Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Adopt a User

What is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a helpful page that will explain it to you. It's at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Do feel free to ask here again,once you have read it, if you have a more specific question that is not answered there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheSmartWikiOne Adopt-a-user has been largely superseded by a mentorship scheme which is now offered to all new accounts. The linked page gives details. You are a new user, so should already have this: a tab called the "Homepage" visible when you look at your own UserPage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

0k Samppy (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Templates

I can’t find the template saying the article is too long. Could someone tell me please? The article in question is Wind power in Australia. K.O.518 (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518 is {{very long}} what you're looking for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

CanonNi beat me to it. The template can be reached from Wikipedia:Template index (bookmark it!) (via Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you 👍 K.O.518 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518 You can also use Wikipedia:Twinkle. VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 14:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Around the world and across the globe

I was about to edit The Peasant's Wise Daughter where it says ”Scholars Johannes Bolte and Jiří Polívka listed several variants from across the globe in their seminal work on the Brothers Grimm fairy tale collection” to say ”...around the world...” but my only reason was that it sounded more natural to me. That’s not a good reason.

2024 Formula One World Championship says: ”The championship is contested over a record twenty-four Grands Prix held around the world” but I suspect “across the globe” is more common unless describing an actual circumnavigation. I think my questions are:

• Is there any guidance anywhere on this?
• Is there an appropriate place to discuss this? (It may possibly be a UK/US difference but I don’t know.)

Thanks --Northernhenge (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

To the undersigned Brit, "around the world" sounds normal and "across the globe" sounds absurd. How can you cross something that's spherical? Maproom (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Searching wikipedia for “across the globe” brings up a great many hits where it seems to mean “everywhere”. I agree that it’s not common in UK spoken English. “Around the world” is also widely used on wp, but maybe more often as the name of something or, as I mentioned above, as a literal circumnavigation. I doubt if this is the correct place to debate the point but it’s probably worth discussing somewhere. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You're overthinking it. Just make the edit you want to make, and worry about it if someone objects. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

True --Northernhenge (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, so mentioning that the French equivalent of 'everyone' is 'tout le monde', and that one of their key newspapers is called Le Monde is probably superfluous, other than to note that different cultures reference world, globe, continents, in different ways.

I note that 'across the globe' was almost unheard of in 1940, and only really took off circa 1990. Clearly a recent thing.

Whereas 'around the world' was already more popular back in 1840 (Jules Verne's book was published in 1872), but really took off circa 1950, possibly related to intercontinental air-travel. By 1990 it was some 40 times more prevalent than 'across the globe', and in 2020 it was still outscoring it by a factor of six. If it hasn't happened already, I suspect the next benchmark will discard both ideas in favour of 'all across the internet'.

Of course, like everyone here, I have got my own preference, but I am just one person, so that is largely irrelevant.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Question on why this happened

I don't really feel comfortable to go on the users talk page to discuss why but I just want to let anybody here at the Teahouse know that this happened when Ahecht restored all the old requests (including mine), I'm currently having a second attempt on requesting for the pending changes reviewers rights. Now I don't really care if it is declined but restoring an old request from September 2024 seems weird to me. Does anybody know why this happened by any chance? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 06:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PEPSI697. If you are applying for advanced permissions, then you should know that the very first person you should discuss this issue with is Ahecht. Saying that you don't really feel comfortable to go on the users talk page to discuss is not an appropriate thing to say at all. This is a collaborative project, and the first thing to do when there is a disagreement among two editors, is always for those two editors to discuss the issue among themselves. If the two editors are unable to resolve their disagreement, then there are several other forms of Dispute resolution available to the two of you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm currently severely ill IRL and didn't mean to say something inappropriate, that is why I wasn't active that much yesterday because I was resting up to feel better. I'm sorry if I said that, I didn't intend to say something inappropriate. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why they did it, but I believe Ahecht tried to restore a previous version(1 October 2024 - which you have also linked on your PCR request) of the perms page. This removed your and NXcrypto’s requests for PCR and replaced them with the version from 1 October 2024. Ahecht is a new admin, so I guess it might have been an unintentional mistake caused by their rights management tool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Jeraxmoira, PEPSI697, HJ Mitchell: Sorry, I have no idea what happened there. I must've somehow ended up editing at an old revision of the page and not realized it, but again, no idea how that happened nor how I would've missed the warning message. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's ok. I accept your mistake. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I went and had a look at Ahecht's talk page and knew they were a new admin. Just wanted to make sure if this was intentional or not. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding An Article About Village(s)

I noticed that several articles for villages/settlements are missing in Category:Villages in Jalandhar district & in several other of Punjab. Are those 'villages' presumed notable? Or Do I need to show enough reliable independent Significant Coverage to show otherwise. VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 14:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard If the villages have articles, then they are already wikinotable. However, to add them into the category, you don't edit the category page directly. Instead, you put the category name at the foot of the article. Check one of the village articles that is already a member of the category to see how to do that (or use WP:HotCat) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. TurnbullSome of them do not have an article on wikipedia as of now. VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 14:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard That's OK. You should never add anything to a category until it does have an article. However, WP:GEOLAND says that virtually any inhabited place is assumed notable. Hence, drafting brief articles on places you are interested in should be your first task! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

PD-USGov

I currently don't have access to Commons, so I'll ask here since I'll be uploading them locally. Are images produced by military airmen while they are active and on base under PD-USGov? This is why I'm asking, if they are then there are a plethora of free images of this event, and if not then oh well. More specifically, this video of the tornado, produced by an airman. Thanks! :) E_F⁵ 16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the particular page you linked to says "IMAGE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN" in large friendly letters, @EF5. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bad example, I've already uploaded that one. I meant in general, mainly where there isn't a PD notice but the content is still produced by a member of the US Air Force or other branch under the government. :) E_F⁵ 16:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@EF5: You're not blocked on Commons and have edited there today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but due to internet restrictions I am not able to get on at the moment. I should be able to be there later today, but eh. E_F⁵ 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Works created by employees of the US federal government as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain; works federal employees create in their free time or which aren't part of their official duties aren't necessarily public domain unless they want to license them as such. Member of the US Armed Forces are considered to be federal employees so any photos they take as part of their official duties are probably going to be considered to be within the public domain; personal photos or the like that's not part of their job so to speak most likely aren't. Sorting out which is which can sometimes be tricky so you need to try and clarify the provenance of the photo as much as you can before uploading it. When in doubt, you can probably ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How bold is too bold

To be honest, the article for Wings of Fire is - to be frank and quite harsh - total garbage and I would love to rewrite most if not all of it myself. I am a fan who knows what they're talking about, so I feel that I am qualified enough. Is it considered too bold to rewrite most of an article then dispute any objections to my changes on the talk page?

For anyone who is wondering, I feel that the article is way too detailed and simultaneously not detailed enough, nevermind the fact that some of the arc summaries read like advertisements. It focuses on some unimportant details while ignoring some other important details. I can get sources for all this, so don't worry about verifiability. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion you're already failing on the principles set out in WP:BOLD. Just go ahead and make the changes you think should be made. If someone feels those changes are wrong or bad they are free to correct or revert them and you can hash out the problem in the talk page like you suggest. As another redirect to WP:Bold suggests, WP:JUSTDOIT. Amstrad00 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are already making changes and have opened at least one discussion on the Talk page of the article. The article gets hundreds of views a day and has about 100 watchers, so you may find yourseld in active debate. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Welp, I've done my part. Now it's time to sit back and relax and see if and when I'll get any response. I think my edits were good, and everything is justified in editing summaries so we'll see what happens. On a slightly related note, does anyone do anything about hidden comments? I left one on a piece of information that was incorrect due to a technicality only Wings of Fire fans like myself would care about, which is why I didn't outright correct it. Would someone unfamiliar with the series even care that the perspective changed locations one single time? I think I'm overthinking this and wanting to be a perfectionist. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

ApteryxRainWing After more work you may want to look at the content assessment guideline mentioned at the top of the Talk page to see if you would be comfortable upgrading the rating from C-class to B-class. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Any new articles?

I want to review and edit some new articles so I gain experience at editing, any articles for me to potentionally edit an contribute? IsaqueCar (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you visit your homepage (which you can reach by clicking you name at the top of the site) you will see some Suggested edits you could make. You can also visit Wikipedia:Task Center for some additional ideas. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the suggested edits are useful since mostly they are old articles that don't have anything to add extra and have no grammar errors. Isaque Cardoso (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I suggested the Task Center as an alternative. Personally I engage in Wikipedia:Random page patrol activities and contribute by doing Wikipedia:Basic copyediting wherever I find it's needed. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for grammatical errors to fix, check out Category:All articles needing copy edit, or join the Guild of Copy Editors. I would suggest checking out the Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style, though, to know how we usually do things grammar-wise around here. Thx56 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Isaque Cardoso ⌬❦ (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You can go to Special:RecentChanges and filter the list by page creations only in the "(Article)" name space only. You'll see a lot of redirects being created as well as actual articles.

You can also go to WP:AFC and scroll down to the section "Recently created articles". These are articles that have passed through a review process and have just been published in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@IsaqueCar, welcome! You might also enjoy User:SuggestBot, which will offer you a list of suggested articles in need of assistance. Instructions on how to use the bot are on its userpage. I've found it's a great help when you're not quite sure where to find an article that interests you and needs work. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Leeds (disambiguation)

Hello. I need a logged in user to edit the disambiguation page for Leeds. This article says Leeds is a major town in West Yorkshire. It is actually a city. It is true because of the sources provided on the main page, and its local government district is the City of Leeds. Please help. Thank you in advance. 94.10.105.239 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion at Talk:Leeds (disambiguation)#Town. You're welcome to reopen the discussion. Nthep (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. I've viewed it. They say Leeds does not hold city status, yet there are sources and articles that say that. Even the district has City in the name. Is it city or town? 94.10.105.239 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, reopen the discussion and ask the people who took part in it, to explain further. Nthep (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to create an article, but it's already featured in a list. Should I do so?

I was planning to create an article of a recipe, but the recipe has been shown in a list. Some entries in the list have a main article linked to them. Is there any requirements to create a "main article" for the list? What are the notability requirements for a recipe being on a list versus an a recipe having its own page? Baudshaw (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:N. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Baudshaw, and welcome to the Teahouse. As Ahn Boy has indicated, the overriding question for "shall I create an article" is always "Is the subject notable in Wikipedia's sense?" If the answer is "No", then you should not create an article, and any time you spend trying to (beyond determining that it does not meet the criteria for notability) will be time wasted.

If the answer is "Yes", then it is possible to create an article. That does not in all cases mean that a separate article should be made: sometimes it makes more sense to add information to an existing article. But if the existing article is a stand-alone list, detail shouldn't be added to it.

One more thing I'll add: if the recipe does not meet the criteria for notability, then it possibly shouldn't be in the list in the first place: most stand-alone lists are only of notable items (items which have, or could have, an article). However, some lists have a different criterion, so it would depend on how the list in question is defined. See WP:LISTCRITERIA. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

How do I start a reassessment of a good article? We are the Great (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The process is dependent on reviewer integrity. Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly, and they should focus on determining whether the article meets the Good article criteria. The review should not be influenced by beliefs about how the article could be made "perfect", by how the reviewer would have written the article, or by personal feelings about the article topic. Reviewers should aim to advise on content and form rather than to impose their preferences. A reviewer involved in a contentious discussion should consider withdrawing, so that a less-involved editor can make the final assessment and decision on the Good article criteria. Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Please excuse my bluntness, but that's a whole lot of words that say very little. Considering #Good article below (What would you describe a "Good Article" as? How should I go about making one?), perhaps someone more experienced in Good Article Reassessments should answer. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Until then, I've responded at Talk:Temper (film)#Good article reassessment for Temper (film). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352 I have replied to you in the same talk page. Please check it. We are the Great (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

We are the Great As noted above, Good Article Reassessments describes the process of proposing that an existing GA article be reviewed, with a goal of improving the article to stay at GA or removing GA classification. On any given day, it is a short list of articles at GAR. David notMD (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Article

What would you describe a "Good Article" as? How should I go about making one? Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealjacksonstephen: Welcome to the Teahouse! Usually on Wikipedia, Good Articles are a content class and require a reviewer to review an article to see if it meets the Good Article criteria. E_F⁵ 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Therealjacksonstephen: Fewer than six tenths of one percent of English language Wikipedia articles are GA. Creating an article and then improving it to GA is much less common than attempting to improve an existing B-class article to GA. David notMD (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

HTML

Does HTML format work with Wikipedia? Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Therealjacksonstephen. A subset of HTML is allowed but some of it has a preferred wikitext alternative. See more at Help:HTML in wikitext. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Therealjacksonstephen (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

a weird question to ask

hello! If you're reading this, I couldn't stop singing the part in mighty machines where it went "I roll up, I roll down" and I can't find the entire lyrics, it would be nice if someone can tell me the rest. thanks! Jude Marrero [=D (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, the Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. You might find Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment a better venue for your question, though I personally feel like Google or a similar search engine would be the more appropriate way to look up lyrics. Amstrad00 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

I'm trying to document the discovery of tantalum as a surgical implant material in the late 1930s, pioneered by a team of researchers at the Los Angeles Orthopaedic Hospital and the California Institute of Technology led by Draft:Gerald L Burke. My question concerns independent scientific assessments of research in the WW1-WW2 era, say 1900-1940. The process of vetting and validating research 75 years ago required that a research project by a research group be submitted to an independent review panel for validation and, if validated, the project would be published by the relevant journal. This process could be considered an open-source equivalent of the patent process. This was (and still is) a very thorough process that established the "notability" and credibility of the project. However, Wikipedia reviewers now see this process as "insignificant" and "not notable". It is even suggested that this process amounts to "self-publishing".

It appears to me that Wikipedia's interpretation of the scientific review and publication process is not correct, and somewhat astonishing. Can someone offer any suggestions how to sort this out? Henrilebec (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think some related concepts may have been confused here, but I'm not super sure? Going back to Draft:Gerald L Burke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), it needs to cite sources about Burke, not by him. Some other criteria also apply, but the explanation can get a bit long, so let's start there first.

Please feel free to peruse the Notes and References sections of Jessie Murray and Howard Florey, which are also biographies of doctors. They have gone through a review process called WP:FA, so the sourcing should be at least decent. The articles rely mostly on writings by other people (biographers or scholars) studying the lives and accomplishments of the subject.

Hope that gives you a better starting point, at least? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see some of the questions are responses to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#09:13, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Henrilebec. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears the basis of the misunderstanding here is that the reviewers of the article are assuming that the CMAJ is simply publishing a personal article by Burke, when in fact the CMAJ board of independent medical scientists is actually reviewing the work of Burke's research team and assessing its scientific importance. This is not about Burke or Burke's life, but about the science behind the team's discoveries. There is not a single word about Burke in Burke's article. Scientific articles in journals are not about the author(s), they're about the science in the project. Somebody has to write up the research and it's usually the research leader. It's quite apparent in the CMAJ article, so I'm surprised that the Wikipedia reviewer didn't understand what was being described. FWIW, Burke's work has been mentioned in other scientific journals such as in the National Library of Medicine (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7154344/), The Semantic Scholar (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-CORROSION-OF-METALS-IN-TISSUES%3B-AND-AN-TO-Burke/1c97c6bb83b6619a2b047d0de13de0fd793ba445), Europe PMC (https://europepmc.org/article/MED/20321780), Frontiers in Bioengineering (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2022.983695/full), and by Harvard Medical School (ORVILLE T. BAILEY M.D., FRANC D. INGRAI-IAM, M.D., PRESTON S. WEADON, M.D. AND ANTHONY F. SUSEN, M.D. Departmentsof Pathologyand Surgery,Harvard Medical School,and the Neurosurgical Service of The Children's Medical Center,Boston,Massachusetts (August18, 1951). Perhaps I should have included these (and other sources)? but I thought that one or two would be enough. I'm not a Wikipedia expert and not skilled at the Wikipedia way! Do I need to completely rewrite the article including all the sources (there's dozens more!) What do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrilebec (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Henrilebec, lots of medical researchers publish work and have their work cited by other researchers but aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards. If you can find articles that not only cite Burke's publications but also discuss his role in the body of the text, that will be helpful. For example, the first one you listed says "Tantalum is a biocompatible, relatively inert transition metal whose first reported use was as a component of surgical sutures by Burke in 1940." That helps to establish his role in the history of tantalum's medical use, though it's still only a passing mention and may not be significant enough to help establish his notability. I don't have access to these (1, 2), but based on the snippet shown by Google Scholar, it looks like they also mention that Burke introduced its surgical use. Here's Google Scholar's list of works that cite Burke's 1940 article. On the other hand, if you don't actually want to write about Burke himself, "but about the science behind the team's discoveries," then your draft shouldn't be about Burke, and you might instead just want to add more information to Tantalum#Surgical uses, as Maproom pointed out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Henrilebec, I see no misunderstanding. If this is about Draft:Gerald L Burke, you'll need to find and cite sources that establish that Burke is notable – such sources will need to be about Burke, not by him. If you're asking about some other article or draft (maybe Tantalum#Surgical uses?), please let us know which. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is removing one of those WikiProject tags from the draft possible?

I'm stuck on those because I have added WikiProject Southeast Asia tag onto the Draft:Saving Grace (Philippine TV series) without realizing that there's a WikiProject Tambayan Philippines tag there. So, is it possible to remove one of those WikiProject tags from the draft? JRGuevarra (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course! Ahri Boy (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy Thanks. That really solves the issue easily. JRGuevarra (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cypher System article?

Dear Friends.

I see we have no article about Cypher System (ttRPG from Monte Cook Games). I have read the Corebook and a few supplementary books. I would like to write an article for that system, but I kinda do not know where to begin, I think? Any help/advice or other words of wisdom? ;-)

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The only thing is to build a draft article. See WP:DRAFT. Make sure that your submission meets WP:NOTABILITY. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Kaworu1992, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to what Ahri Boy said: start by looking for reliable independent sources: if you can't find any, or only one, then you'll know not to spend any more time on this attempt, as it will be time wasted. If you can find at least three such sources, then forget what you know about the game, and write a summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How to edit page and add citations?

I’ve been trying to add new information on the Wikipedia article regarding Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act, though I don’t know how to edit via the simple and direct way (without the brackets and other characters used for Wikipedia functions). If someone could help me out with adding this information or do it for me, that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you use VisualEditor on the Protect Illinois Communities Act article, does that allow you to edit it? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That helped with adding the information, though I don’t know how to cite the source.

(This is the source in case you’re wondering: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/ ) LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, LordOfWalruses. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then you need to learn how to create references to reliable sources. It is not that difficult. Please read and study Referencing for beginners, and if you have any specific questions, ask then here at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing; I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion I caused amongst other users. If you could send that link to my talk page so that I can always know how to access it (even when this conversation is removed), that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sent. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses: Please don't apologise. This page exists specifically for new editors to ask questions like yours. Ask as many as you like. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses, if it helps, you can put links to any handy Wikipedia things you want to be able to find easily on your user page. You can access your user page by clicking on your name either at the end of comments or on the top right of your screen. Your user page link is currently red, which means the page doesn't exist yet, so you'll start off by simply creating the page and adding whatever you like. Mine is full of links I find useful; you're welcome to investigate and use 'edit source' to see the Wikipedia coding I used. That should help you understand how all the linking shenanigans work! Feel free to post on my talk page if you have any questions about how I set it up. Welcome and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Submit a new article draft

Hello,

can you help me please? I don't know what is wrong there with my new article draft, but I cannot submit it to review. Below is what I get done, but submit it to review does not go throughout. So, I don't know how to fix it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Submitting&withJS=MediaWiki:AFC-submit-wizard.js&page=User:73.37.225.229/sandbox/Luang_prabang_Night_Market

Thank you. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@NruasPaoYPP: User:73.37.225.229/sandbox/Luang prabang Night Market does not exist. Could you give a link to the draft that you want to submit? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This administrator/or guy has deleted my draft without telling me what was wrong. See below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:73.37.225.229/sandbox/Luang_prabang_Night_Market

Do you see what I dis and is vandalism? NruasPaoYPP (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I cannot see deleted pages. Bbb23 deleted those pages because they appeared to be vandalism. If you don't think they were vandalism, you can ask him about it at User talk:Bbb23. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It did not appear to be vandalism to me, so certainly user:Bbb23 should explain or undo the deletion. though User:73.37.225.229/sandbox/Luang prabang Night Market is an unusual place to locate it. I recommend using Draft:Luang prabang Night Market. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirects and Sources

A while ago I was looking at the page for Xylocopa aerata when I noticed one of the plants it is described feeding at, Pultenaea elliptica, was at the time a redlink. Thinking it would be an interesting project as my first real page, I did some research and discovered it is actually the previous name for Pultenaea tuberculata. I've already made Pultenaea elliptica a redirect to the correct page. I know this is probably a stupid question, but do I change the link in Xylocopa aerata from the redirect to the correct name, even though that was probably the name used in the source? PineappleWizard123 (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PineappleWizard123. In my opinion, the best solution is to display the name used in the cited source. If that name redirects to a more current name for the same species, there is nothing wrong with that. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@PineappleWizard123 An alternative if you didn't want to create the redirect would have been to use a piped link. The syntax [[Pultenaea tuberculata|Pultenaea elliptica]] would give a blue-link direct to the correct article but would appear to the reader in the old name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@PineappleWizard123: WT:WikiProject Plants would be a good place to get subject-specialist advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

A few weeks ago I was on the page for Iamgold, and noticed that it was clearly written by someone from within the company, as it used nearly no references and used corporate language to advertise the company. I reverted the edit, but I have since seen that my reversion has been undone by the same author who made the original bad edit, and the page is back in the state that I found it in. What should I do? I don't want to get into an edit war, and I'm not sure what to do next. Krill Bill (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

While the edit introduced promotional content, it also updated some facts, albeit without sourcing. You did the correct thing by not edit warring. You should enter into discussion with the user, pointing to the guideline on providing sources, promotional language, and possible conflict of interest (WP:V, WP:PROMO, and WP:COI). If the user continues to revert with no discsusion, you will have to report them to the Admin's noticeboard. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Belarusian userboxes

A moment ago I created a userbox that for users who support Belarus but opposed Lukashenko at the Belarusian Wikipedia. But a user marked it as deletion thinking it that "Wikipedia is not a forum". I was then reported just because I remove the deletion marker as I believe that that beliefs means you can express anything from political to religious. The report was a result of my misunderstanding to the rules there. This is really sad because that Wikipedia does not have userbox galleries where you can express your beliefs or interests there. I do wish the Belarusian Wikipedia allows anyone to create Userboxes for anyone to express their political and religious beliefs. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! As the page as been deleted, I can't see what kind of deletion it was tagged for - but, regardless - the way to respond to a deletion request is not to remove the deletion tag.

In future:

If it has a WP:CSD request (with the text "This page has been nominated for speedy deletion") - you need to click the big blue button that says "Contest this speedy deletion" and state why you disagree with it. If it is deleted even despite this and you still disagree, you should bring it to deletion review.

If it has a WP:TFD request (with the text "This template has been nominated for deletion") - you need to click onto the discussion page linked in the box and add your comment there, prefixed by Keep: and ending with a signature (~~~~).

Also a note that if by "Belarusian Wikipedia" you mean Belarusian Language Wikipedia ([1]), please note that this is the help centre for the English wikipedia and we aren't familiar with the norms there so won't be able to help. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd Here on en:Wikipedia there is guidance for what can be included in userboxes, including some restrictions: see WP:UBCR. I assume that all other-language Wikipedias have their own rules and to alter these you will have to gain local consensus. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes, redirects to Special:Badtitle/Message?

There's a problem on Special:PendingChanges. if you click a "There are 1 pending revisions awaiting review." will redirected to Special:Badtitle/Message. Why happened here? Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 10:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi TyphoonAmpil. It's a recent bug discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Special:Badtitle in pending changes notice (with a suggested fix) and phab:T380519. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Google, AI, & Wikipedia; when 2+2=5

Cars have numberplates; steam trains have nameplates; and RAF units have heraldic crests (aka badges). Underlying these decorative items is the actual identity, which might be expressed as VIN (cars), number (trains), and squadron number (whatever). But, way back in the midsts of time i.e. pre-Covid, one, or maybe several editors here, introduced the idea that RAF squadron identities were known as 'nameplates' i.e. in official documentation.

Battle of Britain class nameplate featuring No. 92 Squadron crest

I had not met this idea before, so I searched around, recognising that the main problem is that the word 'nameplate' does legitimately exist, and there are even steam locomotives known as the Battle of Britain class that manage to combine 'RAF' with 'nameplate', so searching was always going to be a nightmare.

Asking Google/Bing/whatever, came back with this classic;

The RAF nameplate is a heraldic emblem used to represent the Royal Air Force (RAF). It features an eagle superimposed on a circlet, which is surmounted by a crown. Additionally...

And Google even credits Wikipedia with this very familiar text, except for one critical thing. The original Wikipedia text actually reads as follows;

The badge of the RAF is the heraldic emblem...

So, basically, not only do we have a circular definition, but we also have Google's AI shoe-horning the term 'nameplate' into a place where it doesn't belong, and then passing it off as Wikipedia's fault! (Note to self; don't trust AI - it lies)

So far I am unable to find any original source that uses 'nameplate' in the context of RAF squadron badges, except for a handful of articles here on Wikipedia itself, and articles that clearly have subsequently drawn on Wikipedia. Yes, I could ask at Military History, and either get a US-centric viewpoint, or an ex-RAF bod arguing whether it is a crest or a badge - but that's another battle. What is the view of the Man on the Clapham omnibus, or failing that anybody here at the Teahouse? Is there a way to refine my search criteria to cut out steam locomotives, etc? Or am I simply barking up the wrong tree? WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If my tired brain understands this correctly, you A) have already found the Wikipedia article(s) that introduced the idea that RAF squadron identities were known as 'nameplates' i.e. in official documentation and B) want to know if some off-wiki source supports this idea.

I'm sure there are ways of turning off the LLM on search engines or ways of ticking some stowed-away "verbatim" setting that'll cause the engine to correctly interpret the - ("not") boolean operator.

That said, if you prefer not to spend more time trying to find the source, just replace "nameplate" with the appropriate word, wiklink this discussion in your edit summary ("per [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Google, AI, & Wikipedia; when 2+2=5]]"), and move on. If someone reverts your changes, you can continue the discussion in the appropriate forum.

Alternatively, you can try WikiBlame on an article or two and see if anything in the edit itself or the summary is illuminating. Failing that, you can see if the editor is still active. If so, you can ask them for their sources though it's a long shot if the edit was years ago. If not, I don't know if you can do much else. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, Rotideypoc41352's advice is good. FWIW, this article, which is reference #7 on the No. 56 Squadron RAF article, says "On 31 March 1946, whilst at Fassberg, Germany, the unit gave up its No 56 (Punjab) Squadron name plate, and took over the No 16 Squadron name plate." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352, @FactOrOpinion

Thanks to both of you, and apologies for writing so much drivel that it tired you out. Still, it must make a change from all those brand new editors asking how to get a new article accepted because their teacher/mother/best-friend is just so cool.

LLM - wow, that's a new one on me; it seems that I encountered a hallucination! I've bookmarked that one for the next time.

Yes, I had already checked the previous editor - I should have said; just under 400 edits, active 2015-18, plus came back twice in 2021. I call that a dead end.

No. 56 squadron - good catch, and I thought you had found 'my' editor, but it turns out he had left his footprints on 54 and 57 squadrons, not 56 - that was someone else. I shall look into that presently. But, the key thing is that you did find an external source for the term 'nameplate'. But is it WP:RS? My attempts to find further sources via Google Ngram Viewer merely confirm that the term is exceedingly rare in the aviation context.

Most likely I will take your advice and edit, publish, and be damned!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

unknown parameter "ethnicity"

Adding in an article [[File:Ostfri16.gif|thumb|Coat of arms]] gives (how to prevent?): Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox family with unknown parameter "ethnicity" Rvvz (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! The preview warning is unrelated to the image. I think you can ignore it, but if you want to make the warning go away, remove the ethnicity parameter from the infobox. I'm guessing you're talking about House of Santen, so you would remove the 6th line: |ethnicity = [[Dutch people|Dutch]]-[[Germans|German]] Perception312 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rvvz. Please take a look at Template:Infobox family, where it lists all of the many parameters that can be used when using that infobox. "Ethnicity" is not a parameter supported by that infobox. When you use an unsupported parameter in an infobox, the software generates an error message. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

House of Santen improved.. Thanks ! Rvvz (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

How to properly edit?

Is it better to edit large amounts of information in multiple smaller edits or one big edit? I've been working on the page for Wings of Fire and I've opted for the smaller edits route, so that way someone can revert individual edits that got something wrong instead of undoing all my work. However, I'm worried that it looks like I am trying to inflate my edit count (which I'm not, I just keep finding better ways to order and phrase my writing) and I don't want to make anyone start throwing accusations around, especially since I am nowhere near the 500 edit threshold for I believe extended auto confirmed status. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to ask the question with which you start. (Also, I'm too lazy right now to give it the answer that it merits.) Yes, some people do make tiny edits in order to inflate their edit count. But their lists of "contributions", and the histories of the articles they've tinkered with, don't look at all like yours. So you have nothing to worry about. Feel free to keep on doing what you're doing and don't worry about it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Typically, for my massive revisions to article, I've ended up making 30-60 edits, each representing a completed task (most recently to Vitamin E in preparation for nominating it for Good article, and then the GA review). You are right in that this will allow other editors to use View history to review each of your edits. Dont worry about edit count. David notMD (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Name topic / username

Hi, I would like to write a page regarding Albert Denly the great record breaker in the 1920 and 30s.

I know it may seem simply but this is out of my depth as i am dyslexic, and there are a hell of a load of words on these pages!

It appears when i am doing a draft in the sandbox that it is going to go to a page which is my username and not my chosen subject Albert Denly.

Can you reassure me i wont waste time making a page for someone who does not exist ie my username?

Thanks Speedrecordman (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Speedrecordman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first thing to say is that creating a new article is a very challenging process for new editors (and though you have had an account for nearly ten years, you've hardly ever edited, so you count as a new editor).

Most new editors who immediately try to create an article have a miserable and frustrating time, because they don't understand Wikipedia's requirements. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

The most important thing about creating an article - and the absolute first thing to research, because that will tell you whether or not there is any point in continuing with that subject - is to determine whether or not the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense - which mostly comes down to whether there is enough independent published material available about them (the material doesn't have to be available on the internet, as long as it was published by a reputable publisher).

If you follow the advice in your first article, you will use the article wizard to create a Draft (which in your case will be called Draft:Albert Denly). ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help Colin.

I so want to create the page and know a lot of facts regarding Albert Denly which i have found to be of great interest on Facebook pages, so hopefully will be of interest to anyone interested in the 1920s 30's and even the 1950s, and he was involved himself personally in records and then helped many more PR profiles like the Campbells, and Cobb and Moss, so i wanted to link him through to their pages.

Because my dyslexia restricts me in the simplest of task i believe in what you saying, this might be almost impossible!

Is there another way i can create a page for him?

Thanks In advance. Speedrecordman (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedrecordman Create the draft and start small. Model your sections on existing articles of people with similar achievements, i.e., famous motor cycle racers. Find references first, and only write content that is verified by those references. Once you think that you have content and at least three valid references (see WP:42 for guidelines) submit it to be reviewed. If you do manage to get it reviewed you can consider adding images if you can find some that are so old as to have any copyright expired. David notMD (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks David, i think this approach will be very helpful to me.

How old does a photo need to be to have no copyright attached to it? Sorry if it is a silly question but can the big photo companies add copyright to the photos however old they are?

Thanks Speedrecordman (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedrecordman, copyright law is extremely complex, but a general rule is that if a photo was first published over 95 years ago in the United States, it is highly likely to be in the public domain and therefore free of copyright restrictions. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is a place to ask about specific images. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

About an Edit by the User

States in India do not have flags or banners, they have their emblems or seals, most containing the Emblem of India. In the Page of Government of Punjab, India, Due to no evidence, I deleted the image claiming to be the banner of the State Government. I 've never seen it in use in any of the Offices, Website, Notifications, Events, Buildings of the Government (I've been to many). The user is the uploader of the said file, he was the one who first added it, and he did the same again. What should be done? VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 14:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I suggest starting a discussion with the user on the article's talk page to see if they can provide a reliable source that explicitly supports the claim that the image in question is the state's banner. See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:original research. Perception312 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Number sorting template help

I've been playing around with Template:nts for a new draft I am working on, Draft:Attacks on the United States. The sorting feature on the table in the draft is not able to correctly show 178,800–223,800 is larger than 15,000 when the deaths column is sorted in descending order. Can someone help fix that and/or explain how I would fix that in the future? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Weather Event Writer. Rotideypoc41352 fixed it with [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Do I misuse edit summaries?

I've been skimming some articles and their edit histories and I found that no one really does detailed edit summaries like I do. Most of the time, there isn't even an edit summary. Am I trying too hard, or are my justifications appreciated? ApteryxRainWing (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

People are encouraged to write edit summaries, but since its optional many don't bother with it. However, consistently writing edit summaries helps to avoid confusion and adds rationale to your edits, espeicially if you are making big changes. Personally, I make to leave edit summaries for every edit I make. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

ApteryxRainWing, in my opinion, some of your edit summaries are overly detailed and "chatty". Here is an example: Updated infobox which only said there were seven graphic novels. There is an eighth one releasing in a month as of the time of writing this. Does it matter if I am a month early if the novel is already finished and just waiting for the Christmas shopping boom? Edit summaries are not for engaging in conversation or asking questions of other editors. But I will answer your question. It is wrong to say in an infobox that something has been released when it has not yet been released. According to Help: Edit summary, Avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail, writing essays about "the truth", or long-winded arguments with fellow editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That question in particular was rhetorical, but I get where you are coming from. I'll fix that error too ApteryxRainWing (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, ApteryxRainWing, there is no need for rhetorical questions among Wikipedia editors, especially in edit summaries. Communication among editors should be concise, direct and only for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, not for displaying one's cleverness. Cullen328 (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note the second word. It's a summary, not an essay.HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Getting help writing a new BLP

I'm looking to write an article on Yuka Kitamura, as I believe that there are a significant number of reliable sources writing about her contributions to the video game music genre. However, especially considering it would be a BLP, I don't want to mess it up and have a lot of hard work go to waste. Is there any way that I can receive feedback on a draft throughout the drafting process (so not just "I write a bad BLP draft, request review, and get told it's a bad BLP")? Are there any places where I can request help in this form, or is this not something that is done? Thanks in advance, /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 18:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 December 11 § 17:57:34, 11 December 2021 review of draft by Llamaah1029, the draft you are trying to revive isn't great. However, fr:Yuka Kitamura appears to have some promising sources, as does Silver seren's post way back in 2020 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 77 § Women Pioneers in Video Game Music. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for both the jumping-off point for sources and the link to the AfC help desk; I had no idea the latter existed! Do you know if that's a good place to ask for serious help? I scrolled through it quickly and it seems like it's filled with quite a bit of spam and other nonsense... Also, if the previous draft was that bad, I don't think I need it; go right ahead and decline. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't used the AfC help desk—to my admittedly limited knowledge, its main purpose is to offer advice after a reviewer has declined a draft.

To go back to your original question, my extremely unorthodox advice is to a) support each sentence with an inline citation to a reliable source (just to be safe), b) open a discussion on the draft talk when ready, and c) announce the draft talk discussion using something like {{subst:Please see}} at active relevant WikiProjects like Women in Red and the Video games one. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@GracenC, I wander past the AfC helpdesk frequently - it's a good place to ask specific questions about things you don't understand, but it very much helps us out if you've done a bit of research yourself first! You can also read through other people's questions to see what the frequent problems with drafts are. Since a declined draft exists, even though you didn't write it, you can look at the previous discussions to see what was wrong with it in particular. If you'd prefer a quieter place to ask questions, you're welcome to come to my talk page - I'm less experienced than most of the others who help out at the helpdesk but you can always take a question back to them if I can't help you. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's quite kind of you; I might just stop by your talk page! I did take a look at the previous draft and its contents were questionable at best. The only thing I decided to retain from it was its single source, which I'm planning on adequately supplementing. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link for any passerby and @StartGrammarTime: Draft:Yuka Kitamura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking for an Editor, a Biography

Hi, I’m new to Wikipedia, and I’ve written a draft article titled [Aram Mala Nuri]. I’m waiting for it to be reviewed, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback or help me improve it. Here’s the link to my draft: User:Zhewar H. Ali/sandbox.

Thank you for your time and assistance! Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zhewar H. Ali That is what the review will do for you. Please be aware that a request for an editor might lead to people soliciting money from you to edit. Please be very aware of WP:SCAM and make a report of any approach to part you from your money as outlined there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not yet submitted it for review. I will do that for you 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zhewar H. Ali There is much work to do here.  Declined with work to do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zhewar H. Ali: If you want your draft to be reviewed, you should submit it through Articles for Creation. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zhewar H. Ali: your sandbox cites only three sources (though it does list some more). Please read Referencing for beginners.   Maproom (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is USGenWeb a reliable source?

Hey everyone. I am locating sources for Pierce County, MN and I have come across a few resources that I think may be related:

[3]

and [4]

Would these be considered reliable sources for the article? Jak-2456 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jak-2456. USGenWeb is a network of thousands of user-created genealogy websites. These are self published sources that may be useful for research but are not acceptable for use as references on Wikipedia. See WP:SELFPUBLISH for the policy language. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for feedback on COI draft: The Frost (2024 film)

Hi, I’ve been working on a draft for The Frost (2024 film) in my sandbox (User:JRubinFilm/sandbox).

Since I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) as the creator of the film, I can’t directly move it to mainspace. I’d love feedback from other editors to help make sure the draft meets Wikipedia’s standards. Specifically, I’d like to know:

• Does it meet notability guidelines for films?
• Is the tone neutral and encyclopedic?
• Are the sources reliable and sufficient?

If there are areas that need work, I’m happy to update the draft based on your suggestions. Thanks so much for taking the time to help!

—Josh Rubin JRubinFilm (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@JRubinFilm: Please follow the process at WP:AFC and submit it for review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @JRubinFilm, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like most new editors who attempt the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what you know, think, or believe about the film especially if is your film. 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.

(Note that the first two sources you cite, at least, are not independent, as they are mostly quoting what Parker says).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't bad, but also isn't ready.

The four sources cited are OK. There's just too much unsubstantiated promotionalist puffery in the prose. "Considered a landmark" by whom? "Known for his expertise" by whom? Since when is a discussion "thought provoking"? Other puffery adjectives include "uncanny", "unique", "significant", "effective", "high-concept" (what does that even mean? It's meaningless), "pivotal" and so on.

These need to be eliminated completely. The prose of a Wikkipedia article is straightforward, dispassionate, and neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist, high-concept is a well-established term. It has been used, fairly conspicuously, for three decades; see wikt:high concept. Generally used for movies that can be described simply and stunningly. (These movies are rarely much good.) Examples: Twins ("Schwarzenegger and DeVito are twins; can you believe it?"); Junior ("Schwarzenegger is pregnant; can you believe it?"); numerous other movies that hardly deserve to be remembered. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC) So yes, there's promotional puffery aplenty in the draft; but within all that, "the potential of AI filmmaking to make high-concept visual storytelling accessible even on smaller budgets" (meaning "how AI could enable movies as dumb as Hollywood's to be made for less money") is refreshingly contrarian. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As "high-concept" has a meaning which will be unexpected for many readers, it should be wikilinked to an explanation: high-concept.   Maproom (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition confirms my previous assertion that it's a meaningless term that adds no value in an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you! JRubinFilm (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you! JRubinFilm (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about two Wikipedia pages for a single newspaper title, please

Hello Teahouse,

A friend recently found that there are two pages for the newspaper, The Argus. I have included bare links as I believe there is a redirect in place at some level, glad to hear your advice or if one could be nominated for speedy deletion?

• The Argus (Australia) Wikilink: simple:The Argus (Australia) Bare URL:https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argus_(Australia)

• The Argus (Melbourne) Wikilink: The Argus (Melbourne) Bare URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argus_(Melbourne)

I note that the dab lists only the Melbourne page.

Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: Thank you for the comment. I've added full links to your question. If you look carefully at them you can see they differ in the first part of the URL: one article is at en.wikipedia.org, the other one at simple.wikipedia.org. They are two different and separate Wikipedias, in English and in Simple English, and each of them has its own article about the same subject. Nothing to fix here, or to worry about. --CiaPan (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Additionally, both articles display links to corresponding articles in other languages, and if you visit them you can find out they both link to one another (as well as to three other versions). --CiaPan (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about WP:TPO

The is about a WP:CTOP article and I am not here to gather support or violate WP:CANVAS. Any commenters should avoid involving themselves in the discussion unless they are acting in an impartial administrative capacity.

I did try pinging an admin over this concern a few days ago and there's been no response. I am simply looking for some clarification on WP:TPO in context to a recent concern of mine.

After two months of trying to resolve a WP:MOS dispute over the lead sentence, which included going through a discussion at WP:NPOVN, then on to two failed WP:RMs. Recently, I decided to create a pre-WP:RFC discussion on the article talk page in effort to resolve the dispute.

During the pre-RfC discussion, one of the other editors suggested a rework of the entire lead paragraph, which IMO, took focus off of resolving the original MOS dispute over the lead sentence, and possibly introduced new MOS issues IMO.

To be clear, I have no issue with discussion over the other editor's suggestion, and I explained why it was only off-topic in the context of resolving the this particular MOS dispute over the lead sentence which is about to go to an RfC due to continued dispute.

TLDR

After I created a pre-RfC discussion poll over a 2 month long MOS dispute, the editor that initially began the original MOS dispute over the lead sentence with me, changed my poll to include another editor's suggestion to rework the lead paragraph in addition to introducing a new issue carried over from their previous failed WP:RM attempts.

I'm concerned this is a WP:TPO violation since it altered my words and turned the intended focus away from resolving the original dispute.

Cheers. DN (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is more geared towards helping new or inexperienced users(you have over 7000 edits). I'd suggest asking this at the more general help desk or even at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but even with my experience I don't presume to have the authority on determining whether TPO has been breached in this case. I prefer to let admins make that kind of call. DN (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for admins to determine whether TPO was breached, you're going to want to go to one of the administrator noticeboards; Teahouse hosts aren't necessarily admins. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am guessing that this is about activity at Talk:Gun show loophole and I agree that Teahouse is not the place. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought I was fairly clear that this is a question about WP:TPO. Does it matter which article it is in context to? DN (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding A Page on Wikipedia

Hi! Can someone take a look at the Council of Khalistan page? I’ve got some concerns about the way certain things are worded. For example, the phrase "elected at a large and stormy meeting" feels a bit dramatic or subjective. Couldn’t it just say something like "elected at a large meeting with debates" unless there’s a source that specifically calls it "stormy"?

There are other parts too, like "furious meetings and enquiries" or "a major diplomatic row erupted."They sound more like storytelling than a neutral, factual account. Also, the part about raising £100,000 says it was a "generous response,"

I feel like the article could use a review to make sure the tone is neutral and everything is backed up by sources. What do you think? VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 11:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Can they add status as 'Government-in-exile' for a Government that did not even exist? VeritasVanguard "Seeking truth in every edit" 11:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the source, the word stormy isn't mentioned and it seems this isn't neutral. I have changed it to "was elected at a large meeting of several thousand" . As per your second suggestion, I have hence changed it to amid meetings and enquiries. Do you have any suggestions for "a major diplomatic row erupted."? Thanks Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Do all roads still lead to Rome?

The saying goes that "All roads lead to Rome", so do you think it would be possible to reach the article for the city of Rome and/or the Roman Empire from any article on the site only using inline links and the See Also tab? I know it's a dumb question but it is one that has been nagging me for a week now. The way to do it is simple since you just need to get to the article for any Mediterranean country and use the History sections from there, but I wonder if it is really possible to "visit" Rome from anywhere on the site. ApteryxRainWing | Yap Central Station | Crimes I am responsible for 13:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sooooo is that something I can fix? Like, if I come across a walled garden, should I add some inline links to other topics? ApteryxRainWing | Yap Central Station | Crimes I am responsible for 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @User:ApteryxRainWing, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy which is a similar proposition. qcne (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, that is something you can fix, but not by adding inline links to other topics. You would find an article about another topic and add links to the walled garden or orphan.

Making incoming links is an important part that new editors (in their enthusiasm to create a new article) tend to forget. After all, part of what differentiates Wikipedia from traditional paper encyclopedias is that we can hyperlink. For example, if I wanted to make an article about the film Miracle Fishing, I would go an add [[Miracle Fishing]] in existing articles first. Since the article doesn't exist yet, it will show up as a redlink instead of a normal blue one...which is allowed. Then, when I finish writing the article on the film, it will already have links coming into the new article. Neat, right?

That's also why, like with existing pages, you can view incoming links to nonexistent pages. Going back to the example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Miracle Fishing does show several incoming links. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing: See also Special:DeadendPages. It was last updated 9 November and is probably monitored by some users so they may all have links now but there may be undetected dead ends elsewhere until the next update. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox fix Proposal

Evening Im currently having an issue with editing an info box while making this article -> User:MalborkHistorian/sandbox

As you can see in the article the infobox lies on the bottom right part of the article but i want it to be on the top right part in the article does anyone know how to fix this problem? MalborkHistorian (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi MalborkHistorian. I have added {{Infobox weather event/Footer}} to close the infobox correctly.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

species pages

When are animal species considered notable, and when are they not considered notable? For example, there are thousands of insect species that have 'red' links--are they all deserving of their own species, even if they are rare species only ever mentioned when they were first described in the scientific literature? What if despite being poorly described in the literature, there are photos of them on social media? Mydas ruficornis (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I meant to write, are they all deserving of their own species **page** on wikipedia? Mydas ruficornis (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe WP:SPECIES could help? It explains the notability guideline for species, which is what it seems you are looking for. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's just what I was looking for. Mydas ruficornis (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

editing

Im new to this. Where do i go on a page to edit. Cecil2wz (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Cecil2wz, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

The answer depends a bit on what kind of device you are using; but I think you'll find Help:Introduction useful. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Further - I notice you did edit an article, back in March 2023 (though the information you added was not cited to a published source). ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

user not responding to talk page.

I've had (from what I can gather) a respected user revert 3 edits I was pretty proud of and saw no issue with and they also provided no explanation of why in their edit summarisation. This user reverted more edits of mine than those three but I honestly was just following WP:BOLD and in hindsight they sucked. But with those 3 I left a post asking for clarification on their reasons on their talk page but they just haven't responded but have replied to newer messages.

What do I do when the user just doesn't respond? I can't just make the same post again because I'm fairly sure that's against the rules and it's a bit childish, and I don't want to just make the edits again with talking with them. AssanEcho (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about this, I'm scatterbrained and reply out of order sometimes. I'll reply right now. Remsense ‥ 论 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine! While i was reffering to you I was also thinking about a prior issue I had with the History of Jews in Somalia page where I noticed numerous issues with the article and I deleted a source which I saw as irrelevant and didn't even pass verification. I tried contacting who I thought was the author of the article and they also never replied while still about a month later did more editing on other articles and even archived their talk page. I was bewildered then but didn't know about the teahouse so just thought it'd be best if I asked again in like 3 months or so. AssanEcho (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@AssanEcho An alternative approach to asking someone about a revert on their talk page is to ask the question instead on the article's talk page, with a WP:PING to alert the editor who reverted you. That way others interested in the article can comment and maybe guide you both towards a consensus. It also has the advantage of keeping the discussion alongside the article so that it can be seen later. User talk pages will be much less visible long-term. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I considered that but decided that it's be better to ask directly as it was multiple small edits over several articles, and making a whole talk page article on someone deciding to revert 2 hyperlinks seemed overkill. I have gone to the article's talk page before immediately following a disagreement. Thanks either way, it's a great reminder! AssanEcho (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User Page

I figured out how to make a user page and I am wondering if I went overboard with the writing and userboxes. Did I try too hard, or is it okay? I've seen other pages with similar levels of detail, and I am aware my userbox formatting is broken right now but otherwise, I am done editing and adding to it. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions 18:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fine tbh, just know that anything you post on your userpage can be accessed by others and could potentially be used to doxx you. I wouldn't say this is U5 or example of Wikipedia misuse as webhost either. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Policy wise, just make sure you don't get overboard into stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but it seems fine. Personally, I like user pages like yours. It has personality and it's fun to read. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Something I think deserves a page. . .

There's a fantastic little game called Smile For Me, developed by LimboLane. I bet you're wondering "Hey, if you want this to have a page so badly, why not do it yourself!?" I gladly would, but I am severely inexperienced. As you may not know, I have only been on Wikipedia as an editor for less than a week. I just wanted to bring this fantastic little game to light and hope some people agree with me. Thanks, Wikipedians! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a similar situation with the game Redout 2. If there aren't any major publications like IGN or Kotaku running multiple articles on it, then any article made about your game will get nuked when it's checked for notability. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions 19:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

MA dissertation

Hi, is an MA dissertation with a professor advisor a reliable source ? One is being referenced at Nosso Senhor dos Passos Chapel, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Atlantic306, usually no. We require the sources to be published, and MA dissertations are rarely published. Doctorate dissertations are sometimes published, but should be used with care. More info at WP:DISSERTATION. qcne (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice, i'll ask the article editor to find a replacement reference, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)