Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Need help to know why my article is regarded as promoting a company or instituion[edit]

Hey Guys, i'm new here, just wondering why my article is regarded as promoting a company or instituion? Since the data resource i provided is coming from a concret and solit media resource, i choose the topic i like to contribute in WikiPedia but still get denied and rejected by directly deleting my contribution withour letting me know where the issue is at, i sincerely ask for help if anyone can guide me on this, Thank you for reading and replying, stay safe. 010e0e (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, 010e0e. I cannot see the article that was deleted after that discussion, but I assume it is similar to Draft:ThunderCore. Some advice has been posted to your talk page, the most important of which being

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

As far as I can tell, the current draft is sourced mostly to press releases and other sources closely associated to ThunderCore, which are therefore not independent. The only source approaching something of the quality we are looking for is Coindesk, but there is consensus that it should not be used because of conflict of interest issues.
I do not really think the draft has issues of promotional tone, but the "qualification for a Wikipedia article" part (called "notability" here) is a big issue. If you cannot find good sources (e.g. mainstream newspaper sources) then you should stop working on the draft altogether because it will never be accepted. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advices! I will check on this closely: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 010e0e (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An important thing to remember, 010e0e, is 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) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to ThunderCore being deleted, the draft you moved to article about Chris Wang (ThunderCore CEO) is at AfD and likely to be deleted. You have not yet replied to a query on your Talk page asking whether you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) or are paid or otherwise compensated (WP:PAID) for your attempts to create articles about ThunderCore and Wang. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse hosts: I do a lot of copyedits, but is there any reason to copyedit an article that is up for deletion? I would guess the answer is No, but in that article about Chris Wang of ThunderCore, the phrase "Chris borned in Taiwan" just cries out to be fixed.
010e0e created ths article, then commented that "This page is a solid article content" in an edit summary; Praxidicae and TheRoadIsLong both draftified it at different times. I'm trying to resist making copyedits... 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who coordinates at the Guild of Copy Editors, I would recommend refraining from copyediting unstable articles (whether in edits or namespaces), as there's a decent chance that they may end up being deleted and your efforts wasted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Tenryuu, I was leaning in that direction. You have convinced me. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to save a partial draft without publishing[edit]

I think I have finally cracked the fortress wall and figured out how to get a page started in my sandbox. but it is far from finished. How can I save my work but not "publish" it for review yet? I have extensive sources and links to fill in still. I'm using the visual editor, but I suspect the command line at the top was created automatically because I loaded some information from a Word doc into which I'd originally copied another Wikipedia page to use as a template (which seemed easier at the time, when I couldn't figure out how to find one on Wikipedia). It reads {{subst:AfC submission/draftnew}}. It also could have been created when I clicked through the "let's get started" sections. Either way, I don't know if that's the command I want in order to save the work I've done so far but not submit it for review yet. Right now, the only apparent way for me to save the work I've done is to hit "publish page." I did see a mention somewhere saying it won't actually publish, but I've also seen info that says "ready to have your work reviewed? Click the blue "publish" button." So which is it?

Color me confused — and frustrated that I keep clicking on "help" links, instructions, live chat links, etc., and cannot for the life of me get this answer. The live chat link won't even work, for some reason. I've tried to get in by entering my user name in the box instead of the one that appears under the name "Nick" (no idea who that is), and tried it with the ghost name in the box under "Nick" and my password. It won't work either way. I have a screenshot if you'd like to see it.

I've put a lot of work into this entry, so I'd like to see it get posted, if possible.


Thanks for any insight you can offer!

"~~~~" TexasEditor1 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TexasEditor1, There's no saving without it being visible on wiki. That is why button the button is labeled "publish". However, articles in your sandbox can be worked on without any worry that they will be deleted and have minimal visibility. Slywriter (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. TexasEditor1 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to Sandbox content not being deleted. A major one is having copy/pasted content that is copyright protected. Another is being unabashedly promotional. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 if you are concerned about hitting "publish" to save your work-in-progress you can do the majority of work off-line, before transferring it to Wikipedia. I have written and published several Wikipedia articles, and I'm just more comfortable doing my work in a couple of off-line documents so that I know that everything stays under my control until I've completed my work. I have a Mac laptop so use TextEdit files – one for collecting all of my notes and references, and one for the actual writing and formatting. Once I believe my draft manuscript is complete I copy and paste it into my sandbox to see if I've made reference formatting mistakes, or if any sentences seem awkward or confusing. This is just a suggestion of what works for me.
Also, even though I'd done a small amount of freelance writing before discovering Wikipedia, I still limited myself to editing for 3 years before I felt experienced enough to try and create a new online article. And then I read Your first article so many times I practically had it memorized! I understood that the process was rather complicated for beginners in the "Wiki writing world" so I took it slow, read a half-dozen similar Wikipedia articles for examples, double and triple-checked everything I did to make sure I wasn't making any noticeable errors, and submitted my work for review. More than a decade later I'm still learning, but very much appreciate being able to publish articles that I believe will of help and interest to others.
Best wishes on your Wikipedia volunteer work. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I did create this offline, but there are so many footnotes, external links and Wikipedia links, I thought I would try to get the numbering straightened out in my sandbox. I've been trying for quite a long time to figure out how to get this posted, and I'd finally gotten to the point where I thought I could create a sandbox draft and store it till I finished (I couldn't finish it all at once because there a lot of links and I wanted to make sure they still work, etc. and get footnotes right, and check to make sure I am following protocols and instructions as carefully as possible. I know this page is legit; I just want to make sure I've done it right and conform to specs before I actually ask for a review. And this one is a big job. Y'all are being very helpful and I appreciate it!
I think part of my confusion is that everywhere I tried to turn for more info or help, it seemed to get more complicated, with coding complexities I was hoping to avoid by using Visual Editor. And when I got into that, I saw all kinds of caveats that made it sound as if it probably wouldn't work. I decided to try anyway, because I have a huge table that would be horrid to have to rebuild on the actual page. I haven't figured out how to manipulate column widths yet (it doesn't appear that dragging them works, as it does on my Mac), but I don't really need to and will research if I decide I do. TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TexasEditor1 I hope you're able to get everything figured out in time. I've never attempted a table of any kind, so I won't attempt to give suggestions on creating them. The only advice my non-technical brain can say is that when I feel overwhelmed with trying to figure out what's going wrong with an article I set the project aside for a couple of days. When I come back with rested eyes and mind it's often easier to see the mistake that's causing the "log jam" in my data formatting. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lost 90% of Wiki article progress after computer updated? Most recent version not in draft history, can someone please help?[edit]

Draft: ILENE I have been on assignment working on the page Draft: ILENE for the past 3 days, which included a large amount of sourced information from numerous sources. My computer installed an overnight update, but upon restarting, 90% of information was lost, reverting the article back to an early version that is not acceptable and will not be used. Is there any possible way to recover all of the lost information, or the last version of this article which should be dated either June 23, or June 24, 2022? Please help. At my wits end. Thank you. 247ice (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@247ice: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you didn't click on the Publish changes button to save the draft, there is unfortunately no way to recover the text. Sometimes the browser may save it locally, but this doesn't seem to be the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. It does unfortunately appear to be lost. I will redraft, thanks again. 247ice (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Publish changes means save. It's called "Publish" because it can be seen by others, although not found by searches. David notMD (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@247ice Please, who has made this assignment that you are on? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdare Urban District Council Elections[edit]

This series of pages talks about the elections for the Aberdare Urban District Council. I have corrected the summary to show that the Council remained in place after 1910 (previously it was shown as being abolished in 1910). The Council remained in place until 1974 (with the last election for the Council being in 1972. I have the records of these elections and want to add the results from 1910 to 1972. However the only records I have been able to use are manuscript records, in some cases backed by microfiche records of newspaper articles. Can I enter these as sources? - the manuscript records are held at Aberdare Central Library and within the 'W W Price Collection' and are backed by a record kept for about 50 years by a local Councillor which is in my possession. I have shown a link to the 1910 record which is here: 1910 Aberdare Urban District Council election. Thanks in advance for your help and advice. Alunwms (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alunwms. Reading a microfiche record of a newspaper article is completely equivalent to reading the original paper version. It is nice when a reliable source is available online, and if it is, a link should be provided. But there is no requirement that sources be available online. Include as much bibliographic information as you can. For a newspaper article that you read by microfiche, that would be the name of the newspaper (wikilinked if there is an article about the newspaper), the date of publication, the precise title of the article, the authors name(s), and the page number. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help Alunwms (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography table[edit]

Hello there, I wanted to ask something regarding filmography tables. So, I have noticed that usually in most artists, actors, etc.—people who are involved in entertainment, film, television, and such - the rowspan of years in their filmography is merged if there's more than one film release in a specific year, and roles as well, if a role has been portrayed consecutively. However, in some articles, despite of the artist portraying a role in succession as in follow ups (2-3 times, for instance), the role is not merged as one row spanning over the required cells, and likewise happens with year count in some articles. There weren't any invisible comments there or remarks in the talk pages of those articles. Hence, I would like to know what's the reason behind it, I mean besides - wouldn't a merged row be much cleaner and less confusing as well? Thank you in advance, and have a good day. Sam (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam0006, in the end it comes down to the person creating the table (I assume you mean table, not infobox). They may either not want or not know how to merge cells. It can be daunting, especially to newcomers and especially in the source editor - I hear it's somewhat easier in the visual editor. As far as I know, there's no rule that says they must or must not be merged; if you think Wikipedia is improved by merging them, have at it (using a really good one like List of Tom Hanks performances as a guide is usually helpful). But if someone doesn't like the change and reverts you, remember to have a discussion or - perhaps - just move on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Sam (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious account, if there's an admin, please investigate[edit]

I made an edit to the page History of Transylvania and user Aishik Rehman reverted my edit, instantly, by instantly I mean not even 1 minute has passed. https:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=1094837207&oldid=1094837154 So I was okay, I reverted it back and asked him "could you explain me why you undid the edit?", he literally did the same, instant revert, no explaination given https:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=1094837982&oldid=1094837948 and not even 1 minute passed. I said it must be a bot account so I reverted again, the undoed my edit again for the 3rd time, without explaining why again, and then again I reverted and asked him if he could explain why https:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=1094838369&oldid=1094838226.
He then stopped: https:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&action=history
Kind of weird, so I went on his profile page.
Looks normal: https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aishik_Rehman
Then I went to his contribution pages: https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aishik_Rehman it's insane. From 19:35 to 20:19 he made 50 edits, all of them removing content. And all of them to very unrelated pages. One is a Korean singer, one is a religious page, one is the history of England, one is a German school for girls, and one was my edit with the History of Transylvania.
I'm 99.9% it's a bot. Hard to believe a human can make 50 edits in 40 minutes on greatly unrelated topics. Not sure if bots are allowed or any stuff like that so I just wanted to bring this to attention. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLastOfTheGiants, they seem to be doing some sort of anti-vandalism patrol, in which case it's quite possible for a non-bot to make such edits. They recently responded to a post on their talk page - you could bring up the issue there. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This account doesn't look like a bot. I've seen non-bots revert vandal edits in seconds, and stuff being reverted in less than a minute is normal. I would consider taking this to their user talk page or ANI if all else fails. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TheLastOfTheGiants. Bots are allowed and your 99.9% confidence level was incorrect. This is a human being editing rapidly. Bot accounts must be approved at the end of a stringent review process and all bot account names end with the three characters "bot". Bots do enormously important work here. Antivandalism bots are highly effective and getting better all the time. Many bots do repetitive maintenance and housekeeping tasks. Properly programmed bots are essential to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheLastOfTheGiants. This isn't a bot account, but the account is likely using a special script or tool to help in make lots of similar edits quickly. (You can tell this by look at the edit summaries they're leaving.) Editors who use such things are responsible for how they use them and for the most part many do use them correctly. In some cases, however, an editor with the best of intentions may actually go a little over board based on some misunderstanding of a relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline and not realize they're making a mistake. If you think that's the case here, you should try to avoid anything that could be perceived as edit warring on your part and instead either (1) ask the other editor about it directly on their user talk page or (2) start a discussion about the matter on the article talk page. What you try to do was discuss things via edit summaries as explained in WP:REVTALK, and such an approach is usually not productive. Moreover, if you were actually dealing with a bot, then a bot is not going to respond to you via an edit summary: a bot is only going to continue doing what it was tasked to do no matter how wrong you think the bot may be. FWIW, its possible for human users to quickly make lots of consecutive similar edits without using scripts or tools, but once again they're responsible for their edits just the same as anyone else. In some cases, an editor might be warned about such a thing if they're making the same mistake over and over again, but there's usually seems to need to be an established pattern of WP:MEATBOT behavior before any administrator will step in and take action. So, before starting any discussion about this at WP:ANI and before calling another editor "dubious", I would first be cognizant of WP:BOOMERANG and WP:ANIADVICE and try to resolve this like you would any other content dispute in accordance with WP:DR. It's only when it clearly has become a behavior issue that you should go to ANI. You need to remember that the WP:ONUS is still on you when trying to make changes to an article and sometimes this could mean being a little more WP:CAUTIOUS than WP:BOLD. Major changes made to articles often end up being noticed by bots or user using scripts/tools more for the size of the change than the quality of the change, and in some cases they might end up being reverted without a close examination. This, of course, isn't idea in a way since quality obviously matters more than quantity, but it's something that can happen. So, keep this in mind if something similar happens to you again because simply reverting back and forth usually will make things worse. It's best for you to stop and seek assistance since the change can always be restored after discussing it and establishing a consensus for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your responses. The editor has stopped reverting my edits. If he does it again I will not edit war but instead talk to him about his reasons for reverting my edits. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Show all my sandbox subpages in my sandbox main page[edit]

I want to see all my sandbox subpages in my sandbox main page. I think this https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:My_sandbox#My_subpages is what I'm looking for, but it does not seem to work. Could anybody see my sandbox and tell me what went wrong? https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Regpath/sandbox Regpath (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Regpath. I am not an expert programmer but I just recommend that you create a clean wikilink from one page to another. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Cullen328. Thank you for your suggestion. W←]hat I want to do, however, is to show all my subapages automatically, without including wikilinks every time I create a sandbox subpage. Regpath (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Regpath. Why do you want to view all of your subpages when you can already view all of your contributions? What matters here on Wikipedia are edits that actually improve the encyclopedia. Everything else is far less relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of reasons somebody might want quick access to subpages - In this case, it looks like Regpath has seven different drafts/workspaces for specific pages. They almost certainly just want to be able to get to them quickly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Regpath, probably this is not exactly the solution you're looking for, but by putting

{{ucb|Regpath}} on your userpage or your sandbox, it will create this:

Neat and handy... --Maresa63 Talk 07:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware you can either simply place a link to all subpages on your main sandbox. Otherwise, this should work too:
(Note: Not all special pages can be embeded via this way, and not all parameters are supported) Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a neat trick, Victor! I didn't know that (some?) Special: pages created transcludable wiki-code. Pinging Regpath. (The transclusion code that Victor used is {{Special:PrefixIndex/User:Regpath/}}). ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 19:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jacobi: why disambiguated?[edit]

The mathematician is pretty obviously the primary topic. 84.236.107.131 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are detailed and well referenced and about the same length, so the primary topic is not at all obvious to me, but you are welcome to make your case on the appropriate talk page. Shantavira|feed me 10:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, was not familiar with the mathematician (before reading this thread) but was familiar with the horror/fantasy writer, so what to you is obvious isn't obvious to me. It seems to me that someone searching for "Carl Jacobi" is about equally likely to want either of the articles. Deor (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mathematician gets 34 times as many page views [1] so he does look primary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for the location of death of a subject[edit]

Please advise - I have provided a source in a citation, a website with the necessary information but it is only accessible if someone is registered on the site (no subscription or payment required). Since I cannot expect an editor to do this I would like to upload a screenshot/jpeg of the relevant information. Is this possible and acceptable? I am a new editor and am having some trouble navigating on the system. Thanks very much. Rwarsager (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rwarsager Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not necessary to do that; there is no requirement that a source be able to be accessed without registering, or even that it be without payment(see WP:PAYWALL). A source need not be easy or free to access. It doesn't even have to be online. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of whether or not its possible, but it's not required in any way - See WP:PAYWALL. That said, there's consensus that FamilySearch is usually unreliable because of how much of its content is user-generated - Unless you're linking directly to an obituary or death certificate it should not be used. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should also change the "title" field to the name of the page/document you're linking too instead of the URL, otherwise it doesn't render properly. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, many thanks for your reply. It's very helpful. I did not realize that about FamilySearch or that it is considered unreliable so I will try to get a death certificate from the official source in England. I hope that in the meantime it is satisfactory to list the UK death location. And thank you for the tip on the 'title' field. I appreciate your guidance! Best regards. Randy Warsager Rwarsager (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Just to clarify, if you're linking to a document that's hosted on FamilySearch, like a scan of a certificate or something like that, it would be fine. It just can't be "this user on FamilySearch said this." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences[edit]

So usual on pages there is a references section that is acting like one block, for example under the references section on Cochrane, Alberta. I can never figure out how to edit them when it acts like a big block like that. Please help. Msaskiw (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, let me ad to this, when you are in the edit mode it acts like one big block. Msaskiw (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msaskiw: Each reference is actually in the article text, following the material it supports; the "References" section just displays them all together. If you click on the ^ at the beginning of a reference, you will jump to its place in the text, and it can be edited there. Deor (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deor, well I added a citation which lead to a news article, which is in the article text, I do not see it in the references? or is that not a reference. Msaskiw (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msaskiw: If you're referring to the Canada Day reference you added, I see that as number 40 in the list of references. (There seems to be two Canada Day items in the bulleted list under "Arts and culture"; probably only one is needed.) Deor (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deor No i did not add Canada day, I added the pumpkin light up. I added a citation and it is not in the references. Msaskiw (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msaskiw: I see that as reference 38. Deor (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

How do you create a new article on Wikipedia? I have tried searching for info about a company but an article about it did not appear. Thank you 82.132.184.206 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Check out WP:YFA for instructions, but keep in mind that creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest things you can do on Wikipedia. I recommend trying out some other smaller tasks first to get the hang of things around here; take a look at the task center for that. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP has advice specific to articles about companies. Be aware that there are articles about organizations and companies that do not meet current standards for referencing or neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), so modeling after other articles is not a guarantee of success. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
other reading material I suggest you check out include notability for companies, which outlines what criteria companies have to meet in order to have an article (and may explain why the company you're looking for doesn't), and reliable sources, which outlines what you can use to prove the points you made in the article you're writing, especially regarding the notability criteria. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manga photo[edit]

Hello. Can someone tell me why when putting manga cover images, for most you chose first volume cover like "Golgo 13", "Dragon ball" or "naruto", but for some you chose others like "One piece" which is 61, "detective conan" which is 36 or "Oishinbo" which is 102? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfp5 The answer could very well be "someone thought it was a good idea and noone has changed it", but try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, the editors who hang out there may know something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfp5 You might be thinking that the same person created and named all of these -- that is not the case. There is no single "you" who is doing this, but rather, many different "yous" who each have their own ideas as Gråbergs Gråa Sång says. And yes, please ask at the talk page. Hope this helps. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divided columns... {{div col}}[edit]

Is there any MOS guidance on when and when not to make a column into two or more divided columns? I often times do this for aesthetic reasons if the lists (especially "Notable people" lists in various towns are cities) are over 20 entries in depth. Otherwise, if the list/column is pretty short, I'll leave it be. I just wanted to see though if there is some MOS "standard" that one might operate by here for purposes of both readability and consistency. Thanks wiki-world! Th78blue (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue Remember that some readers are reading on a narrow cell phone, so if the entries are wide, the result might not look good if you force two columns. I don't know how to use markup to say "use 2 columns if the screen is wide enough" but I think there's a way.71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am pretty sure that it doesn't render unless the screen allows for it. So in that regard it is somewhat less material. That said, I still was just curious if there was any guideline that I am unaware of. Also, I could be wrong about that rendering notion, but I am pretty sure that is how it works based on past experience with this exact item. Th78blue (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

policy on trans language?[edit]

Hi! I'm wondering what the policy is on using identity terms (like transgender, nonbinary, etc) when discussing individuals who died before those terms came into use. For example, in the article on the history of crossdressing: "Harry Allen (1888-1922), born female under the name Nell Pickerell in the Pacific Northwest, was categorized as a ‘male impersonator’ who cross-dressed, rather than as a transgender male which is how he identified." From a practical perspective I understand why the term is used here; it's the best shorthand we have for someone who was assigned female but lived as a man. However, it feels inaccurate to say that he identified as a transgender male when the term transgender was created decades after his death (although early versions of it existed towards the end of his life); it seems that, if the term is being used as shorthand for how he lived his life, a qualifier is needed to clarify that he never explicitly called himself transgender. What is the policy on this? Trashheel (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trashheel: Welcome to the Teahouse! I took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Resources and didn't notice any mention of this situation. You may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is probably what you're looking for. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!! I'll definitely ask over there :) Trashheel (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That doesn't quite answer what I'm looking for in terms of applying modern terms to historical figures, but very helpful as a resource as I learn how to edit articles. Trashheel (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THis may not help for the specific issue, but it is well worth reading. Wikipedia:Gender identity. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That is a great read. Trashheel (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Does WIkipedia provide a list of approved, paid -for-editing wikipedia editors? Steve K. Sgkukolich (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies, but some of them fail to disclose their paid editing and are blocked (or even banned). weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgkukolich: Also, I wouldn't recommend paying someone to edit for you because:
  • The paid editor has to disclose who is paying them.
  • Paid editors, no matter how they advertise their "page protection services" (hint: they can't), no Wikipedian can control the outcome of anything for sure.
  • Also, stuff written on Wikipedia must be neutral. Articles created by paid public relations firms are often speedily deleted.
And I don't think Wikipedia approves specific editors, although Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Never_blocked may give you some ideas. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of the consequences paid editing without disclosure, see Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia. One company even got a cease and desist letter for undisclosed paid editing once. Hope this helps. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spell Wars[edit]

I could not find any reference to this book! I suspect that the article should therefore be deleted...GrahamHardy (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @GrahamHardy and welcome to the teahouse! you could tag the article with proposed deletion, see that page for more, and if nobody objects in a week's time the article can be deleted. otherwise, you could try out Articles for deletion, see that page for instructions, where you can start a discussion with others on whether the page should be deleted. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SCAN[edit]

I would like to update history information to add the following to https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCAN_Health_Plan - SCAN began enrollment in Alameda County on January 1, 2022. 2601:644:8E7F:9F0:2C07:1159:2A7A:510D (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! feel free to edit the page, but please back it up with a reliable source first - check that page to see how you can find one and what kinds of sources count as reliable. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to rewrite head sentence[edit]

This is a question about how to rewrite the head sentence of "Comfort Woman" article. It is a well-known fact that "comfort women" have two opinions: "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves." However, in the current article, the first paragraph says "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army… and editor is eliminating the "licensed prostitutes" claim on this basis. This clearly violates 5P1 and 5P2. To maintain neutrality, this paragraph should be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to the Imperial Japanese Army.... The discussion on both sides regarding this rewrite has been exhausted on Talk. Please let me know what procedures are required for this rewrite. Eyagi (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eyagi's question might instead be stated, "How can I take control of a page in which talk page consensus is solidly against me". Eyagi misrepresents the topic here, creating a false balance between two points of view, one generally held by topic scholars and the other held by nationalist Japanese revisionists. One of those views is definitive, while the other is a minor viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the Teahouse is not set up to handle content disputes or behavioral issues. @Eyagi, if you believe talk page discussion has not resolved the issue, you should pursue mediation or one of the options listed here. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I post to the neutral point of view notice board. Eyagi (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eyagi, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Its articles are about subjects, not words or phrases. The opening sentence of Comfort women makes it clear what its subject is. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there 2 different images with the same Address?[edit]

I recently uploaded a bunch of images through Wiki Commons and decided it would be a good idea to use one. But when I typed in the address for the image another image (not mine) that appeared to have the same address. I'm very confused and will want some advice soon. Image Address: [[File:Llanite.jpg|thumb]] Texas Lane (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Texas Lane and welcome to the teahouse! it seems like there's a file named Llanite.jpg both the English Wikipedia and Commons. since the other Llanite.jpg is also due to be moved to Commons at some point, what you could do is rename your image in Commons to a different (ideally more specific) name so that it doesn't conflict with the existing one in Wikipedia, then use that name instead in adding your image. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Melecie, thanks for the advice but I have had no experience renaming an image's name before or even how to. Texas Lane (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Texas Lane, you could check out File renaming to see how renaming works in Commons, then press More > Move and fill out the details to request a rename. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Major League Hacking meet WP:NCORP?[edit]

Maybe this isn't the right venue. Was perusing articles and found Major League Hacking. It has passing mentions like [2], [3], [4] (not independent), and one source with any depth [5], but I'm not experienced actually looking for sources or understanding the threshold for corporations. Ovinus (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus I marked it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Hacking after confirming none of the sources in article, and a WP:BEFORE check provided anything reliable either. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that it has been an article since 2014 and not challenged earlier. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit a page's preview?[edit]

I'm referring to the page preview you get when you mouse over a blue link. Is this function locked behind admin status? I tried but couldn't find any answers about this. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The preview should be just the first few sentences of the article's lede, assuming we're talking popups. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Oh, sorry, I meant which image shows up in the preview. Had a few articles where either no image shows in the preview or an image other than the one in the infobox is used in the preview.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scary user page messages[edit]

Hello,

I created a user name and, I thought, page, on Wikipedia in approximately 2016; it was dormant for a while, but I've since done enough editing to qualify to create an entry. I'm creating my draft in my sandbox, which is where I thought it was supposed to go while still in drafting phase, but I've encountered notices that claim Wikipedia does not have a user page with my name. When I signed on, I opted not to fill in any details till I knew my way around. I also thought I began my wiki article on a subpage in my sandbox, using the visual editor. How could I get to a sandbox without having a user page, much less a subpage? I'm now getting a rather glaring notice in a pink box that informs me "Please do not draft new articles here — to do that, create a userspace draft." Underneath it is the earlier notice that says Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. But the top of my page says "User:TexasEditor1." That's me!

I'm trying very hard to be respectful and learn — and follow — the rules. I've already put so much work into verifying and adding links and references and making sure my writing is factual and neutral. What do I need to do to make sure I'm creating it where and how I'm supposed to be? I'm afraid I'll lose what I have if I create a user page and it tries to tell me that user already exists. TexasEditor1 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TexasEditor1: I'm kinda confused by what you're describing. It sounds like it'd be easiest to see if you could post up screenshots of what you're seeing, say, in imgur and give us the links.
In the meantime, though, the best way to make sure you don't lose progress is to switch to "source editor" (it's a pencil icon in the top right corner, to the left of "Publish" if you're using visual editor). Once you've got the source code stuff, just select everything, copy it, and paste it in a notepad on your computer. Save that notepad file so that even if you lose internet connection or something else happens, it'll still be saved on your computer.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From your Contributions, looks as if your draft is now at Draft:Mark Addison. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "Publish changes" means save. You also have an empty Sandbox at User:TexasEditor1/sandbox/Mark Addison which you can ignore or delete, as you have successfully moved your content to the draft. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David! (and Jasonkwe
I think I wanted to work on it in the sandbox; that's where it goes when it's still in progress, right? But it seemed as if the only way to save it was to turn it into a draft. I did save copies in source code and visual editor (pasted into Word). Now I have to figure out the rest of my external refs; I have a few in paywalled newspaper archives and haven't qualified to access the Wikipedia library. My big concern is one quote I'm using from a Plain Dealer review. TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 I think you can worry a little bit less than you are now. Sandbox generally keeps things safe from altering or breaking anything important. And even if you do, you can always revert changes. Submitting a draft article for review is good but not "technically" necessary. You could just make a new article like this and publish it to the world like this. I didn't do that but wikipedia can be altered by anyone and everyone (hence the tools the mods use to prevent vandalism).

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination since Wikipedia has lots of guidelines and rules and manual of style recommendations. But those key principles do include WP:BOLD and WP:NOTPERFECT. Wikipedia is a self-correcting machine and problems get pointed out and worked on by others. Not saying it's nice or polite to throw something out completely half baked but something (if constructive and useful about a notable topic) is usually better than nothing. All articles start somewhere and many start as little stubs that get built on by others. One of the articles that's featured as "In the News" on wikipedia's front page June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, started out as this [6]. The article for George HW Bush started out as this [7]. I definitely sympathize as I'm doing the same (quietly working on an article I plan to publish until it's ready to go) but it is a collaborative effort that no one has to do alone.

Freely accessible sources are definitely preferred but you can use sources that are stuck behind paywalls. If you have personal access and can read those articles or publications to verify they back up what you're saying in the article, that's adequate WP:SOURCELINKS. It's definitely an annoyance when a cited source isn't freely available through the internet but that's just how it is sometimes--books are a common example of this as lots of books aren't freely available online in their entirety but are often cited as sources in wiki articles. One other note, I did see a few sources in your draft are from IMDB. Generally, anything that is openly editable on the internet isn't a good source (which is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable citable source either).

Your draft on Mark Addison is definitely impressive for an article written from scratch! Wikipedia does have guidelines on biographies of living people so you should check that if you haven't already. Usually the big issue is of notability but I can see that there's interviews from notable sources about him. The other big problem is often conflict of interest as people often write about themselves or are paid to write/promote someone. I don't think you are Mark Addison (since your user page says you're a journalist) but even that's not an instant disqualifier if you follow the guidelines.

One last plug: my one advice/plea to editors (besides citing authors which you're good at but most wiki editors seem to be allergic to.....) is to add archived links. Articles written even 5 years ago often have broken sources because the website they link to did some changes to their system and all links to pages on their old site are useless. Annoys me to no end. Best thing you can do is to include Internet Archive snapshots of the pages you're citing. If there isn't a snapshot of the page that you're using on Internet Archive already, then you can/should make one. Helps preserve the internet's useful information for generations to come. For instance, I often use soldiersystems.net as a source. Their articles generally get archived but some don't. If I wanted to cite this article, I would definitely make a snapshot of it and include it in the citation (this isn't the same page but it's a snapshot of another page that is stored on Internet Archive). Images often get broken in snapshots but that's still much preferable to having nothing. Anyway, happy editing! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are my new hero. Thanks for all the great advice! I most certainly am not Mark Addison, and do have an uncopyrighted photo to add that would indicate that (if you knew what I looked like!). Suffice to say I am not a bald male and he is. I didn't think IMDB was editable by anyone, but that's good to know. I hope I'll be able to substitute those refs, though I'm wondering if I'm overdoing it a bit anyway.
I have written about Mark and many of the cited people before and think he has an interesting story — one that's definitely legitimate enough to be on Wikipedia. (I'm from Pittsburgh, only two hours away from Cleveland, and spent a lot of time there covering the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, so I relate to his history, and both of us now live in Austin.)
I'd rather not put it out there with a lot of incomplete sourcing or incorrect referencing/punctuation, but I may have to let a few things slide because this thing is so reference- and link-heavy, it's taking forever.
I just have one other big problem: I've been using AP style all of my professional life. My brain cannot handle the concept of putting commas and periods outside of quotes! I know I'll have to go through this and fix that, but it will be very painful.
As for the couple of paywalled articles I need, the issue is that I can't even get into the archives to get the urls. I got copies of the stories from their author, but no actual link. (Like me, he copied stories out of his newspaper archives when he had access, before they all threw up paywalls or killed older content.) I've temporarily put in the info without links, and didn't get red-flagged when I inserted them, but it seems pointless to reference something no one can check. I can screen-shoot what I have, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.
Unfortunately for me and many other journalists, most of my career doesn't exist, as far at the internet is concerned. I was a full-time newspaper writer and editor for 20 years; only one of my former employers has online archives that include my work. I wrote for two magazines that are now owned by the same publisher — whose web designer somehow managed to wipe bylines off of every archived story. Ten years down the tubes. But their archives don't even go back far enough to include some of my favorite cover stories. Muckrack may have some, including uploaded PDFs, but I haven't seen any evidence that Wikipedia accepts those.
But I'm glad I'm taking the plunge.
One other question ... I checked pages by someone I know is paid to write entries, and she linked to pages on every mention of something like "Austin, Texas." There's no need to repeat links on each mention of a name or place, correct? TexasEditor1 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 Yeah, I'm glad I can help! And no worries lol, no need for the photo, I trust that you are (or in this case, aren't) what you say you are/aren't (man that's awkwardly worded).

I think the tough thing to wrap the head around is that this isn't one's job (usually). If you handed in a half done article to your boss, I imagine they'd look at you like you have three heads and tell you to go and finish it. But if you went to a food drive and contributed several dozen cans of food but didn't have any fresh fruit to give, no one would turn you away or think you did less than was required, you know? Same here (but see below about being paid for writing).

Haha I hear you, it's tough to change those habits. I'm a double-space after period person and changing that here was difficult lol. But wiki has introduced me to the day-month-year format and I really appreciate that. I don't think most of us in America have much exposure to that format.

Hmm....I see your point. I agree that archives of old magazines and newspapers not being available is frustrating. Only 20 years ago most libraries kept archives on microfilm but I'm not sure about that anymore. I was looking for a tag that would mean something like "need help getting a URL to this source that I have in my hands but can't find online" but the closest I could find was {{dead link}}. And I think that's 'cause if the source was published, it can be used, regardless of whether it's easily accessible by internet or to the average user (so there's no tag for this kind of case because there's nothing that needs to be fixed with such a citation). The fact that it would be hard to even get a hardcopy of the source complicates it a bit (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Indicating_availability).

But if you have a physical copy of the newspaper article, you could upload it into an archive (like internet archive which has a place for these kinds of uploads). If you can scan in the article with enough of the rest of the newspaper visible to identify that it is a legit newspaper, I think it should be adequate. Just include the archive link in your citation and you would be good.

I wasn't familiar with Muckrack before but it seems that there was some discussion about it and it was decided that if the articles/uploaded pdfs are listed on a verified journalists' accounts (possibly even your own account if yours is verified), it's ok to use. If you could upload it to both Muckrack and Internet Archive, I think that'd be even better! Internet archive because if Muckrack ever goes belly up, there'll still be a copy on the former. And uploading it to Muckrack (if you have a verified account) gives it even more authenticity because the article will be linked to a verified account (yours). And I definitely sympathize with you. I think most people don't realize how much journalism changed with the rise of the internet and the impact it had on journalists whose shoe-leather journalism was paid for by the newspaper's revenue. I dunno if that revenue has returned with digital advertising on news sites but I hope it has.

One thing you can do is put up your thoughts/concerns about the sources in the article's talk page. Hopefully, other editors who may disagree or have issues with some of your edits will see your notes in the discussion page and you can talk it out there, avoiding an edit war.

You mentioned it in passing but conflict of interest with being paid to write an article is a complicated issue and way out of my depth. I don't know if that's your situation (or if you're writing purely for satisfaction) but there are guidelines on that here WP:PAY. If you are writing just for enjoyment, you can ignore that.

But as far as including links for every single mention of a thing that has a wiki article, yeah, you don't have to do every single one. My preference is to do it like I would an abbreviation of an acronym--include the link for the first use of it in the article and maybe in later uses if you think a reader might have jumped to that point in the article without seeing the previous link. For example, Austin, Texas is mentioned earlier in the article as where Joe Schmoe did a lot of his early performances. But later on, in the Personal life section, Austin, Texas is also mentioned because it's where he settled down in his 40s and it would be fine to include the link there as well. But there's guidelines on that here and here as well.

On that note, I'll say that it is sometimes hard to find the guidelines because wiki has both the public facing articles and the "behind the curtain" guideline and discussion pages and it's often hard to specify which one you're searching for. I might search for "wikipedia spaces after period" but search results would give me the wiki article about sentence spacing while the page about wikipedia's preferred style for editors might be buried in the later search results (though in this case they're not). One thing you can do is use wikipedia's search function and, when you're looking at the search results, click the bar that says "Search in:", which is two lines below the blue Search button. You can untick the Articles box and tick the Discussion and General help boxes so you're looking only at the behind the scenes stuff. I also often use and search for "wikipedia guidelines xyz" or "wikipedia manual of style xyz". Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To get a page[edit]

Please tell me the procedures to get an article done on my books and me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya Hariharan (Kasi) (talkcontribs)

Are there multiple in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles or book reviews about you and your work that are written by identifiable authors and published in outlets that have competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori
If you feel that these guiidelines are met, read WP:YFA. Additionally, you need to declare that you have a conflict of interest. Kpddg (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia recommends not attempting autobiography (see WP:AUTO), but does not forbid. The great majority of attempts fail. The problem is that what you know about yourself needs to be verified by independent references. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the Changhe CoolCar draft[edit]

Recently, I have been unable to find reliable sources for the Changhe CoolCar draft page. The 3 unreliable sources in the draft are all I could find, but I’m sure there might be still some reliable sources for the draft. Which sources that I could find online about the Changhe CoolCar are reliable? I really need help on this one. MegaMack02 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COURTESY: Draft:Changhe CoolCar. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD I know that’s where it came from. But what help do I need? Don’t answer my question if you’re not going to help me. MegaMack02 (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My "COURTESY" was intended for other Teahouse editors who might have an interest in advising you, but would want to see the draft and its existing references. Personally, I know nothing about the topic. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existing references are at Draft:Changhe CoolCar#References. MegaMack02 (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just joined[edit]

I have just joined this greatest amazing group who are tirelessly into storing nurturing and expanding human knowledge. Can some one tell me how I can be of help in this amazing work and start contributing positively. Suman250690 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suman250690, welcome to Wikipedia! The welcome message I left on your talk page should help you in getting started. Kpddg (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gaining experience by improving existing articles is strongly recommeded over attempting to create new articles. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to use libera.chat[edit]

I would post this on Wikiquote but I don’t expect to get a quick answer there.

Could someone please explain:

1) What it is

2) How it works

3) How to use it

Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no lol, 107.119.53.87 (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ilovemydoodle. The Teahouse is for discussing how to contribute to Wikipedia, not for asking questions about how to participate on unrelated websites. Search that website for advice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Wikipedia was linked to libera chat. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Libera.chat is an IRC network. There are official channels on it, yes, but those channels are technically off-wiki and any conversations held on it cannot be used to influence on-wiki consensus-building. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but could I please have some basic information on how to use it? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ilovemydoodle, Welcome to the Teahouse, while the teahouse isn’t for asking about off-wiki topics, however, I will point you towards the IRC info page. I would give you basic info, but I don’t know anything about IRC and I don’t actually use it, but the page should have some useful information that may help you. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 11:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo: Thank you for helping! Face-smile.svgIlovemydoodle (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected article[edit]

I just tried to make my first edit to a semi-protected article, an addition to the short description, and I ran into trouble. First, I'm not an anonymous editor and I'm not newly registered (I just qualified for Wikipedia Library priviileges). The edit didn't show up in the preview, or on the page after I published the change. However, the edit showed up just fine in my list of contributions, and in the arti79.155.36.178cle's revision history. The edit is still there on the edit page. The article is The Batman (film) (I justified my edit in the edit summary). Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. That article is not semi-protected. It is Extended confirmed protected, which is a more stringent form of protection. As for your edit, you are trying to change the short description to 2022 American neo-noir superhero film by Matt Reeves. That description is way too detailed and it should be much more concise. Per Wikipedia:Short description, Editors should bear in mind that short descriptions are not intended to define the subject of the article. Rather, they provide a very brief indication of the field that is covered. You have jammed six different things into the "short" description. Be extremely concise. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I was just trying to add "neo-noir" to the existing description. Does "extended confirmed protected" mean I won't be able to make my addition (or that anyone will be able to take your advice either)? "Semi-protected" is what it says in the template on the edit page, that's why I said that. I think it's weird that my edit shows as legitimate on my list of contributions and in the article's revision history, since it didn't take. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pete Best Beatles: If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that your edit "took" for a few hours, until SirDot removed it with an edit summary of "Only the primary genre". Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New comments: While contemplating @Cullen328: and @SirDot:'s rules for short description inclusion (extreme conciseness and "only the primary genre" respectively), I looked up the short descriptions for several prominent neo-noir movies. Here's what I found:

According to the logic of the two rules above, some trimming needs to be done: they're not extremely concise and they don't have only the primary genre. But why should "neo-noir" automatically go? Who decides what the primary genre is? The genres in the short descriptions aren't referenced. Actually, not true. Interestingly, although none of the other genres are referenced, five of the above have "neo-noir" referenced. Four of those (examples 4, 5, 7 and 8) reference Alain Silver's Film Noir: An Encyclopedic Reference. None of the references to this book list page numbers, so I looked up every reference to each movie, and the story's the same. For The Grifters, Red Rock West, and Miller's Crossing, the status of these movies as neo-noirs may be established, but none of the references say anything about the hierarchy of genres in these movies; heck, they don't say anything about any other genres at all. (Although Mulholland Drive references Silver's book, I could not find it in the index. Maybe a different edition? Nevertheless, I assume the situation would be the same.) The Long Goodbye's short description's "neo-noir" uses three different references. The first reference, #2, establishes the movie as a neo-noir but doesn't address the other genres that are in the short description (four additional!). (The second reference, #3 doesn't contain the word neo-noir, and the third reference, #4 only asks a question: "maybe it's neo-noir", so those two might be stricken from the article). Regarding Mulholland Drive's reference to "neo-noir" in the short description, besides the non-existent reference to Silver's book, the article references a book entitled The Philosophy of TV Noir, which does categorize the movie as neo-noir but once again doesn't address the issue of other genres.

So, let's throw this open to discussion. Why do the two rules listed above apply only to The Batman, and not any other movies? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete Best Beatles. For future reference, please don't "unarchive" Teahouse questions that have already been archived like you did here. Your original question had already been archived as Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1156#Semi-protected article; so, if you want to ask something else about it or want to make reference to it in a new discussion, simply providing a link to the archived location is generally sufficient. If you're not sure how to provide a link, you can simply mention that the discussion has already been archived for reference. Next, unless you're truly Pete Best who was once a member of The Beatles, you're just as anonymous as any IP account posting on Wikipedia; in fact, in some ways you're more anonymous than an IP account because your IP address is not publically visible.
As for your question about genre, the advice Cullen328 gave you in his response was based on best practice and his long experience as an editor, but it's not usual that you would find examples that might show things done differently by other editors. Often on Wikipedia, you'll find examples of WP:OTHERCONTENT when it comes to things like this because not users are the same and not all users have the same experience.
For general guidance with respect to something like this, the first thing to do (in my opinion) is look at a page like Wikipedia:Short description or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Lead section to try and figure out what the best practice is supposed to be. If things are still unclear after that, then perhaps the next thing to do would be WP:BOLD and make the change you think needs to be made. If you're BOLD and are subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor (which seems to be the case here), the next thing to do would be to start an article talk page discussion to try and sort things out. Ultimately, the WP:ONUS is going to fall upon you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS for the change you want to make, and you'll have a much better chance of doing that if your position is strongly rooted in some policy or guideline. You can cite other examples in other articles which are similar to what you're trying to do, but this in and of itself is usually not seen as a sufficient justification: it could be those other articles have done it incorrectly and nobody has noticed yet.
FWIW, disagreements over genre happen all the time on Wikipedia; so much so that someone actually created the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Genre warrior about it. If you want to discuss the genre of a particular film, then the best place to do that would be on the corresponding article talk page for the film like you've done at Talk:The Batman (film)#The Batman and noir. If you want to discuss the genre of films in general, then the best place would probably be on the talk page of a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. It's quite possible that the questions you have were once asked by someone else and have already sorted out at the WikiProject level. The Teahouse isn't really set up for an in-depth discussion about something such as this; Teahouse hosts can try and give you a quick, easy and hopefully helpful answer, but sometimes you need to seek out others on article talk pages or WikiProject talk pages for more detailed discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Thanks for your response. I didn't know the discussion had been archived, I didn't recciev a notice like I usually do, so I assumed I had somehow deleated it. (And why was it archived after just a few days? Every other time my questions were archived it was after some length of time of no activity, another reason I didn't perceive the archivization.) And you're right, I wouldn't know how to link to something like that. My user name isn't Pete Best, it's Pete Best Beatles as in the Pete Best Beatles and there's a disclaimer on my user page, placed there because of the concerns of another editor (or admin.), who said that would be sufficient to ally any fears about the name. I guess I'll try to get something about neo-added to the body of the lead. I tried once and got reverted. I put all the noir-related phrases that reliable sources had used to describe the movie: neo-noir, film noir, emo noir and pop noir. I just strongly feel that there ought to be something about noir somewhere in the article, its such and overwhelming aspect of the movie. I found so many articles about the noir aspects, and it wasn't just passing mentions, it was the subject of the articles. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should continue to discuss this on the article's talk page and see if you can establish a consensus in favor of the changes you want to make. Feeling strongly about something doesn't mean others will feel the same way, but if you can establish that a preponderance of reliable sources also consider the film to be as such, then that may be more persuasive. Finally, my comment about your choice of username wasn't meant to imply that I though you were that "Pete Best" of "Beatles"; only that registering for an account doesn't make you "not anonymous" or any less anonymous than an IP editor, unless you register under your WP:REALNAME and post other personally identifying information on your user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly:Thanks again for your advice, but now that I reread your replies I realize I don't understand your discussion of anonymity, don't understand the context. I've never mentioned that topic in any of my posts. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You began this whole discussion by saying "I am not an anonymous editor". I believe that that is what Marchjuly was referring to. ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yea. He says there's no distinction between editors with a user name and those only with IP addresses in terms of anonymity, but I was talking about editing a semi-protected article, and Wikipedia does make a distinction there, so I'm still confused. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Pete Best Beatles. Please don't mind my comment. I was trying clarify (in a rather wordy, unsuccessful and unnecessary way) that the most basic form of page protection restricts editing based on whether an account is registered, not whether an account is anonymous. In addition, there a various levels of page protection and in some cases even registered accounts may find their ability to edit an article restricted in some way. My apologies for any confusion I might have caused with my unnecessary segue away from the main thing you were asking about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilemma[edit]

Hi. I want to create an article about this new song called "Talk About Me." (There are reliable sources.)

However, a page called Talk About Me already exists. It's a redirect page to Justin Caruso because that artist apparently has a 2017 song with the same name.

What should I do in a situation like this? Castlepalace 09:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Castlepalace. Presuming that the proposed article topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, one or both article names will need disambiguating. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Can you give me some guidance on how exactly I should disambiguate these pages? This is where my problem is. Like exactly what these articles should be called. Castlepalace 09:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castlepalace I have to disagree with @Cordless Larry here. In your place, I'd write the article at Draft:Talk About Me, and then WP:MOVE it to the redirect Talk About Me. If you can't move it yourself for some reason, ask an admin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's what I will do! Thanks. Castlepalace 10:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Castlepalace: I misunderstood the original question somehow and thought that Talk About Me was an article rather than a redirect. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hey. I need more help. I did exactly this, I created Draft:Talk About Me – how do I go about moving it now? I can't quite figure it out. Castlepalace 16:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castlepalace Seems you figured it out. Now, add some categories. And some wikiprojects on the talkpage. Look at similar articles for guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see there's 2 pages now, Talk About Me (song) and the old one. @Cordless Larry, can you sort it out? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created Talk About Me (song) and I requested to move it to Talk About Me. Castlepalace 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Cordless Larry Castlepalace 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very very much!!! Castlepalace 17:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castlepalace Welcome to Teahouse! I checked, virtually nothing links to Talk About Me right now except this Teahost page, see: https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk_About_Me which leaves the question of what to do with it. The page exists already, and you could just start filling it in. Or you could create Talk About Me (album) or whatever it is, and then request a switch of redirects, so that you get credit for creating the article and then request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for someone to move your page over the redirect. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Castlepalace 10:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using books by author as source for BLP[edit]

Dear wiki-editors,

could you please point me to information about whether or not it is okay to cite books authored by the subject of BLP, to expand on the content of his/her teachings?

Thank you! Netanya9 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find something in WP:BLPSELFPUB. Ruslik_Zero 12:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Netanya9 Generally not, see WP:ABOUTSELF. The default WP-attitude is "If no independent WP:RS bothered to write about his teachings, we shouldn't either." It's probably ok include a list of his MOS:WORKS, or a list of his noted works if there's a lot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these helpful links @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Ruslik0
So..
1) It is okay to create a 'publication' section with a list of links to the author's publications in magazines.
2) If there is a book published by a publisher about the subject, by a different author, but the subject of BLP has co-operated with the book and is therefore kind of a co-author, but it's not his name on the book. Can we use that book as a source?
3) I see a lot of examples like https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Robbins that cite the BLP's books to explain his work. Is this a grey area, or should a third party WP:RS write about the teaching of the subject before it can be mentioned.
4) Related topic: how do you use content from a source without plagiarism or direct quotes. Do you rewrite the content? Can you recommend Wiki sources that explain this?
Thank you very much for helping out! Netanya9 (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) Pretty much, but too much "everything and the kitchen sink" may cause opposition.
2) It can be an ok source depending what you use it for, context matters. Consider WP:EXTRAORDINARY. WP:INTERVIEW may be relevant.
3) Right. Here's the thing: because of it's open nature, WP has a lot of crap. More at WP:OTHERCONTENT. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to do better. For example, "He subsequently learned to firewalk and incorporated it into his seminars." sourced to his own book is clear fail of WP:BLPSELFPUB, and it's quite alright to remove it, or see if there's a better source for that (there may well be, apparently he had some troubles related to firewalking). There's also a variety of templates like [better source needed] that can be used. It's often helpful to look at other WP-stuff for guidance, but then one should look at good WP-stuff.
4) Yes, you write it in your own words. Some guidance at WP:COPYPASTE, WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:QUOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make templates only accessible for you[edit]

I wanted to make templates that were only accessible for me. I didn't want it to make it accessible to the public. The template is the hex code #0645ad (which basically is a shade of blue) and i wanted to use it for my sandbox. However, i had to use the {color} template. I would have to paste the hex code and put the string of text is just time-consuming. So i wanted to make a template only accessible for me. If there's no way to do that, guess i'm doomed. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you write on WP is accessible (not necessarily editable) to those in the public who knows where to look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leahnn Rey I suggest you don't try doing that. Your application of putting colour, instead of proper links, seems wholly unnecessary, and you seem just to be creating what looks like a hoax article in your sandbox with dummy links. Every apparent wikilink you've added with that colour is just dead blue text, and every fake reference self-cites your sandbox page, and none appear to be legitimate. I wonder if you could explain what you are trying to achieve there? Hoax articles are liable to deletion, and going to these extreme lengths in your sandbox seems unwise. If, however, you are genuinely working on a real draft article, and simply want to highlight key words so you don't forget to link them later on, I suggest you simply use a bold font as a much quicker and clearer alternative. It would be wide to use real references right from the start, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where do i find articles that need updating that are about a certain topic[edit]

I'm new and I want to help editing wikipedia. I found the place where it shows which articles need editing but the tags above it redirect to a completely new page with the topic i searched for. The only problem is that the articles on that page don't need updates Gopher god (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gopher god, could you specify your problem? Kpddg (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kpddg whenever i go to https:en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Wikipedia_articles_in_need_of_updating and click the hyperlink for STEM it shows me articles that do not need updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopher god (talkcontribs) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gopher god, those articles do need updating - they're all tagged somewhere with an {{update}} template. If it's a long article and the location of the tag is hard to see, just search (ctl+f or the equivalent) the page for the word "update" and look through the results until you find the template. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@174.21.23.32 Thanks for the help! Comment added by Gopher god — Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gopher god Talk pages for articles (click on Talk, upper left) usually show an article's rating: unrated, stub, start, C, B, GA, FA. Bottom ratings need work. David notMD (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US or British formatting?[edit]

I'm sure Wikipedia has some sort of guideline on whether editors and writers should use one or the other. How do we decide, please? Augnablik (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik, Wikipedia does not prefer any one variety; it is chosen based on the article's closest variety. See MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. Kpddg (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User page in more languages?[edit]

For now, I have my user page in | Czech Wikipedia, including links to my photos which I uploaded to Commons. In my English user page I have link to Czech page.

But to make my content (photos in Commons) accessible to more users, I think about creating another language versions of my page (as normal Wiki pages have) or moving everything to English version. What would be the best solution? I do not have time to edit all language mutations, so it would be great if I would extend my Commons gallery just on one place and I do not have to edit it 2 or 5 times.

Also, I want to divide this my page to more smaller ones, so I am considering where to created needed photo subpages. https:cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Penguin9/Moje_fotogalerie_MHD Penguin9 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Penguin9! There's no ideal solution, but one tool you have comes from the fact that, if you create a userpage on Meta-Wiki (meta.wikimedia.org), it'll display on any Wikipedia or other WMF project where you don't have a page. You can only make it one language, though (although templates like meta:Template:User page do translate to a user's interface language). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It means I could request deletion of my already created pages and let them all be copies from Metadata? Does it work for subpages too? Penguin9 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Penguin9, yep, the way you'd implement would be to write your user page on Meta and then request your page on the local wiki(s) be deleted. I'm not sure about subpages, but you could try testing. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Penguin9: If your objective is to get more of your photos used in multi-language Wikipedia articles and elsewhere, I think that you can just focus on your page commons:User:Penguin9 since anyone noticing one good picture will likely be within Commons when they click through to the uploader's page to see their other contributions. Also, individual photos are more likely to be found and used if they have comprehensive tagging into useful categories. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic for Split[edit]

The primary topic for Split is either the Croatian city or the James McAvoy film, why is Split a disambiguation? 94.21.120.255 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When there's no singular primary topic, a page is generally made a disambiguation. Hope that helps clarify! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Split,_Croatia/Archive_2#Requested_move_21_January_2017 Seems to have been the latest discussion on that. You can start a new one if you want, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the primary topic is probably either the Croatian city or the James McAvoy film. --94.21.120.255 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless it's clearly one or the other, that means there's no one singular primary topic. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the Croatian city should be primary. It existed long before the film, and will continue to exist long after the film is forgotten. If anyone wants to start a RM discussion on that, I'm happy to contribute to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was opposed at Talk:Split, Croatia/Archive 2#Requested move 16 May 2016, and that was eight months before the theatrical release of Split (2016 American film) which still has far more page views.[8] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have memories of the Metropolitan Cattle Market https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Cattle_Market[edit]

I would like to add the details to the main page but of course don't have any citations. It is additional details in the late fifties and early sixties. These include the location of the slaughtehouse on the East side of Shearing road, the animal hide hall and the Post office depot both inside the railings on the west side. The first stage of development was the demolition of the slaughterhouse replaced by Prefabricated Tadcaster cottages as temporary dwellings AndrewPiesse (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewPiesse Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we cannot accept personal recollections for article content, as there is no way to verify that. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AndrewPiesse. Thank you for wanting to help Wikipedia. Unfortunately, as 331dot has stated, you will not be able to ad personal recollections to the article, for a reliable published reference is needed. Perhaps there is a local historical society or library that has a book or article that can be used as a reference for additions to the article. If not, you could ask if a local history group would be interested in having a copy of your written recollections. That way, what you remember could be preserved for others to read it. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewPiesse: The article Metropolitan Cattle Market is currently not well sourced, so if you are interested in the topic and can find published information held by local societies or libraries, please add them. It would also be feasible to get interest from a local newspaper in publishing your reminiscences and once that's done, Wikipedia can use that article as our source. Equally, if you have photos you took that show the items you mention, they can be uploaded to Commons for use. However, Wikipedia can't rely on sources like blogs, no matter how accurate you think your contributions are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giancoli Physics: principles with applications 7th edition[edit]

I am wondering if there is a way to make an article with thoughts and solutions to Giancoli physics without infringing on the Pearson copyright. WalkingRadiance (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a Wikibook or a Wikisource or Wikiversity thing with content from Giancoli physics but I think this would infringe on the copyright. WalkingRadiance (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WalkingRadiance, articles here are not for editors' thoughts about particular books or for editors' solutions to problems in those books. Rather than making "a Wikibook or a Wikisource or Wikiversity thing", how about creating your own blog for this purpose? -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to use MediaWiki software but that's pretty technical and I want to avoid starting my own wiki WalkingRadiance (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get an opinion for English language on a section of a page[edit]

Hello, good evening to the people in the teahouse. This is my 1st post here, so please forgive me for troubling you. I would also like to inform you that english is not my 1st language. Ok, I will get to the point now. Recently I have made contributions to a page. And another editor apparently "corrected" some grammatical mistakes I have made. But I believe my grammer was ok. So what should I do? I don't want to revert because I am not confident in my grammatical knowledge. Nor do I want to trust the other editor blindly. Should the next step be to get a neutral opinion from someone expert in english? If so, how, and if not, what can be done? Thank you for reading! Comfortable East (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask the person who corrected your grammar where exactly the errors were. Castlepalace 20:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comfortable East, there's an enormous variety in what editors confidently describe as their corrections of grammatical mistakes. (Plenty of what are alleged to be grammatical mistakes are not grammatical mistakes.) Please point us to the/an exact edit in question. -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the edit history. I was wondering if the use of “since” was grammatically incorrect. Comfortable East (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comfortable East, if you want an opinion on what has happened with your edits on a particular page, you're much more likely to get a useful opinion if you let us know which page. Maproom (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Nicoladoni–Branham sign you added a person's name as a Wikilink, with "Dr." outside the Wikilink. Per WP:MOSBIO, under Titles of people, Wikipedia does not put Dr. before or M.D. or Ph.D. after a person's name. The editor who made the change mentioned MOS CREDENTIALS in the Edit summary. David notMD (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I later read the “policy” of the use of titles. I admit it was a mistake on my part. But, I think it is not related to grammar? Comfortable East (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: it isn't. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the edit history. I was wondering if the use of “since” was grammatically incorrect. Comfortable East (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doremo has added some indefinite articles where I too would have added them. As for the word since, it can mean "because" -- any "language expert" or book that tells you otherwise is plain wrong. In some contexts, the word is undesirable: discussing two people, "X started embezzling his employer since he met Y" might mean either because of or after this meeting, and rephrasing to avoid potential ambiguity would be a good idea. However, even beneficial avoidance of potential ambiguity such as this doesn't mean that there was anything wrong grammatically. Also, the contexts of your uses of since don't allow misinterpretation as "after". I'd say that you know how to use since and are most welcome to continue to use it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Hoary! This really helped a lot to clear my doubts. I agree that the misinterpretation of the word “since” maybe more likely on Literary articles, as opposed to more sciencey articles I'm interested in. Anyway, I learned something new, and will take that as a win for sure.
Cheers!
And have a great day! Comfortable East (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"X started embezzling from his employer since he met Y" is correct; "embezzling his employer" isn't. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Embezzling his employer" does indeed sound strange, Julietdeltalima. Perhaps I was sleepy when I typed it. -- Hoary (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entry that was listed in "Deaths in 2022" has disappeared[edit]

Please help me! I created a new article entitled Anthony Drake by clicking red link to a death listed under Deaths in 2022 1 June 2022. I created the article by moving it from Draft Space and the titled changed to Draft:Anthony Drake. Once the article was finished, I moved it back article space by clicking "Move" in the More dropdown menu at the top of the page. When I go to the list of Deaths in 2022 the entry for Anthony Drake is no longer there. Also, the article I created does not have the Talk page anymore. What has gone wrong? Andymcteddybear (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andymcteddybear, welcome to the Teahouse. The entry was removed from Deaths in 2022 in this edit because the article was still a draft at that time. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. How do I restore the entry to Deaths in 2022 and link it to this article: Anthony Drake? Do I need to make a new entry? Andymcteddybear (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andymcteddybear, yes, just make a new entry for the appropriate date. However, I notice that his date of death is not actually sourced in the article you created - where did you get that information? 174.21.23.32 (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entry was listed by another user in Deaths in 2022 but there was no article. I simply clicked on the red link and created the article.
I can make a new entry and provide the necessary citation if I am allowed to do so. Andymcteddybear (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andymcteddybear, yes, you're certainly allowed to. Just follow the directions at the top of the article (and remember to add your source for the date of death to the Anthony Drake article too). 174.21.23.32 (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Andymcteddybear (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

I don't know if Wikimedia Commons is the right place to ask this question.

If I record a book out loud or make a video of something copyrighted am I violating copyright if I share it with other people or post it online?

Here are a few examples

I read a book out loud and post in on YouTube or Wikimedia Commons or another website

I do examples from a physics textbook and post them on YouTube or a Wikimedia Foundation website

WalkingRadiance (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a violation. Don't do that. Also, Wikimedia sites are not a web hosting service. You should not be uploading stuff that is not related to the missions of these sites. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a legal way to work out problems from a book and put them on the Internet or do I have to be the author or publisher of a book to make a YouTube video with the solutions for example? WalkingRadiance (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can make up my own questions with different wording and numbers if there is no legal way. WalkingRadiance (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WalkingRadiance and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. My understanding is that the answer to your question would be no. If you look at the first page in a book, it usually says something along the lines of recording the information by any means (e.g. an audio recording) would be a copyright violation. I appreciate your willingness to help others learn though, even if this isn't the best way. Is there anything else I can help you with? Clovermoss (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WalkingRadiance: My understanding is that making your own questions wouldn't be a copyright violation but I can't think of how that could be used on the English Wikipedia. I could be wrong, though. Maybe Wikimedia Commons would appreciate a contribution like that, I'm not sure. You could try asking here [9]. Clovermoss (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this event notable? How to confine submission review to the event not the person? How to title such an article?[edit]

Is the event of a 17-year-old individual becoming a judge with the power to adjudicate civil and criminal proceedings, a notable event? Is that event something worthy of notice? I have ten different newspaper sources surrounding this event and an article in a legal journal. I think that would satisfy the notability requirement for significant coverage by reliable sources if it's a notable event under Wikipedia standards. And if it were a notable event, how would I keep the article from being reviewed for submission as a notable person? The individual is significant for their role in the single event. I do not have references for the person. I wouldn't want the submission to be denied because I didn't have references as would be found in a biography of a notable person. Lastly, how would I title such an article? Judgehistorian (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects have to be notable, whether it's a person, corporation, thing, place...and more context here would be useful. A 17 year old, at least in the US would not be able to become a judge. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. That's why I want to submit the article because most would think it is not possible. See: https:newspapers.com/clip/95157293/the-indianapolis-star/ and https:newspapers.com/clip/95161670/the-indianapolis-star/ I have significant coverage from newspapers all across the country of this event. This is a person who was performing marriages before he was legally old enough to get married. Judgehistorian (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Marc Griffin 174.21.23.32 (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at WP:BLP1E. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a redirect[edit]

Can somebody create a quick redirect for me?

You should create a redirect for Khalistan Liberation Army which will redirect to Khalistan Liberation Force#KLA. There is already a section about this militant wing there. 122.170.42.250 (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 122.170.42.250 and welcome to the Teahouse. From what I can see, the redirect you've suggested has already been created. Is there anything else I can help you with? Clovermoss (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Clovermoss Thanks. I didn't saw it already exist. 122.170.42.250 (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Better to ask a question than not to if you're ever unsure about something. Feel free to come back here if you have any other questions. Clovermoss (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright User:Clovermoss. Can you redirect HAL Tejas Mk1A to HAL Tejas? It is a recognizable subject[10] and we already got an article for HAL Tejas Mk2. 122.170.42.250 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It took me awhile because I went to sleep. Are you aware that one of the benefits of creating an account is being able to create redirects yourself? Alternatively you could try going through Articles for Creation. I'm mentioning this because I do work and sleep sometimes and it's entirely possible you didn't know any of this. Thank you for the suggestion, though. Anything that improves the enyclopedia is a good thing. Clovermoss (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a page[edit]

Hi. I added the page Isabel Dutaud Nagle Lachaise. But in another article I'd like to embed a link, but her name there is Isabel Dutaud Nagle, as she was not yet married. I cannot link "Isabel Dutaud Nagle" as it only suggests I make a page for her. Would not this be duplicative? Thanks for any help. Pbrhornbostel (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pbrhornbostel. Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Thanks for asking your question here, you were on the right track! I created something called a redirect so if you someone types in "Isabel Dutaud Nagle" they will actually get to see the article at Isabel Dutaud Nagle Lachaise. You can read more about redirects here if that's something you'd like to learn more about. Clovermoss (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. I just clicked on it, and indeed, just as I had hoped. I have been reading tutorials, and finally got to piped link. but you solved the problem! Thank you! I am now waiting on permission for the image of the Lachaise home to add into both pages on Gaston Lachaise and on Isabel Lachaise. thanks so much. Pbrhornbostel (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. If you ever have any other questions, feel free to come back here or to ask me here. There's some useful links there that you might find useful in general. Have you heard about Women in Red? It's a wikiproject and those can be interesting to get involved in. If you have any specific interests, I might be able to help you find something that aligns with those. Regardless, I hope you have a good day. Sincerely, Clovermoss (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbrhornbostel: I forgot to "ping" you so this should give you a notification that I replied back. Clovermoss (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture?[edit]

I am pretty sure the picture on Leonard Davis page is not the Leonard Davis who played for the NFL. I could be wrong but I certainly do not think so. I was only reading about Leonard when I saw that picture. I have no idea how it would be changed if it is not Leonard. ADCOLBAR (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ADCOLBAR. It seems like you are discussing Leonard Davis (American football). The photo now in the article seems to have an acceptable provenance. When I go to Images and search for "leonard davis football", I see a lot of photos of a man who looks like the person in the article. So, what is the problem? Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, ADCOLBAR, if you click through to the file's page on Commons you will find it came from a source that's very plausibly correct and it has the correct license. If you are in any doubt, you could ask the uploader of the file, namely BlueAg09. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How Can I Add The Biography?[edit]

How Can I Add Biography? Anonymous078 (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous078: Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
If it's a biography about you, well, basically don't write about yourself on Wikipedia! See Wikipedia:Autobiographies. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Load material for a new page for David Balsiger[edit]

Please help! Original includes photos. How do I load the photos? DrVickie (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

David W. Balsiger, LHD (December 14, 1945 – June 27, 2017) was an American best-selling author, investigative journalist, historian, activist, photographer, speaker, and award-winning film producer, director, and screenwriter whose career spanned 5 decades. His multimillion copy best-selling books The Lincoln Conspiracy and In Search of Noah’s Ark (co-authored with Charles E. Sellier [1]) were both made into major motion pictures of the same titles. [2] was on the New York Times Best Sellers List for 22 weeks, reaching the #2 position, and earned him an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Lincoln Memorial University. In Search of Noah's Ark was four weeks on the New York Post list, and Balsiger authored three more books on Noah’s Ark. He also researched, wrote, produced, directed, and/or consulted on 14 additional documentaries on Noah’s Ark, and was a world-renowned expert on it.

He’s also known for his 30 plus years of work with Charles Sellier, [3], and Grizzly Adams Productions (GAP) of which he was Vice President and Senior Producer. Known as pioneers in independent filmmaking, Grizzly Adams Productions researched, wrote, produced, directed, edited, and marketed movies, documentaries, and television series. They were one of the first companies to use research techniques such as focus groups, opinion polling, generational science, and neuromarketing prior to releasing projects. Legendary actor, producer and director Orson Welles once told Sellier he was "light years ahead of the rest of the industry”. With Sellier and GAP, Balsiger created nearly 600 faith-based and family friendly films, many of which are listed at the International Movie Data Base, David W. Balsiger - IMDb

Life and Career''''Bold text' Born and raised in Monroe, Wisconsin, December 14, 1945, to Leon Balsiger and Dorothy (Meythaler) Balsiger, he was the oldest of 5 children. Most of his family immigrated from Switzerland and were dairy farmers and cheese makers, including his grandparents Vera (Brandt) Meythaler and Ralph Meythaler, and Anna (Marty) Balsiger and Christian Balsiger. Anna lived to be 113. He attended Oakley Grade School and Juda High School in Monroe until his immediate family moved to Buena Park, California in 1962. He graduated from Western High in Anaheim in 1964 where winning debate and writing contests earned him college scholarships. He earned a bachelor’s degree from National University after attending Pepperdine College and Chapman World Campus Afloat, and received his LHD (Doctorate of Humane Letters) from Lincoln Memorial University in Knoxville, Tennessee.

A lifelong devoted Christian and Truth-Seeker, he was a Conscientious Objector during the Viet Nam War. However, he volunteered to go to Viet Nam as an investigative reporter and photographer, and was shooting a camera as others were shooting guns and bullets. He did his best to report to his newspaper and to the American people the truth of what was happening, even though some was censored.

During the 37 episodes of The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams that aired on NBC from 2/9/77–12/19/78, Balsiger headed the research department. He soon began producing and directing films with Sellier including the series conclusion in the 1982 NBC television movie The Capture of Grizzly Adams. With the creation of Grizzly Adams Productions, Sellier and Balsiger produced nearly 600 movies, documentaries, and television shows, often with American pioneer or Christian themes aimed at family-friendly audiences. In addition to the 1977 [4] and [5], his film production awards included [6], Mark Twain's America, The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, Encounters with the Unexplained (2000-2002 52-episode TV Series documentary), The Evidence for Heaven (2004 TV Movie), Xtreme Mysteries (104-episode TV series), and the 2007 39-Episode Ancient Secrets of the Bible that documents the science and truth behind Bible stories and is still shown on Christian television.

During his lifetime, Balsiger authored 40 major literary works, including 27 nonfiction books. He first books were published in 1968 while he was executive editor of The Clubwoman and chief photographer for the Anaheim Bulletin. The 1972 book The Satan Seller, co-written with Mike Warnke and Les James, has appeared periodically on the National Religious Best Sellers List. From 1987 through 1990 he was a regular columnist for USA Today [7]. He was listed in 20 achievement directories including eight of the prestigious Marquis library directories: Who’s Who of Emerging Leaders in America, Who’s Who in Religion, Who’s Who in Advertising, Who’s Who in Entertainment, Who’s Who in the Media and Communications, Who’s Who in the West, Who’s Who in America, and Who’s Who in the World. In spite of all this success, he never wavered from his Christian faith or his humility. He received over 300 national and international film and book awards, including numerous awards for producing, directing, researching, and writing the TV docudramas Heroes of Flight 93 and George W. Bush: Faith in the White House. The latter is also a book which, along with the DVD, is in the Bush 43 Presidential Library and the Smithsonian. They earned him an invitation to the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Center April 25, 2013.

Retirement, Death, and Legacy

Balsiger retired in 2011, but continued from his home in Loveland, Colorado, to consult with and mentor other filmmakers and authors, and serve as a judge for Loveland’s International Film Festival. He enjoyed working with his partner Victoria managing their investment properties, her music and ministry, the Hour For Peace NoCo, and fundraisers for local charities like Homelessness Prevention Initiative, Wounded Warriors, and wildlife reserves for wolves, lions, tigers, and bears. They enjoyed their dog, attending concerts and dinner theater, and feeding the birds, squirrels, and rabbits in their back yard. He also loved reading and spending time with friends and family, especially his three daughters to whom he was totally devoted. He remained an avid photographer and world traveler, including taking an extended trip to SE Asia in April, 2016, where he photographed some of the same places in South Viet Nam he had in the 1960s. A devout Christian who respected all faiths, he was active in Crossroads Fellowship Church and Foundations Church, both in Loveland.

In February, 2017, he was asked to create an exhibit of his life and work for the Green County Historical Museum in Monroe, Wisconsin. The Life and Times of David Balsiger was displayed there and at other museums, libraries, churches and home events as the pandemic has allowed. There’s also an on-line version. As he was creating his Museum Exhibit the Spring of 2017, he said several times, “I’m so blessed. Most people don’t get an exhibit of their life and work until after they’re dead, and then someone else does it for them. I got to create mine myself.”

David Balsiger died from a heart attack in his home on June 17, 2017, at the age of 71. He was survived by his Partner Rev. Dr. Victoria Gardner, daughters Lori Vani of Olympia, WA, Lisa Burrell and Jennifer Balsiger both of Orange County, four siblings, and three grandchildren. His funeral was Friday, July 7, 2017, at Crossroads Church. His legacy includes hundreds of faith-based, family friendly films, books, and photographs, and his motto, “God has richly blessed me! My goal has always been to create quality work that makes the world a better place . . . and to leave this world a little better than when I entered it.”


'Filmography (as producer, director, screenwriter, and/or researcher)'Bold text • 1976 In Search of Noah's Ark (documentary) • 1977 The Lincoln Conspiracy • 1977 The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams (TV series) • 1979 In Search of Historic Jesus (documentary) • 1979 The Bermuda Triangle (documentary) • 1979 Encounter with Disaster (documentary) • 1979 Greatest Heroes of the Bible (TV series) • 1980 Hangar 18 • 1981 Legend of the Wild • 1981 California Gold Rush (TV movie) • 1981 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (TV movie) • 1981 The Adventures of Nellie Bly (TV movie) • 1981 Earthbound • 1982 The Capture of Grizzly Adams (TV movie) • 1990 Vestige of Honor (TV movie) • 1993 Ancient Secrets of the Bible, Part II (TV documentary) • 1993 The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark (TV movie) • 1994 Mysteries of the Ancient World (TV documentary) • 1995 UFO Diaries (TV mini-series) • 2000–2002 Encounters with the Unexplained (TV series documentary, 52 episodes) o Political Victim: Vince Foster – Suicide or Political Execution? o Attack on America: Were There Miracles Amidst the Mayhem of 911? (2002) o America's Lost Colony: Has the Lost Colony of Roanoke Been Found? o Prophetic Last Days: Have We Entered the End Times? (2002) o Global Climate Changes: Will Global Warming Change Our Lives? o Biblical Paradise: Have We Found the Garden of Eden? (2002) o Deadly Insects: Are We Creating Killer Insects? o Fields of Mystery: Are Crop Circles the Language of Aliens? (2002) o Has the Lost Colony of Roanoke Been Found? o Are the End Times Here? (2002) • 2003 Awesome Bible Adventures (with the Total Living Network) • 2004 The Evidence for Heaven (TV movie) • 2004 George W. Bush: Faith in the White House (video documentary) • 2005 The Miraculous Mission (TV documentary) • 2005 12 Ordinary Men (TV movie) • 2005 Breaking the Da Vinci Code (video documentary) • 2005 The Da Vinci Code Deception: Solving the 2000-Year-Old Mystery (TV movie) • 2005 The Search for Heaven (video documentary) • 2006 Miracles in Our Midst (TV movie) • 2006 Heroes Among Us, Miracles Around Us (video documentary) • 2006 Apocalypse and the End Times (video documentary) • 2006 End Times How Close Are We? (TV movie) • 2006 Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93 (video documentary) • 2006 The Heroes of Flight 93 (TV movie) • 2007 Ancient Secrets of the Bible (39-Episode TV Series) • 2007 The Longevity Secret (video documentary) • 2007 Miraculous Messages (TV movie) • 2007 The Case for Christ's Resurrection (TV movie) • 2007 Fabric of Time (video) • 2008 Faith in the Whitehouse (video documentary) • 2008 Friends for Life (DVD movie) • 2008 Unlocking the Secret (video) • 2008 There Is More to the Secret (TV Movie documentary)

External links

[8]

References

  1. ^ Charles Sellier - Wikipedia
  2. ^ The Lincoln Conspiracy (book) - Wikipedia
  3. ^ The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams
  4. ^ In Search of Noah's Ark
  5. ^ The Lincoln Conspiracy
  6. ^ In Search of Historic Jesus
  7. ^ https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today,
  8. ^ David W. Balsiger - IMDb
Hi DrVickie, welcome to the Teahouse! I highly recommend you check out the guide at Your First Article - it will help you learn where to post your draft, what kinds of sources are needed, and other useful things. I'm afraid that photos are the least of your concerns at this point; the major problem is an entire lack of reliable, independent, published secondary sources which demonstrate the subject's notability.
What is the copyright status of the photos you want to use? Did you take them yourself? If not, have they been released under a compatible license by the copyright holder? They will need to be uploaded either to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons in order to be used; their copyright status will determine which one of those is appropriate (if they can be uploaded at all). 174.21.23.32 (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't, DrVickie. You create the draft. You improve it, considerably. (For one thing, its references are now utterly inadequate.) You clarify your relationship with your biographee or his estate (because it hardly looks like the work of a disinterested volunteer). You submit it. It's accepted (you hope). You then upload a photograph of him that you took and whose copyright you own, or a photograph that's by somebody else and that has explicitly been released according to one or other of the extraordinarily permissive copyleft licenses acceptable to Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DrVickie, I first read and responded to your question "How do I load the photos?" It's only now that I notice the sentence that immediately precedes it: "Original includes photos." What is the "original", who wrote it, where is it published, and what is its copyright status? In the meantime, I note that some of the text above either is lifted from, or shares a source with, Michael Dumas, "Charles Sellier Jr., creator of 'Grizzly Adams,' dies at 67", Gulflive.com (Alabama Media Group), 8 February 2011. -- Hoary (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Pages[edit]

Hello, I made edits to the article One Mega Group but my edits got removed after a few days. Why did this happen? Themissmargaux (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Themissmargaux, welcome to the Teahouse. You have already asked this question at the Help Desk and received an explanation there - please do not ask the same question in multiple places, to avoid duplication of volunteer effort. 174.21.23.32 (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Themissmargaux You added large amounts of promotional wording ("Exploring endless possibilities... started conquering the world...ONEMEGA.com is the ultimate Filipino lifestyle portal..."), multiple logos, huge sections of unreferenced text. Most of the deleted content was written from a point of view of the company. Make content neutral and factual. On the plus side, you did attempt to add references. Use those again if in support of content, and not created by the company (not press releases, website, etc.). David notMD (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You declared paid for AGC, but not for One Mega Group. What is your connection to One Mega Group? David notMD (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last, a lot of your content (since cut) was close paraphrasing from the reference https:agcpowerholdingscorp.com/one-mega-group/ and hence copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the Wikipedia Library[edit]

So, the description on its page about it being "an open research hub" isn't particularly helpful. From what I've gathered, it's basically free-of-charge subscriptions for Wikipedia editors with 500+ edits? What subscriptions are included under the library? Vortex (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427: See the About page and the Partners page. As I understand it, an editor can access some of the resources simply by being accepted by the Wikipedia Library, whereas others require separate applications. Deor (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's about right Deor. Vortex3427 if there's something in particular you're looking for, I can see if there's anything through my access to the Wikipedia Library. I haven't applied to any of the more specific resources, but it's something. You could also try making a resource request here. Hope that helps, Clovermoss (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about signatures[edit]

Is there any way to edit a signature? I know on scratch i've been able to, but i'm not sure about here 684pika (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 684pika, and welcome! Does this have what you're looking for? Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what i'm looking for! Thank you! 684pika (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Hi, Is these website considered reliable? >indiaglitz.com >nowrunning.com >filmibeat.com >chitraloka.com PravinGanechari (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The place to ask about reliability of sources is WP:RSN - it's worth searching the archives of that noticeboard to see if they have been discussed previously. It's also worth seeing whether they are listed at WP:RSNP. ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, though, the answer is no. Scandal rags are not usable sources due to their "damn-the-facts" approach meaning they have ineffectual editorial oversight, if any at all. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an rcat for "to an article"[edit]

I want a or want to create a redirect category for a redirect "to a valid article". I've come across a lot of article titles which hosted articles (un-reffed or not) and get deleted, but are morphed (pop culture word for transformed) into excellent feature article candidate. Take this page link as an example to a proposed deleted article that was merged into the bigger article that I've just redirected to its current official name. I think that deserves at least a redirect category, don't you think?! Intrisit (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the efn template not working?[edit]

Basically i wanted to make an efn or foot note. However when i do it, it doesn't appear in the reflist. You can check here. Leahnn Rey (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leahnn Rey, it should be {{Notelist}} Kpddg (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions from a new contributor[edit]

I'm havin some issues with the deletion process so I have a couple of questions, if part of the page is not sourced correctly in the opinion as vote from some editors, when they place the vote, is the intent to get the entire page deleted even the parts that have enough notability/reliable sources? does it has to be 100% spot on from the moment it is published? or do we have the chance to improve it gradually once published, is there a set time limit on how long this process is allowed to take? if the page gets deleted, can the contributor create it again after sufficient notabilty/good sources is found? Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emanuelrodriguez232: When an article is nominated for deletion, the intent is to have the entire article deleted, because the nominator believes that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability" - see Articles for Deletion. This can happen even if certain parts of the article are properly sourced. To greatly reduce the chance of deletion, contributors can follow the Articles for Creation process by creating a draft and having it reviewed before it becomes an article. Articles may be improved at any time. If an article is deleted, an editor can create it again if they can better demonstrate notability; however, recreated articles may be speedily deleted if the new article isn't significantly better. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles at AfD can be improved, especially if lack of valid references is a major reason why nominated. If this is done, a comment explaining what was done can be made at the AfD. Typically, articles are at AfD seven days or longer before an Aministrator makes a decision. It is not a 'vote' per se of the people who have left their recommendations. David notMD (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Average response time?[edit]

I had a question about an article and asked in on the talk page. What is the average expected response time? Is someone automatically notified or do I have to get lucky and hope someone sees it? Or do I advertise it here? Jinkevin (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jinkevin, the response time may vary depending on the page, time asked, etc. If the talk page is on someone's watchlist, it may get a faster response. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 18:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who have the article on their watchlist will be notified of edits to the Talk Page. I would give it a week, and then go ahead and be WP:BOLD if there is an edit you want to make, or you could ask the question to other editors directly who have participated in the article or Talk Page. If it fits on a relevant noticeboard, that might be an option, too. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For articles in English Wikipedia, View history, and then Pageviews with show views per day, and to the right, may show the number of editors who have the article on their Watch list. Pyrrho mentioned another approach - messaging editors who have recently edited the article. List of best-selling Atari 2600 video games, the article in question, has one editor who was very active in 2021, so query that person. David notMD (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jinkevin The article talk page also has some WikiProject templates at the top. If no one responds to your talk page post after a week, you could ask on the WikiProject talk page to have interested editors answer your question on the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]