Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be expected to exclude relevant factual information on þe basis þat it makes certain people or groups "look bad". Þat would be an egregious example of bias. GenderBiohazard (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is used for informative purposes. As users come to edit, they may change the facts and alter the article. Various factors may be included in their changes. Bias may be shown in their changes, highlighting different facts inside their edits. There possibly could be some excessively biased articles that show changes of users. Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation I saw a church rewriting a wiki post to be more in line with the tone of wikipedia and less biased and they blocked them and deleted the edits. It’s not even in the log, luckily I have copied it to show openminded people like you. IamNeutrality (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:COI. GenderBiohazard (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible that The conservative people work while the left poor masses on welfare have lots of free time to spend on drugs, editing articles etc? Let’s gather the facts and see who is the majority of people with liberal free time for editing!

I don’t know yet only a guess! IamNeutrality (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, a church should not be editing Wikipedia as accounts represent individuals and plus, it was your sockpuppet account and it got blocked so I can see why it might upset you. I don't see how you can justify the edit it made though. But since you are blocked as well for being NOTHERE, I won't expect a response. By the way, I think I know a lot of editors on this platform after 11 years and they are neither on welfare or on drugs. Random assumption on your point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, Wikipedia is not leftist. I'm a neoliberal and do just fine here. But to fill in the details, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

What does a newbie do when he was such a victim? IamNeutrality (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@J2000ai Your choices are either to be bold and remove any tags that you believe no longer apply or to WP:PING to the Talk Page the editor(s) who applied the tags, which you'll find in the history tab of the article, asking them if their concerns are now addressed. As you are a relative newcomer here, I'd advise the latter approach but if you get no response after about a week, go ahead anyway based on WP:SILENCE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thanks for the quick feedback. I apologize for the 20 questions, but can you help me identify who applied these tags? Looking at the Talk Page for CAIO I don't see anyone posting (which made I thought these were automagically applied by some parsing/QA rules).

It's been an adventure learning the complexities of wiki style and editorial guidelines as well as the vetting process. And here I thought academic publishing/editing is sometimes persnickety. All for the better I guess. It's better to have an over-tuned system to control quality issues that come with scale than the alternative. - Regards, J J2000ai (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2000ai The history tells me that Sohom Data added two tags just after accepting the article from Draft, immediately followed by jlwoodwa adding the "orphan" tag. Then a bot removed that tag once the article was objectively no longer an orphan. Editors adding/removing tags don't always expand on their concerns on the Talk Page, although best practice is to do so. Starting a discussion on a Talk Page to get people to justify their tag (or ask if their concern has been resolved by later edits) is always acceptable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insights. Although I'm still learning the ropes, I should've known to check the history for the page to find who the editor was.

The 'orphan tag' was legit when I first posted it, but I learned it can take a week or several after creating inbound linked from related wiki articles for the automated bot to sweep and update this status.

Per your advice, I've notified Sohom of the updates and requested a review.

Regards, J J2000ai (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm also a newer editor, but I just started a bigger rework of a bigger/higher profile article. Along with sharing proposed edits, people recommended posting on the Talk pages for the linked WikiProjects letting them know you've shared a proposed bigger rework so that interested people can have input if they'd like. And then wait a week or so before making big changes. Cyanochic (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JacobHaimes, one problem with single, large edits that touch a lot of different sections of an article, is their monolithic nature. Let's say, your large edit sprinkles changes all over, and 90% of them are okay, but 10% is problematic for one reason or another. It may be very laborious and very difficult for another editor to come along, and just fix the stuff that needs fixing. I have been in this situation before, and had to regretfully revert their edit, which means the 90% good stuff goes away, along with the 10% bad stuff; I usually leave an apologetic edit summary, but I just can't justify the time required to make lots of little fixes all over the article, meanwhile worrying that another editor will come in with some unrelated change, meaning mine cannot be saved, and the effort is entirely lost. It is far, far easier to just revert the whole thing, and let the original editor fix it up.

To avoid this situation, I often recommend an editor to 'chunkify' their big edit, into five, or ten, or twenty smaller edits, where each one is limited to a particular section or subsection, and has their own edit summary explaining what it was about. In that case, if 10% of the whole problematic, it will be far easier for another editor to fix up a smaller edit in one section, and if they give up and just revert that one, well, that's just one of your edits, and your other nine or nineteen edits survive unscathed. Other reasons to use smaller edits is that they are less likely to result in WP:EDITCONFLICTs, which you can read about. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved my article from sandbox to mainspace without getting it reviewed.

how do I know my article has been approved and when will it appear on google search. this will be my first ever article. thanks Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Ghulam Muhammad Memon has many flaws. New articles that bypass Articles for Creation review are supposed to be evaluated by New Pages Patrol. It is possible that your article be reverted to draft, nominated for deletion or even Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start by removing ALL BOLDING except the first appearance of his name. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, I removed all the bolding. what are the other flaws you believe might get my page nominated for deletion? I made a lot of efforts and dont want them to go it vain. can i still submit my page for review? thanks Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:Ghulam Muhammad Memon. Wikipedia articles cannot be references, and mention his "batchmates" who are article subjects does not contribute to his notability, so delete all that. Second, refs have to mention him, so the 'refs' to his education that go to the school websites with no mention of him are not valid refs, so delete. In Lead, too many refs provided to confirm positions he has held; keep at most two for each. Find a ref(s) that confirm his education. Most important, much of the career content is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the refs to his education official sites, his batchmates etc only leaving us with articles. someone moved my article to draft article saying this looks like a advertisement or promotional page. and also a COI. So far after that, I have tried to make it more neutral. but what else can i do before i submit for review? thank you. @David notMD Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not have a COI, meaning that you do not have a personal connection (or a paid connection) to Memon, state that on your Talk page. If you do have a COI state that on your User page. People with a COI are allowed to create drafts and submit the drafts to AfC. Before submitting the draft, address the problem that the education section and large parts of the career section do not have references. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

I did not ask for my inquiry to be closed. It doesn’t matter how many “policy” pages about social networks or therapy are shoved down my throat, I am making edits and talking to people. Therefore, I am being productive while also receiving socialization. Why am I being victimized? I’m not doing anything wrong. I’m not really furious, just a bit disappointed. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to help build the encyclopedia? If not, you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am building it by contributing to it. I don’t want to be blocked. I need this site. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which encyclopedia articles have you improved? Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one, DoggoLingo for removing unnecessary politics, Wikipedia:Seven Ages of Wikipedians by removing amatonormativity, List of suicides attributed to bullying by removing harmful hotlines 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your edits were helpful. They seemed to be guided by your emotional outlook right now rather than reliable sources. You can't let your attitudes and life experience influence content decisions. And you are not being "victimized", this is advice we tell lots of other editors who show up every day at the Teahouse. This is a collaborative writing project so there are a lot of rules and policies here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing wrong with my emotional outlook. I just think those things are unnecessary to be put in articles. The doggolingo is about slang, not politics. The seven ages are about wiki behavior, not relationships. And the suicides are about documenting them, not preventing them. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, do not see those edits as improvements. To me, that looks like you pushing your jaded, negative and cynical point of view into Wikipedia, while ranting in edit summaries. Please stop that behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP is temp blocked for 72 hours. Your article edits were reverted. The recommended next step is to open a discussion on Talk page of the article. Some of your contributions to Talk pages of other editors were deleted by them. Editors are permitted to delete content on their own Talk pages. There is an assumption that this act means they have read the content, but proof of that is not a requirement, nor is a need to reply. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous post was a request for social interaction with other editors. Many in good faith mentioned therapy. You responded on their Talk pages that you did not find a link to WP:THERAPY helpful. Fine. I (and I assume others) hope you can find places for social interaction, but everyones' position is that this is not what Wikipedia is for. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no one wants to talk to me, they wont respond to me or i chase them away with my abrasive behavior and beliefs. its impossible for me to make friends or to get close to people because i either feel alienated by what they say or im too possessive and get mad that they priortize other people, especially their significant other over me. im too much of an envious person to be liked 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:9139:2B86:A9D2:C98 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help for a declined draft

I have a COI on Draft:Damola Ayegbayo, the draft has a good number of Reliable, independent and significant sources to pass Notability. Would like to request for it to be reviewed ? Sophia2030 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed since it was declined for the 4th time? Polygnotus (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This (very little) is all that has changed since then. The draft cites 25 sources. Sophia2030, which of these 25 would you say are the best three? -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and that edit happened after I asked what has changed. Polygnotus (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See @Hoary: [1], [2] [3] Sophia2030 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take these three in order. "Ayegbayo Damola, Communicating Power, Beauty Of Black African Women" is based on an interview. It thus doesn't count towards showing notability (as this is understood here in en:Wikipedia). "Artistic landscape for best African painters" seems (with "Ayegbayo is undoubtedly one of the most famous painters today", etc) to tend toward hyperbole, but I suppose it's usable. "Beauty of African women at World of Women NFT art project" is OK too, I suppose. If these are the best three sources, then Damola Ayegbayo is borderline "notable", I'd say. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See @Hoary: here are more additional 3 to also support previous one Notability. [4], [5], [6]Sophia2030 (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Can you please assess this also.Sophia2030 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those three? -- Hoary (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophia2030: a simple statement like "Damola Ayegbayo (born Dec 29, 1988) is a Nigerian contemporary visual artist and painter." does not need four sources to support it. The one thing in that sentence that does need to be supported is the DOB, which for privacy etc. reasons should not be added unless it can be reliably sourced; yet none of the four sources cited against that sentence gives this person's DOB. More generally, you need to ensure that the sources actually support the information, and avoid citing more sources that is needed to verify the contents and to establish notability. It is better to cite five solid sources than 25 flaky or unnecessary ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone already explained it before me. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: , @AlphaBetaGamma: I have made adjustments to your concerns to back them with appropriate sources and removed the D.O.B not reference, I hope better now ?.Sophia2030 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP range edit lookup?

Recently I became aware that you can actually check the contributions of an entire IP range as opposed to the one address. For example, Special:Contributions/5.133.46.67 as opposed to the whole range at Special:Contributions/5.133.46.0/22. Is there a user script or tool to simplify this process of checking the whole range? It gets quite confusing with IPv6 in particular because of how dang long they get! I'm asking because I've been doing a lot of vandalism reverts lately, and it can be a pain to manually review each IP address individually. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which part do you need help with? In preferences -> Gadgets you'll find Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches (e.g., "Splark*").

And in Preference -> Beta Features you'll find "IP Information".

We also have {{IP range calculator}} and mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6.

So let's say you go to Special:Contributions/2403:6200:8814:B64B:A956:4DD4:A440:9194 and then click on the (/64) at the end of the title you will end up here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: The (/64) isn't there by default – it's added by one of your installed user scripts, User:Tollens/subnetContribs.js. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa: Ah, thanks. I have too many userscripts. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoinked! Thanks a bunch, both of you :D Sirocco745 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the Gadget one out, but it doesn't seem to work. What I want is just a quick and easy thing that lets me check the contributions of an entire IP range quickly without me personally having to remember which parts of the IP address I need to change to do so. I'm going to try out that userscript you have there, the one by Tollens. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: that userscript works for IPv6, just like it was meant to. I also want it to work for IPv4 addresses, how would I do that? I'm not very familiar with Javascript. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, brought here via my user talk. It's a little more complicated for IPv4, since there isn't really a direct equivalent to the /64 range. I could add /24 for IPv4, but the potential issue there is that I've seen those ranges cover more than a single network not infrequently, unlike /64 which is nearly always what is assigned to a single customer by ISPs (as far as I have personally seen, I wouldn't call myself an expert in networking so I could very well be wrong). Polygnotus, you might know more than me about this, if so do you have any suggestions? If not perhaps I could ping a CU or two, who I assume would be more familiar with this than me. Tollens (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see your username here until just now, jlwoodwa - if you have any suggestions they would be welcome also. Tollens (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the range given as an example here does not jump out to me as being one person behind the range (even considering the /24 rather than /22). Tollens (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: I am not an administrator, but since IPv4 addresses are rather scarce, ISP just give most customers a single IPv4 address, not a range. Polygnotus (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my impression too – I think I'll leave the script without a button on IPv4 contributions, Sirocco745, given that it's just for cases where you can be essentially certain it's the same person – I don't want anybody to blindly assume all the buttons show you contributions from one person. I haven't looked at how this interacts with the upcoming temporary account changes yet so it might not be possible to provide this script anyways fairly shortly (though if it is I will). Tollens (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I prefer to check for similar edits rather than assume the whole range is the troll/vandal. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CIDR range gadget come from before the time you could do 'native' lookups of IP ranges. I consider it deprecated, though it may have still have some niche uses. The problem with all IP addresses, both IPv4 and IPv6, is that there is no definitive range you need to look up. Sometimes the WHOIS will provide some hints, but even that can be misleading. For IPv6 it's true that most ISPs assign /64 ranges, but it's really not as common as many think, and ISPs will often assign a bunch of different /64s over time (usually within the same larger range). Here's how I approach this problem. First, do not think in terms of ranges which look like 5.133.46.0/22. Instead, just write 5.133.46.67/22. It basically works the same. You can do the same for IPv6 addresses. Pick one IP, then just append the / prefix. You will have to experiment with each range to find the right prefix and I'm afraid it helps to remember just a couple of numbers. With IPv4 you should look at the /16 and /24. For IPv6 look at the /32 and the /64. Many IPv6 ISPs will work around a /40 range, or sometimes /48, or some other value. All you have to do is type a / and these 2 digits at the end of the IP. Keep making the number a bit smaller or larger until you have your target. Going into this particular example, I'd agree that the 5.133.46.67 range is shared, but the IPs are relatively static within the range (ie probably a few weeks at least). I'll tell you a great pro-tip for this and some other UK ISPs, and mostly for IPv4. Look up the geolocation. At the geolocation site, change the address to a different part of the range and see if the location changes. For example, 5.133.46.67 and 5.133.46.167 are in the same place. 5.133.47.67 is somewhere else. As long as the place isn't London, this often works well. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Declined due to not being Neutral

Hello everyone, My draft for Ben Etiaba have been declined and the reason also stated, but I also need help with clarifications on what I can do better. Thank you all for your kindness Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:Ben Etiaba. You have received a message on your talkpage, which part would you like clarified? This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. and the draft contains words like numerous, prestigious, renowned, world-class. Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I need tips on how I can better maintain neutrality, and also are Published News from news outlets not considered Verifiable sources? Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh Thank you Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many people here don't know how WP:RELIABLE Nigerian news sources are, because they live in other countries. It is sometimes difficult to judge if a source is reliable when it is based in another country. Polygnotus (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted stuff, but no idea about validity of references. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a resource that can help evaluate the reliability of Nigerian sources. --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! This has been helpful Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eucharia Ukwueze On sources, some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is ForeBears.io a good source for surname?

I was thinking about adding top 15 most common Colombian surname to most common Hispanic last name and I was wondering if Most Common Colombian Surnames & Meanings (forebears.io) from forebears.io is a good source. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. They disclose little about the source of their information. Polygnotus (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a dubious source, and presumably the information is available from the actual source. National statistical bureaus tend to have these statistics, so maybe check out DANE. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. Despite the above comments this search shows it has been used about 1200 times in articles. There are comments about it in the archives of the Reliable sources noticeboard. See this RSN search. You could ask again there for current views. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: See here. Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: That may be the difference between WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. I haven't checked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So technically, forebears.io is not a good source? I was thinking about adding Colombian top 15 surname to most common spanish last names. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that is asking so it is not a good sources? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

I have a Encyclopedia set, I was wondering if it would be considered reliable.

It is The New Book of Knowledge, 1986 copyright date.

I understand that it is a little out-of-date but some things don't change with time. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sheriff U3. The New Book of Knowledge doesn't appear to have ever been discussed at WP:RSP; but judging from our article about it, it looks as if it is probably reliable. Be aware, though, that it is a tertiary source, so where possible find a secondary source. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The New Book of Knowledge looks like a decent tertiary source to me. Older sources can be superseded by newer ones, but 1986 isn't old enough to wholly deprecate it. Use your discretion for what's likely to be outdated, and take particular caution before using it as a medical source. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding.

I figured that it would not be too old, but wanted to make sure. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot changes with time. According to the Wikipedia article, The New Book of Knowledge made it to a 2007 edition, and even that is too old for many topics. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some things change with time.

But some things don't, such as:

• Math (Things may be added, but the basic ideas don't change.)

• Chemistry (Things may be added, but H²O stays the same.)

• Basic Science Principles (Some topics in science do change over time.)

I could try to come up with other cases but I don't think that is needed.

I am not trying to fight back, I am simply stating that some things don't change with time.

While to your credit lots of things do change:

• Production methods

• Laws

• Geography (Countries borders) Sheriff U3 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth mentioning that, once you're considering a specific place to cite a source, you can ask at WP:RSN whether it's reliable in that context. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of that page. Sheriff U3 (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sfn question: how to cite two newspaper archive links that refer to the same article?

I'm in the process of setting up a list of articles to use as sources for an article I want to contribute to, but am faced with an sfn dilemma. These two links (1 and 2) are respectively the beginning and end of a single published article. Is there a way I can set up the {{cite news}} template to refer to them together or do I have to cite them singly as if they were separate articles?

As always, your help is very appreciated. Thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Template:Sfn/doc § Adding a URL for the page or location might be what you're looking for. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa Thank you. So don't include the URLs in {{cite news}}, but instead only use each separate one as needed when citing in the article? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, each {{sfn}} can get its own URL – but I'd also put some URL in {{cite news}}, for the sake of anyone who browses the References section directly (rather than going through a {{sfn}}). jlwoodwa (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help, @Jlwoodwa! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

confirming edits on wiki page

Hi. I provided changes to this page User talk:Sharmon1961

how do these changes get confirmed?

thanks. Sharmon1961 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharmon1961: As far as I can tell, you have only made one edit (before posting here). It was three days ago, to the article Steve Glazer, and it was reverted one minute later by AntiDionysius. Is this what you mean? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added a lot of referenced content to Steve Glazer. It was reverted (reversed) primarily because AntiDionysius asked if you have a conflict-of-interest with this topic, and I will add a query about a paid connection. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Either needs to be declared on your User page, and if either exist, you are limited to proposing changes on the Talk page of the article rather than editing directly. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which grammar to use?

There are articles that use British spelling and some that use the American spelling. Which form of grammar shall be used on this site or does the grammar vary from article to article? Rager7 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENGVAR Polygnotus (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the English grammar varies depending on the editors preferences? Rager7 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of subject based on sufficient secondary sources independent of the subject

I wish to question a recent decision to reject my submittal (Robert E. Bourke Jr.), based on the above criteria. There are existing Wikipedia entries specifically related to my submittal subject with the same number of professional, verifiable references and footnotes as my submittal. As a consequence I would like the opportunity to have this submittal process revisited. Thank you - Richard Bourke Legendt9455 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Robert E. Bourke Jr.
@Legendt9455: For the benefit of other Teahouse helpers, I see there's been some discussion at User talk:Legendt9455#Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert E. Bourke Jr. (September 3). This is not a subject area that I can help with; I only want to address your query about other Wikipedia articles that may be of a similar quality to your draft. Wikipedia is now 23 years old and the standards for notability and quality have increased over those decades – new drafts that are submitted today will need to satisfy today's requirements, and it's possible that pointing out older articles may prompt editors to either work on improving them or suggesting that they be deleted.
And I only just noticed your surname. I realise that "Bourke" is a fairly common name, but if you are related to Robert E. Bourke, you must read about our conflict of interest guideline and follow the recommendations there. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. For full transparency, I thought I had previously indicated that Robert E. Bourke Jr. is my father. The draft submittal states he had two sons, Robert and Richard. Legendt9455 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendt9455, first of all, your draft has been declined. not rejected. Rejected means that the draft will not be considered further. Declined means that you can resubmit if you actually improve the draft. After all, it says in the box right at the top of your draft If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. Secondly, you must fully disclose any conflict of interest relationship you have with the Bourke that you are writing about, especially since you say your surname is Bourke. Be full and frank about the disclosure.

At first glance, it appears that your draft has 53 references but a large percentage are the same book used over and over again. That book is Bridges, John (1984). Bob Bourke Designs for Studebaker Nashville, TN: J.B. Enterprises. So, I wanted to find out more about the book and I started out with the publisher and could find very little. I could not find any reviews of the book although they may exist offline. I did notice that Abe Books has a used first edition copy listed for sale that includes several photographs of that first edition that is autotographed by both the subject and the author. The photo of the inside flap caught my eye. At the bottom, it says Jacket design by Robert E. Bourke. That is strong evidence that Bourke (the other Bourke, not you) was heavily involved with publishing this book and that it should not be considered an independent source for the purpose of establishing this man's notability. To be frank, that is a major problem. I also noted elsewhere in your draft that Bridges describes Bourke as My Friend , which is an additional indication that the book is not truly independent.

Another problem is that a significant percentage of the content of the draft consists of overly detailed descriptions and praise of the cars he helped design. Certainly, articles about automobile designers should mention the cars they designed, but extensive details about those cars belong in the Wikipedia articles about those cars, as opposed to the biographies of their designers.

Then, we get to the "Testimonials" section, where now the draft is less about Bourke or the cars he designed than the book about him. And that book's independence is in doubt. What you present is three of six promotional quotations that were printed on the back cover of the book jacket. The Notability guideline for books says This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. What you have is flap copy and if that type of promotional content, which is not independent, cannot help establish the notability of a book, then it also cannot help establish the notability of the subject of the book.

In conclusion, I think that Bourke is probably notable, but that your draft in its current form obscures rather than highlights his notability. Unless I am totally wrong about the independence of the Bridges book, it should not be used as a reference for the purpose of establishing notability, and instead should be listed in the "Further reading" section. The backbone of your draft needs to be the reliable sources entirely independent of Bourke that devote significant coverage to Bourke. Remove all the content that is not impeccably sourced, and try resubmitting. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed reply! I will address your helpful suggestions and resubmit the draft. Legendt9455 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Cullen328's very full reply: 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) 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and additional clarification! Legendt9455 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions regarding the public domain

(Posting this to Commons:Help desk as well: Commons:Help desk#2 questions regarding the public domain)

I am currently attempting to determine when exactly the oldest feature-length animated films (I will add more films to this list later, but for now let's stick with the 7 listed here) will become public domain in three jurisdictions:

Canada (my home country)
The mother country of a given film
The United States

From my understanding, for a file to be allowed on Wikimedia commons, it is required to be in the public domain (or freely licensed) in both the United States and (if its mother country is somewhere other than the United States) its mother country. Meanwhile, for a file to be allowed on the English-language Wikipedia, it is only required to be in the public domain (or freely licensed) in the United States, even if it is still copyrighted in its mother country. (I need to know if these works are (or when they will be) public domain in Canada because I wish to caption/subtitle these works and upload them to my YouTube channel, and I need to make certain that my doing so will be legally above-board.)

In my attempts to determine the copyright/public domain status of these films, I have realized the sheer complexity of this topic. If anyone more knowledgeable on this stuff could answer these two (somewhat interconnected) questions with some degree of certainty, it would make my endeavour much more straightforward:

1. Who is/are considered the "author(s)" of a film (i.e. a work created by many people working together). Is it the director(s)? The writer(s)? The producer(s)? Some combination of these? If so, which of them? I know I've seen copyright tags on files that say something to the effect of "the last author of this work died in 19xx, so this work is in the public domain in countries with a copyright term of life + yy years of shorter", so are the authors a combination of the above people, and when the last one of them dies, then the copyright last for however many decades? If the director(s) is/are the author(s), do "sequence directors" (as listed in the credits of many old Disney films) count? Is it the studio(s)? If so, how does the "life + x years" copyright term apply, given that companies don't generally die?

2. What is "joint authorship" in terms of copyright law? In regards to the rule of the shorter term, Canada's entry here reads "Yes [Canada applies the rule] for foreign works of joint authorship, except for countries party to the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, i.e. U.S. and Mexico". Clearly, written works with multiple listed authors would fall under the definition of "joint authorship", but if a film has one author, does the rule of the shorter term not apply to that film?

After writing all that out, I'm starting to realize that I have many more than 2 questions. Any help at all is greatly appreciated.

Thanks — Toast for Teddy (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prison overcrowding

Why does Prison overcrowding redirect to Prison overcrowding in the United States? It definitely isn't just an American phenomenon. I know for example its a big topic in the UK as well. Zinderboff(talk) 03:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zinderboff. The answer is pretty simple. So far, the only volunteer editors interested in writing about prison overcrowding have focused on the United States. You can start an article about the problem in the United Kingdom or worldwide, if you choose to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinderboff: It looks like, on 17 April, Mathglot renamed "Prison overcrowding" to "Prison overcrowding in the United States" with the message This article is solely about the United States; the old title should be reserved for a parent article about all countries. Then Liz created the redirect as a stopgap measure to fix the resulting broken links. I don't know if this means that there was a wider initiative to create or restructure multiple articles on the topic or if there really are a number of potential "Prison overcrowding in X" just waiting to be written (sadly). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. There is no initiative, other than what individual editors choose to do. As Cullen stated, all volunteers writing about prison overcrowding so far, have written about prison overcrowding in the United States. Zinderboff, it would be great if you were the editor to start an article about Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom, Prison overcrowding in Brazil, or just plain 'Prison overcrowding' (in the world). Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know something about the middle one (Brazil) because I wrote the article Brazilian criminal justice, and there is a small section on overcrowding in it. Up until five minutes ago, that Brazil link was a red link, because there is no article about it, but now it is a blue link, because I created a redirect to it. There are a great deal of reliable sources about Prison overcrowding in Brazil, it is unquestionably a WP:Notable topic, and could become an article of some length. Probably the same thing is true about Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom, and it would be great if you would write it. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinderboff, and not creating a redirect was intentional, and the links to the old name were not 'broken', as ClaudineChionh said, they were WP:RED LINKs, as they should be, for an article about 'Prison overcrowding (in the world)' which does not exist, and when there is no article for a topic, the links should be red. I don't know why a redirect to it was added from 'Prison overcrowding', it clearly led to confusion in the mind of the OP, which presumably would have caused no confusion, if the link simply remained red. Imho, creating the redirect was not helpful. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot: you're right, red links is probably better than "broken" – I got that word from Liz's log message which suggested to me there might have been a larger number of articles caught up in some kind of confusion. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why she did it, and there's an argument to be made for it, but I just see it differently. Not enough to make a big deal out of it [or even a little deal]; it is what it is. Mathglot (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ClaudineChionh, there were previously 302 links to Prison overcrowding, but the vast majority of the links came from two templates which contained them, but they have been fixed to point to the article, so that will reduce the numbers considerably. I am fixing some of the articles that legitimately mean to point to the U.S. (a couple dozen), and came upon two that clearly target the UK and turned those into red links to Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom. There are more such articles, and this search will find some of them (watch the context for false positives) if you feel like adding more red links for the UK. Having a bunch of red links will make it more likely that someone will create the article.

Note also that the guidelines for Navboxes are agnostic about the presence of red links, but are much more likely to be encouraging about it when there are numerous red links in articles already for that title. So, for example, you could add a red Prison overcrowding in the United Kingdom to Template:Incarceration, and then you would right away have 120 articles that transclude it showing the red link, which would make it even more visible as a needed article. That is the tack I would take, if I had more time and were interested in that topic, and I encourage you to follow it up, if interested. Mathglot (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help! My Article Keeps Getting Speedy Deleted.

Greetings, I have been a Wikipedia editor for a few years and a while ago I tried to publish my first article about a new Chancellor of the University I work for. As recommended by the Manual of Styles, I did my research and identified a few academic leaders with almost similar profiles like his and modelled the article exactly like these other published profiles. I also, as required, declared my conflict of interest. But the article was tagged for speedy deletion and was deleted almost immediately. A little while later, the Chancellor received an email from a Wikipedia editor saying that his profile has been deleted by this editor can help put it up. We did not contact this editor as it did give an impression of pay-to-play. I tried again to beef it up even tighter, providing even more sources for the content, but the same thing happened, speedy deleted and an editor reaching out again suggesting that they can help. Later, I decided to search for another editor and shared the content, asking for critical review and publishing, but it was speedy deleted again. I even tried to contact the editors that deleted the articles for detailed advise as to what exactly was wrong with the article as the reason given was generic. So, just want to ask, how do I get help to publish an article? I have read everything recommended, tired to follow the regulations, and I see some published articled similar to the one I created, but mine keeps getting deleted. Who do I contact to get help and support? Gureni (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, my name is Polygnotus! The email is a WP:SCAM. This is the correct place to get help and support (WP:TEAHOUSE). The person who deleted the article is Jimfbleak. I have invited Jimfbleak here. The reason they provided was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". On Wikipedia we have to be, somewhat, neutral. See WP:NPOV. So when I write an article telling everyone how great something or someone is it will get deleted quickly. It looks like that is what happened here. I am not an administrator so I can't see the deleted article. Polygnotus (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Gureni (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the deleted version: Dr. Tod Laursen, an esteemed American scholar and engineer, currently serving as [...]. With a wealth of experience in academic leadership, he has led leadership positions in various institutions across the globe, including [...]. And so forth, sprinkled with "prestigious", etc. This promotional tone has now gone. Good, that's a great improvement. Now, please look at the edit I've just made. It wasn't required, but I think it was an improvement. I suggest that you make similar edits to other sections of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ping. I made this edit, otherwise happy to leave it to the reviewers now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this help. Will update with all the feedback I received and resubmit. Gureni (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted the article with all the edits some editors here and you, have helped to make. When you have time, if you can please check and approve if it now meets the standard.

Thank you very, very much. Gureni (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much. This is very useful insight and example. Will make the advised changes and try to post again. Thank you very much. Gureni (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gureni, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have two things to add to the replies others have given you:

1. 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.

2. Wikipedia has many thousands of seriously flawed articles, mostly from an earlier era when we were not so strict about sourcing and verifiability. In an ideal world, they would all have been improved or deleted, but this is a volunteer project, where people work on what they choose. But this means that relying on another article for any aspect of your draft is risky, unless the article you are relying on is a good article or a featured article. See Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gureni (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your very helpful inputs. I have incorporated the suggested edits Hoary as well as Jimfbleak. I also got another input from Theroadislong to remove the Dr. designation throughout the article.

I have now resubmitted the improved version. If any of you can please review and it it is up to the standard, publish it. If there will be any additional feedback, please do let me know and I will work on those as well.

Thank you all once again for your support. Gureni (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

template style

This style template doesn't seem to be working?

Template:Zoroastrianism sidebar/styles.css

Black text on a dark red background was difficult to read (example shown), I wanted to change it to white, but it looks like it was already intended to be white? my only idea was changing it from #fff to #ffffff and didn't help. The word "show" is white, maybe the title itself is a different variable name? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain: browser dev tools show that the element has color: var(--color-base); style but color-base variable is not defined; it might default to black then. MKFI (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what do base and element refer to in that? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a documentation page or guide somewhere for template styles? I think I need an introduction that explains the basics. The templates themselves each have a docs page, but I'm not really sure what the "…/styles.css" page is as such, if you know what I mean? Sorry, I'm not sure if that question makes sense? I'm at the "not even knowing the question" stage. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain: "Element" refers to HTML element, in this case <div>. Template:Zoroastrianism sidebar/styles.css is a CSS style sheet that defines colors and other formatting. Templates are complicated since they are often dependent on other templates. In this case the color: var(--color-base); is set in Module:Sidebar (row 385) and that module has it's own stylesheet (Module:Sidebar/styles.css). In this case it might actually be a problem in Module:Sidebar. I have raised this in Module_talk:Sidebar#Missing_CSS_variable?. MKFI (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MKFI, did it link to some other things that weren't well documented? can you please add a "this style uses that module" note in the documentation? when I saw it, there was just a few lines of unannotated code, or was I just not looking in the right place to find the documentation? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain: no-one has created a documentation page for Zoroastrianism template. If you look at the template code you can see that it is based on Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists which does have a doc page and also includes a mention of Module:Sidebar. MKFI (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain: I was unable to add CSS variable declaration to Template:Zoroastrianism sidebar/styles.css so I instead overrode that by adding !important to color declaration: color: #ffffff!important;. MKFI (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MKFI thank you. I was going to ask how to do it for next time, but it sounds like this one was a bit atypical? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and Advise regarding my Draft

Hello, First of all, Thank You for inviting me to the Tea House. I appreciate it. I’ve been working on a draft stub article about Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla, which I believe is notable due to the number of news articles available on him. The topic is restricted to admins only due to multiple recreations in 2018, and I was advised by the administrators to create a draft and submit it through the Articles for Creation (AFC) process. However, my submission has been declined multiple times. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at the topic to see if it fits the criteria for an article, as I still believe it is notable. If anyone has the time to guide me, especially with sourcing and editing, I would be grateful, as I am still learning. Also, I want to clarify this beforehand that I am not being paid for this work—I’m doing it voluntarily and learning as I go. Thank you! AstuteFlicker (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstuteFlicker: you ask if someone could take a look at the topic to see if it fits the criteria for an article – but that's what AfC reviews are! You have also got some extra assistance on the draft talk page. At this point, four experienced editors have agreed that the person is clearly not notable, since there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear Bonadea,

Once again, thank you very much for your time and assistance. I would like to ask you a final question regarding the draft Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla. Have you had a chance to see any other news articles or sources about the subject? As this has taken much of my time, yours and other admins as well, I want to apologize all and assure you this will be my final inquiry on this matter.

In the future, I would love to seek your assistance again if I have any queries regarding other drafts.

Best Regards, AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

page I am trying to make exists but is a redirect

I am trying to make a page about a holiday but the page 3 Tammuz already exists and is a redirect to the Tammuz (Hebrew month). I cant edit it at all and change it from a redirect to an actual page, whenever I go to the link it just automaticaly redirectd me to Tammuz (Hebrew month) and i cant do anything about it. for now i had to make the page 3 tammuz but it is not propper because it is lowercase. also I am very new to wikipidia so if i messed anything up or am missing something obvious plase understand. YisroelB501 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, YisroelB501! You should be able to backtrack from Tammuz to 3 Tammuz via the link in the note "(Redirected from 3 Tammuz)" just below the article title, BUT, I recommend that you create a Draft article about your subject, using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation route (even if technically you don't need to). When you submit it and the Assessor approves it (though a few rounds of "Declined because of X, Y, Z; please improve and try again" can be expected), it will be the Assessor's job to sort out the most appropriate title, deal with existing redirects, create a disambiguation page if necessary, etc. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt find any kind of link under the article of Tammuz (Hebrew month). and i cant even acsess the page 3 Tammuz it automaticly redirects me. so i cant backtrack anything YisroelB501 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you open this link: 3 Tammuz, after you get redirected look near the top of that page, under the title, it says: "(Redirected from 3 Tammuz)". If you click on that it adds the parameter redirect=no to the URL.

To look at the page you can also use this link.

Looking at the associated talkpage I see that it has been redirected in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad holidays discussion. I will WP:PING @Havradim:. Polygnotus (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ohh i didnt realize that tysm @Havradim:. Polygnotus and 94.6.86.81 YisroelB501 (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can Anyone help me to edit the article?

My wiki page Draft:Gamezop got rejected because of the following reasons

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia

I have edited the article multiple times. it will be great if anyone can edit the article based on references.

Feel free to remove the statements and reference links if it's not align with Wikipedia guidelines.

Here the our article link - Draft:Gamezop Morekiranwiki (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, it was Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected. Second, Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, not co-author. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with getting the draft approved

Hi everyone, could you please help me understand how I can improve my draft article?

Link: Draft:OnePageCRM

I removed promotional tone and added several independent and reliable sources that mention OnePageCRM. Forbes and Forbes Advisor covered OnePageCRM as well as The Irish Independent, The Times, Local Enterprise Ireland Office, University of Galway, and also TechCrunch.

Some of them are globally known (Forbes and TechCrunch). Others are well known and established in Ireland, like University of Galway or Chambers Ireland, the federation of chambers of commerce for the Republic of Ireland, that officially endorsed OnePageCRM on their website (the link included in the references).

Pipedrive has a similar number and quality of references (they were also covered by TechCrunch and Forbes) - Pipedrive

Another Wiki article has no reputable references but is still published - Really Simple Systems

Could you please let me know how I can improve the draft? I'd appreciate your feedback. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this at the AFC help desk, please don't use multiple forums to seek help, as this duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I see a few flags right away.

First who published the Forbes and Forbes Advisor articles? Most all of Forbes and Forbes Advisor articles are not reliable sources.

Also any other reference will need to not come from one person, it need to have been made by a team at least.

Yes there may be other less reputable articles, but they are now stricter about new articles.

That is why you should base it off of a Feature Article.

I will take a look at your draft to see if there anything else. Sheriff U3 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Sheriff U3. I received a few suggestions on the Help Desk, re-worked the draft and re-submitted it. I used the list of reliable sources, which @DoubleGrazing shared with me and added references from The Guardian and a few Times articles. There was also coverage from independent media in Ireland (The Irish Examiner, Silicon Republic and Business Post). Although they are not included in the list above, I added these references too.

Forbes and Forbes Advisor articles were written by contributors. The company is not affiliated with them but there's no way to prove this, so I now understand why they are not considered reliable sources. Although this one seems to be written by Forbes Advisor staff (not external contributors). Plus, OnePageCRM doesn't have any affiliate links on Forbes Advisor. Do you think this particular article can be considered a reliable source?

If you have time to have a look at my draft and share any other feedback, I'll be grateful. But in any case, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it could be there, but it would be best to have a second one to help back it up. Sheriff U3 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add images from IPhone

Much drama. OP was a sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload screenshots on Wikipedia? I googled and when I follow the steps Wikipedia behaves weird IamNeutrality (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MediaWiki Commons and WP:SCREENSHOT. In summary, you either have to use really low-res screenshots, that are not very useful, or you have to exclude all copyrighted content, which can sometimes makes the screenshots less useful. Polygnotus (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s screenshots of Wikipedia errors containing none of those. How exactly do I upload it?

better yet how do I get (Personal attack removed) to stop blocking people who edit his hate speech on Wikipedia? IamNeutrality (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNeutrality: What is the username of (Personal attack removed)? If the files are intended to be used in Wikipedia articles, which it doesn't sound like they are, you would use Wikimedia Commons or Special:Upload but if you want to use them for any other purposes you could try imgur.com. Polygnotus (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

before I do that

I propose

Let me first show you the screenshots so you have the facts.

Then you can edit the page and then when he tries his dirty tricks with you. Then you have all the evidence you need of his bigotry! IamNeutrality (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the two haystacks(MWC a WP) that you provided I couldn’t find my needle either.

how do I upload exactly please? IamNeutrality (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to imgur.com/upload. Drop your file on the window. Polygnotus (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, I wouldn't bother. I doubt you'll turn into a productive user and if you here to WP:RGW you'll just end up blocked (possibly by (Personal attack removed)). Basically anyone who isn't here to write an encyclopedia gets blocked. Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IamNeutrality has been blocked. Polygnotus (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not in news?

A wikipedian introduced new theory on how Valles Marineris on Mars had been created. User:EXVM EXVM (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EXVM Hello. If you are asking why this event isn't posted to In the news, it's because no one has nominated it yet and consensus has not been reached to do so. You may nominate it at WP:ITNC, but you would need to show that the news is significantly covering this- and it's doubtful that a theory would be posted to ITN unless it is about the general acceptance of the theory by the scientific community. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I think that, in the near future, it is more likely that someone nominates their userpage citing WP:NOTWEBHOST than that their theories are accepted by the scientific community. Polygnotus (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted. Polygnotus (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Google News Archive

How should I cite articles from Google News Archive? Should I just cite the article without any reference to the archive or should I include a link to the archive page? If so, would the news archive URL need to be archived in the Internet Archive? For example, I am trying to cite this article for Paul Mulvey, and I'm not sure how I should be going about it. RustyDigitalis (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive recently got hacked so they are currently in read-only mode.

You could use:

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wevurski |first1=Pete |title=Johnson No Longer Pens' Center Of Attention |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N4wcAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA46&dq=paul+mulvey+penguins+trade&article_id=3337,421143&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjulvu7p5CJAxWzTkEAHV0OG0wQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=paul%20mulvey%20penguins%20trade&f=false |access-date=15 October 2024 |work=The Pittsburgh Press |publisher=The Pittsburgh Press |date=1982-03-01 |language=en |pages=B-9, B-12}}</ref>

Polygnotus (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is it the consensus to include the link to the Google News Archive for a citation? RustyDigitalis (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RustyDigitalis: I think the consensus is that links to the Google News archive are not required, but are appreciated because it makes it easier to fact check. But we are allowed to use sources that are more difficult or costly to find, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. In some cases the newspaper in question has a website hosting its own archives, in that case (all else being equal) I would probably prefer the archive of the newspaper. Polygnotus (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the help. RustyDigitalis (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can i be an admin?

Please show me how to be an admin? RAPGOD500 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RAPGOD500. You can read more about the role and requirements of becoming a Wikipedia Administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators. You would need to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopaedia through intensive editing over several years, with many thousands of edits and a clearly demonstrated understanding of our policies and procedures.

New users simply do not (and should not) become admins. Qcne (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses is free. So the best way to become an admin is to install MediaWiki on your own computer. Polygnotus (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RAPGOD500, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the important criteria for becoming an admin is that you make a convincing argument for why you need the admin tools to do the things you want to do on Wikipedia. I have been here for nearly 20 years, and have over 25000 edits, but I have never applied to be an admin because I have all the tools I need to do the things I want to do. ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article

I want to create a new wikipedia article but the interface is not great for doing so. I have never created one before therefore I need help Joshua E Ferreira (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:GNG and H:YFA. There is an easy to use interface over at Wikipedia:Article_wizard. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oft-given advice is to put in time working to improve existing articles before attempting to create an article. That helps understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferreira, and welcome to the Teahouse an to Wikipedia. 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) 13:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua E Ferreira, before I wrote my first Wikipedia article I did two things: I read over Help:Your first article numerous times to double check my topic met all the rules about being notable, and having good reliable references for all the information I would include. I also studied every article I could find on similar subjects, as a guide on how to go about organizing and arranging all I would write. While I was studying those similar articles I checked their references, for ideas on where I might find reliable information. (I wasn’t trying to be exactly like the other articles, I just got ideas about what seemed to work well.) Writing encyclopedia articles is a lot of work, so don’t be discouraged if it takes a few tries to get your article accepted. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with reputation management

There is a persistent page editor who makes repeated changes to the Wikipedia page (Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge) with a skewed view of reality. Let me be clear that I am very aware that a user cannot curate a Wikipedia page to only show the sunny side, but I also don't want inaccurate or biased information on there doing the opposite.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.

The editor has replaced this sentence:

"The University of Cambridge is currently ranked top in the UK for politics by both The Guardian and the Complete University Guide The University is also ranked in the top 5 for international relations and public policy."

with

"The department prioritizes teaching over research performance, ranking top in the UK for the teaching of politics by the Complete University Guide. As a result, in the latest Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise the department fell from 6th to 21st place in the UK, ranking lower than nearby institutions such as the University of Essex or the University of East Anglia.

Since 2021, there has been a wave of departures from the department from scholars in political economy and development, including Ha-Joon Chang, Lucia A. Reisch and Chong Hua Professor of Chinese Development William Hurst."

So, I am not sure what to do. The department doesn't prioritizes teaching over research performance at all - but I don't have a verifiable reference to prove that. The REF ranking that the editor uses to prove it is not an accurate measurement of the department's commitment to research, so while he does offer a ten year old document as an example of a current reference, it does not prove the statement that he makes. This person also removed other positive rankings - which were accurately referenced. Can those be added back?

I also have a question about emotive language, like in the second paragraph. There has not been 'a wave of departures' from the department. Three people have left in 4 years, which is pretty good in HE, all of whom the department still has good relationships with. So, because it's not actually inaccurate - these people have all left the department - though one still guest lectures for it - can that be altered to remove the negative bias?

Sorry this is so long. It's being done by a person with an axe to grind and I fear this could go on and on. There are other incorrect and exaggerated things on the page as well, but I think your advice on this issue could help inform the other issues. I just want to know what can be done, within the rules, to help mitigate the damage the editor's trying to do.

Thank you so much for your help. Any advice is gratefully received. Comms POLIS (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Comms POLIS: This sounds like something that belongs on our 'neutral point of view' noticeboard. Before posting there, please read and abide by our CoI and paid editing policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been softblocked as a role account. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A claim such as "The department prioritizes teaching over research performance", supported only by primary sources in the form of university rankings, is original research, so I'll remove it from the article. Such interpretations of primary sources need strong, reliable secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article can't be cited as a reference

As a new editor, I am trying to understand why I can't cite a wikipedia article as a reference when articles written here are backed with verifiable references which may be considered as facts. I just need help understanding that. Eucharia Ukwueze (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eucharia Ukwueze Welcome to the Teahouse. This is discussed in the essay at WP:WINRS. The idea is that you should evaluate the sources in our articles and use these elsewhere if acceptable for the content you wish to verify. Article text can change, so if you cited just the article, it may not later confirm what you said: it may have been vandalized, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem

I've just added a reference on a page (Nutcracker (bird)), and it has come up with "{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)". How do I get rid of it, so that the 'et al.' can show without this error message? The reference I'm citing has a huge long author list, far too many to waste time entering the whole lot. The instructions at the "(help)" link are hopelessly unclear and unhelpful. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF You can use the whole list of authors with |display-authors=n. The WP:Citation expander or citer at toolforge, will get the author list automatically from the doi. I never do author lists "by hand". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! - MPF (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating client's logo in the `Infobox company`field

I have a client who wants to update the logo on their Wikipedia page entry. I don't edit on Wikipedia and it seems it takes some time to get an autoconfirmed account, 4 days + 10 edits. I'm not particularly interested in making edits to Wikipedia generally to fix my client's page. Is there any way around this? Is there admin support for this?

Moody's Ratings Culver King (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culver King make an edit request at the associated talk page. Also, since you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose this status on your userpage or risk being blocked. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sungodtemple: The page you linked to says "Editors receiving payment must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation, on their user page, talk page, or in edit summaries." Declaration is a requirement; making one on the user page is not. Give that this was the only page Culver King edited, the declaration above is adequate for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing question

Hello. When making an addition to an article and the source I want to use is already in the reference section of the article, how do you ascertain what to put in the <ref> tag so I don't have to go through the whole process of sourcing my addition? Appreciate your help. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-use references, as explained over at WP:REFNAMES. See WP:IBID and Help:References and page numbers for more information. Polygnotus (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Plagiarism or Content Copied from Wikipedia

Hello everyone! I have been editing an article on Wikipedia and it has come to my attention that the article might either be plagiarized or content from Wikipedia has been copied over to other websites.

The article in question is Highway to Hell, referencing AC/DC's sixth studio album. I was almost complete with my edits and looking for additional sources for the article when I noticed that it was word for word the same as multiple different websites, including fandom websites, Facebook pages, and other miscellaneous rock websites. You can find these websites by simply copy and pasting the first sentence of the background section. I have made quite a few edits to the article where it is dissimilar from the original source material, but if you look anywhere before my edits, you can find the information to be exactly the same. I am unsure where the original excerpt originates, but it seems clear to me that there is blatant plagiarism here.

Is there anything that should be done regarding this article?

Theprofessionalsimp (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theprofessionalsimp: Hiya! No worries. If you look on the history page there is a link called "Find addition/removal". I put a sentence in there, noted the date it was inserted, and then I searched Google before that period. Nothing showed up. So Wikipedia, specifically this edit was the original. And of course all those other sources are not respecting the WP:LICENSE by re-using content without attribution but we don't really make a big deal about that. Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theprofessionalsimp: there are any number of sites that mirror or fork Wikipedia content, see WP:MF. Which is mostly okay, given that Wikipedia content is licensed for re-use. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how to correctly cite a news source via Proquest

Hi Folks,

I would appreciate a specific reply to the Visual Editor. I have old newspaper stories I am using in my draft article. I had inserted them manually under news. Most of the stories were found using Proquest. The Proquest links seem to have vanished after I hit publish.

I am wondering if I ought to manually cite the news stories as under a website, rather than under 'news', as these old stories were acessed under Proquest. I am also wondering if anyone might know why the Proquest url disappeared when I sent my draft for publication.

Here is the link to my draft:

Draft:Zipporah Ritchie Woodward

Bizzyfan (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not edited the draft after you submitted it last week (7 October 2024). Perhaps you can try again now: just fix one reference, click "Publish", and see if the draft updates. If it doesn't, you can check the draft's edit history and your own contributions log.

I prefer to cite under "news" than the generic website. That way, if the link rots and cannot be rescued, a "news" citation allows the link to be removed entirely and the newspaper article to be cited as if it were an entirely offline citation (i.e. citing the hard copy). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I very much appreciate the reply and the help. I will give that a whirl. To clarify: you are suggesting I edit a citation, by keeping it under "news", but adding in the Proquest link - i.e. try to add in the Proquest link again. Correct? Bizzyfan (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bizzyfan Have you checked the Visual Editor referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE? It is a much easier way to reference and it shouldn't take too long for you to convert the plain-text references into the cite news reference. Remember, the Visual Editor works with in-line citations, you create the citation in the body of the text and it automatically generates a reference list. Qcne (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, for sure I checked the Visual Editor referencing tutorial at Wikipedia:INTREFVE. Before doing the references, and then again after my draft was declined. I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. I put in all the citations, and the Proquest links manually, under the news category. Bizzyfan (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bizzyfan, don't put them in manually. The software will create the numbers. Put each source at the position in the articles instead of a number like [4], following the instructions at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2. The software will create the number there and list the reference at the end of the article even though the actual text is in the article. A link to proquest is not needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you folks, very much. I am now unclear as to whether I actually need to include the Proquest links or not. User:StarryGrandma is suggesting I don't need to link to Proquest.

But without inserting a link, how can an editor verify my sources if he/she/they can't view them online?

Thank you User:Cordless Larry for the Template:ProQuest link. Despite your excellent instructions, I still am unsure as to how to make use of it, via the link. If only I had someone to stand over my shoulder in PERSON (what a concept!) that would make this go so quickly.

User:Rotideypoc41352 thank you for going to my draft and helping with the citations. User:Rotideypoc41352 what are your thoughts - do I need to add in a way for an editor to verify my sources?

Much appreciated from bizzyfan in Vancouver. Bizzyfan (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use that template, you can just copy-paste it from my example below, replacing the document ID with the one for the newspaper article you're referencing. You can also copy-paste the citation template, replacing what's after each equals sign with the relevant information from your article. It is indeed unnecessary to link to ProQuest - it might be nice for those with access to be able to verify the source there, but sources don't need to be available online in the first place to be usable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bizzyfan. When I'm citing something from ProQuest, I don't include the full URL in the address field of the citation template, because I think it includes some things specific to the library you access ProQuest via, so it's not much use to anyone without a login for that library. Instead, I use Template:ProQuest, which allows for linking just using the document's ProQuest ID. I use that template after a citation template, which I fill in as if it's for an offline newspaper source. Here's a recent example:

<ref>{{cite news|title=Campuses ban alleged church cult|first=Michael|last=Paulson|work=Boston Globe|date=23 February 2001|page=B1}} {{ProQuest|405379940}}.</ref>

That will appear as: Paulson, Michael (23 February 2001). "Campuses ban alleged church cult". Boston Globe. p. B1. ProQuest 405379940. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TECO Electric and Machinery - flag for deletion?

Hello friends?

I'm back again as a new editor seeking assistance. This article: TECO Electric and Machinery, I believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. There's a brief discussion I started on the talk page, but since both of us are new, I thought I'd bring the discussion here! Thanks for your help! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do make an article that's "intended as humor"?

Do I have to meet criteria or something like that?

What tags do I have to add so that the "this is humor" warning appears? Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasfergui1024, we don't allow articles intended as humor. You might find something of use at Wikipedia:Department of Fun. There is stuff like The Wrong Version (not actually on WP) and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars (not an article). You might find some inspiration at Category:Wikipedia humor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to use the visual editor for a specific article

For some reason the visual editor is not working on this article. getting the message "sorry this element can only be edited in source mode for now".

Why might this be the case?

Is this normal or is there a problem that has to be fixed? BruceSchaff (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BruceSchaff: Works for me. Try clearing your cache; and if that doesn't work, restarting your browser. If you still have no joy, try asking at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Projects

I know this is going to be a simple question"

How to you join a Project?

Sheriff U3 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheriff U3 See for example "How can you help?" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Afaik, most or all WikiProjects work like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

That was to project I wanted to join too! Sheriff U3 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate correction for subjective takes presented as objective facts

I was reading through an article (not linked here to avoid calling out/shaming the editor who wrote the piece in question) and there was a statement along the lines of "X is the best for Y. If X is no longer found to meet the needs of Y, Z may be used instead." It was a fairly esoteric software package page so I don't think it matters too much, but such a statement without a source feels like it just reflects the opinions of the editor who wrote the statements, not facts about the topic at hand. Is this the kind of thing I should submit an edit for, especially on a page that doesn't get much attention? How would you go about recommending sourcing or adjusting the statement? I don't want to be a nag or recommending inappropriately. jakeydus (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, jakeydus, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with you. The first sentence is a judgment or opinion, and doesn't belong in any article in Wikipedia's voice. (If an independent reliable sources says it, then the article could say it, cited to that source).

The second sentence falls foul of NOTHOWTO, and also doesn't belong in an article.

Feel free to be BOLD and remove those, and make sure you explain why in your edit summary, so that a vandalism patroller doesn't see unexplained removal and think it's vandalism.

Bear in mind the policy of in "BOLD" above: if somebody disagrees with your removal and reverts it, you can have a discussion with them. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to ColinFine's answer: as well as citing sources for opinions, jakeydus, it's also important to clearly attribute them in-text, as explained at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! This was very helpful. jakeydus (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, jakeydus, please do be specific when asking questions here. In this case you were precise enough that I was able (I think) to give you an appropriate answer, but very often when people avoid being specific, we can't give anything like a full answer.

Don't worry about calling out the editor(s) who put that in: if they are still around, they might have learnt better in the meantime; and if they haven't then you can teach them about Wikipedia's requirements. In any case, once you've made the edit, it will be in your contribution history and the history of the article anyway, so somebody who is interested could go back and find the editor. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copy pasting from EverybodyWiki

is it allowed for me to copy a page from EverybodyWiki (https://en.everybodywiki.com) if it doesnt exist on wikipidia. the page fits very well with wikipidia formating and has corect sorces. YisroelB501 (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that wiki says, Everybodywiki tries to save articles which are currently marked for deletion on Wikipedia, I think using it would violate WP:RUD, specifically Deleted articles may not be recovered and reused from Wikipedia mirrors, online archives, or the view-deleted administrator right. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YisroelB501: What you may be able to do is ask for the equivalent article on Wikipedia to be undeleted and placed in your sandbox, where you can work to bring it up to the necessary standard for republishing here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here interested in reviving WikiProject Phasmatodea?

Been trying sporadically to improve Phasmatodea articles on my own, but have been struggling in prioritising. Anyone here want to join WikiProject Phasmatodea and help me out? Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that few people here will be aware that Phasmatodea are what most of us call "stick insects". Maproom (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfgang likes bugs: You're more likely to find people who can - and want to - help you by asking at WT:WikiProject Insects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What qualities of a page suggest it should be deleted?

Sorry about the badly worded title, I'm trying to figure out how one expresses the opinion that a page should be deleted. Looking into some page deletion discussions, there are lots of references to particular points on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Do all page deletion requests need to use that page as proof an article is not meant to be on Wikipedia?

My example is Arena Football League on television. I found this page through random search, and not only does it feel badly written, but also redundant with the existence of Arena Football League. The "on television" page seems to me like it doesn't need it's own page as it is perfectly good as a section in the parent article. The details in the "on television" article feel like random trivia facts which don't need an article of their own. I can't find any points on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that effectively communicate this, so does that mean the article should stay?

Any explanation or clarification is appreciated, TIA. The words are unavailable (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The words are unavailable. There are many reasons why an article might be deleted in addition to it violating the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. The most common reason that an article is deleted is that editors agree that the topic is not notable. Articles can be deleted if they are copyright violations or personal attacks or promotional articles created by undeclared paid editors or for several other reasons. In this case, the issue is whether this particular article about TV coverage of this defunct sports league should exist in addition to the main article about the league. You can find out more about the underlying issues at Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Merging. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help Regarding Sources for Article

Hello, I am currently working on an article in my sandbox. (See link) https://w.wiki/BYpH

On my first submission attempt, it was rejected stating that I lacked secondary, independent sources.

I was wondering if anyone could review my sources and explain why they are not secondary and independent?

Thank you so much! ScienceOcean (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceOcean, your sources are simply repeating the talking points of the Taiwan Health Ministry and the Taiwan No Alcohol Day organizers, including quoting them directly. There is no independent reporting, at least in the English language references. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, looking at the article I feel like it could for starters use more sources. An example is when you referenced a cancer organization saying alcohol is linked to cancer, but neither you nor your sources provide a reference for this info. @Cullen328, could you add a bit of explanation as to what independent reporting is? I think that might be what confuses @ScienceOcean, and frankly I don't feel like I fully understand it right now as I'm rather new. The words are unavailable (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words are unavailable, consider two scenarios. In the first, a property developer sends out press releases and organizes a press conference announcing the upcoming construction of a new skyscraper. Several newspapers, TV stations and online news outlets publish similar coverage, all including the same quotes from company executives, the same budget numbers and projected job numbers, and the same architectural drawings. That is not independent reporting. In the second scenario, a news organization gets several unrelated tips from different people claiming that a prominent politician is corrupt. The managing editor assigns a team of reporters to investigate. They inteview numerous people, search obscure public records, double check and triple check all of the facts, and eventually publish an investigative article accusing the politician of taking bribes. That is independent reporting. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceOcean and @The words are unavailable There is guidance about the difference between WP:PRIMARY sources, WP:SECONDARY ones and WP:INDEPENDENT ones at these linked pages. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia prefers articles to based, in the main, on secondary, independent sources, which also need to be reliable, of course. We summarize all that in our golden rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Taiwan No Alcohol Day was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. I fixed section formatting. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some edits show up quickly in search engines while others take time?

Hello Everyone, I noticed that in many articles, changes made by editors (even when logged out and editing with an IP) get reflected almost instantly in the search engine results when you search for that topic. However, when I make changes, such as to the Khan Sir article, it seems to take a long time for the updates to show up in search results. Is there a reason for this difference in how fast changes are reflected in search engines? Thanks in advance! Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AstuteFlicker, Unless an article was written by an editor with the autopatrolled user right or reviewed by a member of the New Pages Patrol, it will not be indexed by search engines for 90 days. The Khan Sir article is about 90 days old. That is most likely the cause of the difference that you see. As a general rule, search engines do a better job of displaying Wikipedia articles that are more comprehensive, more detailed and better referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version from Wikidata

Hello! I'm confused on how I do add the latest software version from Wikidata to a Wikipedia infobox. Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonatype_Nexus_Repository&diff=prev&oldid=1251103049

d:Q130349202. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotographyEdits I edited the infobox using just {{wikidata|property|P348}}, which I think corresponds to the instructions at {{wikidata}} and seems to have done the trick. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HOW ARE YOU.

(hopefully) The Teahouse users are alright. However, per WP:SOAPBOX, I think it would be smart for me to close this. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Yes, this is indeed...a JoJo reference.)}

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.

. 2C0F:F6D0:25:3002:3850:47C8:3AEB:FB09 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am fine, how are you? Polygnotus (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

how to find categories

After initiating an article, how does one find appropriate categories to list, other than personal knowledge? Could AI be used to help? Pbergerd (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! See Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages for a detailed explanation. What sometimes helps is to look at how related articles are categorized. AI unfortunately has a tendency to hallucinate, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate information. Polygnotus (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'll try that Pbergerd (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes look at a similar article for inspiration. Also good for finding WikiProjects for the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Pbergerd (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to find relevant articles to contribute to

Hello everyone,

I recently decided to start contributing to Wikipedia.

After creating my account and reading some of the policies and guidelines, I feel like I don't have a clear sense of what to do next.

I would like to begin by editing or improving existing articles, but I'm unsure which ones to focus on.

I have technical knowledge in software coding, architecture and security, as well as gaming history (especially related to Nintendo games and consoles).

I’ve occasionally come across articles with a "Needs improvement" banner when searching for information on Wikipedia before.

Where can I find articles related to these topics that need improvement? Additionally, if there's an existing "kickstart" page with useful information for newcomers like me, a link to that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance! JosepSendra (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JosepSendra, a large percentage of English-language Wikipedia's articles are defective. They lack sufficient references, they misrepresent what their references say, they exaggerate, they're sycophantic, they're based on junk sources, they're phrased obscurely, etc. Don't you notice this kind of thing when, as an encyclopedia user rather than editor, you read an article? If you do, then start by fixing what you notice. -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would Automated guided vehicle be a good example of this? I recently did research on AGVs and found out someone had added hyperlinks to what seems to be a personal page about robotics in the latest edit (10 sept).

To me, these hyperlinks seemed like some kind of promotion, since they included heavy advertisement and paid products, and didn't really contribute to the content of the article.

Should I undo the edit? JosepSendra (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JosepSendra:. Absolutely: and probably tell that editor via their Talk Page that external links should hardly ever be in the body text of articles (see WP:EL) and certainly not spammy ones like those. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JosepSendra, putting aside the matter of spam links, there's no reference provided for the sections "Wired", "Guide tape", and "Laser target navigation" -- and probably more, but I stopped looking. So for all we know their content could have come from anywhere: a conscientiously edited journal, or The Beano. -- Hoary (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JosepSendra: Hello! There are many many things to do here. See for example the Wikipedia:Task Center and Wikipedia:Maintenance. See also Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. Polygnotus (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful links, thank you! JosepSendra (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you know which topics you are interested in (e.g. you mention Nintendo) you can get a listing of articles needing clean-up using this source called bambots. There is also the newcomer homepage tab you should see when you look at your own userpage (currently a redlink). This will suggest simple edits to get you started. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JosepSendra, I've just now come across the article Dorothy Circus Gallery. It has no warning templates on it and therefore doesn't appear in any list of articles needing attention. It does have some references and (though I couldn't be bothered to read much of it) it doesn't seem to have spelling mistakes. But it's very poor. (Can you count the ways?) And it's not exceptional. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language change for editing?

Hello! English is not my first language (I'm swedish), and thus I'd like to avoid editing english articles so that I don't mess up the grammar, but I would still like to see the english interface. I'm not sure what the warning on the language change option in preferences mean, does anyone know how to change the recommended language to edit while still keeping the rest as is? I'm adding an image of what warning I'm talking about. Thanks!

FJW (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frejowa: I'm not sure what you mean by changing the recommended language to edit. If you want to write an article in Swedish, you should do so on the Swedish Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, FJW, och välkom till teehuset.

That dialogue is in the English Wikipedia, and sets the interface language to English or something else. The Swedish Wikipedia is a separate project.

If you want to edit in Swedish, but want to see the interface in English, go to sv:Special:Inställningar, and you can set it there. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing An Article

Hello Teahouse, I have some edits I'd like to add to a current article but am being told that Wikipedia is very strict on how much I can change or what/when I can change them. I've been advised that only a few edits can be made at a time for the page to not get shut down. After reviewing your help section information, I don't find this to be the case. Is there a 'best practice' on adding edits to an existing page so it doesn't get taken down or taken back to the original article?

Link to the current page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Stearns_High_School

All information is regarding the success of the basketball team as they had a great run with a specific coach. The information about the coach was added (I'd like to add a photo) but I want to make sure that if I upload information about the team, their state championships, and athletes that made the All-State teams, that it won't be rejected.

Any help is appreciated. Worldtraveljunkie (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say I've been advised that only a few edits can be made at a time for the page to not get shut down. Very strange advice, Worldtraveljunkie. Where was/is this advice given? ¶ The article is already dubious. The most recent addition includes He is considered a transformative figure in Maine basketball [...]. How so? Is he considered to have transformed it into Maine volleyball, or into New Hampshire basketball, or what, exactly, was this transformation? And who considers him so? -- Hoary (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Worldtraveljunkie. No, there is no limit on how much you may add to an article (though if you have much to edit, it is usually better to do it in a series of smaller edits, so that if there is a problem with part of it, another editor can revert that part and leave the rest.)

But bear in mind that all information you add should be verifiable from a reliable published source - and most such should be from a source wholly independent of the subject. So I guess that you could add raw scores from a non-independent source, but anything discussing their "great run", and anything in any way evaluative about the coach, must be traceable to a published ource wholly unconnected with the School. (I say "traceable": there is no formal requirement to actually cite the source, unless the information refers to a living person; but since you must have found the information in a suitable source ih order to add it to the article, it makes sense to cite it - see REFB for how to do so - and editors tend to revert edits that add uncited information.) ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checking whether an article has been PRODed before

I came across this Nritoday article -- a magazine for Non-Resident Indians -- which doesn't cite any sources. I've never tried to nominate an article for deletion before, so I read up on that (which is a lot of info to take in). Tried an internet search to see if I could find evidence of notability and improve the article, but found no sources for notability (though it's hard to search for that, as the search pulls up a lot of results from NRI Today itself, and there's another news outlet of the same name, and the acronym NRI also has other meanings). I also couldn't figure out how it might be merged with another article. I am now thinking of PRODing it. However, that process says to confirm that "it has not previously been proposed for deletion." The PROD article doesn't say how to do that. The AfD process has archives one can look though, but I don't see archives for PRODing. Do I just look in the article's history to confirm that there are no edits with a PROD summary? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can check this by typing "WP:Articles For Deletion/name of article". Industrial Insect (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion There's a search box at WP:AfD which can be used to find old deletion discussions. Nritoday doesn't appear there. If it had been prodded/unprodded before then there would not necessarily have been an AfD discussion, so User:Industrial Insect's method won't work. However, that article has a very short edit history and it is easy to see there are no prods. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect, @Michael D. Turnbull, yes, I had already checked the AfD archives; sorry, I should have said that. Thanks for confirming that then it's just a matter of checking the article's edit history, FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Help with Article on Mohiuddin Ahmed

Hello Teahouse members,

I’m seeking advice on how to improve the article on Mohiuddin Ahmed, a key figure in the Bangladesh Liberation War and a former senior diplomat. The article is currently facing a deletion discussion, and I’m looking for guidance on how to strengthen the notability and verifiability of the content.

Mohiuddin Ahmed played a significant role during the war, defecting from the Pakistan High Commission in London, and later served in senior diplomatic positions. I’ve added sources that highlight his contributions, but I’m looking for advice on further improving the article. Any help or pointers would be appreciated.

J1477 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This COI user has been blocked for WP:FORUMSHOP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Error in Title Translation

Hello everyone,

I recently translated a page on Wiki for the first time. Unfortunately, I made a mistake with the title and I'm not sure how to correct it.

Can someone help me with this? IlEssere (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the page to fix it.

Or if you want me to you can show me it to help you correct it. Sheriff U3 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify where on the page you’re referring to? Are you talking about the first sentence? IlEssere (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you were asking for help and I don't even know what page yet.

So I have no clue at all what you are talking about, other than you were wanting to edit a page.

Sheriff U3 (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a misspelling in the title of the page I translated into the new language. I'm trying to figure out how to fix it. IlEssere (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that you need to contact a Admin to do that.
I would also state the issue on it's talk page.
Sheriff U3 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IlEssere (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IlEssere: Are you talking about Athens is the New Berlin? You can move it yourself to a different title. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am talking about Keramikou 28. IlEssere (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what the grammatical error is in that title? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Κεραμεικού 28 not Κεραμικου 28. IlEssere (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the title is incorrectly transliterated into the Latin script? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, its incorrectly transliterated into Greek. IlEssere (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused now. The article title is Keramikou 28, which contains a Greek-language word written in the Latin script. What do you mean by It should be Κεραμεικού 28 not Κεραμικου 28.? Both of those are in the Greek alphabet, and neither is the current title. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keramikou 28 is the English version, I am referring to the Greek version Κεραμίκου 28.

In the Greek version, it is written as Κεραμίκου 28, but should be written as Κεραμείκου 28. IlEssere (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Just so you know, this page is primarily meant for help with the English Wikipedia. If you ask a question about another language's Wikipedia, you should make that clear upfront to avoid confusion.

Since you're autoconfirmed on the Greek Wikipedia, I think you might be able to move the page yourself. But if not, I'd suggest that you ask for help at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Βοήθεια χρηστών, which appears to be the Greek equivalent of our help desk. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When are Facebook external media appropriate?

I'm suspicious of edits that introduce videos from Facebook like this, but should I be? I believe social media is mentioned as a no-no in WP:ELNO, but should that be extended to a formatted media link? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based off of that I would say that the links should be removed.

I would also say that you should state your reasons for removing the links in the talk page of the article. So that if it is a mistake the person understands why you did it. Sheriff U3 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drift

What is the speed of continental drift per year? 166.91.253.40 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the speed of continental drift in 1 century? 166.91.253.40 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! About 2.5 cm a year, per Continental drift and the cited source. You might want to ask these kinds of questions at WP:REFDESK/S. NotAGenious (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific plates can be moving more or less slowly, and parts of a plate can have different rates relative to nearby plates. For example, the Juan de Fuca plate off the coast of the Pacific Northwest is subducting up to 42 mm per year according to this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload

Where do I go/How do I upload an image from the web for an article? Ianjaffe11 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Most of the time you can't upload any photo from the web because of copyright, but there are exceptions. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information on that. :) Sir MemeGod  19:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ianjaffe11. If you can prove that the image is in the public domain or that it has been freely licensed appropriately and in writing, then the image can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Non-free images can only be uploaded to the English Wikipedia if they fully comply with the stringent policy limits at non-free images. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Page on the Medicaid Coverage Gap (Medicaid Expansion)

Hello. I was doing some research on states that expanded Medicaid on January 1st, 2014 (basically, the earliest possible date they could). It is stated that "when the ACA fully came into effect in January 2014, 24 states and the District of Columbia adopted Medicaid expansion" (so, 25 total). There is a table within the Wikipedia page with 50 columns that demonstrates this.

However, if we are including the District of Columbia, then this table should have 51 total columns (50 states + DC). I was counting the number of 1/1/2014 states and kept coming up one short, wondering what was missing. I now realize that for whatever reason, Oregon is completely omitted from your table altogether. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, Oregon expanded Medicaid on 1/1/2014. The word "Oregon" does not appear once in the Wikipedia page (I was searching to see if there was some special circumstance involving Oregon, but it appears there is not). Can someone please edit the table to include Oregon? 2601:58B:1680:4540:71A5:F304:6498:43E (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out. You could do this yourself, but table syntax is a bit hairy, so the best place to make this suggestion is on the talk page Talk:Medicaid coverage gap. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added it. (ColinFine, I only saw your comment after I figured out how to add it.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wasn't sure where to post my query and hadn't had much experience working with tables. Appreciate it, FactOrOpinion. 2601:58B:1680:4540:71A5:F304:6498:43E (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]