( no end to what happened). there are alot of writers in the south of iraq that the world know nothing about them. through their writings we could know a lot about the society where they come from. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES and complaints about complaints about archive of complaints

First I want to complain about missing "WP:" shortcut to binary prefixes issue in WP:COMPUNITS.

Then, I want to complain about the people who couldn't, for 10 years, figure out that one of the greatest complaints in Manual of Stayle needs its own WP shortcut.

Then, I want to complain about organization of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, where I can't easily find recent discussion on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES. I can't easily see what arguments have been posted so far.

I can't see what's the current conclusion of discussion on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES, because the archive box on the right only has WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES up to the year 2010.

Then, I want to complain about those people who couldn't figure out that they should make the recent discussions about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES easily accesible. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Z80Spectrum. This is a forum for questions about Wikipedia editing, not complaints. Do you have any questions? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know that.

I'll try to re-phrase my complaints as questions, for example:

How can I find answers to issues that I'm complaining about. Some of the complaints I posted can be easily turned into such questions.

I'll do another post, to be more clear what the actual questions are. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arghh, I was trying to be funny, I didn't realize that there is a different reading of the "complaints". Sorry. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that noone minds the WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES . That is funny, right? I mean, is it OK to use such a "shortcut" in text ? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be the best if someone just deletes this "list of complaints". Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES is archived here: [6] . Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES and questions about complaints about archive of complaints

How do I suggest that a "WP:" shortcut should be added to the binary prefixes issue in WP:COMPUNITS ?

The archived discussion in WP:MOSDATE about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES seems to end somewhere in 2010 (according to the "Archives" box on the right). How do I find the most recent discussion about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES in WP:MOSDATE ? I would like to find more about the recent arguments in the WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES discussion.

Where do I find the conclusions-so-far about WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES in WP:MOSDATE ? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the question about complaints about archive:

How do I suggest that the archive of WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES is better organized so that it is easier to find answers to the two questions above? Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if my list of "complaints" has insulted someone, I apologize. I was trying to be funny. Didn't realize on time that some people could read it differently. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: Some of these questions/complaints can be resolved by fixing them yourself – suggesting simply that something be 'better organized', for example, is unlikely to be productive. I am not sure what 'WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES' is (it isn't a page that exists under that exact title or with a WP prefix instead), so I can't really help with your second question without more information. As for the third, there usually aren't explicit 'conclusions so far' of most ongoing discussions (obviously someone would have to write such a thing), typically you just have to read the discussion and figure that out for yourself. Tollens (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES is archived here: [7] Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that is the most recent archive then, no? Am I missing something? Tollens (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

I would expect that the "vote" (or whatever) about the consensus on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES would be held on Wikipedia approximately every year.

If "yearly voting" hasn't been done, why it hasnt been done? If it hasn't been done, then it seems to me as unfair and biased.

Who or what and how is stoping the yearly decision on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES ? Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be yearly? Unless there is a reason for something to change, nothing changes. If you'd like to change something feel free to open a new discussion. Tollens (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be yearly because the World is changing. Something that was standard yesterday isn't so tomorrow.

So, to keep up with the World, Wikipedia needs to reconsider what is the consensus on some questions decided a long ago. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, by your advice, I'll soon open a new discussion at

WT:MOSDATE . Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm afraid that if I try to fix WP:COMPUNITS myself, that someone could accuse me of being WP:RECKLESS.

If you can advise me that it is OK for me to (try) fixing WP:COMPUNITS by adding a new shortcut WP:BINPREFIX, I'll do it. So I need you to confirm that it is OK that I can try it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, I can ask another question so that someone confirms it is OK. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that would be a problem, go for it. Tollens (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. It doesn't work (yet). Possibly there is some bot.

You can see it at MOS:COMPUNITS . Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't work? It's not clear what problem you're trying to solve. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a new MOS:BINPREFIX shortcut. I have added it to MOS:COMPUNITS, but it doesn't work yet.

See MOS:COMPUNITS, there is an inactive MOS:BINPREFIX shortcut added there by me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You now need to create the redirect page MOS:BINPREFIX itself. Nthep (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a redirect, you have to actually create the redirect; see Help:Redirect for more information. I'm not sure why you feel a redirect here is necessary, though; what larger problem are you trying to solve? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be able to refer to MOS:BINPREFIX to suggest a chenge in MOS:BINPREFIX section of MOS:COMPUNITS. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll try to create a redirect. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a shortcut to suggest a change. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested change will require an argument.

Without the shortcut, it is going to be much harder to argue, because people will get confused about what I am talking about.

So, the shortcut is required for clarity. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi, I have been trying to create a page for Charlie Powell (DJ) due to lack of references. Is it because I haven't referenced properly, or is it that she isn't notable enough? Have you any tips for me please? Otherwise, I'm enjoying learning how to edit on wikipedia! Spifflepoos (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spifflepoos! On Wikipedia, notability isn't really used with its typical meaning – usually when someone mentions notability they are referring to the notability policy, which deals with the requirement that articles demonstrate that reliable sources already discuss the subject. It seems you may be thinking about notability in the typical sense of the word, being simply "worthy of note", but here a lack of references and failing to prove notability are actually the same thing. Often, one of the biggest challenges writing a new article is making the mistake of writing it backwards (writing the content first, then finding references), when it is far easier to find the references first, then summarize what they say (and ONLY what they say). Sometimes, this isn't possible; there aren't sources for everything someone could possibly write about. In this case, unfortunately, the topic just isn't suitable for Wikipedia – the goal here is just to provide a summary of other sources, not to publish new information. I would recommend that if you do try again, you go through the Articles for Creation process by creating the article as a draft first and then submitting it for review by a more experienced editor; you can use the article wizard to create this draft page for you. Tollens (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Article!

hey, i just submitted my first article for review. i would love some feedback from any experienced editors, or anyone, really. let me know what you think and what needs to change for it to be approved. thanks!! Gnat8 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Lines of Amity Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gnat8! It has apparently been approved, because it has since been moved from Draft to mainspace. I've responded at Talk:Lines of Amity. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming a page

I would like to rename a page that has a title with a disambiguation because the disambiguation is too narrow in scope.

Specifically, I would like to change the "Polymorphism (materials science)" page to "Polymorphism (crystallography)". The page contains information about polymorphism in crystals studied by materials scientists as well as chemists, mineralogists, pharmacologists, physicists, engineers, etc., and the term "crystallography" is inclusive of all these fields.

A few days ago, I mentioned this proposed change in the talk section for the page and have not received any comments yet. After awhile, if I do not hear any objections, how should I proceed? I am a fairly new to editing Wikipedia and don't want to break anything.

Also, while I do not consider this a controversial change, what is the proper way to proceed if there is controversy?

Thanks, 6.626X10^-34 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like only 14 people have visited the talk page in the past month. It's likely no one has seen the proposal yet.

If you think the move will be controversial, follow the instructions at WP:PCM. That way, people in the related WikiProjects will get notifications (hopefully) that an article within their scope is being discussed regarding a move to a different title. Recon rabbit 21:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request

Anyone care to take a quick look at Talk:Aqil ibn Abi Talib#Discussion and take the appropriate action on [8] (note that [9] is the same as [10][11])?

It's a really straightforward third opinion / more-input-is-needed situation but it might benefit from someone who knows well how to deal with new editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to move a page the right way

I know this sounds weird but i’ve been working on a page for an album, and i had to get it made into a draft because i forgot to do any citations. i Think i’m finished, but when i tried to move it then instead of saying the article normally, for example it was Example Article then when im moving it back it’s saying Wikipedia:Example Article. Is this normal? Soultech99 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soultech99, a draft about Spinal Tap's famous LP Smell the Glove should be at Draft:Smell the Glove; it should never be moved to Wikipedia:Smell the Glove, although it may be moved (over a redirect) to Smell the Glove. Does this answer your question? -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found what appears to be a major error in the medical literature that affects the safety of a particular drug.

I do not presently have a published source, thus raising verification issues. Can it be raised on the talk page? Biolitblue (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biolitblue: On the talk page, yes. However, if this is purely your own research, it may not be included in a Wikipedia article. You can feel free to raise the issue on the talk page and perhaps someone will be able to find a source, though. Tollens (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Biolitblue (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-evident content

Do I need a source for content that is self evident to publish the content, or do I still need a published source to satisfy the verification requirement? Biolitblue (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biolitblue: The verifiability policy requires that the information has been published in a reliable source, but not that inline citations be provided for everything – if it's self-evident it has likely been written down at some point several times so there's not really any need to find such a source. However, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. This means that if either you believe there is a good chance someone will disagree, or if someone does actually disagree at some point, you must include a reference before re-adding the content. Tollens (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biolitblue. The common examples are that editors do not need to cite that the sky is blue or that Paris is the capital of France. Keep in mind that what may be self evident to some people is far from it to other people. The sky, for example, can be red or orange or grey or black, and there are at least eight cities in the United States called Paris. If any editor acting in good faith objects to the lack of a reference, you should provide the reference. I took a look at your talk page. Any new content about antisemitism must be properly referenced, because that is a highly contentious topic. Similarly, any new content about a medication must be properly referenced, and we have strict standards about medical references described at WP:MEDRS. Also, insisting that other editors immediately solve all the problems you perceive on an encyclopedia with 6,769,889 articles is unreasonable, and indicates that you do not yet understand how this collaborative project works. Many thousands of active volunteer editors work 24 hours a day every day worldwide to improve this encyclopedia, but sweeping changes do not happen immediately on a project of this vast scale. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unreasonable. I'm not asking that wave a magic wand and delete the uncited content, but you need to apply the rules fairly and consistently. If the site has a serious problem with large amounts of uncited comments, don't kill the messenger. Instead, perhaps you could get together, determine the extent of the problem, call for volunteers who might want to help, and prepare a roadmap.

I suspect Wikipedia doesn't want you to actually try to fix the issue because it would seriously compromise the amount of content on the site. Biolitblue (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't "want" anything, it has no central editorial board of any kind. You have exactly as much influence over decisions as anyone else. You are also free to remove unsourced content when you see it, as is everyone else. However, you are expected (like everyone else) to attempt to provide a source for an unsourced claim before removing it. Usually, unsourced material is perfectly correct and is verifiable (note that the policy is about whether content is verifiable, not verified), and in these cases there is no policy issue unless someone disputes that the material is in fact verifiable. Tollens (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback to all.

The specific case refers to the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recursion&oldid=1195178504

The content I added was:

"Recursive motifs are featured in several music videos, including Come Into My World by Kylie Minogue, Seven Nation Army by The White Stripes, Eple by Röyksopp, Feels Like We Only Go Backwards by Tame Impala, and Outhouse by Nathan Fake."

My view is, although not as self evident as Paris is the capital of France, that the content's recursive features is self-evident to anyone viewing the videos.

It is a gray area. I think the editor applied the rule reflexively and doctrinally.

What is the feeling of the room? Does this content need a citation or is it intrinsically clear enough to obviate the need for one? Biolitblue (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not characterize this claim as "self-evident" or a "gray area", nor the revert as "reflexive and doctrinal". This is a claim that is based on a particular musicological analysis, which may be cultural or otherwise subjective in nature. The language you are using for this concept might not be the language that is generally used—It's odd to me that the addition is on this page, and not on ostinato, for example. Personal characterizations in this way often amount to original research, which is why citations are often required.

The key point from above is what is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to everyone. I may ask myself whether the musical key a given piece of music is in could normally be considered self-evident—it is for me, as a factoid that is nearly instantly identifiable and natural to me—but I would say no, because not everyone has the specific music background I do. Take the perspective of someone from a very distinct cultural background: if such a culturally-based claim is not self-evident to them, and it is uncited, then they are kind of "stuck". "Paris is the capital of France" and "the sky is blue" are examples because their concepts—while still not universal, as political and color concepts are also cultural and have demonstrably been different for people over time and space—they are as close to universal, and therefore possibly self-evident, as we tend to get.

Also, there's another distinct issue of whether (even reliably-sourced) content is due in a given article: additional list items such as this may be reverted faster because lists like these should be useful and representative more often than they should be complete in any given sense. Even if they are verifiable examples, are they the best examples? Remsense诉 01:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biolitblue, when you write I suspect Wikipedia doesn't want you to actually try to fix the issue because it would seriously compromise the amount of content on the site, I react with astonishment. "Wikipedia" is inanimate and does not "want" anything because it is incapable of wanting. Volunteers do only what they individually want to do without anybody assigning any tasks. Do you really think that there is some hierarchy here, and that editors and administrators are admonished by some Wikipedia power structure to remove less unreferenced content? I have been editing regularly for almost 15 years and have been a very active administrator for over six years. I have been heavily involved in deletion processes and dealing with editors who add unreferenced and poorly referenced content. And not one single time in all those years has anyone pressured me or even asked me nicely to delete less content. Not once. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page

I am wondering how to verify the person I am trying to add to Wikipedia Spifflepoos (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spifflepoos: Check out WP:NBIO for some guidance, and also WP:YFA RudolfRed (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is what it is, but is it?

1) I have had content reverted multiple times because I could not find a published source to satisfy the verification requirement. Obviously, quite a lot of excellent content must be omitted from the site because nobody has published on the topic.

At the same time, a significant amount of low quality content is found on the site because the author found a published source from an individual whose published content is of poor quality. The poor quality of a published source can be for myriad reasons. Additionally, a published source doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, verify the veracity of the claim made.

Given that Wikipedia has a largess, can't it consider employing experts in a variety of fields on a part-time basis to act as arbiters when there is claim made but no published content available?

2) If the verification rule is so important, even mission critical, why is so much of Wikipedia's content uncited? Why don't editors delete it like they insist my entries are deleted? Such vast uncited content on Wikipedia is either never flagged, flagged with a box above the article, or contains "needs citation" next to the claim but is not deleted. I've read articles of substantial length on Wikipedia that did contain any citations.

To avoid being intellectually dishonest, and to bring content on Wikipedia in compliance, why don't editors coordinate to delete all uncited content from the site instead of cherry picking whom they wish to pick on to enforce the rule?

Biolitblue (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Here's how the community thinks about these issues, and how they're reflected in site policy, to the best of my understanding:

a significant amount of low quality [...] published source[s]

On Wikipedia, we rightfully assess the reliability of sources on a spectrum: whether or not we consider them to be "published" is only one criterion. I recommend reading the page linked above, I think it would answer a lot of questions you may still have. For example, an article about French grammar that contains an example passage set in a café may be considered reliable for claims in an article about verb conjugation, but not for claims in an article about French cuisine, just because the passage mentions the name of certain French foods.

a published source doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, verify the veracity of the claim made.

This is correct; claims must actually be supported by the cited sources. If information in various sources is combined as to create a new statement that is not supported by any of the sources individually, that is considered improper synthesis, a form of original research—which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Given that Wikipedia has a largess, can't it consider employing experts in a variety of fields

I do not feel that Wikipedia has social "largess" as you describe, but this is beside the main point. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers of varying levels of expertise—but I suspect this is not a satisfying answer. Ultimately, I cannot answer this question properly, as I do not decide what the Wikimedia Foundation does, nor do I really have the mountain of research that would be necessary to determine the viability of this. I suspect issues would include conflicts of interest and potential systemic biases that would be reinforced by the direction of funds towards certain fields and not others.

If the verification rule is so important, even mission critical, why is so much of Wikipedia's content uncited? Why don't editors delete it like they insist my entries are deleted? [...] why don't editors coordinate to delete all uncited content from the site instead of cherry picking

Here is the dynamic that many new editors are slightly unfamiliar with: volunteers usually edit in topics of particular interest to them, and they usually keep a watchlist of pages they want to see all the edits to. Many uncited pages have simply not caught the sustained attention of an editor that has volunteered to put in the work yet. Uncited content is often maintenance tagged instead of deleted, because there is significant room for debate and disagreement over which claims may require inline citation. Additionally, a common mode of improving an article is sourcing and providing citations for uncited claims: as such, categorically removing uncited material would make the site much harder to improve, and ultimately of a lower quality in many areas. It's a big work in progress.

As for the "cherry picking" point, I would ask that you not paint all editors with a broad brush. There is no "intellectual dishonesty" in the way you describe, because individual editors are not responsible for the contents of the entire site, only their own contributions. Editors contribute where their interest lies, and some have less tolerance for the introduction of unverified content than others, all else being equal. (It takes all kinds, in my opinion.) It also depends on the context of the article. Certain articles, such as featured articles, will almost always have edits adding uncited claims reverted immediately no matter what, as they have gone through a fairly rigorous review process, and have inline citations for all potentially contentious claims made.

I think my advice is to work on a personal level with specific editors, as everyone has different communication styles and ideas about how best to improve articles. In general, it always helps to cite your sources though. Cheers. Remsense诉 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biolitblue, your question in (1): I imagine that just deciding on who the very many "experts" would be, and getting in touch with them, and so on, would consume a vast amount of time and effort. And then the "experts" would have to be paid. Your question in (2): Yes, a vast amount of crap exists. "Why don't editors coordinate?" Well, would you like to attempt to coordinate them/us? You mention "articles of substantial length on Wikipedia that did [not] contain any citations". There are a couple of things that you can do about such an article. You can add citations. Alternatively, you can satisfy yourself that there are no citations that could be added, and then take the dud article to WP:AFD. To which you may respond "Why should I have to do it?" Well, if not you, then who? (Are you expecting me to do it?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biolitblue, when uncited content is challenged, the editor who wants to keep the content is obligated to provide a reference. There are alternatives to deleting plausible but unreferenced content. Another editor can find and add a reference to a reliable source. Or, a "citation needed" tag can be added, and some volunteers patrol such tags and add references. In the end, massive quantities of unreferenced content are deleted every single day.

This is and has always been a volunteer project. Wikipedia has no employees, no largess and no money. The separate Wikimedia Foundation raises and spends money for many things, but most definitely not on employees to write content. Your accusations of cherry-picking lack evidence, and Wikipedia editors greatly value evidence.

Poor quality sources should be replaced with actually reliable sources, and this too is an ongoing process throughout the enclopedia. The Reliable sources noticeboard is available for evaluating sources, and we also have a pretty extensive assessment of sources called Perennial sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for your time, consideration, and advice! Biolitblue (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collectively, the volunteer editors of English Wikipedia try to winnow the worst. There are roughly 20,000 articles nominated for deletion (AfD) every year. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biolitblue. I just spent a couple hours working on an article that had been tagged back in 2010 as needing additional citations. After finishing that task I came to the Teahouse and saw your post. I work at two paying jobs and volunteer as a Wikipedia editor when it fits into my schedule. Since editing requires a lot of effort I only work on articles that interest me. Today I happened to read an article that needed citations, and was motivated to hunt up the required references and improve the article. I don't have an organized system of finding articles to improve, I just read about subjects that are important to me, and if I find problems I go from there.

The ability to pick and choose what I want to work on is the only reason why I spend so much time editing Wikipedia. If it became too much of a "real" job, instead of a hobby, I'd stop my volunteer editing. I don't need more stress in my life. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global login

In terms of global login, are accounts only connected through Wikimedia projects?. Bzik2324 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzik2324: Yes. Tollens (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: Thanks for clearing that up, also who can see my email address that I connect my account with? Bzik2324 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone you email using the EmailUser feature will be given your email address (so they can reply), but other than that nobody is granted the ability to see your email address. Tollens (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bzik2324, if you receive an email through the Wikipedia system, the sender is not given your email address. If you do not respond by email, then your email address will not be disclosed to them. When I receive Wikipedia emails from unknown people and the matter does not require confidentiality, I do not respond by email. Instead, I leave a response on their Wikipedia user talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Fandom considered a reliable source?

I was wondering if Fandom is a reliable source, that would be acceptable as a source on a draft, provided there are other proven-reliable sources linked. I am writing an article on a cryptocurrency called Banano, and multiple sources are linked to Fandom, which has a lot of history on the cryptocurrency, which can't seem to be found elsewhere. Am I okay to reference Fandom, or is that considered an unreliable source? OnlyNano (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. WP:FANDOM consists of user-generated content, and is therefore considered unreliable. I recommend checking WP:RSP in general to see whether there has been a consensus established regarding the reliability of certain outlets.

I would also recommend not treating sources acceptable only for drafts: ideally, articles should be written from reliable sources to begin with, not the other way around. If a piece of information cannot be verified with a reliable source, then it unfortunately does not have a place on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 00:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyNano, the short answer is that OnlyFans is the opposite of a reliable source, ar least for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I'm failing to see how OnlyFans being unreliable is relevant here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 03:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I believe he may have misread, mistyped, or both. Happy to see it happens to the best among us! :) Remsense诉 03:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, Blaze Wolf, can you please explain how my assessment of the reliability of OnlyFans is not relevant in a thread about the reliability of OnlyFans? I am genuinely mystified. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, OnlyFans is a different entity than Fandom, né Wikia. Remsense诉 04:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right, of course, Blaze Wolf and Remsense. I apologize for mixing up those two websites. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume it's a portmanteau of the site in question and the OP's username. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Tenryuu. Thanks for identifying the source of my memory glitch. Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of us had ever heard of OnlyFans till we recently learned that it was one of George Santos's necessary expenditures. That's one probable cause of confusion. Another is Remsense's very recent change of hanzi. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OnlyNano: While Fandom can't be used, other sources may be potentially reliable and directly referenced if that happens to be the case. Reliability is, alas, not inherited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual editor on talk pages

Can you use V.E. on talk pages? I prefer visual editor over the wiki-markup. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: Not as a default as far as I'm aware. You can change the end of the URL while you're editing to edit from editsource which will force it open for that single edit though. Tollens (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i do not know how to do what you are saying? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the edit button, it should make the URL in your search bar look something like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse&section=55&veaction=editsource (this particular URL appears if you attempt to edit this section of this page). If you look at the very end of the URL it says veaction=editsource – if you change this to say instead veaction=edit (like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse&section=55&veaction=edit) it will use the visual editor instead. This is likely too much work to do for replying to messages, for instance, but if you are doing a lot of things in one edit you could do this if you really wanted to. Tollens (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn It's probably also worth pointing out that, instead of responding to a talk thread by clicking 'edit source', you can also respond by clicking 'reply' the end of a previous comment. That gives you a box in which to reply to another person. You can choose whether to edit your response there in Source Editor mode or in Visual Editor mode. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i use the reply that you mentioned already. thank you for the suggestion though. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i only use source editor if forced for some reason to use it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational template default view

Is there a way to make the default view of a single navigational footer template to "hide" on an article by article basis? Not just for me but all readers. For example, this very brief article Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim is rather dominated by the Póvoa de Varzim template and in my view the only section of the template that has relevance to the article is Main topics at the top. Rupples (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Rupples: I don't think so, unfortunately.~~ Tollens (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the template is set up to allow it, you can set it to be hidden/collapsed by default by adding "state=collapsed" to the template, like this: {{Póvoa de Varzim|state=collapsed}}.

It wasn't set up on the template, so I had to add the line. This was the change I made if you need to do this in the future. Recon rabbit 04:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course! I have no idea how I didn't think of just passing the parameter through. That's incredibly obvious in retrospect, thanks for pointing that out. Tollens (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading more closely, you're right here - there's no way to show just the "main topics" group by default without making every group in the template collapsible, which is probably more inconvenient than it's worth. The change I made does improve readability, at least. Recon rabbit 04:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think what you've done is what the original goal of the question was (I could be wrong, though). I just somehow forgot that you can pass a template's parameter as a parameter to a template it uses. Tollens (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. That's much better. I didn't realise an adjustment needed to be made to the template itself. Rupples (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

There are some articles which was deleted because it was created by the blocked socks, they’re notable enough. What are the steps to create those articles? — Quadrimobile(T · C 06:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What are the articles in question? Remsense诉 06:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense There are some deleted articles, which was once created and then deleted because it was created by a sock! — Quadrimobile(T · C 06:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Remsense meant was what are the titles of the articles. Without them the admins can't exactly do anything because they don't know what articles you think are notable enough.

Speaking of which, I myself (though not necessarily the person who raised the question) am interested in looking a bit at Draft:Bus transport in England, also deleted under WP:G5. S5A-0043^Talk 07:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuadriOnMobile and S5A-0043: Generally in this case you should contact the administrator who deleted the page. Tollens (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Actually, I’m not pointing at any particular article, I’m just asking that what to do when any article is deleted due to created by socks. — Quadrimobile(T · C 10:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens Contact and ask to do undelete it? I didn’t understood. — Quadrimobile(T · C 10:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuadriOnMobile: Yes – they may choose to send the page to your userspace or draftspace for you to work on it, for example. Tollens (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens Okay Thanks. — Quadrimobile(T · C 10:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit Error msg

Hello! - I clicked publish on my first edit, on the wikivoyage page for Missouri . I rewrote 3 sentences to be phrased more clearly, and actually cite 2 other pages. I received this error, and couldn't find anything from google: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Rocky Abuse ArmandTreshi (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArmandTreshi, Wikipedia (where you are now) and Wikivoyage are separate. You'll have to ask about the matter at Wikivoyage. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thx! ArmandTreshi (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral optometry

Dear Sir or Madam,

Happy New Year! I had some interactions with Wikipedia moderators as regards the Behavioral Optometry page on Wikipedia some years ago. My initial point of contact was a moderator called Lou Sander who I have messaged on his talk page and have had no reply after a couple of days. I also left a message on the Behavioral Optometry 'talk'page and have had no reply. Someone called 'Bon courage' has written something so I have also left them a message. The last point of contact I had some years ago was an ER doctor in Canada and we had some polite and fruitful conversations as regards peer reviewed scientific literature. If he is still involved in Wikipedia it would be good to put in contact with him. Otherwise someone who has written peer reviewed scientific literature within medical sciences (eg medicine, optometry) like myself would be good.

If I have not come to the right place on Wikipedia let me know.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful07, hello! Do you have a question about Wikipedia? I wasn't sure reading your message. If you're asking to be put into contact with specific editors, there is nothing for third parties to do—activity on Wikipedia is voluntary, so if you've left people messages they may or may not respond promptly. If you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Cheers. Remsense诉 08:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, just so you're aware, the page Behavioral optometry was merged into Vision therapy and so the talk page is likely to be very dormant. I would recommend posting at Talk:Vision therapy rather than Talk:Behavioral optometry if you plan on opening a new discussion. Tollens (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tollens, I wanted to talk to someone specifically about scientific peer reviewed literature rather than open a new discussion. I had fruitful discussions with someone called Doc James previously who was an ER doctor in Canada. The moderator Bon Courage told me that Doc James is not particularly active on Wikipedia though I still asked if there was a way of contacting him. I am not after changing the Wikipedia page rather I want to have a discussion with someone with Doc James' knowledge of peer reviewed scientific literature. The majority of my time at the moment is taken up writing and researching a systematic review in conjunction with neuro-ophthalmology at a major teaching hospital here in the UK so I am only reaching out to Wikipedia at the behest of my American colleagues. It is not my intention to get involved in a major discussion with Wikipedia moderators as the systematic review is more important. It may be best to shelve this discussion permanently and just get writing further peer reviewed scientific literature, systematic reviews in particular.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful07, though good, Tollens' response would perhaps benefit from a clarification. An article's talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. It's not for discussion of the subject independently of the article. If you have an idea for improving the article Vision therapy, feel free to post it on Talk:Vision therapy; if on the other hand you hope to discuss vision therapy (or behavioral optometry or whatever) with others who are (or are not) well qualified to discuss it, Wikipedia isn't the right place. You may of course try emailing a Wikipedia editor who seems to share your expertise and interests; you might get a collegial and welcome response; you might get no response at all. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the clarification – I certainly didn't intend to suggest that talk pages should be used as a forum. Tollens (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, Happy New Year. Actually the last time I found that the people I talked to with the exception of Doc James were not qualified to talk to me. I like your style. How would I contact an Wikipedia editor? I only have a couple of days on this as I am meeting library services online on Tuesday to get my search threads for my paper sorted and then I will be reading through thousands of scientific papers....well someone has to do it....why not me.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Peaceful07 To email a specific editor, go to their userpage or talk page. In desktop mode (ie not on mobile view) look in the far left hand menu column. You should see a link to “Email this user”. Not everyone has that link as some people don’t want to be emailed. But @Doc James will be reachable that way. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remsense,

I was not looking to start a new discussion. Last time I interacted with a moderator called Doc James who worked as an ER doctor in Canada and we had a fruitful discussion about the value of peer reviewed scientific literature and systematic and Cochrane reviews. A moderator called Bon Courage told me that Doc James is not that active on Wikipedia nowadays though I have still asked to reach out to him. I am in the midst of writing systematic review with neuro-ophthalmology at a major teaching hospital here in the UK and that is my primary focus. I am only reaching out to Wikipedia at the behest of my American colleagues as I have interacted with Wikipedia before. If I am not able to contact Doc James someone else with his knowledge of peer reviewed medical literature would suffice. Otherwise it might be better to shelve any discussions and just keep writing papers.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful07, if you've set an e-mail address in your account preferences (see Wikipedia:Emailing users), you should be able to contact Doc James via Special:EmailUser/Doc James. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three million articles

Does anyone know when the English Wikipedia reached 3 million articles, and is there a archival reference here for the past milestones? Bzik2324 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzik2324 "the English Wikipedia reached three million articles in August 2009" I don't know if we have a page specifically for article growth somewher, but I wouldn't be surprised. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzik2324: meta:Wikipedia milestones says: "Beate Eriksen was the three millionth article, created on 04:04, 17 August 2009". See also {{Million milestones}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do next in a DRN dispute?

I have opened a DRN dispute, but I'm completely new to the process.

The moderator is asking do I want "DRN Rule A". I replied that I think that I do not want DRN Rule A (but I'm not sure), because I would like to avoid locking the disputed article.

However, to be honest, I'm completely confused by both the user interface and the process at DRN.

What should I do next? Do I need to click somewhere? Do I need to reply somewhere?

The dispute is here: [12] Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z80Spectrum: I'm equally in the dark, but have you read Wikipedia:DRN Rule A to figure out what they're talking about? Pinging Robert McClenon. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I revert my user sandbox back from a redirect

I used my sandbox to create my first article a couple years back, but when my draft was approved it became a redirect. I was put off from doing anything due to the tag saying: "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." Has I was a new user at the time, I was worried that if I deleted it it would cause some problems, and as a result I never looked back at it since.

Now that I've gained more experience as an editor, and know that that will unlikely happen, I wanted to bring my sandbock back from a redirect. How do I go about doing this. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Earle Bartibus Huxley: you can edit the sandbox as usual, either just delete the existing redirect and leave it blank for now, or create new content in it. The redirect is there mainly for your benefit. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Earle Bartibus Huxley If you go to your Sandbox page at User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox and follow the link that automatically takes you to Carl Gustaf Dücker, you'll notice just under that title a sentence stating (Redirected from User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox). Click that link, and you will then be taken back to your sandbox page without being redirected away from it this time. From there you can edit the page and remove the redirect, as suggested above by @DoubleGrazing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice for others who may see this but Earle Bartibus Huxley already quoted from the redirect page. It's a standard message from all moves, e.g. from one article title to another. Nothing breaks if the redirect User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox is changed to something else. You can also have multiple sandboxes at the same time, e.g. User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/sandbox2 and so on, or User:Earle Bartibus Huxley/John Doe for a draft about John Doe. The interface link "Sandbox" is practical to get quickly to a page so I wouldn't "waste" it on a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

How do I create user boxes on my page Frostyibex (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo! You can add a userbox to your userpage by typing in source mode the name of the userbox surrounded by double braces. For example, {{User wikipedia}} yields

This user is a Wikipedian.

.

You can browse userboxes at WP:UBX/G, or you can design your own using Template:userbox. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using memoirs as references

I am pretty sure that there is a wikipedia policy on using memoirs as a reference for something. Can someone please offer a link to that policy? I can't find it. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash most probably WP:SPS. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am on my way, thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Youtubers" Wikipedia Page Mistake

"Tyrone Lindo" isn't in the proper alphabetical order in the List of YouTubers Page ("Tyrone Lindo" appears before "Trisha Paytas" and after "Trial and Error"). 66.253.168.43 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Smith_From_the_Land_of_Shadows-1] Smith, Donald B. (1990). From the Land of Shadows: the Making of Grey Owl. Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books.

[2] Smith 1990, pp. 177–178, quoted in Doe 2005, p. 12

[1]

[2]