Wikipedia:Teahouse

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


i work for the marketing team of a temple[edit]

Why is it a conflict or interest if I edit the wiki page with the history of the temple. where do i have to update this detail?

Snehajanfy (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Snehajanfy It is difficult for employees of an institution to make updates based on already-published sources (not personal knowledge) as is required by Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Also, you may not write neutrally. So, please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor. Then make suggestions for addition to the article on its Talk Page, not directly. If you use the edit request wizard, your suggestions should be implemented by uninvolved editors quite quickly, or they will explain why the new content is not appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that it is acceptable for paid editors to create draft articles using the WP:AfC process. Hence you may continue to edit Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam directly but still need to make the paid editor declaration. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How exactly do i do this?
But where to add this on the article page?
{{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will need to add that to your user page(User:Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple), you will also need to change your username so that it represents you personally, not your temple(your real name is not required, just something representing you). I have placed instructions to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have used my personal account to make edits, added the paid claim to my user page as well. what else can i do to get this approved? please help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snehajanfy, please be aware that marketing behavior is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, as are all related behaviors such as advertising, promotion and public relations. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ofcourse I understand this. I have in no way tried to claim or promote anything about my client. All we want is a valid Wikipedia page for the temple. It because of this specific reason why wiki page is so important for any institution to have. I'm sorry if I may have offended anyone by using the term marketing 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no guarantee, after doing everything correctly, that the article will be approved for mainspace. The same guidelines and policies apply as it would with any other article with regard to notability and citing reliable sources. --ARoseWolf 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have tried to use as many reliable sources as possible. I have over 30 pr links. I'm just not sure as tow here to use them to prove our credibility. Also how do we prove notability? 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simply put, you really shouldn't use those as they're not independent nor reliable to establish wikinotability, which would require quality sources that aren't affiliated with the temple. Please remember to sign in when making comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please log in to edit. I have reviewed and declined the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HI, I am trying to resubmit my draft again. However I see AFC submission and missing template. Im unable to understad how to proceed. Kindly help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @Snehajanfy. Generally speaking, a Wikipedia article about a temple needs to focus more on facts like "It is the country's biggest and most ancient Vishnumaya temple, with a tradition of nearly 400 years" and less on the birth of divine beings. Can you find independent sources (e.g., a newspaper article, a tourist guide book, a scholarly work?) that describe the physical building and its construction? Is there anything unusual about its appearance, or are there any activities (e.g., an annual festival) that have attracted attention from people unrelated to it?
Also, searching for "Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swami", I found Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kanadikavu Shree Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swamy temple. It's possible that the birth story would be better off as a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I made claims of it being the biggest and the oldest, it deviated from being neutral and sounded like puffery. Hence avoided it. I will definitely try and find some material about the structure of the temple and it's architectural significance. Snehajanfy (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now added birth story as a separate page. Hopefully that gets approved Snehajanfy (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i hope i have resubmitted the draft as I am not able to see it anymore, Could you please check for me? Snehajanfy (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Snehajanfy It is still at Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam, awaiting another review. You may work on it while it waits, if you think of further improvements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Pardon my irrelevancy here, but am I the only one here who has a reaction to the concept of a temple having a marketing department ??? A publicity department selling postcards and simple souvenirs, I could understand, but a marketing group ??? Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Autokefal Dialytiker in that city temples of this deity is a business more than anything else. Their competitors all have a wikipedia pages which is affecting them when it comes to authenticity. This is also why they're trying so hard to get this page active.
These temples have been passed on for generations and it's really hard to find exact citations about them unless they're manage by rich families who afforded to publish books about these temples years ago. Other temples lose out in this aspect and are left to prove their authenticity. Snehajanfy (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it's typical for groups to use the up-to-date terminology. Most "publicity departments" are now called "marketing", even when they're 100% volunteer-run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, all I can say to that, is that if they call themselves a marketing group while being attached to a presumed religious institution, then they have lost the plot even before they started their work... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In non-profit land, the main alternative is "outreach", but that usually means something more like recruitment or proselytizing. Compare, e.g., the Wikimedia Outreach: wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a "publicity department" would work, also, as a religious group would want to publish their point of view, and the history of their edifices. But marketing is a term that directly implies being for-profit as the main goal, and that simply doesn't fit; a(n honest) religious society (possible example: a monastery) would only seek enough wealth to sustain their life and work. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Market" doesn't necessarily imply an exchange of money; after all, there's a Marketplace of ideas. The Wikimedia Foundation has a marketing team. The American Red Cross is hiring for two marketing positions this week. Goodwill Industries has a Chief Marketing Officer. The Nature Conservancy has a Chief Marketing and Communications Officer. The goal might be a little different, but the work's very similar, so they use the same names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right on point with that. Snehajanfy (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding pop-culture pages, but especially comics.[edit]

Hello, my user name is Sewnbegun and here we go! I am here at Wikipedia for editing various lists/tables (obviously not exclusively) regarding comics, tv series and films. Can you tell me which pages of Wikipedia rules and regulations I have to read before starting; and what common mistakes I should not do while editing those lists and tables. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sewnbegun, if you're working on lists, Help:List, Manual of Style/Lists and Stand-alone lists might be helpful. But don't worry too much about reading every word of these. Just use them as references if you get stuck. Really, the best way to learn is just to get started and try to do what you see on similar articles. If you're not sure whether you did something right, you can always have someone else check it afterward. It's really easy to undo mistakes if needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien, thanks for helping me but I have one last question. As I said I'm more interested in editing comic, films and tv series pages; it would be helpful for me to know that which of the following mentioned can be used for reliable sources and which ones can't be:
  • Comic Book Resources
  • AIPT
  • ComicBook.com
  • Screen Rant
  • SuperHeroHype
  • Official website of Marvel (Marvel.com)
  • Dexerto
  • Gizmodo
  • GamesRadar+
  • Bleeding Cool News
  • IGN
  • Popverse
Sewnbegun (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sewnbegun You should look at the archive search box at WP:RSP, which also gives instructions for how to start a new enquiry about a source you want to use but are unsure about. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Michael D. Turnbull, I searched the above mentioned sources in that list and was surprise that only two (Screen Rant and Gizmodo) are considered as reliable source, for one (Dexerto) is advised to find alternative source while others are missing. After some time, I will definitely start a new enquiry about some sources that constantly tells about comics (CBR and Aipt). Sewnbegun (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sewnbegun A couple of guidelines that might help you - anything that can be edited by anyone (like fandom Wikis or IMDB) will not be accepted as a reliable source. English Wikipedia is very good at keeping articles reliable, but many other user-contribution sites are not. Meanwhile, websites of the companies that own the characters/comics/franchises are primary sources and should be avoided if possible. Good luck in your search for reliable sources and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StartGrammarTime, so what if you have only the primary source for the edit you are going to do but one editor is reverting your edits on the basis of no reference, so can I include that appropriate primary reference into that article? Sewnbegun (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sewnbegun It may be that the information is only available from the primary source, so what I would personally do is be bold, add the citation, and see whether that satisfies the other editor. If it doesn't, then have a look at Bold, Revert, Discuss as your guide to how to proceed. Always keep in mind that Wikipedia functions on consensus, and edit-warring is very much frowned upon, so if someone reverts your addition then you need to start talking to them (ideally on the article's talk page) so you can hash out a compromise together. Hope that helps you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StartGrammarTime, thanks! it did helped. Sewnbegun (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template documentation[edit]

Could I trouble someone who's familiar with template terminology to take a look at Template:For-multi/doc § TemplateData?

Broadly, odd-numbered parameters are the "use" texts and even-numbered ones the "page" texts in the "For [use], see [page]. For [another use], see [another page]. [...]" output. Both types may be blank, with "other uses" and "[current page] (disambiguation)" as defaults. For both types, there's an additional complication in that a blank parameter is affected by and/or affects other parameters.

I just now added the second sentences to the "use"-type descriptions - "if unused or blank, defaults to [...] and ignores parameters [...]" - to try and cover that, based on experimentation. I also think the parameter numbers in the "page"-type descriptions are each off by one - parameter 4 refers to "parameter 4", itself, instead of "parameter 3", the corresponding "use"-type parameter, which I suspect was the intention.

As I don't have a full understanding of terms like "unused", "blank", "exists" in this context, the latter edit should be made by someone else, and the former edit may need rephrasing.

Cheers! :)

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:6961:BA0A:AD59:72C4 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth and Sdkb:, if you can please. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Corrected – thank you for the ping, editor Usedtobecool! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of a page spreading misinformation[edit]

I had reviewed a page House of Romay thoroughly ad the page is significantly spreading misleading information about the Romay family. Moreover, a user has been constantly reverting the cleanups and removed unreliable sources. How can i delete this page? Daliaxer (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you seem to have already sort of figured out, though there are formatting issues, make sure you precisely follow the instructions at WP:AFD. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information being out of date is not grounds for deletion, it is grounds to fix the problems. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have fixed it if the information was out of date but the information on page is literally misleading. Most of it i cleaned up which was either cited by dead links or unreliable sources. Other than that, WP:PROD criteria was also utilised upon the suggestion of an administrator (username: Explicit). This user removed the speedy deletion template and suggested WP:PROD which was followed. Even after 7 days, no one rectified this article or added any reliable sources, but still the template was removed by same user calling it ineligible. Same user suggested to utilise WP:AFD criterion now but still no one appears in the discussion page to talk about the deletion or retention of this page. What else should i follow? Daliaxer (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Daliaxer, I have fixed the formatting issues, I think. If I missed something, someone else will fix it. All you need to do is wait for other people to join the deletion discussion and convince them of your position. An uninvolved administrator will evaluate the discussion in seven days and determine the result, delete the article if that's the result. Meanwhile, you should read up on notability (WP:GNG) and the deletion policy (WP:DP) so you are able to make policy-compliant arguments. Votes that come with arguments non-compliant with policy are likely to be disregarded. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Daliaxer Just a passing observation that it's a) ok for another user to remove unreliable sources (assuming that's what you meant to write!). And b) the topic may actually be notable if there are lots of RELIABLE SOURCES talking about it as being a fantasy construct. In which case the whole tone of the article needs to focus on it being a well-known fake or hoax, not a real thing. So deletion might not actually be the best route after all. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For multiple reasons, I am losing faith in this platform which is reflecting that its bias for certain type of information while strictly following the guidelines for other type of information. I tried publishing a page strictly following the WP:N and WP:BLP guidelines and using very strong reliable sources, page is still in AFC under review after almost a month. :/ Daliaxer (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Daliaxer Every single one of us here who helps maintain this encyclopaedia of over 6.7 million articles is a volunteer! We give our time freely to support and guide users, fend off vandals and give feedback when it is sought. Not a penny changes hands. But there are currently over 1,760 draft articles waiting for a volunteer to donate their time and effort to review articles like yours, and to give feedback to the person who created it if it isn't good enough.
Sometimes, of course, an interesting-sounding draft can catch a reviewer's eye and they might well assess it immediately. It might be about a high mountain, a species new to science or a Nobel prize winning scientist. Certainly, I am biased towards those types of articles, even though I do not participate in the review process myself. Rarely, however, are draft articles about venture capitalists of great interest to many reviewers, as they're so very often promotional and make pretty dull reading. It's up to reviewers how they volunteer their time, and to what topics. Some focus on the dregs that others have left unreviewed - and their efforts are indeed greatly appreciated. So please wait your turn and try not to lose faith. The review process can take a couple of months or so, as the notice on your draft submission clearly stated. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How convert standard TEX paper to Wikipedia format, particularly references[edit]

I have a standard formatted math/physics paper in TEX format. How do I convert it to Wikipedia format. Beisenbe (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beisenbe Welcome to the Teahouse. I can't help you directly, but you might find something of relevance at Help:Displaying a formula. We do have various conversion tools, though I've no idea if we have anything relevant to your question, as it's a bit above my paygrade. But a hasty Google search found this, if it's of any use.
Be aware that you must ensure you don't infringe anyone's copyright if adding more than a mere formula from a maths or physics paper. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Beisenbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the paper in question is then one you have put in Draft:Maxwell's True Current, then I'm afraid it doesn't look much like a Wikipedia article to me (and I'm talking about the content, not the formatting).
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what several independent reliable sources say about a subject, nothing more. It may not contain any argumentation or conclusions, unless it is directly reporting what a single source argued or concluded. Your draft looks to me like original research.
If you begin writing an article by doing anything at all other than finding several independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, then you are certainly making your task difficult, and possibly wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia page:[edit]

How is a photograph added? How is a page uploaded to visualize on the web under Wikipedia? J. Patrick Johnson, MD (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:Images and WP:Your first article Shantavira|feed me 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judging from the content of your user and talk pages, you might also do well to read:
Bazza (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@J. Patrick Johnson, MD I very nearly deleted your userpage as Wikipedia is not a web-hosting platform. However, I've moved it to Draft:J. Patrick Johnson, MD. Whether it survives remains to be seen. Wikipedia articles must be based upon what independent, published sources say, not what the subject wants to tell us about themselves from their own personal knowledge.
@Bazza 7 has just given you some extra useful pointers, so has saved me a job. Please use LinkedIn if you want to promote yourself, and read WP:NBIO on our criteria for notable people, and WP:NPROF for academics. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@J. Patrick Johnson, MD I would add that including a photograph to which you own the copyright is not necessary to establish NOTABILITY (the critical criterion for acceptance. I suggest you focus on addressing that by the use of published RELIABLE SOURCES in your draft about yourself, and worry about adding images much later on. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provide references for everything and reduce "Selected publications" to no more than ten. If there is content that lacks valid references - even if true - delete it. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can somebody help me review my article before I publish it?[edit]

My article was declined, I corrected some mistakes and it's ready to be publish. Can somebody help me and review it to make sure It doesn't have mistakes? I see some red words about citations. I believe is typo problems not issues with context. Thanks in advance. OFTB (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello OFTB. This is about Draft:Claudia Uceda. Anything published by Univision is not an independent source, and seven of your eleven references are to things published by Univision. You need to build your draft around sources entirely independent of Uceda and her employer. Non-independent sources should be used only in a minor way. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There isn't really a pre-review system for drafts, you should click submit to get a review. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there. Looks like you haven't seen the new version and my corrections. Thanks for the pre-view comment though. OFTB (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Articles for Creation process is specifically designed to review articles before they are published. Use that. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing in policies or guidelines that prevents an editor from asking for informal comments or feedback on drafts here at the Teahouse. This is not the place for formal reviews but nobody should be discouraged from asking for advice and hints for improvement. Any editor who chooses not to comment on a draft can simply refrain from commenting on that draft. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inquiry About the Status of My First Published Article[edit]

I recently made my first contribution to Wikipedia by publishing an article. As this is my initial foray into editing and contributing, I'm eager to understand the process that follows the publication of a new article. I've noticed that my article is live, but I'm unsure about how to interpret its current status and what steps I should expect next. Could someone kindly explain: How can I check if my article has been reviewed or needs further improvements? Are there specific signs or notifications I should look for that indicate its acceptance or if any issues have been identified? As a new contributor, are there common post-publication steps I should be aware of to ensure my article meets Wikipedia's standards? I'm committed to contributing positively to the Wikipedia community and would greatly appreciate any guidance or advice you can offer to a newcomer. Thank you for your time and assistance. Hichem872642 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hichem872642, you tried to create an article on your userpage. That's not actually published. If you would like your article to be reviewed and to actually be live, please go see WP:AfC. Aside from that problem, you don't have any reliable sources to back up some of your claims in your article, and your section titled "Cultural Significance" is filled with a lot of puffery and non-neutral language. Cheers ‍ Relativity 23:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your response and the valuable feedback. I genuinely appreciate the guidance on the correct process for publishing an article through Wikipedia's Articles for Creation (WP:AfC) and the insights regarding the need for reliable sources and neutral language in my article. As a newcomer, understanding these nuances is crucial for me, and your advice has shed light on areas I need to improve.
I will revisit my article to address the issues you've highlighted, particularly focusing on substantiating my claims with reliable sources and revising the "Cultural Significance" section to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality standards. This learning process is incredibly important to me, and I'm committed to making the necessary adjustments to contribute effectively to the Wikipedia community.
Once I've made these revisions, I plan to submit my article through the AfC process for review. If you have any further advice on finding reliable sources or tips on maintaining a neutral tone, I'd be grateful for your insights.
Thank you again for taking the time to help me navigate these initial steps. Your support is invaluable to me as I strive to become a constructive member of the Wikipedia community. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hichem872642 I have moved your draft from your user page to Draft:Beef Negimaki, where you should work on it and base it upon RELIABLE SOURCES. You should consider whether continuing with it is actually worthwhile, bearing in mind there is already a page entitled Negimaki, which could be expanded upon, if appropriate so to do. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that rather than try to get this draft accepted, you abandon it and consider if you have interesting, referenced information that can be added to Negimaki. David notMD (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your straightforward advice. I understand the importance of contributing valuable and well-referenced information to Wikipedia, and if enhancing the existing Negimaki article is the best way to do this, I am open to taking that path.
I will review the current content of the Negimaki page to identify areas where my research and insights could provide additional value or fill gaps in the existing information. My priority is to ensure that any contribution I make is backed by reliable sources and adds to the collective knowledge on the topic.
I appreciate your guidance and the opportunity to learn more about the editorial process on Wikipedia. This experience has been incredibly educational, and I'm grateful for the feedback that helps me understand how to be a more effective contributor.
Thank you once again for your time and for helping me navigate these decisions. I look forward to applying this advice and continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia community in a meaningful way. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to move my draft to the appropriate space and for your valuable advice on focusing on reliable sources. I appreciate your guidance on the proper procedures and the suggestion to consider the existing Negimaki page as a potential avenue for contribution.
I will thoroughly review the current Negimaki article to understand how my research and writing might complement and enhance the information already available. My goal is to contribute meaningfully to the topic, and if expanding upon the existing page is the best way to do so, I am more than willing to adapt my approach.
I'll dedicate some time to gathering more reliable sources to support my draft and ensure that any contributions I make align with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Your reminder about the importance of reliable sources is well-taken, and I commit to upholding these standards in my revisions.
Thank you again for your assistance and for helping me navigate this process. Your input is invaluable to me as a new contributor seeking to add value to the Wikipedia community. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you using an AI to write these posts? Please don't, we want to hear from you. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for reaching out and expressing your concern. I understand where you're coming from, and I want to clarify that I don't use AI to create my posts. My native language is French, and I often rely on Google Translate to help with my English orthography and ensure my messages are clear. Rest assured, the thoughts and content I share are entirely my own, crafted in my native language before being translated. I'm committed to maintaining authenticity in our interactions and appreciate your understanding of the extra step I take to communicate more effectively in English. Hichem872642 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a lot of problems with the language in this article. I urge you to read WP:WORDSTOWATCH and recognize that your language is not neutrally phrased or encyclopedic in tone. For example, "Served in bite-sized pieces, beef negimaki is accompanied by a dipping sauce that complements the marinade, making it a versatile dish that can be enjoyed as an appetizer, side dish, or main course" is an inappropriate sentence for an encyclopedia; the notions that the dipping sauce "complements the marinade" or is a "versatile dish that can be enjoyed" are WP:PEACOCK-type language that expresses a non-neutral opinion in Wikipedia's voice. We want facts here, not opinions about how good a food tastes. And also, neither "beef" nor "negimaki" should be capitalised except as the first word in a sentence; this is not a trademarked name (like Big Mac) and food/dish names are lowercased except for individual words that are proper nouns (as in oysters Rockefeller). Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the issues with neutrality and tone, as well as the capitalization errors. I'll make the necessary revisions to ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's standards. If you have a moment after I've made these changes, I would greatly appreciate it if you could review the modifications to ensure they meet the community's expectations. Your expertise would be invaluable in guiding these improvements. Thank you again for your help. Hichem872642 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any way to download Wiki pages directly?[edit]

Every so often, I come across a Wiki topic that article that I'd like to make a copy of in my word processing application. Without finding a download tool, what I've done is a copy and paste of articles from time to time — but it's very tedious because I have to delete a lot of extraneous things I don't want.

Is there a download tool somewhere for each article? Augnablik (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Augnablik: There should be a "Print/export" section under the "Tools" dropdown menu near the top of a page (or on the sidebar if you haven't collapsed it), where you have three different options to choose from. Do any of them help? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the word processing application you're using? Microsoft Word, LibreOffice, OnlyOffice or something else? - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Augnablik The standard download tools provide .pdf files. If you have a modern browser (I use MS Edge) you may find it better to use the immersive reader tool of the browser and copy/paste the result out into a local wordprocessor. When I do that into MS Word or LibreOffice, I can get just the main part of the article in editable format with links. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are external (to Wikipedia) third-party services that are able to convert .pdfs into .docx. Searching pdf to word in a search engine gives some options. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Jonathan Burrows page[edit]

I am trying to edit my father's wikipedia page. He has made several embellishments about his career, aswell as a long and erroneous section regarding his hobbies. What can I do? Zanelburrows (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathan Burrows is a disambiguation page: which of the two individuals listed there is the subject in question? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zanelburrows, I have nominated Jonathan Burrows (producer) for deletion. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting history here - draft created in 2018, soft deleted 5/2023, restored 6/2023, Zanelburrows recently (and before the delete as IP) removed large sections of content that were restored by others. The article is now at AfD. Zanelburrows given you claim to be his son, you are not supposed to edit the article directly, but rather to propose changes on the article's Talk page. At the AfD, you can state that you recommend the article be deleted (if that is your intent). David notMD (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using a sponsored source for more information about a BLP's project[edit]

Hi all, currently working on Draft:Divya Thakur and there's some information about her work with Marriott Hotels that is briefly briefly in an New York Times profile. I found this source on Vogue that is published by Marriott with a lot more info. Could this be used to gather info? TLA (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be used to corroborate some factual information (e.g. when she did a particular thing), but not to support her notability or to provide evaluations of her (e.g. how good a designer she is), since the publisher is one of her employers/clients. {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm tla, that seems to be a supplement paid for by Marriott. Effectively, you'd be citing an advertisement. Not impressive. Better look elsewhere. I read in the draft that this person is a designer and architect. And I read that "Her 2016 installation, 'Design: The India Story' [...] attracted approximately 250,000 visitors. The same year, she was named 'Best Dressed' by Verve magazine." A quarter of a million is a vast number of visitors to an installation. Presumably some architecture/design journalists/critics were among them. What have they written about it? In comparison, praise for her clothing seems utterly trivial (perhaps even slightly demeaning, as I'd have thought that her works would be a lot more important than her looks). -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair, I'll just say "one of" Marriot's campaigns as the New York Times mentions as it's not really a big part of the article anyway. I just created the article, so I might add some more info to the paragraph about her installation "Design: The India Story" if it comes back to my mind.
What do you mean that being named 'Best Dressed' by Verge is demeaning? It's just a fact and it's only a tiny part in the whole article. TLA (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm tla, she's a designer and architect (or so I read here). Her significance is, I would have thought, in what she does rather than in what she looks like. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is. But isn't it appropriate to mention that that was one of the awards she won? It's cited in a bunch of the sources. TLA (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree: it might not contribute to her notability, but it does give a fuller picture of her as a person, and if the magazine itself is notable I think a mention of her receiving an award from it is a fact worth mentioning. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declined Li Ziting AFC[edit]

Hello, my AfC was just declined by user Broc reason being that the article does not have an Rs and independent source of which the article obviously does have. Please I would like a more review on the above article, I want to know if there is any other error on the article that I should be fixing because the person about the article is highly notable. Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thisasia please have a look at notability criteria for musicians. Does Li Ziting fulfill any of the criteria listed there? (example: did they have an album on national charts?) It is generally unclear from your article what the achievements of the singer in question are, and why they would be notable on their own; the band they were part of is indeed notable, but that does not mean each of the individual members are. Broc (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes of course, the musician is highly notable and popular, she now a solo artist with many albums and with many achievements, this are what I ought to be adding gradually while the article is approved. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thisasia please add said achievements, then resubmit for approval. In the current article state, notability is not shown. Broc (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
alright I will do so, thanks for your time. Thisasia (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thisasia There are formatting errors (please read WP:FORMAT) and a lot of the sources you use are just artist profiles. I would suggest looking for articles in newspapers/magazines about Li Ziting. TLA (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to edit and submit a draft?[edit]

I have a draft that I need to edit before submitting it for review. The instructions to do this were as follows:

"You will need to edit the draft article..., and then you will need to save those edits into the draft (by hitting the blue Publish changes button. But that merely publishes those edits to the online Draft. It is not yet a published article...

Once you have completed all your edits, and saved them (i.e. publish changes), then you will still see the blue "Submit the draft for review" button again. Only when you click that will your submission be made."

When I edit the draft and hit on Publish changes, the submission button does not appear in the editing tab. If I go back to the reading tab after publishing the changes, I can see the submission button, but the draft only shows the old version and not the one I have edited. What am I not getting here? JoIrMu (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you cannot hit the submission button on the editing terminal, you can only do so on the article's page or after when you hit your publish button.
If your article keeps showing the previous version of the page after your published change, then kindly refresh the page. But note that situations like this don't normally occurs unless you are having some technical or network issues. Thanks Thisasia (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, but I had already tried that and tried again, but it does not help. I cannot get the new version of the article visible. Thank you also for the comment you left; I have addressed that problem/mistake in the edited version among others. JoIrMu (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @JoIrMu. The only draft I see in your contribution history is Draft:Joakim_Oldorff? But that was from December. Could you let us know the name of the Draft you are working on? Qcne (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is the right draft. It has taken a while, since we created a Finnish Wikipedia article in the meantime as was suggested by our mentor. I have the new version ready based on the feedback given by our mentor, but editing the draft accordingly and submitting it for review seems impossible. The network connection is fine, but I must be doing something wrong anyway. JoIrMu (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @JoIrMu, I am not sure what is happening as I see nothing in your contribution history. Two suggestions:
- are you pressing Publish changes...? This is akin to 'Save' on a Word Processor, and means the new changes are being committed to Wikipedia but it doesn't mean the article itself is being published (slightly confusing wording).
- are you sure that draft is the correct one? Check the URL / spelling is the same as the one you are working on.
As for the Submit draft for review! button not appearing, don't worry about it: I can add it manually for you if you publish your changes as above. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had tried clicking on Publish changes numerous times, but I think it might have worked now. If the draft you see already features COI at the top of the page and a reference to Finnish Championships 2024, that is the version I would like to submit for review. I would be so grateful, if you can still add the submit button for me. Big thanks already at this point! JoIrMu (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, I have added the Submit draft for review!. Before you do though, you have a couple of links in the Lead that point to other Wikipedia articles. Please use WP:WIKILINKS instead of external links for these. Qcne (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for the tips and for your patience in helping a newcomer! I will check the Wikilink issue before submitting. 193.111.119.176 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a serious obscene interference with one of your articles[edit]

When my search engine returns the results of looking for Marwan Bishara it returns the two lines including a very toxic characterization of his birth. If I click and open the article that same text is not there. Somebody is causing some serious harm to your website. Can you please look into this as quickly as possible. Here is the link. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=marwin+bishara+Wikipedia&t=fpas&ia=web 171.98.18.238 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a Google problem which will presumably be solved when robots do the rounds again. Theroadislong (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google may be blamed for many things, but not for Duckduckgo's activities. Unfortunately Duckduckgo happened to spider this page during the few hours on 12 February when some fool's revision was visible. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was some vandalism to the article Marwan Bishara a week ago, which was reverted a few hours later and hidden from the history - presumably because it was offensive or obscene. Wikipedia has no control of how often search engines update their databases. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hid it from the history just a few minutes ago, primarily in order to deny the troll the pleasure of showing it to any similarly stupid friend. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article by a new editor[edit]

I noticed that, as a new editor, I cannot create a new article from scratch. I know that I can publish a draft. And still, what are the criteria for publishing a new article? Neville the long 1 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. You will greatly increase your chances of success by using the new user tutorial, and spending much time editing existing articles, to learn how things operate here and what is expected of article content. This will include things like notability, the test for a topic to merit an article.
If you would still like to create a new article now, please read Your First Article and then use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, understood. And yet, could you please elaborate on the requirements an editor should accomplish to be able to start a new article? I tried using the translation tool, and it didn't work either. Neville the long 1 (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You must be autoconfirmed, which means your account must be at least four days old with 10 edits or more, to be able to directly create articles. This is highly inadvisable for new users without experience to do.
You mention the translation tool, are you attempting to translate an article from another language Wikipedia to this one? Each Wikipedia is separate, with their own editors and policies, and what is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Neville the long 1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The technical restriction allows you to create a new article directly when you are autoconfirmed - that is, your account has existed for four complete days and made ten edits.
Trying to create an article directly after four days and ten edits is an almost certain recipe for disappointment, frustration, and disillusionment. Would you enter a major competition four days after you first took up a sport? Or start building a car when you had just decided to start studying engineering?
I always advise new editors to spend at least a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles, before even trying the challenging task of create a new article. Once they have learnt about concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, they can read your first article and create a draft.
I would also point out that creating new articles is not the only way, and not necesarily the best way, to contribute to this vast resource. ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neville the long 1, 331dot has pointed you to information that should be useful to you. Which part of it needs a further explanation? Or what is not explained? (And translation from which language to which language?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Could the academic field that follows my name on a Wikipedia page please be changed. I am an 'Industrial Relations' (not Management) academic and the distinction is quite important in terms of conveying the focus of my research. If this could be changed, that would be much appreciated, Jane

Academic discipline following name (please remove 'Management' and change to 'Industrial Relations' - thank you. 213.86.145.216 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved the article to Jane Parker (academic) which is simpler. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done a tidying exercise, but more is required. The section of selected works is far too long: this is not an academic directory. Aim for 10 maximum. You should also remember you have a WP:COI in this article. Bazza (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add an image to any Wikipedia article?[edit]

please help me,I'm really confused about how to add an image. Sheikbaba36524 (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For starters, Sheikbaba36524, please specify the image. I mean, here, in this thread, please link to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading logos – local vs global[edit]

Hello everyone,😊
I would appreciate some guidance here:
I uploaded two logos to Wikipedia and they both stay on the English Wikipedia:
File:Kurk_Lietuvai_logo_(2024).png
File:Kalnapilis_logo_(2024).svg

They are not available on Wikimedia Commons:
Commons:File:Kurk_Lietuvai_logo_(2024).png
Commons:File:Kalnapilis_logo_(2024).svg

However, other logos are available globally on the Wikimedia Commons::
Commons:File:Microsoft_logo_(2012).svg
Commons:File:SANDVIK.svg

What causes this difference?
Frequently.by.train (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Frequently, and welcome to the Teahouse. Because the latter are below the COM:Threshold of originality and so are regarded as public domain, and Commons will accept them. Note that the law relating to this varies from country to country. ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, ColinFine.
But how does one upload logos to Wikimedia Commons?
How do you "test" the logos for c:COM:Threshold of originality?
The logos I uploaded certainly fit the licensing info used on other logos:
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.

Frequently.by.train (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll need to ask on Commons. Try C:COM:VPC, ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refer by first or last name?[edit]

In any Biography or non-biography article, should we use the first or last name while referring to the person again and again? ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 15:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That'd depend on whether their last or first names are used elsewhere to refer to different people on the page. Usually I'd use last name, but if that's used elsewhere on the page to refer to a different person I'd use first name (like if brothers or members of the same family are on a page). If you get incredibly unlucky and both the first and last names are used for different people on the page, just use their full name. CommissarDoggoTalk? 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is customary not to refer to a person by their full name. It is considered derogatory to call by surname only TindDIrving (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the section of Wikipedia's manual of style about surnames mentioned further down. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are their any guidelines for this one? ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Subsequent use. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a guideline: Please see MOS:SURNAME. You should never use a person's given name unless there is the possibility of confusion (such as two or more members of the same family being referenced in the same paragraph) and then only use the given names to the extent necessary to avoid confusion in that limited portion of the article. Referring to people by their given names is unencyclopedically overfamiliar. For example, in an article about Kirk Douglas one might have to say "Kirk" in a sentence in which his son Michael Douglas is referenced and there might be a possibility of confusion (but see the second sentence of Michael's article, in which it is clear that "Douglas" refers to Michael, not Kirk... and this sentence itself illustrates the type of circumstance I'm referring to), but for any parts of the article without any other Douglas family members mentioned, he should be called "Douglas". - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources from videos and such.[edit]

Hello, I wanted to edit the trivia/video games area of the "Numbers Stations" article. The trivia is because the popular videogame "Omori" uses the Achtung numbers station broadcast as part of one of it's tracks. The only way I can prove it is due to a Youtube comment under the video that has the track, can a youtube comment be used as a credible source?

Article: Numbers station I dunno about this (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, if an independent source has not commented on the use, then it is too trivial to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article: see NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If it is accepted that it is worth mentioning, then, yes, it can be its own source, along the lines of WP:PLOTSOURCE. ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Isikoff Wikipedia entry[edit]

Hi there. I updated my Wikipedia entry last week to reflect that I no longer work for Yahoo News and added name of my most recent book. I also made a few other minor, non-controversial fixes. Although it now says the entry was updated last week, the actual changes are not showing up on my life Wikipedia page. Can you help so the updates get added? Michael Isikoff Misikoff (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Misikoff, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only edits showing in Special:History/Michael Isikoff in the last week were made by Mikeross22 and Joe Friendly, and they have not been reverted; so if looks as if you did not save your edits.
However, as you have a conflict of interest you are very strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, and instead should make edit requests on the talk page, citing reliable published sources for any information you wish to add, and an uninvolved editor will be along to review the requested change. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also encourage you to think about it as a Wikipedia article about you, rather than my Wikipedia entry ; just as if The New York Times wrote an article about you. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ft Ritchie, US Army Counter intelligence Corps, Henry Kissenger, WW2, Ritchie Boys[edit]

Henry Kissinger served in ww2 in a divisional counterintelligence regimental team, see https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/henry-kissingers-world-war-ii/ I thought I read someplace else, that he received counterintelligence training at Ft Ritchie, but I may be wrong. Further research by your editors, may be required. 2600:8805:A886:D200:C8ED:2759:1A96:36C (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have suggestions to improve an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. If you want to do more research, that's up to you. RudolfRed (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teahouse hosts are volunteers here to advise, not to research nor co-author. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are as much one of "our editors" as anybody else.
Generally, if you have an idea for something to be added to Wikipedia, there are really only two effective ways to do it. One is to add it yourself; the other is to enthuse another editor with the idea so they want to do it. It is possible that somebody reading your post here will be interested enough to look into it; but not very likely. Better places to suggest it would be the talk pages of a relevant article (eg Talk:Henry Kissinger or of a relevant WikiProject (eg WT:WikiProject Politics or maybe WT:WikiProject Espionage). Either way, as you say, it will need some research, because unsourced information that is added to Wikipedia articles tends to get removed pretty quickly. ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overlapping dab pages[edit]

I came across a dab page at The Resistance the other day, and cleaned it up a bit. Just now, I came across the dab page at plain Resistance. They have close to 20 and 100 entries, respectively - some overlapping, some not. The former links to the latter, but not vice versa - actually, the former is pretty much orphaned, though I dunno how relevant that is for a dab page. This doesn't feel like a very happy state of affairs. Should they be integrated better, or simply merged, or what?

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:4D3D:867E:F3EB:2F3C (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is good that a dab page is orphaned, because no articles should be linking to a dab. It is there for convenience of readers to help them find the topic they are looking for. RudolfRed (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resistance has a bunch of incoming links from {{other uses}}-type hatnotes on the one hand and other dab pages on the other, all via the Resistance (disambiguation) redirect. The Resistance having none at all may or may not be unusual, I dunno. The Resistance (album) uses the "wrong" one, at any rate, which does make the "right" one seem a bit superfluous.
- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:4D3D:867E:F3EB:2F3C (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha, here's a close parallel, using a joint page: The Oracle -> Oracle (disambiguation), with explicit "Oracle or The Oracle may also refer to" opening. Clearly the cleaner solution, no?
- (OP) 2A02:560:5821:6C00:8927:F475:6FA6:FF53 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha again, here's another nice parallel, this time for the other approach: The Sea/Sea (disambiguation). That pair looks nicely maintained: Little or no overlap, and the pages link to each other and are both linked to from the main hatnote at sea.
- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:8927:F475:6FA6:FF53 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linked Words To Pages Which Don't Exist[edit]

If there are words and/or sentences which are linked but the pages aren't created (can tell when it's red), should I unlink it or just leave it alone? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine: Usually you should leave it alone. See WP:REDLINK for guidance. Redlinks can inspire editors to create missing articles. RudolfRed (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a specific article in mind? David notMD (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is on 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision. There are two names which have Redlinks. It is in Commemoration content in the Aftermath content paragraphs. There are few more above it. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having glanced at the article, I would say that all three currently red links are of subjects who/which could quite plausibly merit their own articles, so they should be retained. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently made a new page on a film[edit]

Hi, I made a new Wikipedia page on a Filipino film recently called "Pamilya Ordinaryo", since there hasn't been any page on that for nearly 8 years since it's release. I got my sources from websites and thought of making one since it appeared on Netflix, and it caught my interests. I was sad when I found out that there was no independent page on this movie, so I decided to create one today. I created the page through Wikipedia:How to create a page and I think it immediately got published, however I am not sure whether it needs to be reviewed and if it's published already. I'm still not sure whether the page is suitable enough as I think it needs to be reviewed first. If there is anything that may be concerning, please could I have some advice on it? WedgeWinglet (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Along with that, I believe they have a release poster (here) and I was hoping to add it, but I am not sure because of copyright. WedgeWinglet (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WedgeWinglet All new articles which don't use the articles for creation process will in due couse be reviewed by the new pages patrol, who can be fairly strict in ensuring they meet our inclusion criteria, especially for notability. Search engines won't index the article until it gets NPP approval (or 90 days have elapsed). You can add the poster to the English Wikipedia as WP:NONFREE content but make sure you carefully follow the instructions at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition to article of photographs in the pubic domain[edit]

I wish to add to an article recent photographs of an historic building that were commissioned by an agency of a US state government. To my knowledge, unless specifically designated otherwise such properties are by definition in the public domain. What is the procedure for proving that such a work is freely reproducible when adding it to Wikipedia? DatFiend (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DatFiend: Work by the US federal government is public domain. The same rule does not apply to US state government work. Which state was it for? RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting; thanks. Virginia. DatFiend (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ProQuest[edit]

Does anyone here have access to the ProQuest database? I am looking for a NCJW Journal from 1998. I was unable to find it in the Wikipedia Library. https://www.proquest.com/docview/229503392?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals Polygnotus (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone may be able to help at the Resource Request page. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I have posted the request there. Polygnotus (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reverting back to previous version of page[edit]

Hello, I have worked on an article and recently one user went in and made over 50 changes/additions to the page in a span of a few weeks, and I do not agree with many of these changes. What are the options in a case like this? Ravin9976 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ravin9976: Discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Hello! Excuse my unfamiliarity with specific Wikipedia pages, but I was wondering if there is a place that I could find articles on books and literature that require copyediting work. Thanks in advance! Neo Purgatorio (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neo Purgatorio: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to fix articles. Go to Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit and there are links there to filter for various topics including books. Also, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors where you can join other editors also interested in copy editing. RudolfRed (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate the assistance. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organisation changed trading name[edit]

Hello! The Australian_Market_and_Social_Research_Society_Limited rebranded to "The Research Society" in 2020.

The (then) CEO wrote, "We will remain the Australian Market & Social Research Society in our constitution but our new trading name will be The Research Society." Does this mean the name of the page should be changed? Or should it be treated like X (which is still found at Twitter)?

The current article also has a "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" flag.

I am a member of The Research Society (with membership fees paid for by my workplace). Does this disqualify me from making changes?

And if I'm allowed to make changes, what is the process addressing the rebranded name? DivePeak (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @DivePeak and welcome to the Teahouse! to answer your first question, it should probably be moved or renamed to something like Australian Market and Social Research Society due to the guideline that states Use commonly recognizable names. the article name should remain as the most recognizable form of the name, not the trading name (unless it is most recognizable by other people under that trading name than any other names). for example, our article on DuPont is not named DuPont de Nemours, Inc. in addition, the "limited" should also be dropped per the naming conventiosn for companies which also states that legal suffixes are not included in titles. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and to answer your last question, you may not edit the article directly, however you are allowed to post edit requests for the article, however before doing so please make sure you are famillar with the Conflict of interest and Paid editing policies, which are mandatory for anyone editing an article about something (or someone) one is personally connected to and paid by, including companies they are working under. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of my updates[edit]

I am aware that a malicious person is going and putting my edits back to where they were. One case is where, on the North Highland Way page, that I had changed www.letsgoexploring.co.uk to www.friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com. It was changed back almost immediately. Also, people keep removing my Christian name and putting Irving. There is a lot of controversy about this project and always has been.

I would request that the page is deleted. North Highland Way TindDIrving (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not own or get to control what is on any Wikipedia article, and you are highly discouraged from editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest. Remsense 04:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be kinder, Remsense, especially to living people who raise concerns about how they are covered on Wikipedia, even we ultimately are not able to accommodate them. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, you're exactly right. Remsense 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I developed the project. It would not exist without me. I have done this for 20 years on a voluntary basis. The Caithness Waybaggers route was different. From what I know of them, they would not have the knowledge or interest in editing Wikipedia. Jay Wilson would, he is another person who is trying to take over the project I started over 20 years ago, and has applied for funds. I should not be villified for bringing a project to the table which has been wanted for 30 years. TindDIrving (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello TindDIrving, are you Tina Irving? If so, you have a conflict of interest and it's best you don't edit the article directly, so as to not compromise the neutrality of the article. That said, we take concerns of living people about how they are portrayed on Wikipedia very seriously, and I would be willing to help if I can. Did you want the article to say in places, "Tina" instead of saying "Irving"? That may not be possible. Wikipedia is written in formal professional English and it is my understanding that in the west, people are referred to by their last name, not their first. You will have to explain why you want the website changed. It is not helpful to accuse another editor of malice without specific evidence. Can you compile some WP:DIFFs to show what exactly has happened? Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I developed this project. It would not exist without me. I can assure you that if Matt Dent or Bill Fernie or Ian Ellis or his son are editing articles relating to the North Highland Way they have a conflict of interest. I want the words to say Tina Irving, not "Tina" or "Irving". That is my name. I most certainly do have speciic evidence. I can email it to you if you wish. What are WP:DIFFs. I am abused on Facebook every time I put anything about this project. I have even been to Police Scotland about it. TindDIrving (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can click the word WP:DIFF and it will take you to explanation and instructions. It mentions the full name when mentioning it the first time in a paragraph and only the last name thereafter. That looks correct to me. Repeating the full name every time is incredibly distracting, unless the text happens to be talking about more than one person named Irving. Yes, if other people involved in real-life conflict with you are also editing that article, it would be a violation as well. And they should use the talk page as well. And if any party is using Wikipedia to deliberately harass/harm other people, they will be removed by admins when provided with a complelling evidence. If your evidence includes things that have only happened on Wikipedia, you can share the evidence publicly here. Or you can mail me it, and I will look if there is anything there and bring it to admins' attention as necessary. If your evidence involves disclosing real-life identity of one or more editors on Wikipedia, you should send that evidence to someone who has signed the NDA which isn't me, but I can suggest names. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only cover what has been written by independent third party sources, such as newspapers, though not everything that's in newspapers needs to be included here. We try to find a balance between sharing knowledge and protecting people involved. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TindDIrving, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, and its relevant section is MOS:SURNAME. After first mention, we refer to William Shakespeare as Shakespeare, and Taylor Swift as Swift and Abraham Lincoln as Lincoln and Margaret Thatcher as Thatcher. And so you will be called Irving on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then delete my name altogether. I object. As you quite rightly say, it is distracting to have the name repeated. I will send to you, Used to be cool. I am a journalist myself, and have my own newspaper. https://letsgonorthnewsservice.wordpress.com/ I am also on Muckrack
https://muckrack.com/tina-irving-1
I also write for the Daventry Express, though not on this subject.
https://www.daventryexpress.co.uk/ TindDIrving (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TindDIrving, your own newspapers would hardly be independent, third-party sources. Your name won't be removed just because you don't like the way it is written, but I will take a look later on to evaluate whether mentioning you in that article is WP:DUE. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So,, this is suppression of Freedom of the Press then? Just because I am a journalist and developer of the project, is irrelevant. I have already sued Google for matters relating to this kind of thing, and won. Wikipedia should not be used to bully people, and that is what these people are doing, and stealing my project. TindDIrving (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I took a look, and I don't see anything urgent about how you've been covered in that article. You'll have to drop the attitude and raise your concerns politely on the talk page of the article if you want to get anywhere. Further direct editing of the article or WP:SOCKing to persue that goal may result in loss of editing privileges. Also a no, is accusing any and everyone that edits that article as malicious actors out to get you. I have not received your mail, if it is me you sent it to. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not my newspaper. I just write for it. TindDIrving (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TindDIrving, Icelandic, Vietnamese and various other names require different treatment; but people with the surname Irving are generally referred to as "Irving". This practice is of course not universal outside Wikipedia, but it is very common. As for whether "this is suppression of Freedom of the Press", I don't understand what the referent of "this" is. If you'd like to change an external link (e.g. change from www.letsgoexploring.co.uk to www.friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com) it's a good idea to signal your reason for doing so on the talk page of the relevant article: for the article North Highland Way, this would be Talk:North Highland Way. -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I am bored with this now. I don't care if Wikipedia want information to be erroneous. Not about the name. Clearly www.letsgoexploring.co.uk no longer exists. Suppression of freedom of the press is because I am a journalist and developer of the North Highland Way, yet I am told I have conflict of interests. How can that be. I developed the project, with the support of 40 businesses, The Highland Council and Nature Scot. For this I am penalised yet other people who edit the entry aren't. I won't bother contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks. TindDIrving (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia not linking to a "newspaper" doesn't constitute "suppression of freedom of the press". You're still free to publish whatever you want. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TindDIrving, so letsgoexploring.co.uk no longer exists. Thank you. (Well, in a sense it does still exist ... but it's rather underwhelming.) I don't see any indication above that anyone thinks your journalism should lose its readership, or any suggestion of any conspiracy towards that end; so I'm puzzled by your talk of suppression of freedom of the press. How it may be that you have a conflict of interest (COI) is explained; see this in particular: simply, to say that somebody would have a COI if they edited an article in no way vilifies or even criticizes that person. And people with COIs are welcome to make suggestions on the talk page of the relevant article; you are most welcome to make them in Talk:North Highland Way. (Yes, such suggestions may go unnoticed -- but there are ways of bringing them to wider notice. If, after a few days, a request on Talk:North Highland Way got no response, I'd post a simple message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland inviting people to take a look.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not interested. Of course you think I should lose my readership. As explained, which you do not understand is that I am both a journalist and lead in this project. I have sent documentation to one of your editors to prove it. The North Highland Way.com project, has a conflict of interests, but I don't see you removing his blog, only mine. 2A00:23C7:7829:9B01:9193:26D2:96CE:2971 (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TindDIrving, I understand that you are both a journalist and a lead in the project. If you're a lead in the project, (i) I (personally) thank you; (ii) you have a COI. I'm quite happy to remove the link to friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com. (Anyone here object?) You are of course free to fantasize about what I think. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
friendsofthenorthhighlandway.com is the real project, supported by VisitScotland and The Highland Council.
the northhighlandway.com link also has a personal interest. If you are going to remove the Friends, then you should remove the other one as well. 20 years of this project, and now Wikipedia want to ruin it. You must be in touch with the other editors. If I find out that you are, as with Google, you will be taken to court. as a journalist, I can always find out. 2A00:23C7:7829:9B01:9193:26D2:96CE:2971 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no legal threats. ltbdl (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Little help[edit]

What are your advices to a new editor on Wikipedia? Connorrk812 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For starters, read and digest Help:Introduction, and the pages it links to. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback requested for a draft after trying to implement 1st round of suggestions[edit]

Hello! I am writing to request feedback for an article that I have been drafting with the help and feedback of others, including Teahouse members. Can you please take a look at the latest and advise me about ways to improve the article? https://cuddlysnowman.com/wiki/Draft:Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

Thanks in advance. KrisJohanssen (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read: He is the founder of FriendsLearn and serves as Carnegie Mellon University Digital Vaccine Project's founding partner and as the resident inventor for research translation-innovation. / According to Carnegie Mellon University's website for the Digital Vaccine Project, "Digital Vaccines are a subcategory of digital therapeutics [etc etc]". Better to provide a description of "digital vaccines" that's based on reliable sources that are independent of both BSP and CMU. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion @Hoary. May I include the following excerpt as a description? If necessary, can you please help me rewrite this in language that would be an appropriate interpretation of the definition in the report?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/digital-vaccine-global-market-report-100300622.html
"A Digital vaccine is a tool that trains the brain and encourages good habits using a variety of digital technologies, such as virtual reality, smartphone apps, and artificial intelligence. Moreover, digital vaccines are cutting-edge technologies that can aid individuals in enhancing their mental health and encouraging positive behavior. They are affordable, simple to use, and adaptable to different demands. Also, they have the ability to help where it is most needed and reach a huge audience.
Digital vaccinations hold great promise for enhancing mental health and encouraging good conduct in people. These vaccinations have the ability to assist people in forming healthier behaviors and leading better, more meaningful lives by combining neurocognitive training and nudging strategies. The potential for digital vaccines to promote positive change is enormous and exciting as digital technologies continue to develop."
Thank you for your guidance and help.
KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KrisJohanssen, BSP is working for the Carnegie Mellon University Digital Vaccine Project. CMU is a university. Now, universities do sometimes do the strangest things, but I'll start with the assumption that the Digital Vaccine Project is something that's intellectually sound and of academic value. Are there no academic descriptions (independent of BSP and CMU, of course) of "digital vaccines", perhaps articles in journals of educational psychology? (If educational psychology is not the relevant field, then which are the relevant fields?) Why does the draft have to depend on a piece from finance.yahoo.com that's unsigned and (with talk of "cutting-edge technologies", etc) why does it read like an advertising puff? (And what do "neurocognitive training" and "nudging strategy" mean, anyway?) Google Scholar does offer a lot of hits for the string "digital vaccine"; but many are obviously false positives (whereby for example "digital vaccine records" aren't records of digital vaccines but instead digital records of vaccines) and a lot more look as if they're likely to be false positives, but I really can't be bothered to investigate. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The draft repeatedly (12 times) uses the phrase "digital vaccine" without ever mentioning that they aren't actually vaccines. The subject comes across as a fraud. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, by contrast, the article Prairie oyster swiftly informs the reader that the subject isn't an oyster. And the prose on which a description of "digital vaccine" perhaps wafts (the stuff I abbreviated above as "[etc etc]") seems to be designed less to inform, more to impress. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Maproom for your feedback. I failed to count it as you have done but totally agree with you that 12 times is far too repetitious! I will edit to reduce the number of times 'digital vaccine' finds mention in the draft. I sincerely seek your help with my draft to ensure that the subject does not come across as a fraud. I request so based on conviction I gained through the research that I have done on the person and the work. I believe that there is significant impact and humanitarian value in the subject's long tenure of commitment to research and disease prevention science. Furthermore the subject's progress is not commercially bolstered by venture capitalists or private equity which can tend to fuel more fraud than impact. Moreover the global award that he has received from Financial Times and the International Finance Corporation World Bank.[1][2][3] and first patent by the US PTO makes me believe that the subject deserves the best possible article as a historic record for creating a new field that benefits humanity.
Thanks,
KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) KrisJohanssen (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Assessment banner not at the top of the Talk Page[edit]

I recently came across two Wikipedia articles which shows up as an unassessed article. When I went to the talk page I found that the assessment banner was not at the top of the page. I moved it up to the top of the talk page and the article began showing as 'A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' on the article's main page. Is there any reason why the assessment banner was not at the top of the talk page to begin with? Should I revert my changes? This is one of the article. -Yuthoob (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yuthoob, here is Talk:The Yellow Kid immediately before you edited it. Despite the unconventional placement of the template, it's in the categories specified by the template. Why wasn't the template at the top? Well, look at its immediate surroundings, which I think explain. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary: Just to confirm, are you saying that it was placed there because the article was modified by InternetArchiveBot and therefore might need to be reassessed?
In the other talk page I saw, it was inside a bracket on the first sentence of a section of the talk page. This edit by Cewbot placed it there and I couldn't understand why. Thank you for the reply.
--Yuthoob (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

will you add a Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin wikipedia page[edit]

will you add a Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin wikipedia page.My Race is : Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin. Just like wikipedia has a wikipedia page for african americans and some others races? https://cuddlysnowman.com/wiki/African_Americans Terrance19888 (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrance19888, are you American? I do not know how you could be a non-migrant black person who isn't an African-American, if so. The answer is most likely no. If you're in Africa or the Pacific, it's possible you belong to an ethnic group that can be described as non-migrant black, and if an article on the group is missing, it could be created. Ultimately, it comes down to WP:GNG. Respectable academics need to have written about a group as a distinct race or ethnicity in order for them to be included in Wikipedia. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am American. I am born in Saginaw, Michigan on August 3, 1984. On my Health Portal saids that I am Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin from Michigan Department Of Health and Human Resources Terrance19888 (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you think that that is a "race"? It is not. https://i.imgur.com/ajn3v9k.png They also use "Non-Migrant Unknown". Do you think "Non-Migrant Unknown" is also a race? Polygnotus (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin is a race because On my Health Portal saids that I am Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin from Michigan Department Of Health and Human Resources as a race/culture. I web capture my Health Portal showing Non-Migrant Black, not of Hispanic Origin. Terrance19888 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you can see in the screenshot, these "HIPAA Race or Ethnicity Codes" are just labels used by that department of health services. It is not a race. Polygnotus (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your race is "human", or "homo sapiens" if you like Latin. Please read WP:1DAY. Polygnotus (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think either point you've made here is the most helpful for the asker. Remsense 11:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Polygnotus (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know that they were not referring to biological species, and that they did not "make up" the topic one day. Remsense 11:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a timetraveller, but only in one direction. The HIPAA codes certainly were made up one day. The consensus among scientists is that race is a social construct. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Polygnotus (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Polygnotus, even if you're usually right, if you can't be nice about it, teahouse is not the place for you. These shifting of goalposts to double down on your unhelpful side-arguments are not helpful either. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well as you've already been told, it comes down to the policy explained at WP:GNG. That page specifies whether a topic is suitable for Wikipedia. If it isn't, there's not much anyone can do about it. Shantavira|feed me 11:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Terrance19888 It may be that the Wikipedia article Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act would benefit from addition of a subsection explaining the use of its race or ethnicity codes (backed up by reliable sources which are independent of the act) but IMO that article needs a lot of work! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

parapsychology fairness?[edit]

An organisation 'Guerilla Skeptics' is alleged to have been editing articles on parapsychology and remote viewing in addition to the UAP topic. Doing things like removing people's PhDs and relevant background and other tactics to discredit serious scientific interest in these topics. Is this complaint accurate? As a donator to Wiki, I'm concerned. Nick 2A02:C7E:5A12:EA00:9915:667A:93E1:D7A (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't an organization, just some people with a blog. That was 5+ years ago. There is no serious scientific interest in remote viewing (but there is in UAPs). And you shouldn't donate to the WMF, they got more than enough money, see WP:CANCER. The Mick West/Metabunk/GSoW story is nonsense. Polygnotus (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "debate" is more about UFO:s atm, see for example Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Change.org_petition_re._Wikipedia_and_UFOs. WMF is in decent financial shape, and they keep fundraising to stay in decent financial shape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 20 Feary 2024 (UTC)
As for the narrow matter of how to refer to people with PhDs, this is well established in the Manual of Style, and the relevant language can be found at MOS:CREDENTIAL. If any notable person earned a legitimate PhD from an accredited university, then that will be reported in the "Education" section of their biography. But outside the "Education" section, we do not mention the PhD or refer to the person as "Dr. So-and-so", except for rare cases like Doctor Ruth, because that is her show business moniker. This applies to almost every single PhD holder, not just advocates of pseudoscience and mind reading and levitation and Bigfoot and UFOs and faith healing and perpetual motion and other forms of quackery and fringe beliefs. Read WP:FRINGE. As for the Guerilla Skeptics editor group, the are obligated to comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, which they understand far better than those who criticize them. As for your financial support for the Wikimedia Foundation, they are rolling in cash. Use your money to take a community college class in the scientific method instead, and be aware that mention of financial support or threats to withdraw support has literally zero impact on Wikipedia content. You may benefit from reading Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans as well. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources[edit]

Hello. As time advances, sources get older and older. I've been skeptical about using sources from the 40s lately, tho you can often spot one. Are there any guidelines on this? Are pre-ww2 sources still usable? On some articles you might even see sources from the 1830s, 1820s, 1750s... Are these still considered reliable sources? On the other hand if you can't use that source from 1911, can you use Tacitus? Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Encyclopédisme. Please see the discussion at WP:AGEMATTERS. ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Colin said, some guidance at AGEMATTERS. It depends on context. Some works on religion, history etc can be useful for a long time. Tacitus or Josephus can be decent WP:PRIMARY sources, but any use of their comments on actual events should probably have a modern historian as "interpreter." You may find something interesting in these discussions:[1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. But, for example, Britannica 1911, or any work of the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries on history, is that usable? Weirdly, it seems like Tacitus is more reliable than a 1892 work on the franco-prussian war. For exemple, the spanish articles on the Muisca Rulers have 19th century sources only, plus some official sites of the Columbian government. In this case the traditional history seems to be taught only in schools and on, well, government sites. The subject isn't very seriously studied when it comes to history, and the recent works go for a rather different approach, indicating that the idea of a 'Muisca state', as described by the spanish chroniclers, is eurocentric, and they weren't an imperial administration likes the incas. In this very specific case, what should I do? This brings me to another similar case. In the 1920s, it was mainstream academic knowledge that the Inca Empire was socialist ... (liberal economists, like Louis Baudin, wrote books about this 'paradox'). What should I do there? And when, after the invention of the printing press, is the line between a good primary source and an outdated primary source? Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Encyclopédisme, your problem may be that as you say, the subject isn't seriously studied, so your most recent reliable source might be quite old. If there is a distinct change in views over time - so that older sources say the Muisca rulers had an empire, and newer sources disagree - then I think you might look into using both, describing how the chroniclers said one thing but current research is suggesting something else. Does that seem like a reaasonable idea for this specific situation?
Also, thank you for mentioning the Muisca - just skimming the article I'm fascinated and as soon as I have time I'm going to have to investigate more thoroughly! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an extreme example, for medicine/health articles, a preference is stated for no references more than five years old if newer reviews that qualify for WP:MEDRS are available. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). David notMD (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In some cases, you might not just source, but attribute. "In 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica described it as etc etc." DS (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advertising[edit]

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: does [[Saving Mr. Banks#Cast:~:text=Credits adapted from The New York Times.[10]|this]] specifically break the advert policy? Asking because I don't want to start a revert war that could be avoided. Thanks! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how it would break advert policy. But it certainly confuses me. Why is it in boldface? Why doesn't it work as a wikilink (or at least, a misformatted wikilink) when it's encased in double square brackets? What is the "[10]" doing? Maproom (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Courtesy link: Saving Mr. Banks § Cast
unrelated to the original question, but @Maproom: part of that seems to be copied from the article itself, and the single brackets inside the link that used to be the reference broke the wikitext parser, making it think that was not a link. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved now. As for the link I provided, not sure- I think it broke. The [10] was from the incline citation within my link. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a straightforward reference. I don't see why you think it might be construed as an advertisement. Shantavira|feed me 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just feel if it was a reference it could use incline citations, the way it's written makes it feel more like an advert. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who sees promotional wording somewhat frequently when copyediting, I don't find this promotional. The editor could've omitted the reference entirely, as Wikipedia's Manual of Style's take on film casts really only suggests that uncredited roles should require verification, and that the cast information should be allowed "unreferenced" as taken from the film it's from as a primary source.
I suspect it's because the editor wanted to note where the information is being taken, but felt that a lone citation looks weird if it was by itself in its own line or appended to one of the actors' names, which would make it seem like the others were taken elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair point. I'm just not used to this type of in-text citation since I haven't encountered it before. Thanks! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schwartzberg Historical atlas of South Asia?[edit]

Are we allowed to use screenshots of the Historical Atlas of South Asia by Joeseph Schwartzberg on Wikipedia articles for medieval Indian kingdoms and states?

It seems to be the most reliable source for placing them. Or is there a way to create custom maps based on the information in the atlas?

Thanks Ixudi (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ixudi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is very strict on copyright. I'm afraid that https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/ says "No part of this atlas may be stored, transmitted, retransmitted, lent, or reproduced in any form or medium without the prior written permission of Joseph E. Schwartzberg", which is a pretty clear No! to using a screenshot.
I would think that if you created a map with information from the Atlas, that would be like summarising a book in your own words, but I am not an expert. Try asking WP:MCQ. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art Brut -- splitting hairs -- need help[edit]

Hello!

Quick recap --

ISSUE 1: Art Brut is a historically significant art term coined in the 1940s that is fundamentally centered on naive, primitive, child-like art. It currently re-directs to a page called Outsider Art (an English term coined in the 1970s) -- which is an umbrella term for any art created by untrained artists. The majority of the information in the Outsider Art page is based on Art Brut.

Question-- Can i split this page into two (keeping like information with like information) and keep the majority of the content without having to rewrite and recite everything?


ISSUE 2: The current page for Art Brut goes to a rock band.

Question-- Is there a way to fix the title so that is says Art Brut Band leaving the term Art Brut free to use for a page dedicated to the topic for which the term was originally coined?


Needless to say -- this feels like a complex endeavor so if you fee like jumping in and helping -- I would be much obliged. Slacker13 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably would need to move the band to Art Brut (band). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slacker13 The main issue seems to be whether the existing article at Outsider art would be better titled as Art Brut. In that, Wikipedia would normally follow the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME, that is we would use whichever term is most commonly used in English sources. Once you have gained consensus for that (best discussed on the article's Talk Page), then the move of the band's page over the existing redirect at Art Brut (band) is relatively easy, as is the move to the new title for the art term. I don't see any need to split the existing art term article if "Outsider Art" is basically synonymous for "Art Brut", as the lead implies. The former title can just become a new redirect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slacker13, I have been following art for many years, and I believe that, at least in the United States, outsider art is a far more common name than art brut, which I had never heard of until today. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe? But as an encyclopedia, our feel like our job is to educate. Outsider art is an umbrella term whereas Art Brut was its pre-curser and an actual movement. If feel like this is an important distinction. Otherwise we run the risk of being seen as US-centric. Slacker13 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slacker13, the issue is whether or not these are really two distinct topics or simply the French and English terms for essentially the same thing. If "Art Brut" is widely used in other English language speaking countries and "Outsider art" is rarely used there, then you may have a point. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking Advice on Article Maintenance and Profile Development[edit]

Dear Wikipedia community,

I trust this message finds you well. As a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, I am reaching out to seek guidance on two key aspects of active participation within the community: article maintenance and profile development.

  1. Article Maintenance: Ensuring the continued accuracy and relevance of Wikipedia articles is paramount. I am eager to learn effective strategies for ongoing article maintenance. What are some best practices to keep articles up-to-date and in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Additionally, how can I actively contribute to article discussions and collaborate with fellow editors to address concerns?
  2. Profile Development: As I aspire to become a more integral part of the Wikipedia community, I am interested in insights on profile development. How can I engage meaningfully in discussions, participate in WikiProjects, and contribute constructively to the community? For experienced editors, what strategies did you find most helpful in building a reputable profile within Wikipedia?

I am particularly interested in hearing from seasoned contributors like BOZ, a former administrator, about their experiences and any valuable tips they might have on these topics. Your guidance and advice will be immensely appreciated as I continue to navigate and contribute to the Wikipedia platform.

also, I just submitted a new article to the mainspace of an article that has been deleted several times for lack of reliability on sources, The article has been carefully revised, expanded, and verified with reliable sources to ensure accuracy and reliability. It provides a comprehensive overview of Doha Moustaquim's background, career, and contributions to the filmmaking industry, meeting Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability, please give me your opinion is matter to me.

Warm regards, Noone02 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noone02, the Recognition section of the draft mentions three acceptable-looking sources, but cites none. I wonder why not? Maproom (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your prompt response. I've taken your advice into consideration, and I have now incorporated mentions of three reputable media sources in my article. Additionally, I have provided direct links to these sources for your reference. The articles contain quotes that are directly relevant to the main content, adding credibility and depth to the information presented.
Feel free to take a look at the updated version whenever you have a moment. Your continued guidance and feedback are highly valued. Noone02 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy: draft is Draft:Doha Moustaquim David notMD (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what do you thnik now of the article ?? Noone02 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A little better. Why not let the reader know what those sources say about her? That's how citations here generally work. I'd do it myself, but my French isn't great. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noone02, Maproom is giving you good advice on content. If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Notability (people), you should probably look at that. Regarding your second question about "profile development", I find the question a bit odd. In your use of the word profile, I understand you to mean not your user page (which some new users erroneously call their "profile page", or just "profile"), but the esteem or regard that others have for you here; is that correct? If so, it's important to note that we are an online encyclopedia, and while asking, say, how to help develop articles is in line with that goal, asking how to develop your own reputation here isn't really. That will come organically as a result of your contributions over time. If you are asking more about how to meet and collaborate with other editors, then looking into our WP:WikiProjects would be a good start. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noone02, what you write above looks like the pulp that comes out of a large language model (LLM). (Example: "I am eager to learn effective strategies for ongoing article maintenance." Meaning "I want to learn how to maintain articles", but irrelevant where written.) Please don't subject us either to LLM output or to prose that resembles this. The draft mentions three films. Nothing is said about two of the three. As for the third: "The film attracted notice for its distinctive storytelling and cultural portrayal." This is very uninformative. (How is it distinctive? Cultural portrayal of what, or portrayal of which culture?) But at least it comes with a reference to a source. Well it appears to do so; however, the source fails to say this (it merely describes the premise for the film). I note that there's an article in French-language Wikipedia about this film -- but that that article too says almost nothing about the film. If you can't find sources that provide substantial information about this filmmaker or her work, no article about her can be created. Perhaps it would be better to wait a year or two. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability[edit]

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). Evidently, independence requires a "third-party source...that is entirely independent of the subject being covered." If that is meant literally, there seem to be tons of published articles that fail this test, particularly those in specialized, technical topics.

I'm thinking in particular of articles in mathematics. I may feel that Solution_in_radicals is notable (I do), but I see nothing in that article that satisfies the requirement above. Its three references are not at all independent of the subject. Am I missing something?

I understand that there are some subject-specific guidelines, but there doesn't seem to be a set of guidelines for mathematics (at least Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics doesn't have any). Where might I get more information about this? Johsebb (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Johsebb. The article in question is a stub, our lowest quality level. We have millions of articles that need to be improved. If you believe that the topic is not notable, then you are welcome to nominate it at Articles for Deletion. However. I see references to works by three different authors. What leads you to believe that none of these sources are independent? Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The third source appears to be an algebra textbook, which is independent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on its title, the first source appears to be a report by one mathematician on the work of another mathematician. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the reviewer's comments of my Draft:Aliasing_(factorial_experiments) (a recently revised version) says, "Notability is also not clearly established." If a textbook is considered independent, it seems to me that my article has several independent sources. What more would be needed to establish notability of this topic? Johsebb (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Johsebb - it might help to look at notability a little differently. A thing may (or may not) be notable, but an article cannot be notable (some exceptions may apply). An article can demonstrate notability, but it is possible to have a poor article about a notable thing. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Doha Moustaquim[edit]

I recently encountered a situation where one of the articles I created was moved from the mainspace to the draft, despite my efforts to recreate it. Although the article has faced deletion challenges in the past, I have successfully refreshed and reinstated it. However, it now resides in the draft section. I am seeking advice on how best to improve the article and potentially move it back to the mainspace. What steps can I take to enhance its quality and increase the likelihood of it being accepted in the mainspace? Noone02 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my response above. (If you have questions about a draft, it's helpful to keep them all in one section.) Maproom (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy - now at Draft:Doha Moustaquim. David notMD (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

with names[edit]

(sorry if this is worded odd, as i dont really know how to put it.) If a film has a different name, but a similar name, would it still be normal to add dates to the end? I was looking a the Netflix Texas Chainsaw movie, and it has a unique name (lacking the in it's name), but still has the (2022) in it's name, as if there was a different movie also called "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but checking wikipedia (here) shows nothing. so why is the (2022) on the title? If a movie has a different-but-similar name would we still put the date on the end? (sorry again for grammar and/or bizarre structure) Babysharkboss2!! Killer Queen 19:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the original 1974 movie. David notMD (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, i know. it's THE Texas Chainsaw Massacre. it has the in the title. but the 2022 movie is simply titled Texas Chainsaw Massacre. lacking a the in it's title. Babysharkboss2!! Killer Queen 19:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise) lists all the films in the franchise. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022 film) has the year in the title because David notMD (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
title because because of what? Babysharkboss2!! Killer Queen 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. ...because there are so many films. David notMD (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh, okay. so it's just a numbers thing? Alright, thanks! Babysharkboss2!! Killer Queen 19:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, like there is also The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 film). David notMD (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not just a numbers thing although that makes adding disambiguation like this more likely but also one way to think about why it is this way: the 1974 movie could be seen as (and is currently treated as) the primary topic for the exact title of Texas Chainsaw Massacre so that is a redirect to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which means we need to disambiguate the 2022 film. (Other solutions be to have that redirect to the franchise article or if the 2022 film was see as significant enough it at the name without the disambiguate but I don't think in general that'd improve the experience for readers.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original post is unclear because it omits the actual names being discussed but I think it asks whether Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022 film) should be moved to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) since it's the only film by that title without "The" in front. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) currently redirects to the 1974 film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre which is far more notable and started the franchise. I support that since the 1974 film looks like the primary topic for a film referred to as "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" even though the title is only an exact match to the 2022 film. It's common to omit "The" when referring to a work, and probably also when looking it up. For comparison, The Batman (film) is about the 2022 film without having the year in the title while Batman (film) is a set index. None of the other films are ever referred to as "The Batman" as far as I know. It's not common to add "The" when referring to a work. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article needs more links[edit]

Is there a template I could use to let editors know that there needs to be more wikilinks in an article, specifically the article for Yi Won (writer). Thanks! TheWikiCyclone (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @TheWikiCyclone! There's {{Dead end}} for zero wikilinks, and {{Underlinked}} for not enough wikilinks. Panini! 🥪 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! TheWikiCyclone (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male American Actor List missing.[edit]

When I go to "List of Actors" I see a bunch of links but to not see any Links to Male American Actors. How can this be corrected? Ddutcher1 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ddutcher1, Scroll down to § Nationality, click List of American actors, at the bottom next to "Categories", click "American actors", scroll down until you see "American actors" and click it. Another way to correct it, is if you step up and volunteer to write an article called, American male actors, which could very well be added to the first list once it is ready. Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ddutcher1: We do have Category:American male actors. List of male American movie actors was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male American movie actors so I don't think you should try to create something similar. However, List of American film actresses was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American film actresses, and List of American television actresses was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American television actresses. They are rather long and lists for male actors would probably be longer. I don't think it's practical. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hacked[edit]

someone put a virus 0n my computer 2600:1700:A8E0:E780:C513:BF5C:8335:289E (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As explained at the top of this page, this is not the place to ask about it. (And when you do find a place to ask about it, nobody will help you unless you provide a lot more information about it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, WP:Reference Desk, Stackoverflow or other related forum would've been a more appropriate to ask. Just saying. - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actor Amit Kumar Mishra Biography[edit]

Assumed autobiographical article draft

Title: "Amit Kumar Mishra: A Journey Beyond Boundaries"

Introduction:

Amit Kumar Mishra, a versatile individual hailing from Ranchi, India, has carved a unique path that spans the realms of engineering, business, and acting. Born and raised in Ranchi, Mishra's journey is marked by a blend of technical expertise, business acumen, and a deep-rooted passion for the performing arts.

Early Life and Education:

Amit Kumar Mishra's educational journey began with a degree in Information Technology from SIR MVIT in Bangalore. This engineering background laid the groundwork for his future endeavors. Building upon this foundation, Mishra pursued an MBA with a focus on Marketing at the esteemed SP Jain School of Global Management, further enhancing his skill set for a dynamic career ahead.

Professional Journey:

Upon completing his MBA, Amit Kumar Mishra ventured into the corporate world, securing a position with a multinational company in the bustling city of New York. His experiences in the corporate landscape added a global perspective to his repertoire.

However, his true calling lay elsewhere. The allure of the acting world proved irresistible, prompting Mishra to make a courageous decision. After completing the shooting of the US portion of "Karma Strikes," he bid farewell to his corporate job, embarking on a new chapter in the world of entertainment.

Theater Roots and Passion for Acting:

Amit Kumar Mishra's love for acting transcends his professional pursuits. Since class 6th, Mishra has been actively involved in theater, honing his craft and nurturing a passion that would later define his identity as an actor. His early exposure to the stage laid the groundwork for a seamless transition into the world of cinema.

Notable Works:

Amit Kumar Mishra's acting prowess gained recognition through notable projects, including "Karma Strikes," "The Neighbor," and "Smoking Kills." His ability to portray diverse characters with authenticity and depth has solidified his position in the entertainment industry.

Transformation Journey:

One of the most captivating aspects of Mishra's career is his commitment to authenticity. In preparation for an upcoming movie, he underwent a remarkable physical transformation, shedding an impressive 18 kilograms. This dedication to his craft speaks volumes about his passion for delivering compelling and realistic performances.

Personal Life:

Amit Kumar Mishra, identified as a male artist, not only excels in his professional pursuits but also exemplifies resilience and determination. His ability to balance an engineering background, an MBA, and a thriving acting career reflects the multifaceted nature of his personality.

Future Endeavors:

As audiences eagerly await the next chapter in his acting journey, Amit Kumar Mishra continues to evolve as an actor, leaving an indelible mark on the entertainment industry. His story serves as an inspiration, illustrating that with dedication and courage, one can successfully navigate diverse fields and make a lasting impact.

Conclusion: "Amit Kumar Mishra: A Journey Beyond Boundaries" encapsulates the story of a trailblazer who defied conventional norms, seamlessly transitioning between engineering, business, and acting. His pursuit of passion, coupled with a relentless commitment to his craft, defines a narrative that resonates with aspiring individuals looking to carve their own unique paths in life. ActorAmitMishra (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ActorAmitMishra: hello, please take a look at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which explains a bit about why we don't generally encourage autobiographies on Wikipedia, or accept any articles whatsoever about non-notable subjects, as verified in reliable sources. If you'd like to write a different article, take a look at Your first article, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Cheers! Remsense 04:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ActorAmitMishra: Your several attempts (Sandbox, User page) to write about yourself are all promotionally worded and have no references, so all have been Speedy deleted. All factual content about a living person must be verified by independent references. Non-factual content such as "...not only excels in his professional pursuits but also exemplifies resilience and determination." is forbidden. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hart, South Australia[edit]

Everything I have discovered on Hart SA has explained in writing that it is located in the far high NORTH...and others tell me that it is located in the mid-high north of SA...However, clearly, when you see it on any map, not matter who puts it out there, it is just above Adelaide in the far SOUTH. Any further south and it would be in the ocean. I am a volunteer for FamilySearch.org and one of my jobs is to research and locate the exact location of places and find their latitude and longitude. My supervisors have said, "We come across things like that all the time but we can't change it". I said, "Well, that isn't good enough, I want to discover how we can get the correct information. We use Wikipedia most of the time because it is usually the most accurate and gives the best information, but not here. I was actually working in NT and came across Hart, so I went into our FamilySearch spreadsheet to look for Hart NT to find out if we had it listed and ended up in SA by accident. I really enjoy working on finding places and their correct information. When people are looking for their ancestors, it is good if the place is where we say it is. I am sure you get complaints when things are in the wrong place, but this is not a complaint, I am trying to help. Many people trust Wikipedia and rely on it for accuracy when travelling or planning a trip. It would be good if you could give me feed back on what changes you are going to make to your article as to the location of Hart, SA. It says I can do it myself, but I wouldn't do that unless you knew what my intentions are. I prefer to let you know about the situation first. Kind regards, Evelyn Butler. 2001:8003:1471:DE00:A155:E74:EDB2:34E3 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Evelyn. Wikipedia does not really have a representative or a position of authority over content decisions. If you started editing that article, you would immediately be part of Wikipedia, with no more or no less say on the matter of what that article should say. If you want to discuss first, I suggest asking the opinion of ScottDavis who started that article almost nine years ago. The article has not been edited for almost a year, so no one is imminently working on improving it, unless you volunteer to take the job. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It all looks correct to me? Hart, South Australia is in the Mid North region of South Australia, north of the Adelaide Plains and south of the Far North and the outback. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Mid North region of South Australia is in the south of South Australia, as shown in the map in its article. Maproom (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's correct, so what is the problem? Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article starts with "Hart is a locality in the Mid North region of South Australia." And as noted above, Mid North is south of Far North, also a region of South Australia. Your query mentioned that you were researching the state Northern Territory and came across a mention of Hart. It ain't there. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile interface[edit]

Hi I'm User:BurningBlaze05 a notable editor of the F1 Feeder Series community. There is a issue I would like to point out, the mobile version of the website looks weird now, as in I have to press to many buttons. Formerly I could do all my work quickly, but now I find it challenging and I have to work a slow as a tortoise. Is their a way that the user the revert the changes make to the site. I hope this new interface isn't permanent.

Yours sincerely: BurningBlaze05 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of this comment, your last three edits aren't on the mobile interface, judging by the lack of a "mobile edit" tag in your contributions. If you did not intentionally force desktop mode, please try clicking the "Yes" button at this link and seeing if it fixes matters. Otherwise, we would need some more information and perhaps a screenshot to further troubleshoot. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. I'm a twit BurningBlaze05 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry for causing any trouble BurningBlaze05 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't thank you enough! BurningBlaze05 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I WANT TO CREATE MY OWN PAGE[edit]

Kabelo PercyKM (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@percykm: read up on help:your first article. ltbdl (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't SHOUT. Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PercyKM: If you are talking about creating an article about yourself, I guess there is no rule prohibitng it, but generally such articles are quickly deleted because the article is not notable, you are considered unreliable source for your article etc. See WP:ABOUTME. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 10:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PercyKM and @ExclusiveEditor: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged - see WP:AUTO for more information. GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty: Yeah, that's generally what I am saying, just forgot about CoI. Thanks. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If zero would be even, ...[edit]

I am commenting page https://cuddlysnowman.com/wiki/Parity_of_zero

If zero would be even, then we would say the following.

1. snakes have zero legs, if zero would be even,
we would say: snakes have an even number of legs.

2. pigs have zero wings, if zero would be even,
we would say: pigs have an even number of wings.

Zero 0 objects divided in groups of b > 0 objects,
will count 0 complete groups of b objects and 0 objects leftover,
that means 0/b = (q, r) = (0, 0) for any b > 0.

Even numbers are named even, because divided in groups of 2,
will count at least one group of 2, but not less, having no leftover.

Considering "0 is even",
suggesting that 0 will count at least one group of 2,
that is false.

Generalization:

For a >= 0 and b >= 0, where a/b = (q, r) => b * q + r = a
a is incomplete aggregation, if q >= 0 and r > 0
a is complete aggregation, if q > 0 and r = 0
a = 0 is neutral aggregation, if q = 0 and r = 0
109.185.67.40 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wish to argue that the content of the article Parity of zero is mistaken and needs correction, then the place to do this is Talk:Parity of zero. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried so often, that they blocked me for any further suggestions.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello IP user. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It doesn't matter whether your argument is right or wrong, earth-shaking or trivial, Wikipedia is simply not interested in it until it has been not only published, but indepedently discussed, in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have been blocked, then you shouldn't be editing logged-out either; that is block evasion. Just saying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to have math related discussion, you may use Mathematics Refernce Desk. I hope you find it helpful. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 10:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know what to do in such a case, because that article "induce in error" a lot of people, taking seriously that article as "true argument". What to do?
109.185.67.40 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All you can do is try to understand why people might find the arguments on the page useful. We cannot help you feel good about them. Remsense 11:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understood correctly, it is desired Wikipedia to be a Reference of Knowledge, but if the information is false, resulting Wikipedia has no more Argument of Trust, it is just a "garbage of information". That is why I am insisting on correctness of information, no matter who and where was it published. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one wants to take any individual's word for it, only reliable sources like those the article cites, which are part of the history of mathematics that arrived at the conclusion that zero is even. No one here can help you if your only mission is to remove material you do not like. We go by sources, but we are not ourselves sources. Perhaps reading some of the sources in the article could help get a sense of what people are talking about. Remsense 11:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, from that point of view, I understand, sources matter, but from another point of view, resulting Wikipedia promote information that has no counterarguments.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view" or "all points of view", and it's not our job to decide which subjects are more multifaceted than others. Reflecting the body of reliable sources in the world is the best yardstick we have, which is why we do not allow original research. Remsense 11:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank You. Understood. Therefore, I am going to write an article, that maybe in the near future, will be published as a reliable source for Wikipedia in the future. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Best of luck on your journey, cheers. Remsense 12:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re the "blocked" mention, there is no evidence in the history of Parity of zero that any account or IP has been blocked, although there have been warnings. The dispute involving this editor appears to date back to July 2023. Talk page content suggests other editors have had disagreements with this article. The article itself dates to 2007 and became a Featured article in 2013. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is wandering off-topic, but I quite like the article in its present state, it seems one of our best mathematics articles—and doesn't seem that it's one keen eye away from FAR, like some other FAs from decades gone by. Remsense 12:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If to cite that article, will result that 13 * 0 = 0 also demonstrate "0 is even", because 0 = 2 * 0 = 0 + 0 = 13 * 0, where "0 is even" suggests that 0 will count at least one group of 2, but that is false. Therefore, that article is not logic, but "ideology", because it is against any logic. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no one is going to listen to you. ltbdl (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Not necessary in the Teahouse, better to WP:DENY the LTA; took me long enough to realize) Remsense 13:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think is better to say: no body think, everybody believe. Believing is not knowledge.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor. Have you read the article? Parity of zero#Defining parity explains that to say that 0 is even is a convention. The article has good explanations of the consequences of deciding that the even numbers do not include 0 and why most mathematicians don't do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If "0 is even" is a convention, then conventions have no demonstration, nevertheless this fact, they bring a demonstration, saying 0 = 2 * 0 = 0 + 0 demonstrate that "0 is even", that suggests that 0 counts at least one group of 2, but that is false. More than that, if 0 = 2 * 0 = 0 + 0 demonstrate "0 is even", if to follow this idea, will result 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 = 3 * 0, will demonstrate "0 is odd" also.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
109.185.67.40, which of these numbers do you believe are odd, and which do you believe are even (-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5} ? Maproom (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5 are odd.
-4, -2, 2, 4 are even.
0 is neutral aggregation when divided in groups of b > 0.
109.185.67.40 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox title MoS[edit]

I can summarise my question by asking if this edit is valid or not. Are Is there any specific guideline for naming infobox (title). ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This particular thing is actually rather unguided—which can drive me crazy, actually—but a rule of thumb is that generally, it doesn't help the vast majority of readers of any English Wikipedia page if text is only provided in a non-Latin script, since they cannot read it. So, generally where there is non-Latin script (which at least for MOS:ZH should almost never be in the running text of an article), there should probably also be a romanization, which a reader will be able to identify and remember, if not necessarily understand. Cheers! Remsense 11:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP and articles about children[edit]

I'm looking at Megha Wijewardane, which is an article about a child who is now 13 who became an ambassador for NASA aged 10. I'm wondering whether WP:BLP1E would apply in this context, and also whether there are specific policies about BLPs on children. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's little significant coverage of, for example, specific acts he has been performing as ambassador and only of the fact he became an ambassador then BLP1E could apply, yes. There's no specific policy about BLPs on minors from my knowledge. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a policy, but WP:MINORS exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blame view for wikipedia[edit]

is there something like githubs blame view for wikipedia articles? mostly just because walking backwards through the diff pages is time consuming natelabs (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Natelabs, you might find WikiBlame useful. Madam Fatal (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
how do i install it? natelabs (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Natelabs: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's browser-based, so you don't. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well then how do i use it? its not in my gadgets panel or anything so im kinda lost natelabs (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page that Madam Fatal linked explains how it can be used. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 16:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
looks like i glossed over the most important part of the article
alright thanks for the help natelabs (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Natelabs: If you'd like to add WikiBlame to your Tools menu, I've added a script to Wikipedia:WikiBlame. GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanked you in my common.js natelabs (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of electric plugs are used in South Africa?[edit]

electric plugs used in South Africa Taluksangay (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is not a general question asking forum; I'd suggest using your preferred search engine for assistance, or you could ask at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taluksangay, AC power plugs and sockets answers your question, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello MKDDijaspora[edit]

@WikiDiaspora Can u help me with something ? When you are active, contact me. Mnd-bitola (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meme attribution[edit]

I'm currently thinking of working on a draft for the "Change My Mind" meme. I've found reliable sources which document the meme and am going to make it into a draft. To improve the article, I'm intending to release an example of the meme. How would I go around attributing that? Flux55 (my talk page) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Flux55. I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. What do you mean by "release"? If you are creating a new work, you own the copyright, and can upload it, licensing it as you go. If you do not own the copyright, then you cannot upload it, unless you can argue that it meets all the non-free content criteria. Once your draft has been accepted into the encyclopaedia, I think you may well be able to make that argument, but non-free content may not be used except in articles (i.e. not in drafts). The presence or not of an image will not affect whether your draft is accepted or not. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFineI am guessing they mean that they are making a "Change My Mind" meme for the example. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text World Theory[edit]

Hey all,

I was told that my Text World Theory article was neither formal nor neutral enough. Could somebody help me out with this? I tried to stay as neural as possible (it's something I'm pretty excited about and I'm more than willing to acknowledge that it might have influenced the way I write!) but I would just like some pointers about which aspects in particular need some TLC. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I think I can include the link here (https://cuddlysnowman.com/wiki/Draft:Text_World_Theory) but I'm not a very good or experienced editor so I might be wrong!

Thanks in advance! :) Mr Blumenthal (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr Blumenthal: when giving a link to a draft, you can do it like this: Draft:Text_World_Theory. But you did give a link (unlike the person who started the thread two above this one), that's what matters. I've had a few goes at reading your draft, and found it unusually soporofic. After a few sentences, I wake up and think "What's all this about? Why am I reading this? Maproom (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I disagree with Urban Versis 32's assessment: I find the presentation a little dry, but in no way informal or ad-like. If the sources are sound (I haven't myself checked), I would be inclined (were I a reviewer) to accept the draft.
I do think the draft would benefit from some judiciously placed illustrative examples of short texts being analysed according to the theory. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.45.226 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]