Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

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

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

Rager7, don't make redirects that are merely descriptive; your example would work better as a {{short description}} than as a redirect. Feel free to make a redirect whenever some reliable sources use that name for it, or when it is a frequent search term that will help users find it. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Rager7 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

 

Avienby: Always use the Show preview button before you publish! Mathglot (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avienby: another workaround is to enable "prompt for edit summary" in preferences. I enter edit summary after proofreading, and seeing preview. So in case I accidentally click "publish", a page is not saved without the edit summary. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

However, I am confused by your mention of external links within the main text that need to be removed. I'm pretty certain that I didn't put in any, and I don't see any now. I believe there are external links only within the "External links" and "Video clips" sections, and in the Website entry in the Infobox. I assume these would all be proper places to have external links, since I don't see any alternatives to that for these locations. Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.bobbs: I believe Michael D. Turnbull might've been refering to the embedded links to Wikipedia articles found in the Gary Stockdale#Video clips. You can convert those to WP:WIKILINKS. He could also been referring to the links to YouTube videos in the same section. Those aren't really needed from an encyclopedic standpoint, particularly since a link to the main YouTube channel found in the "External links" section. Finally, the section probably should be renamed to "Filmography", "TV appearances" or something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.bobbs As you say, there are still external links to YouTube videos in the "video clips" section. These are somewhat hidden, since you have just a full stop associated with the URL, giving as the final example (backup vocals). In my opinion, you should either be upfront and have the link associated with the name of the video or, more in line with the first paragraph of the guidance at WP:EL External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article, not include them there at all, relying on the proper external links and/or infobox sections of the article to provide readers with them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I don't understand what you mean by "just a full stop associated with the URL". I don't know what a full stop is, or what the alternative is, or how to achieve that alternative.

I also don't understand what you mean by "have the link associated with the name of the video". How does that differ from what I did?

By "more in line with the first paragraph of the guidance at WP:EL", I guess you mean that the former "Video clips" section (now named "TV appearances") is considered to be in the body of the article (I had thought that this section was not in the body of the article), and that it should all be moved into the "External links" section? Maybe I could use "TV appearances" as a subheading under "External links", and move all of those YouTube links, with all the bulleted descriptions, there? Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A full stop or period is a punctuation mark at the end of a sentence. If you look closely at my above reply and the section Gary Stockdale#TV appearances you'll see that you have managed to create external links by placing URL into brackets [ and ], where the syntax is [URL .] The reader sees a small . symbol that, when clicked, takes them to a website outside Wikipedia: that's the definition of an external link rather than a wikilink. I was suggesting that this is against the guidance, summarised at WP:ELPOINTS and that if you want to break the guidance (which I don't encourage) you should use an entry like "You Don't Know" by Gary Stockdale.... and so on. Your suggestion to move all the TV appearances into the External links section would be fine, especially if linked as I've illustrated here so the links are obvious. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.bobbs Apologies, forgot to ping you to my reply you might otherwise miss. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I don't understand what you mean by "the embedded links to Wikipedia articles found in the Gary Stockdale#Video clips. You can convert those to WP:WIKILINKS". Those "embedded links" are already WP:WIKILINKS, aren't they, so how could I convert them to what they already are?

I don't see how including a link to Stockdale's YouTube channel takes the place of specifically listing his few most noteworthy YouTube videos. The reader is left to wade through many dozens of videos on his YouTube channel, the great majority of which are really not noteworthy, which is not very helpful.

I changed the "Video clips" section title to "TV appearances" as you suggested. Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.bobbs: I'll respond to your comments, but first please take a look at WP:LOGGEDOUT for reference; hopefully, you'll read that and understand why I suggested you do so.

Regarding the links, I somewhat misread that particular section, and mistook some Wikilinks for external links. My apologies for the confusion; you're correct the links to existing Wikipedia articles are already Wikilinks.

As for the YouTube videos, whether something is "noteworthy" is a bit subjective and could run into problems with WP:OR. Appearances nominated for major awards certainly should be mentioned and appearances which can be supported by citations to reliable sources are also probably OK, but links to these works aren't really encyclopedically necessary in-body; they might, however, be OK in the WP:EL section. Another issue with YouTube links has to do with WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK. Being posted on YouTube doesn't automatically mean it's OK to link to from a Wikipedia article. For example, the copyright on Penn & Teller's Sin City Spectacular is most like owned/held by its production company, the FX network, and perhaps it writers; those who appeared in the show most likely don't have any claim of copyright to it. If they want to post clips from the show on their YouTube channel then that's their choice, but that doesn't mean there's a need for Wikipedia to link to them. Even when copyright isn't a real concern, if all of the links are to the content are found on Stockdale's official website or social meadia pages, there's no real need to have specific links to them per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL because a single link to main page itself works fine for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot that I wasn't logged in for that one change!

Thanks so much for all the explanation on using YouTube videos. I think I'll try to work the content in the "TV appearances" section into the previous sections in the body of the article, avoiding external links and avoiding citing YouTube as a source, and instead just mention that the video clips can be found on Stockdale's YouTube channel (I guess it's not that big a deal for an interested reader to find the clips there), and then just eliminate the "TV appearances" section. Dr.bobbs (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! I am new to editing and am trying to get a good grasp on things so I started working on one of the articles under suggested edits and Petter Næss was the one I decided to start working on. The multiple issues template stated that "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2020)" and "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (April 2020)."

I made multiple edits, fixing particular dates, re-formatting the layout of the article to define his roles in theater vs. film, and adding more citations for the information already on there. I also changed some wording to better clarify what his film Elling was adapted from.

My question is mostly just if I did all of this correctly? Does it look okay? Did I follow what the issues template was asking to be fixed?

I'm sorry if this is more info (or not enough), like I said, I am a complete novice at this.

Thank you for your time!! Rylieb leelib (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rylieb leelib Welcome to the Teahouse. We encourage editors to be bold and hope they will learn from any mistakes if others revert contributions. Like many articles, that one has already been edited since you contributed to it and no-one seems to have objected to what you did. My own view is that there was no need to delete the external link to IMDb. Thousands of articles have such links and we have special templates for them. You are correct that is not considered a reliable source as a citation but it is fine as an external link, just as external links to a subject's website are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a draft article. Citations, referring to two named items, are being tagged as a cite error. I need to make citations to two items presented in a single reference. As it is now, there is one reference to which I've given a ref name shared in both citations. But I need to refer to two separate items (in this case, info about two specific publications) which are there to be found by scrolling down the web page.

The cite error notes that the reference is being "defined multiple times with with different content" due to the items mentioned in the two citations. What should I do? Of course, I could just make two separate citations, without putting a ref name in the reference template.

Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the system allows a double citation,just split it into 2 UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joel Russ (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Russ, for this case, I'd recommend removing the refnames and appending the section anchor to the URL, so one points to https://wholeearth.info/#whole-earth-review and the other points to https://wholeearth.info/#whole-earth-catalogs

Named references cannot be defined with non-matching parameter values. Folly Mox (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Folly Mox. Would it be possible to direct me to an instance where a "section anchor" has been utilized this way? If so, with such an article example, I could click edit and see how that was done.Joel Russ (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Russ, perhaps this template will help? It's designed for referencing multiple chapters in a single publication, which sounds like what you're trying to do. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Russ I see you currently have two references pointing to essentially the same URL. The template {{rp}} is very versatile since it takes any text as the "page": see its |at=in-source-location parameter. That would allow you to return to using a single named reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a parent, I would like the editors to avoid presenting topics as seen in Did You Know ... on the 2024-11-13 Main Page. Specifically this ... "... that The Cock Destroyers (pictured) released a trans-inclusive sex education video for Netflix before hosting Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer?"

I am not advocating deletion of the articles, only removal from the Main Page. Blanthor (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blanthor See our policy on censorship. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user said they don't advocate its removal from Wikipedia. It isn't censorship to curate the content that appears on the Main Page(where at least some land when they arrive here and can't control what is seen), perhaps to present the least shock value. I don't advocate removing it from the MP, just saying that's the other side. It's for the community to decide- Blanthor, you are free to participate in the processes that decide what appears on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how about inventing a category like "unfit for main page"? 176.4.186.61 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blanthor You make an interesting point. The discussion which led to that DYK appearing didn't take any account of such concerns, and our DYK process doesn't mention this. User:Launchballer, who made that nomination and has extensive experience of the DYK process, may like to comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because the GA reviewer enquired about a red link at Megan Barton-Hanson and I brought it to DYK because I thought it made a good hook (and judging by Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders/2024/November, it did). This was discussed on multiple places at WT:DYK, which found consensus that this came under NOTCENSORED. I don't watchlist this page so ping me if anything else requires my attention.--Launchballer 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello Teahousers! I often lurk around the Teahouse, and sometimes I feel like answering other users' questions, but I do not have the confidence to do so. How can I gain confidence? ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 15:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure your answer will be correct and useful, do it! Worst that can happen is that a more experienced Teahouse Host will comment/elaborate on your answer. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David notMD! Since I'm still a little inexperienced, I think I should only answer a question if I know how to and understand what it's asking, right? Just double-checking :D ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 16:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, start there. David notMD (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BrandenburgBlue, you're aware that "understanding what it's asking" can be a problem. That is perceptive, and encourages me to think that you'll make a good Teahouse host. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom I think I should wait until I have extended confirmed status until I even think of becoming a host, but I'll try to answer questions I understand whenever I have enough time, I'm usually busy ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 20:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How about you start with answers you are sure of and you know are correct?

One of main skill you need on English Wikipedia generally is WP:BOLD. You can also make researches about prospective answers and also observe the manner these questions are answered by more experienced user. I know while it may be rough here, most experienced editors and administrators don't bite. Tesleemah (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandenburgBlue I wanted to add that when I first started contributing on Wikipedia:Teahouse , I was corrected a couple of time. I was told to slow down and not mince words too and I understand this especially for a Non-Native English Speaker like me, That time I used verifiable and notable the same way because I thought they meant the same thing, Now, I'm much better now (I can't say I'm doing it perfectly yet). So, you can start as well. Tesleemah (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how I could cite this source: https://xula.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16948coll16/id/318/ as it has no date and the site is a university. WikiPhil012 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPhil012, you can use the Cite web template. Omit the date and publisher parameters, since they're unknown, but include as much other info as you can (e.g., author, title, URL, website, access date). If you're using the visual editor instead of the source editor, click on the citation button and choose "Manual," then "Website," then fill in the info, leaving items blank if you don't have that info. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPhil012 You can get an initial version of the citation from the URL using citer at toolforge.org. With the URL you supplied, this gives {{cite web | title="City Seal Has Interesting Background" by Richard R. Dixon | website=CONTENTdm | date=2019-10-30 | url=https://xula.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16948coll16/id/318/ | access-date=2024-11-16}} which is pretty easy to tweak into a good citation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://alamedamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Imelda_smallpics_4printing.pdf Oholiba (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oholiba, the guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I won't use it. That's too bad, because it provides a lot of information about Alameda, California. Oholiba (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oholiba, Rjjiii has pretty much answered your question; but this is the kind of question you should ask not here but instead at WP:RSN. If you do so, be sure to describe for what you want to use such-and-such (e.g. this masters thesis) as a source. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be a problem if I use many references to the city's newspaper (Alameda Post) for information about the history? Oholiba (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oholiba not a problem at all. The policy there is WP:PRIMARY. It's formatted in a kind of intimidating way but says that primary sources are accepted on Wikipedia for hard facts like dates and so on. If you have specific questions about a newspaper citation, I'd take Hoary's advice above. Also, feel free to add the master's thesis to the external links section. Wikipedia's citation norms are a bit strict/odd because they're pulling double duty for both verification and for accountability (there's no editorial oversight here and most editors are anonymous or pseudonymous). Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oholiba, I realized later that I was reading your question about the city's newspaper as meaning articles from the city's history (which would be a primary source). If you mean newspaper articles about the city's history, those are secondary sources and also totally acceptable, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I have been involved on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, saying that I think North Korea should, given the abundance of sources supporting this, be considered a co-belligerent in the infobox. Though discussion was progressing, an ECP editor who disagrees with me decided to move the discussion to an RfC, serving to squelch me per WP:GSRUSUKR because I'm not ECP. The justification they gave for the move was to consolidate different threads, which I think is not an accurate justification because all recent discussion was happening on the same thread. I'm not sure how to progress from here— is this an ANI thing? Placeholderer (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Placeholderer. Until you are Extended confirmed, you are not permitted to substantively discuss or edit content about the war between Russia and Ukraine in any way, anywhere on Wikipedia, including here at the Teahouse. So, my sincere advice to you is to cease all editing in this topic area until you reach the extended confirmed level. If you do not stop, you are at a very high risk of being blocked. So stop please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your user talk page, Placeholderer, I see that you were properly informed of the editing restriction at 18:04, 11 November 2024 UTC. You cannot claim that you were not formally advised, and your compliance with that editing restriction is mandatory and not negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that WP:GSRUSUKR explicitly allows constructive comments to talk pages apart from internal project discussions. If the Teahouse is considered an internal project discussion for this purpose then I'd say that's insane and WP:IAR. What I find offensive is an editor (who has been no role model on the page) skipping discussion to go to an RfC. Per WP:RFC "Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC"; also, "If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project". An RfC was started unilaterally mid-discussion for what I see as no valid reason, and in this context that means banning me from the discussion. I'm not sure how I'd "appeal" what I think is inappropriate use of RfC, so I'm asking here Placeholderer (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also clarify that I'm absolutely not looking to delete an already-started RfC because that wouldn't help anyone. I'm mostly just looking for moral support because I'm frustrated by what I think is abuse of wikicraft Placeholderer (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was working on the Quinte Health Care article. The Quinte Healthcare Corporation has changed their name officially Quinte Health. Should the article name be changed to reflect it or a redirect added. CF-501 Falcon (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CF-501 Falcon:! When an organization changes its name, our policy is to wait and see if independent sources begin referring to it by the new name, and to update the article title if they do. (WP:NAMECHANGES discusses the topic in more detail, if you're interested.) If you've found sources that have begun using Quinte Health to refer to the corporation, you can start a requested move discussion to ask for the name change. If the most recent sources are still referring to it by the old name, your best bet is just to add a redirect instead. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of the RfC says "As far as strength of arguments go, the arguments were extremely varied and challenging to weigh" and "Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus". It is just like the consensus was achieved by just having "a numeric consensus" when nothing else overcoming it.

I don't see that the consensus can be achieved this way in WP:CONACHIEVE and I see that there is a explanatory essay "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" and it indicates that this achievement process might be unsuitable.

I'm newcomer here and I may not know the rules. Can consensus be achieved this way? 36.230.24.108 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus isn't determined strictly by polling results doesn't mean that the number of votes is not a strong initial indication of the proportion of support. The closer concluded that there was no policy-based argument for "state" strong enough to counter that proportion. "In favor" refers to the arguments made by those in favor of "state" not a conclusion that the arguments for "state" were stronger. The best way to learn how consensus in an RFC works is to read a lot of RFCs and the closer arguments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who discussed the topic weighed this option against various others, and based on the strong numeric indication came to the consensus that it was the appropriate option. I think they mostly understood there was not an option that was going to please 100% of people. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a frequent user of an open proxy (Mullvad) that, as far as I know, does not support creating exceptions for certain websites. Because I'm privacy-conscious, I would prefer to not have to disconnect from this proxy to be able to edit Wikipedia. However, I do have easy and uncensored access to Wikipedia editing without an open proxy. I understand that I'm nowhere close to the level of trust required for an editor to be granted access to an open proxy exemption, but even if I were would I be eligible to have this access given that using an open proxy is unnecessary for me to edit Wikipedia? Thanks, /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GracenC: See (if you haven't already) WP:PROXY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read it (as well as WP:IPBE), but thanks anyways! In retrospect I probably should have been more straightforward with my question. WP:IPECPROXY says that editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and existing users with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution. Is there any precedent for granting this exemption to trusted users who would use it solely for convenience? /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, as someone with less than 100 edits I do not consider myself a trusted user. I'm just asking for once I become one. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience or philosophy, it is unlikely to be granted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was the response I expected, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks anyways! /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who'd like to help look over the talk page and article edits recently on several relatively low traffic Roman era history articles? My objections, concerns, and advice triggered by recent major edits of Botteville on Sicambri and Genobaud (3rd century) have unfortunately led to unnecessarily (I think) defensive discussion. It might be better to have more perspectives. BTW I have never tried using this forum, but I notice old history project pages look rather dead. Thought I would try it but if this is not the right type of question, I'd be happy to get advice on better alternatives. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's within their scope, but I've notified the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given further development at the article talks, I've notified the military history WikiProject also. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's outside their scope, I think you may have to follow the usual steps on the dispute resolution page. Other questions may be better at the help desk; the Teahouse will answer most questions, but it's intended for new editors. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Lancaster: You could try WP:Third opinion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that project seems active and some feedback has already been posted on one of the two articles. For the time being I hope this is not yet a dispute. But while both of us, the two editors, claim to be experienced a lot of the talk pages posts show that we both think that the other is misunderstanding Wikipedia norms. So potentially this can be calmed down by getting more feedback about what is normally acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a classic experiment that I would like to appear on Wikipedia because it shows the relationship of Vrms from an ac supply and the equivalent dc potential differnece. A draft can be found at Draft:AC-DC light experiment - Wikipedia. I would be very happy if a current editor could help me improve it so that it is acceptable for publication. Many thanks, Iain Iain sci (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Iain sci, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me, I'm afraid, as if you have made the classic beginner's mistake of writing the draft BACKWARDS: writing what you know.

A Wikipedia page is not based on what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows): it is based on reliable published sources: nothing else.

If there are several sources describing and discussing the experiment - each of which satisfies all the criteria of WP:42 - then you can create a draft by summarising what those sources say. If not, then the subject is not notable, and so it suitable for a Wikipedia article.

I can't see your first source - it is giving me a 404, so probably you have an error in the URL - but if that is an article about specifically this experiment, that may be enough to add it to an existing article. ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on getting The Americans to GA status, as seen here. One of the last things to do is group some of the sources together in the Reception section. I attempted but fear I can not understand how it works. Could someone assist me with this? Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Template:Multiref2, as it renders with white space between references (better than Template:Unbulleted_list_citebundle).

Example in my sandbox if you can read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alegh/sandbox Alegh (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I understand it better with the help of this example. Thanks so much! Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed two unrelated incidents of disruptive editing on "Heian period" and its talk page. While they're clearly disruptive, I'm not sure whether they're severe enough to warrant special attention.

The first incident is a series of six edits from IPs from Djibouti, presumably all from the same person, inserting unrelated paragraphs in French into the article. Every time somebody reverts the edit, they usually come back within a few days and add more unrelated text. They've been notified a few times on their talk pages, but only one of those went as far as saying that their edit "did not appear constructive". That's why I decided to leave a clearer warning just now calling attention to the whole series of edits. Is there more that should be done?

The second incident was a topic in the talk page that was just a single, obvious racial slur from a one-edit account, added in 2018. Since it was clearly disruptive, I just deleted it, but is it even worth taking further action since it's so old and the account has no other activity? Angegane (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Vandalism, disruptive editing, original research, non-neutral, and other problem edits happen all the time. We try to clean them up as soon as we see them, but some slip by, especially if they are subtle. Some editors spend a lot of their time on Wikipedia patrolling changes to catch such edits. We even have automatic processes (bots and filters) that catch and revert the more obvious problem edits, but we always welcome help dealing with such edits. If you are interested in helping fight vandalism, please read the policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism to understand what vandalism is and how we deal with it. Donald Albury 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angegane, I see that there's been intermittent disruption on that page over the last 2 months. Re: your first question, I know of two other potential actions (but I'm still not that experienced an editor, so I'm going to ask Donald Albury whether either of these is merited here):

• You can ask for semi-protection of the page. There's general info about page protection here, and requests can be made here.
• You can ask that an IP range be blocked here.

In both cases, a more experienced editor will assess whether to take any action.

Re: your second question, no, there's no reason to take any other action since that edit was made so long ago and the account hasn't edited since. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion: The problem edits to that page have not yet risen to a frequency where I would protect it. Another admin might do so. Page protection locks out good faith editors below the protection level. Blocks to IP ranges often cause collateral damage (blocking good faith editors). I haven't done many range blocks, and I will continue to be slow to do so. Again, another admin who is more used to assessing the gains and losses of a range block might do so. My personal opinion, though, is that the disruption to that page has not yet risen to a level that it cannot be handled by edit revisions, and a notice to WP:AIV if an account or IP repeatedly vandalises. Donald Albury 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Albury, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hypothetical, if a notable/famous person made a wikipedia account using their real name would they have to verify their identity? 153.90.19.67 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REALNAME. Names that appear to be same as notable people may be blocked until and unless we receive proof they are who they say they are. Donald Albury 01:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator who frequently works on username issues. In cases like these, I look at plausibility. If an account claiming to be a very famous person such as Meryl Streep or Donald Trump pops up, I immediately softblock the account under the assumption that these people are unlikely to be editing Wikipedia themselves, and impersonation is highly likely. On the other hand, there is a universe of clearly notable but far less famous people who might be motivated to edit Wikipedia. An actor who had three significant film roles in the 1980s. A musician who had one big smash hit in the 1980s. A politician who served two terms in a state or provincial legislature in the 1980s. I am using the 1980s examples only to indicate that not every username that matches that of a notable person is necessarily an immediate and blockable problem. The content and context of the edits also needs to be taken into account. If the actor account changes a movie release date from 1983 to 1984 and explains why, I am far less likely to block than if the account amplifies a poorly referenced rumor that the actor is guilty of sexual abuse. Hypothetical cases like these are good illustrations of situations where administrators need to use the well-informed discretion that the community has entrusted them with, combined with good old fashioned editorial judgment, which is a precious commodity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just want to know how to delete a Wikipedia page or article that is already accepted and published on Wikipedia. See the linked page that I want to delete below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmong_customs_and_culture#Hmong_New_Year_Festival

Why I want to delete it? The problem is that I don't want it to be merged with another page which is "Hmong custom and culture page". As I said, Hmong New Year should be independent. It has nothing to do with Hmong custom and culture. A New Year is a new year, not a custom and culture. Custom is something that happens frequently in a day, week or month, New Year is not. I don't know why they merged my article with the other one. From there, I don't agree. I want it to be independent and have its own page. If not, I want to delete it. But I don't know how to do it. Would you please help me?

Thanks. 76.156.95.30 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot unpublish something. When you published the material you granted Wikipedia the right to use it. You cannot retract that permission, even if you don't agree with the consensus to merge that content into another article. Meters (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be customary to do things once a year (or even less often), and the things done in this context are customs, just as much as more frequent practices. In Britain, for example, people often talk about New Year customs, and the lede of that linked article includes the sentence "Other cultures observe their traditional or religious New Year's Day according to their own customs." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting "##Location within" on Elmdon Heath, I can't see any field for map caption? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain: Could you please provide more details? I don't see "##Location within" anywhere. What are you trying to do? Donald Albury 14:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was the caption beneath the map in the infobox. I'm not exactly sure why, but this edit appears to have fixed it. Deor (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to make fancy username using various fonts and colors . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SasuraBAdaPAisawala (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from top and added heading. SasuraBAdaPAisawala, a custom signature will be more helpful if you sign your posts regularly; there should be a button near the top with a signature icon no matter which kind of editor you're using. That said, my personal opinion (not standard advice) is to stick with your usual signature until you've participated a bit more and know how fancy to make it without affecting readability (for colorblind people, for example). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I myself coloblind thats why i asked. Please help if you could? SasuraBAdaPAisawala (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to preferences, scroll down to Signature, tick the box which says Treat the above as wiki markup and use the markup specified here: Help:Using colours.

For example: <span style="color:#2F2F2F">SasuraBAdaPAisawala</span> will make your name blue.

Look up colour hex codes and add the hex code after the # 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to publish this article days ago, but it does not appear.

Please publish it. It is the fruit of 4 years digitalization of the 90 compositions.

Greetings from Norway

Torkil B Torkilbaden (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a well-intentioned but improper use of your user page. You should move it to "Draft:Works by Conrad Baden" and work on it there. 27.134.47.136 (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an odd mishmash of compositions and recordings, devoid of even one reference. It won't be published till a lot of work is done to it. 27.134.47.136 (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else answering this question should see OP's userpsge and user talk on no-wiki first; this request specifically seems to come from a discussion where a VRT member posted response to an email on OP's no-wiki user talk. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:Works by Conrad Baden. Separately, there is the article Conrad Baden, parts edited by the Torkilbaden account, that includes lists of his compositions. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Torkilbaden: I have done some formatting on the draft, but it needs sources, which you are best placed to add. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion is that this has no potential to becoming an article. See Chopin for links to list articles of his compositions. Perhaps those can be models for your effort. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unexploded ordnance is currently rated Start class (at least it says so on the talk page), I cannot find the relevant list where it is listed as such, where would I find this? How do I weigh whether it meets the criteria to be upgraded to C, and if it is then how do I upgrade it? To be clear, I do not know whether it constitutes being C class, but I just want to know how the process works more than anything

Many thanks! 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terrainman. You can find out some more about this kind of thing at WP:ASSESSMENT. It's important to understand, though, that even though there are criteria provided for assessing article quality, such assessments tend to be informal in the sense that they're more self-assessments than anything else. These aren't formal assessments like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia:Good article nominations where there's an actual review process and discussion involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrainman, WP:RATER is what I use. It's very convenient. You can also just edit the talk page of the article yourself and change the bit that says "start" to say "C". -- asilvering (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of Rater is that it is more consistent in ratings given than those given by various editors who may have different standards for a given rating. Donald Albury 15:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? You're still setting the rating as you please when you use Rater. It just automates the template editing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rater suggests a rating. I usually accept that suggestion. Donald Albury 00:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's fair to do that, I'd hardly say it's "more consistent". Those ratings are just a machine learning algorithm's best guess. There are a lot of things that fool it into thinking an article is much better than it is. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I've been trying to add a photo to the Efim Yarchuk page because there is a known photo of him. However, I don't know how to actually do it. If you guys could point out what I should do, that would be great! Mr. Anarchyle (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Anarchyle. There's some general information about this in Wikipedia:Image use policy and also Wikipedia:Uploading images. There are two sites images can be uploaded to which allow the image to be used in a Wikipedia article; Wikipedia itself and Wikimedia Commons. You can find out some more about uploading images to Wikimedia Commons at c:Commons:Licensing. If after looking at the pages I've mentioned you still have questions, feel free to come back and ask them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Anarchyle. The copyright status of photos of a Russian revolutionary who lived from 1882 to 1937 can be difficult to determine. As a general rule (with exceptions) a photo published in the United States and many other countries over 95 years ago is now free of copyright restrictions. So such well documented pre-1929 photos can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and re-used by anyone for any purpose. If no such copyright free photo exists because all known photos are post 1929, then there is a specific but stringent and narrow non-free photo exception for notable people who have died. Please read WP:NFCI #10 very carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is a deliberate but I believe useful simplification of the copyright status issues. There are highly paid lawyers who spend their entire careers debating and litigating such copyright issues. Listen to the experts. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I have just bucket-watched the five episodes of 'Time to Remember' currently (16/11/24) showing on 'TALKINGPICTURES' a free-view channel UK. It is in my opinion a masterwork of British social history and deserves a Wikipedia page?

I am happy to research the series and lay some poorly foundations if someone can start the bare bones so that I can use the visual editor or idiots/visual/whatever it's called, page creator (I'm an old git).

The narrators include Sir Basil Rathbone, amongst others.

By the way, I have had a week of dealing with rude folk not showing for appointments, waited in a cold unit last night until five-to midnight for someone to collect a vehicle (wasn't even mine) who finally contacts me at 7:00 am today "I needed your WhatsApp details..." so, the first hint of needless animosity and I will walk away. Not that this will be anyone's loss. Just my new rules. Be kind in your daily life, it will make you a bit more happy.

We now live in a world which is wholly different from the one we knew ten days ago. I have lived my 70 years of always trying to be polite.

I hope anyone who reads this will give the series a couple minutes of their time? It is a gemstone.

I suggest trying 'Turn of the Century' in which Rathbone's narrative is clever, satirical, darkly humorous and way ahead of its time in style & content: "WHAT CAN BE MORE MODERN THAN TODAY? THINK OF IT" which in text, isn't too funny, but imagine Tom Baker voicing it in his 'Little Britain' voice... This is the relentless style of the filmed in B&W Time to Remember'. As left wing as Che - the other one - and weirdly very very funny and poignant. The WW1 episodes are as anti-war as All Quiet, and anything else from the decade following 'Time to Remember' - no 'A' - was made: 1958. Thank you, have a happy day. Tobytronicstereophonic (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! If you're looking to start an article I would absolutely recommend using the Articles for Creation process, which is a user-friendly way to start and work on a draft, which you can then later publish once it's ready. I'd also recommend reading this page which is a simple essay on how to write an article for absolute beginners. If you have any issues then just let me know here! CoconutOctopus talk 12:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you do attempt a draft (VERY DIFFICULT to succeed without first becoming familiar with Wikipedia practices by putting in time improving existing articles) be aware that your own opinions ("clever, satirical, darkly humorous...") have no place in the draft/artcle. David notMD (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobytronicstereophonic A quick look suggests that there are very few reliable web sources available now: only this and this I could find, so you would probably have to look in newspaper archives for published articles made at the time the original series was broadcast and that's made more difficult because of the film of the same name. Your main hope will be to wait a bit to see if the re-broadcasts currently going on prompt TV reviews in reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... you might like to add what information you do find to the article Pathé News, which mentions Time to Remember but is currently in need of better sourcing and expansion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i want to write my article with my name but wikipedia remove my article and say for spam Ahmadii5911 (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ahmadii5911! What was the name of the article and what was it about? Did you create it under this account or were you logged out? CoconutOctopus talk 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Muhammad Ahmad Raza

Can you create my article i will be thankful to you Ahmadii5911 (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmadii5911 If you're looking to create an article about yourself, then unless you are very notable by Wikipedia's standards it will not get accepted. Wikipedia has very strict standards when it comes to who is notable enough to have an article about them. If you're otherwise wanting to learn how to edit on Wikipedia then can I recommend checking out this guide on contributing to the Wiki? It's best to start small until you're confident in what you're doing here. CoconutOctopus talk 12:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, but not to author or co-author articles. I am guessing you attempted to create content about yourself and it was quickly Speedy deleted. Wikipedia is not social media. It does not host people's pages about themselves. Only if you are so famous that people with no connection to you publish about you could those publications become references in an article about you. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me? Thanks! Draft:Beobachter-Philosophie. 213.23.111.86 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search for "Beobachter-Philosophie" furkan demirsoy suggests that this will be difficult to source. Sam Sailor 15:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with this article? This philosophy, for example, disgraced the scandalous concept of the Übermensch used by the Nazis. Friedrich Nietzsche described the Übermensch as merely an illusion, according to this philosophical movement.

https://www.amazon.de/Beobachter-Philosophie-So-sprach-Zarathustra/dp/B0CZ454YSB/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.HttzV59Ik0ycAK1bqT2UDRM30IThHOQwfSmRBddpg6CLicfxaX-BN0sMtNRweFN066s2UPMuJgB8fGjAAWjB--L_8FIZ8W7G52DNVhST1gw.PZpQID_7nnjlh_Kr8Vlt7X2u8xUbX-_YE9qVzvSwA8k&dib_tag=se&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1731772729&refinements=p_27%3AFurkan+Demirsoy&s=books&sr=1-5&text=Furkan+Demirsoy 213.23.111.86 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been declined because it didn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. This was because the sources that you provided did not prove that the subject requires an article. You need to make sure that you provide enough sources that are reliable and independent, which basically means that they have a high reputation and are not related to the topic (See WP:GNG). I have done a quick google search and have found only the link you mentioned as a source. However, Amazon is not a reliable source as it usually contains promotional content. Try to find other sources. If you don't find any sources, then that topic is usually not suitable for Wikipedia. Try to get these issues addressed first before resubmitting. If you need more help or have any other questions, feel free to ask! TNM101 (chat) 16:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, Is there a Wikipedia policy regarding the use of excerpts from podcasts as references? Currently, I can only provide a link to the entire podcast as a source. I have ensured that this specific information cannot be found elsewhere. The content in question pertains to a personal life experience shared by an individual and does not involve anyone else apart from themself, and I am uncertain about the appropriateness of citing a podcast as a source. Thank you! Fenharrow (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I would expect that most podcasts are self-published, and they are not usable for anything other some limited statements about the podcast itself or whoever is presenting the podcast. I can imagine some circumstances in which the presenter or the organization producing the podcast has a strong enough reputation for reliability to accept the podcast as a source, but that would have to be established on a case-by-case basis. The scenario you describe does not sound like it would qualify as a reliable source. If (and only if) the podcast is deemed acceptable as a source, then you would link to the podcast and specify the approximate point in time the segment you are citing begins. Donald Albury 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fenharrow, if a living person has published material about themselves, it's possible to use that self-published material as a source, but there are a few other issues to consider, such as whether the material is unduly self-serving; see WP:BLPSELFPUB for more info. You'll also want to consider the usual issues, such as whether the information is trivia or not. As for citing a podcast, there's a template for citing podcasts that allows you to specify the timestamp. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed on the Japanese Wikipedia that many templates are colored specially, but the English Wikipedia usually does not color them specially unless it is an artist or sports-related. Examples include the Ultra Super Pictures template, the Sunrise template, the Bandai Namco Group template, the regions and administrative divisions of Japan template, the Pennsylvania template, and the New York State template, among many others. Their English equivalents do not have this formatting. Does the English Wikipedia have a process that templates must have the basic Navbox colors unless there is a compelling and convincing reason to not use the standard colors? If so, what is the objective of this procedure? Templates on the English Wikipedia appear to be more standardized than are templates on the Japanese Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z. Patterson: Yes, MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR and WP:NAVCOLOR could be accurately summarized as recommending the basic Navbox colors unless there is a compelling and convincing reason to not use the standard colors. The reasons for this recommendation are explained at those links, but in a nutshell: excessive color variation can be less appealing, less readable, and less accessible. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I just did a little re-work of the bibliography section on Alastair Campbell. I tried to use the "author mask" feature but I don't think I did it right...all of the notes about it I could find were either very vague or very technical, and I frankly wasn't too sure of what I was doing. There's a few outstanding problems with the bibliography, but as for the author masks, how did I do? Please advise. Thank you! SSR07 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here's the link to the specific section: Alastair Campbell#Published books SSR07 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SSR07: There was nothing wrong with what you did, but I set all the values to |author-mask=0, which is better for single-author lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)u[reply]

Nongentioctolillion Googolpie (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Article creation, along with their related pages. Z. Patterson (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Googolpie: Given that there are no Google results for Nongentioctolillion, it's likely that the subject does not meet the bar set in WP:N. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A related reading is WP:CRYSTAL for this specific article suggestion. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - "Good article" has a specific meaning within English Wikipedia. If you mean how to make a draft good enough to be accepted as an article - references, references, references. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Talk:Iron Lung (film) there's a question and I don't know the answer to it. Mrmorson (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrmorson Welcome to the Teahouse. The question was asked earlier today and already has an answer. Please keep the dicussion on that page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said in the title, Is it possible to change my username? Rafplays (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rafplays! Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it is possible. You need to perform a Global user account rename request. You can also see WP:CHU for more information. TNM101 (chat) 07:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just submitted Draft:Miss AI which had not been updated, that was the main reason for the article being moved from article space to draft space. however, as per the suggestion, I updated the draft and resubmitted it for review. Is there anything else need to do to improve this draft.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfectodefecto It won't influence the acceptance or not of your draft but it would help to expand your web citations into full {{cite web}} entries. This is much easier to do than you might expect, using citer at toolforge. For example, your Guardian citation (which is a good one for establishing the notability of your topic) converts to {{cite web | last=Mahdawi | first=Arwa | title=‘Miss AI’ is billed as a leap forward – but feels like a monumental step backwards | website=The Guardian | date=2024-04-23 | url=https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/23/miss-ai-artificial-intelligence-models-gendered-beauty-norms | access-date=2024-11-17}} In this way, we give credit to the person who wrote the Guardian article, as well as citing its date. You can also wikilink The Guardian part to show that it is a reliable source with its own article here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... I've placed that into the draft as a {{cite news}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment is that your citations #1 - #3 are mentioned in the WP:LEAD but not used elsewhere. I always find that odd, since the lead is supposed to summarise the main text, so I would expect a named reference used at least twice. The Guardian citation, for example, could easily be used to expand your draft, particularly as it seems mildly critical of the whole venture. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, Got it. Once I made those necessary changes, I'll inform you here. If anything else left then.. guide me then. Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 16:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, I just fixed those citations... now what should I do.? or it's ok.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfectodefecto You could still incorporate the Guardian's critique into the body text. I would use the quote (properly cited) "AI models take every toxic gendered beauty norm and bundle them up into completely unrealistic package." You'll get further feedback from the reviewer, of course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright. I'll try to insert these info there... many thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 01:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please create :

List of Canadian television channels available in Canada

members:

Documentary Channel (Canadian TV channel)

Category:Canadian community channels

Category:Tamil-language television channels in Canada

Category:Cable television channels in Canada

Bravo (Canada)

Much (TV channel)

YTV (Canadian TV channel)

(more)

... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a worthwhile subject, why don't you create a draft for it? 110.2.106.47 (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So while reading this article Sadiya Umar Farouq I noticed the entire "Controversy" section is from one one news website Sahara Reporters, I looked it up in the reliable sources page and found no consensus regarding it. I think since this is a living person and this section can amount to defamation, it is an important matter that should be examined.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing so I don't know if this is the best place to bring it to attention. If someone can tell me where to bring up similar issues in the future I'd appreciate it. Tashmetu (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask is WP:RSN. 110.2.106.47 (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Tashmetu (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page about a small courtcase but different pages about courtcases are so inconsistant so i have no idea how to format it. for a page about a courtcase what subheadings should i have? and what reliable websites should i use? YisroelB501 (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of the phrase "small court case" makes me wonder if this case receives the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to merit an article- but assuming it does- I would suggest looking at some articles about some high profile court cases(Roe v. Wade, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Marbury v. Madison) to get an idea of what is being looked for. As articles are written by a variety of volunteers, there will be some variation in structure, but the high profile cases should be roughly the same.

There aren't particular reliable sources you need to use- as long as the sources have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control(i.e. they don't just print stuff without checking for accuracy) it should be fine to use. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

by small i mean its not like a huge supremem court case. but i am talking about a civil court case that is covered by the new york times with 2 articles and many other websites. @331dot YisroelB501 (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is generally considered reliable. Websites can range from quite reliable to extreme point-of-view pushers or pure fantasy. Reliability will have to be assessed individually for every website you want to use. Even if you present several independent, reliable sources for the proposed article, notability must still be established. Donald Albury 15:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YisroelB501: Just use the headings which seem appropriate for what you're writing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett that does not answer my question. YisroelB501 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flagicon template can use the name of the country as its parameter or else a three letter abbreviation.

Thus {{flagicon|United States}} or {{flagicon|USA}}

Thus   or  

But what if you don't know the abbreviation and are forced to guess?

Such as {{flagicon|Northern Territory}} or {{flagicon|NTY}}

Such as   or {{flagicon|NTY}}

How does one find the three letter code for say Northern Terrritory?

MountVic127 (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MountVic127! I think what you're looking for is here. TNM101 (chat) 10:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about regions that aren't a country (such as the Northern Territory)? I've drawn a blank when it comes to finding shortcuts for it. BTF Flotsam (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link does contain flags from regions that aren't a country as evident from the first entry which is the flag of Alberta, a province of Canada. However, I did not seem to find the flag of the Northern Territory. It does not seem to have an entry in the list. TNM101 (chat) 12:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MountVic127: (edit conflict) I don't think there is an abbreviation alias for the Northern Territory. At least, that's what I conclude from comparing Template:Country data Northern Territory with Template:Country data New South Wales, which does specify NSW as an alias. (NT is the alias for the Northwest Territories in Canada, by the way. New South Wales appears to be the only Australian state with an abbreviation alias.) Deor (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answers. Solving this problem is above my skill level; what is needed is a search function that given a string such as "Northern Territory" it goes through all the aliases to find a match. ----MountVic127 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MountVic127: What exactly do you want this for? Whether an alias exists for a region seems to depend on whether anyone bothered to create an abbreviation redirect (presumably with the abbreviation chosen ad hoc) to the region's "country data" template. For instance, the country-data templates for the U.S. states I checked don't seem to have abbreviation aliases. Is it so hard to just type in the full name of the flag-bearing region? Deor (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can we please add Sensei Louis Ho as 'notable students' in the 10th Planet Jiujitsu page? And Canada to the countries mentionned? Canada is not "a shit-hole communist country" (Sir Joe Rogan), I promise. We're cool enough to be added to the mix.

Thank u and love u all,

STARID Starid (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources supporting the edit, you should propose it on the article talk page. Donald Albury 15:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starid i have just reverted an IP edit that added Kevin Cherry to the list at 10th Planet Jiu Jitsu. You'll see that this name is a redlink, as is Sensei Louis Ho. The standard for inclusion in lists like these is that the person already have an article about them in Wikipedia (hence is a bluelink) or has citations to verify both that they were indeed students and that they would meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which are described at that final link). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok i was just wondering why nobody has written an article about on groove(official website: https://www.onegroove.world/). also if its made since the creator is the daughter of johhny dyani should those articles be linked? also im pretty sure i cant write it. im inexperienced have bad grammar and have a hard time following all rules(theres a lot) -- XYZJJJ (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Groove can be the topic for an article only if people with no connection to the company? organization? publish about it. Thru a quickie search I did not see any of that. What One Groove says about itself on its own website does not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @XYZJJJ. The answer to a question like "Why isn't there an article about XX" is generally one or both of:

• because nobody has decided to do so, or
• because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - generally, that several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about it at some length and been published in reliable places.

{{find sources|onegroove.world}} does not seem to get any relevant hits, so, like David notMD, I doubt if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

If you think that it does (remember, we are talking about Wikipedia's meaning for the word, not a more general meaning) then you could look for such sources - remember, each source that you find should meet all three parts of the criteria in WP:42. If you can find such sources, you could post a request at requested articles - generally, requests there are rarely taken up, but if you could cite three solid sources, there is perhaps more chance of somebody picking up your suggestion. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thx!

I've been mostly doing copyediting but I want to find sources for articles too. But every time I try to do it, I can't find any sources because I don't know where to look. BadEditor93 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For an overview on finding sources, see Help:Find_sources, though you'll still need to evaluate whether a given source is reliable and secondary. A few sources have been identified as generally reliable in the Perennial sources list. There may not be a reliable source for some WP statements, in which case you can remove the text as unsourced. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BadEditor93: When you have been here a while, you can use the Wikipedia Library, which has its own search engine, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi where is V, L, or U ratings stands for https://starlingdb.org/music/new/Ricky_Nelson.pdf thanks Samchristie05 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Samchristie05, and welcome to Wikipedia! This page is primarily for help specifically relating to using and contributing to Wikipedia; you might have more luck over on the reference desk or on an external forum such as Reddit. Best, CoconutOctopus talk 17:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need more tornado table help. The “Greensburg” section of the table on List of United States tornado emergencies isn’t aligned, and I’m not sure how to fix it. Thanks! E_F⁵ 18:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, issue has been fixed. E_F⁵ 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we enhance the arrangement of references placed within the reflist, like by categorising the relevant sources together? (even if they are used as inline citations in different parts of the article?), thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use several different reflists in one article. Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like Wikipedia for all sorts of reasons; it is powerful after all. How can one get a private version of Wikipedia? How much would it cost? Where would it be based? MountVic127 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MountVic127. The software that Wikipedia runs on is called MediaWiki. MediaWiki is free and open source, and you can host it on your own server. qcne (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you seeking to download Wikipedia, there WP:dumps from which you can download Wikipedia for offline use. Platforms like Kiwix also allow for offline reading. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page uses an inconsistent citation style; some citations are sfn, while others are reference page. I’d rather use sfn as it is more convenient for me, but what should I do? Thank you. Dantus21 (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose. It is against the Wikipedia's manual of style to mix citation styles. (WP:CITEVAR) Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dantus21. The basic principle is to defer to the citation style chosen by the article's creator or its primary contributors whenever possible. Given that an article can be edited by many different people over time, one of the things that often gets lost in that is citation style consistency. People adding citations might not be too concerned as to whether the citations they're adding match up stylistically with the existing citation style. So, absent a really good reason to make a change, you might want to propose it first on the article's talk page to see what others think. There's nothing wrong with using "sfn" as a citation style, but it can be bit tricky to figure out if you're not familiar with it; so, even though it might be personally more convenient for you, it might not be as convenient for others. If that's the style that the article's creator used, then perhaps cleaning things up without discussion won't be contentious. If, however, it was introduced by someone else over the years, perhaps discussion is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. I would like to ask if this was against my user standards on WP and Wikimedia. I have redirected this category to a new one. I did it without administrator's consent beforehand. I'm worried this would go into administrative action against me. Am I wrong for this and should I have it reverted back to its original form? Thanks if any responses. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBrown SPS. WP:BOLD mistakes are, for the most part, are OK as long as you make them in good faith; mistakes only become a problem when you repeat them over and over again, particularly when being advised not to do so. Users don't need administrator consent to make an edit in most cases, and you can probably assume WP:SILENCE until someone reverts the change you made. If that happens, you should try and sort things out through discussion instead of just reverting back to what you think is best, unless there's a really good policy-based reason which makes your version better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is there any way i could have my entire edit history revdeled without contacting the oversight team (i already did—they said they wouldn’t under any circumstance)? im frankly embarrassed about my unhinged behavior back in october. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2. I'm not an admin but I don't think that's possible. There are two types of revision deletion (WP:REVDEL and WP:SUPPRESSION) and I believe you need to be at least an administrator to do either. So, if you're concerned about your past editing history somehow reflecting poorly on you as you try to move forward, I think you have two options: (1) clearly take ownership of the behavior and acknowledge it was a mistake, or (2) try WP:CLEANSTART if you meet its conditions. As long as you don't repeat the same behavior and stay away from whichever articles or pages you made the previous edits, nobody will probably make any connection between your clean start account and your former account (unless you tell them yourself). If, on the other hand, you go back to doing whatever you did before wherever you did it before, people will likely connect the dots fairly quickly and make their concerns known. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t edited using an account, I’m worried about the /64 of my IP address. At a glance no one can see I was blocked in the past or my past edits, but they can as soon as they look at the /64. I used Wikipedia to relieve stress about triggering topics for me by editing articles to the way I wanted them to be. I won’t do that anymore. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:5CCE:2A16:511B:6BB2 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]