Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Nonsense Placeholder[edit]

How may I create an article?[edit]

This may come off as stupid, but how can I create one? Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cyb3rstarzzz, reading WP:Your First Article should teach you all you need to know to get started. 👍 Ca talk to me! 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users of all experience levels--beginner like you or veteran like me--are encouraged to use the Articles for Creation (AFC) process, which also provides the Article Wizard to start things off. If you need help with sources, talk to someone with WP:Library access (me included) or at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and they'll help you out. Also, what Ca linked to earlier on. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the notable (lots of secondary sources) subject that you wish to write about? 98.248.161.240 (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyb3rstarzzz See Lorem ipsum, a popular "fake latin" text that is quite popularly used in English writing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics in article[edit]

Are lyrics allowed in song articles? I know a guide to line dancing songs such as Cha Cha Slide is not allowed as Wikipedia isn't a guide. Cwater1 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not, as they are copyrighted. More information is available at MOS:LYRICS and WP:LYRICS. Some portions can be used for analysis and illustrating specific points, but not the whole song. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see, makes sense. We don't want to do something unauthorized. Thanks for the help. I was wondering. Cwater1 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a rare exception in the event that a particular line or verse takes on cultural significance. MinorRefiner (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aragonese isn't spanish[edit]

The @ was first used in Aragon, in an aragonese text (the Taula de Ariza). Not in spanish, aragonese, yet it was discriminated against by JMF, who belives Aragonese to be a simple dialect of Spanish.


At sign this is the page where it is wrongly claimed the Taula de Ariza is spanish and here User talk:JJBBSS 02 is where JMF discriminates against Aragonese. JJBBSS 02 (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current edition of the article appears to correctly identify the document as having been written in Aragonese. This appears to be a content dispute over the "has commonly been used in X,Y,Z", where JMF is not suggesting that the terms are interchangeable but that Spanish deserves the weight in that sentence, which I'd concur with. Its not so much about leaving in Aragonese, but that leaving out Spanish would be an odd choice. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the whole "Spanish Taula de Ariza" which isn't spanish? JJBBSS 02 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone reading that far would think that 'Spanish' in that context was referring to the Spanish language. -- D'n'B-t -- 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RealMRCarty[edit]

im trying to put myself as a artist for my fans to know more about me and would like the help of making this happen Jonathan Carty (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonathan Carty. Absolutely not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not an advertising platform. Please go elsewhere to promote yourself. Qcne (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahosue Hosts are here to advise, not be co-authors. And beware of commercial cites that promise to get drafts accepted - most of those are scams. Wikipedia advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO) and definitely does not exist for promotional efforts. Your draft was Speedy Deleted. If you are truely famous, in time a person with no connection to you will submit a draft about you. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well good day to you also im not trying to promote myself, im trying to put my life on black & white not promote so next time you speak to me know how your speaking because there many people also on wikipedia . as humans 87.214.89.24 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alumnae[edit]

Another editor and I have a disagreement over at Wells College's talk page. There is a section on significant alums. the other editor wants them to have links supporting their significance; whereas I think that simply already having a Wikipedia entry is sufficient. What is the policy? Thanks. Kdammers (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page does not exist. Is there a typo in the link? Bduke (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I left off the S on Wells. I've added it. Kdammers (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Wells College. As Category:Wells College people already lists faculty and alumnae, unannotated lists would be pointless. I'd say that yes, each annotated entry should be referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdammers Please see WP:ALUMNI for the policy. Shantavira|feed me 08:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:ALUMNI is about articles about secondary schools, not tertiary ed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Does it specifically say that? I can only see "school" which also applies to colleges and universities in the US, and some teaching universities or colleges in the UK and elsewhere. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. Take a look at the very first paragraph of that page. (What's written elsewhere about tertiary education may for all I know be the same. Perhaps I should check, but I plead laziness.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Thanks. I've heard "alumni" or "alumnae" (here in the UK) applied to universities and colleges (e.g. [1]); the more recent trend for secondary schools or their equivalent to use it is inconsistent and less common. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alumni article is not clear on this point as far as I can understand it. Although it refers to secondary-education institutions, the advice in schools/article advice (note: not directive) includes this: " When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced." so, it seems to me references are not needed for alumnae with Wikipedia articles. I looked at a few schools (Lawrence University, Beloit College, Reed College), and saw that most of the alumni have refs for the first two but none for the third. Kdammers (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watervliet[edit]

At this page, under “history” where the paragraph starts “As of February 2020…” there’s information about the police chiefs. I tried to add a page “Joseph L Centanni” that which would be a clickable link with additional information. I tried to use the tutorial to add it but it didn’t work. That said, I tried to link to the page but it still is not a “clean” look. Can you give me advice on how to fix it?

) TY!

Dcent0514 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page link: Watervliet, New York Dcent0514 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dcent0514. We do not currently have an article on Joseph L. Centanni, so you cannot add a Wikilink to it. If you believe that Centanni meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so that there could be an article written about him, then you may add a Wikilink looking like [[Joseph L. Centanni]], which will display as Joseph L. Centanni - a redlink indicating that its destination does not currently exist.
If you mean a link to an external source, then no, we do not put external links in the text of an article. They may sometimes be added to an "external links" section at the end of an article, but there are restrictions on what links may be added, and it would not normally include information about a police chief. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the red link part :) and added content to it. It did say it doesn’t exist. Once I add content, how does it then become a “live” or blue link? Dcent0514 (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcent0514: When the page is created, the link will turn blue automatically, its part of the MediaWiki software "magic" RudolfRed (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I submitted it correctly :) it says it will be reviewed. Is it normal it is showing as regular black text until the page is approved? Dcent0514 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcent0514: It is black because user @Magnolia677: undid your edit that added the Wikilink. RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did @Magnolia677 undo my edit?
Is my page still submitted?
It’s confusing so I’m just checking :) TY! Dcent0514 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted your draft, but it has been declined, as you can see in the message on your user talk page (and a message from the editor who undid your link, explaining why).
Wikipedia only hosts articles about subjects which meet its criteria for notability - which generally means that there is enough independent reliably published material about them to base an article on.
Your single source is not enough to establish that - and though it does appear to be reliable, and is partly independent of him, it seems to be pretty run of the mill coverage of an officer. What is it about him that makes him notable? ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcent0514: Draft:Joseph_L._Centanni is still submitted, as you can see by the note at the top of the page RudolfRed (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquestion[edit]

What's that itch I get when I'm on vacation and still want to edit Wikipedia even after I've written and published all of my unfinished drafts? (not sure if this is the right place to ask this) TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if it's good or bad that there might actually be an answer, but wp:addiction might be it
write your will, for it may already be too late cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on acronyms[edit]

this might be the single stupidest question i've had to ask for the stupidest possible situation (probably editing a single letter in slapstick (disambiguation))and i'm honestly ready for the stupidest answer possible

is there something in any manual of style about whether certain acronyms that start with consonant sounds if pronounced like acronyms or vowel sounds if pronounced like words (or vice versa), like snes and lolk, should be written as if they were pronounced like acronyms or words? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stupid question. But it's not one to worry about. Just write it in the way that feels best you to you. There are people with strong views about such things; just relax and let them sort it out and possibly argue with each other about it. Maproom (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cogsan, for starters, the two buzzwords involved are acronyms, for the pronounceable ones, like NASA or UNICEF, and initialisms, for the ones you have to spell out, like, LGBT or SPQR. The way you should write them is a different question, and should match the way it is written in the majority of reliable, secondary sources in English. Mathglot (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page for someone I know[edit]

Hello,

I've been meaning to create a page for a scientist who passed away, who has been in Elsevier's most impactful scientists for four years in a row, and has diagnosed a disease that is listed on Wikipedia (this page is not in English unfortunately). Because I know this person and I am related to them, I've been hesitant to create their page on my own, because I read that it may be against the rules. Should I do this, or if possible, can I suggest that someone does this?

Thank you, Bahar Bhrsnr (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bhrsnr. Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. Wikipedia established the Articles for Creation process that allows you to write a draft article that will be reviewed by experienced editors. Please understand that an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes published reliable sources, so you need to "forget" or set aside anything you know about your relative. The notability guideline for academics is important. Your first article offers some useful advice. Cullen328 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

db-spam|help=off - How to solve[edit]

I created a page for myself. I am newbie and trying to update some missing info. but i got this meesage. How can i solve it? Yagizyavuzyildiz (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yagizyavuzyildiz. You can click the blue button to contest the deletion. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Writing an article about yourself is not a good idea. WP:NBASKETBALL is also worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I really appreciate your reply. I Clicked the blue button and provided why it should not be deleted.
I hope if you can check..
Best Regards, Yagizyavuzyildiz (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yagizyavuzyildiz, you have not contested the speedy deletion. Perhaps you did not click "Publish changes". Did you read the links I provided? Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yagiz Y. Yildiz and Draft:Yagiz Yildiz have both been Speedy Deleted for beng promotional. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and User:Nuel Jr who worked on those pages has been indef'ed for WP:UPE. DMacks (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"who wrote that?"[edit]

has been persistently failing for several days now FYI soibangla (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're referring to mw:Who Wrote That?. DanCherek (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: You should ask at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Support_desk. You might also want to check out WP:WIKIBLAME. RudolfRed (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soibangla, Or more locally, at mw:Talk:Who Wrote That?. Mathglot (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

help with placing a figure[edit]

I am trying to add a figure at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predatory_publishing&action=edit&section=9 , but it does not come up in the right place/size. Can someone more experiences fix this problem? Thank you in advance, Walter. Walter Tau (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what you do specifcally want, so we're somewhat guessing about what a "fix" would be. But for example, I did something.[2] You had said "|thumb", which sends it to the left or right side and by default makes it smallish. You wanted it to be content itself, so it needs to be larger and ideally in the text flow itself. See Help:Pictures for details of the layout options. But editorially I think the image itself is not appropriate. If placed as an image that will fit on non-huge screens, it will be too small to read easily. If it's large enough to read, it will not fit on screens. And as a policy concern, is it a copyright-violating cut'n'paste from a non-free journal article? DMacks (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked the image source, and confirmed that it is not licensed compatibly with commons (it's the -NC variant of CC). So this issue about placing it is moot. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Tau: Textual content must not be images. Read MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. MOS:ACCIM has some more helpful tips on using images. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of copyright?[edit]

Issues of copyright? Are all Wikipedia files copyrighted? I wish to use a portion of Wikipedia file in an application for a grant to support a film on the subject of the Wikipedia file. There are other non-Wikipedia writeups on the subject of Wikipedia's file, but the Wikipedia files is well researched and well written and I wish to use a good portion of it verbatim. Can I? HKB3HKB3 (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HKB3HKB3: Are you asking about images or text? All text on Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and can be reused for any purpose if you provide attribution. See Wikipedia:Text_of_the_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_4.0_International_License. Most images are licensed similarly, although some are in the public domain free of copyright, and some are used under WP:NFCC and are not freely licensed. You can click on any image you are interested in and it will show you the info for that image. RudolfRed (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content RudolfRed (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HKB3HKB3, please be specific rather than vague. Which file? Some files on Wikipedia are in the public domain and can be used without any restrictions. Most files are copyrighted and then freely licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Such files can be re-used for any purpose with the restriction that the creator of the file must be attributed. A minority of files are restricted by copyright, and are used only in accordance with Wikipedia's stringent policy on use of non free images. These are low resolution images of iconic photos, portraits of dead people, corporate logos, and book and music covers, film posters and the like, used for identification purposes. So, give us the specific file name and we will explain its status.
Also, please keep your section headers concise. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened section header, as duplicated word-for-word in content. David notMD (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to rename my sandbox[edit]

i don't know how to rename my sandbox မမိုးသက်သဇင် (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help page WP:MOVE has instructions for moving pages. Since you are not WP:autoconfirmed, meaning you do not yet have 10 edits and 4 days old account, you cannot move pages yet. You ask somebody else to move it at WP:Requested moves. Ca talk to me! 06:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just realized you have an account on Burmese Wikipedia. The procedures may be different for the Burmese language edition of Wikipedia. Ca talk to me! 06:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check my article[edit]

Hello. I am BeauSuzanne. I have recenty made an article but it was moved to draft. I was told that it's sources aren't good enough. Check someone check it Draft:Yasmeen Tahir.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

You can click "submit for review" for an WP:AFC reviewer to check your draft and decline or accept it into an article. Ca talk to me! 09:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am going to click for review. But can you or someone can see the sources. I just need to be sure if it's good. I take sources from International English Pakistan News such as The Nation, Daily Times, ARY News, The News International and from Urdu news as well.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@BeauSuzanne: If you are confident in your editing, then submit it for review. If you are not (which, from your comments above, you seem not to be), then don't and work on it a bit more. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about her grandparents' and parents' achivements does not belong in the section about her early life. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the material about her parents and grandparents shouldn't be in the draft at all. You've given wikilinks to our articles about them: any reader who's interested can follow those links. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident about it. I am very sure about soruces I did alot of research but I will do some more just to make sure everything is right. And should I add like Family background something.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Descriptions of parents' and grandparents' achievements do not belong int this article. Therefore, no need to reference that content. Enough that their names (and those of two of Yasmeen's children) link to existing articles. David notMD (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page disclaimers about translation if content is removed[edit]

I'm currently rewriting an article that was originally a machine translation of another language Wikipedia. If I were to rewrite every single bit of text myself, which I feel I may have to because of quality concerns, would the talk page still require the disclaimer? It seems misleading to have that information on the talk page if the content has been removed. I'm also pondering whether WP:TNT would apply here given issues with machine translation and factual accuracy. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, can you link the article you are talking about? Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feline hyperthyroidism, admittedly there are far worse machine translations and I don't think deletion would occur. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traumnovelle, by "disclaimer", I assume you are talking about the {{translated page}} notice at Talk:Feline hyperthyroidism. The short answer is: yes, you can remove it if it no longer applies. Wikipedia has requirements for attribution of translated text based on Wikimedia's Terms of use (sec. 7c), but this applies to the edit summary preserved in the page history of the article page, not to the talk page. (This attribution requirement was satisfied in this edit.) The talk page notice is nice to have as an aid, but it is not required by the ToU (nor does it satisfy them). Therefore, if you were to rewrite the entire article, the talk page {{translated page}} notice would no longer be accurate, and therefore should be removed.
Note that if any of the content you add in your rewrite involves translation from German Wikipedia (or any other one) be sure to follow the policy at WP:CWW and apply the proper translation attribution statement in your edit summary. This is required per the Terms of use. I hope this answers your question. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that answers it all, thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription[edit]

I'd like to write an Article: should i Subscribe? Do I need to Pay? 151.37.114.48 (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just Signed Up. Rfeeeeeefmrreijngviuefalnkj (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New editors are advised to learn the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia by working to improve existing articles before attempting to create a new article. When you are ready for the latter, see WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rfeeeeeefmrreijngviuefalnkj, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
I will echo what David said: many new editors expect that writing an article will be as easy as creating a page on social media, and have a frustrating time, because we have quite strict standards about verifiability and notability and other matters. I strongly advise that you do not even think about writing a new article until you have spent at least several weeks working on existing articles and understood some of our core principles.
You absolutely do not need to pay anybody. Many people choose to make donations to the Wikimedia Foundation (and many do not), but there is absolutely no connection between any donations and what happens to your edits: nobody editing Wikipedia has access to records of donations.
If you are contemplating paying somebody to make an article for you, I would advise: don't. Nobody offering such a service is in any way authorised by Wikipedia, and many of those offering are simply scammers. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is asking you to pay to create an article, then it's a scam. Ca talk to me! 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like an article about me on wikipedia[edit]

I would like to be a part of Wikipedia , please suggest me, I wrote an article on myself, but it is on Speedily deletion. Please suggest me, how my name could be a part of Wikipedia.

Can my wife write an article on my self?

Can I include links of my organization and university, my youtube page in my article Shaharyar Sarkar Khan (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't. You are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself, and you are prohibited to use Wikipedia for any form of promotion. Check out alternative outlets where you can write about yourself. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, no. If you are so famous that people with no connection to you know about you and have published about you in reputable places (newspapers, magazines, websites, etc.) then in time, perhaps, someone with no connection to you will create and submit a draft about you. At present, it appears that you are a film director for advertisements with a social media presence but no one is writing about you. Your Youtube page does not contribute to Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

convertion of a redirect page to a normal Wikipedia page?[edit]

How to convert a redirect page to a normal page Neutralhappy (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhappy Which page do you want to change and why? Shantavira|feed me 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the redirect page's name is a suitable name for the topic. This is the page I would to get converted to a normal Wikipedia page.   Neutralhappy (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Neutralhappy. Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis) is already an article, not a redirect, so I'm not clear what you're asking for. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related pages are not appearing. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine I'm not sure what's going on here but this version was an article until User:Neutralhappy added a redirect template to the top in this latest edit. I'm going to revert that now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the article at Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis) should be listed among those on the DAB page Samastha but I leave that for others to determine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia currently has two articles, Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), about different organisations. Both are Sunni; neither article explains what "AP" means. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhappy wanted to split Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama into two articles because the organization is split into two factions [3] (they don't seem to have actually merged). They created the page Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis) for one faction and tried to change Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama to only discuss the other faction. It is unclear whether the two factions should have separate articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the related pages are not appearing. Will it take time? Neutralhappy (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "related pages appearing". What page links do you want to add to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), and where in the article do you want these links to be? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the article, just like any other article that shows three related pages at the bottom part. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon: by "related pages appearing", the user is referring to a standard feature on mobile view where if you scroll to the bottom of any normal long-standing article, there are links to a random set of three related pages that appear, and for some reason on this newly-created article, this feature doesn't appear. Left guide (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now it appeared. And thus the problem got solved. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should it made to a redirect page? If so how to create a new page? Neutralhappy (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now its related pages began to appear. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I am a member of the Water Positive Think Tank and have been involved in drafting the Wikipedia page about our Water Positive Initiative. To our surprise an individual made major modifications of the text, changing its page name, deleting sections regarding its history, changing its intended content and defining purpose. The inventors of the Water Positive Initiative were deleted along with their photos and volunteer members on the Water Positive Initiative (Water Positive Think Tank.

I spent all night trying to correct these changes but was surprised this morning to find the site blocked my phone IP address and put the site under vandalism protection. Furthermore, I received a response to my email of a threatening nature.

Please advise on the proper steps to take. It appears that the attempt of the corrector is to try to insert another organization within this initiative who are not the inventors of it. Greentn2 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greentn2 both of you are in the wrong here. I appreciate that you decided to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you are trying to promote an organization (in this case Water Positive Think Tank), then Wikipedia is not really the right platform. Wikipedia is firstly an encyclopedia.
If you are being paid to make these edits, then you are actually required to disclose that you receive compensation for editing.
You should talk with Techlang who reverted your edits. They are being harsh, but the core idea is what I said above, they thought you were just spamming content about Water Positive Think Tank (thinking it was vandalism). We like to call this process Bold Revert Discuss. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Water Positive Think Tank is a volunteer group. We were not paid for contributing to Wikipedia nor does the organization have commercial interests. The purpose for our contribution was to provide information and accurate description of its history, objectives and goals. We felt that some current information was distorted, and I tried to make the proper corrections, but I am not very familiar with the most efficient way of correcting the document. You may review the history of my input and make a determination which I will respect. I would like to bring to light that the mail sent to me by Techlang ended with a threat which was inappropriate and prompted me to reach out to Wikipedia as opposed to communicating with this individual directly. There are other actions taken by Techlang which you may judge for yourself and hopefully reverse them. Please examine it. If you are unable to see his letter to me, please inform me and I post it for your. Thank you for your comments and advice. Greentn2 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greentn2: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, the article started off focusing on the concept of water positivity and you were the one who added the organisation. As you have a conflict of interest, I would have reverted you as well as some of the language used was promotional or otherwise inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please disclose your relationship, preferably on your user page, and make edit requests on the article's talk page instead of directly adding the text into the article.
That said, there was no reason for Techlang to move the page, as it was fine before and the current title goes against the Manual of Style's guidelines. It would have been preferable for the two of you to have discussed the issue beforehand. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the page-move and left a warning for Techlang about several of their behaviors. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification and comments. I am new to linked and though I have read much about it. I am still learning. Greentn2 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Water positive. The dispute, evidenced by additions and subtractions, is how much if any information should be present about the Water Positive Think Tank, if any. At present - 5 July - is is a short section with no references. Other content also lacks references. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maproom removed all mention of WPTT. Reason given. I agree. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David. The initial article has been altered to such a degree that the mention of the Water Positive Think Tank in its current form appears out of context with the Water Positive. The previous context started with a chronological review of Water Positive, which did not include the Water Positive Think Tank.
“Water Positive” has been expanded to include the application of Non-conventional water resources, which affords the opportunity to revisit the issues of water safety, sustainability, and security in light of new water sources that can be added to industrial and some forms of domestic water use. This is a novel development ascribed to two individuals removed from the text. I think chronological relevance is essential, as is the mention of the evolution of the concept. I believe the Water Positive Think Tank is essential to that chronology (but should be revisited to ensure that its mention meets Wikipedia standards).
I will not participate in making comments on the document following the instructions of the Platform for “conflict of interest” as suggested.
David, I want to express my sincere gratitude to you and your team for the invaluable help and the much-appreciated clarifications you have provided. Your support is instrumental in ensuring the accuracy and timeliness of the information on the Water Positive page. I leave it to you, your team, and the community to decide the outcome of this page. Thanks again! Greentn2 (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your intervention. Your edits are clear, and we appreciate your input. Please understand my reason for decommercializing the page.
@Greentn2 Thank you for your understanding. Next time, we'll discuss changes beforehand. Techlang (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Advice from International Students in Art and Design in the UK[edit]

Not an issue for Teahouse. Referred elsewhere
 – This is a place for asking for help using Wikipedia. You might try the reference desk Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am looking for international students studying art and design in the UK. I have some questions and would appreciate any help.

Please contact me

Thank you! Article Of The Day (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parimatch company support[edit]

Parimatch company support 43.224.111.114 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about using Wikipedia, please rephrase it more comprehensibly. -- Hoary (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Parimatch does include the fact that the company went defunct in 2023, so support now seems unlikely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a picture[edit]

How would I add my late fathers picture? Kathleen Fitz (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathleen Fitz There are two steps in adding pictures to WIkipedia articles. The first is to upload the image to our sister project Wikimedia Commons and the second is to incorporate it into the article about your father. From a copyright point of view, it is important that you took the picture with your own camera, so you are entitled to license it as required. Follow the "wizard" at commons:Special:UploadWizard and return to this thread for help on the next stage. I assume that your father is Joseph T. Fitzpatrick and strictly speaking you have a conflict of interest in writing about him. I'll explain that on your Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

Should the people at Wikipedia make it so that if there's a film but it hasn't been released yet in a persons reigon, the plot should be hidden for them to avoid any spoilers? Al3xaSp3aker (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Al3xaSp3aker No, our guideline is explained at WP:Spoiler. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original author of article. HELP. What do I do?[edit]

My AfC (Draft:Hailey Welch) was declined because Haliey Welch, was already in the mainspace. This prompted me to look into edit history of Haliey Welch, and the edit history shows it was created 15 minutes after my draft was submitted and created. I created the article first and the edit history shows the user who published Haliey Welch, to mainspace did so 15 minutes after I created Draft:Hailey Welch and submitted to AfC.

This morning the page Haliey Welch, still seemed to be a very closely paraphrased version of my article submission, but has now been changed. I spent a lot of time and care on creating the article draft, and am the original author, so I'm asking for some assistance and guidance here

There is an AfD for Haliey Welch, and this situation is a bit frustrating, but I feel my copy was written in a more encyclopedic way than the paraphrased second version the user published in the mainspace. Just looking for justice and credit here.

Hope this makes sense. Thanks to anyone who can provide insight :/ Comintell (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the initial state of your draft compared to the initial state of the article by BullDawg2021, they don't seem particularly similar apart from being about the same subject. It doesn't seem like your draft was closely paraphrased, but rather that you got caught up in a very unfortunate timing situation. Others may have different opinions.
Courtesy link to the AfD. I note this is also at ANI.
Comintell, you must feel very frustrated right now, and I'm sorry about that. I've twice had article sections I massively expanded WP:SPLIT to daughter articles for which another editor got initial authorship credit. For me, it didn't feel like a big deal. There's no glory here.
I don't really have advice, except that you've brought this to enough fora. It's always possible the AfD will close as delete. Best, Folly Mox (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's demotivating to volunteer editors, if they created an article first, and spent time making sure it was well crafted, to disregard their work and allow a draft that was submitted after theirs, on the same subject, by a different editor, to be approved. Does that make sense? Comintell (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, it makes sense to me, and I'm sure I would be disappointed (at least), frustrated, and maybe worse. Those are all human reactions. It would be bad to make a decision based on those emotions, though, especially if anger is in the mix there, somewhere. It's an unfortunate situation, but it sounds like you are here for the right reasons, and I'd hate to lose you as an editor, just because of this one event.
Why not let the emotions of the moment subside for a few days, and either work on something else here, or even just take a short wikibreak, and go out and hit a few tennis balls, or whatever you enjoy doing; then come back when the dust has settled. It's all about improving the encyclopedia, right, so if the other editor did a good job, then in the end that's a good thing, isn't it? If you believe your draft has content that is worthwhile, and is not covered in the article written by the other editor, then feel free to merge or copy your stuff into the existing article (with citations to reliable sources, of course). Normally, if you copy stuff from one article to another, you would have to attribute it in the edit summary, but if you copy stuff you yourself wrote, you don't have to do that.
So, take a break from that draft, and then see how it goes in a few days. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page, if you want more encouragement, or ideas. I really hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, I certainly understand the demotivation and frustration. If we take BullDawg2021 at his word (WP:AGF), he created an article on the same topic as you did at the same time as you did, without awareness that you had been hard at work on a draft of the same thing. The article Haliey Welch was created directly in mainspace, so no one from AFC approved his version to "jump the queue" over yours. AFC is optional for all but the newest editors.
Since it seems that you and BullDawg2021 were unknowingly racing one another to finish this article, one of you was bound for disappointment and work wasted. It's really unfortunate this happened, but no one caused it to happen.
I'm sorry you're feeling demotivated and I hope you'll continue to stick around, even if you feel like you need a bit of a break right now. Folly Mox (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bible[edit]

the bible specificly states the James the Just was brother of Jesus/lord. James the less was Zebedees brother. James Zebedee dies long before james the just. Jude is also brother to this James the Just, he wrote te epistle to james in our bible. judas was brother to both james and the lord as stated by those mentioned at the church in mark 1. 2603:7080:BF3F:6BF:9CDC:8BEA:D1E0:68C6 (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you would like to se a change made to a Wikipedia article. Most of our articles (not the more sensitive or controversial ones) CAN be edited by anyone. But all content must be supported by relibale sources. The Bible is not regarded as a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me how to look at the deleted version of down-ball page?[edit]

Could you please show me how to look at the deleted version of down-ball page Rockycape (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can. TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADMINs can see the deleted version. I can have a look it for you and possibly email the content to you. (Got a few things to do right now, but back in a few hours.) I might be a bit biased, though: I have fond memories of playing versions of that playground game in two different states. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes please - and thanks, rockycape Rockycape (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on my first wiki page[edit]

Hi, I would like to request feedback on my first wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZenSunflower/sandbox1 ZenSunflower (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming multiple pages with the same request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox content was Speedy deleted and User:ZenSunflower indefinitely blocked. And it was not Zen's "first wiki page", as editing history shows several Speedy deletions on other attempts. David notMD (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a second draft[edit]

During the reviewing of my draft, can I start a second one if I saw a subject that possess no Wikipedia page? WikiPhil012 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPhil012 you can create as much drafts as you'd like using the article wizard. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Certain restrictions apply). Folly Mox (talk)
You have created and submitted three drafts, all of which have been Declined once and two, twice. I recommend you focus on those before starting another. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bug with article preview[edit]

So I've been working on the article Downtown One without publishing it, and a few minutes ago I decided to release it. The problem is, the article preview shows a completely different article, which is List of tallest buildings in Albania. When I click on the preview, it still goes to the Downtown One article. I don't know if this is a common thing, but yeah. It's definitely odd. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be something to with Downtown One previously being a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Albania, though the redirect was delated back in Aug 2023. (I have no idea why that might be so - just a guess.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd report it, but the Phabricator login isn't working for some reason. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermmind, I reported it at the Village Pump Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awards nominations count[edit]

Hi,

Regarding the award list articles, I need clarification on how the nomination count is calculated. Suppose an actor received 7 nominations, of which 3 are wins. Is the total count of nominations 7 or 4? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anoopspeaks: that would be a total of 7 nominations. A nom is a nom, whether it results in a win or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anoopspeaks and DoubleGrazing: No. Template:Infobox awards list#Parameters says: "nominations | The total number of nominations, not including those won." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: thanks. I knew I should have checked and not just assumed. :)
I'm off back to school! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter,DoubleGrazing Ok, so what about award list articles like this Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu#Multiple nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoopspeaks (talkcontribs)

@Anoopspeaks: That's different. When discussing "most nominations" it should always include wins. Wins are often excluded when both wins and nominations are mentioned in the same place, and nominations are not compared to other nominees. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

faithful photographic reproduction of a three-dimensional, circa 1575, work of art (jewelery)[edit]

Is this considered Public Domain? 98.248.161.240 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chequers Ring 98.248.161.240 (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you click on the photo the licensing information will be displayed. Shantavira|feed me 08:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring the matter of "Chequers Ring" and only attending to your first question. Unless the turning-into-a-photograph process is in the public domain (because the photo was first published more than X years ago, is by a photographer who died more than Y years ago, was explicitly donated to the public domain, etc), no. See c:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#When_should_the_PD-Art_tag_not_be_used?. If you have follow-up questions, please ask them not here but instead at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create a draft on a subject that someone else already submitted to AfC?[edit]

Lets say someone creates a page about a fisher named "John Smith" and submits it to AfC, and it either gets declined or is un reviewed. Am I allowed to create "John Smith (Fisher)" about the same subject, and submit it through AfC as long as the article content is different? Comintell (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, one thing to know to start out, is that a "decline" is not the end of the road for a Draft; you can improve the draft, and submit it again. And if it hasn't been submitted (or even if it has) you can still keep on improving it; nothing is stopping you from doing so.
Another thing is that Wikipedia is above all a *collaborative* volunteer effort to build an online encyclopedia. One consequence of that, is that nobody owns any page anywhere on Wikipedia (not even your own User page, although by convention you get a lot of latitude to set it up the way you like). So you have the same right to work on the draft as its creator or anybody else.
So, rather than create a second draft on the same topic, which might be considered a WP:POVFORK—something that is frowned upon—why not just improve the existing draft? As a courtesy, if there has been only one editor active at the Draft so far, you could start a new discussion on their Talk page, mentioning that you have some ideas that might revive the Draft and get it approved, and see how they respond. This isn't required, per WP:OWN, but is a nice, collegial gesture showing your respect for their efforts thus far. If you don't hear back within a decent interval (a few days to a week should be plenty), then just go ahead and start improving the draft on your own. Maybe they will come back, and you can both improve it together. How does that sound? Mathglot (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked hypothetically, because this happened to me: Draft:Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the the substantial similarities between my draft and the draft that got accepted thru afc which came after (my draft) possibly suggested that the second article/draft (Haliey Welch) may have copied content from my draft without the editor making significant original contribution or proper attribution. Comintell (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, if that is the case, that would be a violation of our Terms of use. First, assume good faith; then, what I would do in that case, is to let some uninvolved editors look at it by raising a discussion about this at WT:CWW. Give them the links, ask for feedback, and see what they think. It could be that the other editor might have to repair the missing attribution, if it is determined that they essentially copied your content. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this in the thread above, but in case it's missed: Haliey Welch was not approved through AFC. It was created directly in mainspace. Folly Mox (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell Setting aside the discussion about copying, any number of drafts about a topic may be created within our rules. Only one (if any) will be accepted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, I suggest that you stop quibbling in multiple forums about who was the first to write about this dubious WP:BLP1E topic. If you really believe that this topic is notable, then improve the existing article and explain at AfD why it should be kept. You do not get any brownie points or social capital for being the first to write about a sleazy topic of dubious notability. Do the work to show notability instead of complaining so much. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell Having answered the technical question, I have looked at both the draft and the current article. I would have declined the draft and have suggested deletion or draftification of the article at the AfD. I have made a firm suggestion there thsat interested editors work together, collegially.
Reinforcing Cullen328's message, no-one gets brownie points for being first. This is a collaborative project. Please collaborate. This is not a battleground This is an encyclopaedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for the advice. @Cullen328 and FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk Comintell (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attention[edit]

Recently I was edited short description of football player Emiliano Martinez of Argentina.But,later I was informed that those information that I added looked unprofessional.

I was die-hart football supporter.I added those information by analysing different journal and from my experiences. I was shocked and upset. Mirajul Hasan (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mirajul Hasan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately your knowledge and experience (like my knowledge and experience) is not relevant to a Wikipedia article, except in finding and selecting appropriate reliable sources to cite. All information in a Wikipedia article - especially one about a living person - must be available in a reliable published source. If you have a source for the information you want to add, cite it (see REFB). If you haven't, and it's your own opinion or experience, then I'm afraid it can't go in.
In particular, no Wikipedia article should ever make a subjective statement like "Regarded as one of the best goalkeepers in the world" in Wikipedia's voice. It can say "Joe Bloggs in XXX magazine described him as one of the best goalkeepers in the world", with a citation to the source; but a Wikipedia article should never make an evaluative claim like that. ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirajul Hasan: Your edit [4] had other problems. You placed your text before the hatnotes ({{for|...}} and {{redirect|...}}). They belong at top. You duplicated the opening sentence. Your edit summary said "Short Description" but that's not what you edited. You used VisualEditor which has a "Short description" box at the top. It's not a heading for the following text. It's a button you can click to change the short description "Argentine footballer (born 1992)". The post at User talk:Mirajul Hasan said "did not appear constructive". I disagree with that. You did some things wrong and it was right to revert the edit but it looked like good faith mistakes by a beginner and not what we normally call unconstructive. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Talk Page Comments[edit]

The Bobbie R. Allen Talk Page contains rude comments, and I would like to either delete them or archive them and not create an uproar by the writer. Can I get some help on this? Wdallen49 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wdallen49 is this about Chris troutman's comments at Talk:Bobbie R. Allen? Per WP:TPO, you are not allowed to remove or alter others' comments, unless it is a personal attack or purely disruptive, which their comments were not. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 13:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments seem pretty tame. No comment on the notability of the subject or which sources contribute to establishing that, but the citation style of that article is... I hesitate to use the word incorrect, but I'm off to fix it I guess. Folly Mox (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait hang on how many of these sources are primary materials that have been uploaded to Commons? This is weird. Folly Mox (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wdallen49, are c:File:Natl Aircraft Accident Investigation School Photos, 1963 - 1965.pdf et seq really your Own work? I accept that you're a family member of the subject per your declared COI (thank you), and that you probably have these materials in your possession physically, but that's not how copyright attribution works. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three family photos deleted for claim as "Own work". David notMD (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD@Folly Mox He created his own BLP. Almost all the edits are his. This is not acceptable. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that a lot of rather serious research went into this article, but Wikipedia really isn't the proper venue to publish it. Sources like c:File:Cold Cat Shot Photo Sequence, Bobbie R. Allen, 1953.pdf, c:File:Bobbie R. Allen, Travel - Passports.pdf, File:Cdr Bobbie R. Allen, Commanding Officer, VS-721, Berlin Crisis 1962.pdf, this official letter from the Pentagon hosted at google drive, etc: these are obviously difficult to obtain sources that could really help inform a biography of this subject, but none of them can be used as sources for a Wikipedia article.
Wdallen49, have you considered submitting this for publication somewhere? Alternatively, have you considered Wikibooks? Sources for Wikipedia articles need to have been published somewhere already. The applicable policy is Wikipedia:No original research. Folly Mox (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article edited. I'm not sure how much of the Commons material is properly licensed, but most of it appears to be {{pd-usgov}}. I am real bad at copyright so that could probably use a double check.
As foretold, I did fix the raw url citations to files uploaded to Commons and to here. Removed citations to entirely unsuitable sources. Added Template:Primary sources, which along with MOS issues is probably the biggest remaining problem. I didn't verify any claims.
This concludes my accountability. Folly Mox (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no just kidding I missed several citations to Wikimedia uploads formatted in cs1 templates 💀 Maybe later, Folly Mox (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nereidagarciaferraz draft declined for lack of reliable sources[edit]

I have been trying to publish this article about artist Nereida Garcia Ferraz and its been declined for lack of reliable sources.

Whenever available online, I have added notes at the end of the sentence. Sometimes 2 or 3.

I had a huge list of exhibitions but because of the year they took place there is not information online so I removed those. I have added references and cites from online sources other that her own website but they seem not to be sufficient. Can you help me understand what else I can do?

Thanks!

Draft:Nereida Garcia Ferraz Bzbustamante (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online, a hyperlink is useful, but not essential. Paper sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) are perfectly admissible provided that the appropriate bibliographical details are given, since nearly all such sources will be held in libraries or archives somewhere. These can often be obtained by inter-library loans, or in extremis can be consulted by visiting the appropriate archive, etc.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Examples. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I wonder if references from online Books reviews when the artist is referenced like this: https://upf.com/book.asp?id=9781683404026 or from Google Books such as this one will be enough?: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Latinx_Photography_in_the_United_States/6a4WEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=nereida+garcia+ferraz&pg=PA109&printsec=frontcover
Thank you in advanced,
Beatriz Bzbustamante (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bzbustamante, your first suggested source is not a book review; it's instead the page about the book by its publisher, the University of Florida Press. It is not disinterested, and can only be used for limited purposes. It does include blurbs written by others. Such blurbs are not usable. Yes, it's possible that a blurb is extracted from a book review; if so, cite the book review. Your second suggested source is a reproduction at Google Books of part -- or conceivably even all (I haven't checked) -- of a book. Cite the book; in the reference, you may also provide the link to the reproduction at Google Books. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Problem[edit]

During the making of my draft, a text has appeared saying: Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox national football team with unknown parameter "Home stadium" while I was making an infobox. A message like this has appeared several times. I don't understand why this is happening. WikiPhil012 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPhil012, parameter names are case sensitive. According to the template documentation, you'll be wanting to use |Home Stadium= rather than |Home stadium= (although someone should probably just alias them in the template code). Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I had difficulty guessing myself. WikiPhil012 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add topic and reply aren't working[edit]

When I try to add a topic to a talk page or reply to a message in a talk page, it does not work, so I have to instead use "Edit" and it's really annoying. Can anyone help? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England 2024[edit]

Hi I just wanted to add that England won the 2024 euros after beating Switzerland, Netherlands and then Spain in the final, but it keeps getting reverted, why is this. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking about what's said in one or more articles. Each article has a "talk page", reached by going to the article and there clicking "Talk". Make your question/request/complaint on the relevant talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and because talk pages are for discussion on how to improve the attached article and not, in this specific example, for speculation on who will win the Euros. CommissarDoggoTalk? 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
England won the Euros beating Spain in a thriller, Albärt[5]told me. That's not speculation that's a first hand source. He's already been telling multiple people that England already won. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your fantasies interest nobody here. You're at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny because Wikipedia is filled with fantasies, and inept people like yourself. No wonder you can only contribute to obscure photography articles, that seems fitting for a feeble-minded dunce like yourself. Enjoy your stupidity while it lasts.68.189.2.14 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isoko people[edit]

Can someone please adjudicate my edit, followed by a revert, to Isoko people. I don't want to get into an editor war. Also, is there a policy prohibiting or allowing redlinks in lists of notable people? Thank you 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Trulyy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are typically not appropriate for lists of notable people, since one common and easy way of verifying that soeone is "notable" is by having an article about them. Sometimes they are allowed if there is is a strong enough reference that supports a claim of presumed notability (that is, someone could easily write a viable article to make it a bluelink) and also that they are actually a member of the group. Wikipedia:Write the article first is indeed a good pointer. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help[edit]

Tonia Woodson has been hurting her daughter for some time. Trafficking her with her boyfriend Marty. Her daughter is now living with an older man over 21. He is trafficking her due to Marty can you please help us find her 64.127.222.3 (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as if you should explain the matter to a citizens' advice bureau. But you're at the wrong place: this is an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why Columbia is considered as female personification[edit]

Not an issue for Teahouse. Referred elsewhere.

why Columbia is considered as female personification? Does this from the antient Myths and legends? while I read that "Columbia is usually depicted unaccompanied and as a goddess-like human. ""carrying telegraph lines across the Western frontier to fulfill manifest destiny.", I both think of myself story. There is unhuman creature inside me, it keep on telling lies, and tell me that it will make me to be the goddness-like human, and it persecute me to be lonely,so i read the "unaccompanied""manifest destiny",sensible. 蔡菲 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@蔡菲: the Teahouse is for asking questions related to editing Wikipedia. Try the reference desk for general knowledge questions like this. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 03:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find its so many rule in Wikipedia. I publish in "talk", they told me talk is for improvement discuss.and block my account in Chinese wiki. I publish in Teahouse, you tell me its for editing wikipedia.
I think I should not publish anything in Wiki. 蔡菲 (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be some confusion here. Talk pages are not forums about articles' subjects and are instead for discussing improvements to articles. You were blocked on zhwiki per WP:NOTHERE and using talk pages as forums, and there's nothing we can do about that here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 03:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Shi Ping to the record of oldest verified people Wiki Page.[edit]

A week or so ago, China's oldest man Shi Ping has passed away and he was at 112 years 241 days old and surprisingly at the List of the verified oldest people he is not listed there. Can some user add him since I am not an autoconfirmed user? I do however have proof of his death and age right here- https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Shi_Ping TAD1993 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAD1993, Fandom is not taken seriously. If you have more authoritative evidence for this, then present it with your request at the foot of Talk:List of the verified oldest people. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article of Shi Ping already has a reference. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to alphabetize a list of people where some of them go by nicknames?[edit]

The List of first ladies of the United States isn't sorted by last name, even though I've seen more lists of people be sorted by last name. I was going to sort the list like that, but then I ran into a problem. Some of the people go by nicknames, which is referenced in article like this: Firstname "Nickname" Lastname. Should I sort by the first name, or by the nickname given? CitationsFreak (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical sorting of people is usually by last name in other contexts (MOS:LISTSORT and WP:DEFAULTSORT). In that case, the only time a first-name or nick-name would be relevant is if the last-name is the same. I do not see any such cases involving nick-named people on that list. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is such an issue with "Eliza Johnson" and "Claudia 'Lady Bird' Johnson". CitationsFreak (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! I'd defer to our WP article itself, which is (presumably) based on various WP guidelines. The page is Lady Bird Johnson, the first sentence is arranged as [first "nick" last], and the defaultsort key is "Johnson, Lady Bird". So in this other context I would write [first "nick" last] an sort by the nick rather than the first. Given that's the only(?) example and it's just two names, worst case is that readers see one pair in an unexpected order but can still easily see them both and find the one they want. DMacks (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'll sort by nicknames in these cases, with a note explaining that fact. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify[edit]

I found both Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup and Category:Articles needing cleanup. Both are sorted by month. I thought it was possible that the first one contained all pages, and the second one contained only articles, but this does not appear correct as both contain almost entirely articles. Please clarify why these two separate category systems exist. 2601:644:9083:5730:240E:C260:4C41:7F43 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it's likely that there are, at this time, just no other types of pages that have been marked as needing cleanup for the former category. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their histories show that Rich Farmbrough created both. So if you're really interested in their respective purposes, you could ask him. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent updates on political figures and positions[edit]

There needs to be some updates on new information at the article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and another British political positions as well as political figures can someone be kind enough to add some new information on these new articles and expand them and update them as quickly as possible? in Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article you have to expand the authority powers and constraints section of the article and needs to add legislative powers executive powers of government policy and term limits. These are the topics that need some updates and new information. Can somebody do this? Altonydean (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

129 KB (14,062 words) - 23:04, 5 July 2024 2600:1016:B04C:17E5:0:29:CFCA:5E01 (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Omonuk[edit]

Hello i request for support on my page. I have more references about the subject Draft:Nicholas Omonuk Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga you asked the same question at the AfC help desk. Please see the responses you recieved there. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 10:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]