Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Does Wikipedia have a left-leaning bias?

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I'm interested in knowing whether Wikipedia inadvertently has a particular bias. I know that everything has to written in a neutral point of view and is not supposed to take sides on anything. I found the article on this topic here, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but I found the article too confusing. I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias which may contribute to its bias since almost all of Wikipedia's info comes from mainstream media. I am hoping that I can get a quick summary on whether Wikipedia has a bias or not or if it leans a certain way. I hope to hear from you soon. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that theme has come up. Search for "bias" in the archive. 176.0.164.84 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an article on this topic which relates academic and public commentary. See Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey, you perhaps didn't notice that @Interstellarity has already cited that article. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, bear in mind that political "left/centre/right" are subjective perceptions, unless everyone agrees to use a particular scheme that has measurable parameters. They are also culturally specific, and their meanings in one country rarely exactly correspond to their meanings in another: this makes assessing the 'lean' in a global encyclopaedia rather problematic. "Centres" also shift over time – see Overton window and Left–right political spectrum.

For example, as I am British and you are (I will presume) American, my perceived political "centre" will probably be a good deal leftward of your "centre". I would consider my position in a British context to be mildly left of centre on some (more social and environmental) issues and mildly right on other (more economic) issues: you would probably consider me fairly left-wing from your point of view, and I would probably (given your query) consider you fairly right wing. How then can we agree on "bias in Wikipedia"?

It may well be that the Left-right political spectrum model is oversimplified, outdated and inadequate. Others are available, see Political spectrum. Two axes models are generally more insightful, and I suspect one with three axes would be even better. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will confirm that I am an American. There doesn't appear to be any way to ping you, but I'm sure you watch this page a lot. I've been trying to educate myself on this issue and I read your comments. It appears that determining any type of bias on Wikipedia is difficult since the political systems in each country are different from one another. I was reading Donald Trump's article on Wikipedia and I thought to myself that the article is biased against him just by reading the article, but I have learned that Wikipedia gets its facts from the sources which is usually mainstream media that is critical of him. That's probably why I thought Wikipedia had a left-leaning bias. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't wanna be that guy. But Wikipedia calls national socialism "far right" to make right-wingers look bad, or at least that's what I think. Flying disc 1 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Krugman has observed, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias." Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

For biography submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Irfan Aslam

hi team,

Hope you are doing well. i need assistance to publish biography of pakistani Drama director irfan aslam. any one who can help me? Faizullah Anwar (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Faiz. Try actually reading the feedback that the article reviewers are leaving you, as to why your article is getting ‘not allowed’. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

they told me that this article do not have reliable sources. but there are 30+ links of Pakistan's top channels websites and that website shows his work with his name. can you please look into it. how to send you the link. Faizullah Anwar (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Faizullah Anwar, unreferenced promotional language like With a strong passion for storytelling and media and provided a solid foundation for his career is not permitted because that style of language violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. As for your references, quality is far more important than quantity. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is what is required. Passing mentions are of little value. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you so much i will change that words. Faizullah Anwar (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Faizullah Anwar: Of all the sources you have used, which three best exemplify "significant coverage [of Irfan Aslam] in reliable sources"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes because there are some news paper Jang News cuttings. and there are lots of links of pakistan's top channels like Geo Entertainment, Hum TV, BOL Network and many others official websites. and these channel's websites are displaying his name as (Directed by Irfan Aslam). Faizullah Anwar (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not that the references are not reliable or not the "top channels", but the fact that the sources provide very few information about Irfan Aslam. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Faizullah Anwar: Do you think those contain "Significant coverage" of your subject? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

i don't know. if these refferrences are not giving significant coverage of my subject then what to do? any solution. you are the seniors you all knows very well wikipedia policies. Faizullah Anwar (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Advice on how to install and use WP:MOSNUMscript

Earlier today I installed WP:MOSNUMscript, but couldn't get it to work. I followed the instructions, but evidently I must've done something wrong. Please keep in mind that my understanding of things tech is very limited. I would, therefore, appreciate a patient and clear explanation on how to properly install and use WP:MOSNUMscript. In case it helps to know this, my browser is Google Chrome. Thank you very kindly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue appears to be down to a space appearing in the link instead of a _ character.

You had: importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js');

That should be:

importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM_dates.js');

I think if you replicate the steps and correct this, it should work. GhostOfNoMan 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure it should make a difference... And the official install instructions do include a space, as well. Perhaps there's something else going wrong. Are you sure you don't see the MOSNUM options on the page once it's installed, as shown in this image? And did you try pressing Shift + F5 or Ctrl + F5 to clear Chrome's cache? GhostOfNoMan 19:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I tried Shift + F5 and Ctrl + Shift + R, but to no avail. The options neither showed up on the left as in the image nor in the dropdown tabs that appear for the 2017 wikitext editor. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Your code [1] was correct. The script only affects edit pages. Try it again and use Ctrl+F5 on [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that worked! Thank you so much for your help!! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Sorry to bother once more. A couple of new wrinkles turned up. First, I noticed that the successful result at the link you sent could not be replicated at this page I wanted to edit. I noticed that the addresses at each were slightly different, so I modified the latter to this and was successfully able to bring up the commands I wanted. However, now the problem is that clicking the commands does not result in the dates being changed. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong here, but can't figure it out. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24 For what it's worth, I also encountered issues attempting to use the script on Ōnosato Daiki. It took ~5 minutes for the preview to finally load, and when it did it contained formatting errors galore, with spaces apparently arbitrarily removed (e.g. on 1 January became on1January).

I was able to resolve this by turning off syntax highlighting (the pen symbol at the top of the editor, to the right of the text formatting options like bold and italics). Perhaps you can try disabling that and see if it helps you too? GhostOfNoMan 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and want to add how appreciative I am for all the help here. In fact, I've never turned on the syntax highlighting. Just to be sure, however, I turned it on, then off again to see if this helped at all. No dice. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. Sorry I couldn't be of more help; disabling syntax highlighting completely resolved it for me. :( I suppose it still doesn't work if you give it ~60 seconds, in case it's simply being slow? Does it work on any articles at all, or none? Do you have any browser extensions installed that could be interfering (e.g. an adblocker you could test disabling)? GhostOfNoMan 22:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Can you try in safemode to narrow down the problem? Many scripts don't run there, including your common.js where the script is loaded, so you have to run it in the Chrome DevTools Console. Press Ctrl+⇧ Shift+j, copy importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js'); to the blue ">" in the right pane, and press the enter key. If it still fails then try the same when you are logged out. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried this method, but both times could not access the script. I also received a message warning me against it.

As helpful as it would be to use this script, I think that at least for now it may be more trouble for me than it's worth. However, I again thank you for your time and patience with me. I'm also grateful to fellow editors at Teahouse for the courtesy with which they help people like me. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I see my edits on articles.

Hi! Ive recently been editing a few articles here and there but when I check my profile the only edit I can find is to my own 'talk page'. Are my edit contributions being reviewed before they are put in to effect (understandable as I'm a new user) or have I maybe not probably saved my edits and they have gone to the void? :( thanksss Gillian2002 (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If you go to any page, there is a tab labeled "view history". This shows you all edits made to that page, who made them, and when. The "diff" link on each line shows you what changed.

You can also view your own contributions, by pulling down the drop-down menu from the little person icon at the top right (assuming you're on a desktop browser) and clicking "Contributions". This shows you all of your edits that you have ever made to any page. You can also view this by going to your own user page or talk page and pulling down the menu under "user", and select "contributions". ~Anachronist (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gillian2002: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, you've only made three edits on the English Wikipedia. Are you sure you weren't previously editing on the Simple English Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much, you were right I was previously on simple English wikipedia, that makes much more sense now! Gillian2002 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Gillian2002, try this. -- Hoary (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Review of Content before Upload

Would just like to know if there is a place here in Wiki where I can show the content I have created, maybe have it critiqued or reviewed for possible policy violations, before I upload it. Will appreciate greatly the advice of the experienced editors or admins here. TMxAsclep (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

the best place is probably your own sandbox (just click this red link to create it). You can experiment there, provided that you don't add any copyright material and its not abusive or very obviously promotional, you can create a draft article. To get a critique you would have to request other users to have a look at it or you could submit it as a draft article for review. Best place to start is probably the article wizard. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice. TMxAsclep (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TMxAsclep, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not clear whether you are considering creating an article or adding material to existing articles; but if you are thinking of a new article: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am new here. Foremost, I look forward to creating new articles. Will take your advice. Thanks! TMxAsclep (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly second the recommendation to learn Wikipedia's mysterious ways by putting in time improving existing articles before attempting creation. David notMD (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! TMxAsclep (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. Disruptive Editing

What is the difference between vandalism and disruptive editing? to me, it seems that they are the same thing, because many disruptive edits are listed as "vandalism" even if they may not be. 142.114.1.184 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Vandalism is disruptive editing but not all disruptive editing is vandalism. It is possible to act in good faith and still be disruptive(like someone constantly, unintentionally misspelling a word requiring others to clean up after them). Vandalism is acting in bad faith. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is disruptive editing that's intentionally disruptive.

But some disruptive editing can be unintentional, and thus not vandalism. For example an editor might be unfamiliar with policies, like using reliable sources, and display little willingness to learn; or they might have poor English skills; or they might just lack competence (see WP:COMPETENCE). Sometimes an editor is making a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia, but for one reason or another their contributions are disruptive—but they're not vandalism, even though penalties do exist for consistent disruptive editing even when it's in good faith. GhostOfNoMan 19:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, GhostOfNoMan. Please don't refer to "penalties". Blocks (in particular) are not penalties, they are a mechanism for preventing further damage to Wikipedia. See WP:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Valid point – they're not meant to be punitive. I would have opted for "sanctions" instead, the language preferred by various policy pages (like WP:NOTPUNISHMENT), but the simple English definition of "to sanction" is still just the imposition of a penalty. Rephrasing to avoid these common English terms can feel like an exercise in prolixity, but I appreciate it's an important point to clarify for new and unfamiliar editors. GhostOfNoMan 20:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is the destruction of Wikipedia's purpose (which is to provide encyclopedic content). Examples of vandalism include adding nonsense, inappropriate external links, promotional content, unexplained content removal, BLP violations and repeated addition of copyrighted material. Disruptive editing is the disruption of improving an article. Not all disruptive editing is vandalism, but all vandalism is disruptive. An example of disruptive editing is adding copyrighted content (one time only). But that's like the only example of disruptive editing that I can think of. See WP:Vandalism and WP:Disruptive editing for more information. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As said above, while all vandalism is disruptive editing, not all disruptive editing is vandalism. The difference comes from a few factors, with the most important ones being:

• Was the editor genuinely trying to improve the article?
• Do they co-operate and engage with people to discuss their edits and why they may be considered disruptive?
• Do they continue to make the same type of edits without any change in behaviour?

Let's use one of the most well-known spelling debates on the planet as an example. Say that an American user decides to visit the aluminium article to look something up. After skimming the article, they think to themselves "the spelling's all wrong!", so they change every mention of the metal to be spelt aluminum instead because that's what they've grown up with and they find that extra "i" confusing. This would certainly be disruptive editing, but because the editor was trying to "fix" the article and made their edit with good intentions, it isn't vandalism.

However, if that same user rejects all community advice and warnings and continues to revert the spelling back because "that's how it should be!!", then it becomes vandalism. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is when they try to improve an article but failed. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Electrou: That is not always the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Most disruptive editing made by IP users are most likely on purpose, and disruptive editing by registered newcomers are almost if not always accidental. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Northeastern University Archives and Special Collections

Hello!

Draft:Northeastern University Archives and Special Collections was declined by Wikipedia a few days ago, and I went ahead and cited pretty much everything. Hopefully this will be enough, but I have a couple of questions as well

• All of the items in the "collections lists" are established Wiki articles. I would love to make a reference to this page from those pages, but is this allowed when the referencing page is in draft?
• would it be helpful/useful to double-cite references?

Just interested if there is anything else I can do to make the page 'stick' this time.

Thanks! Gmecagni (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

On a quick look, there is little or nothing among the sources which meet the triple requirement of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the subject of the article (see WP:42): if I am right, then you have not established that the archive meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: unless you can establish this, no article is possible.

In the first sentence it describes it as an "internationally recognized repository", but that paragraph is cited only to a non-indepedent source, and so should not contain any such judgment.

Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gmecagni You ask about linking articles to drafts. That's not allowed, since a large proportion of drafts are in a poor state and many get abandoned when not accepted. Looking at your current draft, I don't think it will be accepted, for lack of sources meeting the golden rules, so you might be better in incorporating parts at Northeastern University#Library facilities. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Your draft is not bad, but it lacks reliable sources. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Electrou, @Michael D. Turnbull, @ColinFine, thank you for all of your help.

I've spent some time in WikiGLAM spaces and thought I understood that "Finding Aids" (citable, published sources of information about Archival collections) counted as Reliable Sources.

Here's info I found about it from New York Metropolitan Libray Council' explanation of finding aids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan_New_York_Library_Council/citation

It is standard practice for libraries and archives to develop finding aids, and collections guides which explain the historical significance, background, and contents of institutional collections. These finding aids usually also contain written descriptions for individual collections and sub-collections, and often also for individual artifacts. Finding aids are worth citing as they often contain descriptions culled from primary source documents, and institutional resources, and because they come with an organizational backing which fulfills the Wikipedia community's requests for reliable sources. Finding are considered copyrightable documents, and are increasingly being published online as research documents within themselves. Finding aids often correspond to digitized collections, but also indicate which items are available on-site. Gmecagni (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Or is it just that my citations aren't formatted correctly? Template:Cite archival metadata Gmecagni (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gmecagni Your sources from #8 onwards would be better using {{cite web}} so that the URL would be "hidden" but that's not the main issue. The problem is that Wikipedia only wants stand-alone articles on topics which are wikinotable. As I mentioned above, that means finding three or so sources which are simultaneously reliable, independent and have significant coverage about this particular library. At present, you have some sources to local newspapers but your most promising source doi:10.5860/rbm.8.2.286 is not independent since it is written by the first appointee to archivist there. I've done some searches but I can't find anything to help, unfortunately. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

.... actually I found a good source here at LJ. See the article dated 28 June 2023 in particular. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

.... also this article is useful (from 2013). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Chatting with other Wikipedians

I’m looking for a place on Wikipedia where I can chat with other Wikipedians about things that are not related to Wikipedia. Some websites have places where community members have a chatroom for things not specific to what the community is about, but wasn’t sure if something like this exists on or off Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe any such place exists on Wikipedia itself (WP:NOTFORUM), but if you're comfortable with IRC there are social channels like #Wikipedia-coffeehouse and #Wikipedia-offtopic (and many, many more). Alternatively, Discord. GhostOfNoMan 19:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, please read WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. A little bit of chit-chat is permitted on user talk pages among editors who already know each other. There is no chatroom on Wikipedia itself. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish someone talked to me 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: You can find groups of Wikipedians chatting on most social forums - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Mastodon, etc. There are also real-world meetups which often mix editing and technical support with social activities. You may find details on the talk page of the WikiProject about the country or place where you live; such as WT:WikiProject New York. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. I will definitely check it out. Interstellarity (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

how to do an edit

In Franz Kafka, under "Sources" is "Corngold, Stanley (2009). Franz Kafka: The Office Writings." Corngold is an editor, not an author, and is one of three editors; the other two are Jack Greenberg and Benno Wagner, which you can see by clicking on the review. I don't know how to edit the template to reflect this. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Maurice Magnus. The template is Template:Cite book, which explains its arguments. But if you are unable to edit it yourself, Talk:Franz Kafka is the best place to discuss improving the article. (I see you have already posted there, on a different topic). ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus I always find this format of short citations that use the sfn template extremely confusing and not particularly helpful, TBH.

If you open the page in WP:Source Editor and scroll down to the "Sources" section, you'll see that a template is used which creates a list of sources. Each source within that uses the Cite Book template, plus a further 'template-within-a-template' ({{sfnRef}}) which controls how the shortened citation is displayed. The entry you're looking for currently contains the following text (albeit laid out one entry per line, rather than in continuous block form, as below):

* {{cite book : | last = Corngold : | first = Stanley : | title = Franz Kafka: The Office Writings : | year = 2009 : | publisher = Princeton University Press : | location = Princeton, New Jersey : | isbn = 978-0-691-12680-7 : | ref = {{sfnRef|Corngold et al.|2009}} : }} [https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/bookreviewsoct09-pdf-1.pdf Review]

The sfnRef template is what is edited to create a short form citation. You could simply modify this to:

sfnRef|Corngold et al. (eds.) (2009).

...but you would, I think need to ensure that every single use of the original name was replaced with your new name.

But I suspect you will probably want to follow ColinFine's advice and fix the cite book template fields as well? If so, there are some worked (and sometimes quite lengthy) examples of how authors, editors and translators are dealt with in that template's documentation, and how you can control the way the number of multiple names are displayed.

You are evidently an experienced editor here, but I can understand your confusion in this example. It's taken me two hours this evening to attempt to resolve your query - mainly because I've little expereince of using this form of citation. However, I do think a really important issue is to first decide what citation you want to give, and who to credit as author(s) and who to credit as editors/translators. I'm not wholly convinced that the book review you mention necessarily uses the correct citation, as some sources list Kafka as the author whilst others list both Kafka and Corngold as authors (because the latter evidently wrote major commentaries and other content), with further people listed as editors, whilst some list only Corngold (see scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1137851). I really can't advise which is correct - I must leave you to investigate that - but even the article here about Franz Kafka: The Office Writings also looks like the citation could be better constructed.

So, amid the confusion, I went to World Cat entry for that book and clicked the 'Cite' button. It gave me this, as one of a number of citation layouts for the work:

Kafka, F. (2009). Franz Kafka : the office writings (S. Corngold, J. Greenberg, & B. Wagner, Eds.; E. Patton, Trans.). Princeton University Press.

I've added the relevant fields from the World Cat citation into our Cite book template to create a normal inline citation, like this:

References

If it looks to be fairly close, you could copy the source code from my reply and play around further with it in your sandbox to get perfect layout before inserting the template code back into the article itself. But bear in mind that crediting every single, and including their full first names too, does tend to make for a lengthy and often overly-complex citation. For that reason I used the "|display-editors=1|" parameter to force the use of "et al." in the reference that appears below. You could still include the translators name, but not even show it at all in the citation by inserting the parameter "|display-translators=0|"

I fear this reply has gone down a bit of a rabbit hole, but I hope it is at least of some further help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk). I appreciate your informing me that Wikipedia has an article on Franz Kafka: The Office Writings, and I've just wikilinked the mention of it in "Sources" in Franz Kafka. That article states, "The book includes introductory essays by Corngold and Wagner, as well as commentary following each of Kafka's texts, and an epilogue by Greenberg." Therefore, now that I've wikilinked Franz Kafka: The Office Writings, it is less important to straighten out Franz Kafka. Thank you for your work on my question, but I will do no more on it. I prefer editing for substance if I am familiar with a subject and copyediting any place that needs it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Calling editors to help improve the Black women in American politics article

Hello! I'm letting you all know that I suggested the Black women in American politics article for a Good Article Nomination.

It was removed with the following comment: "Nominations need someone familiar with the sourcing and content of an article so they can respond to reviewer concerns, so it's usually expected that the nominator is one of the main contributors to the article. Also, it still needs a lot of work before it can be a good article, as it suffers greatly from scope issues and needs more citations."

I don't know if the creator of the article is still active, but I want to encourage all interested editors to see what they can do to improve the article.User:ProfessorKaiFlaiProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@ProfessorKaiFlai To answer your question on whether the creator is still active, they appear to have been vanished, so they're no longer around to have anything to do with the article. If you look at the XTools analysis of the page though, you can see the current highest contributors; unfortunately, the highest contributor is retired, the second highest hasn't edited since 2011 and the third made a single edit - to that page - then never edited Wikipedia again.

It'd be great if people could set to improving the article to get it to GA, it'd be worth notifying Women in Red to see whether anyone there might be interested in helping. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - will do!ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd actually recommend Women in Green if your goal is to get it to GA. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@ProfessorKaiFlai: The talk page of that aritcle lists (in a collapsed header box; use the "[show]" link there) a number of WikiProjects, where you can find editors with an interest in related subjects. You can ask on the talk pages of those projects - but I suggest you select one or two, not all of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - will do!ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect?

I came across this article, Communication Engine, in the Community portal for articles needing citations. While trying to find resources I came across this article, Internet Communications Engine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe these are two separate articles explaining the same subject. I'm just not familiar enough with the subject matter to feel comfortable making that judgement on my own. Both articles need work but I think at the very least the shorter, less descriptive article should redirect to the more in depth one. If I get some consensus on this, would someone also be willing to help me with the redirect? I'm always happy to learn new skills to help out around here! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that they are separate subjects with CE being a general topic while ICE being a specific program. Therefore, there is no need for redirect (though CE needs significant work). ✶Quxyz✶ 22:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That works for me! Thanks for helping with my question! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference for list of books from publication orginization

If I am writing a list of published books for a publication company, should I add references fom third party sites? 69.75.169.38 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. It depends what you mean by "third party sites". If you mean sites that are selling those books, then no. If you mean independent reliable sources that have reviewed those books, then possibly. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:YisroelB501 / IP editor: You appear to be using at least one registered accounts and an anonymous IP address to edit Draft:Jewish Educational Media. Please stick to one user account only.

You appear to be attempting to promote or advertise this company, and you have been advised to declare any Conflict of Interest or WP:PAID editing you may have. Suspected undeclared paid editors are blocked to stop them abusing Wikipedia. You have been asked to declare whether or not you are connected with Jewish Educational Media, but you have failed to respond so far.

Please do not edit your draft any further without first addressing the concerns over your editing activities on your talk page. Failure to respond to that request could result in temporary or permanent withdrawal of editing privileges until you have addressed those reasonable requests. Sorry to have to put this so forcefully, but ignoring them is not an option if we suspect Undeclared Paid Editing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Number 1 I am not in conection in any way with Jewish Educational Media I am not even above working age and didnt even graduate highschool yet.

Number 2 that IP is not mine or a second acount of mine. looking at it, it seems to be my school IP adress and perhaps it is people in my class (see vandalism that they did in User talk:69.75.169.38) helping me make the draft for Draft:Jewish Educational Media.

I am just a big fan of their work and I strongly belive their should be a wikipidia page about Jewish Educational Media. YisroelB501 (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if you don't have a conflict of interest, if I were an AfC reviewer I'd decline it on the spot for the non-neutral tone. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You used that IP address in your first post in this section. Given that it may be shared, your best course of action is to always log in before editing, or commenting here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your history of contributions suggests that the "publication organization" ("publisher"?) is Jewish Educational Media, a name that has frequently appeared on this page. (See e.g. "I just made my first wikipidia page draft".) Tips: (i) A book title shouldn't be in bold; it should be italicized. (ii) If an edition of a book has an ISBN (and the great majority of recently published books do), then the ISBN would be helpful (see Template:ISBN/doc); if it does not, then the number of an informative OCLC would be (see Template:OCLC/doc). -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Book titles may be italicised and bold, if the title redirects to the article concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

too "one-sided"

I recived some comments saying my draft Draft:Jewish Educational Media is too "one sided" and "sounds like a commercail" I dont see at all how this can be one-sided it looks like any other wikipida article. can someone please tell me if they think this is one sided and how i can fix this and make it completly neutral. YisroelB501 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, none of the reviewers commenting on your draft has said that it is one-sided. However, heavily relying on affiliated sources results in content that violates the Neutral point of view. You have been told repeatedly that that what is needed are references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are fully independent of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. The quality of the sources are far more important than the quantity, so when you load a draft up with sources that are not independent and therefore do not establish notability, you create a major problem. You need to prove that the wider world has paid attention to this organization, not just the many media outlets that are part of Chabad-Lubavitch. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying but Jewish Educational Media is not part of the Chabad Lubavich movement. and also many other articles with things actualy from the Chabad Lubavuch movement rely on sorces from Chabad.org, and sites similar. See Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch. But my original question was not about the sorces, it was if ithis draft is too one-sided. I was literly questioned by admins who thought I was making "promotional content" and i had to tell them I wasn't conected to Jem in any way. YisroelB501 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, let me give one glaring example of a neutrality problem with your draft. You linked to the article Rebbe which makes it clear that this term refers to a revered Hassidic leader. A rebbe is a tzadik and there are many of them who are recognized in the various Hassidic communities. As you know but most readers won't, Chabad-Lubavitich is just one of many established Hassidic dynasties, although perhaps the best known one to the general public. The Chabad-Lubavitch movement itself has had seven rebbes over the years, going back to Shneur Zalman of Liadi who died in 1812. When you write the Rebbe over and over again, that is not neutral writing because anyone who knows anything about Chabad-Lubavitch knows that you are referring to one specific man, Menachem Mendel Schneerson who died in 1994. So, you are trying to state in Wikipedia's neutral voice that Schneerson is the only person who deserves to be called "the Rebbe". I am not here to attack Chabad-Lubavitch or Schneerson. I know many people who have been positively influenced and I have attended quite a few of their events over the years, where I got a very friendly reception. But inserting their doctrine into Wikipedia as opposed to neutrally describing it is inappropriate and will never be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, as for your assertion that Jewish Educational Media is not part of the Chabad Lubavich movement, you can repeat that falsehood ten, or 100, or 1000 times, and no experienced editor familiar with the topic area will believe you, because you are wikilawering about organizational technicalities. Perhaps you are not aware but there was a Wikipedia article way back in 2007 that has been deleted but said at that time Jewish Educational Media also known by its acronym JEM, is the Multimedia arm of the Chabad-Lubavitch Movement. Anyone who actually reads the sources knows that you are trying to deceive the reviewers, and that is inappropriate behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

just because you contribute to an orginiazation does not mean that you are part of that orginization. Who cares about these editors you calim of the truth is that it is not in any way a part or an arm of the movement of Chabad Lubavich. you can also repeat falsehood 1 10 100 1000 times. how about you realize that Chabad is a trademark and there are certain orginizations that are part of that trademark (for example Kehot Friendship Circle (organization) Jewish Educational Media is not a trademark of Chabad. also look at the page Chabad affiliated organizations and you will see its not on there. Did they contribute a lot to the history of Chabad? yes. are they part of Chabad? NO. and i should not have to say that again. YisroelB501 (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPS#Deseret News does not consider the precise nature of the relation between Deseret News and the LDS Church—only that they are closely affiliated nonetheless, and certain practices (whether that be caution, inline attribution, or avoidance altogether) should be followed. Experienced Wikipedians have in two discussions above advised to apply similar logic to this situation. OP, you ignore them at your own risk. As an aside, I see at Special:Permalink/1222689533 of "Chabad affiliated organizations", Jewish Educational Media (JEM) – JEM houses the movement's audio and video collection. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

First time drafter questions

Hi folks! I've been editing now for a couple of weeks and have found a notable event that does not have a wikipedia page; the murder of Connie Dabate, also known as the "fitbit murder" I have begun to draft the page but I am struggling with formatting the page and I am wondering if there are any resources that y'all could point me to to better learn how to utilize the article drafting/editing UI. Further, is there a method by which I could upload documents that are apart of the record of the case (notably the arrest warrant for the perpetrator) and made references to that document in the article?

I feel confident in my ability to write with the tone and specificity required for wikipedia's encyclopedic style and I have the necessary sources (at this time 10+ sources from news publications) I'm just not as savvy with the technical aspects of drafting the article. Thanks!

GB Gbrann100 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gbrann100, where are you working on it? I don't see anything in your contribution history. It's easier to help out if we can see what you're up to (or we can just fix things and you can have a look at what we did and learn that way). -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been writing content in a word document, I will publish the working draft so that folks can help me, thank you for your prompt reply! Gbrann100 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than Word (or similar), you'd be better off using a text editor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Better to just draft straight on Wikipedia if you're learning, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gbrann100 You may not have noticed the welcome message on your talk page containing a link to Help:Introduction. Please work through the links to learn more about using one or other of our two editing tools. Most experienced editors here prefer the more powerful and controllable Source Editor. although many newcomers find the more basic Visual Editor easier to use for most simple tasks. Help:Introduction allows you to choose which editing tool to learn about. A quick browser search does suggest the topic is indeed notable, with a lot of newspapers covering the story, it would seem.

You will probably find it best to work on your article as a Draft, only submitting it for review once you've got it into fairly good shape. You can start work by following our New Article Wizard HERE, and you can learn more about working on your first article HERE. And I agree with Hoary in that using Word runs the risk of you copy/pasting your draft text along with bits of unwanted but invisible formatting code that Word uses. So, should you run into problems displaying anything on a page here, do consider that as the most likely cause of any issue. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you! Gbrann100 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I will like to add that while drafting, you can make use of visual editing more and desktop settings will make things easier for you (especially when formatting, adding sources, adding templates etc).

You will still need source editing and I believe checking similar articles will guide you better. If you have specific questions too, you can ask. Tesleemah (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gbrann100 You refer to the idea of uploading documents that are part of the record of the case. That is absolutely not what you should be doing. All Wikipedia articles must be based on already-published sources, some of which may be offline. There should be no need for original documents like arrest warrants, since articles here need secondary sources in the main. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me, I was a little confused as many of the news articles use the warrant as a source and link to it. Gbrann100 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

We just use the news article as the source, in that case. The idea is that we're building articles based on secondary sources, not primary ones, unless there's some particular reason we need to refer directly to a primary source. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Gbrann100, and welcome to the Teahouse. At the risk of "piling on", I want to say that your reference to court documents suggests that, like many new editors who try to create an article, you may going about it the wrong way.

Your draft should not be based upon court documents, or any other primary sources. While a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be sourced to primary documents, the bulk of the article, and anything in the way of arguments or conclusions, must come from secondary sources. If a matter in a court document has not been discussed by an independent secondary source, it probably should not go into the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing great so far! Nothing to worry about. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging reply! :) Gbrann100 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding an Organisation page or article

Hi, I want to know is it notable to create a page for an organization and its dynamics ownership of the organization and its rules, together with the nature of the business and trusted tips within the industry? Universal Phoenix (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Universal Phoenix you're looking for the guidelines at WP:NCORP. I don't recommend this task to a new editor - that's our strictest notability guideline. -- asilvering (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Universal Phoenix Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is simple: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

This is an encyclopaedia of Notable Things. It's not a place to repeat what is on a company's website, or to act as a directory of useful tips. We have very strict criteria to determine whether a business is deemed 'notable' in Wikipedia's eyes. You can find this at WP:NCORP. Please read it carefully to ensure you understand that we need at least three, high quality and independent sources (such as books, mainstream newspapers) to have written about that company in detail and in depth. We don't care what the company says about itself, and we don't accept their website or publications as evidence of notability.

In addition, if you work for, or are paid by that company in any way, you are required to declare that connection. See WP:COI and WP:PAID to understand these obligations on editors with such conflicts of interest. I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Death notice as sources?

I'm a new editor working on adding sources. For some people (German mathematicians...) the only source on birth/death date & location I can find is an obituary/death notice of a form such as https://trauer-in-nrw.de/traueranzeige/uwe-storch or perhaps an announcement on a university website such as https://web.archive.org/web/20180128131305/http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ffm/fakultaet/archiv.html (scroll to September). Are either of these acceptable? If both are, is one of these two types examples preferred in cases I can find both? Finally, if they have additional factual info beyond birth/death date (e.g., the university site confirms his habilitation year, and when he became emeritus), can that be taken from obits as well, or I should I stick to citing them for birth/death dates only? Thank you! AlgebraicBro (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a very good question. Not for your situation specifically but generally: for obituaries, their reliability and what information they can support depends on who wrote it, who published it, and when. Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources, while an essay, walks you through the usual thought process; "How and why to use obituaries" on its talk page provides some additional tips (with the caveat that it is an opinion from 2023 of one editor}. I would consider announcements on university websites to not be independent, and thus the usual considerations apply there (WP:PRIMARY and perhaps even WP:BLPPRIMARY for the recently deceased). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@AlgebraicBro I somewhat disagree with User:Rotideypoc41352 and think that the best advice is at WT:Obituaries as sources#How and why to use obituaries. There is a big difference in using an obituary to establish notability (which is what the essay WP:NOBITS is mainly about) and using them in an article where notability is not at issue and you merely seek confirmation of dates and death location. For that, university websites announcing the death of a staff member is very likely correct and may be the only available published source soon after the death. So, while WP:PRIMARY, these sources may be used for uncontroversial information, much like WP:ABOUTSELF sources, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're in the official discord server for something you are going to write an article about, does that subject become a close subject?

The subject in question is about the homebrew project WiiLink, by the way, I didn't work on the project, I just used it and was in their discord server, but I still want to ask just in case. Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're asking if you have a conflict of interest merely because you participate in the official Discord server of a topic, probably not. You might if you discussed your Wikipedia editing with those who created/own the server and are making edits at their request. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the draft btw. Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding reliable sources

Draft:Kanjanagaram Kathra Sundareswarar Temple

One editor noted the above mentioned article draft described it as lack of reliable sources and not written in an encyclopaedic format. How to find a source whether it is reliable or not? and how to find an article written in encyclopaedic format? பொதுஉதவி (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@பொதுஉதவி. The main problem is that your sources are not independent of Draft:Kanjanagaram Kathra Sundareswarar Temple. The decline notice contained a number of blue links to Wikipedia policies. Please click on those links and read those policies. If there is anything specific we can probably help you if you explain exactly what you don't understand about those policies. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Your draft did not have reliable sources or inline citations, and has been declined. See referencing for beginners for more information. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on draft...

Hoping someone could give me some quick fedback on this draft...Thanks in advance Geraldine Aino (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldine Aino Blogs, patents, and Forbes do not contribute towards establishing notability. You have one good source which is the NYT. You will need to find at least two more reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove mention of patents and of French. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks David - curious about the patents...are they not proof of concept? I honestly do not know. 18:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) 2601:589:4884:E1D0:1482:BB0D:DC46:26FF (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am curious about the patents...are they not proof of concept? I honestly do not know. 18:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC) 2601:589:4884:E1D0:1482:BB0D:DC46:26FF (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. My recommendation, taking into account what others have said above, is to set aside the patents for the time being. You should, at this point in drafting, focus on sources that establish wikinotability; the patent could be used as a primary source, but only in limited circumstances. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Your draft is pretty good, but it needs to have notability and reliable sources. See referencing for beginners and inline citations for more information. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the draft goes from very general - concealed weapon clothing design - to very, very specific - French and his design patents. Better to keep it general, meaning deletion of all mention of French and his patents. Otherwise it comes across as promotional. David notMD (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Informations

Hi,can someone help me?I would like an entry to be created on English Wikipedia about this Italian guitarist, author and writer who wrote songs with people already there Bobby Solo,George Aaron and Gian Luigi Nespoli. I met him at an awards ceremony because he wrote a very beautiful soundtrack for a short film "The Fear of Winning" in Italian "La paura di vincere" at Ferrara Film Festival. This Is his link in Italian Wikipedia: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Zannetti I'm not able to do.... Thank you very much Cetin1979 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. New accounts cannot directly create articles, but you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer, I will try to see if I would like to find direct help because I am not very skilled in these things.Thank you very much. Cetin1979 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that someone with experience of en:WP, and able to read Italian (not me), would find enough material at that it:WP article to justify creating an article here. Maproom (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I would like. Thank you Cetin1979 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia fork?

hi can you please let me know what this acronym means: wikipedia fork ThanksPalisades1 (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Palisades1, see Fork (software development) for an explanation. But that's not an acrohym. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Palisades1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:Fork. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes after I posted the question I realised that it wasn't a acronym. The term was used as a reason for a revert of a reference. The source was New World Encyclopedia so I assume it does not exist in Wikipedia terminology. Sounds like an improper revert? Palisades1 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it was a proper revert. New World Encylopedia is a WP:FORK of Wikipedia, so it's not a reliable source. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

For context, here's the revert by Kuru. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Jlwoodwa. As noted, the cite is content that is copied from Wikipedia, then modified to suit the beliefs of a specific religious organization: "facts are integrated with global, universal, or cosmic values". This is not an 'improper revert', nor is the source acceptable. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Offer for "Wikipedia Management Services"

I received a reach out on Linkedin to create a wiki page about me, from someone who looks like they are monetising https://www.linkedin.com/in/nirmal-pundhir-5693b81b6/

I know people need to find ways to make money but It's not the spirit of the encyclopedia concept! Who can we alert to prevent this?

Thanks! Alexandragreenhill (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not against policy to do that as long as they disclose that they are on Wikipedia(see WP:PAID). We can't prevent people from doing this. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

331dot: wouldn't this possibly fall within the scope of WP:SCAM? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That depends on the content of the email. Merely offering paid editing services isn't a scam, unless they are making guarantees or promising it won't be deleted. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a fair amount of experience dealing with the paid editing issue which is a major problem for Wikipedia. I will start by saying that there are a few ethical and honest paid editing firms that do things right, but their services tend to be quite expensive and most of their clients are corporations or wealthy individuals. The vast majority of these people are liars and scammers who do not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and cannot and do not deliver on the ludicrous promises that they make. I cannot imagine an ethical company cold calling people by email. The very first question to ask such a person is What is your Wikipedia username? An genuine username reveals an enormous amount of information about an editor's history, including required WP:PAID disclosures, contributions, blocks, warnings, articles created and articles deleted, and so much more. It is trivially easy for any experienced editor to determine in a few minutes whether any given paid editor is honest or a scammer. Any paid editor who is unwilling to disclose their username should be considered a liar and a scammer. Do not let them get anywhere near your money. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to recover a non-free file that was deleted more than 1 year ago?

I noticed that Scania AB does not have a logo file, and it appears that an admin deleted that file under WP:F5 (unused non-free file) in September 2023. The reason it was unused was because someone did this, causing the infobox to query a non-existent file, and that caused the original file to become orphaned. The original file was at File:Scania Logo.svg.

I don't know how to obtain any file with original quality, so can anyone help me out here with recovering the original file? Tube·of·Light 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:DRV would be the right place to raise an issue with a file's deletion and request that it be restored. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And to answer your question in the heading, the time since deletion doesn't matter – Wikipedia has kept all deleted pages for the last two decades (according to a footnote at Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages). They're just removed from public view, not completely erased. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa and Tube of Light: shouldn't it be WP:UND instead of DRV? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it looks like the suitability of F5 at WP:RFU is implied by {{subst:UND|f5deferred}}. That should probably be documented elsewhere… jlwoodwa (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tube of Light I don't see any need to undelete that file. There is a low resolution version available at the company's website (top right here). As a nonfree image, the logo will be automatically reduced in resolution, so there is no point in looking for a high-res version. A .png will suffice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, @Jlwoodwa, and @Rotideypoc41352, thanks for your advice. I've decided to go with just uploading the logo file used on Scania's homepage (since it appears to be an SVG so is likely the best-quality file available publicly). Tube·of·Light 04:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Hi is there a listing of sources that are deemed unreliable? I know Find a Grave is not considered reliable. Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Palisades1 Yes, that'd be WP:RSPS. These are the sources that have been talked about enough that consensus states either how reliable or unreliable they are. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much.Palisades1 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a list of unreliable sources per se, but we do have a list of commonly discussed sources and the consensus (or lack of one) regarding them as to their reliability. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much.Palisades1 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Palisades1 You can look at WP:RSPS for the main ones and its archives for some others not extensively discussed. There is a specific Help Desk at WP:RSN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Palisades1 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Doubtful draft

Hi, I'm currently writing this draft – Draft:Google's Year in Search. I have enough reliable sources however, I doubt that, the subject may not meet any given Wikipedia criteria. Is it true.? or I should keep writing that draft.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto: Without seeing your sources, it's impossible to say. But if there is significant coverage of the topic in them, you should be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Many Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 00:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto There is a special version of Google search which looks for sources appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles. The hits in this case are ample to reach wikinotability if used in your draft. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Got them. Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Juan Conitzer (1949-2019) page

Good Day wikipedia Teahouse.

I want to write the article of my father. This October 17th is 15 Years of him passing away, yet in this time no one has written the article, surprisingly, since he was and still is very notable. (there is plenty of him in the internet and even there has been an expo in the 10th anniversary of his passing away (He was a painter and writer, son of Yolanda Bedregal) Of course if i do it, a rule will be broken since we are related, and closely . do i write it?/ please advise 169.252.4.23 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not forbidden from writing an article about your father, but you would have a conflict of interest in doing so, and should follow the advice in that link.

However, writing an article is difficult for a new editor, even without a conflict of interest. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

One important point is that "notable" in Wikipedialand does not mean quite the same as "notable" in general parlance - the points you mention do not necessarily amount to Wikinotability, which is mostly about the existence of sufficient indepedent, reliably published material to base an article on. (For artists, there is an alternative set of criteria in NARTIST). So unless you can show that your father meets one of those two sets of criteria, no article will be possible. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

NB: The date of 2019 given by the OP appears to be a typo for 2009, confirmed by various google-hits.

Most of what I (in the UK) am seeing by websearching is in Spanish, which may help to explain the lack of an article in this English-language Wikipedia so far. Non-English sources are of course, perfectly acceptable here. More surprising that there is no article on the Spanish Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC).

Ref names/List-defined references?

Are refnames still a thing? I know they were introduced in 2009, but is there any push to get rid of them? Also, I know the LDR page has an automated way to change from LDR to regular refs, but I think that was last updated in the 2010s. Is there any newer way to automatically translate from LDR to regular refs? Artwhitemaster (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Artwhitemaster, named references are still widely used; indeed, they are still widely added. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding subtitles

Hey, I added timed text to a video file and was wondering why it doesn't show up on the articles that use the file. Siimpae (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Siimpae: Try purging your cache. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What category does this fall under?

I am sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I wanted to ask here before I went to the talk pages for potential articles or edit said articles. Recently, the same institute behind revival the formerly extinct Judean date palm through 2000-year-old seeds found in Herad the Great's palace in Masada grew another ancient seed into a never-before-seen tree. Is this an example of a de-extinction in the same way as their previous revived plant through germination of ancient seeds, or is this a Lazarus taxon in the same way as the coelacanth being rediscovered off the coast of South Africa after being presumed extinct for 66 million years?

Source: Mystery Tree Grown From 1,000-Year-Old Seed (msn.com) Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Edelgardvonhresvelg, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Article Request

lin-14 is a nematode protein that has gained notable due to the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2024. Who will create it? Htmlzycq (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If you add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Biology § Proteins, ideally with a link to a reliable source, then someone might see it and decide to create the article. Emphasis on the "might", though. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Boghog (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Presidential election results?

I've never seen this resulting tabulation chart before: Rockport presidential election results. Especially on such a small town. It seems somewhat undue weight considering the size of the town and also the size of the article. Is there a particular purpose or reasoning behind including it? Curious. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I haven't contributed to it but this search gives 3863 hits: hastemplate:"Infobox settlement" "presidential election results". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting. Obviously it's a "thing" here at WP. Wondering when it started and why. The section Government seems to be created in some instances only to house this tabulation chart and nothing else regarding government. Thanks, PrimeHunter, for running the search. Maineartists (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Need a second opinion? Is this user self-promoting/vandalism & can I go beyond 3RR?

Recently, I've been recent changes patrolling. I've come across a user and associated IP user who is entering the text "The Adventures of Piujus" into articles about Keith Chapman, often breaking templates and links [3] & replacing other (real) content [4].

Initially, I thought this was a real TV show (because I saw an barebones IMDb entry), just one that wasn't notable & we didn't have, so I reverted and left a comment on the talk page of the IP user. WHen they made their account and did the same, I thought because they were now logged in that they didn't see my previous revert and message, so I did they same again.

But the user kept editing their changes back in, alternating between using the account and using the IP address.

So I did some more research and found that it's the name of a small music artist across multiple social platforms.

The only mentions of it as a TV show are on (a very barebones with only the name of the show, not like what a professional studio would make) IMDb and Fandom, both crowdsourced websites where anyone can add content. The fandom claims that "It is a Television Program produced by Hasbro and SLU" but neither of these companies have ever mentioned anything about it and I cannot find any other references to it.

Is it safe to assume that this user is a vandal who is inserting this text to promote their music and I can go beyond WP:3RR to remove their mentions? Or is this a genuine content dispute and I should not WP:EW?

I've never seen a vandal go to this length to create fake info pages on other websites and am worried that they are a genuine under.

Thanks! MolecularPilot 01:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@MolecularPilot I agree that the edits the IP and User:Mikecrack Oficial XX are making are not backed up by the sources in the article and your analysis seems correct. Neither editor has attempted to justify their edits on the Talk Page of the article, which is the correct venue after your revert. The IP has edited today and if their disruption continues, please take the issue up at WP:AIV. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Solo_leveling_:_Unlimited

I keep failing, but I don't know why

I'm going to post an introduction to the game

I also posted a link to the news

Bebesup (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bebesup: Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like the reviewers are saying that what you've posted in your draft so far doesn't demonstrate enough wikinotability to warrant an article. You're going to want to cite more secondary sources to establish said wikinotability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

How can i publish the page

I published the page about Kitanorider but did not meet the standard need to know how can i edit it and make it meet the standard Emmanue Kitano (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a connection to this topic, please read conflict of interest and paid editing; note that "paid editing" includes any paid relationship such as employment. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

All content needs to be varified by references. David notMD (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Emmanue Kitano Judging by your username and the name of the founder of the company, you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own business. As that linked policy page says, that is against the purpose of Wikipedia. We only have articles on notable companies and these articles are based, in the main, on what people with no connection to the company have said in reliable published sources. I suggest you abandon your efforts here as you are unlikely to succeed, Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Emmanue Kitano. I've just come across your edits to other articles, and think you are using AI to generate content. Please don't do this. See WP:AI. Tacyarg (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And all those edits to other articles have been reverted for lack of references. David notMD (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Emmanue Kitano has been blocked indefinitely. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

New To wiki can someone help me get this article up to scratch?

New To wiki can someone help me get this article draft up to scratch? also i dont understand the copyright of the schools logo or how to upload it is it possable for someone to show me how thanks Draft:Timboon P-12 ABCthree (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@ABCthree Teahouse hosts will help new editors with the technicalities of drafting new articles but will rarely get involved in writing substantial parts. It can be quite difficult when writing about schools to reach our notability threshold. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As to the logo, it would probably be WP:NONFREE content, which is not allowed in draft articles and won't affect the review/acceptance. Logos can be added when the article reaches mainspace. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ABCthree, and welcome to the Teahouse. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

The problem with not doing this is (as you've discovered) that you probably won't understand the feedback you are getting, and will likely spend a lot of effort that does not help your intention. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this OR?

I am not sure if this is the right place, but I was searching old Teahouse archives looking for something similar to my case, and someone mentioned state documents are OR. I had wished to improve an article regarding Russian far-right and use document published in state.gov [5]. So: Is this OR? Thank you.RKT7789 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be (either) a Primary Source or Secondary Source depending on interpretation / context of use. Some would request having additional sources reviewing / contextualising that article is required for a true Secondary Source. For me, as it is already interpreting sources and producing some output it is Secondary. Not sure why it would be Original Research (which is where a wikipedia user makes statements or infers reasoning etc not explicit in the original document) so are you mistaking something? Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, good, I might have gotten terms mixed up then. Thanks for a quick reply.RKT7789 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I cant find ANYONE

Can somebody show me to help find my sandbox draft back and to find out why I can't publish it?

Thank you. Notharry (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Notharry. I've undeleted the draft. It's at Draft:David Coulton. It looks like the last stated reason for declining publication was the need for more reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Notability question from a new article creator (article: Jeremy Holm)

I recently decided to create my first article on Wikipedia for stage and screen actor Jeremy Holm, as I kept seeing him pop up in TV shows and movies that I was watching. I researched him and found that he had performed in over 100 stage plays, and has been a regular at many of the world's biggest film festivals. I spent a long time nailing down all of my research and learning how to properly link to references. Unfortunately, the page was rejected almost immediately, claiming he was not notable enough.

I would just like to better understand how notable someone has to be in order to secure a Wikipedia page. I think of this actor as very notable. I wanted to make a page for him because he popped up in five movies I watched in the last week alone.

When i look up contemporaries of his, many of them have Wikipedia pages - and a great many of these people have appeared in far less than Mr. Holm. I fail to understand how someone like Hal Havins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Havins) or Lynn McRee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_McRee) have pages that features virtually nothing of note on them, but Mr. Holm, who has hundreds of credits - many in high-profile works - does not.

Can someone kindly explain to me how these decisions are made, as they seem very arbitrary?

And is there any way that the article I created might ever be approved? I worked very hard on it and felt like it checked off every single box for a properly-created, notable article - and feel very disillusioned that it was so quickly declined. Thank you. HorrorGuru79 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I declined the draft because Holm didn't seem to have notable coverage in reliable sources or meet WP:NACTOR. I'm even going to go ahead and say that neither Lynn McRee or Hal Havins are notable, but oh well. Courtesy link Draft:Jeremy Holm. It was also my second-ever day reviewing AfCs, so I may have messed up, and in that case resubmit it for a second opinion. :) SirMemeGod  15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HorrorGuru79, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your experience is typical for people who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article before having spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

The fundamental problem with your draft is the quality of the sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . Most of your sources are not independent: they are either from people or organisations connected with Holm, or are clearly repeating his own words. Notability in Wikipedia terms is not much about what the subject has done, said, or created: it is mostly about whether there is sufficient independent reliably published material about them to base an article on.

As for the other articles you mention: Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. Not many of our thousands of volunteers seem willing to spend much time going over these, improving or deleting them. (See Other stuff exists). ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

possible copyright violation or maybe content copied from WP

A random Task Center task led me to try to improve an article about a notable statistician, Kanti Mardia, with an inactive talk page. Here's a 2023 version from before I started working on it (a few other editors have made changes in between, but only ref work). I found a possible citation for some of the unsourced claims on Mardia's WP page -- a somewhat hagiographic NRI Today article that says "last updated Jun 30, 2024" -- and I used it a couple of times as a citation for WP claims that had been unsourced. But then I realized that a lot of the contents of the NRI Today article and the preexisting version of Mardia's WP page were similar, with some identical text.

The relative dates on the two made me think that the NRI Today article was based on and partially copied from Mardia's WP page; that meant that the NRI Today article wasn't a reliable source, so I removed it as a citation.

However, "last updated" suggests that there could have been an earlier version of the NRI Today article, and if so, parts of the WP article might have been copied from that. I did a date-limited internet search and checked the Internet Archive, but neither confirmed that there had ever been an earlier version of the NRI Today article.

Since I'm raising copyright issues, I'll also note that a couple of times, as I've tried to improve articles, I've been convinced that (part of) a sentence was copied from a copyrighted source. Both times, I altered the WP text so there was no longer a copyright violation, but didn't do anything beyond that.

My questions:

• Is it sufficient to have made my best guess that NRI Today copied from WP rather than vice versa, or do I need to report it for more official assessment?
• If I'm correct that NRI Today did the copying, should I note that somewhere (e.g., on the talk page)?
• When I encounter a copyright violation for a small amount of text (e.g., a sentence or part of a sentence), is it sufficient to rewrite the WP text, or do I also need to report it?

Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the copyvio report, most of the shared phrases (e.g. directional statistics, multivariate analysis, geostatistics, statistical bioinformatics and statistical shape analysis, inserted in Special:Diff/208492553) were developed on Wikipedia a long time ago and in an "organic" way (i.e. gradually and at different times). This makes me pretty confident that it was developed on Wikipedia first, and NRI Today is a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. This should indeed be noted on the talk page, using the {{backwards copy}} template. It could also be listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks § How to list new mirrors. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa, thank you for all of that info. I wasn't familiar with that copyvio tool, which is useful, though I was also looking at close paraphrasing, which may take a human to judge. I was also thinking about the extent to which the overall contents of the two pages was similar, and trying to assess whether that NRI Today article was a RS (had it been a RS, it would have been very helpful as a citation for unsourced contents on the WP page). It hadn't occurred to me to use the revision history to check how the contents of the WP page evolved over time, and I now realize that's obviously something I should have done. I will note the backwards copy on the talk page. Thanks again, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing liner notes

Hi! For the past week or so I've been editing the article on Selected Ambient Works Volume II to include information about its recent Expanded Edition and improve other parts of the article. As part of that new Expanded Edition, it came with a brand new set of liner notes with a bunch of new credits. For reference, the album originally came out in 1994 and this new edition came out in 2024. I feel like some of the info from the new set of notes should be put in the Personnel section but I'm unsure of how to include them; should the barebones 1994 ones be removed? Should I add a section within the personnel section to differentiate the two? I genuinely don't know where to go from here. I would also like to note the article's Talk section seems inactive as I've asked a few questions there, which is why I've came here. Thank you for any advice you can give! Beachweak (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

How to turn Dark mode off?

I am currently using mobile phone while on wikipedia, and I dont know what happend. It seems that i've accidentally tapped on something the caused wikipedia to go into dark mode. How do I turn it off? note, my phone is a Samsung S23 and I'm viewing wikipedia online not through the app. 142.114.1.184 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Special:MobileOptions give you the option to turn it off? From someone accessing Wikipedia through a web browser on my mobile device, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

archive.org

I upload lots of book cover images as one of the primary ways that I help build wikipedia. Currently archive.org is down from a DDoS attack, which means that one of my favorite ways of finding old public domain era book covers is offline. Any ideas of an alternative?

I use amazon, Goodreads, ebay, and other places that you can find old books at times and screenshot their book covers. Never had archive.org down before. I feel naked. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing citation style

What's the best practice in this situation? I'm considering doing a bunch of work on an article that hasn't had significant edits in a number of years, and need some major improvements re. citations. I'd like to move everything to SFN style citations with seperate sections for a full bibliography of the texts cites and the specific citations. I know generally one shouldn't change up citations on existing articles unilaterally, but do I need to ask and wait for responses on an article that hasn't received a lot of work lately and needs major improvements to citations even in its current state, or is is ok to just go ahead and start this as I add to the article? User:Captain Killy (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes would be best to post your intentions and explain why see if anyone has objections as per WP:WHENINROME....that said Help:Converting between references formats has tools to make this easy. Moxy🍁 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a citation

I accidentally added a reference to an article that had already been cited, meaning there are two of the same reference on the same page. As the previous edit was already complete, I tried to delete the duplicate reference from the page, but I can't figure out how to remove it from the references list at the bottom of the page. The page is Central Rural Work Leading Group and the reference is #11 (currently an empty citation as I tried to remove it by deleting the information in the template), which is a duplicate of #10. How can I fully delete the duplicate? Thank you for your help! Atop21 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor fixed it. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Atop21, you're unable to remove the template because you're using Visual editor which has some limitations. I've fixed the page for you. See WP:REPEATCITE on how to cite a single source multiple times. --Ratekreel (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Atop21, you also could have removed it using the Visual editor by highlighting the reference number in the body of the text and hitting "delete" (as you'd highlight and delete text). To cite an existing reference, click on the reference button and choose "Re-Use," then search the existing citations using the title or author or other info from the existing reference. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Overreach of rollback tools when reverting good faith edits?

Hello, Teahouse hosts.
I've been back on the anti-vandalism battlefield but have noticed a lot of well-intended good faith edits across multiple editors, but need reverting because they do not contribute to the article or they do not know the stylistic elements of Wikipedia. However, when I revert the edits, I use the rollback summary tool to revert these edits—as I have been inactive for quite some time and have lost my knowledge of policy, I would like to ask you, the hosts: am I overreaching/abusing my rollback powers through reverting good faith edits, or is reverting through rollback perfectly reasonable in cases like this? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 05:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi 3PPYB6, if I remember correctly rollback is strictly allowed to be used in clear cases of vandalism. However, it can also used to to revert "widespread good faith edits" which need to be undone, provided you supply and explanation on a relevant talk page. To revert good-faith edits on a case-by-case basis while patrolling recent changes, tools such as WP:UV or Twinkle are recommended to use. --Ratekreel (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratekreel – OK. I had been assuming that since the tool allowed me to explain my rationale on a case-by-case basis then I had free license to use whatever reversion tool I wanted under the condition I explain it in a generated edit summary; perhaps I should tone down the usage of rollback summary in future cases then. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: Some people, like myself, get really annoyed when vandalism tools are used to revert my good-faith non-vandal edits. I recommend using WP:UNDO for all good-faith non-vandal edits. Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus – thanks for letting me know. I'd also definitely feel disheartened if someone else just straight-up rolled back my edit without providing a summary—with regards to if they rolled back my edit with a summary I'd be more understanding but it's nice to get other experienced editors' perspectives on this. Thanks for letting me know; I will tone down the usage/applications of rollback to obvious vandalism/problematic edits only. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Any concerns of sharing personal topics on user talk pages?

Good morning, Teahouse. I have recently shared a topic about my past violence against women on my user talk page (currently archived). To make this discussion short, do you think what I did with my topic being published on my talk page was wrong? If any inquiries, please respond. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 06:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

DBrown SPS: Liz suggested you get a second opinion here, so my opinion is: I agree completely with Liz. Wikipedia is not a general web host or a space for personal reflections unrelated to the work of building an encyclopaedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well thanks for letting me know that. I should do better as a user. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 06:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Why can't I upload non-free files to drafts?

Just asking, THIS is the draft. Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable question. Unfortunately I'm not quite certain of the answer. While you're waiting for a worthwhile response, a tip: Get some sources that are independent of WiiLink. (Also, perhaps explain "revival server".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a legal reason, but a practical reason is that the inclusion of images in a draft does not contribute towards notability or affect the likelihood of a draft being approved, so adding any images is a waste of time while the article is still a draft. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's because a person using another person's work that is not freely licensed does not fall under "fair use", because you are using it to enhance your own work without the permission of the non-free file copyright holder. In any event, Shantavira is quite correct that images (free or otherwise) are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lucasfergui1024, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why the policy is stricter than the general principle of Fair use is explained at the beginning of the WP:Non-free Content Criteria. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Fair use" is at the bottom of it. Wikipedia's fair-use of non-free material is almost always based on the concept that we're advancing knowledge. Article pages in main space advance knowledge. Drafts do not, because they're not yet in a form that we expect readers to read. Therefore non-free material (usually images) must be omitted from the draft until it is moved into main-space to fulfil its educational and informative destiny! Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lucasfergui1024 – The straight-up answer is that Rule 7 of the non-free content criteria stipulates that any non-free file needs to be used in "at least one article", that article being in the mainspace as opposed to draftspace. Otherwise, the source is classified as an orphaned non-free file, which is eligible for speedy deletion under CSD F5 after seven days of not being used in any article in the mainspace (think about it this way: we need a reason to use it. If it's orphaned and it has no use, copyright pirates could steal that and the costs would far outweigh the benefits in such a case, which would be none). Since your article is still a draft, such a file would not count for the "at least one article" criteria per Rule 7, so therefore the image would still be technically orphaned and would be eligible for F5 speedy deletion unless you get that article accepted into the mainspace. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, with regards to your logo—I found this logo online and it looks like it is not original enough for copyright in itself—it is a mere irregular pentagon with text inside that is in a common enough font that I could recreate that in 5 minutes. As such, it may qualify for the public domain by virtue of it being too simple for copyright, but you may want to err on the side of caution and take my advice with a grain of salt... — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiLinks in Infoboxes

I was wondering if it is appropriate to wikilink a term in the infobox as well as the first appearance in the article, or to link in one but not the other. I'm currently trying to correct overlinking on the Cultural Revolution article and I'm not sure. Any help is much appreciated <3 Thatautistichistorian (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thatautistichistorian, if a nontrivial percentage of readers are likely to be helped by the linking of a term (name, etc) that appears in the body text, then link it from the body text. And not necessarily only from the first appearance: If the article consists of rather long sections, and additionally linking the term from its first appearance in other sections, then link from there too. Similarly, if linking from an infobox seems likely to help a nontrivial percentage of readers, then link from there as well. Overlinking can be tiresome, but I for one prefer articles with an oddly high percentage of colored and underlined text to those that are promotional, those that are stuffed about trivia, those that misrepresent what's said in their "references", etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with editing

Hi all,

My name is Rosalyn and I am an employee at Klesch Group. I have submitted some COI edit requests on the Talk: A. Gary Klesch page and have had some very helpful interactions with neutral editors so far on the talk page. However, the editors I have been working with are now busy with other things and so I wanted to ask if anyone here would be able to take a look at my proposals, share feedback and potentially implement the updates.

They are quite substantial, but thanks to editor feedback, I have laid them out in a way that is hopefully easy to work through.

I look forward to any help anyone is able to provide.

Thank you – Rosalyn

Rosalyn15 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to correction to be made.

Its about this page: Adiabatic flame temperature

It seems to me that in the table: Adiabatic flame temperature (constant pressure) of common fuels

the values for "butane" are incorrect.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.0.126.72 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Do you have a reliable source which gives different values? -- D'n'B-t -- 11:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am noticing some sources give 1,970°C but with different starting variables. Was that the value you were expecting it to be? The source that's currently being used is also used to give a value for the adiabatic flame temp of Naphtha, so if we are to belive that source to be unreliable, then it'd help to also have an alternative for that as well. -- D'n'B-t -- 12:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

References

That sciencedirect citation link is to a "topic" article, which is a deprecated source. See the WP:RSPS table about sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I just picked that as an example - I'm not particuarly suggesting using that one in the article. The point is that so far, the question asker has neither suggested a preffered source nor what they think the correct figure should be. My feeling is that the article should probably be left as is for the time being. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

how do I save pages for offline?

Sorry, if this is not the right place to ask, but...I am new to Wikipedia, and I just want to be able to use saved pages offline...How do I do that? HippieGirl09 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@HippieGirl09: The answer will depend on which browser you are using (and whether you are using a mobile device or a desktop/ laptop computer). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am using a mobile computer. I also have a kindal, and I can save the pages on that, just not the computer. HippieGirl09 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@HippieGirl09 There should be a "download as PDF" menu option next to all articles. On my desktop PC, that menu is just to the right but on a mobile it may be located elsewhere. You could also print-to-pdf if your device allows that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Sorry, but Wikipedia currently does not have the feature to read articles offline. If you want to request that feature, see the idea lab. Or you can download a PDF of the article. And also this is the Teahouse, which is a friendly space where experienced editors can help. This is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, for issues or information on how to use Wikipedia, see the village pump. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Electrou: The Teahouse is Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia (emphasis mine). Questions about using Wikipedia are appropriate here. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you have some sort of offline mode in the official Wikipedia mobile app. LordRapture (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

First Article Declined

Hi everyone, my name is Olalekan and my first attempt to get an article published has just been declined. I have read through the reasons given but not quite clear about those reasons, especially ones that relate to reliable sources. All the sources I used in referencing the content of the article are reputable institutions like VON, Punch Newspapers, among others. Please enlighten me. Olalekanbabx (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Hilary Damissah. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Olalekanbabx You must not only find reliable sources but cite them inline to the text. We have a strict policy for biograpies of living people which you should read. At present, for example, the career section has no references at all, making it impossible for readers to verify the information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you a bunch, will work on that... cheers! Olalekanbabx (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please help me improve a content?

Resolved

I created the content in the draft "Special training schools", It took me a lot of time and energy to edit, but each time I published the content, it's soon deleted. could you please help me improve the content? Thank you! Jeff6741 (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about the article Human rights in China. Since 30 September User:Jeff6741 has been adding content to a Torture section that has been reverted by several editors, has been warned more than once on his Talk page for edit warring at the article, and has been involved in a LONG dispute at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. Polygnotus (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Maximum resolution for album covers and game box art

Hi! I’ve got a straightforward question: What are the maximum dimensions for album covers and game box art? Most covers I’ve seen tend to be around 300px, but I’ve also heard that the maximum is 500px. LordRapture (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images should generally have at most 0.1 megapixels. For square images, this gives a maximum resolution of 316×316. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Image resolution. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is where you got "500 pixels" from: This allows, for example, images with a 4:3 aspect ratio to be shown at 320 × 240 pixels (common for screenshots from TV, films, and video games), while allowing common cover art to be shown at 250 × 400 pixels. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

distinguish tag

I'd like to add "Not to be confused with David Bouchier" to David Boucher.

David Boucher already has the tag

Not to be confused with David Boucher (academic).

Is there a way to string together the two tags, to make "Not to be confused with David Boucher (academic) or David Bouchier"? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

For the distinguish tag, it should let you add "optional additional articles" to the tag. I've already added the extra article, and to do that I just check-marked "Optional additional article to link (2)" on the left side of the template settings. :) SirMemeGod  16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi

If we change our name, do we have to reapply for our rights? For example, I had AFC reviewer rights, but they are no longer working after the name change. Thank you Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to reapply, but WP:AFC/P will need to be updated. Just comment under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants § Rename (Oct) and an admin will handle it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Cabayi already handled it. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Jlwoodwa. :) Jannatulbaqi (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Notable Sources

My page Draft: Lil Timmy was declined and immediately deleted because of a lack of "notable sources." A few of my sources linked to newspaper articles, and a few of them linked to instagram posts. I was wondering what is considered a credible source in the eyes of Wikipedia editors?

On another note it was also declined for "self promotion" because the page was about myself. How would i go about finding someone to write the page (or edit my draft) for me? LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Reliable sources are typically things from credible sources (see our list) and things that aren't user-generated, such as Instagram, which anyone can add to. Newspapers can also be considered generally unreliable. SirMemeGod  18:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the first reviewer declined the draft because the newspapers only mentioned Lil Timmy in passing. As for asking someone else to write for you, I would heed our scam warning, advice on your user talk from the deleting admin Jimfbleak, and our page on how an article about you isn't necessarily a good thing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there somewhere i can request (unpaid) that a hobbyist review and edit my draft?

(And to add, the newspaper i cited has a few more articles i could cite, its just very difficult to find them.) LilTimmyOfficial (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LilTimmyOfficial. It's not that the sources need to be notable, but that the subject of the article needs to be notable, which is judged by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GOLDENRULE for a brief explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Rescuing sources Lopez v. Seccombe

I came across Lopez v. Seccombe through the community portal task page for copy editing and I would love to do more with it, but sources that are cited repetedly through out the article go to broken links or (I'm assuming) somewhere unintended based on what it's supposted to be a citation for. Reference 1 and 5 are the two causing me the most trouble. I tried to follow the steps for rescuing resources but I'm so confused and still new at this. I'm happy to work on this article further, but in order to really fix the tone, I need to be able to access the links. Can anyone give me a hand with this? S1mply.dogmom (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@S1mply.Dogmom There is a link to WP:LINKROT in the box at the top of the article. That's where the advice for dealing with this is given. Ref #1 works for me (in the UK) to see a simple dictionary definition but might not for you if you are elsewhere. Ref #5 fails but that's a bit odd since doi are supposed to be updated long-term. I'll try to fix that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

.... I've added a Google books link to ref #5, with search term "mexican". You may be able to search for other relevant items at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@S1mply.Dogmom, based on the page content that's referenced to ref #1, it looks like the reference given (to an OED definition) is a mistake, and it was supposed to be a link to this dissertation named Sol y Sombra. Dissertations aren't necessarily the most reliable sources (see this discussion). For ref #5, it looks like the publisher's website has changed, this is the current page for that book. But I'm not sure if WP should link to that page, since it allows sales of the book. A more experienced editor than I am will need to address that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This diff confirms that ref #1 is supposed to be a dissertation titled Sol y Sombra, written by Mark Ocegueda. For some unknown reason, that editor added a link to the OED definition of "sol y sombra," and then later, another editor removed the original citation to Ocegueda's dissertation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing problems aside, this article is bizarre. My first guess (without looking at the history) is that at least one person had the requisite skills to create a lucid article, and used these; and that later somebody quite different (perhaps an earnest but unskilled child) added sentences with the honorable aim of ease of understanding but with ghastly results. How about just deleting anything that both (i) is unsourced and (ii) doesn't seem to contribute to an otherwise cohesive paragraph, and also considering the deletion of anything that's either (i) or (ii)? But before doing so, look through the history and find if there's a better version to which the article can be reverted. ¶ As for dead links, start with the Wayback Machine; though you may have to wait some time while it fends off vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Following the page history, it was created by two BYU students as part of a course requirement and doesn't seem to have changed a great deal since they stopped working on it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I don't want to embarrass either of them, so shan't look. S1mply.dogmom, I've commented on a sample section here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Jeebus, this thing is bad. IANAL, but wouldn't Lopez v. Seccombe be a decision, or a case, or both? I looked within the article for a decision or case, and found it mentioned in the last section, titled "Aftermath" -- suggesting to me that Lopez v. Seccombe fell within the aftermath of itself. (Uh, what?₁) And in the very lead of the article: "despite the cities restricted limits". (Uh, what?₂) -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Why does it take so long for celebrities to show up on recent deaths? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Because, as you can see at the discussions at WP:ITNC, it is a matter of making sure the article quality is good enough. A lot of articles have to be cleaned up significantly to meet current minimum standards for the front page, and this takes time and effort by many editors. I sometimes disagree with the way those standards are applied, but they're current policy, and that's the explanation. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

IFrame related question

I wondered can I iframe Wikipedia pages without any permission, or do I need someone to allow me to? I researched online but i am not into legal stuff so I am kinda confused. Under iframing Wikipedia, i mean have a part of my software have iframes of Wikipedia pages. SuperMakerRaptor (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@SuperMakerRaptor I also have a very weak grasp of anything legal, but the gist is you can directly copy Wikipedia so long as you attribute it (i.e., "I got this stuff from a Wikipedia article, here's a link:") That's because Wikipedia is published under a free license, not copyrighted. I see no reason why iframes should be an exception to this rule. So the answer is "yes, I think so". Don't sue me if I'm wrong, though :) Cremastra (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To be precise, Wikipedia is copyrighted, but it's published under a free license (one that allows reproduction subject to a few conditions). Copying a Wikipedia article without attribution is a copyright violation, and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks § Non-compliance process describes how to deal with such violations. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So that would mean "Yes" as long as I say "I took this and this from Wikipedia"?

I was thinking of doing this nonetheless but just to confirm. SuperMakerRaptor (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@SuperMakerRaptor That's a "yes". See WP:REUSE for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have with this question, SuperMakerRaptor, is that you are assuming that Teahouse hosts will understand what you mean by "IFrame" when IFrame is a disambiguation page with four possible meanings. So, how are Teahouse hosts (or anyone else) able to figure out which meaning you are referring to? Please be specific and precise. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: In this case the only interpretation that makes any sense is HTML_element#Frames. Polygnotus (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, Polygnotus, but why should Teahouse hosts unfamiliar with the connotations be forced to guess? Especially when the link you provided does not use the term "IFrame". I am not an expert in the computer science concept of "frames" and neither are 99.9% of our readers. Editors need to explain concepts in simple terms readily accessible to general readers, not just experts. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the link provided lists 4 types of frames, and iframes are the 4th (An inline frame places another HTML document in a frame.). On the one hand you are correct, on the other hand sometimes when you use jargon all day every day it can be difficult to switch it off when talking to people who are (perhaps) not used to it. As someone who has to explain nerdy stuff to non-nerdy people a lot I know how difficult it is to pick what words to use and which to avoid, and how to explain concepts. Sometimes I am perceived to be condescending because I explain something someone already knows, or avoid a term someone already knows, and sometimes I am not understood or misunderstood because I assume someone knows something they don't. Communicating effectively is incredibly difficult. Polygnotus (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I learned the basic principles of COBOL and FORTRAN programming using Hollerith punch card data entry in the 1970s. It took me several days to get feedback, not microseconds. I did not become a computer industry professional but instead used many generations of software to assist my career in construction management. I have always insisted on jargon free explanations in my work life and expect the same on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I can easily write 10 jargon-filled sentences that would take a decent-sized novel to fully explain without using any jargon. Therefore I believe that jargon can be a useful tool, or a hindrance, depending on context. I try to make the barrier to communicate with me as low as possible and I try to avoid making demands that have not been communicated and agreed to beforehand. When I am not sure that I understand a question I sometimes ignore it and hope someone else answers it, and sometimes I ask for clarification. Polygnotus (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

To give another perspective on this, when I read this, I knew what OP was asking about: <iframe>Wikipedia url here (I think)</iframe> . No way professionally involved in IT, but the late 1990s and early 2000s I did pleasantly waste time making GeoCities pages for fun. At work there's "legacy" something that requires accessing an iframe link to print as a .pdf file. When I say, "well, you have to view the HTML source code...", I must admit I'm quite surprised when a number of my colleagues in their twenties just look at me and say, "the what?" Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How to remove 3 issues with my first Wikipedia entry

I posted my first wiki article at Chief AI officer and got it accepted with 3 issues that I tried to address in my notes. Can you help walk me through the process to address outstanding issues and see if I'm missing somthing? I don't know who to ask to remove it and don't know if, as author, I'm allowed to given a conflict of interest. Thanks - Jon J2000ai (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@J2000ai You declared a conflict of interest regarding a biography you wrote but not specifically for Chief AI officer, which I guess is a much more generic topic. Please read the COI guidance I have linked and decide how much any COI might affect your further editing (e.g. because you want to use sources you wrote). Authors are normally free, indeed encouraged, to improve articles in mainspace but if you are in any doubt about your COI you can instead suggest improvements via the article's Talk Page. There is an edit request wizard to help draw your suggestions to the attention of others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. None of the 3 issues tagged to my "Chief AI Officer" article are related to conflict of interest (COI). Nonetheless, I updated my bio page so my position as an interdisciplinary AI researcher hopefully allays this concern in the future. For the CAIO article I have no conflict of interest in writing this general article on the emerging CAIO executive position per Wikipedia's COI guidance. There are no citations to sources I or anyone I know wrote. The sources are nearly universally esteemed and well-recognized (CIO mag, IBM, McKinsey, Harvard, etc.). It was just an important topic that I know about and thought should have a wiki article.

However, to speak to the original issue of the 3 issues tagged on the CAIO article, do you know how long it will take for someone to review my changes to address each of them? Is there something more I can do to accelerate the process?

Thanks, J J2000ai (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing web sources where URL doesn't point to specific page?

So I'm editing Kalipada Biswas page right now (adding info and removing some less-than-neutral POV), and there is information on the Indian National Academy of Science website, which I found from the first external link on page. However, when you travel to the are a of the website that includes information about him, it still only lists the generic URL of the search page: [6] Even if you search for the name "Kali Pada Biswas" and click on his name that comes up. What's the best way to cite this? Cyanochic (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, every page on the internet has a unique URI that distinguishes it from all others. When you say, "it still only lists the generic URL of the search page", what is "it"? I assure you the page that has the info you want has a unique address; have you tried to pull it from the browser address bar? Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the text in my browser address bar is what's not changing. If I go to the link I put above and paste it in the browser address bar, the text is: https://insaindia.res.in/deceased-fellow/ (which is a search page). If I then search "Biswas" and click on the "link" that says "Biswas Kali Pada" (or click on "B" and then click on "K Biswas"), it shows entirely new information that I could not scroll to on the previous page, BUT the address in the address bar is still exactly the same: https://insaindia.res.in/deceased-fellow/. I can also use the back button and it does go back to the "search" page instead of showing the information about the person.

Is it possible it has a unique URI and not URL? Cyanochic (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking some more, the main page uses HTML frames, meaning it is embedding another URI into the main page, and that is causing what you are seeing. If you open that frame as its own page and execute the search, you can see that the result is at URI https://insaindia.res.in/07062023_no.php?id=N50-0105, which when you do it from the main page is in the embedded frame, so you don't see the URI in the browser. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

ah you responded while I was replying. Thank you for the help! Cyanochic (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic: Mathglot found a direct link here but some websites don't have any url to show the result from entering a form. Then you can use at at Template:Cite web#In-source locations to briefly say what you have to do, e.g. |at=Search on Kali Pada. That's the only search I could find which only gives him. Don't add obvious details like "Click on his name". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Great to know this template exists, thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

Can any user (like me) welcome new users, or is there a specific group of people who are the only ones allowed to welcome new users? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

RedactedHumanoid, Any user may welcome new users. See Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for more details, and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates for some templates you can use. Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

General practice is to not post a Welcome template on the Talk page of an IP address or on the Talk page of a new account until after that person has begun to edit articles. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually do not adhere to that practice, if indeed it is one. I follow my own sense of whether a welcome message is appropriate case-by-case. Often, I feel it is, for example when I see a thoughtful comment or sincere question on an article Talk page. This could make an interesting discussion, and if interested in carrying this further, we should probably change venues, to WT:WC. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot If you simply remove the very last word of David notMD’s response, I think you won’t disagree with it. Because so many user accounts are automatically created, or never ever edit, it’s a waste of time welcoming hundreds of users who haven’t made a single edit anywhere at all, and never will. I certainly feel happy to ‘welcome’ a new user who has made just the one edit here, or on some other non-article page. Common sense applies. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, taking away the last word is a very different sort of statement. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:Twinkle, which is useful tool for both welcoming people and, when required, leaving warning messages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would add a personal plea - please be sure the edit you are welcoming them for is not vandalism. I have often had to warn an editor for vandalism, or other problems, immediately after the welcome template, which dilutes the importance of the subsequent warning. - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User page

Hello, I've been creating an article in my sandbox (User:Blackballnz/sandbox), and have found that the two versions that I see when I click on 'edit source' are different. It appears that some of the paragraphs I've written are not appearing on the user page. I haven't seen this before, and am unsure what to do about it. thanks Blackballnz (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz:, what two versions? They all seem there to me. Give me an example of a paragraph in the wikicode (the 'edit source' version) that you do not see in the sandbox page, by quoting the first five or so words of the paragraph below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

In the section 'vampire legend', the second paragraph in the wikicode starts 'According to dramatist Racso Miro Quesada: “Her husband J.P. Roberts travelled the world trying to find a place to bury his wife...'

But I can't see this paragraph in the right side. Ditto with the next paragraph 'In one version, John Roberts travelled around Europe...' Blackballnz (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I see the problem – you've got some unclosed <ref> tags. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it was a problem with the references. I made this edit and now when you edit that section you see what you expect to see. See WP:REPEATCITE and WP:NAMEDREFS. Polygnotus (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Kennedy

Resolved

I am surprised that no mention is made of Patrick Kennedy’s health history in which he had a leg partially amputated due to cancer when he was young. This may mitigate his issues with drug addictions. I only remember this from public news services at the time. 2601:603:703:FA50:EC28:BEF3:B81D:D820 (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Edward M. Kennedy Jr. Blackballnz (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

As I am neither American nor Irish I'm not sure which Patrick Kennedy you are talking about, but the best place to discuss this is the talk page of the relevant article (once you have found it on that list). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The guy whose leg was partially amputated is Edward M. Kennedy Jr.

Patrick J. Kennedy had a drug problem and a non-cancerous tumor near his spine. Two different people. Polygnotus (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

New rights

I was searching on various wikiprojects such as new pages patrol, articles for creation etc on how to get these user rights, and one of the criteria they mentioned was having "prior experience with its processes for handling articles" and "a demonstrated understanding of the policies and guidelines".

How do I show/get this experience in order to get these rights?

Thank you, TNM101 (chat) 05:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TNM101. You are a new user with 322 edits and your attempts at new content creation to date do not show a good understanding of Wikipedia's Core content policies. You demonstrate those competencies by editing in ways that show that you are fully conversant with those essential policy areas. For an obvious example, when you comment on anything related to Articles for Creation, your comment should demonstate a deep understanding of Notability, the Reliability of sources and the nuances of the Neutral point of view. An administrator considering granting advanced permissions will expect you to demonstrate those competencies over and over and over again, not just once or twice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have another question. Is it allowed for new users to participate in discussions relating to afc, afd, itn or is it reserved for administrators? TNM101 (chat) 07:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it is allowed, but it is wise to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines first. I would recommend lurking first. Polygnotus (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and according to what you mentioned, I have been observing ITN discussions for a long time as I find it quite interesting. Nevertheless, I will go through the policies again and make sure I have full knowledge of them. TNM101 (chat) 07:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:USERRIGHTS are not a goal to strive towards, they are something you get when you need them and have demonstrated that you can use them correctly. Polygnotus (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Participating in AfD discussions does not require any special rights. The key issue is often notability. for this, an understanding of the criteria for notability, the nature of the article (corporate, biography of living person, musician, etc.) and quality of references are useful. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it an error?

"not take responsibility by providing support for the child. In the past, the solution to such problems was often a shotgun wedding, a forced marriage"

In the above text, in the Wikipedia page titled "Statutory Rape", the above text should say "by not providing support for the child". But right now it says "by providing support". Do you agree that the word "not" is missing? Writing is easy (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree. The phrase is already negated at 'not take responsibility' adding a second 'not' would be a double negative. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I do agree with MrOllie, but I also see where your question comes from. In my view, it is the preposition by which is at fault here, because the prep. phrase with by can be read as an appositive, thereby appearing to describe "providing support" as an equivalent of "not taking responsibility". If instead you change the prep. to of, then you would have from males who might... not take [the] responsibility of providing support for the child, where the prep. phrase becomes the object of the negated participial noun phrase, and is much less likely to be read in the wrong way, or ambiguously. I would say if you wanted to change anything, change the preposition, not the negative particle. Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mathglot: I thank you. I've never met anyone who knows and comprehends the intricacies of grammar as well as you do. Thank you. So now that we've found the error. Can I trouble you to please fix it for everyone. You can fix it in one move, and you're move will be correct. I would flounder and founder there. (I'm attempting to use those two words which are kind of new for me. I immigrated here at age 7 from Ecuador. Thanks! Writing is easy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article

Do good article nominations happen whenever or at a precise time of the year? WikiPhil012 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012, there is no specific time. An article can be nominated at any time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012 Just to add that, if you’re thinking about nominating an article for WP:GA status, you are expected to put have put in the work already to ensure it meets that status and/or to be prepared to fix any identified issues. It not a ‘flag it and run away’ process. It’s a commitment you should be prepared to make, and have the necessary editing experience to resolve the issues others have highlighted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012 Any time of year. Details are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Get the article as close the criteria as you can before nomination, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a misnomer page.

The "Department of Corrections" is misnamed. It oversees all the jails. It should be officially renamed the Department of Punishment by Confinement or the Department of Punishing Confinement, or the Department of Punishment, or the Department of Confinement, or the Department of Convict Seclusion or the Department of Preventive Seclusion or the Department of Convict Extrication From Society. Writing is easy (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, Wikipedia uses the terminology in articles that reliable sources use. We do not use terminology made up by individual Wikipedia editors. 17:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, this isn't the place to right great wrongs; if you feel your Department of Corrections is misnamed, then you need to go to your relevant legislative body and request that it be changed. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so very very much. Excellent how Wikipedia explains its purposes. You showed me how to find that. I am smiling and feel most grateful to you. Writing is easy (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:COMMONNAME 🙂 I did find some of your suggestions amusing however ! CareerDoofus (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Descripton of remigration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit that the first descripton of remigration should not be "Far-right". In the same way that globalism, mass-immigration or multiculturalism isn't described as "far-left" in wikipedia.

"Hello, I'm Gaismagorm. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Remigration seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]"

Me: "Hello Gaismagorm. I think there is an error in the page. remigration defintion: The meaning of REMIGRATION is the act of migrating again; especially : the act of returning to one's original or previous home after a migration. To conclude that this concept is in all aspects "far-right" is the same as saying that globalism or multiculturalism is "far-left". Neither of these are correct or helpful, or factual. Thank you a lot, I will proceed further with this matter in case it is not revised or seriously looked at. If this is not removed, then it seems only natural that globalism and multiculturalism be revised as far-left, which I will also follow up on. Best regards," DK2828 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

DK2828, the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk: Remigration. Please be aware that making a significant change to article B and C because you do not like what article A says is a form of disruptive editing. Refrain from doing that. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessing reliability of an online news source

I read WP:NEWSORG and it mentions "less-established sources." Is there a page that explains how exactly to assess whether a news organization is established?

I found a source yesterday I wanted to add as a reference in a software article. I looked into the source and it's an online news website that's pretty new (from 2022) and the writers are mostly freelancers and lots of the articles don't name the writer. It seemed good quality writing. I'm not asking about this specific source though, but for general advice for the future.

In these circumstances how am I meant to decide if it's "well-established"? I can think of common sense answers like appearing high on Google, getting mentioned on other reputable news organizations, having many articles that are well-written, and stuff like that. Is there any guidelines about this? I've seen editors say "so and so isn't reliable because it isn't an established reliable source" but I can't tell what criteria they are using or if they're just deciding themselves based on some factors. It's the "established" part that I'm not clear with.

I'm basically new to doing editing that isn't just cleaning up typos so I'm trying to familiarize myself with rules and policies before I make changes. My first language as well isn't English (or my second) so I apologize if I've put anything unclear. Thank you. CareerDoofus (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus, You may be interested in WP:RSP and WP:RSN. Most well-established news sources should appear at RSP. If you give me links to pages, I can make more thorough assessments based on your exact situation. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit other users' comments?

Is it ok to correct typos or format problems in other users' replies on talk pages? Is that frowned upon/unacceptable? If generally it's not allowed, what if it's to fix layout for example when their edit, to add their reply, somehow breaks something in the page? CareerDoofus (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus: Welcome to the Teahouse. You will want to read WP:TPO for guidelines in editing other people's comments for what is and isn't considered appropriate. In my experience other people's typos or other errors are left as is, and correcting them may be seen as annoying and in the worst case, disruptive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus I agree with Tenryuu. It might be OK to fix an error affecting layout within a thread that you're actually currently involved in. But we don't need grammar police retrospectively fixing old errors that we made on talk pages long ago.

Occasionally I've seen a whole talk page upset by the insertion of a malformed template, or by someone else's poorly-formed bespoke signature. If it looks like the user doesn't know how to resolve the issue - and it's gone uncorrected for some time and is liable to affect other users trying to communicate on that page - then it might then be OK to step in to fix it. But leave a polite edit summary explaining what you've done and inviting a revert if they're not happy.

Occasionally I've had very bad faith edits (vandalism or abuse) left on my talk page which another user watching my TP has reverted. Personally, I've no issue with this, though others might object.

Tread carefully, and don't make a 'thing' of it. Had you left a diff to an example you'd like to alter, we might have been able to give more specific feedback. Oh, and never ever edit errors in archived talk pages. Just leave them be.

As Hosts here, we do very occasionally fix one another's mistakes if it is liable to cause confusion to a new user. But I still tread very carefully if I do that. Often it's best to alert the editor to an issue and let them correct it for themselves, or add in a corrective reply to clarify an issue. Regards, Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article Editor

Hi.

I am currently editing an article that’s a Good Article nominee. The reviewing editor has a style of leaving comments that’s very confusing and they do not like how I’m responding to the feedback. I have worked on a GA nominee before and succeeded in getting it the status and this was not an issue back then and was wondering if I can get another editor to look at this article?

thanks Lisha2037 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1 · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

As of this comment, the GAN is still open. In that case, Wikipedia:Good article frequently asked questions#Review process gives you two options: one is to try asking [the reviewer] to ask for a second opinion. The second is to allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer).

Only you can decide what is worth more to you: a GAN that passes on the first try or the effort that it takes to try to understand and accommodate a fellow editor's style. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Lisha2037. Crossing out resolved issues is pretty common. It helps to make clear what's left to be done. Do you know what the reviewer is talking about with regards to indented replies? Some editors will respond to each bullet point with "done" or an explanation. Regardless, if you get a new reviewer, you'll still have to address any issues with WP:OR/WP:V. The reviewer's concerns about citation format aren't part of the GA criteria, but are decent advice. Also, the reviewer on Talk:Ritu Khullar/GA1 was very experienced; different reviewers will take different approaches. Feel free to ask additional questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi.

I have no issue with the bullet points. When I first did a review for Ritu Khullar, the edits were made chronologically and I would reply to his comments as they progressed. Since this editor uses markups and crosses out things and creates new lines and Colors, it’s super messy and confusing for me. I just think our editing styles clash and would be better if someone like the first editor looked at it. I don’t have issues with most of the things they suggested to edit, especially the ones that follow protocol. But when the edits are not in order I get confused and my work will reflect that. They left a comment about leaving the review so I’m not sure if they are even reviewing after that. Might just have to wait it out and renominate which kinda sucks as I put in a lot of work in that’s article. Hours and hours. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lisha2037 Then yeah, pick one of Rotideypoc41352's options above and seek a new reviewer. Like Thebiguglyalien says below, you can post to WT:DYK as well. Sorry it's a bummer, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time around the GA process, and I don't think I've ever seen such an intense review for such a short article. Rotideypoc41352 is correct in that you basically have two options here if you don't want to continue as it is: you can either request a second opinion, or you can withdraw the nomination. There's a formal "second opinion" setting that the review can be set to for more in depth evaluations, but it's also become common to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations where a few people will usually take a quick look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok do i did set it to that status. If you or @rotideypoc41352 is willing to look at it that would be swell. Since you have a lot of GA experience, that would be awesome. Lisha2037 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352 - user:thebiguglyalien - user:Rjjiii Lisha2037 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would countenance - much less voluntarily participate in - a process where one editor tells another (to give one example) " Subscription required for WSJ, suggest adding |url-access=subscription to the citation template; found it archived at ProQuest, suggest adding |id={{ProQuest|399089034}} to the citation template." rather than simply - and collaboratively - making such edits themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer is User:Reidgreg. You should notify them if you open a discussion about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Other issues not withstanding, please sign your comments on Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Best practices for bigger edits or on developing topics

I am new to editing, but I signed up because I saw that certain LLMs were being listed as "Open Source" on the Open-source artificial intelligence page when they aren't. I have proposed a general idea for a restructure of this page and creation of an additional one to resolve this issue without removing any information, on the talk page, but this is a rather big edit for someone who has only done one smaller one beforehand, and it is also on a somewhat contentious topic.

Any thoughts on how best to proceed or best practices when it comes to these kinds of edits? JacobHaimes (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

JacobHaimes: Welcome to Wikipedia! There are a few approaches to implementing major changes to an existing article (some of it comes down to personal preference). What I find useful is to copy the text of the article or section to a user sandbox or off-wiki text editor and work on revisions there. Using a sandbox on-wiki would be preferred for changes that need to be discussed with other editors. Then, when you have a version that's ready to go, I'd recommend doing this in small sections, and tagging the article with {{In use}} (when you are actively implementing the changes) or {{Under construction}} (when changes are being planned). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Medical article creation for students - Topic selection and audience level

Hello, I'm an instructor guiding students in creating Wikipedia articles on medical topics. We use the list of requested articles for medicine as a starting point. I am now planning the semester 2 syllabus and would like to establish best practice around 2  areas:

We've encountered issues with articles being declined for "already existing" under different names, despite being on the requested list. How can we better guide students in topic selection from this list? Should we advise against drafting articles that seem to exist under different names, or proceed assuming the request is valid?

Regarding medical content best practices, should writers of specialist medical topics still primarily target a lay audience? Our current advice acknowledges some articles may be more technical, but editor feedback often suggests content is "too specialist." How should we advise students on this balance? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable provides some guidance. Often, readers do not get past the Lead, so that section should be targeted down and not be jargon. David notMD (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:MEDRS for references. And that having a PMID number for a sci journal article, https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi can be used to generate references. David notMD (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that the list is not actively maintained. It can be helpful for ideas, but there's no guarantee that the items there meet Wikipedia's notability requirements or that they aren't already covered in another article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is very helpful, thank you. The 2 sets of students we get to create articles are biomedical science students and pharmacy students. There is a requested article list covering specifically pharmacy topics. Just wondering if the stubs are organised per field or eos the list comprise all areas within medicine? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThomI don't know how helpful this is (given that a lot of medical stubs remain stubs because they're hard to expand) but we have 12090 medicine-related stubs and 22929 medicine-related start class articles. These should all be notable, some of them will be badly in need of expansion, but they're often neglected. I know it's not the same as article creation, but expanding these articles could potentially serve a similar purpose. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This response was meant for you: This is very helpful, thank you. The 2 sets of students we get to create articles are biomedical science students and pharmacy students. There is a requested article list covering specifically pharmacy topics. Just wondering if the stubs are organised per field or eos the list comprise all areas within medicine? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the very helpful answers to my first 2 questions. I have another one which may not have a straightforward answer but am putting it out there anyway. I'd like to improve our processes to avoid other issues we've encountered before. Here's our current process:

·      Our groups are made up of 20 students.

·      Students work in pairs on a single article they have selected from the requested article list.

·      Each student creates their own Wikipedia account.

·      All students join the education dashboard.

·      Only one account per pair is used for the draft that will move to the main space (total of around 10 articles by the end of the semester).

·      We encourage all students to practise editing in their own sandboxes.

We've implemented this structure because we want all students to learn Wikipedia processes. However, we've had a couple of incidents where students were accused of sock puppetry due to similar content appearing in multiple places.

Given a class of about 20 students working in pairs, how can we best organise this activity to:

·      Ensure all students learn Wikipedia editing processes

·      Avoid sock puppetry accusations

·      Maintain clarity in which account is responsible for the main draft

·      Use the education dashboard effectively

Should we modify our current approach? Are there best practices for managing student pairs in Wikipedia education projects that we should adopt? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

One more question about GenAI. Are there any written guidelines or a written policy regarding use of GenAI for article creation? I read recently there is a task force trying to clean up articles. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You should not do this. Please please stop. Do not do this.

Writing medical articles that fall under WP:MEDRS is one of the hardest things you can do on Wikipedia.

Creating a decent article takes a lot of time and effort, you need to know quite a bit of the literature to be able to give a decent overview of a topic.

Students will produce low-quality stuff, and our volunteers will have to waste their precious time cleaning the mess up, when they'd rather write them from scratch. Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop what? We have our own very clear university policy regarding use of GenAI. I would like to guide students to a written statement or link if there is one pointing out the harms to Wikipedia etc. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The project as a whole. Do not collaborate with the Wiki Education Foundation. Do not let students write articles about WP:MEDRS topics. It is a very bad idea. See WP:AICLEAN for AI-related information. WikiEdu is infamous for dumping a load of terrible articles on Wikipedia which require a lot of work to clean up. A lot of WikiEdu students are set up for failure because they don't get the guidance required and not enough time to write a decent article (which will always take way more time than predicted) and the result is that Wikipedians have to completely rewrite those articles or get them deleted which wastes volunteer time. If you do not listen to my advice, at least find an experienced Wikipedian who can determine which topics are or are not suitable. Last time you ended up with a bunch of declined AfC submissions; why was nothing done with those? Please read your talkpage: User talk:G.J.ThomThom. Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but telling us to abandon our project is not helpful at all. I value the Wikipedia community and am here to learn how to contribute more effectively. Our goal is to teach students about Wikipedia's standards and processes while contributing meaningful content. A lot of the issues we face come from a misunderstanding and I am trying to address the most common areas of misunderstanding. We're actively working to address any issues and improve the quality of our students' contributions and we're seeking constructive feedback on how to enhance our approach. Many of our students have successfully contributed valuable articles that have been accepted by the community. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

When someone is about to repeat a mistake, the most helpful thing one can do is yell "stop!". The people who accept or decline draft at the Article for Creation process just use a very simple flowchart, going through AfC does not mean that an article is valuable. It would not be wise to start a new course without learning from the mistakes from the past. Why was nothing done with the declined drafts from last time? Polygnotus (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing you are saying is helpful. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after someone who started a WikiEdu course who knew little about Wikipedia and was completely unwilling to listen to advice. Polygnotus (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

G.J.ThomThom, your concentration on creating new articles is misguided. Look at the history of any good Wikipedia article, and observe how much work went into creating it, and how much into subsequently improving it. I support what GreenLipstickLesbian wrote above. If you can get your students to concentrate on improving existing articles rather than creating new ones, that will be better for everyone. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a programme that has been established for some time. I am new to it all and am keen to update it and implement better processes. Thanks for your suggestion. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

G.J.ThomThom: The education program, and your course, may have been around for some time, but that does not mean that experienced Wikipedia volunteer editors are enthusiastic about it. Ultimately, contributions to Wikipedia should support the goals of Wikipedia and follow its core policies, which may not necessarily align with the goals and policies of an education program. I would hope that you are already aware of the guidelines on student assignments; WP:ASSIGN#GUIDANCE summarises the main issues that can lead to frustration on the part of veteran editors. I echo GreenLipstickLesbian and Maproom's suggestions – I think it's valuable for all new editors (not only students) to learn how Wikipedia works by improving existing articles rather than trying to create new ones from scratch. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

List article with a single source. But source is the authoritative and most reliable

I created a list article: List of architecture schools in India, because pages such as List of architecture schools, Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture included incomplete list of architecture schools in India. The inclusion/exclusion of schools on these pages were arbitrary, and the bulleted list was not organised (such as alphabetical, chronological, etc). I was concerned about academic boosterism. Therefore, intended purpose of the List of architecture schools in India was to provide a comprehensive list. The inclusion/exclusion criteria was simple and straightforward: Is the school approved by Council of Architecture to award UG degree?

The Wikipedia is not a directory, therefore, I tried to provide more contextual information, such as which of these schools are also approved by Council of Architecture to provide PG degree? What are these PG programmes? How did these schools rank in the latest National Institutional Ranking Framework's Architecture and Planning category?

When the One Source Template was added to the page, I did some further reading on Wikipedia policy but I am unclear on the following points:

• Do we need more sources, when the Council of Architecture is most authoritative and reliable source on the matter? Yes, it is primary source. But, when considering aspects such as accreditation of higher education institution, isn't it better to rely on the concerned board?

• Wikipedia's Common selection criteria says, If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.. As of now, the Council of Architecture's approved school number stands at 381. Should the number of entries be reduced? If yes, how do it without causing academic boosterism?

• Should this list article be deleted? And, the partial list of schools under each of the List of architecture schools, Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture should be restored, but with some restructuring? If this list article should be retained, how can it be improved to comply with Wikipedia Standards and Policy?

SivanTroye (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Disjointed comments for SivanTroye:

1. The article is "List of architecture schools in India". It starts "This is a list of Architecture Schools in India recognised by the Council of Architecture for providing architectural education [...]". Are there, or have there recently been, architecture schools in India not recognised by the Council of Architecture?
2. The article is very heavily dependent on the say-so of the Council of Architecture. This is briefly described in the article "List of architecture schools in India". But the reader is told "Main article: Council of Architecture". And the article Council of Architecture is sourced to ... the Council of Architecture. Something's wrong here.
3. Can you find no comments from outside Japan on either the Council of Architecture's standards or on how well institutions adhere to these (in reality, not just in theory)?
4. There's no mention of doctorates. This puzzles me. Do residents of India (if sufficiently affluent or in receipt of large grants) do their doctorates outside India?

-- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Hoary for your repones.

1. Probably there has been architecture schools in India not recognised by the the Council of Architecture. But, the graduates from these schools are not eligible to practice architecture in India (As per the Architects Act of 1972).

2. I have included two sources: The Architects Act of 1972 which outlines the roles and responsibility of Council of Architecture, as well as basic profile on the Council of Architecture by Indian Ministry of Education. However, I agree with you that main article, Council of Architecture, needs significant clean up.

3. I failed to think about sources outside India. Just found that Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) has published a directory of architecture schools which is a bit out-of-date compared to Council of Architecture. For instance, Da Vinci School of Design and Architecture lost its approval in Council of Architecture. But it is listed in the CAA's directory. Also, note that in the same document, Appendix II (Directory of National Regulators) enlists only Council of Architecture for India, whereas, Canada for instance has multiple regulators.

4. About doctoral programme, Council of Architecture only comments on PhD as an eligibility requirement for holding teaching positions in Indian Architecture School. To my personal knowledge, I think its because PhD falls under purview of University Grant Commission, and not Council of Architecture.

Can you please advise me on how to proceed further? SivanTroye (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

HEC Paris contributions

Dear all. I hope you are doing well. Please what do you think about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HEC_Paris&diff=1249231390&oldid=1244886612 on HEC Paris ; It looks like an article destroyed. Please do not hesitate to modify the article directly. I am not sure what to do. Thanks a lot in advance. Kind Regards. 110.232.86.40 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like someone cleaned up the article. And that someone is @S0091: Polygnotus (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks to you like an article destroyed; it looks to me (first impression) like an article stripped of unreferenced material (and with a number of other, minor improvements). I haven't looked at it closely, however: my impression could be mistaken. Could you point to one instance within it removal of clearly worthwhile material (which of course is reliably and independently sourced)? -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You think so? Including removing sections correctly sourced (Financial Times or others)? --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I give you one example. The MOOC section with the source : https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/actu/detail/article/hec-paris-premiere-business-school-francaise-a-se-lancer-dans-les-mooc-3010/ has been removed. Please have a look closely. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOOC section does indeed look pretty good. I suggest that you change what's between "<ref>" and "</ref>" to {{Cite newspaper | title=HEC, première business school française à se lancer dans les MOOC | work=Le Figaro | first=Lucile | last=Quillet | date=4 October 2013 | access-date= |language=fr}}, in order to show that it's a signed piece and in a respected newspaper. (Add your access date.) Also, replace or gloss "Currently" (e.g. "As of 2024"). In Talk:HEC Paris, suggest reinstating the section (with these minor improvements. If you get a yes, go ahead. If there's no response within one week, go ahead. If there's a negative response ... well, consider what to do according to the rationale expressed in the rejection. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback. You have more sections which are ok. @S0091: has to do it, he is the one who deleted everything. Or at least an experienced user. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Need someone to talk to

Hi. I know Wikipedia is a weird place to ask this, but i need someone to talk to. I was bullied and harassed by trolls on reddit and got suspended for simply posting about monster tamer video games and characters i loved. Now im traumatized and lonely, and dealing with the aftermath. I’m not vandalizing or disrupting anything. I just want someone to talk to, that’s it. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better to talk to people in real life? Many, if not most, of us are incredibly old and boring, and we are trying to write an encyclopedia. Polygnotus (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have crippling social anxiety. I hate most people my age. The only other people i talk to are my family, and online is my only safe outlet 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Stardew Valley is 50% off on Steam rn. Polygnotus (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And? I’m not playing a game with any romance or relationships in it. Not sure how this is even relevant 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor. I have sympathy but you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia is not therapy and not a social network. We're here to build an encyclopedia and communication not related to these goals is frowned upon.

Better you look elsewhere. There are lots of friendly communities out there on Discord, forums and other places. But trying to chat or get reassurance here on Wikipedia is likely to result in frustration and a lack of real communication. I wish you the best! MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Question on the notability of Wolfgang Mückenheim

Good morning!

I have a question about the notability of Wolfgang Mückenheim who is my teacher and advisor.

I have written a draft which was rejected although I mentioned his solution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and his theory of extended probabilities having more than 200 quotes and his 4 published books, one with 7 editions, another one with 4 editions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wolfgang_M%C3%BCckenheim

I could incorporate the following points but will do so only if it is promising. Therefore I would like to know the opinion of experienced Wikipedians.

One of his books has even become a bestseller. https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Bestseller%202012H%20+.pdf

In German Wikipedia his page is clicked twice a day on average. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=de.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Wolfgang_M%C3%BCckenheim

His correspondence with Maurice Bartlett, mainly on his theory is kept by the Royal Socienty. https://catalogues.royalsociety.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=MSB%2f2%2f91

Even the famous John Maddox, the former editor of Nature, has published a full article on Mückenheim's theory https://www.nature.com/articles/320481a0

which has stirred up readers' letters. https://www.nature.com/articles/324307b0 Praetor71 (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't he retire in 2014? The German Wikipedia article says Seit 2014 ist er im Ruhestand. and the source is his own CV.

I think the relevant pages are WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I don't have a definitive answer one way or the other. Polygnotus (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page for this Archiving script that the script worked for archiving, but I can't retrieve the archive.

Should I ping Elli, or is there another way to ask this? User talk:Elli/OneClickArchiver Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The archive is over at User talk:Allthemilescombined1/Archive 1. Polygnotus (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1: I placed template {{Archives}} at the top of your talkpage. That way it is easy to find. Polygnotus (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Steps to resolve conflicts about neutrality on controversial topic

I initiated a discussion about violating WP:NPOV in the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine article. However, the conversation has become a repetitive exchange of "yes, it is" vs. "no, it isn’t."

Could anyone provide advice on how to navigate and resolve such issues? I’m particularly interested in more effective argumentation strategies, examples of successful resolutions, or procedures for escalation when discussions become deadlocked. Are there any common pitfalls I might be falling into with my approach? Or should I consider focusing on less controversial topics if this issue proves too difficult to resolve? Отец Никифор (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

should I consider focusing on less controversial topics Yup. These incredibly controversial subjects are no fun. There are millions of articles that are in need of improving, and most are not controversial at all. See the Wikipedia:Task Center. New editors who start with the difficult stuff (gender, Israel/Palestina et cetera), or to right great wrongs, usually get blocked or burnt out. Polygnotus (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)