Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

New article

How can I create a new translated from uk:Територіальний центр комплектування та соціальної підтримки article with no registration? 46.211.78.23 (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

First, get plenty of practice improving existing articles. When you are improving them successfully, decide if your proposed subject is notable (as notability is defined by and for Wikipedia). If so, then create a draft, basing this on reliable sources (as reliability is defined by and for Wikipedia). In the summary of your very first edit, say that it's a translation of the Ukrainian-language article. Reference your draft, scrupulously. Then submit your draft for promotion to article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou for descrihing a process! But where (what namespace) exactly have I writfe a draft at? Because now it mostly say: You can't create pages as unregistered editor. 46.211.84.183 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest following along with Your first article, which includes an Article wizard button. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.  Draft:Territorial center for recruitment and social support 46.211.98.60 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. Note that notability defined by the English Wikipedia may be stricter than other language Wikipedias. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

i don't see there anything about more strict notabiity. Can you please write where exactly I can read about such notability difference? 46.211.84.183 (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

For more information about what is considered wikinotable on the English Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Notability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hope it has enough of notability already. 46.211.98.60 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

And how to connect it to d:Q56356604? It tells draft can't be connected. 46.211.98.60 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That's correct, IP user. Only once it has been accepted into the encyclopaedia can it be linked to other language articles. ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you in advance. 46.211.84.183 (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Uploading from Openstreetmaps

How does one upload a map from OpenStreetMaps with lines drawn. Please and thank you! Cwater1 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe {{Maplink}} --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I am still learning about contributing. Cwater1 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Prose table needed

To make a point at a Talk page discussion (here) I need an example of an article which contains a Table where much of the content is prose, and not just a bunch of cells with figures or short strings. Can you think of a good example of a prose-full table? Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think pretty much all pages about episodes of TV series contain such table: for example, Doctor_Who_(series_4)#Episodes Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Deltaspace42, very much appreciated! Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why was my article not reviewed?

I've been waiting for weeks for my draft, Fabien Vienne, to be reviewed. When will it be reviewed? Bera678 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe never. That's volunteers for you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's been reviewed four times and declined four times. Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bera678: you've resubmitted it four times. Does that answer your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Now Declined five times. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:N, there aren't enough independent secondary sources about the topic. Stoplookin9 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Is that bad? Bera678 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bera678: It means that if that is all there is to talk about Vienne, then the draft will never make it to mainspace. What irks me when I read it is that it doesn't have a neutral point of view and it comes off as promotional at some points. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Please help me to improve my draft: Bera678 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not an AfC reviewer and I'm not interested in editing drafts. I would ask reviewers who've declined your draft for help, preferably by presenting to them sources that you think are reliable for Wikipedia's standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on sources

This may seem like a stupid question but why are secondary sources more reliable than primary sources in Wikipedia's case? Is it because that they are more factual than them as they are basically just a very thorough analysis (and maybe correction) of the primary sources?

Thanks 2A0A:EF40:1003:E01:B01F:22B6:A0A4:B6FC (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Basically you can't trust the primary sources because they will write about themselves with bias (obviously). And you also need to show notability of the subject because for every subject in the internet you can find primary sources, but they are only notable (and deserve an article on Wikipedia) if they are covered in many secondary (independent) sources. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the (rather speedy) reply! Just wanted to make sure, that's all. 2A0A:EF40:1003:E01:B01F:22B6:A0A4:B6FC (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: you might like to read the essay WP:USEPRIMARY. Not all primary sources are "bad" or "biased" and not all secondary sources are "good". The latter may have mis-interpreted the former. The point is that secondary sources show that a topic is likely to be wikinotable because some independent writer has commented on the primary material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Specifying childen

I am trying to find editing guidelines for specifying children in a biography box. For example, my edit of Natalie Wood's two children was reverted because one of the children doesn’t have her own distinct Wikipedia article "yet". There appears to be a policy involving citing a number and the word "including", but my multiple attempts to locate the help or template, or guideline for this specification have failed. I have two questions, but answering the "how" will answer the "what". That is, what are the guidelines -- where are they described?

But more importantly is: how should I be able to locate the correct relevant guideline ON MY OWN? There are so many guidelines, I don't understand how to navigate or search the guidelines to find answers to specific issues such as typified by this one.

Lastly I have seen hypertext brackets to pages which don't YET exist, and it is permitted. But when I made a hypertext link to Natalie Wood's 2nd daughter and the page doesn't exist YET, the editor reverted my change due to her article doesn't exist. Where can I read about when making hypertext links to nonexistent pages is okay or not? James Rodriguez 17:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodor (talk • contribs)

For infoboxes, the best place to start is the infobox template page, so {{Infobox person}} where there is a section explaining the expectations for the child= parameter: "Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. Names may be preceded by a number to show total children and avoid implying that named children are the only offspring. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable." In general, if you type help: and then some word - help:redlinks - into the search box, you'll be taken to the appropriate guideline or policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Superb. I just tried the tip of searching for "info:infobox" and it took me right where I wanted to go. This may be meta, but how should a new editor have learned that little tip about searching for "help:..."? Obviously there's some basic "how to use Wikipedia help search" stuff i never read from the get-go. James Rodriguez 17:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodor (talk • contribs)

@Jrodor: Most visitors are only readers and we are making an encyclopedia for them so the search box only searches our encyclopedia articles at first and not all the behind the scenes stuff. A search results page has a "Search in" box where you can choose to search other places. In the desktop version of the site ("Desktop" at the bottom of the mobile version), the top right of search results pages have a "Help" link to Help:Searching which explains more. wp: in front of a search is often more useful than help: for editors. wp: (alias for Wikipedia:) searches the Wikipedia namespace which means pages starting with "Wikipedia:". We use those pages for a lot of things. help: searches pages with "Help:" in front. We use that much less. You use the mobile version which omits many interface links and doesn't have the "Help" link. Mobile screens are usually small but I often think the mobile version omits too much. See Wikipedia:Red link for links to non-existing pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Jrodor, good question. If you start at Main page (on a laptop), there is the link "Help" in the meny on the left, where you find a link to "Help:Searching" and there you will learn about namespaces, including the "help namespace". This is not bleeding obvious, but it's there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jrodor: Welcome to the Teahouse! I find searching for a shortcut like "WP:SEARCHTEXT" usually takes me to the right policy, guideline, or essay. For example, I just tried WP:CHILDREN, which is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. GoingBatty (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Notability criteria for a specific restaurant

Hello. I am planning to write an article about a local restaurant. However, I'm not sure if it's going to be notable. What makes a restaurant notable? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hello! See WP:ORGCRIT. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also be careful, if you are an owner of this restaurant or you are working there, it would be a conflict of interest. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, TrademarkedTWOrantula. Please pay careful attention to the section of that guideline found at WP:AUD which says Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Local newspapers will provide run of the mill reviews of almost every new restaurant that opens in their communities, and this routine coverage does not establish notability. Consider an article I wrote about a small restaurant in a very remote area of California, Whoa Nellie Deli. I used sources published in three major California daily newspapers located hundreds of miles away, plus one in Texas, and three national publications, the New York Times, Gourmet, and The Atlantic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

strikethrough of text in the body of an article

i was editing and i clicked on an article that had a whole paragraph of strikethrough text in the lead section of the article. what is this about and should i do anything with that? i've never seen that before. this article Toothlessness Iljhgtn (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Hello! Someone noticed that the text was duplicated but was not bold enough to just remove it, so they put strikethrough. I've just removed this paragraph entirely. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I've looked a bit further in the history, so they removed it entirely first, but they just said "Fixed typo" in the summary, then some other editor saw this and decided to revert this edit because they probably thought that it was just another vandalism. Yeah, that's why you always need to write in the summary why you removed something. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think it looked right for there to be a strikethrough in the main space like that. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Never seen that before.. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

How do I delete my own draft?

I wrote a draft for this restaurant, but after reading WP:AUD, I don't think it's notable. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: You can place {{Db-self}} at the top of the page and an admin will delete it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No more references for my draft

I literally got the only websites on the intenet for my draft Draft:Quizimaze.

The photo lower down is a reference itself for the section questions. Orastor (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Orastor: Sources don't need to be online. If there are no more sources, then the subject is not notable and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. RudolfRed (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor falsely pressing charges for block evasion

Moved to WP:ANI

Need some help improving my own draft

Hello, I would like some help or advice to improve my draft Draft:Tomb Raider I-III Remastered, which is about an unreleased game that isn't out until February (which may explain why my submission has been declined several times before and I really wanted to submit for review this as a real full article). MinionsFan1998 (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! As the declining reviewers have mentioned, the game being unreleased certainly does affect its likelihood to be approved at AfC. I think you've got a really great start here, and I certainly encourage you to keep working on this draft, as more reliable sources come out. If you haven't already, I'd suggest looking at the WikiProject Video Games list of reliable sources, and see if you can find anything new. Being that it's been over a month since it was last declined and it hasn't been edited very much since then, I'll also say that patience is key here, and you'll want to wait until the article has significantly improved since it was declined. Leading up to its release, more and more reliable sources will become available, and you'll be able to get it up to mainspace quality. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline, and good luck! sawyer * he/they * talk 06:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It is an interesting one. It needs to demonstrate notability, and right now that seems to rest on refs 9, 10 & 11, all of which are stories dated 14 Sept 2023 and presumably reflect a press release. Ref 2 appears to be the company producing the remaster (?) and so is not reliable. The wait and/or find better supporting refs seems to be good advice. Presumably there will be reviews in a couple of months, which should help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@MinionsFan1998: Once reviews are published by reliable sources, you'll be able to add a "Reception" section, which will help with the notability requirements. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Solar permitting use

Solar permitting use 49.249.83.10 (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia that's related to solar permitting use? 331dot (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

how cite IUCN website

There is a citation to the IUCN Red List website in the Collared Pika article. I looked at how it was cited, since I wanted to so the same thing in another article. I assumed it would use "cite website" but instead is used "cite iucn". I looked in "Wikipedia:Citation_templates" to get details but it did not appear there. I thought that page had ALL citation templates. Where can I get help details on "cite iucn"? Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sunandshade: Hello! See Template:Cite_IUCN. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give that a look. Just wondering why it wasn't in "Wikipedia:Citation_templates". For us newbies, it's hard to find. Sunandshade (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of bespoke citation templates used in special topic areas. Wikipedia:Citation templates goes over the general ones for the CS1 templates and the sfn / harv family. According to this crude search, there may be nearly 1900 different "cite [something]" templates (although many of them are certainly redirects). Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea. That explains a lot. Sunandshade (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:European_Seniors%27_Union too promotional?

A few months ago I published an article about the European Seniors' Union, which is active in the European Union to represent the interests of older people. It was previously pointed out to me that this article comes across as promotional and relies too much on primary sources. In the meantime, I have deleted a number of items that could be considered promotional. In addition, I have added several links to press websites and independent organizations. I just received the message that my contribution was placed in the draft space because it was still too promotional. Can anyone explain to me what is missing or too promotional in this article?

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_Seniors%27_Union)

Luxil (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Luxil: Hello! Phrases like these: played a significant role in..., The organization is dedicated to..., in response to a growing need..., gained recognition..., develop crucial resolutions..., reflect the ESU's commitment to...

They give the promotional tone to the article and that goes against the neutral-style policy. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why does it show that you sent this message at 12:14 UTC? It's still 11:43 UTC. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Luxii, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me (I have only looked quickly) as if most of your references are either to the Union's own publications, or to official publications of the EU or its bodies.

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

The University of Goettingen paper might be a suitable source - I haven't seen it - but I don't think any of the others are.

Sections - or even sentences - on "goals and values" are almost never appropriate in a Wikipedia article about an organisation, because these almost always come only from the subject. Only if an independent commentator has discussed the organisation's goals and values specifically (and at some length) will it be appropriate to mention them.

The section "Aged people's driving licence discussion" has no relevant citation, as far as I can see: the citation given does not mention the Seniors' Union anywhere, and is therefore of no value whatever for this article. ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

One-line pages

Hi! Lately I have been adding references to articles that have been marked as unreferenced since many years. I stumbled across several articles regarding municipalities in Barbados:

• Baxters
• Breedy's
• Bruce Vale
• Chalky Mount
• White Hill

(there are probably more of them)

They are all one-line articles which provide no added value to the encyclopedia and have been marked as unreferenced since 2009. While populated places fulfill the requirements of notability, I wonder if such articles should be kept on Wikipedia. Today they would not be accepted as a new page.

I tried reading the guidelines for deletion and merging and I didn't find a "best practice" on how to deal with this kind of content. How would you proceed? The pages could possibly be improved by finding sources and additional information, but nobody has touched them for almost 15 years. Broc (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Broc: Hello! You can try searching for sources, but if you can't find anything, then you can nominate these articles for AfD. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Deltaspace42, thanks for the answer. I thought of looking for references, but I was wondering: does an article whose entire content is "Baxters is a village in the parish of Saint Andrew in Barbados." deserve a page of its own? Broc (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

there may be references, but the author just didn't care enough to use them. otherwise, no. ltbdl (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl: then the article should be moved to the draft space, am I right? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

no. the drafitication process is only for new articles (generally, 1 month old or less). although it can happen as an afd result. ltbdl (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42 @Ltbdl thanks for your input. I added references to one of the pages, see this edit. Would you consider the page of sufficient quality? It still seems extremely barebone and I think today it would not be accepted as a new page. Broc (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Broc: You may find more such articles by looking at these articles created by Dr. Blofeld in 2006. GoingBatty (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Vial of Life

Hi, just reporting a couple of possible issues with Vial of Life:

1. Punctuation is poor, e.g., the use of hyphens. One example: is no longer able to express their own preferences - due to illness or unconsciousness.

2. The various references to vialoflife.com/vialoflife.org/"Vial of Life.com" seem to border on advertising... though the site seems to be down anyway.

3. Factual errors, e.g., Due to his historical claim to the Vial of Life name, no organization can copyright the name. That's wrong twice over. First, copyright applies to expressions of ideas, not to names. Trademarks do apply to names, but a name that was only in historical use isn't trademarkable, generally speaking—and the particular name may not be defendable as a trademark anyway due to its low distinctiveness. As it happens, the semantics described are actually closest to the semantics of patents.

4. The article is US-centric, e.g., The names of the other more comprehensive physician orders (MOST form or POLST form) will vary by your state. The only states I have are "awake" and "asleep" :P

Would be nice if someone could at least drop an appropriate template ("This article has multiple issues" or whatever) at the top of the article. Thanks. 2A0D:6FC2:6A92:3F00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor! Just be bold and drop the template yourself or even try fixing some of the issues you mentioned here. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Added the box in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vial_of_Life&diff=prev&oldid=1192070680. I'm afraid I don't have time to fix the issues. Cheers 2A0D:6FC2:6A92:3F00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

did a do there, and

• how does "emt" stand for "emergency responder"? i thought it stood for "emergency medical technician". it's what wiktionary says, at the very least
• the state thing is a skill issue, i'm half-asleep roughly 30% of the time

cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 13:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to report content issues such as these is the article's talk page: Talk:Vial of Life. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Venting

I just spent several hours trying to finish revisions on an article. When I was ready to publish, I got a message saying there was an edit conflict and I could not post my work, or had to do it manually.

Wikipedia really needs to figure out how to have one editor at a time working on an article. Two hours worth of work is just gone. I am not happy.

ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@ProfessorKaiFlai: Hello! There is a template for this situation: Template:In_use Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

WOW! Yesssssssssssssssssssss!

What a relief, I will never have this experience again. Thank you!! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that the template's only to let other editors know someone is working on an article; it doesn't prevent them from editing the article itself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

ProfessorKaiFlai, I'm not aware of how the Visual Editor handles edit conflicts (it sounds like: not well), but in the source editor you're able to copy the source of the article including your changes, and can close and reopen the editor and paste the source back in, and manually incorporate the edit you conflicted with.

In general, the safest thing to do is save your work often. Two hours is an extremely long time to work on a single edit, and an edit that complicated will be difficult for others to review. If you find yourself working on an edit for more than fifteen or twenty minutes, it's probably a good idea just to publish your progress and then start up again where you left off. Best, Folly Mox (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the Visual Editor does not handle edit conflicts very well unfortunately, and I totally agree about making smaller edits. It's a lot easier to work methodically and in sections, and you're much less likely to run into problems with your work being lost! Perhaps working on an individual section or issue with the article and publishing it, and repeating that process, will be a more effective method. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 14:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@ProfessorKaiFlai: I've enabled the Paragraph-based edit conflict beta feature in my preferences, which sometimes helps to resolve those conflicts when someone else is working on a different section than I am. GoingBatty (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for these responses. I have found that once you get that edit conflict message there is not a way to get back to visual with your work saved. It has to be done in source, which I found to be too much in the wee hours of the morning.

It seems to me that we the editors are being left to scramble the best we can to address this issue. I have actually had this happen even while making what I think is a minor change that doesn't take a lot of time.

There must be a way to make sure that when you hit the EDIT button, that you are the only person working on that article. All others should be sealed out until your work is completed. Then if people want to change or undo or whatever, they can do so.

This is a technical problem that I'm sure the wikipedia higher ups can solve. I hope they see my rant and are moved to act! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not exactly a new problem, ProfessorKaiFlai; only new to you. So for instance you suggest an edit lock on the article once a user hits the EDIT button. Two seconds of thought would lead you to the conclusion that such a feature would be misused, both by users to who hit edit but never subsequently hit submit; and by editors who maliciously want to lock other editors out of an article. You say it's a technical problem which you're sure can be fixed; but here we are, twenty-some years into wikipedia with this unfixed. Does that not give you a clue that there's a fairly fundamental problem? I don't know what the visual editor does when it comes across an edit conflict: I see there's zero documentation on edit conflicts in the visual editor, who does speak to the wretchedly shambolic nature of the wikipmedia foundation. It would be interesting if anyone familiar with that editor could enlighten us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I use the source editor on my smartphone, and I try to remember to copy my edit to my clipboard before I click "Publish changes". If I run into an edit conflict, I just immediately paste it and then publish the changes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Last time I got an edit conflict in VE, it popped up an error message (Your changes could not be saved because of an edit conflict. Would you like to resolve the conflict manually?), along with a button "resolve manually". Clicking the button takes you to the exact same place as if you had used the source editor. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

t/y Victor. Good to know it does make provision; obvs, probably unfamiliar territory for a new editor, so easy to see how an edit conflict can still lead to loss of data. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

как задать вопрос ?

как задать вопрос ? Виктор Рахман (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Виктор Рахман: Привет! Это английская Википедия, и тут лучше говорить на английском. У вас вопрос именно по английской Википедии? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! What question would you like to ask? If you'd prefer to continue in Russian, I'll point you in the direction of Russian Wikipedia. sawyer * he/they * talk 16:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sawyer-mcdonell: judging by his user page, he's banned there. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Нужно сделать текст моего аккаунта сделать доступным любому землянину по гипер-ссылке : ".........".

Нужно сделать текст моего аккаунта - первой единственной страницы - сделать доступным любому землянину по указанной гипер-ссылке : ".........".

Виктор Рахман (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, what question are you asking? Nevermind, they've been indef blocked sawyer * he/they * talk 17:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

photos of newish public art in the US

Hi! I'm trying to understand the rules about uploading photos of public art in the United States, specifically photos I've taken of 3D public artworks that are not mine, of artworks that are not very old.

The rules I read here (Wikipedia:Image use policy) seem to say that if I take my own photo of someone else's 3D public art, the photo is considered a derivative work, but I'm unclear about whether that means I can upload it to wikimedia commons or wikipedia.

This page here seems to say I *cannot* use photos of 3D artwork: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Buildings_and_sculptures_as_works_of_art

But I'm confused because there is this entire public art project on wikipedia, in which all of the examples I've looked at include photos (by people other than the artist). Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Public art/Showcase#Lists of public art and there are a lot of other examples.

The goal is to add it to a wikipedia page, so if it's allowed on wikipedia but not wikimedia commons, that would be good to know too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krhettn (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there an exception I am missing? I want to make sure I don't break the rules, but the rules seem to contradict what I see. Thank you!

Krhettn (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krhettn: Hello! Looks like there are different rules for different countries. For US, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama

And this is a table with shortcuts for other countries: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Shortcuts Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you also @Deltaspace42 (sorry I didn't realize yours was a separate reply at first)! Krhettn (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

In the US, the page on Commons you linked to shows that photos of buildings are OK but photos of sculpture are not, even if the sculpture is permanently located in a public space. That contrasts with the UK, where both are OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you @Michael D. Turnbull - I saw that, and that's the reason for my question because it seems opposite to what I see on wikipedia pages about public art in the United States. Are all of these other entries about public art just violating the image rules?

Krhettn (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm mainly confused about how these get approved or persist if they're violating the rules, so I'm trying to figure out if there is some exception here or what I am missing. Krhettn (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you @Michael D. Turnbull - I saw that, and that's the reason for my question because it seems opposite to what I see on wikipedia pages about public art in the United States.

Also sorry I missed this reply until I edited my question slightly then it appeared. - I clicked "subscribe" but I am not getting notified of replies here. How do I see updates here? Sorry I haven't used this before. Krhettn (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Are all of these other entries about public art just violating the image rules? Krhettn (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to an article where you believe the rules may have been broken? Incidentally, if you are subscribed to this thread, you'll get notifications when others reply: they should be top right of the page near your username. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at examples here List of public art in Indianapolis.

The link about Non-free content guidelines posted below might have answered the question of why these are allowed to have images.

I'm not getting notifications (no idea why!) but reloading seems to be working. Krhettn (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krhettn, a few may be violations. Articles about a particular piece of 3D art can use a low-resolution image of that art under the Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines. Those images have to be uploaded here, not on Commons, and must meet all the requirements of use. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at examples here. List of public art in Indianapolis

Thank you for the link. The Non-free content guidelines says "a photo of a copyrighted statue (assuming there is no freedom of panorama in the country where the statue was when the photo was taken) can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it." so that seems to mean that I can use a photo I've taken of public statues. Is that correct? Krhettn (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but carefully. Follow the instructions in the document I linked and take a look at File:Imploding Cube by John Simms.jpg's description to see what the result will look like. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krhettn The list of public art in Indianapolis has the images it does in a way that is valid for Wikipedia. All those on that page are of sculptures that were created before 1928 or in some cases before 1978 (see this explanation). Images of sculptures more recent than 1978 can only be used under the fair use provisions within the article about the sculpture itself and hence not in a list article. Assuming you refer to your draft about the Igor Fokin Memorial, note that you can't place your image there until the article is accepted into the encyclopaedia, as fair use doesn't apply to drafts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @StarryGrandma and @Michael D. Turnbull ! Yes I'm asking about things that are mostly more recent than 1978, but the Exploding Cube you mention is also an example of that (several in the chart for Indianapolis show dates in the 2000s, and these are the examples I was referring to). I see that I have to use specific resolution requirements to do that.

Thanks also for the info on including a picture after it is a regular article instead of a draft! I was wondering what order to do that in. Krhettn (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and it also depends on how long ago the artist died. DS (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krhettn: Images uploaded locally to (English) Wikipedia or globally to Wikimedia Commons aren't officially vetted or otherwise examined before being uploaded; in other words, there's no formal approval process and it's mostly assumed that those uploading images either know enough about image copyright and relevant Wikipedia and Commons policies to either know what they're doing or know to ask for assistance if they don't. Unfortunately, not many people bother to do their due diligence when uploading their images and just assume that (1) it's automatically OK to do so and (2) someone else will fix things if it's not. In addition, many people misunderstand the meaning of "public domain" and "free license" and just are assuming that anything that can be downloaded for "free" online must be OK for Wikipedia from a copyright standpoint. Furthermore, many images of 3D works that people upload to their social media accounts or other websites that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia are also incorrectly licensed, either unintentionally or intentionally, but Wikipedia users often just take these people at their word and assume they know what they're doing. This means that lots of images are uploaded to both are ones uploaded with incorrect or at least questionable licensing requiring further examination. In many cases, these images can simply fly under the radar until someone like yourself asks about them or otherwise indirectly makes their existence known to others via a question that mentions them. So, yes it's quite possible that some of the images being used in Wikipedia articles (even ones uploaded to Commons) that you've seen are copyright violations that will need to be further discussed to determine whether they need to be deleted.

Under US copyright law, creative works with a known author and a known date of first publication are, in general, eligible for copyright protection for up to the greater of 95 years after their date of first publication or date of creation, or 70 years after the death of the creator depending on when the work was created. There are also lots of conditions and other caveats that apply, and most of these are explained pretty well here. As for 3D publicly installed artworks in the United States, there is no automatic freedom of panorama for such works and whether they're eligible for copyright protection depends upon when they were installed, whether they were published with a copyright notices, whether they were formally registered for copyright protection and several other things. So, before you upload anything under a free or public domain license, I strongly suggest that you ask about it at either WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC to let others help you sort out whether it would actually be OK to do so. Please note that under various versions of US copyright law, "publication" didn't necessarily mean "publicly displayed" when it came to 3D works of art.

As for non-free content, you're correct in that Wikipedia does allow such content to be uploaded locally (Commons doesn't allow any non-free content at all), but there are lots of restrictions placed on it. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive by design than US copyright law and there are ten criteria that need to be met for each use of non-free content. Wikipedia policy generally allows non-free content to be used as long as freely licensed or public domain content that is capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purposes of any non-free content can neither be found or reasonably created. It also prefers alternatives to non-free content such as WP:WIKILINKs or text be used whenever possible. So, a non-free image of copyright protected 3D work of art publicly displayed in the US can sometimes be uploaded and used, but usually only when the image is used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the work itself and usually only when it's an image you've taken yourself. Trying to use such images in other types of articles or in other types of ways (for example, to illustrate individual entries in an article like "List of public art in Indianapolis" is almost always considered WP:DECORATIVE and not allowed per WP:NFLISTS. All of the images currently used in that article appear to be ones uploaded under some sort of free license to Commons, and are not non-free images. Whether they're OK for Commons is something that might need to be further examined, but that's a separate discussion that will need to take place on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow thank you @Marchjuly for this super thorough answer! I am trying to fill in more information for public art / monuments near me, in general. Luckily, images would only be on a page about the monument/sculpture itself, not a different page as you said is prohibited, but I'm not sure how to be sure no other image can be found. I will just not add any images for newer works for now, to will err on the side of caution (for ones that aren't super old anyway), until I can figure out how to check if other images exist. (This is kind of a bummer since I was hoping to upload some really nice photos I took.) It looks pretty straightforward that I can add photos of the super old monuments at least (that part seemed pretty clear - that's why it wasn't part of my question). Anyway, thank you again! Krhettn (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, do these get deleted, or can I save these answers and links here? This is my first teahouse question. Thanks again! Krhettn (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

After a few days of inactivity this question will be archived. If you click on the icon in the top-right corner of this section, you can get links that you can save somewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Krhettn (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry i don't see an icon that looks like that. When you say "this section", what do you mean exactly? Thank you!

If I need to, i can just copy the whole thing too. Krhettn (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Crap, that might be from a script I installed.

You should be subscribed to this section (everything here between the heading above and the heading below); there should be a Unsubscribe displayed in the top-right corner. When you get a notification in your saying that your topic has been removed or archived, go to the box near the top of this page titled "Most recent archives" and click the largest number. This question will be somewhere in that archive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What is a good question that I should be asking of the Teahouse?

i have asked many questions here, but never asked what i should ask. I once heard from a mentor that one of the best questions to ask is, "What question should I be asking?", so I am applying that now here too. just seeing if there is anything that i could be doing to improve. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Some good questions to ask would be, "What makes a topic notable enough to merit an article?" (that one usually causes a lot of problems with newer users, and for that, read WP:GNG), "What can I do to improve Wikipedia?" (see the task center), "Where do I go when I need help from users to do something specific?" (see WP:Noticeboards). You can ask any questions that you have personally here that's related to Wikipedia. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia page

I created a page and submitted / "Published" on December 14th 2023 and have not had a response.

What is my next step?

MichaelCousins1 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@MichaelCousins1: Hello! Did you create an article about yourself in your sandbox? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

So, first of all, you need to create a page in Draft space, not in your sandbox (see Help:Your_first_article).

Secondly, if this article is about yourself, it constitutes conflict of interest. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MichaelCousins1, your next step is to wait. Make yourself a cup of tea. Get a good book. The articles for creation process runs on volunteer time, volunteer interest, and volunteer patience, just like the rest of Wikipedia. Cheers, 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cremastra: this user created an article not in draft space, but in their sandbox, and it looks like the article is about themselves, judging by the nickname. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

...and, I note, they haven't actually submitted the draft for review yet (and if they did, it would be immediately declined). Thanks for the info. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

(..edit conflict.) I did make the move to Draft while this debate was going on but would fully support the arguments made above. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@MichaelCousins1: Your next steps would be a) read WP:COI b) find reliable sources to use as references for the article, per WP:RS and add references perhaps per Help:Referencing for beginners. Right now it has none. c) press the 'submit for review' button in the template on the article. As it is, per the comments above, it stands no chance of being promoted as an article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The page in question is Draft:Michael Cousins, btw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelCousins1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, like many new editors, you have mistaken Wikipedia for a site where it is appropriate to tell the world about something (a.k.a. to promote it).

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. It follows that, once you have found those independent sources, you will need to forget everything you know about yourself and write an article based solely on what those sources say.

Do you see why it is hard to create an article about yourself? ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Help with editing pages for Russian and eastern European figures

Hi, I have noticed that a lot of the articles of lesser-known Russian and eastern European figures in the English wikipedia contain sparse information and very few sources.

I recently revamped the article for Pavel Blonsky and did some work on the article for Lev Kassil. The problem is, there are very few if any sources on these two in English.

I was wondering if anyone had access to reputable Russian sources that could be translated, or would be willing to directly translate from Russian? Or if I should be asking this somewhere else? MunsterManicotti5092 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

A better place to ask than this one (though not necessarily the best) would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. (Yes, this announces at its head "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Russia page", but it clearly is not.) A problem you'll face is that a vast number of articles on subjects that don't routinely appear on TV in the US or Britain have poor sourcing or are otherwise feeble, so it might be good to point out very briefly why such-and-such a proposed improvement is particularly important. ("Very briefly", because readers tend to bristle when requests seem to tell them that the requesters' interests/obsessions are more important than whatever happen to be the readers' own.) Incidentally, Blonsky is described as a paedologist but with no link that I notice to the article paedology, which in turn tells us that it's the study of children's behavior and development (as distinct from pedagogy, the art or science of teaching, and pediatrics, the field of medicine relating to children). Pedology is not commonly recognized as a distinct field of study; therefore, many people who would be described as pedologists are instead described as pedagogues, psychologists, pediatricians, etc. Clearly ⟨paedology⟩ and ⟨pedology⟩ are merely two ways of spelling the same word, but it's odd to see them juxtaposed like this. And the article's membership of Category:Pedagogy is even odder. So you see, the list of things that must be improved is endless. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

how to list examples of videos/tv ads in an article

hello! i am currently trying to work on the article Partnership to End Addiction . it is written majorly in an editorial/ad type way, but there are a lot of examples of descriptions of ads im not sure how to write in the wikipedia manual of style, keep, or remove. an excerpt from the current version of the article:

In one television commercial, a camera zooms in and out on two adolescents, one of whom is trying to get the other to try marijuana. The tagline then reads: "A friend who offers you drugs is not your friend." It was a "strikingly different tack" from the milder Just Say No campaign.

it doesnt look "right" for wikipedia, but im stuck trying to think of how a description of a video should be written out. should i leave this as is? should i change the formatting (if so, how) or clear it completely. there are plenty of these in the article, how many specific examples of descriptions of ads does an ad company article need? (0? 3? 5?) ive been having difficulty finding similar articles to reference. any other tips or notes regarding this article are highly appreciated, thanks :) Sydpresscott (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be reasonable handling for the subject matter. I'd be inclined to leave it alone. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sydpresscott, you ask for other comments. If the article is written in "an editorial/ad type way", then something is very wrong. It shouldn't read like newspaper articles, if that's what you mean. And it should definitely neither be, or read like, an advertisement. A sample:

The ad had varyingly impactful effects on viewers. Student Taia Lubitz felt the "brain on drugs" commercial was not accurate, since she saw fellow students smoking marijuana whose brains were clearly not frying. She claimed that the ad "stirred her curiosity" and that the scare tactic was really more of a "dare" tactic.[9] Student Sepideh Modrek said that "The fried egg commercial really scared me when I was in high school. I remember picturing that egg in the frying pan and thinking that it wasn't worth it."[9]

Does "varyingly impactful effects" mean anything other than "various impacts"? Our idiolects may differ, but to me, "student Taia Lubitz", "student Syd Presscott", etc sound very strange. But, more importantly, why pick just these two students out of (I imagine) hundreds of thousands, if not millions? (Maybe "One student felt ... Another student said ..."?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

i agree! it has a warning template about it, and it is largely written/edited by someone who works there. I am having a hard time finding specific examples like that, so thank you!

also general question (to anyone,) how much cultural context from the outside of the subject of the article is necessary? how much (if any) information about "cultural attitudes" about drug use have a place in the partnership for a drug free america article Sydpresscott (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

this is my rewrite

The ad had various impacts on viewers. One student felt the "brain on drugs" commercial was not accurate, since she saw fellow students smoking marijuana whose brains were clearly not frying. She claimed that the ad "stirred her curiosity" and was really more of a "dare" tactic.[9] Another said that "...the fried egg commercial really scared me when I was in high school. I remember picturing that egg in the frying pan and thinking that it wasn't worth it."[9] Sydpresscott (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

My view (which is perhaps a bit purist) is that the ad should be described in the way that the independent reliable source cited for it describes it. If there is not an independent reliable source discussing the ad, what is it doing in the article? ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sydpresscott: Look at other articles about ad campaigns for examples of how to describe the ads without writing like an ad. Foe example, You Will about AT&T's ad series, or Got Milk RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

thats exactly what i was looking for, thank you! Sydpresscott (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sydpresscott, in this edit, I made the prose of one section slightly less ponderous. I'm sure that other editors could find more flab there that could easily be cut. (Within the section, I also fixed misuse of the Cite templates' "last" attribute.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sydpresscott, I went through another section, but I didn't fix a stunning mistake in a cite template within the section, because I would have had to look at the web page in question in order to know exactly how to fix it, and in order to do that I'd have to disable ad blocking, and I couldn't be bothered. But really, I start to wonder whether taking "Famous fried eggs: Erika Alexander" to be an author's last name might indicate a brain on drugs. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah it has the same article cited like 38 times, it seems like it was written all by one person in one sitting (maybe the PDFA executive that is extremely active on the talk page hmmm) but there is a lot of filler/weird citations. thanks so much for looking! i will try to fix that. Sydpresscott (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ebsco access number

Searching for an article to add as an external link "https://search.ebscohost.com › login ebsco The History of Messianic Jews and the State of Israel, 1948 ..." appeared after I'd scrolled through snippets and clicked "repeat the search with the omitted results included". When I clicked "Publish changes" an error notice mentioning ebsco appeared which included "You can link to https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?AN=<access number> (the ebsco 'permanent link' to the record), the access number is sometimes visible in other ebsco links (the number after 'AN='), or available from the ebsco page that you are visiting.". Where is the relevant access number which will make the URL acceptable? Where do I add it? Do I need to change the URL in any other way? Mcljlm (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I've found the access number for the article in question via The Wikipedia Library. Here it is: 158043326
I've also found a DOI for this article, which may be helpful for you: doi:10.2979/israelstudies.27.3.06.
If you need more help, or PDF access, let me know. Happy editing! sawyer * he/they * talk 01:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sawyer-mcdonell. Where and how did you find it in The Wikipedia Library? Do I add it to the end of the URL or do I delete part of that and then add the number?

Does the PDF include the article's references? Does it have unrestricted access? Mcljlm (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You should be able to add the number directly to the URL after "AN=", and that should create a functional link.
As for how I found it, The Wikipedia Library grants access to a number of academic databases, including EBSCO, which is what hosts the article you're talking about. I searched the title in TWL, and found it that way. I have access to TWL because I qualified for it, which you can read about in the link in my original reply. It does include the full article PDF, including its references. Hope that helps! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have access to the TWL and only posted here after searching there there following a search box result mentioned it in connection with EBSCO. I don't see AN in the URL I referenced here. Mcljlm (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see AN in https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=2c5e7f43-4ca2-4354-8b1a-57d335cc6738%40redis and don't understand how you found the number via TWL. Mcljlm (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I searched the title "The History of Messianic Jews and the State of Israel", found the article in question, clicked the permalink button, and found the number in the URL listed after "AN=" and copied it. Sorry for confusion! sawyer * he/they * talk 21:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: Hey! I searched for the article myself using the main search box on the TWL homepage and it took me to a link that looks like this: https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?[.......]#AN=158043326&db=a9h
Looks to me like that's where the number came from. It also shows up when you click "Detailed Record" on the left side, then listed under "Accession Number". Hope that helps! Bsoyka (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

After reading both of your replies Sawyer-mcdonell and Bsoyka I found https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=27743a76-6285-4cf3-aa12-99d470f8bd08%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=158043326&db=a9h but still don't understand where to add the number or how doing so will make the article accessible to all WP users. Mcljlm (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You can add the number at the end of https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?AN= to create the URL. However, because EBSCO is not a free service, there's no good way (to my knowledge) to make it accessible to all WP users, unfortunately. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's not accessible to everyone at EBESCO that means it's similar to including the URL to the article at Project MUSE, ProQuest, ResearchGate or Academia.edu which means that it makes more sense to wait for it to become available with references {I found a version without references} at JSTOR. According to https://www.jstor.org/journal/israelstudies the journal has a Moving Wall of 3 years. Since the article was published in "Fall 2022" presumably that means it'll be accessible there in just under 2 years time. Mcljlm (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Draft of existing mainspace article

Hello, I noticed that article Hwang Hyun-jin already exist but only consist a redirect to Stray Kids article. Meanwhile there is also Draft:Hwang Hyun-jin which is not completed (barely have any information and sources). I'm wondering if I can request to move the draft to mainspace or should I improve the page first before request move article? Please give me a guidance, thank you! Shenaall (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Shenaall Improve then submit for review. He needs to be notable on his own outside of the group he is with. If you can make a decent article on him and his accomplishments alone then the reviewer can make the move happen. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Shenaall, the draft must make it clear that reliable sources (for which reliability is as defined by and for Wikipedia) demonstrate that he is notable (for which notability is as defined by and for Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

for PDF citation, which page # to use?

If my citation reference is an online PDF document, which page # do I use? The page # that is printed on each page (could be i, ii, etc.) or the page # that my PDF viewer says I am reading. If the doc has an un-numbered title page & several i, ii pages, then the printed page could be 5 but the PDF page could be 10. I've tried to research this in WP but could not find the answer. Sunandshade (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! In my editing, I generally go with the number printed on the page of the PDF, rather than the page number that the PDF viewer uses. I don't think there's a guideline for this, so it's up to the individual editor. If a certain book or document is available on multiple platforms, e.g. Google Books and Internet Archive, then the printed numbers will likely be the same, whereas the "PDF" page numbers are more likely to be different. If you need any more help, let me know! sawyer * he/they * talk 01:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Too bad there's no guideline. Makes sense to use the printed page #, but wondered what others thought about this. Whichever I use, it would be good to specify in the citation which page # I used. Is there a way to specify that? Sunandshade (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific way to mark which page numbering, but perhaps you could include it next to the page number, e.g. "pages=52-53 (printed)" or something along those lines. sawyer * he/they * talk 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sunandshade, I have a strong preference on this (the same as Sawyer-mcdonell's), and following my preference has never landed me in any trouble -- nobody has "corrected" or even questioned my numbering. But I can't cite any guideline or similar for the preference. If you ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1 you're likely to get expert and policy-citing advice, fast. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sunandshade, per the other two answerers—you should use the page number printed on the page. The page numbers in a given PDF file are often correct, but can be offset or otherwise wrong depending on the care and provenance of the specific PDF file and the nature of the source. I've had to manually edit many of my PDFs to make the page numbers of the file agree with those of the original source. Remsense留 02:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Baptismal names?

I'm looking at Felicia Montealegre Bernstein. It gives her name as "née Felicia María Cohn Montealegre". But I found on Geni.com that her baptismal certificate says Felicia María Josefa de Jesús. Do we include or not include baptismal names? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

It seems to me that this is a changed name, so use both in the title, then choose the most recent one for the rest of the article.

For example: Jack Benny (born Benjamin Kubelsky, February 14, 1894 – December 26, 1974)

(from here)

Happy editing!

Geardona (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it a "changed name"? I don't know how baptismal names work in Latin cultures - or how we usually deal with them in Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no specific policy for those types of names, so that seemed to me to be the closest analog in wikipedia policies, am I misunderstanding the concept? Geardona (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright and sister projects

I am writing an article on the Denver attorney W.W. Anderson. I found a photograph of Anderson on a Wikisource page, but I’m unsure of it’s copyright status. I can’t find the photo on Wikimedia Commons. Do Wikipedia sister projects also follow the same copyright rules that Wikipedia does, and can the images on a sister project be transferred between projects? Roasted (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Roastedbeanz1: Each project has their own rules. If you click the photo it should say what the licensing is. RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Roastedbeanz1: Yes, Wikisource does follow copyright rules - see Wikisource:Wikisource:Image guidelines. What is the link of the photo on Wikisource? GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it this one? c:File:Bench_and_bar_of_Colorado_-_W._W._ANDERSON.png? It is on commons and is public domain. RudolfRed (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Roastedbeanz1:, copyright has expired on all photos published over 95 years ago, and such photos can be re-used by anyone for any purpose without restriction. On Wikimedia projects, best practice is to provide information about the photographer, date and provenance, but this is not a legal requirement. Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

SFN fixes for citations written in the same year by the same author

I'm in the process of expanding and improving the article for Mieczysław Weinberg and have hit a bump with sfn referencing. Two of the sources I use are authored by the same person and were written in the same year. This causes an error message to appear. How can I fix this? Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi CurryTime7-24. See Template:Sfn#More than one work in a year. The short answer is that you label one YEARa and the other YEARb. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Having links to portals, categories etc on your userpage for reference...without accidentally adding yourself to those categories... How to?

I just decided to make my userpage a useful resource for myself, with links to things I find myself coming back to and intend to use. Among those links are ones to wikipedia Categories, Portals.

Once done adding all that, I found I had added myself TO some of these things, when that shouldn't be the case. No matter what I try to call myself, I am not a branch of mycology.

Obviously I need to undo that... but how do you add links to categories to a page without adding the page to the category?? Is it just by posting the plain url link, as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mycology_organizations ? I had switched them to internal page links with [[ brackets and maybe that's the problem. I just wanted them to not look as chaotic as plain url links do, and be more readable.

Thank you! MariahKRogers (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Colons in links. diff. Whether all of these are needed, who knows, but they don't harm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Like this format [[:___|___]]

Nice. MariahKRogers (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Where references can be added in discussions about creating an article with different sources in various places outside of the lead section

How can references be added during discussions about whether or not to keep an article in different places? Are only admins allowed to do this or else regular editors get blocked? I’m new so I don’t understand how alot of policies get made on Wikipedia yet but I will learn soon? Thellosnellow (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References can be added to articles at any time, including when the article is being discussed in a deletion discussion. References can be added by anyone. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Need Help Getting Started on Wikipedia

Hello, Thank you in advance for helping me. ‪CAPTAIN RAJU suggested that I come here for help. I just created a user name and password. My name is Demetrius. I created my account in order to create a Wikipedia for a Musical Artist. I was experimenting with building her infobox within the Sandbox to see what it looked like to test my coding. It was deleted. Obviously, I need to be setup up properly before creating this Wikipedia. I also need to declare a COI. I took all of the photos on her album covers and except 2 albums. I thought I would upload all of the images, album covers (high resolution) first and then work on the article to connect to them. I need help with how to get started in the right direction. Any feedback you have, I am willing to learn.

Thank you,

Demetrius

Wiki-Wiki-2028 (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have a conflict of interest, then probably the best you can do is not to write the artice. The images on Commons would be very welcome. But you are fundamentally compromised when it comes to the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone told me that declaring COI does not disqualify me from writing the article. So look as the article is written according to Wiki standard, I should be okay. What I can trying to accomplish is getting started. For example, I want to build the article in the Sandbox. I have written all of the code. However, I may use the Wizard to actually do this because I understand it is easier. The way I would like to start is first upload all of my images so I can refer to them in the article. What I would like to know is how to start. From reading the information, it looks like log into my account and starting building my article on the Musical Artist. I am trying to understand what I did that cause the Speedy Deletion. The only thing that was on the page was an infobox with information and a photo.

Wiki-Wiki-2028 (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki-Wiki-2028, please note the following:

(1) You may own the copyright to the photos, but do you own the copyright to the album covers, which presumably also include typography? Even if so . . .

(2) Do you realise that by uploading images to Commons, you are irrevocably giving permission to everyone in the World to re-use them for any purposes, including commercial ones, provided that they include attribution? Are you sure you want to do this?

A more usual course for album covers is to upload a low-resolution image to this (English-language) Wikipedia (not Commons) for the single purpose of illustrating an article about that album only (not one about the artist) under the 'fair use' criterion. This can only be done with an already-existing article – such 'fair-use' images must not be uploaded into Drafts, and will be deleted if they are. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I not only own the photos, I created the album cover as well. It just that I did not fully understand the process and the best choices to make. As I have said before, I am learning about this maze of content and the process. It would be nice if if people would tell me what I need to do and point me in the right direction like you have done by explaining where and how to upload images under 'fair use.' If I have many album covers that correpond with the aritlce, how can I submit a draft for review with a reference or connection from the article with the album cover. I thought that if the artlcie is about a Musical Artist and they released an album that is mentioned in the artilce, the draft will have [[name of album here]] that will say no image is found. many red letter becasue there of not havomg the artwork that is mentioned. Then my article would be flagged and taken down artilce would be flagged for takedown for not having proof of of the album shown?

Demetrius

Wiki-Wiki-2028 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A reason COI editors are not okay, Wiki-Wiki-2028, is that they write complete nonsense such as "This album cover for 'He Loves You' by Angel Sessions is a visual symphony that encapsulates the essence of love and spirituality" when the photo just looks like someone miserable leaning against a wall. So, look, start your COI infested article at Draft:Angel Sessions and submit it to Articles for Creation, and we'll take it from there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki-Wiki-2028 T is being overly blunt, and perhaps promising too much. Yes, a person with a COI can create and then submit a draft to AfC as long as the COI is declared. (If paid or in any way compensated, then the situation is paid and WP:PAID applies. Teahouse hosts usually limit contributions to advice - not co-authoring, so no "We'll take it from there." The Speedy deletion was because you were creating content at your User page. See WP:UP for what goes there. Create and submit the draft using WP:YFA without album cover images, as images do not figure into deciding notability. Ditto for Infobox. WP:NMUSIC applies. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I now understand that I do not need to declare COI. The term was mention as part of the deletion because I created an article on my User page. I thought I need to declare in order to have it put back up. I did not fully understand the process. This is what I trying the learn. I read the information, however the only way I can really understand is to try, fail, and learn, and try again. I am not being paid at all. I may not understand this process. I am only a volunteer. I am simple looking for people you can genuinely help me.

Demetrius

Wiki-Wiki-2028 (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WikiWiki2028, and welcome to the Teahouse. I created my account in order to create a Wikipedia for a Musical Artist is great, but it's a bit like "I bought a violin in order to perform the Beethoven violin concerto". Please learn the craft, and get lots of practice, before you take on a challenging work - creating a new article. I advise you to put aside the idea of creating this article for a few months, while you learn how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles: I predict that this will save you a lot of frustration and disappointment. In particular, learning about reliable sources, verifiability, and notability. (Once you have learnt about these, you may discover that your artist does not at present meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: if they don't, then you'll know not to spend any more time on writing about them). ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I only plan to create one article for now before editing anyone other articles. Is the difference between creating an article and publishing it on the user page as apposed to creating an article and submitting it to Articles for Creation? From what I am reading about Wikipedia, it seems as though sending it to Articles for Creation is a more helpful way to learn about what of how to learn the standards of Wikipedia.

98.35.33.243 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. To see if I understand how to do this correctly, I am going to write the full article.  I have to add

{{subst:submit|Wiki-Wiki-2028}} at the top of the article? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AfC_submission/draft

How would I upload all the album covers and other images for the article so they come to you?  This weekend, I am going to closely review my article, and put all of the code with citations and references that I have and send it to Articles for Creation.  Whatever you decide to use or not, I leave that up to you. Please help me with the steps to do this in the way you are requesting.  Thank you for your feedback.

Wiki-Wiki-2028 (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't upload ANY photographs they are of no interest unless the draft is accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki-Wiki-2028, non-free images are not permitted in drafts or sandbox pages, so do not even try. The time to add low resolution images of copyrighted album covers is after the article is in the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: That's really really bad advice. Whilst Cullen is correct that non-free images are problematic until they have an article home, Wiki-Wiki-2028 represents themself as a photographer who presumably owns the IP on their own images. The scope of Commons is much wider than merely furnishing images for EN wikipedia articles; it is most likely that whatever WW2028 uploads to commons wold be within its scope and therefore most welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What an interesting dilemma to navigate. I am interested in learning what other Wikipedian’s have to say about uploading images to the English Wikipedia as opposed to uploading them to Wiki Commons. And, then there is the subject of whether to upload low-resolution images while others say it is better to upload high-resolution images because it is a better way to prove that you own the image.

98.35.33.243 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay... I will take this a good advise. Thank you.

98.35.33.243 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. 98.35.33.243 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

[Edit Conflicts] Wiki-Wiki-2028, please do not start this process by uploading images. Drafts of articles are Accepted, Declined (= "not good enough yet, please improve and try again") or Rejected (= "subject will never qualify, please stop trying") only on the basis of their written text. Images can be added after initial Acceptance (no article on Wikipedia is ever "finished"), and 'fair use' images may only be added to articles, not to Drafts and certainly not to user pages.

Please also do not create drafts on your User page. This is only intended for the optional purpose of saying something about yourself as a Wikipedia Editor (and many users never create it; you haven't created yours yet, which is why your signature name appears in red. You do already have a Talk page, at User talk:Wiki-Wiki-2028).

An "article under construction" on your User page is not permitted – it will be deemed a "fake article" and be deleted. Drafts should be created as a draft (on a page "Draft:Subject" – see Wikipedia:Drafts) or in your User sandbox(es) (which you can create one or several of, for working on different drafts).

My understanding is that an article about a musician should not contain any images of album covers, even in a section about that album (unless the cover is out of copyright, which in practice is unlikely to apply for a living musician). A low-res album cover image should only be used in a standalone article about that album.

These rules may seem arbitrary, but Wikipedia has arrived at them after long experience with protecting subjects' interests, smooth running of the project, and complying with copyright laws.

Because of how Wikipedia has grown and evolved, by mutual consensus rather than being led from above, it can seem very complicated. Unfortunately, this means that it is well-nigh impossible for someone without prior experience to 'drop in' in order to create one or a few articles and immediately succeed, any more than someone can take up a new sport and successfully play without first learning any of the rules. In both cases one will get yelled at, though hopefully in a friendly way intended to bring one up to speed. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Duly noted. What I am learning from all of these comments is that many Wikipedians have a slightly different opinion about how to go about a task within this platform. It can be challenging to navigate one way or the other. However, I enjoy and value people's opinions. Aside from reading all of the information about writing articles that ais available on Wikipedia, these comments are another valuable way to learn. Please keep the comments coming!

98.35.33.243 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Self-styled editor moving pages illicitly and issuing threats

A registered Wikipedia user Alirezadubai said they had the ability to get a page I was editing [Sue Williams (writer)] published for a modest payment. I thought they were going to research some missing citations. I then realised all they were doing was moving the page past the CfC process (against the rules) and I refused to pay. Now they are threatening to block the page and my topic's name. At no time did I give this person our logins or permission to do anything except edit the draft. I now see the page is being deleted section by section because the citations it required are not there. So, firstly, here's a warning to avoid these conmen. Secondly, how can I get the material back so I can continue working on it. JimmyT1967 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This is a documented scam that has happened to other editors before. Please see the page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning for more information. sawyer * he/they * talk 07:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of versions of the draft; you can see all of the versions of each at their histories - 1, 2. You'll understand we have limited sympathy (which is to say none at all) for someone who has paid to get an article onto WP and got their fingers burned. WP is not a platform for your promotional activities. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

JimmyT1967 "refused to pay" once they realized it was a scam and not legitimate editing work. sawyer * he/they * talk 07:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

And your point is? --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That they did not go through with any kind of payment and that we, as welcomers of new editors, should assume good faith. sawyer * he/they * talk 08:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no good faith to assume when an individual rocks up to tell us they're tried to subvert the system to get their article published. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There is plenty of good faith to assume, they've recognised they were a victim of a scam and that it was not legitimate editing work. Paid editing is not prohibited, provided it is declared and falls within policy, per the terms of use. Polyamorph (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to tell your colleague Tagishsimon to pull his/her/their head in. Jumping on anyone who has made an honest mistake and then tried to correct it - and in such an abusive way - is that what Wikipedia is really about? JimmyT1967 (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

But judging by your other comments, it does seem to be a platform for you to pay out on lesser mortals with your snide comments. Personally, I think someone who has written a number of books that have helped to highlight the plight of street kids, African women suffering from serious birth injuries, the victims of discrimination and heroic doctors who are changing people's lives, and still has time to win awards for her true crime and travel writing does deserve recognition. I have seen the effect she has on young women writers - especially as a lecturer at Boston University - inspiring them to achieve their own potential. Her only fault was to ask a newbie like me to get it on Wikipedia. Thanks for the advice, but cool your jets, man. It'll make you a nicer person to be around. JimmyT1967 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Last comment was directed at Tagishsimon JimmyT1967 (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

JimmyT1967, User: Alirezadubai is an account set up two weeks ago that has 28 edits in total. In contrast, I have been editing Wikipedia for over 14 years and have made over 100,000 edits. This is what we call a "throwaway account", set up for deception and theft. We call them "undisclosed paid editors" and they are blocked when detected. The draft I took a look at, Draft:Sue Williams (Writer), has no less than 31 references, plus 11 external links and seven "Critical studies and reviews". That may look impressive but experienced editors can quickly see that all of that is hogwash and padding, and that none of it establishes the notability of this author. I will block the scammer, but it will have little effect, because these crooks just open another account and start fresh. I highly recommend that you cease all communication with this person and similar people. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I can just about, through the tears, recommend you read WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG and WP:COI, Jimmy. Meanwhile, perhaps your subject could write a promotional article on James Dunbar? --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So you know how to access Google? Wow, you must be a genius. What's your point? You do know that writers who are successful in one field, use another name in a different genre? Again, I don't get your point - except to show how clever you think you are (which seems to be the foundation of all your contributions here). And I'm guess Tagishsmon isn't your real name either. So tell me, o wise one, are you a flamer or a troll - I can never tell the difference. JimmyT1967 (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hogwash and padding? Wow, you must all feel so smug and self-satisfied passing judgement on real writers who make a living in the real world, and make a difference to other people's lives. I have made an honest attempt to satisfy your arcane rules on what is acceptable and what isn't by providing genuine information about a real person who has published 25 real books with real publishers. If there is "padding" it's because I was adding more information because I thought that was what was being demanded but the "editors". And it turns out what she should have been doing, it seems, is getting people to write about her and not her books. Shame, because she isn't seeking publicity but some validation as a working class girl who has achieved a remarkable level of success. I declared a COI right at the start - big mistake - but I have tripped over another hidden rule and not done it on this page. It seems I have wandered into a world where you can't make an honest mistake without being ridiculed and belittled. It is your collective process of only offering criticism rather than meaningful and helpful advice that leave the door open to the scammers. Pedestrians! JimmyT1967 (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The meaningful advice was to read WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG and WP:COI, Jimmy. I hope you've done that. We can haggle about whether pay to play is an 'honest mistake'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

When the wise ones of Wikipedia decline to offer specific advice and somebody turns up in your email saying they know what's wrong with your submission and they know how to fix it, that's not subverting the system, anymore than, say paying a lawyer to write an official letter. He told us he was part of the system and as soon as we realised he wasn't, we canned him and reported it. I know this is probably wasted on you but then I don't have your monstrous intellect and impeccable and unfailing sense of right and wrong to guide me. JimmyT1967 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you’ve received some comments that come across as unpleasant. Wikipedia rules and requirements can be confusing, especially if you haven’t done a lot of editing of older articles before attempting to get a new article published. For several decades I was a “hobby” freelance writer – I never got much published, but I read through a lot of writers’ guidelines, and learned that print publishers tended to be pretty specific in what they wanted. When I started thinking about writing my first online encyclopedia article (Meg Duncan) I read through Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners so many times I practically had them memorized! I considered them to be Wikipedia’s “writers’ guidelines” and, though I didn’t always agree with everything they required, I understood that the publisher decides what they accept and reject, and writers need to follow the guidelines. I also read through about a dozen articles similar to what I was attempting to write to see what is generally included in articles about children’s book series, and what is used as reliable references.

It may help you to read numerous contemporary author Wikipedia articles to get a feel for what is needed to be notable by Wikipedia requirements. (Standards were lower in the early 2000s, so there may be some articles out there that wouldn’t be accepted today.) A deceased writer friend had dozens of novels published, but I never considered her to be “Wikipedia notable” because her books weren’t best sellers, and she wasn’t written about, except by her local newspaper, so I doubt there would be enough good references. She was a dear lady who wrote wonderful books, but she’ll probably never get an encyclopedia article.

When I was writing my first Wikipedia article no one emailed me about improving the article for a fee, so I don’t know if I would have believed the emailer or not. It was a mistake to initially believe the email, but Wikipedia editors (which is everyone working on Wikipedia) do make mistakes, and they should be allowed to move on from an ill-advised decision. Best wishes on improving your draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft:Sue Williams (writer) exists and User:Alirezadubai has been indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sue Williams (Writer) also exists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

JimmyT1967 The great majority of refs (5-23) confirm that she is the author of the listed books. None of that contributes to confirming her notability. What is essential is refs to published content about her. David notMD (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, back in January your declared a COI on your User page. The nature of your COI should be mentioned on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned response. For the record, I am Sue Williams partner and I also function as her tech help, for want of a better description. That's how I got involved in thois schemozzle in the first place. My full name is James Dunbar Thomson. I too am a published author and I write a newspaper column about apartment living under the name Jimmy Thomson and crime novels under the name James Dunbar. I only say this to satisfy the genius who is Tagishsimon who seems to think he has discovered something of note. My singular failure here, in trying to get Sue's page published, is to misunderstand the definition or parameters of "notability". In my world, having 25 or more published works - every one by long-standing established publishers - would make you "notable". Ironically, Sue has always eschewed self-promotion - hence the lack of published material about her, rather than her books - and only wanted a Wikipedia entry to establish that she's had a long and successful career as a writer and to bring together her myriad publications under one researchable umbrella. This is my failure, not hers. JimmyT1967 (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your other failure was entering into an agreement to pay someone to get your article published. I feel we should not overlook that bit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See my previous comments about the difference between paying for professional assistance and trying to "subvert" the system. And I didn't pay anything, even though the page appeared as a published item. I realised the person was an imposter when I noticed that there had been no changes. By the way, what's your real name and maybe you could list your achievements, especially those you have made without outside help? No? Hmmm, I thought not. JimmyT1967 (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: this is the teahouse. It is for welcoming new users and not a battleground / drama board. As I mentioned above, paid editing is not prohibited provided it is undertaken in accordance with the terms of use. Please assume good faith. They have recognised they made a mistake, and their comments indicate they want to do the right thing. It is our job to advise them politely how to navigate the associated COI and paid editing policies, not to chastise them. If you can't behave accordingly then please let others deal with it. Polyamorph (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have to be very naive indeed, @Polyamorph:, to think that they had the ability to get a page I was editing published for a modest payment was a legitimate offer; and even then, assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism of, in this instance, promotional editing and paid editing falling way outside policy. Jimmy has abreacted to the idea that his unsuccessful paid editing attempt might be met with criticism, which is his privilege; and he has done so with a torrent of most enjoyable Australian style abuse, for which I commend him. I have given good advice to the OP, on where to find his drafts, and on which policies apply; I decline to buy into any of his faux outrage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

People fall victim to scams all the time. I don't think victim blaming is helpful. As an experienced editor you are fully aware that we assume good faith here. I implore you to do so. Polyamorph (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, you accused me several times, in unnecessarily snide and sarcastic comments, of trying to subvert the system. That's what I was reacting to, not that the page was rejected. The evidence is there for any reasonable person to see. It does seem that I was right in thinking that Wikipedia allowed people to be paid for editing submissions and getting them into shape suitable for publication (albeit, it turns out, with restrictions and COI protocols). I was duped into thinking that was what was on offer when it wasn't. As soon as I realised that was not what was happening - when it looked as if the page had been published but nothing had changed and therefor it must be a scam rather than a legitimate edit - the alarm bells rang and I withdrew from the agreement (subjecting myself to abuse on a par with your unwarranted comments). I did not pull the plug because of anything you or the other editors had done - although I was alarmed to see material disappear from the page at the same time as the fake editor was threatening to return the page to draft status - not a problem for me - and then saying he was going to block Sue's name (very much so). I had no idea if that was even possible which is why I posted my initial message. If you see that as trying to subvert the system, and if you want to assign malicious motives to what I was doing, all I can say is honi soit qui mal y pense. JimmyT1967 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

JimmyT1967, Sue Williams' purpose here, as you describe it, sounds very reasonable. It's just not what Wikipedia is for. (This is not to say that Wikipedia doesn't have plenty of articles just like that. It does have them. Improving some of these and deleting the rest is a major chore.) If she really wants that, it's what suewilliams.com.au is for, or could be for. I see that she has written a lot of books. What substantive reviews of them have there been in what Wikipedia classes as "reliable sources"? Try summarizing and citing those. Doing this would likely add up to demonstrating what Wikipedia classes as "notability". NB not blurbs; instead, reviews in newspapers and the like. (And not interviews, either.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@JimmyT1967 It is perfectly possible that one or more of Williams' books could be wikinotable, without her being so owing to lack of suitable sources. Please read the page I have linked regarding the notability of books. One drawback of Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people is that every factual statement has to be backed up with an inline citation: that's because verifiability is the key. I would expect that reviews of some of her books in sources meeting these criteria should exist and would be a good place for you to start drafting suitable articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will try to do the above but I am having trouble wrestling with what exactly is a reliable source (and will probably get it wrong). The guidelines seem to suggest the subject's own web pages, but then that also seems to be off the mark. Trial and error, I suppose will get us there. JimmyT1967 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Some sources can support facts in the article, but do not build the case for notability. For notability, you need sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage, all at the same time. The subject's own website (or biographies posted by her publisher, book jacket bios, etc.) are examples of sources that might be reliable for some uses but are not independent. MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war

The content in the above subjected line is shows false report of Israeli military's casualties, can you please correct this. Since the casualties count also reduced after few days again.. it's false and seems israeli propaganda 2409:40F2:1015:EA9D:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page of the article, not here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war is indefinitely ECP protected. I think unregistered editors need to make edit requests at Wikipedia:Edit requests. Folly Mox (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please also note that since this pertains to WP:ARBECR, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. (my emphasis). Polyamorph (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I would add (since the IP editor is here, now, asking their question) that despite the apparent conflict of interest which can exist with only one side reporting their numbers, for better or for worse the Israeli Military is the only official source for information on Israeli soldier casualties, just as the Gaza-based Ministry of Health is the only official source for their casualty numbers. It's a question of accepting (for now) whatever numbers they publish, with a keen understanding that as time goes by, additional sources may revise those numbers. But for now, that's the best we've got. And Folly Mox is right, requests should be able to be made at WP:ERW while requests for information (such as how casualties are tallied) may be asked at WP:RD. Regards,  Spintendo  13:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

IndusInd Bank Partnership Section

Hi, I have added content with reliable source to expand the IndusInd Bank Article referring to Partnership section. Would like to understand whether it was promotional content or can this be added again? VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If this removed content - diff - is the content in question, it should not be re-added since it is entirely promotional in tone & content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the revert & addressing it. Next time will make sure to add appropriate content rather than promotional. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 10:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

hello need help to improve my article draft

i tried to create an article, but it declined due to its looks advertisment for the system, but it isnt, i just added corporation information, please help me to improve and fix it so i can publish it =]

thanks so much, Rea H. Rikoshar (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Rikoshar Hello. I see that you declared a COI; if you work for RS Royal Services INC, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure.

Wikipedia is not a place to merely provide information or to merely tell of the existence of a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the first article guide,

can i get some more help regard this? Rikoshar (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Rikoshar You should first make the paid editing disclosure. It's strongly advised that people not attempt to edit about their companies at all due to the conflict of interest- company employees are usually too close to their companies or too much into marketing to be able to write as Wikipedia requires. Please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it too(if you've been asked to be here). However, if you still wish to proceed, you should first gather independent reliable sources that give your company significant coverage so you can summarize what they say in an article. These sources should not include staff interviews, press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities and the like. The sources should give extensive discussion as to what they see as important/significant/influential about your company- not what your company sees as important about itself. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for you answers and information,

ok i will look now for reliable sources,

and about the paid discloser, im not getting paid for it. nobody getting paid for this Rikoshar (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:PAID is required if you work for the company even if not specifically being paid to edit the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:RS Royal Services INC was Speedy deleted. You can try again, but all content must be neutral point of view and varified by independent (non-corporate) references. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a blatantly promotional account. I've requested a block at AIV. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

on it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for promotional links removable

I have seen an article link that promotes their articles so I don't assess to remove as I am new, I am requesting for removable https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uczenie_g%C5%82%C4%99bokie Drakeshrao42 (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that might be Polish wikipedia? If so, you'd need to raise it there, not here, which is Englih wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Should I register for that language and i don't how to remove the link Drakeshrao42 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You can probably just start a thread on https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tablica_og%C5%82osze%C5%84 in English; someone will pick it up. It's not clear to me what the issue is - "an article link that promotes their articles" - so please try to be as clear as possible when raising it there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Teahouse#Why was my article not reviewed?

My draft, Fabien Vienne, I have some problems about references. Please someone help me. Bera678 (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bera678, the notes left on the draft, and the page Help:Referencing for beginners, should be able to help. Let us know if you have any more specific questions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Before, i tried to improve the references. But it didn't work. I am not good at the adding references and in the internet, we have not many sources for Fabien Vienne. Please help me. Bera678 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bera678: If the subject doesn't have many sources, probably he's just not notable and doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. Not every person in the world should have an article about them. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, but how can i delete my draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bera678 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Mean, rude, trivial, or otherwise odd comments on talk pages

I sometimes see comments that could be described as "mean", "rude", or "trivial" on talk pages of a wide variety of topics. Sometimes these comments are days old, months old, or even years old. One example is on this talk page that I looked at now Talk:North East (Nigeria). There is a comment that just says "i hate u" made by an anonymous ip user.

What is the rule? Am I supposed to leave those be. Should i cut them and make a note of removing it in my edit summary? I would appreciate what the guidance is on this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Hello! Yeah, that was unconstructive edit by that IP user, feel free to undo it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

But don't just remove all comments which you consider rude, I mean you can remove it just in this specific case, because it is without any context. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I mean if someone is just being rude in their tone or something, or is responding to a comment. I would not remove those. I mean just the comments that seem out of nowhere like that. I will do that then. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

is "cut random spam comment" a fine edit summary for that? I just did remove the comment now. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd generally say "rmv unconstructive comment" or, if the comment leans in this direction, "WP:NOTFORUM". 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

i usually say "cut", is "rmv" "removed"? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

'tis. It's a rather common shorthand for the word. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We actually have a page with wiki-specific abbreviations used: Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations; you may find some Wikipedia slang useful. Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Thank you for the link! I've been here for quite a long time and have never heard about that page. Fun fact: although it has its own abbreviation WP:ABC, it is not mentioned there. CiaPan (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Help getting started

Hello, I am a bit confused because from some time, I have been looking forward to again start contributing to wikipedia, but, I am unable to find any article to improve easily and from my previoys experiences, I fear doing some considerable edits as till now, I have seen my edits being reverted and nearly all the times being said "useless", "inneccessary" and even I once tried to raise some concerns and wsa replied back with some very rude tone. Wherever I tried to edit, or even resolve a conflict in talk page, I saw a policy of wikipedia just coming above against me even if I went through many of them. Can you suggest what and how can I contribute, till date, only this place is where I have got some oositive replies.

My sincere apologies if I said something wrong or something out of myself.

Yamantakks (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yamantakks: Hello! If you are afraid to edit the content itself, you can try doing categorization, first go to Preferences - Gadgets and enable HotCat - very useful tool to categorize pages. Then go to random pages and see if you can add more categories, or remove redundant (if the page is both in category and its parent category, then almost always you need to remove the parent category).

Or you can go to the list of common misspelling found on Wikipedia and use it to find typos and fix them.

In any case, if someone reverts your edit, don't panic, read this: Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Many/most Indian articles on villages, small temples & so on are weak on grammar and referencing. Small improvements there should not be reverted. It's best to start with less popular articles to get experience. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! The advice put forth by Deltaspace42 and Johnbod are great. I'll also suggest you look at the Task Center, which has a nice list of tasks which you can choose from, based on what seems the most fun and easy to you. Personally, I found fixing typos and replacing images to be the best way to get started in my editing. You can also look at the Contributing to Wikipedia page for some more helpful advice. Hope that helps, and happy editing! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Formatting a list

I created a page in my sandbox for a record producer that includes a discography as a list, with returns after each entry. When I hit Publish, the version shows up with the llst as a single text block. How do I fix it? OrcaThatWrites64 (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@OrcaThatWrites64: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can add a bullet in front of each entry (with an asterisk) or put the information in a table. GoingBatty (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

requirements for farm sims articles

When I say farm sim, I mean the likes of Stardew Valley and My Time at Portia, both of which have articles.

Any idea if farm sims like Coral Island, Sun Haven and My Time at Sandrock could justify having its own article given that they are quite popular for those that already play farm sims? or least be included somewhere in an article Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Breathinkeeps32: Hello! See Wikipedia:Notability_(video_games), if they satisfy the notability criteria, then they deserve an article on Wikipedia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

While idk how to create articles, would this example (for MTaS) along with this work? Not sure if https://www.pixelsproutstudios.com/ (who made Sun Haven) is allowed for references but may be allowed for external links (WP:EXTERNAL) Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Breathinkeeps32: I think these two are fine as references but if it's all you've got, then it's not enough. Not sure what you mean by "along with", these two references are for different games and the article can be only about one game. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Daniela Pes

Hello, I would like to translate this page : https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniela_Pes . Her first record was voted as one of the best in 2023 in Italy from the majority of the magazines. Above all, she won the Tenco Award (Club Tenco, probably the most important award for songwriters in Italy) as best new artist in 2023 . Waiting for your opinion. Thank you in advance. Kimbamy (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry I forgot to put the right link to the award :Targa Tenco#Best Debut Album Kimbamy (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kimbamy: See Help:Translation and Wikipedia:Translation. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 2001:B07:6475:9F6B:75F9:3EB9:A81C:F1B4 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry I was not logged in. thanks again! Kimbamy (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Mediawiki question

Do all wiki websites that run on the MediaWiki software have the same basic commands like Wikipedia, like for example searching "Special:ListUser" etc Bzik2324 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bzik2324, there's some variation based on how the site is set up, but generally so. I'd look at the MediaWiki documentation for your specific question. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: Some things including many of the special pages depends on the installed extensions. See mw:Manual:Extensions, and Special:Version#mw-version-ext for a long list of extensions installed here at the English Wikipedia. Some things depend on the MediaWiki version number. It tries to be backwards compatible but an old version doesn't have all current features. Your example Special:Listusers is from MediaWiki Core so it doesn't rely on an extension. It has been there for at least 15 years, maybe always, but details of the functionality may have changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Links to sections and subsections

I have drafted an article with a section called Examples and another section having a subsection also called Examples. How do I link to the subsection?

For instance, if I am inserting a link within the article, #Examples takes me to the section, not to the subsection. How do I link to the subsection? I tried a couple of obvious things but they didn't work. Johsebb (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Johsebb, what is the article? I'd probably suggest just renaming one of the sections, but it might help if we could see the article itself. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd assume we're looking at Draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments). Bsoyka (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I think the other, more pressing issues about the draft (raised in the AfC review) should be taken care of before worrying too much about how to link to a subsection. However, Template:Anchor may be useful for that task. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Johsebb: A number can be added like User talk:PrimeHunter/Archive 1#Thanks 2, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings says section headings should be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The draft article is indeed the one Bsoyka pointed to. The question I raised is in the "finishing touches" department. Over the past few months I've massively rewritten the article to respond to the AfC review. I can't tell from your comment whether you actually had a chance to look over the current draft, but if you have and you think it doesn't adequately respond to the review, I would be grateful to hear your thoughts. Johsebb (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that was intended as a reply to Sawyer.

Thanks for pointing me to the MoS. It appears that I need to use unique headings, even for sections at different levels. Johsebb (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I only looked at it briefly, so I apologize. I don't edit in the field of mathematics, so I don't know the norms surrounding articles in that topic. However, I do think the citations of the article are pretty good. I'd suggest posting a message at the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics to get feedback from editors who would know the "lay of the land" of math articles. Hope that helps! sawyer * he/they * talk 05:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My topic is considered not notable

Hi, thank you in advance for your time and any thoughtful help you may be able to lend. There is an actor of whom I am a fan, Bourke Floyd and I tried to write a n article with him as the subject. My submission was reviewed and declined because he was found to be “not notable”. It stated the sources I included made only “passing references” to him. He has been mentioned in deadline Hollywood, interviewed on ABC News, on 20/20 Downtown and a few other places. I recognize that he isn’t a house hold name but he’s on a bunch of tv shows and movies. If that isn’t enough to warrant an article I understand and accept that but I guess I’m just hoping there’s something else I can do to resubmit.

thank you again for all of your help,

Alex AlexandraWade (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Bourke Floyd --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, @AlexandraWade. Interviews do not count towards notability. They are considered primary sources. Per our notability guidlines for actors, actors need to either star in multipule notable films or make lasting contributions towards their field. This person does not appear to meet either of those criteria. My advice would be to go edit something else for a few months and come back to this topic once you have more experience editing Wikipedia. Happy editing, NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello amd welcome. If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him, that discuss him in depth, he would not merit an article at this time. That's not forever, just until he receives the coverage in independent sources. Interviews would not count as those are not independent. He doesn't have to give a single interview, but sources need to choose to write about him.

You should read conflict of interest as you seem to know Mr. Floyd and took a picture of him. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know him personally, I was in attendance as a fan at the event where those photos were taken. I have photos of lots of the other celebrities that were there too. Having said that, I do see how he’s not really “notable” in terms of the Wikipedia standard he’s just a “working actor”. That definitely helped clear it up for me. Thank you for your time and assistance. AlexandraWade (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, AlexandraWade, and welcome to the Teahouse. "Notable" is a slightly unfortunate word, because what we mean by it in Wikipedia is not famous, or popular, or significant, or influential, or important, but rather "there is enough independent material published about the subject to base an article on" - remembering that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the time and help here. I look forward to becoming more affluent on Wikipedia and being a valued contributor once I’m ready. AlexandraWade (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That's lovely to hear! I hope you have fun editing, and if you need any more help, don't be afraid to show up here again. If you're looking for ways to contribute, you can check out the Task Center and the Contributing to Wikipedia pages, which have helpful information for newcomers. Happy editing! sawyer * he/they * talk 01:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Modern space race

For months now, I've been working independently on a draft on the modern space race and would like to humbly ask for users to help review, fact-check, and improve the draft before an eventual move into the article space. I'd like to point out, first and foremost, that the article is still a work-in-a-progress and is not, by any means, complete yet. This topic is very broad and has over-qualified itself for a separate, stand-alone article in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:N.

Thanks, --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 01:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@WellThisIsTheReaper: Hello! I've just taken a look at your draft and to me it feels like original research. From Wikipedia:No_original_research: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 01:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you be able to clarify specifically where you find that you feel I've used original research, please? I feel as though I've linked sources to a lot of the claims I'm making in my draft.

Thanks, --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 01:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@WellThisIsTheReaper: Well, I don't see any direct unsourced claims, but I'm concerned with the term itself "new space race". I see that you provided three sources which talk about "new space race" and then began writing long history of both countries' space programs where each sentence is well sourced. However, I'm not sure if this (modern space race or new space race) is widely accepted term like "Cold War", so that it merits an article, or it's just newspapers doing their thing with the titles. I could be wrong though, any experienced editor can feel free to correct me, now I am going to sleep. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 02:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Questionable peacock in Johor Bahru

Seeking more outside opinions for the sentence Johor Bahru was also the second largest GDP contributor among the first tier cities in Malaysia in 2010. The reference used ("Urban Regeneration :The Case of Penang, Malaysia. Putting Policy into Practice" (PDF). Khazanah Nasional: 10. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 January 2016 – via The chart of the GDP contributor is in Page 10.), seemed like a Powerpoint slide of questionable reliability. It was never mentioned where the data for city GDP came from. Official GDP data in Malaysia are available down to state-level only, not smaller-level divisions like cities (https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-). Could this count as peacock or synthetic claim? Slothades (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Can an AFC article that has been reviewed and accepted be subsequently deleted

A page submitted for AFC review and accepted was afterwards nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, without a collective decision to do so. Is this right? Heatrave (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

probably yes, but what page? ltbdl (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Chijindu Kelechi Eke NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

that doesn't look very deleted to me. ltbdl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Heatrave: yes, very much so. AfC reviews often operate at the margin of notability. Acceptance doesn't mean "this article must be kept forever"; it only means "this article is probably okay", ie. it would have a 50:50 chance of surviving a hypothetical, or indeed actual, AfD discussion. Usually it doesn't come to that. If it does, often the article will survive. But sometimes it doesn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this was about Rhymesonny, approved as article on 10 December, AfD nominated 13 Dec, then AfD Administrator's decision to delete on 22 Dec. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD @DoubleGrazing i don't think that it was fair to delete that page because some of the reasons given during the discussion.

Right now it is indexed in search so do you advise a recreation of the page or is there a possibility to revert the deletion and suggest improvements instead? Heatrave (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know what happened?

When I looked at 2023 Israel–Hamas war this morning, there were 29,000 deaths listed for the Gaza Strip. Now it's gone down to 21,000 deaths. I can't comment on the talk page because my account isn't extended-confirmed, so what happened, and which numbers are accurate? Kk.urban (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the page's edit history, the edit summaries that changed the figures will likely be informative. Remsense留 04:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It may have something to do with this discussion on the articles talk page. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Esolo5002 Thank you. Kk.urban (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Unable to publish my article

Kindly provide some tips for publish article Drpaturiramarao (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Drpaturiramarao: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Please read Help:Your_first_article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)