Hello there,

I was thinking on editing the wikipedia page Naya Sanwara and was thinking if a map showing its location in india and rajasthan would be available and how to add it, can anyone help by explaining me what is this and how can it be used.

Thanks in advance

Yamantakks (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I was also looking for citable resources like websites and the only I got were following

1. Village Info.in, i could not link it because it is blacklisted
2. Census 2011 . Co. In or simply "Population Census"
3. Local Body Data.com*

• This website only offers the details of the municipality or that things

Kindly tell if these are reliable enough to be used as citations ir should I nominate the article for deletion as it does not offers notable citations.

Regards

Yamantakks (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamantakks: Try adding Template:Infobox settlement to the article. Ask here again if you still need help, after reading its documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, before spending my time to improve the article, I was thinking of finding citations and as I mentioned later, I am seeing a problem in notability of the article, so, can you see and tell me if it is eligible for being nominated for deleting or can I get any other to help.

With warm regards

Yamantakks (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamantakks: A settlement recognised in a government document such as a census is generally considered notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing,

Ok, but, from the websites, they do not look like official government websites but are just some websites shosing the informwtion from census.

Yamantakks (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This question references this article.

I recently requested that a spamlist URL be unblocked for a reference and it was approved here, since it was a usurped URL and the old version through internet archive was relevant.

In the request, they are advising me to add the ||url-status=usurped template to the reference. When I edit the reference, where do I add this? Or would I have to create a brand new reference and delete the old ones? Citation [37] is an example of a citation I need to add an usurped link web template to.

I don't mind doing it with either visual or source editing on desktop, I'm just not sure how to do it! Thank you! ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lefthandedlion. Use Template:Cite web to format the reference. It has a url-status field, as well as the archive url field. See Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for how to do this in Visual Editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I successfully added the sources! ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lefthandedlion, to the best of my knowledge, a link that leads to a 404 page is not usurped/unfit. This is the case at least for the Citation 37 example you used. Are the rest like that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The domain issd.org previously belonged to the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation and has now been usurped by some Thai blog on the spam blacklist. Even if the specific page linked doesn't have a page on the blog it still is usurped IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't edit WP much these days, so I forgot where to post this. Loop (education) and Looping (education) look like the same thing and should be merged. Shall I just make one a redirect of the other, and smush all the content into it? Phacromallus (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, welcome back! - Secondly: One of the articles seems to be about teachers teaching the same class or not, and the other about students that skip a grade ahead. So, while unfortunately named, these are indeed different articles. JackTheSecond (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JackTheSecond, which one do you think is about skipping a grade? Seems to me, they're both about the same thing. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable... 'my own biases' seems to be the answer to your question. Looking at it again, yes they absolutely should be merged. JackTheSecond (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I merged them, which was quite satisfying. I guess I did something wrong though, and imagine I'll be reverted soon. I believe Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log is the place to get other merge jobs. Phacromallus (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phacromallus Nope, you're fine. The editor who reverted your move self-reverted themselves shortly after, and your merge stands. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request for an article to be created titled Disappearance of Riley Strain. Strain is a college student who attends University of Missouri who went missing in Nashville on March 8th. Cwater1 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cwater1, if Strain is notable as defined by and for Wikipedia, then you can create Draft:Riley Strain. Asking others to do it is not going to work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thanks! No worries, I'm not asking someone to do my homework. Cwater1 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cwater1, see in particular WP:BLP1E. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Strain is currently newsworthy (a mysterious disappearance) but I strongly doubt he will ever be Wikipedia acount-worthy. In the US, thousands of people are reported missing every week. Most of those are eventually located alive (often, children taken by parents who do not have legal custody), but that still leaves thousands who are not found, or are found dead. David notMD (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is better off for this article to instead be a redirect at this time. This case has drawn attention across the US. Missing persons cases does often draw national attention. Cwater1 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am fine tuning an LLM and for that I need some wikipedia page texts. Basically, that is going to be an environmentalist type of LLM, having expert knowledge on environment and environment conservation. I exported pages from certain categories from Special:Export. But, it came as an XML file, and doesn't contain only the page title and the page text, which is as I want as the dataset for fine tuning. I would be highly elated if someone could help me out in this. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itcouldbepossible. Can you use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example_(album)?useskin=apioutput? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunterThanks for your help sir. But how can I extract the page text, like automatically, and for a number of pages? Since the categories I have choosen has quite a large number of pages inside them. Should I use Wikipedia API for parsing the pages? But I don't find a way to get the page text and put it into a dataset for training. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 09:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: I was merely asking whether you had tools to use a link of that form. I guess the answer is no. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Umm..actually the answer is no. I was thinking about how can I make a way through to get the text out of the API. Maybe, I need to go for asking ChatGPT Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a discrepancy over the weekend and this prompted me to return here and ask how come there are a little double standards when it comes to establishing notability for historical figures and modern entertainers, especially youtubers. I followed this rabbit hole after I saw in the news Tristan Tate's article was deleted for not passing WP:GNG, yet passes notability under WP:GNP, I mean the same rational can be used for articles like Gessius Florus, which I can argue doesn't pass GNG. I saw many other youtubers like Niko Omilana have similar like coverage to these roman guys, in that it's really all just general information of them around nothing widespread yet he is still deemed not to pass GNG but under GNP undoubtably passes yet this was ignored in the deletion discussions. This is a genuine question as I honestly can't wrap my head round this. Serrwinner (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serrwinner, the difference is material on those people survived for 2,000 years, from a time when paper wasn't even invented, let alone computers. I am sure Wikipedians from the year 4500 will consider Tristan notable if they find him in their archives, provided stories on everyone else from this time does not similarly survive. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I totally get and really I'm not saying those Roman guys aren't notable and I agree with you. However how come using the logic that their life stories have survived 2000 years make them notable isn't the same as me saying someone like Tristan or Niko or even Iman Gadzhi (as much as I don't like him) have influenced a lot of young people in this generation with widespread proof to this ie. their following and all, hence proving their notability. Or as used in WP:GNP a "cult following" Serrwinner (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serrwinner, sure, it's possible some of them are already notable, in the real world sense. Wikipedia has just determined they are not yet, in the Wikipedia sense. That is, there isn't enough usable material in the available reliable secondary sources to write a balanced article making a proper case as to why the life story of a given person is knowledge worth knowing. We're too close to the events right now. It's possible we will see a culture shift or a shift in gender dynamics, marriage and divorce rates, etc. And academics will write about how the influence of people such as Tate over the new generation is what's causing it. Maybe in forty years, an American president will say Tate was a big influence for him growing up. He's immediately notable as soon as anything like that happens. Maybe tomorrow, a couple newspapers will publish a few paragraphs with Tristan on focus. And, he's immediately notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has deleted biographies on nobel prize winners a short time before they won and immediately recreated the article soon as they won; that's just how Wikipedia works. WP:GNP is an essay. It does not guide Wikipedia. No way to know if there's one person agrees with WP:GNP or ten thousand. Anyway, reread the first two sentences. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But wait can't I say that the Roman guys are not notable in the Wikipedia sense as well due to the references not passing all three criteria? Serrwinner (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, GNG is still a guideline. Its the minimum criteria we've agreed on for when we can't agree whether or not a person should have an article. Sometimes people who are not notable meet GNG and Wikipedia may retain those articles even though it should not. Sometimes people who never get written about, so don't pass GNG, we agree to keep based on other criteria just because they are important, under the presumption that eventually there will be sources. Don't ask me where I got this from, but people who lived before the priniting press was invented, we presume are notable. Maybe Gessius Florus does not meet GNG, maybe he does. It ultimately is not even about him. He's a window through whom we can see a picture of a place and time in history. There isn't much that survives from so long ago, it would be a shame to lose anything that's reached us. Sure, if everything that's known can be included in another article, merging is fine even with Florus, but we don't want to lose any detail. So, it's not a fair comparison, because any random person living now isn't worth knowing about, but any random person from 2,000 years ago is, because of what we can learn about our own past through them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On "not passing GNG", not exactly the case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guys who voted delete did so on the basis of not meeting GNG but only addressing WP:PERP hence why I said it. Serrwinner (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the closer was more BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serrwinner: Still, I don't think there is a double standard in notability. The main critereon is if secondary sources are available on the topic, even if they are not present in any given article. If they can be found, the WP:GNG requirements are fulfilled and an article will usually kept in the case of a deletion discussion independent if it is a modern or ancient topic. I think it just has been summarized above, that if a person or topic from antiquitiy remains known at all in modern times, then it is very likely that there are secondary sources about it. But that's not applying a different standard. Daranios (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serrwinner I get where you are going, though modern entertainers are typically mostly covered by publications like Dexerto or Sportskeeda which aren't reliable for Wikipedia. I personally think the Tristan Tate article should exist as some kind of a stub, someday. TLA^tlak 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serrwinner, something else to keep in mind is that many older articles absolutely would not be accepted today - standards have become much higher over the years! So if you find yourself wondering how an apparently non-notable subject has an article, check out the history and see when it was created. The article for Gessius Florus was first created in 2008, whereas Tristan Tate's was only created this year. New articles get a lot more scrutiny and are more likely to be deleted for lack of notability. So if you think an older article is non-notable, you can always start a deletion discussion and help clean up Wikipedia that way! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I submitted a page about Terrence McCauley (author) for releasee on Wikipedia about a month ago, but have not seen it go "live". It appears to still be in my sandbox. (here's the link to my sandbox and the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DutchessR/sandbox&oldid=1210452346)

Can you tell me if it's been submitted and if it's in the cue for submission OR if I've done something wrong? If I've done something wrong, how do I properly get submitted for release?

Much appreciated!

Thank you! DutchessR (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't submitted it, you published it. That's essentially how you save your work, not how you publish it to Wikipedia. What you're looking for is Articles for Creation. As an aside, you need to have secondary references for what you're adding to that page, otherwise it'll never pass AFC.

Please see Your First Article for more helpful information. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Theroadislong for adding that submission template. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at User:DutchessR/sandbox David notMD (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you claim that the photo is your own work, what is your connection to McCauley? David notMD (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that it was a carbon copy of the author's website and has thus been deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that you didn't delete my sandbox as I was planning to edit based on comments that others have left to have better, more factual data that can be verified/reference. Is there any way that you can put the data BACK in my sandbox so that I can edit properly instead of starting from scratch again? DutchessR (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations cannot be restored. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently joined Wikipedia English. I started by making small editions, then creating a few articles based on existing ones (which didn't seem like a bad idea to me). Unfortunately, my articles were rejected because they were not developed and sourced enough. I took the time to rework one of the articles to see if it would pass the draft this time. But he was rejected again. Would a kind soul give me some advice on what I should change on this article: Draft:Lonza Arena. I am criticized for not citing enough references even though I included 24, which represents one for 30 words depending on the size of this article. Since I spent time writing it and I feel like I described the subject well, I would like to be able to validate it. Could someone guide me in this direction, please?

Thank you Gotch87 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All your references are to one regional newspaper. To be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. This generally means at least three different sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating articles in mainspace. All of your efforts to date have been turned into drafts because of serious shortcomings, including the lack of any references. The one you submitted to AfC (Draft:Lonza Arena) was Declined (not Rejected) for reasons given by the reviewer and above (21 of 24 refs to local newspaper). David notMD (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the link you gave me is very useful. I will try to vary my sources. Gotch87 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been asked to make a page for well known, notable percussionist. I've made several edits and citing every claim. I keep finding articles online that say "...now click the MORE menu in your sandbox and click MOVE to move the article..." but I don't see a MORE menu. I'm sure this is user error, like I didn't something incorrectly, or I'm just not seeing the menu, but can anyone help me out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiDMM/sandbox&oldid=1212412209 WikiDMM (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WikiDMM, I've moved it for you, and it's now at Draft:Gumbi Ortiz. When you are ready to submit it for review, simply press the blue button. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I submitted it for review. WikiDMM (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiDMM, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that you are in the same position as hundreds and hundreds of people who come here to create an article, and do so before they have spent any time learning how Wikipedia works. My prediction is that you are going to have a frustrating and miserable time for the next few weeks - I may be wrong, but that is what my experience tells me.

Like most such people, I think you have written your article BACKWARDS, starting with what you want to say and then looking for sources. You have few or no independent reliable sources. You have non-neutral language in your draft.

In addition, your wording above, saying "I have been asked to make a page" implies that you have a conflict of interest in writing about Ortiz. It is important that you clarify what your relationship is to him: if you are in any way paid or employed to do this, then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. You should probably also read WP:BOSS.

In my view your draft has no hope of being accepted in its present form. You may continue to work on it while you await a reviewer - if you are going to do this, you should first and foremost look for sources where people who have no connection with Ortiz have chosen, off their own bat, to write at some length about him, and been published in reliable places: see Golden rule for what we are looking for. Note that anything based on an interview or press release does not count.

Then you should remove everything from your draft that is not found in one of those sources.

But my more general advice is that you should put aside the whole idea of creating a new article for several months, while you learn about Wikipedia by editing existing articles. When you have understood about notability, reliable sources and neutral point of view will be the time to read your first article and come back to it. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of this, but would like to add that you can indeed keep information that is sourced from interviews, press releases, etc, provided that it is neutral and the topic is shown to be notable through other sources. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your not submitted draft is at User:WikiDMM/sandbox. It should be submitted to the Articles for Creation review process for a reviewer to evaluate and accept, decline, reject or speedy delete. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD, a new editor who can't find the tools menus is really unlikely to be able to usefully understand this kind of comment. It would be more helpful if you could move the draft for them and tag it for AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDMM Asilvering was kind enough to do what I only pointed to - adding a Submit function. There is a backlog of drafts and the system is not a queue, so could be days to months before it is reviewed. As currently written, there is a lot (a lot!) of content that is not verified by references. David notMD (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely going to keep working on it. Thanks! WikiDMM (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to re-create this article and make it a redirect to Scene (subculture)#Criticisms. Its actually a fairly common term and used in that section so imo a redirect makes sense. However the page is protected. Could an admin lift the protection or create the page themselves? Thanks --FMSky (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky, WP:AFC/R is for this problem. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Please tell me how to recover lost edits during an edit conflict. When I act instinctively, I end up losing my work and having to start over, which is a pain. Any advice on how to avoid that going forward? Thank you very much! Fenharrow (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When an edit conflict comes up while attempting to publish an edit, your attempted edit is provided at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I will check it out. Thanks! Fenharrow (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have an issue and I am wondering if it is reasonable to use a YouTube source to cite something. I am working on the article CaseOh, and I mention that he collaborates with streamers such as Jynxi, but somebody said I need a citation for it. There are no news mentions of it, but there is a video uploaded to YouTube by Jynxi himself, which proves exactly that it happened, better than any other type of source could. The link to the video is Caseoh | Jynxzi Podcast #1 - YouTube. I understand YouTube links are usually discouraged, but I am not sure if this is an exception. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube sources are discouraged as WP:PRIMARY sources, but using them as a statement of fact is generally ok as long as you aren't trying to extrapolate anything from that.

If that video says specifically that they collaborate, that's fine, if it's just them two in the same video then all that really is is them in a video once. An example of this would be on Ren Gill, where a YouTube video he put out is used to spell his middle name. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also that if no independent source has bothered to notice that these two collaborate, it probably fails WP:PROPORTION to include it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all my years at WP I don't think I've come across an article like this one: Eric Mays. I'd like to go in and clean-up but honestly I'm at a loss. Without any real inline citations, let alone sources to back up a good portion of this entire article, I'm afraid most of it will simply be scrubbed. Obviously it was written by someone who knew the subject closely or at least has an extreme WP:COI. The article itself follows no MOS. I guess what I'm asking is: how would some other WP editors approach this task? I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, but this will be quite the undertaking. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally gunna read through it right now, but due to the lack of proper citations (there is a reflist but there's absolutely nothing inline) it'll be very difficult to do much with this without just nuking it.

The last time I came across something like this with such a dire lack of citations (at least it had citations already), I ended up just finding citations and rewriting the majority of it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should look a bit better now after I reverted a recent edit adding reams of unsourced puffery. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does, March - but I see you haven't (so far) communicated with the editor who added all that. I suggest it would be a good idea to do so. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks for the reminder. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's what I thought was going to happen. Short of nuking it, most of the sources for this "controversial" Mayor were ... controversies. Not much of a legacy; but it is what it is. At least it reads more like a WP (MOS) article. Sad all that content had to be scrubbed; but without putting in the time, I guess there was no other way. I'm sure though the subject did do some good; since he was Mayor from 2013 until his death in 2024. Perhaps a template should accompany the article to help improve it. Not just clean up. Thanks to all though who swiftly attended to this. Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can very easily think of politicians who have contributed nothing to society or indeed anyone or anything (aside from favored family members, a few cronies, etc), yet are uncontroversially "notable" in Wikipedia's sense. So "notability" isn't negated by uselessness. That said, it's not clear to me that this fellow is "notable" in Wikipedia's sense. But in order to decide if he is or isn't, I suppose I'd have to look at a number of the references already cited, not an alluring task. (Also, chronic non-achievement can be notable in its humble way: example.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:A3 apply also to drafts? 37.160.173.21 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I asked the question while I was unlogged 14 novembre (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my admittedly limited experience, I'd say no. If it did then note-taking the night prior would be impossible because it'd get speedy deleted before you even get to start. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommissarDoggo Ok. Thanks for your answer. I was wondering if there was some criterion under which Draft:Nelson Mandela, an empty draft with the same title and on the same subject of an existing mainspace article, could be listed for speedy deletion. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not massively familiar with deletion categories, I've never really had a reason to use the articles for deletion or speedy deletion areas.

That being said, I can see you've already left a message on their talk page. That should really be enough. As there's already a page on the topic, it won't pass submission through articles for creation and will at most have the information the user collects merged with the existing article where applicable. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommissarDoggo OK. Thanks for your answer. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your talk page and I can see you've been informed previously about how speedy deletion criteria's do not apply to drafts. Of course, as previously stated, that fact is news to me.

Please see User talk:14 novembre#Speedy deletions. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with some exceptions, the "G" criteria of CSD do apply to draft pages and may be used with discretion to tag pages, since some things, like copyvios and attack pages, should be speedily deleted whenever they're found. It's the "A" criteria that don't apply to drafts. Deor (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First time here, just not sure what to do or how to start contributing? I was not even aware we could edit Wikipedia! So just a little direction if you please... Connoramam (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good place to start would be the Task Centre. I'd personally recommend citation hunting and copyediting. Citation hunting will help you learn the citation system, where you should be adding citations and what sites are acceptable to cite with.

Copyediting is a great way to learn things like how the Manual of Style works.

When you've gotten a little experience under your belt, I'd recommend grabbing WP:TWINKLE and trying out Recent Change Patrols. That'll show you how often people vandalise and how quickly those edits get reverted. It's a good way to learn about how issues with Wikipedia are solved, how the various administrative noticeboards function, how to deal with vandals when (yes it is a when, not an if) you find them and how robust the systems are for keeping Wikipedia honest.

Finally, when you feel ready and when you have something you're interested in, check out Your First Article. It'll help you to find out how best to make an article. Never work backwards.

Ultimately, I'd advise joining the Wikipedia Discord server, it's a great place to get quick advice from experienced editors, much like right here in the Teahouse. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Connoramam: Welcome to the Teahouse. As a new user, you should have access to your own homepage, which will suggest some tasks for you to do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask any admin to review my pending changes reviewer request or is that not allowed? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mseingth2133444: Just wait. The note at the top of the page says Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed Sorry my brain seems to have missed that. Thank you anyway. Cheers, Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a reply specific to visual editor please Kim alice film (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kim alice film: I don't use VE, do I can' thelp you with that part. Howver, you cannot put non-free media such as a film poster in a draft. You will need to wait for the draft to be moved to an article before adding the poster. RudolfRed (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @RudolfRed I will wait to see if my draft corrections get approved. Is there a way to tell if you have submitted corrections in the right way. I dont mean if the corrections are right but rather is whether my new draft is sitting in the new submissions pile. Sorry I'm just new to wiki so trying to wrap my head around it. Kim alice film (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kim alice film: Yes, it's been submitted for review. Draft:Wash_My_Soul_In_The_River's_Flow, you can see in the yellow box that its waiting for review. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @RudolfRed Kim alice film (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim alice film, although Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow has been submitted, and although it looks promising, material such as The 2004 shoot was filmed by cinematographer Allan Collins. Seventeen years later, the landscape footage of the Coorong and painterly abstract images were shot in 2021 by Bonnie Elliot in preparation for the editing of the film. / Ruby Hunter’s surviving brothers Eric Richards and Jeff Hunter were involved with the filmmakers in the production, in particular shooting on Ngarrindjeri Country. Rosslyn Richards, Hunter’s sister-in-law, working with Ngarrindjeri Elders, translated and supplied the subtitles in Ngarrindjeri language which appear with English text on screen. is unreferenced. You'll increase the chances of a quick promotion to article status if you provide references for what is currently unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Hoary Kim alice film (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To upload a non-free image, use the file upload wizard. One way to display the image in the article is to use the infobox film template once your article is moved to main space. {{Infobox film | image = File name.jpg | caption = Release poster}}

Before using the image on the article, you need to place and fill out a fair use rationale template for the image. A bot will remove the image if no non-free fair use rationale is present for the image/ poster. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Jeraxmoira very helpful Kim alice film (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to update the company financials of a page (Ramco Cements) with the information from 2022- 2023. The source is BSE( Bombay stock exchange- India's first and largest stock exchange-https://www.bseindia.com/). The edits were reverted by User:The_Herald ( Benison). He also threatened with blocking my id. I have seen this behavior earlier as well where the first response of an editor is to threaten with blocking the user. Many of them are not subject matter experts(like in this case) There should be a way to remove their points or curtail their editorial privileges. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is your edit also added an unsourced paragraph of promoional material. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another editor threatening to block a valid edit- User:Theroadislong.

BSE is the largest stock exchange in India. Updating revenue or any other wikipedia standard information on financials is not advertising or promotion. It is just adding valuable information to a stub. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the revenue but the article was full of unsourced promotion. I have removed some of it, as it stands it should probably be taken to WP:AFD as a non notable company. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you deleted are Brands and Products related to the company and the location of its factories- Information that will help people who look for these ( eg. job seekers, investors, students and professionals doing a company research). You can also check some more company page like HUL's.

Promotion will entail claims about product/ service features or quality. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa vasudevan: Would you mind telling us what your relationship with Ramco Cements is? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that @Deepa vasudevan may well be a “Business Specialist, with more than 20 years of experience in Sales & Marketing” and that they need to swiftly declare their connection to the company on their userpage per WP:PAID, or risk falling foul of our policy of Undeclared Paid Editing (WP:UPE). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that, Nick? The page currently contains no inputs from me. @Theroadislong has deleted my inputs as well as other existing data :). Deepa vasudevan (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepa vasudevan: because paid-editing disclosure is a hard requirement under our T&Cs of use, not an optional extra that you can choose to either make or not. Besides, c 15% of the article contents is still your contributions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing - Please cross check. None of those edits exist. Drill down the 15% and see if any of those content exist.

Unfortunately, in all the zeal, you editors have vandalized and have converted a page which was a stub into something worse. Congratulations!

In an ideal world, someone should have editorial knowledge to understand and evaluate what content is detrimental and false and what is standard industry information. Deepa vasudevan (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you have miss-understood how Wikipedia works, we have zero interest in "standard industry information" we rely on what independent sources report. Theroadislong (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information you added previously was unsourced, that is why it was removed. Any unsourced information will continue to be removed. Please see WP:CITE and WP:RS for more.

Do not falsely accuse other editors of vandalism, I can see no evidence of any editors removing information maliciously from the page. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ratchet the heat down somewhat? Deepa vasudevan, listen, we always welcome questions here at the Teahouse and are glad you brought your concerns here but the information @Theroadislong is teeling you is true. We do not build Wikipedia on standard industry information. Wikipedia is not where people need to come to find out about products for every business and there is no guarantee a business will have an encyclopedia article because we can only include content that is found in reliable sources. If you are interested I can leave a few tips on your talk page but you will need to read them. Going forward please do not make claims of vandalism until you learn what that means on Wikipedia. When used improperly it can lead to sanctions because it is a claim we take very seriously here. Let me know if you want additional information but as it stands, I agree with the other editors here and this company is probably not notable enough for inclusion. --ARoseWolf 12:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note- Editor was indeffed by Ohnoitsjamie --ARoseWolf 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean billion, not million! 2A02:3100:5F99:F101:1DC7:ED5F:A866:6CD4 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting this; I have corrected the numbers. Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the three most active WikiProjects today? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that WP:WikiProject Military history and WP:WikiProject Video Games are two of the most active, aside from that I'm not sure. I'm sure someone has accurate statistics. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By one metric, the amount of article/talk page watchers, the three most active are WP:WikiProject Contents, WP:WikiProject Military history, and WP:WikiProject Medicine; you can see more at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I edited Nandipha Magudumana (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandipha_Magudumana&diff=prev&oldid=1214454189), and removed the "and bred" from that article since it sounded weird (and at the time I didn't know it was a real phrase and I thought it had some dehumanising connotations since as far as I have heard, "bred" is usually used for animals, but now I know what it means). I also used the acronym "WTF" in the edit summary to express surprise at that phrase being used, though I agree I could have used some lighter language.

My edit was subsequently reverted (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandipha_Magudumana&diff=next&oldid=1214454189) and the user who reverted it told me "mind your language please". So, is there any rule or guideline against using swears not directed at people in edit summaries, or is it just a recommendation? Tube·of·Light 15:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't swear on Wikipedia as a general rule. It's different when you're quoting something for an article, no need for it in edit summaries. As for "Born and bred", it's just a little thing that doesn't belong in an article. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tube of Light, first of all, I think you were correct to remove "born and bred" from the article. If nothing else, it's an idiom, and we have a policy about that in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, in the section MOS:IDIOM, which discourages the use of indirect expressions in favour of direct and literal language. I can also understand your strong reaction to the content. The expression "born and bred" is applied to people in everyday speech, but if you aren't familiar with it, the idea of a person being "bred" would surely seem extremely bizarre and dehumanizing. In that context I think a stray "WTF" is understandable. However, in direct response to your question about the use of swears which are not part of personal attacks: while Wikipedia is not censored and swear words are not banned by any means here, two core policies come to my mind which I think directly discourage this, namely the section of the civility guideline called WP:ESDONTS and the section of the edit summary guideline called WP:SUMMARYNO. Both of those guidelines stress that edit summaries should be both civil and neutral -- so, yes, even if you encounter something totally bewildering and even offensive in an article, writing "WTF" in the edit summary is discouraged. I will say, though (for whatever it's worth) that I personally think this is not a major infraction in the grand scheme of things. You should be commended for promptly removing what you thought was offensive or degrading material from a biography of a living person, which absolutely should be priority #1. However, even if I think that tone policing misses the main point, that doesn't mean you have free license to say whatever you want in edit summaries. All else equal it would have been better to remove that content with a straightforward and polite reference to the guideline about not using idioms, rather than to remove it with an acronym that brings to mind an expletive. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks, @Astrophobe and @CommissarDoggo! Tube·of·Light 01:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can i tag Farhad Zaidi with {{Db-person}}? they dont seem very notable, and i think i read something in Wikipedia:Notability (people) about being only notable for one thing natelabs (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Natelabs, welcome to the Teahouse! Personally, if you were to tag that page with A7, I would decline it. The standard that articles must meet to rise above A7 speedy deletion is "significance", which is an intentionally lower bar than "notability". While you might be correct about the subject's overall notability, I would say they certainly make a credible claim of some kind of significance, and while obituaries, the only citations in the article, aren't great sources, they do indicate some level of significance even if they're not suitable for establishing notability. The guidance at WP:CSD is not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases; if you have to ask yourself whether something is suitable for CSD or not, most likely it's not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to translate an article from Italian, but when I click to translate a paragraph, the system puts the exact Italian test in the English translation I am doing. Can anyone help? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14 novembre The idea of the content translation tool is to make it an easier way for people to get articles over from other Wikipedia's. You still have to do the translation part if you want it to be in the English Wikipedia Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kline Ah ok, thanks for your answer. On itwiki it was different, it was possible to do a first, automatic translation which was then to be improved and corrected. Anyway thanks again for answering and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 14 novembre. Please look at translation, if you haven't already.

It is rarely useful to try and translate an article directly from another version of Wikipedia, because unless it is adequately sourced it will need to be rewritten based on better sources anyway. Articles in other languages aren't necessarily poorly sourced, but considering that 1) many articles in English Wikipedia are poorly sourced and would not be accepted if written today, and 2) most Wikipedias have less strict standards than English Wikipedia, they are often inadequate.

You can of course use a translation (even a machine translation) as a guide, but in most cases, it should be treated as a new article rather than a version of the existing one. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should he go in the TV infobox as the screenplay writer, which is what is displayed on-screen?

Or should he go in the TV infobox as the teleplay writer? Danstarr69 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he is officially credited as the "screenplay" writer, then we should follow suit. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danstarr69, see documentation. Documentation says use whatever the credits say. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira Usedtobecool I'd normally use Screenplay, but after noticing Teleplay in the infobox, I read the definition on the Teleplay article, and it made me question which to use.

Teleplay definition: "In general usage, the term is most commonly seen in reference to a standalone production, such as a television film, a television play, or an episode of an anthology series." Danstarr69 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danstarr69, no, I understand the dilemma. It's legitimate. I had the same until I went and looked at the documentation, Template:Infobox television/doc. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69: WP:COMMONALITY suggests "screenplay". "Teleplay" is unknown in my version of English. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Medium not a reliable source? LarryKaz (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a blogging platform, and user-generated platforms are not considered reliable. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MEDIUM. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, before I start, I understand that WP:BLPPRIMARY says that public records should not be used, but I am confused if it applies to this scenario. I am trying to add a source for a birthdate for a politician, Draft:Christopher Del Borrello, and I am wondering if I could use this document as a source for his birth. It does not reveal his exact current address. Antny08 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#FamilySearch has some guidance. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So would you think it would be okay for me to use that source only to prove his birth? Antny08 (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that would be a valid ref for that detail. PRS says it has questionable accuracy and is user-generated without fact-checking, but does also collect other documents. The documents it collects may themselves be usable (familysearch is just a third-party host of it), but depends on the specifics. I cannot access the "this document" link. What sort of document is it? DMacks (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed renaming the above article on 1 March. There were no comments in the talk page so far. On reviewing the page on Stalinism I see that my proposed change would, I believe, align with the definition in that. Do I need to specifically invite people to discuss this on the talk page? Should I just go ahead and see if someone changes it back?? Hewer7 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense, as according to the article, "Bolshevization" took place during the mid-20s, and Stalin did not even get power until 1928. Although it does mention some things in the year of 1928, the movement was not started by Stalin and had little do with Stalin, so that renaming does not fit. Antny08 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Stalinism really starts in 1923 or 24, following Lenin becoming totally incapacitated by a stroke, then dying in 1924. I think the article on Leninism makes this plain. " Lenin [soon before he was totally incapacitated by a stroke on 7 March 1923] warned the Party that Stalin had "unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution" and formed a faction with Leon Trotsky to remove Stalin as the General Secretary of the Communist Party.

"To that end followed proposals reducing the administrative powers of party posts to reduce bureaucratic influence upon the policies of the Communist Party. Lenin advised Trotsky to emphasise Stalin's recent bureaucratic alignment in such matters (e.g. undermining the anti-bureaucratic workers' and peasants' Inspection) and argued to depose Stalin as General Secretary. Despite advice to refuse "any rotten compromise", he did not heed Lenin's advice and General Secretary Stalin retained power over the Communist Party and the bureaucracy of the Soviet government."

The article goes on to explain that "socialism in one country" was adopted in 1925. "socialism in one country" is also part of the definition of Stalinism in the article of the same name. The "unlimited authority concentrated in his [Stalin's] hands", and the "Stalin's recent bureaucratic alignment in such matters (e.g. undermining the anti-bureaucratic workers' and peasants' Inspection)" - both mentioned in the above quote - were key parts of the consolidation of the "one-party totalitarian police state" also given as part of the definition of Stalinism. Hewer7 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still different. Stalin still didn't have much power until the later years, they wanted to prevent him from getting power. Bolchevism generally refers to communist movement in general, not Stalinism, which could be considered a completely separate variant of Stalinism. Going off of that, Stalin had a very different way of running the Soviet Union then previous people in the USSR like Lenin. I do not have an extreme knowledge of this, as it isn't my specialty, so I'd say open a formal rename request and let the community decide. But, based on the information I do know, it is highly unlikely to succeed with a community consensus. Antny08 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Additional point - the 'Bolshevisation article refers to Antoni Gramsci as boshevising the Italian Communist Party and the article of that name states that it happened in 1924-25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewer7 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving this to the talk page of the article in question. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have registered an account with the same username on alternative wikis such as "Wikialpha" and "Everybodywiki," but have not yet published anything on those platforms. Before proceeding further, I would like to clarify whether it complies with Wikipedia guidelines to use this username on other platforms and if I may publish on those websites if any of my pages are declined on Wikipedia. Could you please provide clarification on whether this aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards? Thank you! Elizzzzz (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this does not go against standards, Wikipedia cannot stop you from making pages on different Wikis. Other Wikis have different notability rules, so it is completely fine to post a page on there rather than here. As for usernames, once again, Wikipedia does not control that. As long as it is not already in use, and does not violate guidelines, you are free to use it. Antny08 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. So, if my draft is rejected on Wikipedia, am I allowed to publish it on other wiki platforms? Should I delete the declined draft on Wikipedia before posting it elsewhere, or is that not an issue? Additionally, if I use the same account/user name on other wiki platforms as I do on Wikipedia, please confirm whether this complies with Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate your feedback. Elizzzzz (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizzzzz, the many platorms driven by wiki software are all independent entities with their own rules. If your article is accepted, or declined, or rejected on Wikipedia, you may still submit it at Wikialpha, etc., at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Maproom (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I would strongly encourage you to do so. Its a great way to get your article out there without having to worry about all the pesky Wikipedia guidelines. Antny08 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's license allows anyone to copy text for any purpose as long as you attribute the creators. If you are the sole contributor to the article you want to copy, you don't need to attribute yourself. ♠ Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizzzzz, I notice that you are using "declined" and "rejected" as if they were synonyms. They aren't. "Declined" means "This draft does not yet meet Wikipedia's standards. Please improve it to bring it closer to compliance, and submit it again." On the other hand, "Rejected" means "This draft is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and will not be considered further." Please understand that distinction before taking your work to another website with lower standards. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08 @Ca @Cullen328 @Maproom, I understand, and thank you for clarifying this issue and assisting me. I truly appreciate it. Elizzzzz (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, have a good one :) Antny08 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! ♠ Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, How do I install Extension:VisualEditor for my Wikipedia account? I read the guide on the extension page, but it's too complex to install. Could you please guide me to an easier installation method? TheGreatPeng (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatPeng: You don't need to install the extension at all – it's installed on wikis, not user accounts. You can easily turn it on in your preferences by checking the box under Editor → Enable the visual editor. Tollens (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: Hi, I didn't mean original VisualEditor but an Extension. TheGreatPeng (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to mw:Extension:VisualEditor? If that is the case, the instructions I provided above are correct. The extension is an extension of MediaWiki (the underlying software that runs Wikipedia), not an extension of VisualEditor. If the page I linked there isn't what you were looking at, could you provide a link so I can try to help? Tollens (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much. The instructions you provided above are correct. Now, I found the way I meant. TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im working on a page for the Flettner-339 and Im not sure what part to cite since its from a book. here is the link to my article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vincent_Pickus/Flettner_Fl_339&action=edit Vincent Pickus (talk)

That links gives me an error message "No such action". Maproom (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A functional link is Draft:Flettner Fl 339. I am not sure what you mean by "what part to cite" – did you copy the text of the article directly from the book, or did you use only a segment of a book as a reference, or did you use a book as a reference for only part of the article? Tollens (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that you have directly translated the content from the book into English (page 46, can be accessed at [1]). This is not allowed as it is a copyright violation; I've reverted the page back to the version which was in your own words. You can cite the book for the content which is in your draft already: please see Help:Referencing for beginners for a guide. Tollens (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, another editor and I have had a disagreement over the editing direction for the Rio Grande 223 article; and a recent user on the talk page suggested we come to the Teahouse to request guidance in the matter. We have had a pretty lengthy debate on the talk page, but to summarize it we have very different ideas on what belongs in the article and have so far failed to reach consensus. Any guidance would be appreciate. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start off by summarizing a question that I usually ask when two or more editors at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard have an article content dispute. The purpose of any discussion of article content is to improve the encyclopedia. So I will usually ask each editor what specifically they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Identifying exactly what you want to change can be constructive.

Second, having taken one look at the article, which was not a detailed review, it is my initial opinion that some of the material, about the importance of railroads in the economic development of the Western United States, should be in the encyclopedia, but should not be in the article on the Rio Grande 223. I didn't review it in sufficient depth to have a recommendation as to where it should be discussed, or whether it is discussed. So there is an issue of off-topic content.

Third, you might try asking for an additional view at the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject. I haven't yet looked to see which one would be most likely to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That concern over the economic history of the railroad being off topic is my primary concern with the article, particularly since I also have doubts about the historical accuracy of many of the sources used. I also feel like the photographs of similar (but not the same) locomotives is similarly off topic. I would point to my last revision as to how I expressed my ideas on the article more fully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_223&oldid=1213584305 Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xboxtravis7992 There have already been two dispute resolution attempts. I doubt a third will achieve anything. Neither of you appear right or wrong from my perspective. Frankly, I feel whichever of you decides to let this go first is the real winner here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxtravis7992, I disagree with MaxnaCarta's "both sides" assessment and agree with much of what Robert McClenon has to say. As the main author of a comparable article about an individual locomotive, Sierra No. 3, I have opinions on the dispute that are rooted in Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, and have offered my assessment at Talk: Rio Grande 223. I agree with several other editors who have offered similar assessments there. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly be delighted to have this matter resolved. Xboxtravis7992 and I have a fundamental disagreement, that we have debated at length on the talk page. We have reached an impasse.

He has erased the ENTIRE section on the engine's historical significance 5 times now (February 16, February 28, March 9, March 13, and now again on March 20), using one spurious pretext or another.

For example, he questions the accuracy of a couple sources, such as Lucius Beebe, then erases the whole section. This, despite the fact that the section has multiple sources, and most of the text is widely accepted historical fact that shouldn't need citations to begin with. The historical significance section is only six short paragraphs long, but has 48 citations!

I would like to think that is adequate.

Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even challenge the accuracy of the text. He just attacks a couple sources, then erases the whole section.

This is not good-faith editing.

Xboxtravis7992 says that the section describing the engine's historical significance is "fluff," "extraneous," "bloat" and "trivial." I disagree.

The engine IS historically significant. That’s why it deserves an article in Wikipedia.

D&RG 223 was built in 1881, and represents the most important period in D&RG history. This was the time of the D&RG’s explosive growth, and this dramatically transformed the region’s economy and dramatically increased its population. The railroad placed its largest order for locomotives ever (Class 60, C-16), and this was also the largest order for three-foot-gauge engines that Baldwin Locomotive Works had ever received. D&RG 223 was one of this huge class of engines (Class 60, C-16), and is one of only three of them still surviving. D&RG 223 is the embodiment of what author Robert Le Massena called the D&RG’s time of “glory.”

Is that not significant? Is that not relevant to the article?

The bottom line is this: Xboxtravis7992 doesn't want the "Rio Grande 223" article to contain a section on the historical significance of the engine. I do.

By his reasoning, the Wikipedia article on the "Titanic" should only contain information on its mechanical features and the route it took, and nothing about its historical significance.

That is the issue - should this article contain a section on the historical significance of the engine, or not? I hope that neutral editors/administrators will review the article and read the comments about it on the Talk page. DTParker1000 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DTParker1000, I will note that five other editors have commented on the article talk page, besides you and Xboxtravis7992. The fact that you are still framing this as a disagreement between the two of you and asking for "neutral editors" to review suggests that you have not read or understood the comments of the other editors. As I read it, five neutral editors have already commented, and none agree with what you want to add to the article. I suggest that you review the other editors' comments and continue the discussion on the talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I have made several modifications to the text, and shortened the length of the section, in response to the comments from the other editors.

I have also made changes in response to Xboxtravis7992's comments.

The other editors seem satisfied. Only Xboxtravis7992 is not.

Xboxtravis7992 wishes to eliminate the section on the engine's historic significance. I do not.

DTParker1000 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:DTParker1000 - One of the rules for content mediation is "Comment on content, not contributors". It is also restated as "Discuss edits, not editors". Sometimes I state it in both forms because it often needs repeating. You are mostly talking about another editor. It shouldn't be necessary to identify the editor with whom you disagree if your disagreement is about content, and it appears that it is about content, but that you are personalizing it unnecessarily. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article The King and the Beggar-maid there are several inline citations. I have the information to change the Agatha Christie entry to a <ref> </ref> footnote for a different edition of the book listed. I believe that this would be the favored style. I do not as of yet have enough information to confidently change the other inline citations. Is this piecemeal work encouraged or should it wait until all the references can be updated? Oldsilenus (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsilenus: You should use the citation style already in the article. See WP:CITEVAR RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you and will leave this alone. It is interesting that someone else responded that it SHOULD be changed. I believe the page that you cited has priority. Alas, when I first read the article while reading Christie's book, I did not notice that multiple works were cited using the same style. As usual "Haste makes waste." Oldsilenus (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsilenus Thing is, though, that article already uses a mix of various citation styles, which complicates the following of that simple advice. So as an addendum to what @RudolfRed wrote above, your other source was correct that you SHOULD change parenthetical references (which some of the cites in that article are) to a footnoted format. Wikipedia no longer uses parenthetical references, and they're no longer a valid "existing citation style" to continue emulating in any article. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to respond specifically to your question, if you have information to convert one parenthetical reference to a citation template <ref>...</ref> tag, then convert that one reference. Any and all work to migrate away from parenthetical references, even piecemeal, is appreciated and encouraged. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If every Tom, Dick and Harry can edit Wikipedia without the information having been checked and clarified, are we even reading actual facts anymore? SillyBoar121011 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SillyBoar121011: There is an excellent response to this criticism at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections § Letting any Internet user edit any article at will is absurd which you may be interested in. The primary issue is that your assumption that the information is in fact not checked is false: the information contributed is checked all the time. There are indeed errors that make it through, but this is true of every reference work. Tollens (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than very obscure articles, articles have 'watchers' who are notified when they login about every article they have chosen to watch. And correct. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SillyBoar121011 Wikipedia should not be trusted blindly; no one expects this. Sources should be examined by readers and evaluated when determining what to believe. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth and does not guarantee accuracy, see Wikipedia:General disclaimer. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "anymore"? That has always been the case with Wikipedia (since the start in 2001), though it has gotten stricter over the years, and, for that matter, much of the internet. There is also, nowadays, this thing called "social media." See also Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked on every Wikipedia page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to edit a semi-protected article and I believe I did all the training modules. How can I get to where I am able to edit it? Groundhogluv (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Groundhogluv: You just did by making the edit that asked this question, actually! Being autoconfirmed requires 10 edits over at least 4 days, you had made only 9 before asking this question. Tollens (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I press to be able to edit the page? Groundhogluv (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just the edit button like any other page should work now. If you can't see it, try refreshing the page while holding down Shift. Tollens (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much you saved me!! Groundhogluv (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to upload an SVG image that is 2754 x 1398 pixels and shows up as that size in Adobe Illustrator. However, when I upload it into Wikipedia, it changes the size to 295 x 150 pixels. The image is for Fragile States Index 2023 [(Fragile States Index 2023.svg - Wikimedia Commons]). Putting the image into a web viewer also gives a size of 2754 x 1398 pixels. DarkMatterRealm2 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file-description on the commons page for the file says "2,754 × 1,398 pixels", so the file itself is intact. But one major aspect of SVG files is that they don't really have a definite "size", but instead are infinitely scalable up or down. The Wikipedia software lets you pick what size you want each time you embed it in an article, and does the necessary scaling each time.

Some pages have a default size, and there are some rare cases that cannot be over-ridden. I can definitely say that an image of 2754x1398 should not be displayed as such...much to large. Could you point us to where you tried to embed it, so we can see what you're seeing and help figure out what trick is needed to control the size? DMacks (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the file history section of Wikimedia Commons (not an article) to overwrite a previous version of the file, and I clicked "upload a new version of this file". Then, I uploaded the version that's #3 in the file history, and it turned out to be 512 x 260, not 2754 x 1398. DarkMatterRealm2 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkMatterRealm2: When I look at File:Fragile_States_Index_2023.svg it is available in several sizes, from 320x162 up to 2754x1398 RudolfRed (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wish to ensure that my name never gets posted on the wiki page ever again. This pertains to a traumatic event that plagues me until now. I dont wish to be associated with this event every time someone googles my name. I am fine with case being up but not my full name disclosed within. The removal of the name does not change the sequence of events. but for my privacy sake.

I have removed it but someone keeps editing it back. what can I do to ensure this stops happening? 115.66.218.17 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your request seems reasonable. I will watch the article to make sure those details stay out until and only if there is an explicit consensus that they need to be included for readers to have a complete understanding of the topic so much so that that's more important than your wishes. It would help if you'd post to the talk page of the article, explaining your reasons for removal, and asking that, as prescribed by WP:BLP, the material not be reinstated without consensus. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it but someone keeps editing it back. Are you talking about another language Wikipedia? Your removals have not been reinstated. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

missed out a "If" in my earlier post. "I have removed it but if someone keeps editing back, what can I do..."

Thanks for your input, I will monitor the article accordingly. I have stated that I removed for privacy. 115.66.218.17 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If something would put someone's life in danger is when admins have in the past pre-emptively protected articles. That isn't really the case here. So, one would have to follow the processes. The first step is a WP:BOLD edit such as the ones you've made. The next step, if someone reinstates it, is to discuss the matter with them. You would be able to make your case per WP:BLP; especially WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM may aid your case. WP:BLP policy allows for removal of material without consensus, putting the onus on those who want to include to make the case for why inclusion of contested material is necessary and within policy. But you'd still have to discuss and defend your position. WP:BLPN is the noticeboard for raising concerns regarding living persons, that don't get resolved on the talk page. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's interesting that it isn't redacted from the court documents given your age at when the traumatic event happened. Nonetheless, I have also put the article on my watchlist. – robertsky (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if a notable person from old time like 60s, 80s era doesn't have online references such as news articles or media reports and have only Offline nwespaper references, then what should i cite on wiki articles? TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome TheSlumPanda. Sources do not need to be online; if a source is not online, you need to provide enough information for someone to be able to locate it in order to verify its content. WP:OFFLINE provides some information about this. Please also see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get access, try newspaper archives like ProQuest. archive.org may be of help:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend checking out WP:LIBRARY where you can get free access to online newspaper archives. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about 6 months away though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But some old Indian newspapers are not archived like Dainik Bhaskar and patrika, what about those ? TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having a bit of an altercation with User:Melvin Hudson in response to this edit, which he reverted as vandalism and then sent me a vandalism warning. When I objected, he surreally claimed that I was motivated by bigotry and transphobia. Maybe some input from third parties would be appropriate. He has been getting a series of warnings for unrelated incidents at the same time. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his recent contributions seem to be reverting other editor's edits and warning them on their user talk pages. In fact, he tried to revert this message too. CanonNi (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: matter also raised by a different querant on the Help desk.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when a discussion you started which was active, got archived by a bot? This is a general question, not pertaining to any specific case. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the bot, I guess. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the situation. "No consensus", in various forms, is very common. Sometimes the comments made gave some sort of guidance and you go by them. WP:RFCL is an option, even if archived. And a discussion can be restored from the archive, hoping for more comments. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting directly will restore all the discussions, almost all of which would be not active other than mine. Should you 'cut and paste' it from the archive to discussion page? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor It seems so: Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Continuing_discussions. Perhaps one should also consider pinging the participants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That's the answer, thank you. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to rollback some vandalism using Twinkle, but if I click ok "rollback" or "vandalism" it doesn't do anything, instead of reverting the edit and opening the user's talk page. Any ideas? Thank you so much 14 novembre (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14 novembre The database was read-only for a few minutes earlier this afternoon, which may have caused the problem. Try again now and report back (including link to the problematic edit) if you still can't undo it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull The edits in question were on the article Dune: Part Two and have been reverted. However, the problem persists. Thanks for your help 14 novembre (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull If it can be helpful I add that, if I keep pressed for some time (sorry if my English is bad) the rollback or vandalism icon and I select "open in new tab" it opens the same diff page. 14 novembre (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14 novembre I don't use Twinkle, so I can't be of further help. If no-one else replies here and the problem persists, I suggest you ask the experts at WP:VPT giving as much detail as possible. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Ok, no problem. Thanks for your help and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi! i was creating a page for my client but It was declined by you even thou he has plenty of notable resources under his name. could you guide me through the right process? thank you so much WikiGuerrini31 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiGuerrini31 I suggest reading WP:FIRSTARTICLE for suggestions. However, as you apparently are somehow linked with the subject, you should declare you conflict of interest in writing the articles. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @WikiGuerrini31 If you are writing for a client, then in Wikipedia terms you are a WP:PAID editor and must comply with the mandatory procedures mentioned at that link. Your draft has to demonstrate that Filippelli meets the wikinotability guidelines, which the reviewer did not think was the case at present. You would be best to use only those sources which meet all of these golden rules and be aware that once created, your client might not like what others add to the article (see WP:PROUD). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... for example, your very first citation goes to the top level of the Disney website, and thus does nothing to verify the text of the article. It is policy that sources verify content: see also WP:BLP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! Considering all the other notable publications that he was featured on like Billboard, Grazia Magazine, Forbes etc included in external links shouldn’t that be enough? WikiGuerrini31 (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiGuerrini31 Not in external links. You need to incorporate in your own words the content and cite the sources that have significant coverage of him. See WP:REFB. Before you do anything else, however, comply with the COI disclosure mentioned at WP:PAID. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, WikiGuerrini31, you have taken on a task that you are at the moment completely unable to perform, because you have not acquired many of the skills that you need to do it.

If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..

What effect that has on your relationship with your client, I couldn't say. But if you don't follow my advice, I doubt that you will satisfy your client anyway. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"i was creating a page for my client" means you must declare paid on your User page. And, per my deletions and my comment on the draft, many (most?) of the 'references' are not valid, as there is no mention of AF. See WP:42 for references guide. I did not look at the External links content, but some of those - if about him - may be valid as references. What you know to be true cannot be included unless verified by references. David notMD (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i want to play the movie sparkle 50.203.209.210 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? (That's what this page is for). --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have added hundreds of book covers on many different pages over time, and i refer to Category:Books with missing cover for the books to work on next. one question i have is why do some pages like The Dancers at the End of Time show up on the list that obviously do have book covers in their infobox already? what might i be missing? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dancers at the End of Time shows up because it has several {{infobox book}} entries, but only the first has image=. The rest obviously don't because to do so would be in contravention of WP:NFCC; but the code therefore puts the article in that category.

Looking at the documentation for the template, it looks to me as if adding exclude_cover=yes to all the other infoboxes after the first one would solve the problem, but I haven't tried it. ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is quite urgent about a page on a person who has been in police trouble for their campaigns against something which personally involves me and I need help with please as I think it is very serious. Richard D gill has been campaigning against the recent conviction of Lucy Letby, who was convicted of injuring a baby that is the daughter of my close friend. But on his page which is Richard D. Gill it doesn't mention at all that he's been in police trouble for this even though the press has mentioned this. These English news reports talk about how he was warned for contempt of court during the trial for his online actions: https://thetab.com/uk/liverpool/2024/02/22/supporter-of-convicted-baby-killer-lucy-letby-invited-to-speak-at-university-of-liverpool-65631, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letby-activist-who-argues-32151666, https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/lucy-letby-supporter-who-thinks-28668584. In the 'Tab' one, he responded himself and confirmed it and said it did happen, although he played it down. Also in this Dutch-language newspaper he confirms it in an interview: https://www.destentor.nl/apeldoorn/apeldoornse-wetenschapper-maakt-zich-hard-voor-onschuld-moordzuster-ze-hebben-onzin-verkondigd~a0d502a0/?. So it seems very bad that this hasn't been mentioned, at least in a short neutral way, because the police warning seems notable enough to mention, even if his response playing it down is also mentioned. This is causing a lot of pain as you might understand 86.187.235.41 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not an urgent matter I suggest you start a conversation on the Richard D. Gill talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I know the difference between 'declined' and 'rejected' and used to think they are synonyms within Wikipedia (liek with block and ban. It may be synonymous outside Wikipedia), does having your draft rejected mean that it is no longer possible to resubmit it again Like what would happen if new reliable sources started to appear. Basically at the time the draft got rejected there were no sources, but two months later, there are five.

And note that none of my drafts are rejected only declined this was just curious. JuniperChill (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JuniperChill.

When a draft is rejected the Re-submit for review button no longer appears - though you can manually resubmit it by adding the right code to the draft source. It is however seen as disruptive and a waste of volunteer time to re-submit rejected drafts. However if draft authors belief the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection, then they should appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer for a reconsideration, or ask at the AfC Help Desk if the rejecting reviewer is no longer active. Qcne (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne - I just think of rejected drafts being the end of the world as what people say. A bit like failing your theory test (a written driving test) and have to wait an eternity to take it again. Draft:Gorilla Tag is an example of this as there are likely little to no realiable sources at the time of rejection. I also normally hear the phrase 'your draft is rejected and we will not consider it further' or something along those lines. That's why drafts are normally only rejected if it has been submitted without improvement at least once since the first decline since many people don't know Wikipedia should only use reliable sources. Declined drafts allow users to resubmit it again easily but rejected ones are hard. JuniperChill (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I was changing some settings for my account under the appearance section and set my preferred date/time format. All the options are only in a 24 hour format however, and I personally like the 12 hour format. Does wikipedia have an option for this? Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering Haris00911 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haris00911: I suggest you asking the question on WP:Village Pump (Technical), maybe they can help. Teahouse is more about asking questions related to editing on English Wikipedia. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, appreciate it:) Haris00911 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Wikipedia does have any 12-hour time format options in its preferences; all times referenced on-wiki (edit timestamps, etc.) should always be in UTC time, which is 24-hour. But, activating the "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" tool (in Gadgets > Appearance) will cause converted local times to be displayed in 12-hour format, if your timezone is in a 12-hour-clock locale. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried to add a reference from the Dewsbury Reporter automatically (which like all references I add, I edit them once they've been added), yet it wouldn't create automatically.

I had to create it manually^[1]

As it's a newspaper, I would've expected it to be created automatically.

Can someone fix it so that any references from the Dewsbury Reporter are automatically created in future. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic reference function uses a program called Citoid, which runs off of Zotero. You may have luck getting this particular publication added to whatever libraries are needed to make it work properly with the citation function by asking at the Citoid link or the Zotero forums. Reconrabbit 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danstarr69 , sometimes such situation does happen often and I have faced that a lot, I don't know wether to call it a glitch or some technical error. But I normally bypass such problem by using a different browser to recreate the reference after which its done successfully, then all you have to do is to just come back to your main browser and try it again ✅

 Thisasia   (Talk)     00:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

There's an article from The Observer (which is published on Sundays), on an old page of the website by its sister newspaper The Guardian (which is published on weekdays).

Should I put The Observer as the publisher, or should I put it as something else? [3] Danstarr69 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69: Your link doesn't work for me, but if it was published in the Observer, then cite that. RudolfRed (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed I copied the wrong link. The link works now. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danstarr69. Unless the resource is online only, the link is not an essential part of the citation, but merely a convenience for the reader: you can link to any (reliable, legal) place where the resource is to be found. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69 There is a Wikipedia principle to WP:SAYWHERE you saw something. Hence it is the Guardian's citation that is most relevant here. {{cite news}} has a |via parameter that is sometimes useful for these cases but I don't think you need it this time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Resistance_(Book)

How do I edit a title? 3.14 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.14159265459AAAs, one WP:MOVEs a page to change its title. But you don't necessarily have to when writing a draft. If there's a better title, reviewers will change to it when accepting the draft. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 3.14 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me remove the notability issue? I'm not sure where it is going wrong as all the references are correct to the notion? And the information given in the content of the website is only factual and no flowery language has been used

Draft:Rahul Singh (Information Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh) BhatiaKushagra (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the draft does not cite any sources. See WP:REF for instructions on references. You can resubmit the draft after the issues are fixed. CanonNi (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Referencing for beginners is also a great place to start. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. CanonNi (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BhatiaKushagra The link you provided was to an older brief draft. The current one is at Draft:Rahul Singh (commissioner). Aside from not providing sources which meet these key criteria you use language such as "Through adept management and innovative problem-solving skills, Singh successfully...." which is overly flowery and unencyclopedic. Such promotional text must be removed as it sounds like an advert, not a neutral article. You clearly know Singh, since you took the photo of him, so you should read about conflict of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a contributor at a wiki site which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. This wiki is owned and operated by a for-profit organization. I am not a paid employee of the organization; my role is purely acting as a volunteer editor and admin, much like how you are all volunteer editors and admins on Wikipedia. That being said, does WP:COI disallow me from editing said Wikipedia article? I'm well aware of WP:NPOV and other related policies when it comes to adding new content, but my question pertains more to the COI policy. Compare it to a Wikipedian (not a WMF staff member) editing the article about Wikipedia itself. Is it still considered problematic COI editing if I have a connection as a volunteer contributor/editor/admin even though I'm not receiving any sort of compensation at all nor was I asked to publish an edit to the page on behalf of the organization? 2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:2C7F:C689:E6DB:82FE (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. In my opinion, asking about a borderline COI before making edits in the affected area is more than enough proof that you're aware of the effect it might have on your writing anyways, so even if this was borderline COI (which I personally don't think it is), I would still suggest it's likely no big deal. Tollens (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoI is for conflicts which arise from interest, but interests do not always result in conflict, as many editors on Wikipedia edit articles they have interest in. See: David notMD and Mathglot's answer to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1219#Interest_vs_CoI. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how lon does it take for an new article is be reviewed? Knowrz7747 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. There is no set time frame- but you don't have any drafts submitted for a review. You have content in your sandbox, but lack the information required to submit it. I will add it. I would suggest that you read Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format and place references before you submit it. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowrz7747: Template:AfC submission says it may take 2 months or more, but it is not necessary. Some may get instantly reviewed, other may take a week or so, and others may go in months. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point being the system is not a queue. Most reviewers look at the pile of unreviewed and decides what is next for them. Some reviewers do keep an eye on the oldest unreviewed to address those. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knowrz7747, if you mean the draft you started at User:Knowrz7747/sandbox, you have not yet actually submitted it for review. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks. I'm frustrated that I'm not able to see the full width of certain graphics, such as List of English monarchs#Timeline. Such graphics are often cut off on the right side, and I haven't been able to figure out how to see the whole thing. I've tried going into my preferences and trying different skins, but I can't find a view mode that solves the problem. Is there a way I can see such graphics at full width?

Thanks. Yesthatbruce (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yesthatbruce: You haven't said what device and software you are using to view Wikipedia. On the article you mentioned above, I can scroll the image left and right in my Chrome desktop browser to view hidden parts of it; I can also right-click the timeline image and open it in a new tab, where I can magnify or reduce it as I need. I can't do the same on the Wikipedia app on my phone, though. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and very helpful reply. I hadn't tried the right-click/open in new tab trick; that seems to do the trick. Cheers. Yesthatbruce (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I submitted a draft, but was declined promptly. I wrote an article on Julian Kim. I can reference all the sentences that need proofs. I wish to go simple with the sentences and an infobox in the beginning, and add tables later on. Please advise me how to proceed, and thanks in advance! Draft:Julian Kim Rosuacamus (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosuacamus Hello and welcome. I've replaced the text of your draft with a link to it. Please see the advice left by reviewers- you need to greatly improve the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use Apple Music as a source for discography? Rosuacamus (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All assertions require references. Anuwrites has already explained what you should do, Rosuacamus, on Draft:Julian_Kim. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can I link a site like operabase.com as a whole for his opera career or articles for each and every performance? Rosuacamus (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid windy prose. Quote: Apart from his stage performances, Kim actively collaborates with orchestras and partakes in concert engagements, demonstrating his skill and adaptability within the opera and classical music sphere. What does active collaboration with orchestras actually mean? Does "[partaking] in concert engagements" mean singing in concerts? How does "the opera and classical music sphere" differ from opera and classical music? -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, thanks. The sentence is repetitive indeed. I meant to describe two different things. I am working on a new draft with everything referenced. Will post again soon. Rosuacamus (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map relating to my address would benefit from some correction. 1.The house numbering along the road is very obviously wrong. 2. The outline map of relative buildings shows my garden workshop as "floating" between my garden and that of my neighbour. These are small errors, but very irritating! 91.85.51.75 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which page the map appears on? CanonNi (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It would help to know who you are and/or what article you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our maps are OpenStreetMaps, which is generally where you would have to edit the map. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a Google map, that is not Wikipedia generated. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to show my photographies here 41.121.49.46 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! If you'd like, you could upload some of your photos to Wikimedia Commons (see WP:COMMONS for more info) CanonNi (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on what you mean- if you have photographs pertinent to articles, yes, please upload them if you are willing to release them for use for any purpose with attribution. If you just want to display your photography somewhere, that's not what Wikipedia is for. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where on Wikipedia do I go to talk about the Arabic Wikipedia banner? I know it's not in the Teahouse, because this page is for advice with navigating and editing wikipedia. Thanks in advance. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you specify what banner you are referring to? If you're looking for the Arabic Wikipedia, it's located at https://ar.wikipedia.org. If you're looking for the Arabic WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, it's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic. CanonNi (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm referring to the sitewide banner that, according to Google Translate, reads:

"In solidarity with the right of the Palestinian

people, No to genocide in Gaza .... No to killing civilians.

No to targeting hospitals and schools .... No to deception and double standards.

Stop the war .... and spread just and comprehensive peace" JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to the banner on the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia, which is located here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9 CanonNi (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnR1Roberts I'm not familiar with the Arabic Wikipedia but I believe a discussion about the banner can be found here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4_%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%82%D9%81%D9%88%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85 CanonNi (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world, which is more active than WikiProject Arabic. CanonNi (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnR1Roberts: The English and Arabic Wikipedias are not related in nearly any way – if you would like to discuss the Arabic Wikipedia you'll need to do so there. I (and likely most of us here) am unfamiliar with the Arabic Wikipedia's centralized forums so am not able to provide much more help than that, unfortunately. Tollens (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JohnR1Roberts, the only place on English Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to discuss this matter further would be the talk page of the founder of Wikipedia, which is User talk: Jimbo Wales. Cullen328 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am trying to post this page on wikipedia, but it was declined, what should i do?

Draft:Nuhad Fuad Es-Said

Regards Salimkanbour (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Salimkanbour, it seems the AfC submissions were declined because it didn't meet the notability guidelines for people. See WP:BIO for details on the criteria and what you can do to improve your draft. CanonNi (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improve it. There are several unsourced paragraphs, all of them need to be properly sourced. You also need to have a quick read of the Manual of Style and our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view as there are several issues there. "A highly motivated and visionary businessperson, Nuhad grew and expanded the company into a leading Pan Arab organization, operating in several countries like UAE and Jordan, Syria and Iraq." is clearly not wrote in a neutral point of view. "A collection worthy of its origins, and later proved to be worthy of carrying his name." is much the same.

Additionally, you really do need to explain things properly. "However, due to problems we all know now, they never went back." just doesn't fly. Please improve the draft, and take a look at Your First Article as well for some more tips. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear in the draft as to what you believe makes him notable. Appears that he collected art that, after his death, was featured in a book "Islamic Metalwork: The Nuhad Es-said Collection" (2001), and has been displayed at museums. Much of what is in the draft, i.e. refugee history, his business career, is not relevant to that. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the art collection is notable. Does it still exist in private hands, i.e., the family, or has it been auctioned off or donated to a museum? David notMD (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the entry for "AOAH", the opening criticism is that it lacks "inline citations". The text does have inline citations, but there are initial references (1 - 4) that don't relate to the topic at all. Starting with reference (5) the inline citations are correct. Please tell me why "citations"/references 1 through 4 were added and what I must do now to fix the AOAH entry. Antilps (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antilps The article AOAH uses an infobox ({{infobox gene}} which, I think, gets its first four references straight from the Wikidata entry at this URL. I don't think you need to worry about that unless you are an expert on these gene references. When the article has a full set of citations, you can remove the tag at the top. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to create articles about prominent Croatian companies that do not have Wiki pages yet as there seems to be very little pages connected to Croatian companies.

My first ever article that I submitted about a prominent Croatian company has been declined, and I am not sure why the references I provided are flagged as not in-depth and not notable although they are from reliable and notable websites and articles? I have also gotten a conflict of interest flag, but I am not connected to the company in any way, and I am not sure how to resolve this conflict of interest? Will I be getting flagged like this for any articles I write about a company?

Draft:Nodefusion - Wikipedia AnaKuta15 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things like "A pivotal moment in their trajectory...In a stride towards global outreach", "showcasing its commitment to collaborating with key players in the IT landscape" and "Nodefusion proudly sponsored" are likely why it's believed you're connected to the company; they make it sound like an advertisement.

You need to remember to use WP:WIKIVOICE, this is after all an encyclopaedia, not Forbes. You shouldn't be pumping up the company, you should be describing them fairly. Something else that might help you is looking at the page on words to watch out for when you're writing.

As for the references I'm not sure, most of them are in a language I simply don't understand so I can't comment on that. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were queried on your Talk page because your editing history was of a pattern similar to accounts that are undeclared paid editing or conflict of interest, to wit, 10+ edits to random articles in December, followed by this recent attampt to create an article about a Croatian company. Is there a reason you see as your future an intent to create articles about Croatian companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere I could post an article to get it peer reviewed? Chauncey E. Goodrich MallardTV (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MallardTV You moved the article to mainspace yesterday, as you are entitled to do. You are not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED WP:Autopatrolled, so it will be reviewed by the new pages patrol in due course, and won't be indexed by search engines until it is (or after 90 days). You could nominate it for a "did you know" which would certainly subject it to scrutiny or you could ask for a formal peer review via WP:PEER, although I don't know the details of how that works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... I notice that an experienced WP:AfC reviewer has now decided to WP:DRAFTIFY the article, so it is now at Draft:Chauncey E. Goodrich, where it has comments. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull I believe you meant to say that the OP is not autopatrolled. If they were not autoconfirmed they couldn't create pages in mainspace nor move anything to there (or to anywhere else, for that matter). Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add a talk header template Template:WikiProject Arabic to talk page of a relevant article, but to my surprise that template doesn't exist. Suppressing the shoot-first reaction to just create the template (because there is a WP:WikiProject Arabic), I thought maybe I should investigate further. And yes, there is a relevant header template: Template:WikiProject Arab World (which I have added to the talk page in question). WP:WikiProject Arabic is a sub-project of WP:WikiProject Arab World.

Which leads to my question: could I (should I!) create a Template:WikiProject Arabic that contains only a #Redirect to Template:WikiProject Arab World. Would that work and would it create more or less problems than it solves? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note: the actual template is Template:WikiProject Arab world not Template:WikiProject Arab World (note underlined capitalization difference. A redirect to a template usually works seemlessly as usual for redirects and for templates, but a redirect to a redirect (a "double redirect") does not ever work (see Wikipedia:Double redirects). DMacks (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that a merge of WP:WikiProject Arabic and WP:WikiProject Arab World is flagged as having been proposed, though weirdly the merge banner notice only appears on one of the two pages. (The merge proposal didn't generate much discussion, but nobody was opposed to it...) FeRDNYC (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While technically creating a template redirect would work, it would be kind of pointless because the template content would still be the same. Which means you could use the real template name to transclude it. Unlike with encyclopedia terms, there's no real advantage to being able to type {{WikiProject Arabic}} instead of {{WikiProject Arab world}}, when they'll both label a page as being "within the scope of WikiProject Arab world". That's just likely to create confusion. Unless there's unique template content there, it's probably better to template projects by their real name. (This is different from redirects to create convenience aliases, like {{tqb}} which redirects to {{talk quote box}}.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeRDNYC (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well first I did actually use a lower-case ⟨w⟩ at Talk:Arabic typography, though more by good luck than positive choice, I suspect.

If a merge is on the cards, I'll stand back and let it happen when it does, as my interest is in typography and typefaces rather than Arabic. Thank you all. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to edit a wiki page by removing a picture and replacing it with another one and all I seem to have done is remove the picture. I am having trouble replacing the picture with the new one. Can someone help me, possibly step by step to do this? Sandyiego23 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandyiego23 Your edit history doesn't show any recent saved edits, so I assume you realised your mistake on preview. help is to be found at H:PICTURES but if that isn't enough, please come back with more details, including the name of the article you are trying to edit and the filename you want to swap to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandyiego23, and welcome to the Teahouse. What I suspect you may be trying to do is to add a picture directly from outside Wikipedia.

You cannot do that: you must first upload the picture either to Wikipedia or (preferably) to Wikimedia commons, and then add it to any article. But note that you must make sure that you are not infringing copyright - which is more tricky than most people realise. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It must have saved something since the incorrect picture is now missing. I would like to add the picture that I uploaded to Wikipedia commons. The website is Jose Aniceto Iznaga Borrell and the picture is of my great, great grandfather who died in 1860. The file name of the picture is Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga or Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga.jpeg

I am sorry for the multiple messages.

Thank you for your help. Sandyiego23 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You edited Spanish Wikipedia: es:José Aniceto Iznaga Borrell. This is the Teahouse for the English Wikipedia, which is entirely separate. The picture you removed was File:José Aniceto Iznaga Borrell.jpg. I can't find a picture called 'Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga.jpeg' but there is File:Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpg (note the different file extension) that you uploaded. I presume that was what you were trying to replace it with. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the file. I'm really making a muddle of this.  :>) Can you direct me to the right department to edit Spanish Wikipedia? Thank you Sandyiego23 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandyiego23, the Spanish Wikipedia's help desk seems to be here, if that's what you're looking for. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. Unfortunately it is in Spanish and I can't read it. Since I only want to replace, well now it's add, a picture, wouldn't it be the same as it would be in English? Can you give me a hint on what I am doing wrong? Sandyiego23 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandyiego23 Go to the article in the Spanish Wikipedia and use the source editor. You'll see a line saying | imagen = Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpeg. Edit out the current filename and put in the new name (i.e. Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpg). The only difference is that your file is a .jpg, not a .jpeg. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it and it worked. Can't begin to tell you how grateful I am. Thank you. THANK YOU  !! Sandyiego23 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it essential to find a link for the original label? Rosuacamus (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For entries in a discography, it's often sufficient to cite the works themselves as (primary) sources — meaning, the album/single/etc. releases. That they're obtained through Apple Music, or any other service, is as irrelevant as citing Virgin Records because you bought a CD there. But web links are not the only type of valid citation. (See {{Cite AV media}}, {{Cite AV media notes}}, and friends.)

OTOH, if you want to just copy an artist's entire discography wholesale from Apple Music, that probably isn't a reliable source, considering the selection of works they have available is completely arbitrary and sales-driven, rather than data-driven. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this okay?

Kim, Julian (2019). Italiana (Full Album). Julian Jootaek Kim, Youngmin Lee, Jongho Park. Korea: Decca Records, Universal Music Group. Registered No 776.

By 'full album', I meant a CD album with 15 songs. Rosuacamus (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had created a draft article named Draft:Sandeep Anand and I need help with editing this draft article to make it into main article. Anybody can help me in editing this article. Please edit this article and make it into main article. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is not considered to be a reliable independent source. See WP:TOI. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KungfuPanda2008, according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Times of India is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. This is especially true of their coverage of Bollywood and the entertainment industry in India more broadly. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to not using Times of India, 7 of the 8 refs confirm he was in one TV show. What you need is references to published content about him. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop a good place to request transit maps? I'm in need of a better map for the article on this cancelled rail project in Montreal. I've just found out about the map workshop, which seems perfect except I see no transit maps being requested there. I'm wondering if there's another workshop specifically for transit maps that I'm missing. WikiFouf (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiFouf: Yes, it is good for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help. We've added all the references from the articles and the website, but we are still not validated.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/(Casi)_literal 2803:D100:9918:ED:4B1:788F:DF7:FF53 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to an article on the Spanish Wikipedia. We here are the English Wikipedia, and have no specific information about or influence over what happens on that other site. You'll have to ask there for assistance. DMacks (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Germany–Kurdistan Region relations I want to start a talk in the talk page, but I’m iPhone and don’t see the option to do so, there are no subjects in the talk page and I’m guessing that’s why I don’t have a option to start one? So if there’s no button to start a talk as usual then how do I do it if I’m on iPhone? Bobisland (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobisland, Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations already exists, although nobody has yet written any text on it. I know next to nothing about using a phone for editing Wikipedia and therefore can't comment on the elusiveness of the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my phone there is no blue add topic button which is usually there, but for other talk pages with topics the blue button is there Bobisland (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're working in the iPhone app - I'm seeing the blue add topic button in mine. Might need an update or refresh. Have you tried opening it in your phone browser and editing the source from there? Wow Mollu (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same issue when editing in mobile view (through a mobile browser, not the iPhone app). It's also happening at Talk:1st Cavalry Division (Wehrmacht). I tried adding a talk page header but that didn't affect it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a way to add a topic in the mobile browser as well. Across the top, right under "Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations" I see a row of tab-like options: Article, Talk, Read, Edit, Add topic, View history, Tools. Are you seeing any of that? Wow Mollu (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I’m just using the browser I can just wait until I have access to a pc if no one knows as I don’t know how to start a topic without the blue button Bobisland (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the row directly under "Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations"? Article, Talk, Read, Edit, Add topic, View history, Tools. If you click Add topic, if will allow you to add one. Wow Mollu (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No but I found out how on my phone there is a text that says to learn more about the page and when I press it a pop up box with info and the option to start a new topic shows up thanks for the help Bobisland (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add a note Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What eo you mean by a note? (and which article). The Talk page (see tab at upper left) is a place to start a discussion if you disagree with something in the article and want to leave a note. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I signed my name on a few sections of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, maybe 6ish months ago, can't recall. I haven't gotten a single request yet, which seems very odd based on the talk pages of others on the lists, who all have a few recent ones. Am I missing something obvious? I just wanna give feedback! Thanks for any help. Wow Mollu (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]