Wikipedia:Teahouse
Bonadea, a Teahouse host
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.
Websites for road lengths
[edit]Hello. I was wondering if somebody could help me find a website for road lengths. On the A508 road, I used the "measure distance" tool, however last week, it was taken to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road), as it appeared to be original research in some editors' eyes. However, the only reason I used it was because the only other place I could find this kind of information was on SABRE Roads - an unreliable website made by road enthusiasts. Therefore, I was wondering if you lot could help. Is Google Maps OK for something like this if it is the last resort? Or is it OK all the time? Can you find any other free websites that presents this kind of information? Many thanks in advance! Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect perhaps the real message is "stop wanting to put precise lengths". Finding a source is not the point. The point is finding a trustworthy, easily-verifiable, stable source. Google gives slightly different answers each time and is not necessarily stable.
- Is there a publicly accessible government document on this? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is probably no such source, because such information is unimportant. Shantavira|feed me 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shantavira, actually, such information is important, as it shows how important the road is: there is a big difference between the A1 at approximately 410 miles (660 km) and the A38 at 292 miles (470 km), compared with the A79 at 7.7 miles (12.4 km), or the A3215 at 0.2 miles (0.32 km). Furthermore, the road length needs to be found somewhere in the article (especially in the infobox), so actually it is really important to have in road articles! Roads4117 (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't "need to be found". If the single road length cannot be found from a reliable source then it should be deleted/not-given. Yes that probably affects the quality of the article but no information is always better than unsourced information or original research. Verifiability trumps the truth every time. Also, there is a big difference between an overall road length, which is a single number, and what we get in some articles which is excessive detail of the distances between multiple waypoints. The former is of encyclopaedic interest if it can be properly sourced (the subject of this discussion) but the latter is really not relevant. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So are you basically saying that every road length on every article infobox and/or junction table that is not sourced has to then be removed due to WP:V? If that is what you are saying, then although I do agree that policies and all that come first, I also think that then the quality of the articles deteriorates. Roads4117 (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you think that removing unverified information causes article quality to deteriorate? Removing such information is a GoodThing™ 10mmsocket (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is a good thing, but it just removes important information from the article. Roads4117 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Importance is subjective and cannot trump Wikipedia's standards. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is a good thing, but it just removes important information from the article. Roads4117 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you think that removing unverified information causes article quality to deteriorate? Removing such information is a GoodThing™ 10mmsocket (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So are you basically saying that every road length on every article infobox and/or junction table that is not sourced has to then be removed due to WP:V? If that is what you are saying, then although I do agree that policies and all that come first, I also think that then the quality of the articles deteriorates. Roads4117 (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't "need to be found". If the single road length cannot be found from a reliable source then it should be deleted/not-given. Yes that probably affects the quality of the article but no information is always better than unsourced information or original research. Verifiability trumps the truth every time. Also, there is a big difference between an overall road length, which is a single number, and what we get in some articles which is excessive detail of the distances between multiple waypoints. The former is of encyclopaedic interest if it can be properly sourced (the subject of this discussion) but the latter is really not relevant. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shantavira, actually, such information is important, as it shows how important the road is: there is a big difference between the A1 at approximately 410 miles (660 km) and the A38 at 292 miles (470 km), compared with the A79 at 7.7 miles (12.4 km), or the A3215 at 0.2 miles (0.32 km). Furthermore, the road length needs to be found somewhere in the article (especially in the infobox), so actually it is really important to have in road articles! Roads4117 (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, not that I can find (apart from on roads like the A1), which is the problem; other than oh major roads, your options are (1) add a unreliable source like SABRE roads, made from road enthusiasts, which is more than likely to be reverted, or (2) add Google Maps 'measure distance' tool, which gets challenged as original research or copyvio when the article goes to AfD. So either way, you cannot win (unless someone else finds another source). Roads4117 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is really simple. If you cannot source it, don't add it. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket, and I just remembered, the third option is to program the route of the road into Google Maps, from A to B, via C, D, E, etc., like the example at R102 road (Ireland). Does that count as original research/being unreliable etc.? However, my only problems with this way are: (1) you have to eyeball the route from start to finish, which on a 6-mile-long suburban road in outer London is not that bad, but on the A1, that might be a slight problem, as it is 410 miles (660 km) long, but also as you can only add seven stop off points in total, and (2) if the road is shut for whatever reason, then it may say that the road length is substantially longer than it actually is. What are your thoughts on this?... Roads4117 (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket, but just out of interest, how is that classified as original research? Roads4117 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:SYNTH. You may consider WP:CALC means that you can add up distances, but if those distances are not clearly stated on the source then interpretation of individual section lengths calculation of the total road length is not a simple operation - it is synthesis. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket, but just out of interest, how is that classified as original research? Roads4117 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket, and I just remembered, the third option is to program the route of the road into Google Maps, from A to B, via C, D, E, etc., like the example at R102 road (Ireland). Does that count as original research/being unreliable etc.? However, my only problems with this way are: (1) you have to eyeball the route from start to finish, which on a 6-mile-long suburban road in outer London is not that bad, but on the A1, that might be a slight problem, as it is 410 miles (660 km) long, but also as you can only add seven stop off points in total, and (2) if the road is shut for whatever reason, then it may say that the road length is substantially longer than it actually is. What are your thoughts on this?... Roads4117 (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is really simple. If you cannot source it, don't add it. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- And also, could we just do the 'measure distance' tool thing, but only to one or two decimal place(s)? Roads4117 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket OK, then. In that case, how are we then supposed to prove the road lengths? Roads4117 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Find a source. For motorways and A roads in the strategic roads network, it is feasible that National Highways might have documents - as they're the road owner. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket Good point! I will have a look now! Roads4117 (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Road lengths in Great Britain statistics: Methodology and quality note outlines the collection of such data, including the Major Roads Database (MRDB) and the Ordnance Survey (OS) MasterMap Highways Network dataset. As ever, the datasets may not be directly available to the general public or without payment. NebY (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I looked on the Department of Transport website on GOV.UK, and I have found the following citations (it is not what we are looking for, but it is still useful). I will check the National Highways website now. [1][2][3] Roads4117 (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket, I have just checked the National Highways website, and I cannot find anything to do with road lengths. Even if there is something on that website, it would be like finding a needle in a haystack. Roads4117 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Find a source. For motorways and A roads in the strategic roads network, it is feasible that National Highways might have documents - as they're the road owner. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket OK, then. In that case, how are we then supposed to prove the road lengths? Roads4117 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is probably no such source, because such information is unimportant. Shantavira|feed me 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- And what is the in-house view on this? @Maproom, @Nick Moyes, @Cullen328 etc.? Roads4117 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Roads4117, I rarely if ever work on articles about roads. In day to day life off-Wikipedia, I often need to calculate driving distances for my small family business. I use Google Maps and find it quite accurate. But you have to gain consensus for whatever you end up using. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328, thanks for that advice! Roads4117 (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest that common sense, possibly WP:IAR, says that a road article needs a figure for its length, to distinguish a 10-mile road from a 200-mile one. Google maps seems reliable enough to offer that single figure, perhaps with "about" to give a little bit of wriggle-room. I note that Good Article A82 road cites Google Maps for its length. PamD 08:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, I totally agree with you on that. Even if we include a footnote, just to say that 'this figure is not 100% accurate', or that 'this is an estimate', then I think that should be fine. Roads4117 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket and @PamD, I was just thinking, how do we know that Google Maps doesn't round up (or down) its mileage figures? Like how do we know that the A5 is 243 miles long, not 242.5 miles long or 243.4 miles long, as potentially a 0.5mile difference or a 0.9mile difference is quite a big difference! Roads4117 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- And also, when a road is closed, then when the Wikipedia editor clicks on the link to verify this information, and then see that this link actually says that the road is xx miles longer, their automatic thought would be to change the Wikipedia article, to have false information, even if the edit was good faith, instead of eyeball a road going from London to northern Wales (which would take forever!) Roads4117 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @NebY, @PamD, @10mmsocket, BTW there was a similar disccussion in September/October 2022 about whether Google Maps is a reliable source or not at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388#Google Maps. Also see WP:GOOGLEMAPS, which, in a nutshell, states the following:
Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research
. Roads4117 (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)- See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/News and notes#A fork in the Roads WikiProject for one consequence of such discussions. (I provide this for your information, Roads4117, not to open a fresh discussion on the difficulties some editors have found with WP:RS w/regards to roads and maps; that has already been covered at length in high-profile discussions, statements and actions, and the Teahouse would not be the place anyway.) NebY (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @NebY, sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to stay. Roads4117 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try again. You mentioned some earlier discussions. They had consequences. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/News and notes#A fork in the Roads WikiProject describes one. I mention it because you might like to read that and learn about it. I don't mention it in order to open a fresh discussion. NebY (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @NebY, sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to stay. Roads4117 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/News and notes#A fork in the Roads WikiProject for one consequence of such discussions. (I provide this for your information, Roads4117, not to open a fresh discussion on the difficulties some editors have found with WP:RS w/regards to roads and maps; that has already been covered at length in high-profile discussions, statements and actions, and the Teahouse would not be the place anyway.) NebY (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Roads4117, I rarely if ever work on articles about roads. In day to day life off-Wikipedia, I often need to calculate driving distances for my small family business. I use Google Maps and find it quite accurate. But you have to gain consensus for whatever you end up using. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- How long is a piece of road network? CMD (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Longer than a piece of string (mostly) 10mmsocket (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis, the average road length in the UK on average varies between 10 miles long and 50 miles long. However, the is the occasional anomaly, with some roads (especially in urban cities) being 5 miles or less, and some going towards the other extremity, with them being hundreds of miles long. Roads4117 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- And @NebY, @10mmsocket, @NebY, @Chipmunkdavis, @Cullen328, @Shantavira, @TooManyFingers, I forgot to mention this earlier, but an example of this unreliability of sources can be found at the A1 road (Great Britain) article. Like I said at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/A508 road on Tuesday 20th August,
on Wikipedia, it says that the length of the road is 410 miles (660 km), on the SABRE roads website here[4], it says that the length of the road is 396 miles (637 km), but on this other website I found, it says that the road length is 490 miles (790 km) long.[5] And just for the record, the length of the road as the crow flies is approximately 331 miles (533 km).
This just shows that it is just not the Axxx or Axxxx roads that have this problem on Wikipedia, it is one of the most famous and notable roads in the entire country. There is quite a big difference between 331 miles and 490 miles (159 miles - the equivalent of London to Hull, or Milan to Venice), so getting the correct figure is really important. If there is a small difference of 100 metres or something, then that is standard, but a 159-mile difference is something else!! I know that the sources that I gave were unreliable, but it further emphasises @PamD's point further upthread about how we should just have Google Maps as the main source of this kind of thing, but just as an approximate figure, or alternatively have it as a footnote saying that it is not 100% accurate. Roads4117 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)- Would you trust any website with "gpt" in its name and no indication of who has written it? I think we can ignore your 490 miles. I happened to have had a look for this one myself earlier in this discussion: I think we can believe it to be 410 miles, because the government says so. PamD 20:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- OK then, we will go with that reference then for the article. Roads4117 (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would you trust any website with "gpt" in its name and no indication of who has written it? I think we can ignore your 490 miles. I happened to have had a look for this one myself earlier in this discussion: I think we can believe it to be 410 miles, because the government says so. PamD 20:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- But I am just thinking about it, technically the whole point of junction tables is to verify road lengths. Am I dorrect in saying that @10mmsocket and @PamD? Roads4117 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- And what is our conclusion to this discussion? Roads4117 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Use Google Maps, but only if we can use an 'about' or 'approximately' in the answer, so that we have some wiggle room, which is like what @PamD said, or alternatively, yet similar to this idea, we could use a footnote to say that this source is not 100% accurate, but it is the best that we have! Any thoughts? Roads4117 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Teahouse isn't really the place for any sort of consensus-producing discussion, so there's no "our conclusion". There may be some advice from one or two experienced editors. PamD 22:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- And UK-roads-interested editors might like to have a look at A6 road (England), which I looked at to see whether it mentioned that the A6 disappears for some parts of its length, as between Levens Bridge and the Kendal bypass when it "overlaps" (our article's term) with the A590 and A591. Are those 4 miles included in its length? (It's also about a mile longer southbound than northbound, as a numbered road on maps, as there's a section which is only southbound, while northbound joins the A590 further south!) But quite apart from that it seems a pretty dreadful article, with almost no content apart from a blow-by-blow route description. Nothing about its history, (Romans? Turnpike roads? Upgrades prior to M6? Currrent developments?). Perhaps it isn't really notable? (No, I'm sure it is, but the article really needs some attention!) PamD 08:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, that's horrible. A great example of why lots of UK road articles need a massive prune. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket and @PamD, yes I agree that this article does need a lick of paint. However, I also think that this road is way too notable to be redirecting. When you compare this to other Ax or Axx road articles, you can clearly see that this article needs a massive clean-up. It still needs a junction table, a lot more information in the History section (and basically everywhere else apart from the Route section), and more citations in the route section. But I do agree that it does need some attention! Roads4117 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- And UK-roads-interested editors might like to have a look at A6 road (England), which I looked at to see whether it mentioned that the A6 disappears for some parts of its length, as between Levens Bridge and the Kendal bypass when it "overlaps" (our article's term) with the A590 and A591. Are those 4 miles included in its length? (It's also about a mile longer southbound than northbound, as a numbered road on maps, as there's a section which is only southbound, while northbound joins the A590 further south!) But quite apart from that it seems a pretty dreadful article, with almost no content apart from a blow-by-blow route description. Nothing about its history, (Romans? Turnpike roads? Upgrades prior to M6? Currrent developments?). Perhaps it isn't really notable? (No, I'm sure it is, but the article really needs some attention!) PamD 08:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, @10mmsocket and @PamD, can I move (copy and paste) this conversation to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography, as, like you said, the Teahouse is not really the right place for this kind of conversation. Roads4117 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just post a link to it so people can read if they want to. Once it gets archived change the link to point to the archived version. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Road lengths in Great Britain: 2023". GOV.UK: Department for Transport. 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-08-29.
- ^ "Road lengths in Great Britain: 2023 data tables". GOV.UK: Department for Transport. Retrieved 2024-08-29.
- ^ "Road length statistics". GOV.UK: DfT website. Retrieved 2024-08-29.
- ^ "A1". SABRE Roads. Retrieved 2024-08-20.
- ^ "A1 road". Freedom GPT. Retrieved 2024-08-20.
Barnstar
[edit]Hi,
I wish to award someone a Barnstar for helping me out recently. Can I do it by myself.? or an admin decides it.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Perfectodefecto, Yes. You can award barnstars to other users. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 02:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- barnstars are awards given by the community to signify something great. Stuuf7 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Perfectodefecto: Nearly all barnstars are given by individual editors without discussion and it doesn't have to be for something great. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can add barnstar to a user's page by clicking on the 'love' icon on their page (works on desktop site) if you edit with mobile, click on barnstar and add the template you want.
- You will get a message like this
- "Let's get started!
- Select the type of WikiLove you wish to send
- Add details to your WikiLove
- Send your WikiLove!"
- I hope this helps! Tesleemah (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Perfectodefecto: Depending on how helpful you think the edits are, you can award them with a Barnstar of your choice or a smaller award like a cookie or a kitten. There are no rules on who can award these. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 14:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
AFD Question
[edit]how do i add a AFD such as 2023 Halla Airlines Embraer Brasilia crash into the category Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation)) after using twinkle to automate the AFD for me? Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- You tagged 2023 Halla Airlines Embraer Brasilia crash for proposed deletion or PROD, a totally different deletion process. At this point, my suggestion is to follow the instructions on the PROD banner on the article:
If this template is removed, do not replace it. The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 18:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
(formatting original). If someone else removes the template, then go to AfD. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Reliability of Youtube
[edit]Is it possible to site specific YouTube videos as references if you are writing an article on a youtuber? Kalbome22 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can use YouTube if they are independent of the concerned individual and they are videos from reputable sources like news outlets, especially in cases where there are limited citations available. However, you can only add the youtuber's video as external links as citing their videos directly is not allowed. Tesleemah (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to cite Youtube videos directly, see WP:VIDEOREF for more info :) -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kalbome22 See WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Citing YouTube has come up repeatedly very recently at Steve Wallis, where I'd been removing questionable information about the subject's departed wife (who cannot be found in reliable sources and who was never an integral part of the subject's regular work; only casually mentioned and rarely by name). StonyBrook babble 07:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kalbome22: You are allowed to cite videos made by that YouTuber as primary sources under BLPSELFPUB. Please make sure your usage of the videos follows that policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Citations
[edit]How do I put a citation in an infobox? CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @CallieCrewmanAuthor I dunno about anyone else, but I tend to make the citation in the visual editor, swap to source editing, find the citation I just made and then copy and paste it into the infobox either by finding where I want to place it in the source editor or by again swapping to visual editing and placing it into the infobox that way. It's a bit convoluted, but it works. CommissarDoggoTalk? 22:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Haha. I do exactly the same. Does the job, but would like to know a better way (if any) from experience wikipedians. Waonderer (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Waonderer: That sounds like a decent way to handle it. If you want a similar experience to the Visual Editor's method of filling out a citation form, the source editor has something similar in the toolbar under "Cite > Templates", but it only supports the 4 most widely used citation templates. There is an optional gadget called ProveIt that can support more citation templates in the source editor, but still not all of them. @CallieCrewmanAuthor: the reason that the solution is wonky/complicated is that the Visual Editor can't edit references or templates done within a template, and infoboxes are all made with templates. Almost all infoboxes are somehow calling Template:Infobox. If you look at the reference count in the Visual Editor and the actual article you'll notice that the articles usually have a few more references than what the editor shows; that's because the Visual Editor isn't rendering any of the references inside infoboxes or other templates. Rjjiii (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Haha. I do exactly the same. Does the job, but would like to know a better way (if any) from experience wikipedians. Waonderer (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @CallieCrewmanAuthor: Please don't. Citations belong in the body of the article which the infobox should very briefly summarise. There should be nothing in the infobox (save an image) which is not in the body of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are some specialist infoboxes which do have citations. For example, the featured article hydrogen has ten of them and many articles on chemicals and drugs at least one. Aspirin has nine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC
- Yes, there are a small number of infoboxes which are exceptions to my point; including some where the citation is auto-generated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- When in doubt, I refer to articles marked as Good articles or Featured articles for standards. How come there are good articles such as Narendra Modi and even featured article like Aston Martin Rapide have citations in their infobox? Waonderer (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because GA and FA processes have historically failed to address such matters, or to do so correctly. And perhaps the articles have been edited after such a status was achieved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks for answering. Waonderer (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because GA and FA processes have historically failed to address such matters, or to do so correctly. And perhaps the articles have been edited after such a status was achieved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are some specialist infoboxes which do have citations. For example, the featured article hydrogen has ten of them and many articles on chemicals and drugs at least one. Aspirin has nine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC
Simple tips
[edit]I am fairly new to the whole editing system for wikipedia and was wondering if i could get some tips and knowledge about editing a page Watersprinkler (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Watersprinkler: Please see the links that were left on your talk page, yesterday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- New editors are strongly advised to put in time working to improve existing articles before essaying to create a new article (as you have started). Submitting a draft without reliable source references (WP:42) properly formated (Help:Referencing for beginners) would just waste a Reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @David notMD: I'm at a loss to understand why you're telling me this. Also, the OP explicitly asked about "editing a page". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Andy: David possibly picked the wrong "Reply" and intended to reply to @Watersprinkler. Watersprinkler has indeed created a draft Draft:Black Souls, after they posted here, but before David's reply.
- Watersprinkler, I echo what David says. You have started writing your draft by writing text, rather than by finding sources: that is doing it BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @David notMD: I'm at a loss to understand why you're telling me this. Also, the OP explicitly asked about "editing a page". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- New editors are strongly advised to put in time working to improve existing articles before essaying to create a new article (as you have started). Submitting a draft without reliable source references (WP:42) properly formated (Help:Referencing for beginners) would just waste a Reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia page for a journal
[edit]Hi I recently created a wikipedia page for a research journal that my supervisor asked me to do. He is one of the editors in the journal. We contacted the journal office and the editor in chief to get their permission. After I created the page, I received message that it was falgged for speedy deletion due to unambiguous copyright infringement. I cannot modify the language too much as it is about the journal and I have to copy it from the journal webpage. Also I received message that I have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic. This is not true. How to fix this. The page has been deleted.
thanks Kshitijsri82 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- For a rather detailed explanation of why we can't just import text from anywhere else, including that journal webpage, see WP:COPYOTHERS (the entire page may be of interest, but this is the specific section). The person who wrote that text (probably) owns the copyright, and we unfortunately cannot use it without permission.
- While you may not get paid, you do appear to have what we call a conflict of interest. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
- You can see the reason given for the deletion here:
Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.bloodtransfusion.it/bt/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/4 -- WP:CLOP close paraphrasing
- Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The journal staff gave me permission to make a wikipedia page for the journal. The page is about the journal and thus will have information from the journal website itself.
- I have published in the journal and have reviewed for it a couple of times but I am not part of the journal staff (the editors and reviewers are not paid for the review work). Kshitijsri82 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is a procedure to get permission to use copyrighted works, see WP:PERMISSION. But it may be best to start fresh, without any possible copyright infringement. Polygnotus (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Kshitijsri82 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- It may be wise to check WP:NJOURNAL to see if it would be considered WP:NOTABLE. Polygnotus (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Kshitijsri82 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is a procedure to get permission to use copyrighted works, see WP:PERMISSION. But it may be best to start fresh, without any possible copyright infringement. Polygnotus (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kshitijsri82: Wikipedia editors (including you) do not need permission from the journal publisher or its editorial staff write about it; and they have no say in what we write about it. You may find WP:BOSS useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kshitijsri82: The journal staff giving you permission to use material doesn't mean diddly squat, because you aren't the publisher of any article on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is the publisher of Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the Wikimedia Foundation, not you, requires permission to publish the material. And that permission cannot be granted by the say-so of some random Wikipedia account, but by verifiable communication from the copyright holder releasing the material. And, the material must be released under an acceptable free license; the journal cannot reserve "all rights" as is typical. See WP:CONSENT for details.
- This is why it's better to start from scratch and don't use anyone else's words. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Kshitijsri82, and welcome to the Teahouse.
- Apart from the issues of copyright others have mentioned, you should understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. This means that hardly any material published by the journal is of any relevance at all to an article about the journal, so the legality of copying text from its website rarely need arise. ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
At the end of the Sam Nujoma article, a source cites a film as "epic film".
[edit]I am talking about this article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Nujoma. Am I unaware of what exactly a "epic" film is? Adam P. Larry (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to say at the "book and film" section. Adam P. Larry (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- ok, thanks [=D Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you going to change it? Adam P. Larry (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- see Epic film for contextual meaning Tesleemah (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- ok, thanks [=D Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- It probably refers to the genre of Epic film. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- oh, just seemed a bit strange to me to call a film "epic". But oh well. Adam P. Larry (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can imagine!
- But, it's a genre of movie focused on heroic character. See the previous links shared. Tesleemah (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- That word probably now gets used more often for its slang meaning than for any of the other meanings, so I can't blame you – but the other meanings are still good in an encyclopedia. And most of the old official meanings are a lot like the slang meaning anyway! (The original was the name for the type of ancient Greek poems that includes the Odyssey, and pretty much all the other meanings are just borrowing the fact that those poems have larger-than-life characters in a long highly dramatic story.) TooManyFingers (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- oh, just seemed a bit strange to me to call a film "epic". But oh well. Adam P. Larry (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Adding NXX info to an NPA
[edit]I am trying to edit the wikipedia page for whale code and add the NXX info under the section where the NPA is listed. I thought I added it correctly as I received no error, but it doesnt show when i test the edit. Im sure its a syntax thing, back I cant seem to get it right. Can someone provide me a suggestion or an example of the Syntax I need to use as Id like to add this information for other remote communities.
here is the link: Whale Cove, Nunavut Much appreciated,
regards, Vacantcode Vacantcode (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Vacantcode, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can see that you tried to add a parameter for 'NXX' to the article, which uses Template:Infobox settlement. Being in the UK, I don't know actually know what NXX actually refers to (telephone dialling code for the area, perhaps?), but it's clear that this is not a parameter which that template supports.
- I wonder if you'd have any success if you used the approved parameter 'area_code' and 'area_code_type'? A full list of the displayable parameters can be seen in the documentation for Template:Infobox settlement. If you try to add any new ones of your own, it simply won't show them in the article. But, if you believe this is an important parameter to have in articles that use that template, then I would suggest starting a discussion on the template's talk page to explain your rationale, and see what other editors feel about it. Does that help at all? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- sort of helps and you are correct about your assumption of the NXX, similar to in the UK which is identified here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom In North America, the numbering plan is CC-NPA-NXX-xxxx, so where the NPA is used,ie: 867, I was hoping to add the NXX identifier below it. Sadly, I cant seem to get the syntax right.
- Now for the other part of your answer, is it needed, well that's a debatable question as this info can be found elsewhere on the web, but in smaller communities in Canadas far north, it may be a little more helpful.
- My hope was to learn how to add the info below the NPA field but it seems my understanding of how to do so is incorrect. So if any Wikipedians can advise, that would be wonderful. Vacantcode (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Vacantcode, and welcome to the Teahouse. A template, such as Template:Infobox settlement, only understands those parameters which have been defined for it. It is possible to edit the template itself to add a new parameter, but you can't successfully just add an extra parameter in the article where the template is used. See Template. ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Romanian LGBTQ magazine
[edit]I reverted an IP user on Gay 45 for replacing content with the magazine's about page, and they're now saying on the article's Talk page that the article has serious issues. Could someone with more knowledge about working with the subjects of articles fix this? Thank you for all your hard work! QuietCicada chirp 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with the revert. This version by an IP user has serious issues as it doesn't even come off as encyclopedic and appears like WP:PROMO. You were right to call out the potential WP:COPYVIO on the talk page. Just talk with the IP user and see what changes they're looking for. It doesn't matter if they are who they claim to be, they can't just do as they please here. Limmidy (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Limmidy: True, but our article is probably pretty bad. See the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus It seems like it was created a few days ago. From my initial read of the article in its current form, I was able to generally understand what it was about and why it's considered notable, so I think that's a good start. Limmidy (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this article was created by a sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armoiregrimoire. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Helpful Raccoon Oh wow I was not expecting this development. Well, @Polygnotus and I can't seem to verify anything clearly over on the talk page, so this whole topic is a blur to me. Limmidy (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting! I watchlisted the page. This rabbit hole is super deep. In addition to this I am also curious if the person is who they say they are, but sadly we will probably never know. Polygnotus (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Helpful Raccoon Oh wow I was not expecting this development. Well, @Polygnotus and I can't seem to verify anything clearly over on the talk page, so this whole topic is a blur to me. Limmidy (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this article was created by a sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armoiregrimoire. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus It seems like it was created a few days ago. From my initial read of the article in its current form, I was able to generally understand what it was about and why it's considered notable, so I think that's a good start. Limmidy (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Limmidy: True, but our article is probably pretty bad. See the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Is Jorge Rivera-Herrans notable enough?
[edit]I see there has been a few AFC declined for the subjected person. Was wondering if they are not notable enough? Or if the references provided in the article drafts were not sufficient.
Wanted to check prior to submitting an article for creation.
Additionally Epic: the musical currently only redirects to article Odysseus, is this due to the content being not notable enough as well? PigStuffy (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to see these drafts but I can't find too many of them at the moment, maybe you could add the link here. But, the reason for a draft decline is usually stated by the reviewer.
- I also tried to surf the Internet now for notable references on the subject, they are hardly available. I can't judge as my location may influence the number of citations I'm seeing about them. However, I will suggest that before creating any article about them. Make sure they are available independent references to them.
- And to your last question, there are usually redirects when they are no enough information for a topic of dicuss to stand alone and they are deeply connected with the parent topic. Rather than completely discarding them, they are attached instead and redirected. Tesleemah (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The draft in question is Draft:Jorge Rivera-Herrans. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you!
- It was as I suspected, lacking enough independent references. Tesleemah (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The draft in question is Draft:Jorge Rivera-Herrans. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- A person does not become notable by their good work. They become notable by reliable independent publishers writing about their good work.
- There's a famous old cynical comment about bank loans, that they will only give you a loan if you can prove you don't need one. Wikipedia is like that. People want recognition from others, and they think Wikipedia will bring it to them, but the first thing they have to prove to get a Wikipedia article is that they've already received tons of recognition. Wikipedia intentionally blocks any article that's part of a marketing strategy, and that's a good thing. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response! I now understand that the original article that was submitted did not include enough independent sources. I was surprised he didn't have an article already because of his following, 1 million followers on socials and 2 million monthly listens on Spotify.
- I Googled Jorge Rivera-Herrans under the news tab and found a number of independent published works such as https://thetacomaledger.com/2024/05/13/musical-review-epic-by-jorge-rivera-herrans/
- I believe this source follows the guidelines, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you PigStuffy (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Social media is meaningless on Wikipedia. If someone has 900 million followers but no coverage in published media, they don't count.
- The link you gave is only a student newspaper, not a reliable source. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have been criticized a little bit for saying this, but it's close enough to the truth: You have to prove that the person is already "IRL famous" before they can have an article on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the clarification! In the original denied draft, could you please advice me which sources are reliable? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jorge_Rivera-Herrans
- And to clarify university and college news sites are not reliable?
- How about this?
- https://puertoricoreport.com/jorge-rivera-herrans/ PigStuffy (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Remove
[edit]Hello can Remove and Blank meta:User:TyphoonAmpil/global.js
Extended content
|
---|
/*** BEGIN WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/
$(document).ready(function()
{
/*** Start editing here ***/
// When you want to end your break?
// no leading zeroes. (example: 9 - correct, 09 - incorrect)
var date = { year: 2024, month: 9, day: 4};
var time = { hours: 100, minutes: 0, seconds: 0 };
/*** Stop editing here ***/
var currentDate = new Date();
var enforcedBreakEnd = new Date(
date.year,date.month-1,date.day,time.hours,time.minutes,time.seconds);
if (currentDate <= enforcedBreakEnd)
{
alert("Enforced wikibreak until "+enforcedBreakEnd.toLocaleString()
+ "\n(now is "+currentDate.toLocaleString()+")\n\nSorry i Back on September 4 2024. you can Auto Log out");
mw.loader.using(["mediawiki.api", "mediawiki.user"]).then(function ()
{
new mw.Api().post(
{
action: 'logout',
token: mw.user.tokens.get('csrfToken')
}).done(function (data)
{
location = "//" + location.host + "/w/index.php?title="
+ "Special:Userlogin&returnto=Main_Page";
}).fail(function ()
{
console.log("logout failed")
});
});
}
});
/*** END WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/ |
Can edit theJavaScript page 112.208.236.135 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you User:TyphoonAmpil? If so, log in and edit. If not, ask them, on their talk page on Meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'am not you TyphoonAmpil. @Pigsonthewing can ask Meta wiki for Interface admins 112.208.236.135 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you want it removed? If it prevents you from logging in then just say so. It's nearly always best to say what you actually want when you ask for help. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have Zero Accounts. @PrimeHunter has says
- You do not have permission to edit this JavaScript page because it contains another user's personal settings. 112.208.236.135 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you want it removed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Writ Keeper You are not interface-admin on Meta. Cannot Ramove 112.208.236.135 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware. Why do you want it removed? You have said you are not TyphoonAmpil, so without an extremely convincing answer to that question, nobody is going to grant your request. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Writ Keeper You are not interface-admin on Meta. Cannot Ramove 112.208.236.135 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you want it removed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you want it removed? If it prevents you from logging in then just say so. It's nearly always best to say what you actually want when you ask for help. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'am not you TyphoonAmpil. @Pigsonthewing can ask Meta wiki for Interface admins 112.208.236.135 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Missing TWA Badge
[edit]Hello I'am not TyphoonAmpil has 14 Badges on Awards. All WP:TWA Badges has 15 112.208.236.135 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Many users have less than 15 TWA badges. If you are not TyphoonAmpil then why do you care how many badges are on User:TyphoonAmpil/Awards? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter. is 14 112.208.236.135 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, 14 is less than 15. If there is no reason for your posts then please stop making them. This is a page to get help, not post random things. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- is this an assumption that primehunter is 14? because if so, this would mean he's been editing since he was at least -4 years old cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter. is 14 112.208.236.135 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
How to edit language label link in Template:Lang-___
[edit]I want to edit the language label link on Template:Lang-pdc to direct to Pennsylvania Dutch language instead of Pennsylvania German language, which is currently a redirect to the former. But I couldn't figure out how to do so. Can someone help?
Also, should the language label itself be changed to "Pennsylvania Dutch"? Alisperic (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot change it, it comes directly from the IANA language-subtag-registry file. And no, it should not be changed. It is a variant of German. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. Alisperic (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alisperic: It would be possible to change in Module:Lang/data/iana languages but it would affect other things, e.g. adding articles to Category:Articles containing Pennsylvania Dutch-language text instead of Category:Articles containing Pennsylvania German-language text. The official language name for pdc is Pennsylvania German and I don't think it's worth changing just to avoid a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the info. Alisperic (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Dutch" is really an unfortunate name, because it has nothing to do with Netherlands, but rather a mispronounciation of German word for its language – Deutsch. and now is ambiguous with the same English word for the language of Netherlands Dutch language. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the info. Alisperic (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alisperic: It would be possible to change in Module:Lang/data/iana languages but it would affect other things, e.g. adding articles to Category:Articles containing Pennsylvania Dutch-language text instead of Category:Articles containing Pennsylvania German-language text. The official language name for pdc is Pennsylvania German and I don't think it's worth changing just to avoid a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. Alisperic (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Crazy
[edit]There's something somehow crazy about Wikipedia on article's citation and notability. A notable article I created with references but had been earlier deleted is even being denied dratification talk less of undeletion, see, while another article that I moved to the draftspace for further improvement as the article creator failed to cite any source was returned to mainspace. What do you advice me to do to the latter article as I can't find enough references (for now) to improve this article. Jõsé hola 07:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Josedimaria237 I'll comment just on Demas Akpore, which was the one you draftified and was restored to mainspace by an admin. That article was first created in 2010, when Wikipedia didn't have the strict requirements for inline citations in biographies of living people it has today. (Actually he is dead but the same principles apply.) It is not correct to say it has no sources, however: they are listed in a separate section of the article. The article has many faults but the individual would probably pass our political notability requirements. So, what is needed is someone motivated to improve the article, not to draftify it as a route to deletion (which it would be by a bot if no-one edited it after six months in draft). We have a policy that says
older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD
. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC) - @Josedimaria237 With most articles that don't get accepted, having too few references is not the problem, but rather having the wrong kind of references. When a person writing a new article hears there is some problem with references, they tend to assume that giving larger and larger numbers of low-quality references will fix it, and that's never true. The key is learning which kind of references are the good ones, for the kind of topic you have. (For example, good references for an article about some kind of machine are quite different from good references for an article about a person.) When your references are all good ones, you don't need a large number of them. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TooManyFingers: Looking at this article, do you think the references are good? Jõsé hola 08:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- No. There is nothing to show that he really works at a university (it doesn't even say which university!), and there are no independent sources describing his work. We need to see recognition of his work from people who don't know him, and who are not involved in the same causes as he is. Right now we see only his friends and supporters, and we don't care what his friends and supporters say about him - of course they will say only good things! For example, we want large reports about his life and work (not interviews with him, but to see that outside reporters are saying a lot about him) from people who are not part of the Nupe community, or at least we can see they are not his friends and do not know him or work with him, and that they are trustworthy published sources.
- If my friends write great things about me, you should not believe everything they say. If reporters from major newspapers in far away cities write great things about me, then you will start to believe it. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think you have done what they call "writing the article backwards". You seem to be saying things about him because you know him, and that will never work. If you want to write an article about a person, it would be better for you to write about someone who is not from your country. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a bad thing to see what he has written himself, but those are not references. If you hear that I wrote fifty or a hundred books, you will not become more interested in me, because you don't know yet if my books are good. (I could be brilliant, but I could be only a hard worker who didn't write anything useful.)
- But if you see articles in three major newspapers or magazines from different cities with my name in the title, THEN you might be interested, because you know I can't be friends with all those reporters and editors. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- After reading a bit more carefully, I'm sorry to say it's even worse. He has strong ethnic opinions and he wants to rewrite the history books.
- Maybe you didn't understand, but people from other ethnic groups will be allowed to rewrite your article and you cannot try to stop them.
- And Wikipedia rejects ideas for changing the history books. Wikipedia will only say what is already in the history books. If a person wants to change the history books, they have to finish doing that first. THEN Wikipedia can tell the world. Changing the history books is a very hard task, and people who succeed are normally only written about after they die. There can be exceptions of course, but it's unusual. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Josedimaria237: to sum up my response, it seems like you know this man, or you support him, maybe you even work for the same organization, AND he seems like he's probably involved in ethnic controversy, AND the references are very poor. This could turn into a disastrously bad article, even the kind of article that makes him look like a bad man, and I honestly recommend that you stop trying. Let a person from a neutral place far away write this article instead. I recommend that if you want to write articles, do not write about any person from Nigeria, but choose a completely different kind of topic. I hope this helps. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay thanks.
- Actually, I am doing this because of a campaign on Nigerian educators. Personally, I hardly create biographies and I do not try hard to do so. @TooManyFingers: This particular article has been deleted earlier but it is named as an article that needs to be created at WP Nigeria and may pass GNG. Jõsé hola 20:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, the man is somewhat notable but like you said, there are no external sources confirming his notability because I can hardly find any online (a major problem with articles related to underdeveloped countries) and I DON'T KNOW OR SUPPORT HIM, I am only doing so because of the WikiProject nomination. Jõsé hola 20:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Was I the one you were referring to in multiple comments at different time? @TooManyFingers: Jõsé hola 20:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TooManyFingers: Looking at this article, do you think the references are good? Jõsé hola 08:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Need help with template
[edit]Hi! I am trying to add 3 parameters ("close", "destroyed" and "demolished") to Template:Infobox urban feature, but I'm not sure how to do that, and probably need some help before I break the entire template. Thanks! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, to clarify, I did add the parameters on there, but they just aren't popping up on the infobox itself (see Austin J. Tobin Plaza). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Sir MemeGod. You have only edited the documentation at Template:Infobox urban feature/doc and not the actual template. Maybe you used the edit link next to "Template documentation" on Template:Infobox urban feature but it goes to the documentation page. Use the edit tab at top to edit the template itself. If you don't know how then you could post a suggestion to the talk page and ping Alaney2k who made the template in 2010 but is still active. Three new parameters for the end may be a bit much. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sir MemeGod: That worked;[1] the parameters are now in the actual template. I've just made Template:Infobox urban feature/sandbox and Template:Infobox urban feature/testcases. You can use the sandbox (on any template) to test new features before putting them into live articles. You can then make comparisons on the testcases page. It's not always necessary, but it helped me a lot when I was figuring things out. Check out this edit to the sandbox:[2] New parameters should be added down there. Module:Check for unknown parameters is pretty commonly used in templates. It creates a maintenance category for pages using templates with bogus parameters, often typos like "loctaion" and so on. Good luck! Rjjiii (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Sir MemeGod. You have only edited the documentation at Template:Infobox urban feature/doc and not the actual template. Maybe you used the edit link next to "Template documentation" on Template:Infobox urban feature but it goes to the documentation page. Use the edit tab at top to edit the template itself. If you don't know how then you could post a suggestion to the talk page and ping Alaney2k who made the template in 2010 but is still active. Three new parameters for the end may be a bit much. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
We should have a talk page on Wikipedia.
[edit]This talk page would be called "Wikipedian Dissocia" and it will be accessible for anyone and it would be about people who are plural explaining their plurality. Sisixive (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sisixive I don't think that would be sensible, as it would, IMO, fall into the category of things that Wikipedia is not to be used for. In that connection, you have created and linked from your userpage a number of drafts for languages you made up, which is also inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a web host. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- To add to Mike Turnbull's reply: that's not really what talk pages are for? Talk pages are for collaborating and discussing improvements to an article (or other page, depending on the talk page type). Anything that might affect your editing or communication with others can just go on your userpage if it's short or as a user subpage if longer. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sisixive Judging by your total contribution history and your Talk Page, you seem to have added virtually nothing to Wikipedia other than inappropriate drafts about stuff you have made up. Continuing in that vein is likely to lead to a WP:NOTHERE block. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I tried to make conlangs for everyone but no one takes the time to learn them. And about not contributing, I want to but I don't know where to start. Sisixive (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Sisixive, may I suggest another website which is more appropriate for your conlang works, for example reddit.com/r/conlang or linguifex.com. Wikipedia is only for topics which are mainstream and notable, which your conlang are not. Sorry.
- You should back up your current drafts before they get deleted, as they are not appropriate for Wikipedia.
- For improvements to Wikipedia, check out the suggested pages on SPECIAL:HOMEPAGE. Qcne (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have nominated all of your conlang drafts for deletion per WP:MADEUP. Please do read that page as it covers why these are not permitted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I tried to make conlangs for everyone but no one takes the time to learn them. And about not contributing, I want to but I don't know where to start. Sisixive (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sisixive Judging by your total contribution history and your Talk Page, you seem to have added virtually nothing to Wikipedia other than inappropriate drafts about stuff you have made up. Continuing in that vein is likely to lead to a WP:NOTHERE block. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
What license do I need for a BLP infobox image
[edit]What license of image do I need for a BLP infobox image? I believe it is CC0, but I want to confirm. I am looking at adding an image of this woman named Franziska Michor, but when I restrict my searches of images to those in the public domain or free to use more generally it does not have any. There are lots of images of her though from her own sites like this, can I use those in the same manner as I would upload a non-free book cover, film movie poster, or corporate logo? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The image simply needs to be compatible with Wikipedia's license, so CC0 works, as does CC BY-SA 4.0. For living persons, such an image can still be produced (by having someone take a photo of the subject and having the photographer release the photo), so any non-free content would fail the first non-free content criteria (
Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent...could be created
, italics mine). - Someone once found a free image for a subject by taking a screenshot of a YouTube video under a compatible license that the subject appeared in. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh so screenshots of YouTube videos, IF the YouTube video is CC0, is acceptable? What would I upload that as then? I am not familiar with uploading images of people/BLPs. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn Here are a couple of examples [3][4]. Such videos are rare, but they exist. That golf-video was a bit of a gold-mine. Any Commons-acceptable license is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh so screenshots of YouTube videos, IF the YouTube video is CC0, is acceptable? What would I upload that as then? I am not familiar with uploading images of people/BLPs. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn The website you linked has a copyright sign at the bottom of the page, so that certainly can't be used. Sometimes it is worth emailing an article subject to ask them to place a suitable image (e.g. a selfie) on their website with an explicit CC BY license. Or, of course, they could upload one to Commons but that would be more of a hassle for them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is an interesting idea. Seems like a lot of work though. I was just hoping to be able to learn the process to quickly upload something within the rules here. Maybe I will send an email though if that is the only way for things like this and I find some time. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, freely distributable knowledge is a lot of work ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is an interesting idea. Seems like a lot of work though. I was just hoping to be able to learn the process to quickly upload something within the rules here. Maybe I will send an email though if that is the only way for things like this and I find some time. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
citation
[edit]hello there, im trying to get used to editing on wikipedia and i ve been editing with the automated recommended articles by wikipedia. however it is now recommending me to raise the difficulty and start working on citing better the articles. i was wondering if anyone has an effecient way of doing so, as it takes me more than an hour to find good citation for an article, read it and paraphrase it on wiki. thank you <3 Psixtras (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Psixtras, and welcome to the Teahouse. If there were a quick and easy way to find and summarise sources, then we wouldn't have so many poor articles, I'm afraid. That is, precisely, the bulk of the work in creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Psixtras, at the risk of missing the point, I mostly look up sources for subjects where I would be glad to better understand them regardless of anything I write here. Then writing content on Wikipedia almost feels like a justification for spending three hours reading about long-dead pirates.One thing I will say may help with efficiency: expect previous editors to have made mistakes. If the article says X and the reliable source says Y, go ahead and make the change with an explanation in the edit summary. It can be a huge time-sink sometimes to try and find a source backing up claims that turn out to be bogus. Rjjiii (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Merged sources
[edit]Hello! I'm trying to figure out how to merge references using the visual editor. I tried to use multiref and multiref2, but am not sure how to generate a text-based citation, of a website, to put into the different inputs. I can see what other people have done and type everything manually, but I hope there's a better way! Thanks for your time Placeholderer (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Placeholderer. Every editor has their own workflow and if you read Referencing for beginners, you can learn about various methods of creating and improving references. I have been editing for 15 years and the visual editor didn't even exist back then, so I use the source editor on the desktop site operating on my smart phone. That gives me the precise level of control that I prefer. I use Wikipedia:Citation templates to ensure consistent formatting and I use the named reference functionality to deal with duplicates. I have all the most common templates in my userspace, formatted just the way I like. It it not so much typing them manually as a series of cuts and pastes. I have created many thousands of references that way and I am sure of their accuracy instead of relying on a software tool. For me, that's the best way but you need to find your own best way. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Placeholderer, the Visual Editor will treat any citation that begins with "
{{
" as if it contains a single citation template. The Visual Editor also will not use the "Insert:<template>" dialog for templates called within templates. The third option at Wikipedia:CITEBUNDLE, "Use a bullet list", would allow you to use the "Insert:<template>" dialog in the visual editor for each of the bundled citations, because it does not begin with "{{
" or wrap the citation templates within another template. The Visual Editor has been around for a while, but it still has a lot of small limitations like this, Rjjiii (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC) - What I tend to do is make multiple VE references all in a line, then open SE and cut out the extraneous ref tags. You can generate new "bibliography entries" in SE, which will create the citation template without the ref tags, or you can generate new refs all in a line and then delete the extra ref tags that way too, I guess. But I prefer the citation generator that VE has, and I really, really prefer being able to one-click highlight a footnote to be able to move it around, so I tend to work in VE and then just swap back to SE to tinker with references in ways VE doesn't allow for. -- asilvering (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Sandbox cut and paste or move
[edit]If I wanted to edit a page by copying it to a sandbox should I finish my contribution by copy and pasting or by moving the sandbox to the page? Treetop-64bit (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Treetop-64bit welcome to the Teahouse. Neither is really the right approach, and trying to move your sandbox to an existing page would not really work or be at all acceptable.
- What you would be better advised to do is to make piecemeal edits to the existing article, one paragraph at a time. Yes, you can work on those in your sandbox, then paste in the final text. But leave some time between each edit, and leave an WP:EDITSUMMARY explaining each one. That way, if another editor feels one of your edits is not really appropriate, you won't end up having all of your edits reverted - just the one causing an issue.
- Now, if you genuinely believe an article is in such a dire state that it really needs to be blown up and started all over again, it would be a very sensible idea to first raise your concerns on the article's talk page, explaining what you propose to do, and why. Give it a few days for others to respond. Then, working in your sandbox, you should return and link to it in the thread about reworking the article and give time for others to view your alternative wording and offer their opinions. A week maybe.
- I strongly suspect that if you were simply to replace an article wholesale, you'd end up finding one or more editors object and simply revert all your work. The more contentious the topic, the more likely that revert is to happen. So, working slowly, one section at a time would make the most sense.
- Perhaps you could tell us what article you are concerned about? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really concerned about any article I just felt a bit uncertain about using the sandbox for making changes, Thank you for your help! Treetop-64bit (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
How do I redirect a page fully?
[edit]I need help redirecting the page Draft:El Er Cyrillic to Draft:El Er(Cyrillic) and i already put the stuff for the redirecting but still doesnt redirect to the page Draft:El Er(Cyrillic) please help i need help making a wikipedia redirect 2001:8F8:1D1C:A09E:74AF:CC6F:BABB:6867 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Done. You placed the redirect but did not remove the AfC template at the top, which is why the redirect didn't work. If you are User:MateuszKapicki10, please do not edit while logged out. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Changing title
[edit]Hello, i would like to know how to chnage my sandbox title for the first time ever.
Thanks. Kraft News (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kraft News: It's not clear what you mean. Your Sandbox will always be at User:Kraft News/sandbox. You can create another, at User:Kraft News/sandbox 2, or any similar title, if you wish. If you want to change what your sandbox says, just edit it. If you mean something else, please explain. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can move it to User:Kraft News/Box of sand or whatever if you wish. But doing so won't remove the STOP sign from it. 126.53.182.199 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for your time! Kraft News (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Help identifying unreliable sources
[edit]Regarding Draft:Kimberly Weinberger, it was declined for not being supported by reliable sources. After double checking, I am having issues deciding which sources are not reliable, and if the draft was only declined for that reason. I have contacted the reviewer on this matter but have not heard back, and I'd like further opinions. Filmforme (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Filmforme. To me, the problem is not so much the reliability of the sources, although I have my doubts about a few of them. The problem that I see is that most of the sources do not devote significant coverage to Weinberger. They amount to trivial mentions of Weinberger, and those passing mentions of Weinberger contribute nothing to establishing her notability. So, which of your references are clearly reliable, fully independent of Weinberger, and devote truly significant coverage to her as a person instead of productions that she has been a part of? Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 thanks for the response. 1 I am aware I will need more significant and independent sources that go in depth, but of the references cited, I am curious which you have doubts about the reliability. I got the same alert for Draft:Raye Richards too. Filmforme (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have doubts about the reliability of Horror Society, Loud and Clear, Morbidly Beautiful, Trinity Theater Company and the Daily Aztec. In my view, it is best to stick with impeccably reliable sources for establishing notability. What do you think are the best reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to Weinberger? Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- As for the referencing of Raye Richards, that is really bad. Quality is vastly more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 This is the best source I've found for Weinberger so far. The Trinity Theater Company was one I was questioning too. I found Horror Society at WP:WikiProject Horror/Sources. And double checking I see that Morbidly, Loud and Clear and Daily Aztec are outlets that assign coverage through an editor or an editorial board.
- As for Richards, I've had success with quantity at WP:AFC before, though not very often. I'll usually include the best citations in the lead, but in this case, a previous reviewer had declined it. So I'm left confused about it while looking for more. Filmforme (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Filmforme, one of our most important policies is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which says
Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources
, and that is why I am being firm. Let's take a look at what you say is your best source, the article in Village Life, a hyper-local publication serving the unincorporated community of El Dorado Hills, California, which I happen to know quite well. This is not even a review of the high school play in question, since it was published before the play was first performed at that school. Basically, it is a tiny local publication promoting the local high school theater production. In no way is it an independent source because it quotes Weinberger three times. It is basically an interview combined with an upcoming event listing, complete with performance dates, ticket prices and a phone number to call. It actually includes the names of 19 local people who helped build the sets. Many editors believe that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not necessarily an indication of notability".
- Filmforme, one of our most important policies is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which says
- As for the referencing of Raye Richards, that is really bad. Quality is vastly more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have doubts about the reliability of Horror Society, Loud and Clear, Morbidly Beautiful, Trinity Theater Company and the Daily Aztec. In my view, it is best to stick with impeccably reliable sources for establishing notability. What do you think are the best reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to Weinberger? Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 thanks for the response. 1 I am aware I will need more significant and independent sources that go in depth, but of the references cited, I am curious which you have doubts about the reliability. I got the same alert for Draft:Raye Richards too. Filmforme (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- On to the Horror Society source. In my view, if a local Wikiproject says a source is reliable, that is just the opinion of a small group of people. A communitywide assessment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the only way to state with confidence that a source is reliable. But there is no need to pursue that, because in addition to being reliable, a source must devote significant coverage to the topic, and all that source says about Weinberger is
Other cast members include Savannah Porter, Alex Chernow, Kimberly Weinberger and Sutheshna Mani
. That is a trivial passing mention and pretty much the opposite of significant coverage, even more so since it is discussing a future production. Worthless for establishing notability.
- On to the Horror Society source. In my view, if a local Wikiproject says a source is reliable, that is just the opinion of a small group of people. A communitywide assessment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the only way to state with confidence that a source is reliable. But there is no need to pursue that, because in addition to being reliable, a source must devote significant coverage to the topic, and all that source says about Weinberger is
- The Trinity Theater Company source is clearly not independent since she was an actress with that theater company, and theater companies routinely promote their productions and actors. Fully independent sources are required to establish notability.
- The Daily Aztec source is a student run college newspaper, and many editors believe that such a source cannot be used to establish the notability of students or faculty, since such papers exist in large part to promote student and campus activities. But there is no need to delve too deeply, since this review of a campus film festival devotes just four sentences to the film she was in, and the words "Kimberly Weinberger" appear nowhere in those four sentences. Egregiously, that reference is used to support the claim in the "Accolades" section that she won an award, although the source mentions neither the award nor Weinberger. Frankly, that is bizarre.
- The coverage in Loud and Clear consists of a single sentence,
Kimberly Weinberger is very impressive as Rosie and managed to successfully deliver even the weakest lines of the film, making us root for her character from the very beginning to the very end of the movie
. That is nice but is not significant coverage.
- The coverage in Loud and Clear consists of a single sentence,
- The coverage of Weinberger in Morbidly Beautiful consists of a single sentence,
Our protagonist, Rosie (Kimberly Weinberger), binds this film together, giving a very strong performance
. That is nice but is not significant coverage. It is a passing mention.
- The coverage of Weinberger in Morbidly Beautiful consists of a single sentence,
- In conclusion, the references that you have provided to date fail to establish that Weinberger is a notable actor as Wikipedia defines that term. As I said earlier, quality is vastly more important than quantity. Four or five outstanding sources are dramatically better than 14 mediocre sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 Thanks for the insight and bringing my attention to the noticeboard, I will look at that further. I was under the impression that quotes are allowed as long a journalist or reporter is writing significantly more than what is quoted in their own words.
- As for the rest, I think you misunderstood. I am aware none of those articles are significant coverage, I just wanted to know about the reliability of them. Weinberger's name is at the bottom of the Daily Aztec, but their alias is "Kimmy Weinberger" on that article. Typos and different name spellings has not made it easy to track down further sourcing, but I do what I can. Thank you for your help, I appreciate it. –Filmforme (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- They aren't sources, so it doesn't even make sense to ask if they're reliable. Think of it this way: would those be considered reliable sources if the article was about me? Of course not, they're not writing about me, right? But they're not writing about Kimberly Weinberger either. That's the problem – she needs to be the main topic, not a mention or a participant. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- In conclusion, the references that you have provided to date fail to establish that Weinberger is a notable actor as Wikipedia defines that term. As I said earlier, quality is vastly more important than quantity. Four or five outstanding sources are dramatically better than 14 mediocre sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Question
[edit]hello and good afternoon, how are the little icons for articles made? Jude Marrero [=D (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey. Could you clarify? If you are talking about good articles, the file is c:File:Symbol support vote.svg and for featured articles, it is c:File:Cscr-featured.svg. Some templates let us put them in the corners of articles. win8x (talking | spying) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- ok, thanks a bunch! [=D Jude Marrero [=D (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jude marrero: Articles that have those symbols have gone through strict reviewing processes. The one with the green check mark is called a Good article and the one with the star is called a featured article. Editors work hard to bring their articles up to these standards, so they're marked in honor of that and to let the reader know that the article has been properly reviewed. The icons on the articles can only be added if an article passes one of the respective review processes. Relativity ⚡️ 02:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- ok, thanks a bunch! [=D Jude Marrero [=D (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Should we stop using Wayback Machine and Internet Archive?
[edit]In light of recent developments in the U.S. court case Hachette v. Internet Archive, should Wikipedians stop using Internet Archive? What about Wayback Machine? If so, should that stopping be limited to Wikipedians in the U.S. (like me)? Ss0jse (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- What about U.S. government web pages, or other public domain content? Ss0jse (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, what about using Wayback Machine archives of U.S. government web pages or of other public domain content? Ss0jse (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- A question on changing policies would be more suitable for policy over at the Village Pump, but I see no reason for this to have any effect on us here whatsoever. The case here was very specifically about controlled digital lending. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Ss0jse (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Citing Sources in Introduction
[edit]I've noticed that a lot of good-quality articles do not cite sources at all in the introduction. Is it not necessary to do so if the information is supported by the body of the article? Spookyaki (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Spookyaki: Correct. Information in the lede should be a summary of the already cited information in the article body. See WP:LEDE RudolfRed (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Spookyaki, direct quotations in the lead must be referenceed, along with any claim that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Cullen328 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:LEADCITE for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Spookyaki, direct quotations in the lead must be referenceed, along with any claim that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Cullen328 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know why my article is getting rejected. I have a righteous cause.
[edit]I have written a draft article for submission for Nick Oliveri the author, as I am a fan of literature and this specific novelist is often conflated online and in archives with the musician from queens of the stone age who is much older, different, and this all does Nick Oliveri the novelist a disservice. I keep getting rejected for vague reasons that all seem to be different, even though I have been journalistic, objective, and informative in my approach as I have almost 40 sources from credible institutions and outlets. I need help please Theartistsenpsychlopedia (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Nick_Oliveri_(author)
- Resubmitting the draft without making any changes, as you did, is not going to help your case. RudolfRed (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Theartistsenpsychlopedia. It was rejected for the same reason both times: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article." I looked at the article, and it does not seem objective to me. Phrases like "granted Nick Oliveri the opportunity to tell stories of great visions for positive impact" and "Restless in his pursuit to share his work" don't look like something you'd see in an encyclopedia, they look promotional. The only purpose of Wikipedia is to neutrally document information about things that are notable. Righteous causes and promotional content aren't accepted. A lot of the sources you're using are store pages, public relations, or minor outlets. We're more interested in what Reuters or The New York Times, for example, has to say about someone. If this is to be an article, you'll want to find reliable independent sources that cover his career in detail and then write about it in an impartial tone. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- ok this is helpful. Can you please delineate every time where there is any grandiosity in prose here? The reason why I ask is because this young novelist keeps being overshadowed and essentially plaigiarised by wikipedia because the older Nick Oliveri has a wikipedia, and according to many google searches these books written by Nick Oliveri the Ukrainian American are being attributed to someone ese becaus eof the very platform you're upholding Theartistsenpsychlopedia (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Every time? Thebiguglyalien has other things to do. And plagiarism doesn't mean what you seem to think. 126.33.84.133 (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, but there still remains a serious problem that one of my favorite authors *practically* gets attributed to someone that he is not. That is what bothers me, regardless of semantics. I'm just trying to be productive and serve this platform for its purpose, as I see it being misaligned right now based on searches etc. Theartistsenpsychlopedia (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Theartistsenpsychlopedia: Is Wikipedia misattributing his works? If so, please tell us where. If not, this is not the place to resolve the matter; nor is it the purpose of Wikipedia to do so. Take it up with whoever is doing the misattribution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, but there still remains a serious problem that one of my favorite authors *practically* gets attributed to someone that he is not. That is what bothers me, regardless of semantics. I'm just trying to be productive and serve this platform for its purpose, as I see it being misaligned right now based on searches etc. Theartistsenpsychlopedia (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Every time? Thebiguglyalien has other things to do. And plagiarism doesn't mean what you seem to think. 126.33.84.133 (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- ok this is helpful. Can you please delineate every time where there is any grandiosity in prose here? The reason why I ask is because this young novelist keeps being overshadowed and essentially plaigiarised by wikipedia because the older Nick Oliveri has a wikipedia, and according to many google searches these books written by Nick Oliveri the Ukrainian American are being attributed to someone ese becaus eof the very platform you're upholding Theartistsenpsychlopedia (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Theartistsenpsychlopedia, no one cares about your "righteous cause". See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Nor does the Nick Oliveri you are writing about appear to pass Wikipedia thresholds of notability. If the person wants to differentiate themselves from other persons of the same name, have them create a personal website. Wikipedia is not a webhost for personal information. If you yourself are Nick Oliveri, you should not be writing a Wikipedia article on yourself. Lastly, no one cares about the trivial life details of an obscure writer who has self-published a handful of novels. Best cease this Wikipedia endeavor and stop wasting your time. Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- he’s one of my favorite authors who is a betseller and whose sales ( I met him at a signing on the west coast) are encumbered by having a different Nick Oliveri’s persona being wrongly attributed to his books… I will not apologize for trying to do the right thing and have his (by the way, secretive personal gripes) isssues of detection WRONGFULLY overshadowed and essentially assigned to someone who is not him.
- sorry but I’m not sorry for standing up for what I thought was a core cause of Wikipedia’s…. 100.0.220.84 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is a #1 bestselling author not notable? Just because you don’t know this figure does not mean that I don’t know your favorite/ preferred public figures. 100.0.220.84 (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please remember to log in each time you edit, your draft requires WP:TNT and a complete re-write in a neutral, dry encyclopaedic tone. Theroadislong (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Theartistsenpsychlopedia, please log in to edit. Your draft is overtly promotional from beginning to end, and promotional editing is not permitted on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and compliance with that policy is mandatory. You must remove all of the promotional content from your draft if you are to have any hope of having this draft accepted. It was a bad idea for you to write
essentially plaigiarised by wikipedia
because that can be interpreted as an accusation that Wikipedia editors are violating the law somehow, which is, to be frank, ludicrous. Wikipedia editors place a high priority on accuracy and logic when advancing an argument. So, get to work cleaning up that mess that you incorrectly think isjournalistic, objective, and informative
, or an administrator may come along and clean it up by deleting it entirely. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Theartistsenpsychlopedia, please log in to edit. Your draft is overtly promotional from beginning to end, and promotional editing is not permitted on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and compliance with that policy is mandatory. You must remove all of the promotional content from your draft if you are to have any hope of having this draft accepted. It was a bad idea for you to write
- Please remember to log in each time you edit, your draft requires WP:TNT and a complete re-write in a neutral, dry encyclopaedic tone. Theroadislong (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can add the distinguish template to the Nick Oliveri article to inform readers that the article is not about Nick Oliveri the author. Constant314 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I deleted a lot of subjective crap, but the draft is still a non-encyclopedic mess. David notMD (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Aside from other matters, you have to work on the prose. Within a single, short paragraph:
- at the turn of the 2010s decade: Why both "the 2010s" and "decade"? (And why not just say "in spring 2021"?)
- fell to dark depths: What does this actually mean?
- as soon as [...] promptly: Why both?
- belittling himself as [...] a self-proclaimed "weirdo": What does "self-proclaimed" add to this?
-- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hoary: We don't say things like "in spring 2021" because this is a global project, and one half of this planet has spring around March time, the other around September. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- An excellent point, Andy Mabbett. Certainly it should be observed in general; but we're told that this fellow "promptly moved across the country to San Luis Obispo, California in the Spring of 2021". The hemisphere identifies which spring is meant; also, "the Spring of 2021" is the clearest time reference that I notice in the draft for this series of events. But of course the draft has problems more serious than the awkwardness of its wording. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok folks, I think I have gotten the point here and will work on something dry and neutral. My emotion in this one came from clear overstatements based on Nick’s story he told me during our interaction at one of our book signings, and I’d never accuse Wikipedia of anything specifically, because all I meant by “plagiarism” was that Google will attribute nick’s books to a different Nick Oliveri , which, I’m sure you’d agree, would be frustrating and enraging, even if he pointed that anger wrongly at Wikipedia, there is still little he can do. I appreciate all the help here where it was constructive and objective, and I’ll ignore the insults, as I think so long my wiki draft is torn apart, and not the author himself nor his story, is good and productive for me. I appreciate this and will completely continue to make it dry and functional and to your high standards. 100.0.220.84 (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- An excellent point, Andy Mabbett. Certainly it should be observed in general; but we're told that this fellow "promptly moved across the country to San Luis Obispo, California in the Spring of 2021". The hemisphere identifies which spring is meant; also, "the Spring of 2021" is the clearest time reference that I notice in the draft for this series of events. But of course the draft has problems more serious than the awkwardness of its wording. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Of note: A tweet by the author from yesterday, which simply reads ""Fuck Wikipedia": [5] (archived [6]). --Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Right hand sidebar cannot be closed without JavaScript?
[edit]I use a 14 year old phone that cannot run JavaScript. I prefer to use old Vector but as I have to manually append the use skin param to every url to do so, sometimes I skip it. In new Vector, the right hand sidebar cannot be closed. It has no contents. It takes up over a third of the phone screen. Any way to fix this? Registering is not an option. 216.80.78.194 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain why registering an account is not an option. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- To my POV, reading articles and discussions is a win for the volunteers, who deserve all the love. Registration is a win for the WMF, who deserve nothing in exchange for their greed, deceit and mishandling of assets. They have not earned my username. 216.80.78.194 (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Registering doesn't benefit WMF. But it benefits other volunteers, who know that you are the same person you were yesterday. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- To my POV, reading articles and discussions is a win for the volunteers, who deserve all the love. Registration is a win for the WMF, who deserve nothing in exchange for their greed, deceit and mishandling of assets. They have not earned my username. 216.80.78.194 (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, 14 year old phones are not really supported. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks anyhow. Will just deal with the single columns of text and squished tables. Wish the devs had stuck to their standards of a Mediawiki that works without JavaScript. (Don't ask me to find the diff from here, I can't even run autocorrect anymore and these two replies took about 15 minutes.) 216.80.78.194 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, registering an account is a win for you, your privacy and your user experience. The WMF does not care a whit about whether or not you register. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks anyhow. Will just deal with the single columns of text and squished tables. Wish the devs had stuck to their standards of a Mediawiki that works without JavaScript. (Don't ask me to find the diff from here, I can't even run autocorrect anymore and these two replies took about 15 minutes.) 216.80.78.194 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- For those who may come across this later, I solved the issue by blocking the entire right hand column with an ad blocker rule. While I hate to deprive you all of another opportunity to treat an IP as subhuman, the issue of registration was not a properly formatted RFC, let alone an RFC/U. And no, I am nobody's sock. I've been reading your talk pages mostly quietly since 2006. Ta. 216.80.78.194 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Help moving page
[edit]Hi, I think the page Huerta Norte should be moved back to Horta Nord, I exposed the reasons in the talk page (the official name in Valencian instead of the Spanish translation, like all the other Valencian regions' pages) I tagged the person that changed it without receiving a response, but I think the moving was probably a mistake. In any case I cannot move it as the original page now already exists as a redirect, can someone give me a hand (or contribute to the talk page)? Thank you, Bsckr (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Bsckr
Done. For such requests in the future, you can make it at WP:RM/TR where pagemovers and administrators will move the article accordingly if reasonably requested for. – robertsky (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
What to do when a reputable source that is citied is factually incorrect
[edit]Hello all,
I have been adding more information and editing a specific page that has been neglected for a long time, knowing that a reputable source that is cited is factually incorrect on this rare occasion. The historical document cited is just not correct. I would love to change it but I know that if I do, the edits will just be reversed, citing the source and I might be banned. What do I do to actually make the information on the page factually correct? Is there a way to escalate the edits to senior editors, so that they don't get rejected? Anjkerjeox (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You mean the source is notable but not saying the right thing? If so, you might not really have a case as how sure you are it's not correct (Wikipedia does not obey the law of personal opinions!). Also, you might Cite a correct one in addition to it.
- You might also share the link to the article here so we all can review together. Tesleemah (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome. If a source is accurately summarized, but in error about what it says, you will need to either take that up with the source itself to get them to issue a correction, or offer more current sources with more accurate information. It would help to know what article you are talking about, but it's not enough for you to just say it's wrong, which is essentially just your opinion- you need to show that it is wrong. I mean, Donald Trump and his die hard supporters say it is wrong to claim Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election, but that is not what sources say. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The document is an official document referring to the heritage of a historical building. It is not a matter of opinion. In effect the document says the building is of a certain size and has certain features. You only need a pair of eyes and to visit the building to know the information, which is from an official document is wrong. No idea how or why but it is wrong. Anjkerjeox (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh dear. What's the building? -- asilvering (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The document is an official document referring to the heritage of a historical building. It is not a matter of opinion. In effect the document says the building is of a certain size and has certain features. You only need a pair of eyes and to visit the building to know the information, which is from an official document is wrong. No idea how or why but it is wrong. Anjkerjeox (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- [Edit conflicts] There are no "senior editors" as such, but a sound argument is sound whoever makes it.
- We have a standard approach called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
- The thing to do is to find a subsequent source which indisputably shows the first source is incorrect, and Boldly rewrite the passage citing the newer source. If the misconception is widely believed, you might say something along the lines of : "While X was formerly thought, for instance as according to Source A, [cite A] it is now known that Y is the case. [cite Source B]". (I realise the situation might be even more complicated than this.)
- It would also be advisable first to open a new section on the article's Talk page, and explain what you are about to do, and why.
- Be prepared anyway to be Reverted, and then to Discuss with the reverter. If your better source is sound, your proposal should be accepted. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The document is an official document referring to the heritage of a historical building. It is not a matter of opinion. In effect the document says the building is of a certain size and has certain features. You only need a pair of eyes and to visit the building to know the information, which is from an official document is wrong. No idea how or why but it is wrong Anjkerjeox (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then, as I said, you need to take that up with whomever produced the document so they can correct it, or you need to provide other sources that offer more current or more accurate information, so the discrepancy can be noted in the article(that sources disagree). 331dot (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The document is an official document referring to the heritage of a historical building. It is not a matter of opinion. In effect the document says the building is of a certain size and has certain features. You only need a pair of eyes and to visit the building to know the information, which is from an official document is wrong. No idea how or why but it is wrong Anjkerjeox (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjkerjeox, the only article that meets your description is Cairo Flats. What exactly is your beef about the article? Stop beating around the bush and let us know. And what change would you like to make to the article? Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- As shown above, they dispute the given figures for the size of the structure, saying that their observations do not match what documents state. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- stated number of apartments is 28, as per citation. Actual number is 36. Anjkerjeox (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- We have an interesting essay on the topic of erroneous sources, WP:WSAW, which may give some guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- This site was in the article's Further reading section. It seems like the building's official website and it talks about these factual conflicts. The essay WP:MINE might interest you: often the thing you're looking for is already linked. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjkerjeox, the official website that HansVonStuttgart mentions above says "There are 36 apartments in total including 26 studios and 10 with separate bedroom. The site, previously under single ownership, was sold and subdivided in 1999." The citation you are referring to was published 25 June 1999. Always check the date of sources when you think they are inaccurate or out of date. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjkerjeox, can you imagine how much precious volunteer time would have been saved if you had just given us the name of the article in question at the very beginning of this conversation? We are encyclopedia editors here, not detectives. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjkerjeox, the official website that HansVonStuttgart mentions above says "There are 36 apartments in total including 26 studios and 10 with separate bedroom. The site, previously under single ownership, was sold and subdivided in 1999." The citation you are referring to was published 25 June 1999. Always check the date of sources when you think they are inaccurate or out of date. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like Anjkerjeox may be a troll. Not only has he not updated the article in question with the citation and information we provided him nearly two days ago (and that I reminded him of here [7]), he just left this message on my talkpage [8] after I reverted an extremely deceptive edit he made unjustifiably removing a citation-needed template with the edit-summary "grammar", on an article he created [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Citations go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. I put it there by mistake and then removed it. I did not realise that there was a 48 hour limit on when to apply edits by. Stop trying to make a storm in a tea cup into a big thing and find another page to edit. Anjkerjeox (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjkerjeox, you have no right to tell another editor what to work on or what not to work on. Stop that misconduct immediately or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- waiting for your strongly worded reply reminding another editor to not call me a troll for fixing my own mistake, on a page I created in ...3.....2........... Anjkerjeox (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stop lying. The citation-needed template was added by 331dot, not you [10], and you immediately removed it with a deceptive edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- waiting for your strongly worded reply reminding another editor to not call me a troll for fixing my own mistake, on a page I created in ...3.....2........... Anjkerjeox (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjkerjeox, that's bogus and you know it. 331dot added the citation-needed template, not you [11]. You then left a deliberately deceptive edit summary and completely removed (rather than moved) the citation-needed template from a completely uncited sentence [12]. It doesn't pay to lie on Wikipedia, because proof of what actually happened is always in the edit history,
Also, when are you going to update the Cairo Flats article with the information and citation that you requested here and that editors painstakingly provided you with, above, over a day ago? Once an editor displays problematical behavior like ignoring the information they requested and acting as if they never received it [13], other editors naturally follow their edits to detect any further problems. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anjkerjeox, you have no right to tell another editor what to work on or what not to work on. Stop that misconduct immediately or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Citations go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. I put it there by mistake and then removed it. I did not realise that there was a 48 hour limit on when to apply edits by. Stop trying to make a storm in a tea cup into a big thing and find another page to edit. Anjkerjeox (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
New way of Citation
[edit]Hi, few days ago an ad appeared after log in says that a new way of citation has arrived, i forgot the name of that but it described that now you can cite multiple pages of a book from single citation. Can anybody locate me to that.–– kemel49(connect)(contri) 08:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- KEmel49: Do you mean meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing? (That info page is hosted on the global Wikimedia site and the test is taking place on a beta site, so it's not the easiest thing to find when the announcement has disappeared!) — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, a simple way to cite the book once in the references, combined with named references to allow various individual pages to be cited is to use the {{rp}} template. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull, Yeah that's an useful information too.
Thanks ––kemel49(connect)(contri) 11:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull, Yeah that's an useful information too.
- @ClaudineChionh,
Thanks I was searching for that as it has previously appeared as banner after logging in. and i was looking for that now.–– kemel49(connect)(contri) 11:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, a simple way to cite the book once in the references, combined with named references to allow various individual pages to be cited is to use the {{rp}} template. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Duplicating content between articles
[edit]Hello, I have recently been editing article Paul Boyton, and expanded the section "Rivalry with Matthew Webb" by copying two paragraphs directly from the Matthew Webb article. I understand that this is allowed, and have read WP:COPYWITHIN (I actually wrote the original text in the Matthew Webb article), and I did it because it would be a waste of time to rewrite my own writing for a separate article.
But is this really best practice? I feel it is a bad idea to duplicate information across the wiki, but the subject is not notable enough for it's own article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- What "subject is not notable enough for it's [sic] own article"? Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The subject of the duplicated content, titled "Rivalry with Matthew Webb". It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You did the correct thing if you followed the copywithin guidance. There is no easy way to check whether given information is duplicated in multiple articles and in any case it often happens deliberately, e.g. where there is a {{main}} article that's mentioned elsewhere. Some articles even deliberately transclude parts of other articles so that the two are kept in step. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for clarifying It is a wonderful world (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is a somewhat easy way, if one is familiar with article search. Example: this search finds both articles:
- The idea is to choose a fairly short, but unique phrase that would be highly unlikely to occur by chance, were it not for direct copying, and double-quote it in the search. But note that this was my third try, as two previous searches failed; I suspect you must have changed a few words around during the copy? Adding @Michael D. Turnbull and It is a wonderful world:. Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I did change a few words. This is useful to know. Thanks. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Tag: "use of deprecated (unreliable) source"
[edit]Hi. Just curious: what conditions trigger the automatic tagging of edits with the above?
Saw it on an edit that added a Talk section. The edit links to The Daily Mail, but not as a ref. galenIgh 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @.galenIgh: It's done by an edit filter. For further background, see WP:RSP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was tagged by Special:AbuseFilter/1132 which currently includes:
Extended content
|
---|
|
- PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- ----
- @Pigsonthewing @PrimeHunter
- Thanks. Will go read up there. Seems over-eager, as it flagged a non-ref. galenIgh 18:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It should probably only act on the Main, and maybe Draft: namespaes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those namespaces already have Special:AbuseFilter/869 which also warns the user. Special:AbuseFilter/1132 is a version which only tags the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It should probably only act on the Main, and maybe Draft: namespaes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Why is it like this?
[edit]When I type a page title into the URL without a Wikipedia account, or click a redlink, and that page doesn't exist, there's a link to search for it. But now that I made an account, there's nothing there except messages telling you how to create a draft, or how to edit in general. That doesn't help me (or most new users); it's too difficult to create a page, and sometimes we just searched for the wrong title. Can the admins please do something about this? My username can be whatever I want! (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, My username can be whatever I want! That's not something that admins can change; it's a function of the Mediawiki software that Wikipedia runs on. However, the second bullet from the top contains the link to the search you're looking for; specifically, the line that says
You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
The link in the word "search" is what you need. HTH, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- @Writ Keeper
- Okay, what's the group of people who can change it? Developers? It's different on Simple English Wikipedia, so I know it can be changed.
- The word "search" doesn't appear on the page at all. See the screenshot on the right.
- My username can be whatever I want! (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @My username can be whatever I want!: The screenshot is from Wikipedia:New user landing page which is seen on the English Wikipedia by users who have accounts but are not autoconfirmed which requires four days and ten edits. Last time we had this discussion it was not technically possible to add a search link but the software has changed and it may be possible now. I will look into it and may be able to do it myself today. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @My username can be whatever I want!: I have added "You can also search for an existing article", where "search" is a link to a search on the page name.[14] The necessary software change was phab:T204234 which means that
{{PAGENAME}}
can now be used in the message. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- @PrimeHunter That's good. I compared the other page to this one. The other one says "Search for "Redlink" in existing articles." with the link on the words "search for redlink". This one now says "You can also search for an existing article." with the link on the word "search". I think this might be harder to understand, because someone wouldn't know that by clicking on the word "search", they would be led to search results for "redlink". Maybe that should be clarified. My username can be whatever I want! (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @My username can be whatever I want!: I based it on the message seen on a redlink by logged in users who are autoconfirmed: "You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title." You have to be autoconfirmed to create a redirect so I omitted that part. You can post further suggestions to Wikipedia talk:New user landing page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter I don't know about autoconfirmed, but I think that most of the time when someone goes to an page that doesn't exist, they don't want to redirect the title, they just want to search for the relevant page. Did you see what shows up on that page if you're logged out? My username can be whatever I want! (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @My username can be whatever I want!: I saw that. I think it's rare to search for an article by manually modifying the url, and most registered users know that a red link means no page. I guess few of them will click it to search for the page name unless they already know it can be done and then they only need the search link. But this is getting beyond the Teahouse scope. Wikipedia talk:New user landing page is the place to discuss the message. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter I don't know about autoconfirmed, but I think that most of the time when someone goes to an page that doesn't exist, they don't want to redirect the title, they just want to search for the relevant page. Did you see what shows up on that page if you're logged out? My username can be whatever I want! (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @My username can be whatever I want!: I based it on the message seen on a redlink by logged in users who are autoconfirmed: "You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title." You have to be autoconfirmed to create a redirect so I omitted that part. You can post further suggestions to Wikipedia talk:New user landing page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter That's good. I compared the other page to this one. The other one says "Search for "Redlink" in existing articles." with the link on the words "search for redlink". This one now says "You can also search for an existing article." with the link on the word "search". I think this might be harder to understand, because someone wouldn't know that by clicking on the word "search", they would be led to search results for "redlink". Maybe that should be clarified. My username can be whatever I want! (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @My username can be whatever I want!: I have added "You can also search for an existing article", where "search" is a link to a search on the page name.[14] The necessary software change was phab:T204234 which means that
- @My username can be whatever I want!: The screenshot is from Wikipedia:New user landing page which is seen on the English Wikipedia by users who have accounts but are not autoconfirmed which requires four days and ten edits. Last time we had this discussion it was not technically possible to add a search link but the software has changed and it may be possible now. I will look into it and may be able to do it myself today. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
A question of not so much importance
[edit]I have long searched for a picture I saw once about how excrement longer than a certain length must be lowered by hand into the toilet. It was on one of the advisory pages of wikipedia, possibly a humor page. I can't find it :( 75.142.254.3 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- IP editor: the file is this one. Finding it via the advanced options in Special:Search is an interesting exercise. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I commend your competence and bravery. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Article entry rejected
[edit]Dear Wikipedia community,
I submitted Wikipedia entry for my NGO and it was rejected a couple of times. Each time the article is rejected, someone sends an email to me offering their services for writing wikipedia articles. Does the mean the same person is voluenteering with Wikipedia, otherwise how he/she gets to know our submission is rejected? 91.75.24.106 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SCAM and be very, very cautious. Wikipedia is an open, transparent platform and malicious people are perfectly able to see what is happening on Wikipedia. There is no reason for a good faith volunteer to contact you this way. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- An email offering services for writing wikipedia articles could be unintentionally amusing; consider pasting it here. -- Hoary (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. I realise that this is not directly what you are asking about, but have you read WP:BOSS? If you haven't, I recommend you do so. ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- IP editor, please consider forwarding the emails you have received to paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org so that they can be investigated. This is a common type of scam, as Cullen above notes; the Wikipedia community has uncovered various such cases earlier (e.g. Orangemoody). JavaHurricane 10:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Confusing article
[edit]Hi, I have inserted the info. at ICC Awards#ICC Development Awards as per the suggestion. But, I found that maximum section of the article, starting from ICC Awards#Men's awards require serious changes as it looks very confusing, for example Decade Awards. I fixed a few of them, but, couldn't fix all as I have no idea about how to arrange these things properly. If anyone knows how to fix these, do it. Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 16:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Perfectodefecto, when you want help improving an article, the best place to request that is on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talkpage. In this case that would be WP:WikiProject Awards, WP:WikiProject Cricket, and WP:WikiProject Women's sport. Please post your help request on the talkpages of those projects. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks.
- By the way, I have made some necessary changes. Now, it is ok. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
system errors
[edit]I'M new to Ubuntu 22.04 I loaded it and worked great for a month then I got pages of errors when booting up, cant tell if it's memory. I have 32 gig of memory and 1 terabyte ssd drive any help would be welcome!! Northern mn rob (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're going to have to consult an Ubuntu or Linux forum, I'm afraid, since this is for questions on how to use or edit the English-language Wikipedia. Best of luck, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Northern mn rob: You can also try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing if you want to use Wikipedia but we are a general encyclopedia. Maybe you saw one of our articles and thought it was a website about that subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
My article on Wikipedia page was deleted
[edit]My article was deleted and I was not happy with it, it took me more 7 hours to write it down Officaillychibuzor (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Officaillychibuzor, a sample:
- The prestigious Titans of Tech Awards was established to celebrate and acknowledge the accomplishments of tech visionaries in Nigeria, Africa and the Global Tech Space. / It is the authoritative yardstick to measure performance in the ICT sector in the African continent.
- Let's start with the second word. What are the grounds for saying that it's "prestigious"? What's the purpose of saying that it's "prestigious"? -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- i don’t have any bad in mind or a hope of doing promotions for the brand, Wikipedia would have given me a chance to edit or do some corrections to me . It hurt me that article that I used 7 hours to write was deleted Officaillychibuzor (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please if you will help me and do some change and upload it back I will appreciate that, all the information you need is online Officaillychibuzor (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Officaillychibuzor. Please read WP:NOTPROMO and WP:BOSS carefully. ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Please can someone help me and publish article here ?
[edit]Why I’m asking if someone will help me to publish article here is that the one i published it was deleted Officaillychibuzor (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Officaillychibuzor, please don't start a second topic. You can keep responding in the one you started above this one. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okey I have heard you Officaillychibuzor (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, and for three reasons. First, Draft:Titans of Tech Awards is terrible. Secondly, I have no reason to believe that you would improve it if allowed to do so. (You seem to expect that others will do this.) Thirdly (and a new discovery): Draft:Titans of Tech Awards was first created by "Samsonfriday526", who's blocked as an illicit alternative ID for "Johnken21", who's blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okey, it fine can you guide me on how to create successful Wikipedia articles without been deleted Officaillychibuzor (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft:Titans of Tech Awards has been Rejected and Speedy Deleted. If you try again, very likely your account will be indefinitely blocked and the topic 'salted', meaning that it would require an Administrator's approval for anyone to try again. If you intend to contribute to Wikipedia, start with working to improve existing articles. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Officaillychibuzor, since I am an administrator, I can read your deleted draft. There is not a single sentence in it that is not overtly promotional, and promotion, advertising, marketing and public relations behaviors are not permitted on Wikipedia. You complain that you spent seven hours writing unacceptable content that got deleted. Your time would have been better spent if you read our core content policy, the Neutral point of view for seven minutes, and you could have saved six hours and 53 minutes. The general life principle is do not waste your time trying to play a very complicated and serious game without studying the rules first. Defeat is pretty much guaranteed. This is the #7 website on Planet Earth, and you need to know what you are doing to be successful here. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I never have an a ideas to promote the brand I I’m just writing what I know about the brand, but it fine please can you help me and edit in Wikipedia standard so that I will not repeat the work again from the bringing and if possible can I retrieve the original article and edit it again Officaillychibuzor (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Officaillychibuzor WP:BACKWARD might be of help to you. Your first (not only) hurdle with with creating a WP-article is finding the sources that meets the demands of WP:N. If those don't exist on a subject, you can't make a WP-article on that subject. For example, this [15] mentions ToT, but it doesn't tell us much about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know if I can share my WhatsApp number here for you to explain more to me because I don’t get it all, during the article you can see that the article I publish about the brand has all the Wikipedia requirements to be published but it was not, if there is a mistake they should be a people that will make the correction and published it, please in case you need my WhatsApp number you can tell me because I don’t mind given it out Officaillychibuzor (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello again, Officaillychibuzor. Nobody here is interested in your WhatsApp number. It is unlikely that anyobdy here will communicate with you in any way other than on this page and other similar (project or talk) pages of Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
- If you want to create an article on that prize, you begin by finding places where people wholly unconnected with the prize have chosen to publish substantial material about it in reliable places. If you can't find any such sources, then you stop wasting your own and other people's time, and choose a different subject. If you can find several such sources, then you forget everything you personally know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know if I can share my WhatsApp number here for you to explain more to me because I don’t get it all, during the article you can see that the article I publish about the brand has all the Wikipedia requirements to be published but it was not, if there is a mistake they should be a people that will make the correction and published it, please in case you need my WhatsApp number you can tell me because I don’t mind given it out Officaillychibuzor (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Officaillychibuzor WP:BACKWARD might be of help to you. Your first (not only) hurdle with with creating a WP-article is finding the sources that meets the demands of WP:N. If those don't exist on a subject, you can't make a WP-article on that subject. For example, this [15] mentions ToT, but it doesn't tell us much about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I never have an a ideas to promote the brand I I’m just writing what I know about the brand, but it fine please can you help me and edit in Wikipedia standard so that I will not repeat the work again from the bringing and if possible can I retrieve the original article and edit it again Officaillychibuzor (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Officaillychibuzor, since I am an administrator, I can read your deleted draft. There is not a single sentence in it that is not overtly promotional, and promotion, advertising, marketing and public relations behaviors are not permitted on Wikipedia. You complain that you spent seven hours writing unacceptable content that got deleted. Your time would have been better spent if you read our core content policy, the Neutral point of view for seven minutes, and you could have saved six hours and 53 minutes. The general life principle is do not waste your time trying to play a very complicated and serious game without studying the rules first. Defeat is pretty much guaranteed. This is the #7 website on Planet Earth, and you need to know what you are doing to be successful here. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft:Titans of Tech Awards has been Rejected and Speedy Deleted. If you try again, very likely your account will be indefinitely blocked and the topic 'salted', meaning that it would require an Administrator's approval for anyone to try again. If you intend to contribute to Wikipedia, start with working to improve existing articles. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okey, it fine can you guide me on how to create successful Wikipedia articles without been deleted Officaillychibuzor (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Officaillychibuzor, do not post any personal contact information here. Wikipedia does not work that way. Just read and study Your first article and the Neutral point of view and do the work yourself. We are here to give advice, not to write the article for you. When you write all the Wikipedia requirements to be published
, you are wrong. Wikipedia does not publish overtly promotional content. That is simply not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I want to create a new article but my dashboard has change
[edit]I want to create new article but when I enter a place to create new draft to submit the dashboard have change what is the problem Officaillychibuzor (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your attempts at creating an article have been deleted as blatant promotion. You have also flooded help pages with questions- please ask one question in one place at a time, to avoid duplicating effort. You should learn more about Wikipedia before attempting the very difficult task of creating a new article, please use the new user tutorial and spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you first, to learn how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.
- If you are associated with these awards, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Rename page that is just a redirect
[edit]Statutory city (Minnesota) is listed on the disambiguation page of Statutory city but redirects to General-law municipality, but other states in the U.S. have statutory cities and towns, including Colorado. Statutory city (Minnesota) should be renamed "Statutory city (United States)". I don't know how to do this or suggest this, other than Talk: General-law municipality. Seananony (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Seananony. I'd recommend creating Statutory city (United States) as a redirect to General-law municipality. You may also want to change the target of Statutory city (Minnesota) so that it goes to the section about Minnesota, though I haven't looked into the content at all and maybe that'd be less helpful. At the dab page, I'd swap in your new redirect for the Minnesota one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
An apology
[edit]Graham87 was wrongfully block me by mistake. I didn't disrupt and abuse editing on Wikipedia. I am innocent of any wrongdoings. I'm behaving appropriately. I didn't cause any trouble. Please believe me. I want to apologize. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This IP address is not blocked. What is the username of your blocked account? Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to explain about my good results. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, what is the username of your blocked account? Please answer. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think this might be regards User_talk:108.21.67.83, rather than a blocked account - based on similar language. -- D'n'B-t -- 04:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I need you to report the user Graham87 has committed vandalize the articles and disrupting. He will not longer editing anymore because he violated the terms on Wikipedia. Ban the Graham87. Thank you. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- A Chris80 which I no longer use since I was block indefinitely because I never vandalized nor disrupt editing in 2018 for the past 6 years. I'm sorry. Because I already have my old account is A Chris80 for which I don't remember the password for login in. I came to apologize for my past wrongdoings. That is never happened again. I respect that. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you are, in fact, the user behind A Chris80, then this is definitely a good block. A block is a block of you, not just the account that you are using. Every edit you've made since the block in April 2018, using any account or IP address, on any computer, anywhere in the world, is textbook block evasion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think this might be regards User_talk:108.21.67.83, rather than a blocked account - based on similar language. -- D'n'B-t -- 04:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, what is the username of your blocked account? Please answer. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to explain about my good results. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Graham87: I can't help but notice is says on this IP's user talk that they are blocked, but they are still making edits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- D'n'B-t -- 05:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. Wow, seems like I posted the notice but forgot to do the actual block ... and thanks to that we've worked out that it was real block evasion all along, as I suspected. Graham87 (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
scans of software boxes
[edit]i am deep into documenting vintage software. i would like to add scans of the box cover. is that allowed? Smilesdavis2024 (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Smilesdavis2024 Welcome to Teahouse! Covers are usually copyrighted, so cannot be uploaded directly to Wikimedia Commons and instead should be uploaded to English Wikipedia with limited use. This likely would be allowed under WP:NFCC fair use similar to Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Divyansh Dwivedi
[edit]Courtesy link: Draft:Divyansh Dwivedi
The draft got declined. Need help in editing Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am trying to draft a page for Divyansh Dwivedi, a child actor who has appreared in multiple TV shows and web series in India. He has also appreared in various news channels for his talent.
- I am looking for a volunteer who can help me in getting his page approved and published on wikipedia. Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Adwivedi78 Teahouse hosts and others who help here like to advise on general issues but rarely get involved in co-writing articles. At a brief glance, your text
His impactful character in web series Mirzapur season 1 was highly appreciated. He also played a very important role in another web series
immediately poses the questions "Who said his character was impactful?", "Who appreciated it" and who decided the role was "important"? If these are quotes, then you need to source them and if they are your own opinion, you need to remove them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- ponit taken. Thanks Adwivedi78 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am not looking for assistance in Co-writing, instead I want to understand where I am going wrong in writing this article and how this can get approved. I'm new in this space, hence seeking help. Adwivedi78 (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have an association with this actor? 331dot (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is very difficult to succeed in writing an artlce here without first familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Please take note of the helpful advice and links on your talk page, and also WP:Your first article.Shantavira|feed me 13:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Adwivedi78 Teahouse hosts and others who help here like to advise on general issues but rarely get involved in co-writing articles. At a brief glance, your text
Refs must be incorporated into text. David notMD (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
help to make the article named oviul maruf
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oviul_maruf?redirect=no Hamasnigar (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your draft here Draft:Oviul Maruf and here Oviul maruf has been rejected there is zero indication that the person meets the Wikipedia criteria of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
About autocomplete
[edit]Hi.I wanted to ask a question about Wikipedia autocomplete. Usually when we write stuff on Wikipedia search bar, after writing a word an autocomplete appears. There are certain articles that are less popular and not significant that will appear on the autocomplete. Is there a way to alter the autocomplete in such a way that these article suggestions will not appear when we write a word on the search barKnightknight12345 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- One of the really good features of Wikipedia is it shows topics that are in any way related to each other. That includes rivals and people who famously don't like each other or are opponents on some issue. People want to read about someone's rivals, and they want to read about the other side of the issue. And if "the other side of the issue" is actually well known to be a trash argument that doesn't make any sense, we want Wikipedia to come out and say that it is.
- Which articles are you talking about? TooManyFingers (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- ... and if you mean something appears that's really really irrelevant to your topic, just let it keep showing up. People need to be able to search for that other thing! (It would be insane to make a certain article non-findable.) Nobody owns article titles or search bar results. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- No. We don't use an algorithmic search based on popularity anywhere as far as I am aware. If a particular article really shouldn't be coming up, because it actually has the wrong title in the first place, you could suggest it for renaming at WP:RM. -- asilvering (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Autocomplete suggestions are controlled by the software, not the editors. There is no way to disallow an existing page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Missing Q-prompt
[edit]What happened to the Q-promt on the portal of wikipedia.en?
Since several days, it has vanished from my portal, and to open a specific subject or topic, I now have to enter other language versions of wikipedia, if the subject exists there at all, and then change from there to the english version. Needless to say, this is only an awkward workaround.
Hope someone here can help!
Thanks,
Oceanos Procellarum Oceanos Procellarum (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see the same as you. I'm normally on mobile, and mobile still works fine, but I switched and there's no search box / Q-prompt / typing area thing.
- You could even try the stupid workaround of going to en.m.wikipedia.org for searches, until there's a proper solution. IDK if that even works on a normal browser though. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply!
- At least I Know now I am not the only one with this fundamental bug.
- So, should we report this, but where? Oceanos Procellarum (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Going into Preferences -> Appearance, and switching skins to an older version, is a much better temporary workaround for normal browsers. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Oceanos Procellarum, are you using dark mode by any chance? Lately the search box has been changed so that it doesn't start working until you click the magnifying glass icon, and on my dark mode the magnifying glass is black on a black background. But if I blindly click near the beginning of my username, the invisible magnifying glass still works and the search box gets focus. So on my machine it's a glitch in how dark mode is set up. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, that's it - although in my case it's actually the reverse from dark mode, which I usually do not use.
- When I point the curser to the left of my user name, there appears a barely visible square with slightly off-white color on white background.
- And if I then click on this ghostly square, the missing "Search Wikipedia" box reappears!
- So, with this secret knowledge, I am now in business again.
- But what about all the other people, who don't know about this secret fix.
- Clearly this calls for a bug fix!
- Thanks once more to TooManyFingers, who figured this out,
- and cheers to everybody! Oceanos Procellarum (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#No search box for default skin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Email error ?
[edit]Your edit has triggered an automated filter and has been disallowed. It looks like you're trying to add an email address to this page. Doing that, especially with a personal email address, is usually a bad idea as it can attract large amounts of spam. Though there are a few legitimate reasons to include an email address, in most cases Wikipedia will remove email addresses that are added to articles or discussion pages. If you want to communicate with a particular user via email, Wikipedia has a built-in email function you can use. If you would like to request general assistance, the fastest way is usually to post a question at the Help Desk. Wikipedia also provides a guide to asking for help — including via email — if you feel that is necessary. If you are attempting to add a link to a Mastodon account, and this filter is preventing you from doing so, please do not file a false positive report. Instead, please follow the instructions at Template:Mastodon user to add a link to the account. If you are experiencing trouble using the template, please visit the Teahouse for assistance in doing so. If you believe you received this message in error, you may report it here.
I have got this error and i dont think i have mentioned any email as so.. Whats the fix to this error ? HarmonyHubber (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Erasing all the @ signs you can find may help. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you helped me alot HarmonyHubber (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @HarmonyHubber: The filter only applies to users with less than 100 edits. I have linked BHK Bhalla@Halla.Kom in your sandbox.[16] If you get problems later then you may have to remove the link again or ask an experienced user to make the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you helped me alot HarmonyHubber (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
what is the fastest car on the planet?
[edit]What is the fastest car?
81.98.226.73 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there! The teahouse is mainly about Wikipedia-related questions (for future reference) but to answer your question, the fastest production car (that’s not a race car) is the Koenigsegg Agera RS. Hope this helps! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The above answer is good, but another answer is that people don't all agree which things count as a car and which ones don't, and people don't all agree about the best way to do speed tests, so it's hard to give an answer that satisfies everyone. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sir MemeGod: The Teahouse is for questions about how to use Wikipedia. For general questions, use WP:Reference Desk. Land_speed_record might be what you are interested in. RudolfRed (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The fastest car on the planet is the ThrustSSC, but it isn't a production car and cannot be purchased. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- ThrustSSC is a single vehicle which broke the land speed record in 1997 and is in a museum so if "is" implies currently operating then it also fails. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
No page creation restrictions!
[edit]where can I ask that the page creation rectrictions be removed? 2603:8001:6940:2100:8A58:E42:3ACF:9A69 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are different types of page creation restrictions. What do you have in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- For an anonymous IP address, page creation restrictions cannot be changed. If you want to create a page, you can create a draft and submit it for review. See WP:AFC for instructions. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, but where can i make a proposal for the removal of anonymous IP address page creation restrictions 2603:8001:6940:2100:8A58:E42:3ACF:9A69 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there's Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but don't even try, you would be wasting the community's time. There are good reasons why, which have evolved over the decades Wikipedia has been running. If you want to create an article, follow the instructions at WP:AFC. Otherwise, create an account and get enough activity to get autoconfirmed, and you can create pages, but as a new contributor it's still a good idea to use WP:AFC and submit drafts for review.
- What possible reason would an anonymous IP address have to create a page directly rather than via the process already available? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, but where can i make a proposal for the removal of anonymous IP address page creation restrictions 2603:8001:6940:2100:8A58:E42:3ACF:9A69 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Vincent Van Patten
[edit] Courtesy link: Vincent Van Patten
There is no mention on Patten's page about his role on the 70s television series "Hawaii Five-0". Te86O62%orro (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then find a reliable source (not IMDB) and add it in. The series isn't mentioned in Vincent Van Patten and he isn't mentioned in either of the Hawaii Five-O articles, so it's possible that you may be mistaken. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- As Anachronist says, IMDb isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia articles; that aside, it does not list Vincent Van Patten as appearing in the show, but does say that Joyce Van Patten, his aunt, did – a possible source of confusion. The relevant entry reads "Joyce Van Patten: Lila Daniels / Rhoda Lovejoy (2 episodes, 1970–1972)." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Are Wikipedia templates Turing complete?
[edit]It seems to me like someone skilled with templates could write a text adventure game with them.
Dvallin (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not by themselves no, templates do not write data. You can use templates to run Lua but I don't think that's what you're asking. Somebody has created The Wikipedia Adventure though. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Templates could write data with a twist. If a template had to write data it could generate a link where the url contain that data and on a click the pagename could contain that data. So every click is a clock pulse. 2A02:3032:304:A5C6:2013:F147:E32C:1E64 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I want to know how weather works
[edit]OK please tell me how it works 132.147.192.240 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Check out the article Weather. If you still have questions ask at WP:Reference Desk. The Teahouse is for asking questions on how to use Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
My daughter is the last of famous bloodline
[edit]Hello, my daughter is the last bloodline of General Gordon Meade. I want to add her to his page. She is 12 and I want her to be proud of her family and learn all the history Amcraig82 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Amcraig82, whether you have in mind General George Meade, the poet Gordon Meade, or somebody else, your daughter is most welcome to read the article, to learn from it, and to be proud of her family. But she has no place in the article (unless reliable sources with no connection to her have described her and her relationship with the subject of the article). -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, I'm from the bloodline of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, and I don't add my name to his article. See WP:NOT. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention that Matthew Fox and Mark Rockefeller, both related to George Meade through his daughter Sarah Wise Meade, would likely be surprised to find out that neither they or their children actually exist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, I'm from the bloodline of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, and I don't add my name to his article. See WP:NOT. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since you want these things, you should just tell her yourself. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
"Karwal" Article without any single source
[edit] Courtesy link: Karwal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article I want to highlight with the moderator have lack of dedicated consensus material or any significant acquisition to make it occurrence in main space, so I think this article should be intervened by some expertise . DISCOVERY OF HISTORY (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DISCOVERY OF HISTORY, your move to draft was reverted because the article is too old to send back to draft space. Please have a look at the messages on your talk page. If you think this article should be deleted entirely -- that is, you think there are basically no sources about the topic in existence anywhere -- then you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DISCOVERY OF HISTORY, I've proposed the mentioned article be deleted. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- So thats what i an looking to sort this out thanks for assisting me out I appreciate it@AlphaBetaGamma DISCOVERY OF HISTORY (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DISCOVERY OF HISTORY, I've proposed the mentioned article be deleted. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The article is not "without any single source"; it quite clearly cites "The 2011 Census of India for Rajasthan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I gonna admit
[edit]Wikipedia donations are NOT NEEDED, you may say why? Well Wikipedia earns 154,7 millions dollars as of 2022. All that money goes to the ones that maintain Wikipedia, however the ones who converted Wikipedia in what it is today are THE USERS. The users, admins, and stewards who have created many articles don’t receive nothing. The donations only end up in the ones who maintain Wikipedia engine, but not it’s articles, which let’s gonna admit is not too hard to maintain. Wikipedia has just text, and the images aren’t even of Wikipedia but they are of commons. With this I’m not disrespecting this wonderful encyclopedia nor it’s users who have created this wonderful articles. Just that I feel that the users should gain something, because they are spending their time editing and fixing Wikipedia and they are not receiving nothing. That means that They are WORKING FOR FREE. The Wikimedia ones also are working but by less time that the users, and the Wikimedia ones are getting all the money, and the users nothing. I already said this but I gonna say it again, IM NOT DISRESPECTING THE USERS NOR THE PERSONS WHO WORK TO MAIN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. But rather I’m saying this because all reasons gave above, truly disappointing. Protoeus (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation which hosts, amoungst many other things both Wikipedia and Wikicommons. I'm not super knowlegeable about web severs and whathaveyou but I'm glad someone is keeping an eye on them. You're under no obligation to donate to that if you don't want to. What do the editors get out of it? They get Wikipedia. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Protoeus, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not the place for a rant against the Wikimedia Foundation, which has no day to day involvement with developing content on Wikipedia. If you do not like the WMF, then don't donate any money to them. As for me, I donate time to improving Wikipedia as opposed to donating money to the WMF. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of donation is to keep the Wikimedia projects alive. But it's not necessary to donate as the WMF has sufficient funds to run for one and half decades. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Yeah, I feel that it’s better collaborate to edit to Wikipedia, instead of donating for them. I knew the teahouse wasn’t for this, but I needed that some important people here know that. Protoeus (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Protoeus, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not the place for a rant against the Wikimedia Foundation, which has no day to day involvement with developing content on Wikipedia. If you do not like the WMF, then don't donate any money to them. As for me, I donate time to improving Wikipedia as opposed to donating money to the WMF. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Protoeus, for a better understanding of the depth and breadth of the Wikimedia Foundation's activities and responsibilities, you might find these articles helpful:
- On the English Wikipedia: Wikimedia Foundation
- On Meta-Wiki: meta:Wikimedia Foundation
- If you'd like a better understanding of the motivations, viewpoints, and advice of volunteers who create, monitor, and maintain the actual content; you could spend many evenings reading over 2,000 essays that they have written on a wide range of Wikipedia-related topics.
Reliable sources
[edit]How can I determine if a source is reliable and considered widely useful of the English Wikipedia? When I say sources in this instance, I mean websites. What qualifies a website to be considered reliable, independent and investigative? Wår (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome. Please read about reliable sources here but in short, a source is reliable if it has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- they don't publish stuff without checking for accuracy and without someone other than the writer looking at it(i.e. an editor). This disqualifies things like most blogs and podcasts(though not all). 331dot (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you @331dot. I do appreciate. Wår (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Creating an article about someone we have little information about
[edit]I want to complete the list of Alaafins of the Oyo Empire, that is my goal.
Problem is, between two very important kings there was an unimportant one who had little to no change in policy and is overlooked by most sources and that is why my article draft was rejected.
I do still want to have an article that can at least give information of what we do know and make it so you can click through via the succession - predecessor links. Jupiter Omishola (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Oluodo
- Hi @Jupiter Omishola: that is a laudable goal. Alas, there is an inherent difficulty in writing an article about a subject that isn't covered in reliable sources. Wikipedia essentially summarises what reliable published sources have previously said about a subject. Moreover, for a subject to be considered notable, coverage needs to exist in multiple such sources. If sufficient sources don't exist, they cannot be summarised, and hence no article can be published on Wikipedia. I'm not saying categorically that there couldn't be an article on Oluodo, only that the single source your draft cites isn't enough to base one on. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I found another book that talks about him in slightly more detail. Would that suffice? Jupiter Omishola (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jupiter Omishola: impossible to say without knowing what book it is and what is says about the subject. But as a general comment, in order to establish notability we normally require three solid sources. (I say 'normally', because it's not a hard rule, and exceptions could be made both ways, depending on the case.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In looking at articles about the other Alaafins of the Oyo Empire, many cite a book by Samuel Johnson, and have no refs other than Law and Johnson. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- That partially is also my goal for the other articles on the Alaafins, to find more credible sources and expand the articles as they are often just one sentence oblivion. Jupiter Omishola (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have now found a third reputable source talking about him. I will include as a reference in my draft and reapply for publishing Jupiter Omishola (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Jupiter Omishola! I hope you succeed in finding enough sources for a separate article about Oluodu, as I agree with your remarks about using the succession and predecessor links. However, if you cannot, I suggest that alternatively you could add a Section about him to the article about his predecessor or successor, and create Ouodu as a redirect to it. Good luck. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I hope I can convince the staff he was notable enough, if not I will probably do your suggestion. Thanks for the kind words Jupiter Omishola (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've accepted this. Well done @Jupiter Omishola for finding more sources. Poor man didn't get a proper funeral, but at least he now has a Wikipedia article! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- thanks @DoubleGrazing you were very helpful Jupiter Omishola (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- A point needs clarifying. There is no "staff" on Wikipedia. There is no editorial board, no central authority on content. There are only volunteer editors like you and me. Put another way, you are part of the "staff". ~Anachronist (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've accepted this. Well done @Jupiter Omishola for finding more sources. Poor man didn't get a proper funeral, but at least he now has a Wikipedia article! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I hope I can convince the staff he was notable enough, if not I will probably do your suggestion. Thanks for the kind words Jupiter Omishola (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Jupiter Omishola! I hope you succeed in finding enough sources for a separate article about Oluodu, as I agree with your remarks about using the succession and predecessor links. However, if you cannot, I suggest that alternatively you could add a Section about him to the article about his predecessor or successor, and create Ouodu as a redirect to it. Good luck. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In looking at articles about the other Alaafins of the Oyo Empire, many cite a book by Samuel Johnson, and have no refs other than Law and Johnson. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jupiter Omishola: impossible to say without knowing what book it is and what is says about the subject. But as a general comment, in order to establish notability we normally require three solid sources. (I say 'normally', because it's not a hard rule, and exceptions could be made both ways, depending on the case.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I found another book that talks about him in slightly more detail. Would that suffice? Jupiter Omishola (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirection pages to a page that merely mentions the title
[edit]This is a general query. I found a redirection page Palki Sharma that redirects to Firstpost. The Firstpost page does not even have a section about Palki Sharma. It merely mentions her as Managing Editor once. Is this standard? I don't think so.
There are far too many names of people (Even on Firstpost) who don't have an independent pages. I think it is not advisable to create a redirection for them, unless they at least have significant mention on the related page or a section dedicated to them.
There are mentions of Executive editor and Deputy executive editor as well who don't have a redirection. Managing editor, also is not a significant role for a redirection. Although, she has wide media presence, we can create an individual page for her. Just curious about the redirection to a page that merely mentions her name. Waonderer (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just going to provide a general answer to your general query: When it comes to redirects, a mention is better than nothing and redirects are cheap. I would just like to mention that you should always check both 'what links here' and the page logs (I suspect your question may have been a bit different if you'd seen them). -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Coronation Street
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My Name is christopher cogan i love to take part of platt family i don't know my actor name if you pick my name i love born 1970's or 1980's or 1990's my actor is not christopher cogan that's my character name Benjamin j. Davis (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Benjamin j. Davis, this is a help forum for editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Qcne (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Coronation Street, i do have a question about editing wikipedia my name christopher cogan i am charater my name is christopher platt on corrie
- can you helping my actor name and date of birth real life Benjamin j. Davis (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Note:User seems to be WP:NOTHERE judging by their talk page. We're sorry, but Teahouse will likely not be able to satisfy your request. Have you tried asking it on the relevant Fandom page instead? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Coronation Street, i do have a question about editing wikipedia i am charater my name is christopher platt on corrie
- can you helping my actor name and date of birth real life Benjamin j. Davis (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- As ABG said above, no, we cannot. 126.33.64.135 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
IP Block question?
[edit]My IP was blocked when I attempted to create an account. I submitted an appeal explaining what I believe had happened and attesting to my updated knowledge of newer Wikipedia rules. It gave me a link where I could check on the appeal, but that link does not work. I just get an error. Can anyone tell me how I can check on the status of my appeal or how, if ever, someone from Wikipedia will get in touch with me about it? 130.44.145.55 (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, since I was not able to create an account, I don't understand how I am supposed to find out that my appeal has been seen. I cannot log in. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your IP is not blocked otherwise you wouldn't be able to post here. What was the name of the account that you tried to create? Perhaps it did not conform to our Wikipedia:Username policy. Did you try using a different name? Shantavira|feed me 15:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The name of the account was VoltaireHollande. Actually, that was my second attempt, which I realize after reading the rules I should not have attempted. I frankly no longer remember the original. I believe what happened is that I had not turned off my VPN. Since I thought that was the problem and it still would not allow me to log in with 130.44.145.55 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since that happened, I then tried to create a new account (later reading this was against the rules). And no, I am not logged in. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, I ended up on Teahouse because it is possible to post here without logging in. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- We don't have any user named VoltaireHollande ([17]). I also don't see any blocks on your IP at all. So as far as I can tell you're clear to create a new account named VoltaireHollande from the IP you're currently at, and nothing should stop you. It's possible that you'll get blocked on this new account, for ban evasion, but then you can explain this to the blocking admin, who will actually have the information required to help you out. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- So how do I get in touch with the blocking administration. I don't want to attempt creating a new account since I read that this was against the rules. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I already put in the appeal acknowledging that I had read the rules, and that included not attempting to create another account. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's okay to create another account now. I presume what happened to the other one is that you were blocked because you were on a VPN at the time. If that's the only reason, simply creating a new account is fine. If your earlier account was blocked because of some other misconduct you haven't mentioned, it's possible that an administrator will block you for ban evasion, at which point you can explain what happened like you've done here. But since we can't look up your old banned account from your IP address, there isn't anything else we can do to find the other account you were blocked on. -- asilvering (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- We don't have any user named VoltaireHollande ([17]). I also don't see any blocks on your IP at all. So as far as I can tell you're clear to create a new account named VoltaireHollande from the IP you're currently at, and nothing should stop you. It's possible that you'll get blocked on this new account, for ban evasion, but then you can explain this to the blocking admin, who will actually have the information required to help you out. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you need an account to be able to edit but it is generally possible to post to Talk without logging in. The block came about when I was trying to create an account to edit. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, I ended up on Teahouse because it is possible to post here without logging in. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone knows how I can get in touch with the blocking administration without having a Wikipedia editing account, I'd much appreciate it. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In case the comment above is not clear, you can create an account at your current IP (130.44.145.55). In the off chance it is blocked for ban evasion, you can talk to the blocking administrator then and get the account unblocked. You don't need to talk to the 'blocking administration' now. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since that happened, I then tried to create a new account (later reading this was against the rules). And no, I am not logged in. 130.44.145.55 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The name of the account was VoltaireHollande. Actually, that was my second attempt, which I realize after reading the rules I should not have attempted. I frankly no longer remember the original. I believe what happened is that I had not turned off my VPN. Since I thought that was the problem and it still would not allow me to log in with 130.44.145.55 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your IP is not blocked otherwise you wouldn't be able to post here. What was the name of the account that you tried to create? Perhaps it did not conform to our Wikipedia:Username policy. Did you try using a different name? Shantavira|feed me 15:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Adding a subpage to an existing article
[edit]@Johnjbarton: I have been around awhile, but I have never added a subpage to an existing article. It seems like this would be a good way to extend an article without bloating the article. I would like to have advice. Is it a good idea? Is it a bad idea. Can it piggyback on the references already in the parent page or does it need its own, full, citations? Does it inherit notability from the parent page. For example, if there is a page X that has content about Y, can I create a subpage X/Y where I move information about Y and perhaps add information. Is this non-controversial. Do I need to meet all the new page creation guidelines? Constant314 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Constant314. Subpages are not permitted for articles, and that function is disabled in the software. Please see Wikipedia:Subpages for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Splitting for the procedure used to deal with the type of situation you describe. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Constant314 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Splitting for the procedure used to deal with the type of situation you describe. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Answered Constant314 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Religious institutions
[edit]Can we add a list of all churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, etc. to an article about a city? 73.170.137.168 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)