Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

adding my just published book to a list of books on a wikipedia page

I want to add my just published book to a list of books on the wikipedia page on the Man in the Iron Mask. I added a paragraph on the content and import of my book on 10/2/24. But I want to add some footnotes in that paragraph and I also want to add my book to the list of books given on the page about the subject. I have never done this before and feel as if I should ask for advice on how to add footnotes and an item in the list of books. I went to the instructions page but I was afraid to start experimenting. Can someone tell me how to do this? Sarah Madry Avemalakoff (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avemalakoff: Welcome to the Teahouse. We ask that you don't write about yourself, as that is a clear conflict of interest and comes off as promotional. Even discounting that, you did not offer a citation to a secondary source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OK...who could read my book and put something on about it? Avemalakoff (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideally an editor who has no connection to you or the book whatsoever. Asking someone to do it for you automatically burdens them with a conflict of interest if they accept your request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Avemalakoff, and welcome to the Teahouse. Tenryuu is right that we regard adding references to your own work as editing with a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that your work cannot be referenced, but you need to make a request on the talk page of the article, not edit it yourself: see edit request. Then an uninvolved editor will look at your suggestion(s) and decide what action is appropriate.

There are a number of different cases.

First, who published your book? If it was from a reputable publisher, then there is a possibility it could be cited; but it it was a vanity publisher or self-published, then Wikipedia will not take note of it: see reliable sources.

Assuming it is regarded as a reliable source, then if you think that your book provides verification for information already in the article, then you can propose that a citation be added at the appropriate place in the article.

If you believe that your book provides new information that is relevant to a Wikipedia article (which I'm guessing is that case from the edit you have already made) then you can propose material to be added, with a properly formatted citation to your own book (see referencing for beginners). Again, another editor will decide whether some or all of what you have proposed belongs in that article. (If you disagree with them, you can argue the case: see dispute resolution; but make it clear that you have that conflict of interest).

One further possibility that may have occurred to you: it is unlikely that a link may be added other than as a citation: see WP:EL. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I would like to find an editor who would be willing to help me get my book on the Man in the Iron Mask on the Wikipedia page of this name. All I want to do is get the book listed. I am not looking for praise or critique. I spent 15 years doing research on this, in France and archives and libraries and then I expanded my research into other fields that my research took me into: craniofacial differences, medical advances in craniofacial medicine, recent discoveries in genetics, and cultural responses to people with physical challenges, particularly facial disfigurements. I found a place (and went to it) where Dauger might have lived before he was arrested, something that no author has ever done. I have images of never before published manuscripts in the French national library that I spent time and a lot of money to get to. I kept strictly to honest research, personal interviews, verified sources, professional journal vetted articles, etc. My book gives answers that have been looked for and opens new areas of research. It is an important contribution to the scholarly work on this topic. I am sad that the Wikipedia page on this has so much information that, while many competent scholars have worked 300 years to develop them and I highly admire all of them and have studied each of the books they have written, that the first real answers to the identity of Eustache Dauger are now published and the story is far more fascinating than anything ever before written and my work is denied exposure. A French documentary on the Man in the Iron Mask will appear next year and my theories will be featured, so maybe I will have to wait for that and with the publication in French by a French publisher that will accompany it to give the public the glorious, sad, complicated, tragic story that may be the most influential event in modern French history. Avemalakoff (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

ISBN: 978-1-998414-00-0

locate press

B102 5212

48 ST. Suite126

Red Deer. AB, Canada, T4N 7C3

http://legacysector.com

copyright © 2024 Legacy Sector, an imprint of Locate Press Inc.

reference formatted - styled  for wikipedia

Madry, Sarah B. (2024). Second Son, the Man in the Iron Mask. Legacy Sector, an imprint of Locate Press Inc. ISBN: 978-1-998414-00-0. Avemalakoff (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

And by writing this you have helped cast doubt on any editor who decides to add your book as a source. You asserting that [i]t is an important contribution to the scholarly work on this topic makes it clear that you are doing this for promotional reasons, which is not what Wikipedia is for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way to get my book on the list with the other books on this subject? I don't want promotion, I just want to be listed with the other books. In pointing out new research in my book I was talking to you, to give you an idea of what is in the book, and in my opinion it is an important book in the subject. I do not think that should be put up for display, but i wanted you to know the extent and depth of this work so that you might consider allowing it to be listed with other books on this subject, which are in a list on the page. I am promoting this book to you but am not trying to promote the book to others through Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one place where books on this subject are listed. It is a commercially published book, it is deeply sourced (again this is to you) and I think, if the book, in your opinion, does not merit a sentence about the entirely new research findings in the book, then so be it. It's a published book on this topic. Please give me a reason why it cannot be on your list. If you wish, I can give you a pdf of it so you can see that it's a serious work. Avemalakoff (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You're insistent in trying to get a book you wrote mentioned on Wikipedia. You are trying to get more eyes on it; ergo, you are trying to promote this book to other people. If a completely uninvolved editor (with no prompting from you) came across your book, found its contents useful, and used it to cite information, then that's not a problem. If you're going to effect any action yourself, ColinFine is right: make an edit request on the article's talk page, but it will be scrutinised as you are the book's author.

I have no interest in your book; I am merely telling you that continuing on this course of action is likely to land you in trouble with contravening a policy sooner or later, which may result in sanctions for your account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Avemalakoff You added an unreferenced paragraph about your theory to Man in the Iron Mask which came across as orginal research, and was rightfully reverted. David notMD (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Government

Name the Liberia counties, district with their senatos and representatives 41.191.104.231 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I confess that I am unable to do so. 126.167.109.87 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also unable to do that, sorry. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for questions about using Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions try the reference desk WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Administrative divisions of Liberia. For information on their leaders, see their respective articles. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

An user had vandalized a page

Hello, I am very aware of the situation in Corsica and i wanted to improve the page about FLNC where there were a lot of mistakes. I would like help because english is not my native language so sometimes my words can be non-idiomatic or even wrong. I would like you to improve it on the style :) An user named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd invented that FLNC was antisemitic because of a graffiti that was not done by FLNC and because of an article written by a zionist militant who fantazizes about an alliance between FLNC & Hamas that doesn't exist (and i don't see how being allied with Hamas would mean being antisemitic but that is another debate because this alliance doesn't exist), althought FLNC never targetted jews in the speeches or the acts. There is literaly no intellectual rigor or academic approach. It's pure subjectivity as i experienced it a lot on French wikipedia but i had the feeling that English wikipedia was more rigorous. Another user has deleted my modifications and threatened to block my account because i brought this intellectual rigor on the page. I can bring sources to my claims through books, articles and documentaries like Génération FLNC on YouTube. I hope you will be able to help me. Argala Mistral (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Argala Mistral Disagreement about article content should be discussed on the Talk Page of the article: so Talk:National Liberation Front of Corsica in this case, where I don't see anything from you. Make sure you provide reliable sources for the content in dispute and note that the onus for those who wish to add content is that they have suitable sources. If there are only two of you in the discussion and find it difficult to gain consensus, then follow the process in this guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Talk page of the article is the correct place to try to achieve consensus. Please discuss content without attacking other editors (From your Talk page: "You should ask me before posting absolute non-sense about FLNC.") My own opinion is that the increase in anti-Jewish graffiti in Europe (not just Corsica) does not represent government or non-government organization positions, but rather the work of individuals. David notMD (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

there is no increase

this action is normally irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned in the medias

if the graffiti was against muslims and arabs, the media would never do an article about it

there is a huge racism against muslims and arabs in the West

but not against jews, they have very powerful positions in the West and every single word or action that could be seen as "negative" against jews took giant proportions

in Corsica, there are maybe hundreds or thousands of graffitis against arabs and muslims (it doesn't come from FLNC) and one against jews but guess what was related in the press..

and don't forget many actions against jews were done by other jews (graffitis in Levallois Perret, so-called agression of the rabbi in Marseille, even stabbings or the woman who self mutilated in the RER in Paris in 2002) Argala Mistral (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

writing something

How do I write a page on Wikipedia? it’s just a small page, nothing more. 122.161.67.127 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What sort of article do you want to write? Writing a new article is challenging, and it is usually recommended to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, to learn about what is being looked for in article content. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a bit like "I want to build a house - just a small house".

Building a small house may be less work than building a big house, but it's still a lot of work, much of it unseen when the house is finished, and it takes certain skills which people may not have.

Writing a Wikipedia article may not be as challenging as building a house, but everything I've said in the previous paragraph still applies: The preparatory work (in Wikipedia's case, finding suitable sources for the information) is just as challenging whether the article is big or small, and the necessary skills just as important.

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) 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Help:Your first article. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I made an edit to a semi-protected article...

I added an edit (with citation) to the article on Kamala Harris's father. I see that only autoconfirmed editors can make changes to that article—and I get why. But I'd like to know: will my edit be reviewed by an autoconfirmed editor so it can be added? Or was I just wasting my time in adding a relevant fact to the article? Jmatazzoni (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jmatazzoni, you are already autoconfirmed, as you have been on Wikipedia for more than four days and made more than 10 edits. Autoconfirmed is a low bar, to keep out the laziest disruptors. Anyway, due to the way protection works, if you didn't have the appropriate permission level, you would not have been able to edit the article at all. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Kudos for adding a ref at same time you added content. David notMD (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Font size reduction in Edit Source

I'm re-asking this, with corrections, because there was no response before it got archived -- perhaps because of my error in describing it?

Lately, when you enter Edit Source the font size is much reduced from the viewing size in the page you're editing. I believe this is related to Preferences|Appearance|Skin|Vector (2022). This makes it hard for me to read and I'd like an option to get back the old behaviour where the font size remained the same. Is such an option already there? I can't find it. -- Dough34 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dough34: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell it's only reading text that's been modified; the source editor's remained the same and I've always kept Wikipedia zoomed in at 125%. I just leave text size at small so that there's no visual discrepancy between editing and reading. You can change it at the Appearances sidebar (or if you collapsed it, using the at the top of the page). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That works. Dough34 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

declined

may i know the reason for decline as im creating wikipedia for the first time user name is (Reshine Bidar) Reshine Bidar (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reshine Bidar your draft Draft:Rohan Kumar lists the decline reason: it does not have any sources. You need significant coverage in multiple sources that are reliable and independent for an article to be accepted. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Reshine Bidar. The draft article is called Draft: Rohan Kumar but it is about Rashine Organisation. The title should match what you are writing about. If you haven’t done so already please read and study Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. I would suggest that you search for Wikipedia articles about similar organizations, and study how they are organized, and what is in them. Then look for good references on what you want to write about. Unfortunately, if you can’t find good references, you will not be able to continue with your project. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are no references then you can ask for your draft to be deleted by putting Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }}. David notMD (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

China project

Looking to write about Chinese topics but haven’t used wiki in awile. Is there a central location where I can accept tasks and collaborations? Can I edit on my phone? Open to helping out or getting ideas for uncovered topics. Thanks Confucius not (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Confucius not, and welcome back to Wikipedia. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject China, that also has several subgroups for different topics. For tasks of a more general nature, you have Wikipedia:Task Center. Editing on your phone is possible, though may pose some challenges. I recommend reading User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with editing an article draft (AfC) with little "significant coverage"

Dear editors, may I ask for your help with editing a draft for my first article on an organization (online marketplace) with little "significant coverage"? I have compiled dozens of references from universities, scientific societies, and academic peer-reviewed journals, which are arguably independent, reliable, and secondary. Unfortunately, none of these sources seems to provide a significant, in-depth coverage of the organization, as exemplified in WP:NCORP. However, based on the above-mentioned independent, reliable, and secondary references, I would nevertheless like to make the case for the notability of the above-mentioned organization and have tried to "piece together" an article without a clear significant coverage. I would appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look at it and provide some feedback before I resubmit it for the AfC review. Here's the link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eloquenti. Thank you very much. Uniprofessor (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, the relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which is taken very seriously. It calls for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. How can you argue for notability when you admit yourself that the organization in question does not meet the notability guideline? Why should this particular organization as opposed to other groups get an exception from the guideline? Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Although only an essay, it may help to explain your problem if you read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cullen328, thank you for your prompt reply. I understand the notability requirement and am not arguing for an exception. I realize my previous wording regarding the lack of "significant coverage" was misleading, and I apologize for the confusion. What I meant to say is that, for the organization at hand, the significant coverage is arguably the weakest out of the required criteria. As mentioned in the feedback of the original reviewer of the article, "what counts as significant is subjective, and anything from one to a few paragraphs can be a grey area". Several of the cited independent, reliable, and secondary references provide a one-paragraph coverage of the topic at hand, and, based on my expertise in this field, this suffices to establish the significance of this organization. However, I would like to seek help from an experienced editor to review my draft before I resubmit it. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, your draft has 29 references. Please mention the very best three of them that are independent, reliable and provide the most in-depth coverage of this organization. Not four, not five, but your three best sources. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328! I can revise the draft to reduce the number of references, but I'm not sure if I can establish a clear notability with only three best sources. (Is there Wikipedia guidance to reduce the number of references to three?) I should have mentioned earlier that the challenge behind this article is that there is not a single (or a couple of) reference that provides an in-depth coverage of this topic (say, a lengthy news article). Instead, I would like to make the case for significance based on the entirety of the assembled independent, reliable, and secondary sources, each of which discusses a slightly different aspect of the organization at hand. Please advise. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor. I neither asked you to, nor did I imply that you should reduce the number of your references at this time. I simply asked you to mention the three best of your references here. Since you are unwilling to respond to my entirely reasonable request, I will withdraw from this conversation. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cullen328, I'm sorry for missing your point. It was not clear to me from your previous comment that you would like me to mention the three best references here, in the Teahouse. I had wrongly assumed from the context that you are referring to the draft (with too many/29 references), and that you wanted me to revise it around the top three references. Your request is, of course, perfectly reasonable, and please accept my apologies for misunderstanding it. Here are 3 references mentioning the organization at hand:

1. University of Michigan: https://adr.engin.umich.edu/research-development/resources/writing-editing/

2. Harvard University: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research-strategy-and-development/faculty-resources/research-scientist-resource-page/

3. North Carolina State University: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/do/grants-and-funding/find-collaborators

As previously mentioned, none of the references provides a very lengthy discussion of the organization, but I think that one can make the case for significance based on the entirety of the references cited in my draft. Please advise. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, you've got a one sentence directory listing, a three sentence directory listing including a discount code (!), and a two sentence directory listing. Notability is not passing mentions in directories published by prestigious universities. If those are the three best of your 29 references, then I think that it can be fairly concluded that even if the other 26 references are considered, this company is not notable at this time. Of course, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and Forbes could all publish in-depth coverage of this company next week, and then notability would then be established. What is your connection with this company? Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cullen328, I do not have a connection with this company, but I do research on online marketplaces and, in my personal opinion, this company is significantly more notable than many other online marketplaces mentioned under Wiki's Freelance marketplace websites or Online marketplaces in the United States (most of which I have edited).

Your point about sparse mentions is certainly valid, but again, I would argue that the notability of dozens of short mentions by universities, scientific societies, and peer-reviewed journals (only a fraction of which made it into my draft) is much greater than an in-depth article in Forbes, which according to Wiki's Notability (organizations and companies), is neither independent, nor reliable—don't you agree? Uniprofessor (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, there is nothing wrong with articles written by Forbes staffers. Content written by Forbes "contributors" is an entirely different matter. To say that I disagree with your assessment is a massive understatement. If you have no connection with this company, then why not abandon this topic, and select an actually notable topic to wrote an article about? Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference quantity is not a substitute for quality. David notMD (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've seen discussions like this in the nearly two decades I've been on Wikipedia. The point is well taken that a large quantity of trivial mentions indicate that a company is widely known, which implies that there's some threshold above which a large quantity of trivial mentions implies notability. However logical that may seem, Wikipedia has never had such a criterion for notability. And that's a good thing, because then companies could manufacture notability in a similar way that they inflate their social media followers with millions of fake follower accounts. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, @Cullen328! A short answer is: Based on my knowledge of the field and the entirety of independent, reliable, and secondary sources, I believe this company is notable enough to be added to the list of Freelance marketplace websites and Online marketplaces in the U.S. (frankly, much more so than many other companies currently listed under these categories).

As previously mentioned, I reviewed every single entry in those categories and edited most of them. When I felt ready to suggest my first article, I wanted it to be in my area of other expertise, and this online marketplace came to mind. What sets it apart from other marketplaces currently listed in the above-mentioned categories is that it is tailored primarily towards academia, rather than the business world (which may explain the lack of an in-depth “Forbes”-like coverage on this company). Once you account for this key difference, I would argue that being references by 30+ universities and scientific societies is by no means a lower bar than a business journalist at Forbes deciding to write a lengthy article on this company. @David notMD, I understand that the quantity of references does not substitute for quality, but in this case the emphasis is not on 30+ mentions but on the fact that the references come from universities and scientific societies, which are arguably as independent and reliable as it gets. In other words, since no research administrators at these institutions would want to be accused of advertising a business, even a 1-2 sentence mention of the company is, in my view, a greater sign of notability than a lengthy business interview of the company’s CEO in Forbes. (Notably, borrowing phrasing from @Cullen328, none of the online marketplaces currently listed in the above-mentioned categories seem to have significant coverage in “the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and Forbes” anyway.) On a related note, I disagree with @Anachronist that a company can artificially inflate its mentions at universities, scientific societies, and peer-reviewed journals—these are not the institutions that are easily “inflatable”.

I understand that not everyone would share my view, but I’m wondering if there is an experienced editor in the Teahouse who agrees with my arguments and could help me revise my draft before I resubmit it for the AfC review. I should mention that it was originally rejected not due to a lack of notability, but because I relied too much on the information from the company’s website. Based on the feedback received, I have substantially revised the draft to use almost exclusively the information and wording from the independent, reliable, and secondary sources. I was referred by the original reviewer of my draft to the Teahouse for help with editing, and I would truly appreciate it if anyone in this forum would be willing to help with the revision of my first article. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is like saying a book is notable because it's in the card catalog of the Library of Congress and multiple libraries of highly respected universities. No. Mentions by respectable institutions do not confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Not quite @Anachronist. To paraphrase your example, if the Library of Congress and multiple libraries of highly respected universities, whose job is to collect, systematize, and preserve books, and not to showcase any individual book—to avoid showing partiality or being accused of advertising some books but not others—decided to showcase a given book out of million of other books on their websites and each wrote a 2-3 sentence synopsis for this particular book, then, yes, I would consider this book to be notable, despite the fact that this synopsis is only a couple of sentences long and in spite of the fact that a Forbes journalist has not yet written an extensive summary of the book or interviewed the book author.

Thanks @David notMD for your very helpful edits and comments on my draft. Anyone else who is willing to contribute is more than welcome. I truly appreciate your help with editing my first article. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

How about less chitchat here and just resumbit it and see what the next reviewer opines. David notMD (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

How to find out the truth?

I am working on the Rapier Unmanned Helicopter page and I have two conflicting sources: https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2015/edepro-introduces-two-new-projects-of-uav-at-partner-2015-the-rapier-and-the-atrox-32606153

and https://www.skyeyesystems.it/products/rapier-x-skysar/

Perhaps they are entirely different vehicles or industrial espionage? Ire Of The Shire (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ire Of The Shire. The first is described as a project of a Serbian company as is the helicopter in the Wikipedia article. The second is described as a project of an Italian company, and it is clearly not a helicopter. I pretty sure that they are unrelated. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think armyrecognition.com is a reference to avoid. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 05:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Army recognition is the only source which confirms any of the information in the article. The Sky Eye Systems Rapier vehicle fits a very large amount of the information in the article except it is not a helicopter, and is not made in Serbia. EDePro does not acknowledge the Rapier on their website, only the other very similar vehicle called the Atrox, also mentioned in the army recognition source. Perhaps someone got the two confused? Ire Of The Shire (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Atrox was in the army recognition site only, the Alecs is the one on the EDePro website . Ire Of The Shire (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The article should be rewritten. Only one source (armyrecognition) says it's a helicopter and shows only a concept model, and references a company (EDePro) that doesn't even mention it. I'd say this is a fake source. Everything else I find about the Rapier shows a VTOL UAV. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll get on it when I get time. Ire Of The Shire (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m on a password time bomb

So, I lost this device a couple months ago, so I tried to log in on multiple devices, but it says that I forgot the password. I can still remember some of the password details but I won’t share it because hackers. I just found this device with the cookies still in place, with my account. Bu it says every year you are logged out from the account. So a few months from now, I will be locked out until I remember the password. It is impossible to link a email due to personal reasons. Am I doomed to be forever locked out? I really don’t want to start over. K.O.518 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518: Welcome to the Teahouse. When you say [i]t is impossible to link a [sic] email due to personal reasons, does that mean you are reluctant or that your device is literally incapable of letting you do such a thing? If I were you, I'd change my email address to one I have access to (potentially a one-time address), use a logged-out instance to say I forgot my password, change my password, then once that's done unlink my email address from the account.

Looking at your account you've only made roughly 80 edits, so if you do lose access to it the only thing you lose out on is autoconfirmed status, which is easy to reclaim on a new account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It should also be possible for you to create an alternative account using your current account - which would make it obvious it's you - disclose in the new account's user page that that will be your new account in case you never recover your password, and use that account if you do lose all access to the current one. – 2804:F1...D3:291B (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518: Try going into your user preferences and setting up your email address. That way when the password expires, you can reset it via the "I forgot my password" link under the login prompt.

I don't know why more people don't add their email to their Wikipedia account. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist I think many of us are reluctant to give away our personal email addresses to every website that asks for it. I wouldn't expect to walk in to a shop and be told that if I didn't give them my email address or mobile phone number I wouldn't be allowed back in again without it. For that reason (and expecting to be contacted as an admin), I created a separate email address for use solely with Wikipedia. But I suspect most folk simply don't want to do this, and I don't blame them. Thinking ahead about potential password loss probably isn't at the top of most people's agendas. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you said. Bottom line, if you create an account and expect to use it more than once, then you provide an email address for recovery. Especially on Wikipedia, where you don't even need an account to edit, so if you go through the trouble of creating one, it's likely because you plan to use it. So provide an email address. It's that simple. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Which infobox needed

Which infobox do i need to use on an article about an indian politician. most of infobox about politicians contain parameter which is about politicians power-holding or status that they hold, but the politician i am talking about has only contested elections and never won any, so has nothing in incumbents. which infobox needed for such place. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Having an inbox in a draft does not contribute to the draft being approved. Political candidates rarely qualify for articles unless they are notable for other reasons. David notMD (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

KMel49, infoboxes are entirely optional, highly controversial and completely unnecessary for new articles. If I was trying to get a draft accepted, I would pay no attention at all to infoboxes. If you like infoboxes, you can always try to add one after your draft is accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing a book or newspaper

What are the parameters when citing a book or newspaper? ----MountVic127 (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@MountVic127: Welcome to the Teahouse. You will want to read the documentation for {{cite book}} and {{cite newspaper}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Thanks ----MountVic127 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What does "Check date values in" mean?. Wiki should show what acceptable date format actually is :-) Where is there an example of a correctly formatted citation date? ----MountVic127 (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@MountVic127: the cite template page provides details of each parameter, including what values (and how formatted etc.) are accepted, whether they're required/suggested/optional, and so on. There's a lot of information and you may need to scroll way down the page, but it should all be there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

MountVic127, Maybe you are talking about this. accepted formats are as as follows:
|date=2024-10-04 or |date=4 October 2024 or |date=Ocober 4, 2024. these date formats are accepted in every Citation template. see more here.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 06:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What do colored page titles mean?

I turned on a lot of "gadgets" in my user settings, but I'm not sure which of them is doing this or what the colors mean? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What do the colours mean after you've turned on a lot of unspecified gadgets? Who knows. But you might have a colour for pages that exist (even as mere redirects) and that you've visited, another for ditto but not visited, another for nonexistent but you've attempted to visit, another for ditto but you haven't attempted. 60.47.212.235 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about wikilinks? They are generally blue, but dark blue for pages you have visited, and red for non-existent pages. You might also have set a different color to indicate disambiguation pages. The default for that is orange. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I see links as blue, purple, red, and maroon. None are orange, but that sounds useful, where do I find that option? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: You want to go to Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Display links to disambiguation pages in orange. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Industrial Metal Brain. If you refer to page headings and not links than it's probably "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation)" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. "documentation" is blue so it's a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It is the headings. Maybe it should say "as a colored page header"? … or maybe I should read the documentation before I add more gadgets. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: The gadget adds both color and a line of text. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

American game show winnings records

My name is CJ Klein and I'm trying to fix the all time top 25 winnings list on the American game show winnings records article. I want people to see the real results, but they keep being resorted back. Please help.

American game show winnings records Game$howFan (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, judging by your discussion with @Bcschneider53 at User_talk:Game$howFan#American_game_show_winnings_records and the ongoing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Game$howFan, you should get the ANI discussion sorted out first, then perhaps you can WP:COMMUNICATE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your dedication to contributing to Wikipedia is Commendable. However, to ensure your edits are accepted and not altered, it's essential to include verifiable sources and citations. I do appreciate your efforts. Wishing you a wonderful day. Happy editing! Oleeveeya (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I got my sources from the offical jeopardy website and by watching every game show I've seen up to date. Also, I don't know all the rules on this website. I'm autistic & I have trouble understanding certain things. I don't know how to all this. I didn't know I was breaking any rules. I'm sorry. Please forgive me Game$howFan (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make edits that can "stick", learning how to add references correctly is essential, I can't stress this enough. WP:TUTORIAL has instructions on how. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm really very sorry for all the trouble I caused. I really thought I was doing something right. I swear, I didn't know I was breaking the rules. I promise, I'll never ever EVER edit an article ever again. I've learned my lesson. Game$howFan (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Game$howFan. I'm sorry your first foray into editing Wikipedia was frustrating, for you and others. If game shows are your interest (as I guess from your name) then I hope that you won't be put off ever editing in that area.

But besides the point about referencing that GGS made I want to say something about how we interact as editors.

New editors often come here with the idea that "That's WRONG and I'VE GOT TO PUT IT RIGHT" (I've deliberately used capitals in stating that: doing so is regarded as shouting, and it's not a way of communicating that is preferred here, but people who are convinced of their position often do so).

But editing Wikipedia isn't about getting it RIGHT! It isn't even (quite) about truth. It's about consensus - editors agreeing between themselves what is the best way to present the material. Different people have different views on this, and sometimes we need to say, and it doesn't work to keep repeating your point, or suggesting that others have not understood: if you feel strongly that it should be a certain way, it is up to you to persuade other editors tom come round to your view, by rational arguments in line with Wikipedia policy. Sometimes you need to end up saying to yourselfr :"Well, that's not how I would like the article to look, but I see that the consensus is against me".

Coming in with the idea that "I'm right, and anybody who disagrees must be wrong" is not constructive - and you're not by any means the only new editor who has got frustrated before they've understood that.

Please have a look at WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's OK. I really didn't know I was breaking the rules. That's why I promised I'll never edit on wikipedia ever again. I really did learn my lesson Game$howFan (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Why cease your valuable contributions? Your efforts are truly appreciated. When I began editing Wikipedia three years ago, I was quite inexperienced. Mistakes are part of the learning journey, and your dedication to providing accurate information is commendable. Please continue your edits, and if you encounter any difficulties, do not hesitate to seek assistance here. Your hard work is deeply valued. Thank you, and I wish you a delightful day. Oleeveeya (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Game, if you fancy coming back to this at any point, this page might be a good idea for you to read. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't wanna take the chance of getting in legal trouble. All I wanted was to tell the world the real results on the American game show winnings records article and all that time, I didn't know I was breaking the rules. I can't risk things when it comes to getting in big legal trouble. I'm never editing on wikipedia again. I really mean it. Game$howFan (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Game$howFan: I am perplexed as to how you came to the conclusion that contravening Wikipedia policies will result in getting into legal trouble. The worst that'll happen is that your editing privileges will be revoked; you will not be tracked down in real life. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is the Width button?

I could've sworn there used to be a button to change into and out of limited-width mode. It doesn't appear for me anymore. Is there any way to summon it back?

(I need it to remove confusing line breaks introduced into wider tables by limited-width mode.)

Arachnosuchus (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arachnosuchus The "appearances" menu moves into the icon at the top near your username if you toggle it off. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arachnosuchus: Welcome to the Teahouse. If your memories are from back when the Vector 2022 skin was made the default, I assume you're referring to the button that was in the lower-right corner. That has been shelved and is now an option, as Michael D. Turnbull has said above, in the Appearance menu. It should have appeared as a right sidebar element, but can be found under the at the top of the page as the "Width" submenu if you hid it previously. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Flag article

If I am writing an article on a flag containing a coat of arms, should I describe and explain the heraldic achievement even if it has an article of its own? WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would't have thought so, WikiPhil012. Maybe a very brief description, and if you do, use Template:Main article above the description to point to the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

E.ms

Expense increase owner equity 41.114.235.43 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for questions about using Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions try the reference desk at WP:RD, but make sure to clearly state your question. RudolfRed (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion apparently  Completed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

MoS:Num

Hello. I was reading the page for the Manual of Style on Numbers, to ascertain something, but did not find the information desired. Numbers 10 and beyond are expressed, written, as integers, e.g. 10, 74, 105, although words can be used in certain cases for numbers consisting of one or two words. For 0 - 9, integers less than 10, words are used. I assume this applies to negative numbers as well? E.g. -5, rather than "Minus five" or "Negative five". More importantly, is it the case that one must write "zero" for 0, or may they write "nought", or "naught"? I was changing decimals from e.g. 0.5 to "nought point five" since that is how I would pronounce the number, but perhaps "zero point five" is preferable on Wikipedia, even though the crucial words both mean absolutely nothing. Can nought be used? Thanks. ButterCashier (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion:

• The Manual of Style refers to integers from 0 to 9. A number such as minus 5 is not in the range 0 to 9. Furthermore, negative numbers are less likely to appear as such in prose and more likely to fall in the category which MoS calls "numbers as numbers" and are therefore not spelled out.
• A number such as 0.5 is not an integer, and therefore it is not appropriate to spell it out as you suggest, but one would often say something like "Half the members of the committee were women."
• Similarly when the concept of 0 appears in prose, it could be rendered by "no" or "none", e.g. "None of the committee members were women, and there were no clergymen either."

Ehrenkater (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2024 range of literate (UTC)

ButterCashier, "nought" is British English and is almost never used in American English. According to MOS:COMMONALITY, editors should select words familiar to the widest range of literate readers of the English language, so I would recommend "zero" instead. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikitext-based Editing Error

I made an error while trying to add to a table on Congressional Review Act. I can't seem to fix it. Joesom333 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joesom333: Welcome to the Teahouse.  Partly done. I've added the missing markup in this diff so that your entry is in its own row, but you'll have to add the two missing cells yourself. You may also wish to acquaint yourself with Help:Tables. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Joesom333 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion apparently  Completed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Joesom333 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Tool to perform a null edit with one click?

For niche reasons involving categorization, I'm running through a few dozen articles performing null edits on them. I was wondering if anyone knows if there's a tool that can do that in just one click. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheTechnician27. See Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Purging. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Interesting. I tried purging these articles, but that didn't seem to do what I was hoping it would. Effectively, I'm wanting them to show up in the categories they're categorized in after I changed a stub tag to point to the correct category. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Three of the five tools at Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Purging can make null edits according to their description. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh, I'm sorry; I should have followed the link instead of just reading the URL. Thank you for this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion apparently  Completed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Fun stuff

Can I create an audio recording of me reading a user subpage I created myself? (or is that unnecessary, because I heard that all material on Wikipedia must be educational?) TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why you shouldn't create it. You could then upload it to your blog or whatever. But posting it to Wikipedia or Commons seems a waste of Wikimedia resources. 126.53.182.136 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Help with adding citations

Specifically on the Wikipedia article on the Russian Civil War, I changed the date of the war’s end date to “disputed,” and whilst I have sources backing this up, some weird glitch prevented me from directly editing the central content box with the end date (instead directing me to some weird “fill in the box” menu). To make sure that due credit is paid and that doubters of my edit’s accuracy are refuted, I would like someone to either tell me how to (directly) add the citations or to add the citations for me.

Here are the sources that I used:

https://study.com/learn/lesson/russian-civil-war-overview-history.html https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Civil-War https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/russian-revolution LordOfWalruses (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, LordOfWalruses. First of all, those are low quality sources for a major historical event over a century ago. Books written by respected scholars of Russian history and published by university presses would be much better sources. Secondly, I recommend that you gain consensus at Talk: Russian Civil War before making this change. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

LordOfWalruses, the established consensus of most of the editors working on that article seems to be that the war ended with the surrender of Anatoly Pepelyayev and his forces to the Bolsheviks in Ayan, Russia on the Pacific coast of Siberia in June, 1923. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In the Infobox you changed the end date from October 2022 to "disputed" while removing a ref for the former. Given the number of editors who 'watch' this article, your change may soon be reverted. If that happens, take up at Talk (as Cullen328 recommended). David notMD (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly all of you are right, and @Cullen328, I will revert my earlier change and make it to that date. (I thought that was the correct date anyways, but the sources I found didn’t unanimously disagree, so I couldn’t say that date with full certainty. I appreciate your clarification, however.) Thanks for the help to all of you. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Expand sources in year articles

Does anyone expand these sections in 2020 and 2022, unlike 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 have already expanded sections with reliable sources. Only "health" and "conflicts" sections, expanded with reliable sources. 77.37.204.18 (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You can see for yourself whether, or how well, people have expanded particular sections in particular articles. I don't think that this answers your question, but I don't understand what it is that you're asking. Perhaps you could rephrase it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll answer what I guess may be 77's question. No-one has a duty to expand those sections. Wikipedia editors are all volunteers. Maybe one day someone will choose to expand them. You could even expand them yourself. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I want to write an article about a species.. so, I have gathered the informations from ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, NCBI, MDPI, ACS and Seizure. May I know, which of these sources are generally reliable. If these are not, where should I extract the informations.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto Some of these are databases, so indirect sources that will have records to to the main scientific literature published by the ACS or in journals like Seizure. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources like reviews, if possible, but in topics such as species you may be forced to have some primary ones. Notability is not usually an issue for species. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

alright. many thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 16:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

how can we editor solve dispute

how can we solve dispute If tow editor are unable to come to an agreement with each other. can we take third party help Jassu712 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Please make a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion to get a third opinion from another editor. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jassu712: See also WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Railway lines category organization

Should Category:Railway lines be organized the same way as Category:Railway stations? That would mean creating {{Railway lines in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}} in a similar way to {{Railway stations in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}}. This would help further organize the railway lines into subcategories like "Railway lines in Germany opened in 1957". I hope this request makes sense. Thanks! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito: Good question; probably better asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, where you will find subject experts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Makennnar

@Makenna Cowgill 2601:984:8101:13E0:E1C9:A917:A505:59F3 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any questions about editing or using Wikipedia? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

information technology

kind of data to store while designing an e-commerce platform 41.210.159.51 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

all Data about contracts. But really all! 176.0.164.84 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editors. This is a venue providing help with editing and contributing to Wikipedia. If you have questions about that, please ask them. Otherwise, reading articles like E-commerce may help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a hash

I tried to create an article for Matteo de Nora who is quite an important figure here in god's own country but I seem to have made a hash of it with a draft at Draft:Matteo de Nora which I have copied over to Matteo de Nora with someone later removing my introduction. It also did not remove my draft. Can someone help me fix this? Possummayhem (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Possummayhem Since the article is now in mainspace, I suggest you just edit it there with any extra bits from your draft that are missing. Afterwards, you can get an admin to delete the draft by placing the template {{Db-author}} at the very top. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the article's lede, which appears to have been removed accidentally by AlphaBetaGamma. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I will try to improve it directly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Possummayhem (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Politician" descriptor

Hi, does wp have a policy about the use of the terms "politician" and "bureaucrat"? It seems like one would have to have been elected to something to be called a politician. I'm reading about two secretaries of the U.S. Department of Energy who don't appear to have been elected to any office, so I'd like to replace the term politician, but bureaucrat is often used pejoratively, at least in the U.S. The two pages I'm looking at specifically are James D. Watkins and Hazel R. O'Leary. Seananony (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: I just realized "politician" is often pejorative in the U.S. as well, but it's used all the time on wp. I don't remember seeing anyone described as " bureaucrat". Seananony (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

A politician is not the same as a bureaucrat, as those articles make clear. Not all politicians are elected. Neither term is pejorative. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In the UK we often use the term civil servant for people hired rather than elected. Is that useful? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In the US political lexicon, members of the Cabinet of the United States are commonly called politicians. They are practically and legally not career civil servants with job protections. They are political appointees who must be confirmed by the US Sentate and can be fired by the president at the drop of a hat. The term "bureaucrat" definitely has negative connotations. According to Brittanica.com, the words bureaucracy and bureaucrat are typically thought of and used pejoratively. They convey images of red tape, excessive rules and regulations, unimaginativeness, a lack of individual discretion, central control, and an absence of accountability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't worry about it anymore. Seananony (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

what is the smallest city in serbia

yea what 83.22.73.86 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. Try the Reference desk instead. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If you havent already gotten an answer i have a google ai overview

I did not write any of this or type any of this

This is from google ai Missourian BJMD (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help me do something on a draft?

I am working on a unsubmitted draft(name:Draft:Long Es. I tried referencing it,but there is no archival or access date for me,since I followed how to reference as the same on Tse with long left leg. 86.97.98.119 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The current state of Draft:Long Es is that the {{cite web is missing its closing }}, and the <ref> is followed by another <ref> rather than by the required closing </ref>.

I don't know what you mean about the dates: the access-date should be the date on which sombody last consulted that source, and if you haven't looked for an archived version you don't need and archive-date.

At present your draft has no useful citations. (A source which does not mention the subject of the article is usually pointless).

Where did you get the information from: that is what you should be citing, provided it is realiably published. ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Drafting in User Page Sandbox

Hi! I am trying to draft a page in my user page sandbox as a way to get comfortable the editor before I submit it as a real draft- when drafting there or in a real draft page, do I need to use extra notation in my code (i.e. adding nowiki around certain code) to prevent the page from being added to categories with live pages on accident, or is that already built in when I work in my sandbox? Pepsiharlot (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pepsiharlot, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to add categories for articles then you have to do someting to prevent the page from being listed in the categories. <nowiki>...</nowiki> is possible to deactivate the whole code but I suggest {{Draft categories}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

How to get a WP Essay published?

Hello, i wrote this, in my user page (i assume it's fine to write such things in your user page?) i'm curious how it could be published as an essay in the WP namespace, is this possible? Thanks

OGWFP (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@OGWFP: Just move it to the required page name in the Wikipedia: namespace; and let people know on the relevant project or policy talk pages and noticeboards. Use {{Essay}} on the top of the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

OGWFP, you are advising editors that they need a computer to patrol. I have been editing for over 15 years and a large majority of my edits are by smartphone. I have well over 100,000 edits, became an administrator on my phone, have written and expanded hundreds of articles on my phone, and regularly patrol many areas of the encyclopedia on my phone. What is the basis of your claim that a computer and keyboard and scrolling wheel are necessary for patrolling or any other type of Wikipedia editing? Cullen328 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, the essay hasn't been edited since 20:02, 6 October. It said, and continues to say, that the "Best devices to do RCP on" are "A desktop computer or a laptop with an external mouse", not that the latter are necessary. It also said, and continues to say, "i'm writing this guide or essay just to explain how i typically do it, but remember there's nothing wrong in doing it your way, as long as you get the job done." ¶ OGWFP, for me, the obvious problem with your essay is waffle. Indeed, I wouldn't call it an essay; I'd call it a preliminary draft for an essay. -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Country first sentence wording & United States

As far as I see, basically all country articles' first sentence is worded as "Jimboland, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Jimboland" with one of the only exception being that of the United States article, which I assume is some sort of compromise made long ago between the various names the US has been called. Even controversial naming such as Turkey or Taiwan follows the aforementioned format. So my question is: Is there any specific rules or consensus in the wording of countries or territories? Or is it just a case of American exceptionalism? Zinderboff(talk) 19:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is also the case for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, and United Kingdom, among others. One-size-fits-all approaches don't usually work for this sort of thing given the variance in how different countries are named. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for listing other examples. Zinderboff(talk) 20:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I just made my first wikipidia page draft

Draft:Jewish Educational Media do you think its good and what can i do to improve it and hopefully get it aproved YisroelB501 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, YisroelB501. Minor point, but "educational" is misspelled. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating Verifiability, a core content policy. Most important, you need to include and summarize references to reliable sources completely independent of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement that devote significant coverage to this project. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

there isnt realy that much sorces completly indipendant from the chabad lubavich movment. and jem is not part of the chabd lubavich movement. it is a private non profit orginization and the majority of my sorces https://chabad.org and https://collive.com/ are sites seen on many other pages with things that are in the chabad lubavich movment. YisroelB501 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501: Welcome to the Teahouse. Alas, if you can't find sources that satisfy the golden rule, you won't be able to establish that the organisation is wikinotable and any further work into the draft would be for naught. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

but its not dependand with the sorces. https://chabad.org and https://collive.com/ https://anash.orgare completly detached with Jewish Educatinal Media. and i have a bunch of other sorces from other places YisroelB501 (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to press to doubt that an organisation that is dedicated to the production and distribution multimedia from a Chabad-Lubavitch perspective. (links in original; draft diff) is independent from a site called Chabad.org. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, are you going to answer the question I posed you earlier (here) about the remarkable difference between (A) the prose style of your draft and (B) your prose style in the teahouse? -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, no uninvolved editor who knows the slightest bit about Judaism could possibly read your draft and then believe your claim that jem is not part of the chabd lubavich movement. You must tell the truth if you expect Teahouse hosts to assist you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

chabad-lubavich has many orginizations affiliated to it such as Aleph Institute, freindship circle, gan israel, Rohr Jewish Learning Institute, kehot and many more. see Chabad affiliated organizations JEM spreads many chabad-lubavich teachings but it is not part of it even look at the list. it was made by someone who is chabad-lubavich but that doesnt mean anything, they literlly are called Jewish Educational Media and not Chabad Educational Media. Chabad is a trademark meaning no non chabad afiliated orginizations can call themselfs chabad. and besides most wikipidia pages on chabad-lubavich have most of their sorces from https://chabad.org https://collive.com/ and https://anash.org and even chabad books. see freindship circle gan israel farbrengen. 770 Eastern Parkway (that page has reliable news cites but only for the recent incedent with the tunnels) YisroelB501 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, just because some articles about Chabad-Lubavitch organizations are poorly referenced to sources that are not independent from Chabad-Lubavitch does not mean that Wikipedia should accept another poor quality article lacking references to significant coverage in sources fully independent of Chabad-Lubavitch. Instead, you should be trying to find and add fully independent sources to those articles, or merge that content to Chabad affiliated organizations. A freestanding article should not survive without references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. This is Wikipedia 101, and is a matter of well-established policy. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Aleph Institute has several fully independent sources, although the unreliable New York Post tabloid should be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Friendship Circle (organization) has several fully independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501: I used ProQuest, to which I have access through The Wikipedia Library, to search for sources, and found this. If you can't access it, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy.

• Shandler, J. (2020). The savior and the survivor: Virtual afterlives in new media. Jewish Film & New Media, 8(1), 23-47. doi:10.1353/jfn.2020.0001

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

third party opinion

About Sukerchakia Misl i have dispute with editor he don't have any reliable sources and instead of working with me to solve problems he is now threatening me what should i do I want neutral point of view Jassu712 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Jassu712, a discussion started on the article's talk page. You then removed it. Do not remove material from talk pages. -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

i removed since it's no use no third party giving their opinion and that other giy is very stubborn i even offered him to do only little changes he still refused Jassu712 (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Jassu712, never remove discussion from an article talk page without an excellent reason, which you do not have here. That is disruptive editing and is contrary to policy. Please self-revert. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

okay I will do same as you said can also give me more suggestions sir how can i solved this dispute btw sir can you check [[[Sukerchakia Misl]] page and tell the source i remove is reliable or unrialble i need neutral point of view Jassu712 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jassu712, and welcome to the Teahouse. Without looking at the dispute, I can tell you that a big part of solving the dispute is to let go of "I am right and they are wrong". Wikipedia works on consensus, and it is almost impossible to reach consensus if you refuse to consider another editor's point of view. ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Colleges that should be in a category.

I added Otis College and MassArt to Animation Schools in the United States because they have one of the best animation schools in the United States. Are there any colleges that also should be in this category as well? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a left-leaning bias?

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I'm interested in knowing whether Wikipedia inadvertently has a particular bias. I know that everything has to written in a neutral point of view and is not supposed to take sides on anything. I found the article on this topic here, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but I found the article too confusing. I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias which may contribute to its bias since almost all of Wikipedia's info comes from mainstream media. I am hoping that I can get a quick summary on whether Wikipedia has a bias or not or if it leans a certain way. I hope to hear from you soon. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that theme has come up. Search for "bias" in the archive. 176.0.164.84 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an article on this topic which relates academic and public commentary. See Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey, you perhaps didn't notice that @Interstellarity has already cited that article. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cannot edit my own .js pages

I am unable to manually edit my own .js pages. I can revert with Twinkle and install/uninstall scripts with scriptinstaller, but I can't actually edit my own common.js or create any new userpage that ends with .js. Any help? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cremastra. What goes wrong when you try to edit User:Cremastra/common.js? Does [1] work if you save a change without first using preview or show changes? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Yes, of course you need to know what actually goes wrong. I am able to click "edit" or "create" and enter or remove text just fine, but when I click Publish Changes, I'm returned to viewing the page, with no changes made. The usual little "your edit was published" pop-up does not appear. If I check the version history, no edit is registered.

With safemode on (as in the link you suggested), I am able to make edits. That's rather funny, since I noticed this when I was trying to create User:Cremastra/safemode.js, which would add a link in the toolbar to quickly enable safemode on the current page. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: You can import User:PrimeHunter/Safe mode.js instead of making your own script. Do you have the same problem for css pages like User:Cremastra/common.css? If you have a "<>" icon at the top left of the edit area when editing js or css pages then does it help to click it once? It switches between two edit modes, the normal for wikitext and a special for js and css pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your questions: no, I can edit my css pages fine.

Clicking < > twice does help; and my edit is then published. Thanks! Cremastra (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft decline

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lake_Megachad

My wikipedoa article got declined because there was already an article, but it was on Lake Chad. Is it possible for me to ever make a Lake Mega Chad wikipedia article that is independent.

My argument for my case (dont take it aggresively please) is that there are many seperate articles that are mentioned in other articles.

Is it just that I need to make my article more detailed (I could understand that, it doesn't have a lot, but there is a wikipedia article about Koksvere, Estonia that's shorter than mine (Koksvere).

Also, if it's possible to get a review overturned I would like that, but I will definitely take suggestions.

I hope this thing doesn't make me sound mad. I'm just asking. Missourian BJMD (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Missourian BJMD, your draft wasn't rejected. It was merely declined. This means that you're invited to improve it. I can't guess whether it would be possible for you to succeed in creating a good article, but what you've done so far shows promise and certainly your chosen subject sounds promising. ¶ I haven't looked at the article Koksvere; perhaps it's crap, but even if so, "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

Also I used Koksvere because it does not have a lot of content (it's short). I used it to show that some articles have not a lot of information if that was why I had my.

Thank you very much. Missourian BJMD (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Missourian BJMD, I think it's very likely that an independent article could be successfully created about Lake Mega Chad – I recently watched an hour-long YouTube video about the history of the Sahara (The Ghosts of the Green Sahara: here (Chapter 8, Lake Mega Chad starts at 34:22, but watch the whole thing), which says a good deal about it, for example.

The article Lake Chad contains only a little information about Lake Mega Chad (and you can re-use it and its sources in your Draft – check them out), so if you can find more Reliable sources specifically about the latter, and summarise their information in your draft, it should soon grow. Drafts often go through several rounds of being submitted and declined pending further improvements, so don't be discouraged. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Also I'll probably add onto the Lake Mega Chad bit on Lake Chad. Missourian BJMD (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing a questionable murderer article

I have found about a person that doesn't mention anything except her murder details and her interactions with the law enforcement. She isn't notable for much more than her crimes. Does it mean that the article qualifies for deleting at all, including speedy deletion? Or do I have to use other options in this case? Antitransphobe (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Antitransphobe, your question is too vague to answer. Please furnish the title of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

An article in question is Harvey Marcelin, which doesn't contain much information and isn't much more notable than most murders (WP:CRIME). However, as not to bog down the wiki with pointless deletion request, I want to seek a second opinion here. Antitransphobe (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say it contains a good deal of information, and is moderately well (though could be better) referenced to what look like mostly Reliable sources (I'd prefer those from the New York Post be replaced by others) – on Wikipedia 'notable' means 'well-documented', not 'significant'. Also, most murders aren't carried out by a suspected serial killer.

I can understand from your Username why you might feel uneasy about the article (I have trans friends of long standing), but facts are facts, as long as they are presented in a neutral manner which seems to be the case here. Just my opinion, though. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with the IP. The New York Post references should be removed. The article should be moved to Marceline Harvey. The striking thing to me about this case is not that the person is transgender, but rather that their first murder was committed in 1963, their second murder in 1985, and their third alleged murder in 2022. That is highly unusual. According to WP:PERP, coverage in Wikipedia is appropriate when The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. I could be wrong, but I consider it unlikely that an Articles for deletion debate would be successful. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Major edits of a more popular page - get feedback or just be bold?

I ended up in a rabbit hole of editing the Chloroplast article today and I'm realizing it could use a pretty big overhaul for clarity and lack of redundancy. (Am I just procrastinating on my own PhD research? Maybe...) I'm currently focusing on the Lineages and evolution section since this is an area of my expertise at a high/academic level. I'm still <1 month into this wiki editing, so posting such a major rework on a fairly high traffic page seems a bit presumptive of me (e.g. "my way" of explaining it isn't the "best" way. But to me, the article is a bit choppy/unclear and repetitive). Is there a line where a major rewrite becomes a discussion on the talk page (/sharing with Wikiprojects) before posting it? Should I just go for it? Cyanochic (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Cyanochic. This article went through an unsuccessful Good article review in 2013 and was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation class project in 2022. There is recent unaddressed feedback at Talk:Chloroplast. I recommend that you outline your plans on that talk page and neutrally reach out to the three Wikiprojects listed on the talk page, and also to the editor who left the comment on 4 September 2024. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I saw the comment on the talk page, but it's pretty far out of my area of immediate knowledge. and deals a bit more with intricacies of membranes, and less about overall organization/presentation of information. Since I ended up making relatively large edits that I haven't published, is it okay to save a "copy" of the edited article in a user page/draft page? I vaguely recall seeing this discussed somewhere, but I'm not sure the best way to do that. I presume I could then share this new draft when I reach out to the Wikiprojects?

I should say, the edits I've made now I'm unsure if they count as "extensive" - it's mostly reorganizing and rewording the information already provided by others. E.g. rearranging some information, moving information in the "evolution" section to the "structure" section. It feels like maybe something I could just publish, but would love to confirm that with at least one other experienced editor. Cyanochic (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah I found the good article review comments! I think my current unpublished edits mostly fall under improving comments on the "wandering" of the text and a little of 3b it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Would it be acceptable to publish my current edits but then try to revive some of the conversations about splitting/reorganization of the article? Cyanochic (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The more separate and smaller edits you do the better. In each case, WP:BRD will apply, and smaller makes it less likely that acceptable changes get caught up in reversions of discussable ones.

It may also help to mention structural changes you're about make in advance on the Talk page, so people understand your broader thrust, and to word your edit summaries as informatively (strategy-wise) as possible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, the IP editor has given you some excellent advice, which I endorse. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice! I had to shut down my computer and I wasn't sure how to save it as a draft (or if it's allowed to save whole pages as drafts on another page), so I ended up posting what I did change. (Totally understanding that it could get reverted.) I listed pretty wholly all the changes in my edit summary. Based on your suggestions, I'll put together a better summary for the main talk page with an explanation of my already posted changes in case someone wants to revert it and possible future ideas. Cyanochic (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, although I lack the subject matter expertise to analyze your changes, I will say that you have done an excellent job of explaining your intentions and goals on the article talk page. I wish you well with your plans to take this to Good article status. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the encouragement!! This is the first article I've come across where I feel motivated and qualified to get it to Good article status. Cyanochic (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Article: Athreya Buddhavarapu

Hi Team,

About me:

• I am notable on Wikidata (Athreya Buddhavarapu (Q130298415)). • I am a Wikidata editor. • I have published a standalone article on Wikipedia. • I am on the Google Knowledge Graph (/g/11vrj3q626). • I have published original research in the sciences (ORCID).

I have been advised to avoid writing an article about myself. I thought I would try posting here, in case anyone might be able to help. Personally, I would be honoured to have a standalone article, even if it were just a couple of sentences (e.g., “Athreya Buddhavarapu is a researcher affiliated with ANSTO.”)

Thank you,

Athreya Buddhavarapu Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ABuddhavarapu, a person (or lake, or river, or dog, or species of insect, or soccer match, or whatever) either has a Wikidata entry or hasn't one. I'm not aware of the concept of Wikidata notability. And the other items in your list are somewhere between "insignificant for en:Wikipedia notability" and "incomprehensible". Well, you've asked for a standalone article; prepare yourself for offers to "help" you with this. More concretely, read and digest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Solicitations_by_paid_editors. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary,

Will keep this information in mind. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary There is a not terribly expansive notability policy for Wikidata; see d:Wikidata:Notability . From a brief look, the main notability criterion is that a thing needs to play a role in notability of something else on a 'pedia if it in itself is not independently notable. Someone with a better understanding might be good to weigh in here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That's only one of three notability criteria on Wikidata. OP is notable there, by dint of authoring scientific papers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing for your insightful response. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it appears that you are not notable on Wikidata as you yourself created the Wikidata item, unfortunately, or so it appears. You are correct in that you should not create or edit an article about yourself. I would suggest that you not consider a goal to achieve, that being your own wikipedia page. Your activities, professional and otherwise, should lead to the creation of an article in time. Any other comments from others? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ceyockey

I humbly request that my Wikidata page not be deleted as I have also put through original research I have published into Wikidata, and the cited work to that research as well.

Research in Wikidata:

d:Q130384751

d:Q130385150

d:Q130385157 Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Self-creation of the Wikidata item does not negate notability there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing for your insightful response. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've requested deletion on Wikidata. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi

Thanks @Ceyockey

I humbly request that my Wikidata page not be deleted as I have also put through original research I have published into Wikidata, and the cited work to that research as well.

Research in Wikidata:

d:Q130384751

d:Q130385150

d:Q130385157 Athreya Buddhavarapu But if it still should be deleted that's okay as well.

Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ABuddhavarapu, D:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q130298415 is where you may either ask for it not to be deleted or say that it would be OK for it, and perhaps also the three items that link to it, to be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion opposed, as the subject clearly meets Wikidata's criteria and the item is in use there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing for your insightful response. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Foreign editor struggling with english?

I have come across an edit by someone who could be Czech, or maybe Vietnamese, or maybe they just suffered a cat walking over their keyboard. Added to that, they have given Facebook as a source. And removed a seemingly random full-stop. Hell, we all make mistakes sometimes. But from the subjects covered by their edit history I see I real possibility that English is not their first language. To try to get a better idea, I started looking deeper into their edit history, except I'm not sure what I'm looking at. But I think they have had maybe 10 edits reverted within the last week, which if it is correct, doesn't look too good.

Basically I am worried that what I have seen is either a simple misunderstanding, or could be the tip of a rather large iceberg. Maybe this person needs some special guidance to get them on track, or maybe they just need a better translator. I fear that in either case, I cannot help them. Do I just walk away and trust that somebody somewhere will pick up the pieces?

(I could identify them by username, or I could point you at the article and give you a time and date for their edit, or I could cite the revision number like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1246800985, but is there an automated link or process, that I should be following?)

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, the editor is focused on military hardware from many countries so I did not see enough in a brief look to conclude that they are a specific nationality. It is clear that their English language skills are weak at best, and obviously a Facebook post is not a reliable source for aircraft acquisitions by the Vietnamese Air Force. The first thing to do is to engage the editor in discussion about reliable sources and coherent English language prose. If you notice a problem significant enough to mention here, then I encourage you to at least open the door to discussion with this editor. This is, after all, a collaborative project and no active editor should hesitate to point our problems directly to another editor, as long as it is civil and respectful communication. Despite the problems we are seeing, it looks to me that this editor is acting in good faith. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Getting my Wikipedia uploaded.

Hi, I submitted my Wikipedia two weeks ago and it has not gone up yet. Who can I speak to about that? Happy to make any necessary changes but I've cited sources and structured it well. It is an entry for talent agent John Ludwig Burnham. Thanks so much!

All best, Harry DiBartolo

Draft:John Burnham (Talent Manager). Jburnhamatlas (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jburnhamatlas, as mentioned in the notice, there is an extensive queue of submitted drafts awaiting review. Please be patient and it will be reviewed in due time. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jburnhamatlas. If you are "Harry DiBartolo", then why does your username reference the person you are writing about? Precisely what is your relationship with John Burnham? Did you see the notice at the top of your draft that says This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,310 pending submissions waiting for review? Do you understand that? Why do you repeatedly use ALL CAPS in your draft? Are you aware that this is perceived as shouting? Are you aware that there are several unresolved "citation needed" tags on your draft? Are you aware that many assertions in your draft are unreferenced? Are you aware that these are the types of problems that may well lead a reviewer to decline your draft if you do not correct them? Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Harry. Most of what you've written has no references. You state John Burnham is a talent manager, give the date and place of his birth, who his parents are, and where he attended school, but you don't include citations to show where the information came from. Every statement you make must have a reference to show the information is accurate. Help:Referencing for beginners has useful information.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe you have shown how John Burnham is notable. I tried to read your reference 3, to see if that contained helpful information, but I just got a “404” notice, so that source is unavailable to someone wanting to check what you’ve stated. It may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Notability.

While waiting to for your draft to be reviewed look for additional references for all of your unreferenced paragraphs, and give reasons why John Burnham would be considered notable. Best wishes on improving your draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Karenthewriter, the reference is there; the problem is that it's linked to with a couple of extraneous "]" at the end. Knock this pair off the end of the quasi-URL, and the resulting URL will work. (Or anyway it did for me, a few minutes ago.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Jburnhamatlas, you say that the photo is your "own work"; but curiously it's the same as, and at the same reduced dimensions of, the photo atop this page about Burnham. If it really is your own work, then why didn't you upload the larger version? -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft now declined. Your account blocked until you change User name. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

creating artical

what are the steps in creating an article in Wikipedia? Petertsamson247 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read Help:Your first article; if anything is unclear, Petertsamson247, feel free to ask about it here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined- need help please

I recently found out that the article Draft:Spaceflight Simulator was declined. May I have some more resources on why this doesn't work? I also have another article Draft:Fuller GT Magnet Elementary. I have recently resubmitted this, but before this it was declined. I am just requesting a bit of help on both articles, as well as tools that I can use (eg citation bot on toolforge) Cooldudeseven7 (Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 11:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the guidance pages linked to from the messages at the top of your declined draft? Having done so, please be more specific about the aspects on which you require clarification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am requesting a bit of help on references- I can't seem to find a reputable reference that is able to document enough information. Cooldudeseven7 (Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 11:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Then it may be that your subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Remember, though, that sources need not be online. You can use books or magazines from a library or your own collection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Roger that. If I find an internal document that is on google docs, would that count as a source that I can use?? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what "internal document" means, Cooldudeseven7, but it's unlikely to be from an independent, disinterested source. So probably not, no. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Just saying, If I find a google docs document about the article, is it safe to use (if notable)? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Google Docs is merely a file repository. It hosts superb academic papers, garbage, and anything else. Mere availability from Google Docs says nothing about significance or reliability. Where was this document published before somebody uploaded a PDF (or JPEG or whatever) of it to Google Docs? In what sense would the document be "notable"? -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

All I am saying is that if we find a source on google docs, can we use it. Simple as that. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 13:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Only if you can also trace it to a reputable published source. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cooldudeseven7: Welcome to the Teahouse. As a point of minor pedantry, sources don't have to be wikinotable, but they do need to be reliable. That depends on a few things. Google Docs is known for having the ability to allow real-time collaboration, so you'd have to show that anyone who's edited the document is reputable and follows strict editorial oversight, as the possibility of it being user-generated content is high.

Your use of the term internal document leads me to believe that whatever source you're planning to use comes from the organisation itself; that suggests that it is a primary source and not independent of the subject, and as such would not contribute to demonstrating any wikinotability. You can still use it in an article, but under limited circumstances. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!! Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 13:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

New Article Submission

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, I have submitted an article about a gentleman that has worked as a British TV Presenter and renowned Art's speciesist for more than 40 years. I don't fully understand how to use the Wikipedia platform, but would love some assistance to get this page published.

Can someone assist with publishing this artictle? Georgehobson1994 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Seemingly about Draft:Adam Schoon. How is it that you know about Schoon's personal life, Georgehobson1994? -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Content needs to be sentences. Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Georgehobson1994, and welcome to the Teahouse. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

HOWEVER, as you have created Draft:Adam Schoon, be aware that all facts about a living person need to be verified by references. See WP:BLP. For example. MANY of your 'references' confirm that these schools and organizations exist, but make no mention of Schoon! Carry on!.

Redirect/About template question

Hello, I was wondering what I should do in this situation.

• There is a game called OUTERPLANE that does not have a page on Wikipedia. It is mentioned in the Games section of the article Smilegate.
• There is a page called Outer Plane with no relation to the game previously mentioned.

Is the game (OUTERPLANE) allowed a redirect page to Smilegate#Games, and is it allowed to be mentioned in an About template on the page Outer Plane? Or, as it doesn't have its own article or section on an article dedicated to it, should I just leave it as it is? Thank you in advance. AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello AkiyamaKana, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the game OUTERPLANE meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (but not otherwise) then somebody could write an article about it, and it could be linked on a DAB page. If there is not an article, then it should not appear on a DAB page.

However, I'm not sure if that applies as strongly when using a hatnote such as Template:for. I think it may be a matter of editorial discretion. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)