We need dark mode, please! One simple switch on top of every page. Thanks 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:C559:A7ED:A9C4:3DCA (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer comments at the talk page of Vector 2022. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences (see here). But you'll need to be logged on with a free user account to change any of the defaults available to you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your suggestion. A technical side-effect of the current skin is that it will be possible to build the dark mode. You will find more information here. Until then, what Nick wrote above is the best solution. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i might not be the smartest tool in the shed, but where is the switch for dark mode in the preference pane ? Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent-vst It is one of the options on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets in the "appearance" section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer.

Here is my corrected suggestion:

We need dark mode without any registration, any account, any logging on, please!

Thanks. 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:BD2D:F6F8:A9:3AD8 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As outlined at the link given above - this link - the devs know that folks want this feature, but it's not currently in development, and may not ever be available to IPs. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes You said "We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences".

Then, this link, mentioned above, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Frequently_asked_questions#Are_you_building_the_dark_mode says the feature is not in development, and further, if it were built, "we would not plan to add an in-browser toggle".

And from the WMF, @SGrabarczuk (WMF) says "it will be possible to build it [dark mode], but until then, what Nick wrote is the best solution". (Emphasis mine.) So the WMF person's answer says it's not built yet, but we should follow your answer (Nick), which says it is available. Why is all this info so confusing?

Even so, I turned the toggle on in Preferences, but I don't see a dark mode button at the top of any page. Why is there even a toggle if the WMF and the linked page says it "will be possible to build" this feature? Please help me understand... David10244 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am in desktop mode on an Android tablet, using the Chrome browser. David10244 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be one of those pushy editors, but ... No one has more info on this apparent set of contradictions, on whether the Dark Mode feature is already "built" or "now it will be possible to build" and "we do not plan to add..."? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244, it's a gadget, not an officially WMF-created dark mode. The latter is what folks keep referring to (it's been added to the latest wishlist, I see). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that helps. I thought I was going crazy, seeing the contradictions, with no one mentioning them! David10244 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linkity link: Dark mode. An experimental work by the design team + various volunteers, apparently. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the checkbox in Preferences actually do anything? Is it part of the gadget? David10244 (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244, that's something I can't answer for sure. It seems the checkbox you're talking about is supposed to make the dark mode toggle available at the top of pages. I'm not sure if it works in all skins, and it's always possible you have some other thing enabled which is interfering with the gadget. Very hard for me to tell how these things work. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm using the new default skin that so many people complain about, but I like it. I don't have much fancy stuff enabled. But I'm good, thanks for the help. David10244 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 Sorry - I missed your 'ping', but I had suddenly wondered if I had previously loaded up some bespoke script which I'd forgotten about. (It's easy to do and then assume everyone else sees Wikipedia the way you do). However, I run an alt-account (NM Demo 2) for just this purpose and with all the settings just as a new user sees it when they first register for an account. I can confirm that (in Chrome on a Windows 10 PC) the dark mode function can be enabled in Preferences. By selecting the tick box labelled "Dark mode toggle: Enable a toggle for using a light text on dark background color scheme", saving the settings and then going to any other page and then 'purging the cache' to ensure everything is properly loaded from my preference, I can then select Dark Mode' from the new user dropdown menu, and toggle it on or off from there. I've not checked its availability in mobile view or in desktop view on my iPhone. I will if you need me to. Does that clarify anything you were unsure of? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes That helps. I see those things now and it works. (I use desktop mode on a Win PC and sometimes on a tablet). Thanks for checking this for me; I appreciate it.

I shouldn't fixate on the following two things, and I'll let it go after this comment, but...

I am still confused about the reply in this thread, where @SGrabarczuk (WMF) says "it will be possible to build it [dark mode], but until then, what Nick wrote is the best solution". I don't understand, SG. It seems that "it" has been built, given that "what Nick wrote" works fine. Will the same feature be built again?

And as outlined at the link given above - this is what discouraged me at first-- this link - says the devs know that folks want this feature, but then says it's not currently in development. Weird. David10244 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many facets to Wikipedia, MediaWiki etc that it's perfectly possible there are pages floating around that are simply out of date. I honestly don't know. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244, after asking some more learned folks for clarity, I was told that the difference here is between a fully supported dark mode, custom-tailored to display all the different elements properly, being maintained and updated by actual staff (what folks want) vs. what is basically a color inversion hack maintained by whoever has the time and will to do so (what we have). As it was described to me, the former actually sounds like a fair amount of work, both to set up and to keep updated as software changes roll out. If enough folks think the current solution is good enough, the WMF will probably spend their resources on other things. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 199, that's the clearest and most complete answer I have seen, although you did say almost the same thing above (which I missed before). I wish the answer from the WMF would have made the distinction. Cheers! David10244 (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Yes,there is a dark mode option, but it is only available to registered users who edit. If you want to try, simply either log in or create an account in order to do so. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but it does not work! Learning With Ameer (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you made a number of edits, then the dark mode is enabled for you. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The dark mode gadget is available to all account holders, regardless of number of edits. It is not automatically enabled; it must be activated by the procedure described above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore IP 204.129.232.191 - they've been blocked for constantly making pointless, troublesome edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your device may have that feature.Cwater1 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Bhaskar Sen

Hello all, I got the following message on the review of the submission. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." It seems I have referenced sources adequately and all sources are vetted and reliable. Including sources from reputed national dailies. Please let me know what changes to do, to get the write up published successfully. Could someone please help and explain the reason behind decline in a little more delay? Thank You very very much Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mayukhsenkar. If he competed in the Olympics, then why is there no coverage of his results there? Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cullen328 Thank you for replying. He has been covered extensively for participating in Karate at Olympics. The Karate event was an additional event in Tokyo 2020 where it included pre-matches and test events. He may have participated in them.

The athlete has been a part of Olympic 365 community also which has been shown by his correspondence with the IOC. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayukhsenkar our article Karate at the 2020 Summer Olympics does not list India as a participating nation. Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cullen328 for replying and guiding. On a brief check for Karate Event in Tokyo 2020, it did have test and pre-matches as recorded by various sources : https://www.wkf.net/news-center-new/ready-steady-tokyo-karate-test-event-underway-at-nippon-budokan/1060, https://olympics.com/en/news/karate-follows-judo-with-successful-budokan-test, https://www.wkf.net/news-center-new/ready-steady-tokyo-karate-test-event-shows-karates-determination-to-shine-at-olympic-games/1061. The event has been covered by reputed Sports Journals like InsidetheGames also. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayukhsenkar, none of those references mention Sen. They describe a test event that took place before the Olympics and the world class athletes were not present. Your statement Known to have represented India at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics seems inaccurate and misleading. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 None of the test event persons are mentioned , not only him. It mentions local representatives, which according to WKF definition is previous champions. His performance at Olympics has been widely published, also IOC has corresponded to him as Olympic 365 member and mentor, which is given to Olympians.

The statement is well corroborated. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He did not compete in the Olympics. Olympic Athletes 365 is a developmental program that includes a wide range of athletes, not just Olympic competitors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar Hi there! You wrote "His performance at Olympics has been widely published". Could you please provide three published reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his performance? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic 365 mentorship is only for Olympians as mentorship is in collaboration with WOA.

@GoingBatty https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2021/08/bhaskar-becomes-the-first-indian-to-attend-the-olympic-karate-event/, https://readscoops.com/sports/bhaskar-sen-karate-olympic-hero/, https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/du-s-karate-kid-aspires-to-represent-india-at-next-olympics/story-7cPxsxLZLVKRIwCnxs3UBL.html two of the sources are primary and one is a national daily, on giving a quick look, there are many more sources which report on his participation. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar I asked you to provide sources that provide significant coverage of his performance in the Olympics. The Hindustan Times article is from 2016, so it obviously doesn't say anything about what he did in 2020. The YKA and Read Scoops mention his background and other achievements, but don't seem to contain even a single sentence about what Sen did at the "Olympic Karate Event". Do you have any independent reliable sources that state what he actually did at the Olympics? GoingBatty (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty The source of Hindustan Times states about his selection into the Olympics, the other two sources speak at length about his qualification which is inline with the qualification guidelines of Tokyo 2020. I would like to politely make a correction to your sentence where you describe "2020" when Olympic Event happened on 2021. Since the Kata Event which he was qualified for was a round robin according to the Olympic rules, the articles stating his participation are technically correct. An olympic event is not 1v1 where his performance "against" an athlete needs to be shown. The Qualification happened based on ranking https://setopen.sportdata.org/wkfranking/ranking_main_competitor.php?ranking_country=IND&ranking_competitor=IND178&hidemenu=true, is the basis of ranking. This link could be traced back from archives to check his scores, however, current points on his profile may not reflect what the point were before olympics since, WKF follows a yearly depletion mechanism of points. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar I do not see a sentence in the Hindustan Times article that "states about his selection into the Olympics". Thank you for correcting me on when the Olympic Event occurred. I don't understand why the draft would state "Known to have represented India at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics" if he only attended an Olympic Karate Event in 2021. GoingBatty (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The HT article speaks about his previous achievements marking him as a qualifiable athlete as per qualification guidelines.

The Olympic Event comes under the aegis of Tokyo Olympiad which ocurred on 2021. Hence, the athletes representation was passed by the NOC, that means that the athlete was not attending as "Bhaskar Sen" but "Bhaskar Sen(India)" as given in Olympic Organization Rules of 2021 released by LOC. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar While the HT article speaks about his previous achievements, it does not explicitly state that those achievements mark him as a qualifiable athlete as per qualification guidelines. Your draft should summarize what the published reliable sources state, without you adding any personal knowledge. GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources which are mentioned in the draft are primary, i.e. they are primarily obtained from the athlete and the others paragraphs contain information on his qualification trail, which details the stages and route. The published reliable sources state so in full. None of the statements are personal remarks but statements from sources and as released from Olympic bodies. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar If the sources say that he meets the qualifications for being selected to the Olympics, but do not explicitly say that he was selected, then you are making an inference, which is wp:Synthesis and the source doesn't support the statement. David10244 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar Also, don't miss Cullen328's important note: "He did not compete in the Olympics. Olympic Athletes 365 is a developmental program that includes a wide range of athletes, not just Olympic competitors." Olympic development events are not the Olympics. David10244 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NOC approved Karate India's participation in the Olympics as can be seen in the present sources, also please refer to the Sportdata point system which show he gained points which make him qualify, Olympic Pre-event is under Tokyo 2020 LOC, which means he did participate, the same happened for all other "additional sports" like sport climbing, baseball etc.

I think the reviewers and Teahouse counter-argue-ers are missing the Point. Olympic 365 did not organize the event for which he has been made noteworthy. The event itself is Olympic 2020. Olympic 365 being any program IS a program under the IOC, where mentorship is only for Olympians in WOA. Please consider. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar, you have not produced any reliable sources which refer to the subject as an Olympic athlete. You have not even produced sources which directly state that he participated in Olympic-affiliated events. It seems that you are relying on your own original research into primary sources. That is not allowed here on Wikipedia, and will only result in your draft continuing to be declined. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original draft does contain reference to the Olympic Athlete, I provide resources and sources here which "corroborate" the fact. The same corroboration is present for other noteworthy athlete who are approved on Wiki. The "original research" was only to corroborate and support the claim. The original research is not "emailing the IOC for a comment on his participation". All sources are secondary in nature. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the existence of other poorly-sourced articles does not justify including more poorly-sourced articles. So far, you have provided (here) no sources which corroborate your claims. Do you have other sources you haven't presented here yet? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Olympic qualification happening thru sportdata can not be categorized as poor. Citing qualification rules is not poor, athlete belonging to WOA is not poor, NOC's list for Tokyo 2020 is not poor. The article is not poorly sourced as defined by WP: VERIFICATION, YKA as a source has been listed for other athletes, SK is a regularly cited source, HT is a national daily. WKF is the world body. The said source already sets the claim. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar, none of those will be useful here. You must provide a reliable source which directly states that the subject represented India at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Not a combination or analysis of other sources which implies it. Do you have such a source? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the Sources in the article state explicitly he represented India. The Counter-argument here was regarding performance measure, which has been clarified, then the question was regarding sources for significant coverage, which has been clarified again.

'Implying' would be the act of deduction. Which is primary according to WP: Citation.

I have simply corroborated, thru media and Sportdata, which are all secondary. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar, please give us, here, the two sources which state that he represented India at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. I assume they are not the same as the sources already posted above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources are the ones which have been given in the article in question. https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2021/08/bhaskar-becomes-the-first-indian-to-attend-the-olympic-karate-event/, https://readscoops.com/sports/bhaskar-sen-karate-olympic-hero/. The sources already cited in this Trail were corroboration of his qualification and endorsement from the NOC. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll ping @Cullen328 and @GoingBatty, in case they want to review these added sources (I can't access them myself). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar We're going in circles. The YKA and Read Scoops mention his background and other achievements, but do not support the claim in the draft that he is "Known to have represented India at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics". GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar I agree with @GoingBatty that the Readscoops article does not say that he was a competitor in the Olympic games. It implies that he is close. The article has a bit of a rah-rah tone. I didn't read the other article.

Please quote the phrase from Readscoops that confirms that he was an Olympic competitor. David10244 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@199.208.172.35 Thank you for making your position clear. Reviewers with the ability to understand and comprehend are welcome. @GoingBatty I think we are not in circles, the terms of reference and context keeps changing here, your previous contention was regarding his performance which I clarified, regarding the Operation of an Olympic Karate Event. The article mentions 1. the place where the Olympic Event Occurred 2. The event which he participated. 3. How he got to represent India.

@David10244 The Readscoops article title and the intro itself contains the lines that he participated in Olympics. I think you are mixing up the sources, I encourage you to diligently "read", by which I mean please provide the paragraph(s) in the news pieces you allege to be out of context. Also, for simplicity please clarify what does "rah-rah" mean, since it is not mentioned as per WP: Citation and looks as a frivolous claim by a Teahouse reviewer.

For the record as requested by @David10244 I can state the sentence "You don’t usually think of karate and that’s where we want to introduce you to someone called Bhaskar Sen, who made the country proud by becoming the only Indian athlete to attend the Olympic Karate Event in Nippon Budokan." Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayukhsenkar, you have been editing Wikipedia for about a week. If multiple editors with much longer experience tell you the sources are insufficient, chances are they are right. When you say stuff like "all sources are secondary in nature", it shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies. It is entirely normal, but a bit of humility would not hurt.

In the present case, Becoming the only Indian athlete to attend the Olympic Karate Event in Nippon Budokan is not a sufficient source for is representing India. There is a significant difference between "he’s the only Indian attending" and "he was selected by official instances to represent India".

For an extreme example of this, Ian Nepomniachtchi (a chess grandmaster who will be playing in this year’s chess world championship match) is a Russian national. He will be playing under the world chess federation’s flag, because Russia is under sanctions. Presumably lots of Russians feel that he represents them, lots of non-Russians feel he represents Russia, and the Russian chess federation would give its OK for him to play under the Russian flag; yet you will not find a source that states that Ian "represents Russia", because officially, he does not. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan Thank you for replying. I think if you track my posts on this page, I have maintained a very courteous outlook to the whole counter-arguments. I doubt that editing many articles makes one gain extraordinary talent in a specific field having different niches and mechanisms. As has been pointed out several times in this thread. I respect the fact that reviewers here have immense experience, however, ignorance on some facts says contrary to that.

I understand the example and your point. The article states "attend" which is the frequently used word in the Karate discipline of Kata, where individual performances are evaluated. If I understand your point, represent( which is the commonly used word for NOC qualified athletes for a certain sport event ) would mean certain qualifications and endorsements by the NOC. Ian's sport is not an Olympic Sport so it is outside the purview and scope of discussion. Earlier in this thread I have shown proof of his qualification and his endorsement thru the NOC which is the legal representative of IOC in the athlete's country. Please refer to above thread where I clarified his Participation as Bhaskar Sen(India) and not Bhaskar Sen. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

India didn't compete in Karate at all in the 2020 Olympics. It didn't happen, so there is simply no way you are going to find a reliable source that makes this person an Olympian. And he's not going to have another opportunity next year, because the Karate events were dropped from the 2024 Olympics. You're going to have to establish notability some other way. MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Karate Event consists of various events. Attending an Olympic Event does constitute participation. Especially if the athlete has been qualified and the NOC has endorsed, this is as per the LOC Organization Rules. If he would be able to participate in the next Olympics or the next-to-next is out of the purview of this discussion. The notability of the athlete apart from the Olympic Aspect can be established thru his wins at World Championships ( rank 6) which has been corroborated sufficiently in the article. His various previous achievement in retrospect are unprecedented by any other Indian, known in the public domain. This is in the premise of WP: Notability and WP : Sports.

On the notion of him being an Olympian, Please read the thread diligently. Olympic 365 Mentorship is only given to Olympians under WOA, hence his address as an Olympian is well established. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are mistaken. Athlete 365 memberships and/or mentorships are not limited to Olympians. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Statues of WOA, it is by virtue of that membership he was granted mentorship. I think there is clear definition difference between "membership" which you state and the "mentorship". A tertiary skim-through of the athlete365 home page does not warrant a thorough knowledge of the Olympic, NOC and WOA mechanism. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. He didn't complete in the olympics. The article also claims he ranked in the 2009 World Karate Championships - but there is no such event. That tournament is held every other years - in 2008 and 2010. It appears the entire article is a hoax. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Competing in Olympics is thru a verified and well maintained process for which sportdata reference has been given, which is further the core point system used for qualification. The 2009 World Cup is an official event by the WKF. Sudden adrenaline rush to give a shoddy search on Google and random hyperbole here regarding a niche event undermines the credibility of a reviewer and a counter-argue-er on this forum. Suggest you to be diligent on the subject accordingly. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 2009 World Championship. There was a Cadet World Championship in 2009 - the junior league for the teens. The article have as you have written it is simply incorrect - at best you are grossly mistaken. But given your resistence to correction I now think it is likely you are deliberately exaggerating this athlete's accomplishments. MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the reply on the separate thread, ignorance of Sportdata ranking points and non-diligence of Olympic guidelines and qualification criterion shall not be appreciated and shall not be entertained.

The Olympic event includes age group of 16 and above where the sportdata points were transferred from the cadet group. The sportdata link clearly shows his participation. The Sportdata points further sum up to his qualification score which was then endorsed by the NOC. The "resistance" here is not against the correction but due to shoddy overviewing of facts which are due to a non-diligent understanding from a reviewer. Athletes accomplishments are thoroughly vetted by national bodies and world bodies, any exaggeration is baseless as the article is heavily cited by relevant and thorough sources. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters - he didn't participate in the events the article claims he did. Maybe he participated in other events organized by the same bodies, but that is not at all the same thing. - MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This brings to question your previous claims and hyphenation seen. Which in turns shows how shallow a diligence of a reviewer can be. The "events" has not been defined by you. Nor the Other "events" has been defined by you. Contention without basis renders it infructuous.

He did participate in the events the article states and so has been aptly and justly corroborated according to the relevant guidelines. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer was 100% right. This article is full of false claims and unreliable sourcing. If it somehow ends up in the mainspace anyway, I am certain that it would be deleted. You should consider expending your efforts on fixing the article's flaws rather than arguing with the people who are pointing them out. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the reviewer points to baseless interpretation of superflous research, the edit is bound to be reverted. The article flaws have been fixed and the sources have been checked to the full extent. The "other people" have expressed their views and they have been answered accordingly. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I count 5 people answering you in this thread (including me) plus one reviewer at the draft. Of those 6 people, 100% disagree with you.

After such a long thread, whether you are right or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that those are the sort of people you need to convince if you want your draft to be published. If it is impossible because they are too daft, there is no point wasting your time, is there? Just leave them altogether and go do something more productive, whether on-wiki (editing another article) or off-wiki (read a book, take a walk, etc.).

Of course, if you have a reason to believe that those 6 people are somehow more stupid or biased against you than the general population of active Wikipedia editors, you might have other options (but make sure to read WP:BOOMERANG before choosing them). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "count" or the "number" of people is not the bone of the contention here. This thread is not about my editorial abilities or ex-wiki errands. The reviewer of the draft has been repeatedly unresponsive which goes against the Wikipedia:Active editing and Wikipedia: Golden Rules.

I would like to rephrase your comment about irrelevancy of my facts being right, the facts which are reported here are the bone of contention. The crux is not about who is convinced or not, for each one may have their own reasons of "interpretation" but it does not reflect the factual scenario. I am sure that a forum like Wikipedia does not support/is not a place of emotional whataboutery.

I am having trouble understanding the "they" you use in your comment, since wikipedia is certainly not governed by the 6 persons you counted. On that note, what I do off-wiki is and should not be a matter of anyone's concern but me. I think you would appreciate that I never mentioned the 6 persons to be "stupid" like you perceived, nor did I "presume" an in-built bias against me.

WP:Boomerang talks of " reporting" which I have not done till now, nor did I have an inkling towards it. Instead, there has been highly hyperbolic and ballistic driven replies and threats of supposed "violation of WP policies" by one of the persons among the group. I would like to direct your suggestion of WP:Boomerang towards them. In collaborative efforts always, Regards. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try again.

You want certain things to happen on Wikipedia: that your draft be accepted, that it describes as a fact that Bhaskar Sen represented India in a given event, etc. These things will be achieved only if some other people take certain actions, or refrain from blocking your actions. (It is impossible to know who "these people" are in advance: decisions about individual pages are usually taken by a very small number of editors, fewer than ten, and there is no central committee exercising strong control.)

Therefore, you need to convince these people. If you don’t, the things you want will not happen. It may be contrary to Wikipedia’s own guidelines, it might be unfair in a sense of immanent justice, but such considerations will not change what the Wikipedia page will say to readers.

This is post #48 of that thread if I counted right. Before you type post #49, please make sure that it has a chance to work where posts #1 through #47 did not.

I do not intend to reply any further (which, contrary to your apparent belief, is entirely allowed either from me or from article reviewers - see WP:VOLUNTEER, which is a well-respected essay and not a historical page). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would still reply to your points, since I follow the Wiki best practices which say that an editor "should" be responsible for his article and justify the content in a way that can be corroborated.

I think again, I would like to mention that the question of "who" blocks is not a matter of concern, but why. Time and again counter-argue-ers here seem to have acted on superficial curation only to bulldoze verifiable claims and called out the writer unjustifiably. If wiki being an encyclopedic resource, can not or will not provide safeguards against such practices, then the process itself is brought to question.

Again, the count of posts is of little consequence/matter when the contentions have been dealt with by sufficient depth of research and curation.

Lastly, whether you have the "free-will" to not reply or not is certainly not the point I raised. The reviewer who declined indeed should be responsible/accountable for his decision, otherwise, the rights distribution mechanism of wiki becomes infructuous. Since, my belief in free-for-all knowledge and authentic encyclopedic resource is still undeterred, I tend to think the contrary. Hence, it brings to question the laissez-faire and indifferent manner of the reviewer which is again against Wikipedia:Active editing and Wikipedia: Golden Rules. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reference this article on the BBC website on 28/01/2023 this link, https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20230126-the-return-of-the-spirit-horse-to-canada On the article about the Horse extintion in wikipedia the paragraph on Taxonomy and evolution it states as follows "By about 15,000 years ago, Equus ferus was a widespread holarctic species. Horse bones from this time period, the late Pleistocene, are found in Europe, Eurasia, Beringia, and North America. Yet between 10,000 and 7,600 years ago, the horse became extinct in North America and rare elsewhere. The reasons for this extinction are not fully known, but one theory notes that extinction in North America paralleled human arrival. Another theory points to climate change, noting that approximately 12,500 years ago, the grasses characteristic of a steppe ecosystem gave way to shrub tundra, which was covered with unpalatable plants" The article on BBC refutes this theory by this in the article as follows:The Spanish did bring horses to what is now Mexico in 1519, but research by Dr Yvette Running Horse Collin cites written Spanish accounts that place herds in what is now Georgia and the Carolinas in 1521. Proof, she argues, that horses were here before the Europeans: as Collin notes, it would have been impossible for those Spanish horses to have multiplied and travelled so far in just two years. When it comes to the Ojibwe spirit horse, according to the Ojibwe Horse Society, DNA testing shows they are a separate breed from the horses introduced to North America by Europeans. Please correct or confirm if this is wrong or other as both can't be correct. 123.243.15.64 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have no article on horse extinction, but we have a section on it in Horses in the United States. It would be best to start a discussion at Talk:Horses in the United States, not here. As for referencing it, be bold and go ahead. If you need help citing sources, see WP:CITE or look at other examples of citations in the article you want to edit. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist pure fringe, see Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon#Horses in pre-Columbian]]. I can't find the DNA test that was supposed to have been done and I spent a lot of time on it. Now at WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but if there were horses in what are now Georgia and the Carolinas, that means horses never went extinct in the first place. it also raises the question of why they werent widespread outside of those 3 states. where is the corroborating evidence from the archeological and fossil record? Omsk346 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Omsk346, if you want to challenge statements in the article, or discuss the addition of new information (supported by reliable sources), the place to do so is Talk:Horses in the United States, as mentioned above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anurag dixit Shiwgndf (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiwgndf Hello. I've added the submission information to allow it to be submitted. You've never edited that draft, at least from your account; what is the source of your interest in it? 331dot (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir this all information's are Collected from better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiwgndf (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly. And WP:N on what kind of sources that are necessary for an article to "stick". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of Draft:Anurag dixit is globally locked. My understanding is that therefore this draft should be Speedy deleted. Even if not for that reason, there are no valid formatted references, and some of what is presented to establish notability - for example, minor awards - is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's account was created 2023-01-28 10:06, and these Teahouse edits are their only contributions.

@David notMD, The page creator appears to be Akhilkumarwiki, who last edited 2022-11-27. I don't see anything in that user's block log -- do globally locked accounts not show up there? And am I allowed to state the obvious suspicion about these accounts? David10244 (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block notice is visible at User:Akhilkumarwiki's Contributions (global account details) rather than User or Talk page, and appears to be due to >30 edits at Simple Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, thanks. David10244 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account is  Confirmed to the article's creator. I have blocked here, and requested global lock. Please consider reporting any other accounts showing up here asking about articles or drafts on that subject to SPI. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Girth Summit. David10244 (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A while back in one of my wiki-browsing adventures, someone linked to a tool (I think it was somewhere on xtools or toolforge) where you can input two editors usernames and it will tell you the articles they both edited and the interval between the edits on that of those editors. Now I can’t find it! Does anyone have a link? Thanks in advance :) BhamBoi (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BhamBoi. There are a couple of "tools" that you can use to do this, but the one you're asking about is (I think) the "Editor Interaction Analyzer". -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I actually don’t think that was it…

The one in the back of my brain was more like

(Inputted 2 usernames)

List:

PAGETITLE Edited 2 weeks apart

OTHERPAGE Edited 14 seconds apart

Someone used it in an RFA to show that they had the same interests by having lots of articles they both worked on. BhamBoi (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BhamBoi So not: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py ? (Which produces results like this) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is is! Much thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BhamBoi: That is the same "Editor Interaction Analyzer" tool that I linked to above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly Yep - I knew that, too. Just thought I'd link to it directly as I was sure you were correct. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK Nick. I should've linked to that particular section instead of simply the page in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad too. I was on mobile so the site was hard to navigate if I wasn't on the exact right page to use it. Thanks to both of you! BhamBoi (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It was a pleasure to have been of help to you. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaifi Khalil created this article yesterday. But won't show up on Google results by searching it by name?

I added more content with reliable sources after notability tag was placed on it. So I think there is no notability issue? Uzek (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzek: It won't be indexed by search engines until it has been approved by the New Pages Patrol or 90 days, whichever happens first. RudolfRed (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzek And the article has been proposed for deletion. David10244 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzek You have a history of adding content without references. I see that on 11 January, @Anand2202 wrote a lengthy admonishment on your Talk page about references and your editing style. Before that, @Ad Orientem blocked you for (I think) adding unreferenced material. Since you have EC status, you can certainly create articles directly in mainspace, but I predict this article will eventually end up in a deletion review. If the references are good enough, it should survive. If not, it probably won't. David10244 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean deletion discussion, as opposed to deletion review? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough cited coverage that I'm not comfortable with a Prod and have declined it accordingly. If doubts remain, I suggest AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244, @RudolfRed the article is now at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @UtherSRG, deletion discussion is what I meant. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a Wiki user and would really like to see the title row of large data table stay locked on top as i scroll down the list... when i get to the row I'm interested in, i have to scroll back up to see the headings This not something I'm trying to do, but rathe ask the developers to promote locking header header rows. Thank you 142.116.69.122 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is available to registered users as a gadget named Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view, i.e. "sticky".

Head over to Special:CreateAccount, and you'll be able to turn it on in Special:Preferences under the gadgets section. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WindTempos Thanks for your really helpful answer to the IP user. TBH: I hadn't noticed that gadget before, and have just turned it on. Incredibly useful! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I'm glad you found it helpful! WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about an article that used to exist but now is gone. I'm not talking about a stub that never got going but a modest but true article: getcited.org . That it once existed is attested at https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2175/what-are-getcited-org-and-getcited-com-for . When I entered "getcited" into Search, I got a message that it didn't exist and a few hits where it was mentioned in articles about various scholars. I am worried that some other articles will also simply disappear. Kdammers (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: GetCITED was deleted in 2017 for lack of notability at this discussion. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: articles get deleted literally every day, for a variety of reasons. See WP:DELETION -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers One of the flaws with the Wikipedia search box is that when you "search for pages containing getcited" when that page doesn't exist, you will be offered output saying The page "Getcited" does not exist. You can click on the redlink and create it. However, it is only when you use the specific capitalisation of the original article, which was GetCITED that clicking on the redlink will point out that such an article existed in the past, giving a link to the deletion discussion and date (try these two redlinks and note the difference). There may be a way round this limitation but I don't know it! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a cursory bit of searching, but didn't find anything in this area of policy. I personally believe we do not need imaginings, for example, of how historical figures or events might have appeared, but maybe not everyone shares this opinion. — Anon423 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anon423 AFAIK there is no policy just yet, however, this has been discussed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content and there is a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Large language models. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anon423 My view is that there is little to no place whatsoever in an encyclopaedia for 'imaginings' unless a reconstruction is based upon serious academic research. I get quite cross seeing certain users uploading colourful but amateurish and incompetent imaginings of pre-Cambrian lifeforms as if they were academically sound. Recently , a well-meaning project met with community concern when artists were employed to make drawings of certain notable individuals, based on photographs which really should have been used instead. Reconstructions of how an archaeological site might have looked at the time could be valid if done by a competent authority. But, I agree with you, that there is no place here for wild imaginings in order to make an article a bit more pretty to the eye, whether human drawn or done by AI. The key driver for any opinion would be this. We don't need pictures to have an article. A misleading or imaginary image just promotes misunderstanding if not done with academic rigour. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anon423:, I totally agree, and in a sense we don't actually need a different policy. An AI-generated image of what a historical personality might have looked like is clearly based on some information it got from somewhere. And since it hasn't referenced from where it got the information, it can be removed as unsourced. I cannot write "Cleopatra had brown eyebrows" without finding an Egyptologist to back it up. Why should I be allowed to show a picture of her with brown eye-brows? Elemimele (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently joined Wikipedia, and a friend of mine sent me your "fakesources" page, which is very useful. Thank you. Currently, I am in the process of increasing my understanding of policies and norms on Wikipedia. In this regard, I was checking sources and their usability/credibility on Wikipedia. Some of which appeared in multiple Wikipedia: WikiProject Spam/linkReports. However, they were not mentioned in your list. I want to understand, what's the purpose of WikiProject Spam and how they help us. Should we consider sources appearing in Wikipedia: WikiProject Spam/linkReports, as non-credible, or the specific article would be considered non-credible? Please, help.

Thanks in advance. 1OA9 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1OA9: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you don't receive an answer here, I suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you, a lot. 1OA9 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1OA9 The spam project is specifically aimed at removing links that people add to articles to promote their own websites or for other WP:VANDALISM (i.e. they know their addition will damage rather than improve the encyclopaedia). They are in general not "sources" for anything useful and there could not be a full listing as they pop up all the time. It is better to approach sourcing the other way round: we have a page about reliable sources and a list of possible sources which are regularly debated about where consensus one way or another has been agreed (see WP:RSPS). To take an example from the list, the Internet Movie Database is not considered reliable, although it is frequently mentioned in the "External links" section of articles about actors or films. On the other hand, Rotten Tomatoes is considered reliable, especially for film reviews. As a newcomer, you should probably read WP:REFB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks a lot. One more question, So, if a source has been mentioned in a spam report, does it mean that we can remove the mentioned platform, in any of the clean ups or we would have to see individual articles?

P.S I have read both WP:REFB and reliable sources pages.

P. P.S. I did the comment to @Kuru he couldn't reply, so I copy pasted the whole thing. This (User:Kuru/fakesources) is the fakesources link in my question. 1OA9 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1OA9 I've not seen that list before but it does look well-researched, so I certainly think that citations using these sources should be removed on sight. Of course, like any other edit, you need to be prepared to discuss with other editors on the relevant Talk Page why you removed something: that's the standard WP:BRD process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull ok... Thanks a lot. :) 1OA9 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jingbo_Wang, It was declined due to the sources not being adequate. The sources are all peer reviewed journals. I'm unsure why these sources are not reliable. Massie314 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Massie314. I believe that Wang meets the Notability guideline for academics #3 as a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Physics. I am pinging TheChunky, the reviewer who declined the draft, for their input. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328. I'm new to wikipedia, is there anything that I can do or should I wait for some further feedback from TheChunky? Massie314 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Most of the sources seem to be to her own work, not what others say about her work. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, WP:NACADEMIC is an explicit exception to the usual requirement for independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Thanks for pinging me. The subject might pass WP:NACADEMIC, but the personal information about the subject should have at least secondary and independent reliable sources. But I saw that most of the sources were self-published. The subject shouldn't depend on self-published sources (as per WP:SELFPUB). Notability is not so simple, and if a subject is connected to the source, we can't consider it to establish notability. Thanks again.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree more references about her would be helpful. As it stands now, refs 2-21 are to scientific journal articles (in peer-reviewed journals, thus in my opinion not self-published). David notMD (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheChunky, articles coauthored by Wang and published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals are not "self-published" in any way, shape or form. What gave you that idea? Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheChunky, the nutshell section of WP:ACADEMIC says that Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.. Notability of academics is evaluated with completely different metrics than other topics. Drafts that are more likely than not to survive an AfD debate should be accepted. I cannot imagine a biography of a fellow of a major national academy of physics being deleted at AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. Could someone have another review of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jingbo_Wang? It has been further revised. Dongdian (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Thanks for your explanation. Well, I am not much of an experienced reviewer of academic articles; I just observed that the subject was connected with most of the references, so I declined the submission. As you said, there are exceptions to the academic notability criteria, so this can be accepted. The creator should resubmit and any reviewer who have academic articles experience can review it. Thanks again.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

Hi! I was a bit curious on when to and not to diffuse a sub-category. Should a category be diffused in all cases when an article fits in both, or only some? For example, I understand that categories specifying gender and whatnot are almost always diffused, but what about those specifying levels of experience or rank within a profession. An example using the category that prompted the question would be whether articles in Category:Bolivian trade union leaders should also be included in Category:Bolivian trade unionists. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krisgabwoosh. I think your question is best answered by the section Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization. Generally an article ...should be categorised under the most specific parent categories possible and Items may belong to more than one category, but normally not to a category and its parent. There are exceptions to this rule, like with non-diffusing categories.

The next sections of that guideline go into explaining diffusing and non-diffusing categories. An important point it makes is Non-diffusing subcategories should be identified with a template on the category page.

In other words, follow WP:SUBCAT unless stated otherwise. Using this rule in your example, articles appearing in Category:Bolivian trade union leaders should not also appear in Category:Bolivian trade unionists, assuming the category structure is correct.

If you need further explanation, a good place to ask would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. --DB1729^talk 06:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @Krisgabwoosh: and it seems you may actually be asking if we should convert the categories in your example to non-diffusing? I'm not sure how to answer that, but I can say I deal with categories a lot and non-diffusing cats seem to be pretty rare. I assume they are larger ones and made non-diffusing for a good reason. The US state river cats are none-diffusing, see for example Category:Rivers of Colorado, Category:Rivers of Colorado by county and note the notification banner on those, but I don't know or remember why they were made that tbh. Again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories would be good place to ask. --DB1729^talk 06:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DB1729: Am I correct in saying it's a bit arbitrary, then? All women politician categories are non-diffusing. This is because they're both "women politicians" and, definitionally, just "politicians". Although trade union leaders may be, definitionally, also trade unionists, they only go into the one category.

I'm not suggesting any changes, mind you, but I'm curious as to what the cutoff is for when to and not to diffuse. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When working with and trying to make sense of Wikipedia categorization, sometimes it's easy to fall down a rabbit hole and often find at the bottom, nothing makes sense. DB1729^talk 12:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How existential, ha ha. Thanks anyway for the thoughtful response. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisgabwoosh take a look at WP:EGRS which specifically addresses categories related to ethnicity, gender, and other factors where non-difusing is important. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I just did a pretty complete overhaul of the writer about horror David Del Valle, adding many non primary source citations like from Entertainment Weekly, Video Watchdog, the Texas A&M University Libraries, Fangoria and a lot of others. There were tags for "primary sources" and for "notability." I just wanted to let everyone know in case it wasn't OK to remove them but I think it probably was? Thank you to everyone here. - The Horror, The Horror (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Horror, The Horror: Thank you for improving the article. I suggest posting this information at Talk:David Del Valle, as people interested in that article probably won't come here looking for information on why you removed the templates. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will! Thank you! You have always been helpful & supportive. - The Horror, The Horror (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a new project and wasn't sure if I was able use an Instagram post as a citation. The source in question was posted by the official "TikTokCreators" account which is run by TikTok/ByteDance. If I were to use a post as a source, referencing my subjects involvement with the platform through this post, is this source considered notable or should I strictly reference other online news?

Source in Question: Here DestinyinDestiny (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DestinyinDestiny. Generally, Wikipedia is more concerned about reliability than notability when assessing a source. Instagram is certainly Wikipedia notable and thus can have a Wikipedia article written about it, but it's generally considered to be user generated content and a self-published source, and thus not typically considered to be reliable for Wikipedia purposes. In some cases, a subject's official Instagram account might be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, but the way primary sources can be cited is limited to certain types of content; moreover, they are never useful in establishing a subject's Wikipedia notability. Furthermore, if content in question is related to a living person, then there are even more restrictions in place per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF. Is there a specific article where you want cite this Instagram post? Perhaps if you can give the name of the article, someone might be able to give you a better assessment of the source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DestinyinDestiny: The linked post says (paraphrased) that persons X, Y, Z are part of program W from TikTok. I will assume that the account is indeed run by TikTok.

That post is certainly a reliable source for the assertion that X, Y, Z are part of program W. However, that assertion might be undue weight to mention on the pages of X, Y, Z, or TikTok. It might not be a significant enough development to merit a mention on Wikipedia.

It is not a good source either to prove the "notability" of X, Y, Z (it is a short mention of something that may or may not have a big significance), nor W (the source is the originator of W, so it is not independent). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty creating new account pls 119.95.103.16 (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. When you access, for example, the Wikipedia Main page at this URL in your browser and have no account, you should see a link called "Create account" near the top right of the page. Click on that and follow the instructions. Note that, once you have an account but are not yet logged in to it, there are three dots to the right of "Create account" which when clicked lead to additional options, including the ability to login. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/119.95.103.16 states that "This IP address is currently blocked...with an expiration time of 72 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked)". Creating a new account during this time might be seen as block evasion. GoingBatty (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty My typical problem with WP:AGF. The account was blocked today at 12:05 UTC+0, so when I replied it wasn't. I have my preferences set so that I see usernames from blocked accounts struck out so as to try to WP:DENY. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I was responding to the IP, and not criticizing your kind response to the IP. GoingBatty (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stephan Ulamec

Hello people,

Is there anyone willing to help me find sources for this page about this academic person involved in space missions?

Best regards! MANARAJu (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MANARAJu Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to be co-authors or reference finders. Per the Declined, you have content in Career and Awards that is not referenced, and you have unreferenced content in the Lead that is not expanded upon nor referenced in the body of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MANARAJu What I think would be a good idea for you to do is to go through each statement, line by line. Ask yourself "how can I show this statement is true?" If he won an award, cite a link to prove it. If you say he was born on 27th January 1966, link to something reliable that shows this to be correct. A bio on a university website is deemed to be reliable in ways that my bio on a private website is not. The university is deemed to have checked and approved such content.

If you have one source but want to use it multiple times in an article, that is not a problem. Both our editing tools permit reuse of an existing citation elsewhere in an article.

If you can't provide a published source, then just remove that statement and work with what other sources can prove. I think you've got the outline of a reasonable article that might meet WP:NPROF, but you need to pare it down so that everything can be shown to be correct, and there's nothing left that can be challenged. If you can't, then I have to ask how you know those statement to be correct in the first place?

I have since seen that you've declared your employer, but it would be appropriate to follow guidance at WP:COI and ensure there's a clear statement linking your editing to this person. We don't ban it, but we do require clarity in declaration. In fact, for an employee who is working in public relations for a scientific organisation, it would be obligatory requirement for you to indicate which article you are editing as part of your work. I would also invite you to write the text of your userpage in English, not French, as this is the language we use on this particular version of Wikipedia. I hope this all helps a bit, and 'bon chance'! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Did you mean to recommend WP:COI to @MANARAJu? GoingBatty (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick Moyes Thanks, mate. MANARAJu (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD Thanks for your guidance.

by the way it's "Bonne chance" MANARAJu (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD Fixed it - thanks. @MANARAJu That's why I don't edit fr.wiki. But you get the sentiment, I hope. . Nick Moyes (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed!

MERCI ! MANARAJu (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not search it up on the website? It would be better though. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the reply above from 204.129.232.191, who has been blocked for 3 years. David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Does anyone know how to turn off the new user landing page that appears whenever I go to a page that doesn't exist?

Thanks,

LOOKSQUARE (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LOOKSQUARE There are checkboxes at the very bottom of Special:Preferences for newcomer editors. Unchecking them may help, although I'm not sure that's the relevant feature. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I turned them off a few days ago, but nothing changed.

LOOKSQUARE (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the pages with the image of three flowers and text like "Start a discussion with..." when you hit a redlink to a user page or article Talk Page that doesn't exist, such as User talk:DestinyinDestiny? That text and image is added by the software and can't be switched off: its not just for new users. When I click on a potential article that doesn't exist such as junkxyz I get a page where an article could be created that has a warning message starting "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article". Are you seeing something else in that case? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LOOKSQUARE: Are you still getting the new user landing page? It should stop when your account is four days old and has made ten edits. The account is eight days old and your first post here was your tenth edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user landing page has stopped showing up. Thanks for the help!

LOOKSQUARE (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to create a Wikipedia page for our dance show (similar to Riverdance) Celtic Throne. https://celticthrone.com We have toured the USA twice and plan on touring again this year. A wikipedia page will help provide more information to potential viewers - Riverdance has a page and we are an Irish Dance show similar in nature. I understand if I am not able to create it myself, as I am affiliated, but perhaps someone could help me or draft one for me. Thanks, WikiEdits728 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WikiEdits728, welcome to the Teahouse. The most important thing is to establish whether the show is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Are there published reviews of the show by critics? Has it won any important awards? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Here are some news clips: https://kdvr.com/news/celtic-throne-coming-to-the-newman-center/

https://www.newscenter1.tv/celtic-throne-returns-to-rapid-city-at-the-monument-on-june-13/

https://edmondlifeandleisure.com/third-us-tour-set-for-celtic-throne-troupe-edmond-based-entertainers-also-p22663-99.htm

as well as the Music for the production was composed by Brian Byrne (he is a golden-globe nominee and the same composer for the show Heartbeat of Home)

We also had a former Riverdance Lead comment “Easily the best dance show I’ve seen since the originals. An absolute must see. As an ex-Riverdance lead dancer, I know brilliant when I see it.”

— Darren Maguire

Does this Help? WikiEdits728 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiEdits728. Those are routine event announcements published to promote upcoming performances with repetitive language indicating that the coverage was generated by press releases. What is required is independent coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least, I'm afraid. Routine announcements do not contribute to notability. Basically, what you are explicitly doing is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion - which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. Once several people, wholly unconnected with you, have chosen to write significant coverage of your show, published in reliable sources, then there could be an article about the show. Note that such an article would not be owned by you, would not be controlled by you, might contain material you did not like, and should be based almost entirely on what those independent commentators have said about it - good and bad - not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see There are no deadlines, and an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiEdits728 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEdits728 I did a quick Google of your company name and couldn't find any obviously useful sources. However, if you wish to create a draft article (not "page": we are not social media), that is allowed provided you declare your conflict of interest and probably WP:PAID status on your User Page. Once the article draft is accepted, if it is, you will not be able to edit it further except in limited circumstances. Please read WP:YFA carefully before starting and you may also find this essay helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiEdits728 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the primary sources, I would like to mention that the citations are bare URLs. I have went in to fix headings and repeat citations. One tip I have is that the visual editor allows easier filling of citations and other templates.

I know that it has already been said but please get more secondary sources, try to at least get one secondary source for every primary one. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and interested in making an addition to an existing article that involves citing a patent. Is there a method for inserting a patent or is it treated like any other published document? 10346Charlie (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10346Charlie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm wondering why you need to cite a patent, which is a primary source. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10346Charlie, as 331dot implies, patents should be cited only with good reason. Template:Cite patent provides a standardized method. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @10346Charlie. You asked this question several days ago. The previous question and its answers are archived here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm attempting to write a page on an author. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Darrin+Gray&create=Create+page

Will this pass as notable? If not what do I need to do to fix.

Thank you for your help.

Renee Renee530 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renee530, as you have not clicked 'publish changes', nobody else can see the work. In addition, please create the article (not page) first as a draft, probably Draft:Darrin Gray. That will prevent it from getting tagged and speedy deleted immediately by the more aggressive new page patrollers. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've published the changes and added additional news articles. Renee530 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Renee530, it would have been a much better idea to create a draft, as suggested above. The article you created is not ready for main space - it is full of inline external links instead of references, and many important bits are unsourced. Since this is a biography of a living person, you must be even more careful than usual about good sourcing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has now been moved to draft space. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before submitting, remove all hyperlinks from Draft:Darrin Gray. Some of those may be appropriate as references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. You may want to use your own Sandbox to format refs correctly before copy/pasting into the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, I didn't add Disambiguation link. Did i overlook something? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2023. --SilverMatsu (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvermatsu: Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't understand what Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2023 has to do with you or disambiguation links. Could you please restate your question, with links to the related articles and/or discussions? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you your reply. Sorry, that tag (section title) was added to to the edit summary. See Revision history. --SilverMatsu (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stress tensor is a disambiguation page. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvermatsu If you add this code .mw-disambig { color: #FF8921 !important; } /* Orange */ to your common.css at Special:MyPage/common.css, then all disambiguation links will show in orange, which makes it much easier to notice them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to enable "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True! I learned the other method from a Teahouse post by someone else a couple of years ago. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph, Michael D. Turnbull, and PrimeHunter: Thank you for teaching me ! The disambiguation link that the "template:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2023/Xxx" called was displayed in orange, so it seems to have triggered the tag. --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been redirected from the page Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to here. I am asking this in the full belief that this is the correct page to ask.

I have seen an article about a person deleted a decade back. She was a non-notable person, and the article seemed to be written by her friends or family members, or for money. That article was proposed for deletion, and after 2 weeks of no objection whatsoever, it was proposed for speedy deletion, and was then deleted within days. That article has not been ever recreated, as far as I understand. But her photo is still visible on this site. The file page says this: "No pages on the English Wikipedia use this file (pages on other projects are not listed)".

How to nominate that photo for deletion? 117.213.59.69 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the name of the person and the file name? Otherwise contributors on Wikimedia Commons would likely be more useful, although there are many Commons contributors on Wikipedia. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file in question is this:

File:Urmila Varma.jpg

I see no reason that this file is to be kept on Wikipedia. 117.213.59.69 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You can nominate the file for deletion at Commons:File:Urmila Varma.jpg (there's a "Nominate for deletion" in the menu on the left). I have only ever nominated files for deletion for copyright reasons, so I'm not familiar other reasons; but I think you will need to make an argument based on commons:Commons:Deletion policy. ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nominated. I shall get back if there are more questions in the future. 117.213.59.69 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This youtuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WddKQ7ZTw says that there is a significant ownership change in Bytedance suggesting complete CCP takeover. Bytedance is behind TikTok. Maybe something that would merit some investigation and potentially change in the Bytedance Wikipedia page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance 84.248.14.197 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We don't go by what random "YouTubers" say, but what independent reliable sources say about a topic. YouTube is generally not a reliable source(as anyone can post anything on YouTube) unless the video is from a recognized news outlet from their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need help editing a page about the KiraSec hacker group

I ask experienced users to help edit this page.

This hacker group is relatively new, but it is already mentioned in the media website: IBTimes.

2A03:EC00:B144:56D:C5CA:DC51:C833:3CD9 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. JBW left some very good and detailed advice on the draft at User talk:Samuels99917 - have you seen that post? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's me. And can I ask you to correct mistakes on this page? I'm just new to Wikipedia... Samuels99917 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Samuels99917. Most folks here are volunteers; we work on whatever happens to interest us. People with similar interests create or join WikiProjects to work as a team in order to improve specific areas. WikiProject Internet culture covers hacker groups, so that's probably the best place to find people who might be willing to help. Their talk page is here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mobile app needs the sister sites on it like Commons and Wiki Voyage. Or at least make them separate apps. MeltanFlood (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MeltanFlood, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to leave feedback about one of the mobile apps, the team working on them has a page here. You can post on the discussion page or follow one of the links to the Android- or iOS-specific FAQ pages and leave a comment on the discussion page there. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MeltanFlood This is a proposal in the Community Wishlist Survey. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Dr. Phil talk show, can a list of episodes be added into the article. Not sure if this is the best place to ask but thought I could since there may be experts on Wikipedia may know if it is needed or not.Cwater1 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Cwater1. Have you considered asking the folks at WikiProject Television? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't think of that. I will do that. Thank you!Cwater1 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the topic I added. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Dr. Phil (talk show)Cwater1 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that although the word 'Zentangle' is on the list of art techniques here and has a slot on wikiHow (BTW, is wikiHow anything to do with this encyclopedia?), it has no page of its own. This is possibly because an organisation in the USA has trademarked and copyrighted the word, method and the materials they produce to help students to learn the technique. I suppose Zentangles could be mentioned under 'Doodle' which has a page, or, better yet, under 'Pattern' which has a page. The question for this beginner editor is ....how would one deal with the trademark/copyright situation? I guess it can't mean that I cannot write about Zentangles (or other trademarked concepts) at all, since Coca Cola, for example, has a page? I have no connection with the Z brand or the company by the way. Just trying to learn. Thanks. Balance person (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Balance person: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created.

Also, wikiHow is not related to Wikipedia - they are two separate projects using the same MediaWiki software. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome. To add to GoingBatty's answer: no, whether the name is a trademark or not is not relevant. As always the key question is whether there is enough material independent of the organization published about it in reliable sources to establish that it is notable. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both GoingBatty and ColinFine. I have actually edited quite a few pages already and done some new pages. I guess I should stop saying I am a beginner and say 'not very experienced' instead. But I have not had to deal with the trademark issue before. I am happy to read that it is not a block for inclusion, provided other things like notability, independent sources, etc are taken care of. Thanks too for the info about wikiHow! And for your speed of response. Balance person (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Balance person: We do have a style guide WP:TRADEMARK that explains how to use trademarked things in prose. Basically we write them as normal words and we don't follow the company's preferences about weird uppercasing/lowercasing, spacing, funny symbols, or whatever. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Great! That's what I have been looking for. Thank you.Balance person (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received a welcome message on my talk page. There is a "reply" button but it doesn't work (I tested this bug on both windows and macOs). Is there anywhere I can report issues about wikipedia templates ? (also isn't it a bit weird to receive a welcome message long after I create my account ? ) Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent-vst: Welcome to the Teahouse. Normally if there's an issue with a particular template, you'd find that template's talk page to mention the issue. However, the Reply tool does not fall under that, and you are best going to the village pump (technical) to find more tech-savvy Wikipedians to help you.
I'll note that I tried fiddling around on your talk page, and it seems the tool works on almost every comment except for the ones that follow the welcome template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently edited the Indonesia–Israel relations page, to update it with 2023 news about Israeli Olympic shooter Sergy Rikhter withdrawing from ISSF meet in Jakarta.

I left a request for feedback on it's talk page—however, despite it being around for 12+ years, the page is listed as low to mid-importance on a variety of projects + there is only one other "talk" topic. I'm afraid it will be overlooked. I'm generally shy about significant edits and have been mostly lurking and making minor edits. Reverses and hard-nosed pushback seems to be de rigueur, so I admit I've been languishing. This seems silly, and I'd like to try to push through whatever hurdles and blocks exist for me to become a more dedicated editor.

I'd appreciate some patient editor/mod taking a look at my brief contribution and offering feedback. On the talk page I asked for ways to improve or pointing out glaring errors, but allowing the ability to correct errors on my own. Thank you!! 🙏 mazal (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lezelmaz: Hi there! I made some tweaks to your addition, including combining two paragraphs into one and updating the references. I suggest removing the sentence stating "Richter won gold...", as that level of detail is better for the article about Richter. Does one of the reliable sources explain why the ISSF refused to allow him to compete with any ISR symbols? Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty, thanks for the help! In particular the guidance of removing FB tracking garbage is enlightening. Although I would have appreciated the chance to fix it, I understand you might have thought it would be overly technical. Can we discuss your suggestion to remove the sentence regarding Richter's athletic accomplishments? I get the logic of why you think it's misplaced, and perhaps that's due to my clunky prose. My intention is very briefly to offer context for why Richter's withdrawal is significant enough to post on a page dedicated to Indonesia—Israel relations. It's also written about in both cited articles. The articles also go into great detail about the markings on Richter's weapons, etc., which I didn't feel added any situational value, and left out. Regarding Q2: (explanation for why ISSF refused ISR symbols?) One of the articles only intimates the lack of diplomatic ties, but doesn't offer a specific ISSF statement or rational. Since the "History" section of the wiki page is literally the progression of repeated, but ultimately failed, attempts at establishing formal diplomatic ties, I left it at that. I took the time to review all the rest of your tweaks not related to my edit, which I hope you might let me inquire about. mazal (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lezelmaz: I think describing him as an Olympic athlete is sufficient to explain why his withdrawal is significant, without needing to list some of his medals. However, I don't feel strongly enough to remove it myself. I also copied your work into the article about Sergy Rikhter, and tweaked it a bit. Happy to discuss the details of my edits further if you like. GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Oh, nice. I sent a thanks. :) I'll leave it for now and revisit in a few days to see how it feels. Perhaps all the wikilink decorations give it more weight than necessary? I appreciate the breathing room. Re many of other tweaks, perhaps it's too pedantic on my part but I'm curious about converting most(?) of the citations in "publisher" to "work" field. I took a quick peek at the template you reference in summary. I'm not deeply schooled in every citation style, but your conversion seem very journal-centric (as opposed to web-based, and news)? Anyway it just peaked my interest. I also noted expanding "language" field, among others, which is obviously logical—and helpful. Thank you for all the attention! mazal (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lezelmaz: Newspapers/magazine/journal titles should be italicized, and changing |publisher= to |work= does that italicization. GoingBatty (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! On Draft:Thunkable, I don't know how to cite sources. I do know how to add a reference, but I can't find any reliable sources about thunkable. If I use EveryBody Wiki and Bios as a source/external link, it's blocked. I don't know how to cite the article, and if I submit it, it's declined. What can I do about this? Sincerely, WPchanger2011 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WPchanger2011: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find reliable sources that are independent from the subject, it's probably not notable as Wikipedia defines it. You've already cited sources as one would expect on Wikipedia, so I don't know what you mean by you not knowing how to cite sources. I'll also say that using wikis (including Wikipedia itself) is a bad idea; user-generated content almost always lacks the editorial oversight for a source to be considered reliable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, folks. For the past month or so I've been creating an article (Sandbox draft here) on a band from Northern Norway, but there is one thing I'm uncertain about. In its early history (when information about the band was more poorly documented), there was a member called Marianne Hanssen who seems to have left sometime in 2005. The thing I'm concerned about is that there are no sources that say she left, nor when her final perfomance with the band was, so there would be no way to verify this information without it being original research.

The last source that mentions her by name (at least in connection to the band) was from 28 May 2005, but she may very well have had performances after that. The next source I could find that details the members of the band is from November 2005, with no mention of Hanssen. A source from 2009 says that she was a member, but not when she left. I've written something akin to "By [November 2005], the band consisted of [members here]", which sidesteps the issue of writing about Hanssen entirely. Is this the right approach? ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArcticSeeress, that seems OK to me. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have translated the article Neuro-sama into Chinese, and I am sure that I have set the language link in Wikidata correctly. It does seem good in Chinese Wikipedia. However, in English Wikipedia, there is an unknown language "Norsk nynorsk" in "Languages", and it points to the page "[[nn:Mal:Aipire]]", which doesn't exist. How to deal with it? Thanks! --Yining Chen (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages can be added directly to an article through text, like the following: [[zh:Neuro-Sama]]. The text [[nn:Mal:Aispire]] was added to the template Template:Compu-ai-stub by an IP editor last month, which is currently transcluded to the Neuro-Sama article. I've gone ahead and removed it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Yining Chen (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around for if the Manual of Style has a set type of headline style for citations. I read here that the Manual of Style requests sentence case but couldn't find the actual page saying as much. Is that correct or is like other things where the MOS defers to single-article consistency regardless of style. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Krisgabwoosh. Please read WP:ALLCAPS which provides some guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So does "sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article" mean it should always be sentence case or only when the article already used sentence case. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we should try as much as possible to use the same citation style that's already being used in an article per WP:CITEVAR, and typically this is the style chosen by the creator of the article or the first primary contributor to the article. Typically, styles aren't changed after the fact unless there's a pretty good reason for doing so and there's a consensus for doing so. Personally, other than MOS:ALLCAPS issues, I don't care too much about whether a citation uses headline case or sentence case for the title of a cited source, but some users may: particularly for WP:FA or WP:GA articles. I think you're more likely going to run into trouble mucking around with the date format used in citations or a complete changing of citation style than you're going to run into by changing "The Title of the Source Is This" to "The title of the source is this". If you do make such an edit and nobody reverts you, then great. If someone does revert you, then I wouldn't choose arguing about that to be my hill to die on so to speak. While I think it's important to be true to the source whenever possible, I tend to place a higher value on consistency in style and that's probably what we should strive for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisgabwoosh: Note that the link in your original post is discussing the Wikipedia style for titling our own articles (and sections in them), not the style for titles of works in citations. The most explicit advice that I know about the latter is in MOS:CT: WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used in an article. There are other considerations (such as using sentence style for titles of books in non-English languages when that style is usual in those languages), and the reality is that the capitalization of titles of works in Wikipedia citations is wildly inconsistent. If you're writing a new article, you can't go wrong by using title-style capitalization for all titles of English-language works; but it's probably best not to mess with title capitalization in existing articles unless the current capitalization is grossly inconsistent and you're quite sure of what you're doing. Deor (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page which was declined and I'm unable to know the exact reason. How do I know what mistakes or what should be take care that it is not declined. Here is the page link:

Draft:Udapachar - Wikipedia Mogalgiddi (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mogalgiddi, and welcome to the Teahouse. The words in blue in the notice at the top of the draft are all links to pages which explain the terms. However, in short: your draft does not have a single citation in the sense that Wikipedia requires: see WP:REFB. The tone is unencyclopaedic, being full of evaluative language and editorialising (and even the pronoun "I"): see WP:NPOV. Another editor has suggested that it may be a direct copy of the one source you mention, and hence a copyright violation and forbidden anywhere in Wikipedi.

I suggest reading the WP:YFA and the essay WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine for your prompt response and providing the insight on how to draft the encyclopaedia. I will go through the links properly and get back to you for further assistance. Mogalgiddi (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the feedback which you have received, both on the draft page and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which give you further help. When you have read those pages, if there is something specific which you don't understand, please feel free to ask a more detailed question. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David thanks for your prompt response. I'll go through the links once and get back to you if any confusion. Further can I get live help while i create or edit the draft? Mogalgiddi (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mogalgiddi, that 'draft" doesn't even start to look like an encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia. It has articles. Please read some. Then you'll start to understand what an encyclopedia article is. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot get live help. Teahouse hosts are her to advise, but not be live guides or co-authors. Reviews take place days to weeks or even months after a draft is submitted. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALL subjective content, such as "He had perfect rapport with the management. His dedication and love for the school was so intense and abiding that he cared little for himself and his welfare." must be removed. ALL remaining content must be verified by reliable source references. There is so much wrong with the draft that the best path is to copy it all you your computer, delete all from Wikipedia, and start over. David notMD (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think that the dark mode background gadget should be changed to the hex code: #454545 as it is better for your eyes, or let the user be able to set a hex code for the background.

Best wishes,
Blutankalpha (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Blutankalpha, welcome to the Teahouse. Your suggestion is more likely to be seen and considered if you post at the gadget's talk page, Wikipedia talk:Dark mode (gadget). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do.

Thanks, Blutankalpha (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company I work with doesn't have a wikipedia page, but another company with a similar name and industry but different location and background has, which is causing confusion.

Do I create a page of our company or will it count as a not notable topic and would've wasted my time. Note that the company that had the wikipedia page is no longer even active.

Helion Venture Partners is the already found page, our company is Helion Ventures Investment ltd. Helion Ventures (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Helion Ventures. You will need to change your username, because it implies it can be used by multiple persons, which is not allowed. "User:John Doe at Helion Ventures" would be fine. Go to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple to request that.

Furthermore, if you edit Wikipedia as part of your work duties, you need to make a specific disclosure to comply with the terms of use, see WP:PAID for how to do that. In any case, you should definitely read WP:COI before editing any topic with which you are closely related.

Onto your question, there are a few things...

You should start by trying to find good sources to demonstrate the notability, and only if you find these sources, then you start to write. Most new users start by writing and then try to find sources, which is indeed a waste of time, as the user essay WP:BACKWARD explains. It was wise of you not to do that.

What constitutes a good source, you may ask? Well, as WP:GNG says, it is a source that is simultaneously (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) deals with the topic in detail. For instance, an interview fails (1), a blog post by a unknown internet user fails (2), and an entry in a phonebook directory fails (3), so none of those are any good. One good source trumps a thousand bad ones in that matter. If you come back at the Teahouse page with the best sources you can find, we can tell you if they are good or not.

Assuming you can indeed find good sources, you should then create a draft and push it through the articles for creation process. This will cause a reviewer to check the draft and sort of any technical problems (such as: where to put the page if there are multiple companies with the same name).

Finally, I am not convinced the page you link to (the other company) should stay. The fact that it managed to stay on Wikipedia for 12 years does not mean it should have, and you should not think that the page about a similar company will stay. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles. Wikipedia is not a directory. We do not have pages. If your company does not meet our notability policies, it should not have an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is it possible to dismiss a draft that has already been submitted for review? If yes, please let me know how. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you mean just un-submit? Roll back in the edit history to the version just before you submitted. Do you mean get rid of the draft entirely? Edit it and replace the contents with {{db-author}}. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was trying to add some citations in some random article, but the main problem was that I could not find the difference in the structure of a citation between WP:CS1 and WP:CS2. The only difference between these CS that I know is that the CS2 uses citation template {{citation}}, while CS1 uses various citation templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite journal}}, and so on. Did I miss something? Could anyone give me an example of a citation using two CS? It might be helpful to understand. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: See Help:Citation Style 2#Style. Don't worry about it unless you are writing a featured article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. If two editors have a disagreement about a certain Wikipedia policy on their private talk page, how to best arrive at a resolution? How to bring this issue to a third party so that they can offer a neutral opinion? Bostonite01310 ^talk 18:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bostonite01310, welcome to the Teahouse. Dispute resolution covers our general procedures. We have a number of noticeboards dedicated to hashing out disputes in specific areas - WP:BLPN for BLP (biographies of living people) issues, WP:FTN for fringe theories, etc. A third opinion option exists but it's meant for content disputes, not policy discussions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thant helps, thank you! Bostonite01310 ^talk 18:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]