Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

Teahouse restrictions ?

The Teahouse in action - one lump, or two?

If the Teahouse is mainly for new editors, is there a limit on how long after new editors begin doing things on Wikipedia can they use the Teahouse rather than other ways of getting help? Augnablik (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Nope, you’re always welcome and free to use the Teahouse for as long as you wish. Obviously, were you to ask a really technical question, we might refer you to another forum. But we’re dead friendly here, so it’s the best place to come for help. (We’re even known to serve tea, too) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. I'll assume that if the Teahouse is "dead friendly," the lumps referred to in the the photo are sweet rather than otherwise ... Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, one Wiki trick you might like to know as a new(ish) editor is that a lot of the time if you type WP: and then a word that describes what you want into the search bar, you'll be taken to a page that covers that thing. Or if you didn't get the word quite right, there's often links to point you in the right direction! Here's some, for example: WP:CITE; WP:RELIABLE; WP:NOTABLE; and of course the extremely useful WP:TEA!

(I know you've been here for a while, but I only learned the WP: thing recently and it's so useful I wanted to share) StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, StartGrammarTime. I hadn't heard of that trick. This is the sort of thing that could be helpful if placed in a "Did you know?" box somewhere.

Also thank you for the designation of newish editor, as that sort of fits someone like me who's been connected with Wiki for two years but off and on with activity. Somehow, new editor didn't seem to fit any more, but neither did anything else — certainly not senior editor. Augnablik (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Did You Know... that you can add {{Totd3}} to your userpage and discover all sorts of hints and tips? One per day, in fact! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be great if I could do it, Nick. Now as a newish editor I have to ask HOW. Augnablik (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik That one's easy! Edit your userpage the same way you would an article, and just put the code Nick has given you somewhere - maybe up the top to make it easy to find. I'm going to do the same, actually, so thank you @Nick. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Looks like you've sorted it - well done! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Although you sent a "well done" message to me on this, I didn't quite succeed in doing what you suggested ... as you found out later when you went to check on it, though unasked for this further help ... and fixed it!

Now that I've discovered Wiki editors can be thanked in a way that reflects on their user pages, I would like to do that for you rather than here in the Teahouse. How is that sort of thanks done? Don't blush, just please advise. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Go to the page Nick helped you on, and view its history - near the end of the line that tells you about Nick's edit, you will see (undo | thank). From there I think your path should be clear! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

i work for the marketing team of a temple

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

Snehajanfy (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snehajanfy It is difficult for employees of an institution to make updates based on already-published sources (not personal knowledge) as is required by Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Also, you may not write neutrally. So, please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor. Then make suggestions for addition to the article on its Talk Page, not directly. If you use the edit request wizard, your suggestions should be implemented by uninvolved editors quite quickly, or they will explain why the new content is not appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that it is acceptable for paid editors to create draft articles using the WP:AfC process. Hence you may continue to edit Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam directly but still need to make the paid editor declaration. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How exactly do i do this?

But where to add this on the article page?

{{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You will need to add that to your user page(User:Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple), you will also need to change your username so that it represents you personally, not your temple(your real name is not required, just something representing you). I have placed instructions to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have used my personal account to make edits, added the paid claim to my user page as well. what else can i do to get this approved? please help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Snehajanfy, please be aware that marketing behavior is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, as are all related behaviors such as advertising, promotion and public relations. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ofcourse I understand this. I have in no way tried to claim or promote anything about my client. All we want is a valid Wikipedia page for the temple. It because of this specific reason why wiki page is so important for any institution to have. I'm sorry if I may have offended anyone by using the term marketing 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no guarantee, after doing everything correctly, that the article will be approved for mainspace. The same guidelines and policies apply as it would with any other article with regard to notability and citing reliable sources. --ARoseWolf 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to use as many reliable sources as possible. I have over 30 pr links. I'm just not sure as tow here to use them to prove our credibility. Also how do we prove notability? 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, you really shouldn't use those as they're not independent nor reliable to establish wikinotability, which would require quality sources that aren't affiliated with the temple. Please remember to sign in when making comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: As a courtesy I fixed the template on Snehajanfy's user page. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  truly appreciate it. I'm still wondering how you fixed it. Kindly pardon my unawareness 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please log in to edit. I have reviewed and declined the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

HI, I am trying to resubmit my draft again. However I see AFC submission and missing template. Im unable to understad how to proceed. Kindly help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Snehajanfy. Generally speaking, a Wikipedia article about a temple needs to focus more on facts like "It is the country's biggest and most ancient Vishnumaya temple, with a tradition of nearly 400 years" and less on the birth of divine beings. Can you find independent sources (e.g., a newspaper article, a tourist guide book, a scholarly work?) that describe the physical building and its construction? Is there anything unusual about its appearance, or are there any activities (e.g., an annual festival) that have attracted attention from people unrelated to it?

Also, searching for "Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swami", I found Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kanadikavu Shree Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swamy temple. It's possible that the birth story would be better off as a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If I made claims of it being the biggest and the oldest, it deviated from being neutral and sounded like puffery. Hence avoided it. I will definitely try and find some material about the structure of the temple and it's architectural significance. Snehajanfy (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I have now added birth story as a separate page. Hopefully that gets approved Snehajanfy (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

i hope i have resubmitted the draft as I am not able to see it anymore, Could you please check for me? Snehajanfy (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snehajanfy It is still at Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam, awaiting another review. You may work on it while it waits, if you think of further improvements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Been called out on incidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GabrielPenn4223 I have been discouraged by negative feedbacks, I did mistakes. Do you know any way to get me to improve and have less chance of being blocked? Maybe stop nominating for redirects and deletions? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As straightforward as I can say it: WP:AGF. You start a lot of your more questionable messages with "Can you explain why you..." That is a fairly aggressive way to ask a question. Despite the fact that I doubt you intended this, it sounds accusatory and personal. Also doesn't help when you say that about an edit/nomination someone did six years ago.

Also, you do nominate things fairly erroneously. Your GA, move, AfD, etc. nominations have rarely been informed decisions. Take time to familiarize yourself with the subject, the topic, and (most importantly) what actually qualifies something for these nominations.

In all, it's clear under scrutiny that you aren't trying to be disruptive or aggressive. But, I'd recommend reading the rules regarding any kind of nomination before proposing it. i.e. GA nomination requirements or notability requirements.

Don't let this discourage you from contributing though! Learn through this experience and use it to make you the best Wikipedian you can be! Dionysius Miller^talk 13:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe stop making moves, AfDs, RfDs, etc. until I start to clearly understand what these are? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Or I can read the rules first before clearly nominating and post a topic on their related discussion page? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the high annoyance level of your more than 500 edits, yes, no more GA nominations (you already stopped), no AfDs, no RfDs, no more sprinkling "We Are Not Perfect" on other editors' Talk pages, and delete your self-serving 'essay'. And no more AfCs. Focus on improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop doing all of these until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for atleast 90 days GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already added a source to the Toys R Us article of the opening of a specific store at an airport, it's a news source. Reliable? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, not doing a thing until you have a complete understanding of it and the rules around it is a good idea, on Wikipedia and just about everywhere else (other than paying taxes). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also since users are supporting a CIR block, is it a good idea also to improve articles with constructive contributions and copyediting? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@ Writ Keeper, Although I'm not involved in this thread, I read through it to get more familiar with this sort of issue. After reading your tongue-in-cheek tax comment, I couldn't resist commenting in turn with 😂 . Augnablik (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The GP4223 editing process: 1) do things 2) only then think about whether they were a good idea, 3) learn they were not, in fact, good ideas, 4) run away yelling "we are not perfect" and leave others to clean up 5) repeat in as many processes as possible ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How I should actually be doing before learning a new thing:

1. Read the rules

2. Understand it

3. Clearly look into something

4. Not yell away "WE are not perfect!!!"

5. Clean up yourself

6. Once understood, do it! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked indefinitely. Maproom (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Review help edit warring

Here is the edit where my revert was again reverted: [1]. I just noticed that this was the same person I had a conflict in the past on the same article and other articles thus, I am not going to revert back myself. But I am here to seek a opinion whether this person edits are justifiable or not. Thank you 456legendtalk 13:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also attaching the previous notice regarding the same user edit warring [2] since that went un noticed. (I don't know how to attach the archive, kindly excuse me for that) 456legendtalk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@456legend, are you trying to keep sentences such as:

• "He was arrested by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) police of Andhra Pradesh in a multi-crore scam"
• "He suffered a major political set back in the 2019 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections where he won only 23 seats out of the total 175 seats"
• "This was also Telugu Desam Party's worst ever defeat."

out of this Wikipedia article?

@Alalch E., I see you were in a discussion a year ago on the talk page. I wonder if you could help this editor with this concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. This version of an exclusively positive-POV lead was created on 10 November 2023: Special:Diff/1184040086/1184386766 by Fostera12. Content was moved from the "Recognition" section (read: the praise section) to the lead, in clear contravention of the policy that content must be written from a neutral point of view. In a sense, Chinnusaikrish reverted this, except that he lumped that content together with the awards, where it doesn't belong (to be clear, the former "Recognition" section wasn't good either). So it's not a good edit, but any edit which would revert that and restore the ridiculously non-policy-compliant lead would only be a worse edit. It takes a good edit to fix a non-good edit, not an even worse edit.

So do not revert.

The way forward is to separate out the content in the awards section that isn't about any particular award, and see what should be done about this content (the best thing would be to integrate it with the main chronological account of his political career). Then the lead can be worked on to properly summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. The lead needs to be neutral. The current lead that sums up the individual's political career in what's barely three sentences and puts so much weight on a "major polictical set back" and "worst ever defeat", and him being arrested is not neutral either. But the body should be worked on first to enable us to write a good lead, because a good lead can't be written if the body isn't good. —Alalch E. 20:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That wasn't my intention. My point here is to whether the entire article summary needs to placed in the main lead or not? Is he only arrested in his entire life and there is nothing more to be summaried? I don't oppose adding his arrest and other criticism in the main lead but at the same time I also do not support removing the other sumarised content from the main lead. Anyways I am planning to not edit articles where this particular user is involved since he isn't ready for a proper discussion and either some false statement on me. Anyways thank you for your time. 456legendtalk 02:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You ask a question with a false premise. You also skipped my reply entirely, and I gave a relevant response about what to do with the lead. The false premise is this: the other sumarised content from the main lead. There was no such content. The "Recognition" content being moved from the body to the lead does not cause anything to be summarized, obviously, and the current lead summarizes only some sections, but the summary needs to be much more complete. There is no summarizing version of the lead in the article's recent history. It needs to be written. —Alalch E. 08:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I felt compelled to fix the lead issues in this BLP, so I did my best to actually summarize the article, see Special:Permalink/1207815917. @456legend and Chinnusaikrish: How does this look to you? (You can also answer on the talk page with a link to this discussion.) —Alalch E. 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E. To be honest, if you feel I have posed a question here with a false premise, then I am sorry because that wasn't my intention. Regarding your summary edit, personally as a Wikipedia editor, I am not satisfied with the summary. I am of the opinion that it is highly focused on his failures rather than maintaining a neutral tone. By reading your summary in the first instance, I feel he is portrayed as a failed politician. This may be my opinion alone, thus I wish not to continue editing any further on that particular article to avoid conflict with you and the other editor. Thank you for your contributions. 456legendtalk 01:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have any ideas how to avoid the perceived conclusion that he is a failed politician, please write them down on the article's talk page. —Alalch E. 07:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever was edited by you in the lead section has already been presented in the page's respective sections. There is no need of a summary of all that content in the lead section. Regarding a politician's article there has to be only his previous posts and the present status of his political life. Any intentional boasting or achievements can be presented in the page's sections as I quoted before. So I'm regulating the lead section to his present status. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

After 835 edits since you registered on July 15, 2020, you should have gained a better understanding of how articles are written, and what the purpose of a lead section is. You do not have a sufficient level of competence to edit articles about active politicians. If you make an edit like this again, I will ask that you be blocked. —Alalch E. 07:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chinnusaikrish, there is no rule restricting the lead to only his previous posts and the present status of his political life. Imagine what the lead to Winston Churchill would have looked like, if we followed your rule in 1945. The lead for all articles should summarize the contents of the whole article. There is no special restriction that lets you exclude prior achievements just because a politician lost the most recent election – nor to exclude prior failures just because the politician won the most recent election. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing@Alalch E. Just adding few of his other edits here [3] where it looks like a intention to defame the subjects of the article. Another instance [4] involving in multiple reverts on a single article which might fall under the 3R rule. Although I am not complaining about it nor going to edit them, but just wanted to bring it to your notice since this seems to be somewhat related. 456legendtalk 18:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorting a list

List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks is an article I've been working on. The sorting part of the clubs is slightly mistake. it sorts alphabetically on the club's nationality and not the club's name itself.

Can anyone help with an edit. it may be too long. So could anyone edit edit the source of at-least 1 player. I'll take the idea and edit the rest Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Atlantis77177! Would Help:Sortable tables § Specifying a sort key for a cell have the information you're looking for? Sdkb ^talk 21:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sdkb! I tried with what u said. but it didn't work. could u just edit 1 row for me. I'll catch the blueprint from it.

The table formatting is broken. Sdkb, are you able to sort this out? I don't think it's reasonable for even a moderately experienced editor to handle this problem. I don't know what the first couple of lines are supposed to say, or I'd fix it myself.

Atlantis77177, please don't touch the table until we fix this problem. Once the table's structure is sound, you should open it in the visual editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_UEFA_Champions_League_hat-tricks&veaction=edit ), select a row that you'd like to move to a different place, and then use the > menu to find the Move up/down options. Do that repeatedly until you've got everything in the order you'd like (but not just yet!). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Yes, as an overall matter, table formatting is regrettably difficult. I started off by restoring a stable version of the article with nothing broken. If I accidentally undid any content edits you were making, Atlantis, feel free to restore them. I share the recommendation to use VisualEditor for tables when possible, but unfortunately for many more advanced table edits (including sorting) it is not possible.

I then added sorting for the first three rows as an example. What I might suggest, Atlantis, is to copy the entire table into your sandbox, where you'll be able to work on it without worrying about messing anything up. Once you have it sorting correctly, you can copy it back to the article. Also, of course, feel free to ask if you have any trouble copying the examples or if any further questions come up. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177, it's safe to edit that table now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check my article

Hello everyone, dear participants! Please check my article about the Kazakh petition site. Thank you.

Draft:EGOV.PRESS Zzremin (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin, it looks promising, but (1) Please change "EGOV.PRESS" to either "egov.press" or "Egov.press", and likewise for "ALASH.ONLINE". (2) What/where is "ENU"? (3) "[O]nly the most relevant and resonant initiatives": Relevant to what? What is meant here by "resonant"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Everything is fixed. I wanted to ask you, as an experienced participant, how can I add links to pages on social networks? It is allowed? Zzremin (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL has the rules for adding social media links. Usually, only one official link is added, and a social media link is normally added only if they don't have their own website. (Some smaller businesses, for example, use Facebook or Instagram instead of a more traditional website.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If my article follows the rules, please move it to the main category. If not, then I am ready to refine and correct the article. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin The draft was declined, with reasons given. You can work on improving the draft and resubmitting. While some of the Teahouse Hosts are also draft reviewers, asking here does not speed the review process. There are many drafts waiting for a review, so the process can take weeks. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving Talk pages

Hi I'm not strictly new but I have a question which I think comes under etiquette but definitely under markup so I'd appreciate the Teahouse's wisdom.

I am a conflict of interest editor who has been making requests on behalf of an individual since late 2022. They are starting to clutter up the Talk page and as the conflict of interest request backlog is recently starting to creep up again (it's still under 100 requests but I remember how high it can get and I'm hoping to help keep it manageable from my side at least), I wondered if it would be cleaner and easier to read for the volunteers who kindly take on these requests if I were able to archive some of the older conversations. Is that something I would have "permission" to do? I was thinking of leaving just the two most recent conversations live (as the newest request has some relation to the one before it).

If this was appropriate, I have never archived a Talk page before so any advice or help would be great. The Talk page for the article I request on is Talk:Bulat Utemuratov. Podsought (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I might gently suggest that you post a COI declaration on your user page(User:Podsought); I see it on the article talk page, but someone looking for it might not know it is there. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @331dot I have done that now, thanks for the suggestion and replying to my question. Podsought (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @331dot did you have any thoughts on the question of archiving itself? Podsought (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving article talk pages isn't an area with which I have too much familiarity. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok I will wait for other editors to weigh in then! Podsought (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Podsought, I've added automatic archiving to that talkpage, so that anything older than 90 days will automatically be moved to an archive subpage. --rchard2scout (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about AfD relisting

Hi Teahouse peoples.

This is my first question so please forgive me. An article I worked on recently was up for AfD review and after the first 7 days it was relisted because there was no consensus, with some editors voting keep and some editors voting delete.

I tried to find what the protocol is for this Round Two. Do I revote Keep or do I just comment again why I voted to Keep and hope new editors pop by and contribute to the decision making process?

Question 2 - Is there a protocol for relisting? I thought that if there was not a consensus, the article would stay, and the recommendations for not delete-worthy fixes would be moved to banners. I will admit this page needs work but I hesitate to invest more time in it than I did last week until its in the clear and not subject to removal evaluation.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. avignonesi (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Avignonesi and welcome to the Teahouse!

Remember that entries into the discussions at AfD are not exactly "votes". In fact, you'll see many editors saying !votes to emphasize this aspect of the process.

No consensus is a less desirable outcome than a consensus, whichever way it goes. It is often the case that a discussion will be relisted - actually, just continued - when there is no clear outcome in the first week. You don't want to vote again. You could revisit what you said before if you think you can improve on how policy-based your first comment was. The ultimate decision is not based on counting yeas and nays; instead, it's an evaluation of the policy-base arguments. Comments like "delete per nom" are essentially useless, since they advance no policy basis. If instead, you can honestly say "delete - I examined the article's references in detail and none of them appear to be independent" you are adding a valid reason why you are in favor of deletion even if you can't also say you've done a thorough search of online and offline sources and found nothing better.

On the other hand, adding fixes to the article while the discussion is underway is welcome and you could point to those fixes in your comment to argue for "keep". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should have looked at WP:Articles for deletion/Association for Research into Crimes against Art first. Adding lengthy rebuttals to nearly every !vote is a discussion in a poor approach to AfD. Make your case once, as concisely as you can, then let the process proceed. You have to trust that the closing admin is properly evaluating the policy arguments. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Jmcgnh Thanks for your help, and sorry if I used the word vote. I did know it is not a sum count but I just wasn't sure if I needed to restate my decision again in round two. Your feedback answers that and it also helps me to understand that less is more. I was just hoping to get the feedback needed to fix the article and remove concerns. I tend to be blabby by nature, and more so now that I am retired, but I will heed your sage wisdom and stay mum, and refrain from treating the discussion as a chat room. Still relearning Wikipedia-land as a lot has developed since my hiatus. Thanks for making the teahouse available so I can (re)find my way. Avignonesi (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Think of relisting less of as a "round 2" and more of as a method of making the discussion more uniform and less confusing, as well as a way for more editors to get involved. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Industrial Insect Many thanks also for your guidance. Will stick to simply trying to edit articles satisfactorily.Avignonesi (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check my revised article!

Hello to all participants! I have corrected the article in accordance with the rules. Please, please check it out.

Draft:EGOV.PRESS Zzremin (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello,Zzremin. You have resubmitted the draft, and in time a volunteer reviewer will look at it. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The backlog of drafts awaiting review is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review. Thus, it could be days, weeks, or even months for your revised draft to be reviewed. David notMD (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

I think I am a loyal supporter of Wikipedia, but I have recently become worried about you! I am concerned that the"simple english" version means less information, or selected information, or censored information,rather than just making the information easier to understand. For example, if I google Dustin Hoffman filmography wikipedia, I expect to be able to see a list of the films in which Dustin Hoffman starred, not a list of his key films, or most popular films, or excluding controversial films such as Straw Dogs. It's the principle of the thing. So that's why I am worried about you. Robinhowell (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a completely different project, @Robinhowell. What happens there does not affect this Wikipedia. You may find incomplete information in any of the Wikipedias, because they are works in progress. English Wikipedia generally has more comprehensive coverage but there's no guarantee that will be true in every single case. Wikipedia does not censor information that belongs just because it's controversial. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Right now, the English Wikipedia has 6,784,397 articles, while the Simple English Wikipedia has only 247,734, less than 4% as many, so of course its coverage is not as extensive. The English Wikipedia has a Dustin Hoffman filmography article, while the Simple English Wikipedia does not. If you feel like creating one, you are welcome to do so! CodeTalker (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

many minor edits vs not a lot of big edits

is editing frequently, but changing only characters or words at a time, better, worse, or equivalent to editing sporadically, but adding entire sections to articles at a time? natelabs (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Natelabs, most of the time, it does not matter. If an article is on a controversial topic and/or has many watchers, you will have to find a balance. Small edits are easier to review and discuss. Large changes are almost always reverted wholesale because someone will disagree with some parts of them. But, if there are ten typos to fix, better do it in one edit instead of ten so people don't have to go through ten edits only to find out there was nothing worth reviewing even. If you are editing pages that are watched by many and also edited a lot, it's best to only edit them when you have something useful to add, and it's best to make your comment in as few edits as possible. If you make a comment at the administrator's noticeboard, and then make ten more edits trying to copyedit your own comment, you will really really annoy others and may even mess up other people's attempts to post. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Always helps if your Edit summary clearly explains what you did. Consider copying a section to your own Sandbox, editing there, then pasting back in. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Enter-key-like symbols in wiki pages?

For some reason, in some pages there are enter-key-like symbols such as in this wiki page. It only shows in edit mode for some reason. Is this some special character that MediaWiki uses or something like that? AverageWikiContributor (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

its a hidden newline in the source. you can tell this by going to the source editor natelabs (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! AverageWikiContributor (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotional content in articles

I'm looking at this page for copyediting. The banner says it has promotional content/is written like an advertisement but I can't put my finger on what the problem is here. I've read through WP:ADMASQ, but the examples there are pretty exaggerated and I don't think they apply to what I'm looking at— I think the worst of it is a detailed description of what the company offers with citations. If anyone could give me a hand or lend some pointers for the future, I'd really appreciate it!

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Donut Sprinkle - I think one egregious issue is "Its mission is to provide internationally recognized higher education for professionals, universities and high school graduates." Good articles on companies do not generally include the company's "mission" in the intro. I would add that the company is for-profit. (See [5]) The emphasis on the scholarship program throughout the article is also weird and seems promotional. Also, "The number of students was estimated to reach 100,000 by 2026." is sourced to the company's own statements in a 2016 article. That is not appropriate, and it should be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! All of those points make sense to me. I can likely fix the first and last points you've made, but I think the scholarship mentions are a little trickier. Maybe I have it mentioned once in the article and then the rest of its mentions removed?

I'll see what I can do. Thanks again :)

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Donut Sprinkle. I think a useful way to look at this is to ask what the independent sources have said about the company. (There must be independent sources, or the subject does not meet the criteria for notability). If an independent source talks about the company's "mission", then it may be appropriate to mention it (especially if the source says something substantive about this mission - criticises it, or praises it, or discusses how far the company lives up to it). On the other hand, if no independent source discusses the mission, then it certainly does not belong in the article. Similarly, anything about the company's goals, ethos, partners, campaigns, customers, or even products, that no independent source has mentioned, should not go in the article. Uncontroversial factual information like places and dates can be sourced from the company's own publications (but if they are the only information available, then again it is not notable). ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is incredibly helpful, I appreciate it! I do feel like a lot of pages I come across don't have that notability criteria, but I don't think I want to stick my nose in that just yet. I'm definitely going to take a more in depth look at a page's reflist as I'm editing in the future, especially for admasq ones!

Donut Sprinkle (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikipedia has thousands upon thousands of stubs, unnotable articles, and etc., it would be preferable to put all those in an Afd discussion. But seeing how much these discussions take (1-week if no one raises objections), most of these will stay here. Anyways, happy editing! ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The {{notability}} tag is an easy way to let other editors know that someone is concerned about the subject being notable. But let me add that what matters is "the subject", i.e., not the current state of "the article". University of Oxford is a notable subject no matter what the article says. It is a notable subject even if the article WP:Glossary#cited no sources at all. That's because the real-world (e.g., newspapers, magazines, books, libraries) has a lot of information about that subject.

By contrast, if I started a business and called it "University of WhatamIdoing", it would not be a notable subject, no matter what I typed in the Wikipedia article. It would not be notable because the world at large has given no attention to my fictitious business.

We often cite sources to demonstrate that a subject is notable, but you cannot actually determine that the subject is non-notable merely because nothing in the article demonstrates notability. It could be a notable subject with a poorly written and under-cited Wikipedia article. Consider the state of the Wikipedia article on Oxford after the first 250 edits (=more than most articles ever get). Infobox, pictures, 1500 words – and not a single little blue ref number anywhere on the page. It was still a notable subject, even though the current version of the article didn't demonstrate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No more archive messages

Why I don't receive Teahouse thread archive messages for Muninnbot anymore? I have not even opted out and there's no {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on my talk page. I want them, what do I do? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, @ExclusiveEditor. Looking at @Muninnbot's contributions, it appears to have stopped operating in August 2022; did we just miss this? There's a recent note on the talk page of the operator, @Tigraan, but they do not appear to have been active in a few months. Another bot operator may need to pick up the task. I will open a thread at the Teahouse talk page so we can be sure to follow up on this. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 19:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Problem with dates

Greece followed the Julian calendar until 1923. The articles having been written by different authors each have a different date. I want to apply a single chronology to all articles on politicians and governments. What should I do?

to write down both dates?

to write old style up to 1923?

to write downnew style

Is there a specific policy about that? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers could help. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@D.S. Lioness: Please see MOS:OSNS. In short, the date method should follow that of reliable secondary sources. This would probably mean using old style for those before 1923, and new style for those after 1923. If it's not clear which method should be used, you can use {{OldStyleDate}}. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DS. Lioness. Specifically, within the page Industrial Insect linked, see Julian and Gregorian calendars. If that does not answer your question, I suggest asking either at the talk page of the MOS page, or at WT:WikiProject Greece. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating Talk page reply

Sometimes I realize I should add something to a talk page reply. When should I edit my old reply or add a new reply? Sophon96 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sophon96; good question! This is somewhat a matter of personal preference, and there's no hard-and-fast rule (if there was it'd be at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines) so long as you're trying to communicate clearly.

Personally, I'm more likely to edit my comment rather than add a new one if the comment is recent and the tweak is minor. If it's more substantive (e.g. a new thought) or the comment was made a while ago, I'll add a new one. I try not to edit my comments (beyond uncontroversial things like typo fixes) after someone else has replied to them, since it can be confusing or unfair to alter the record like that.

For particularly sensitive edits, it's possible to cross out text (use the code <s>text</s>), underline added text (<u>text</u>), and add an addendum to your signature (e.g. [[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]] ([[User talk:Sdkb|talk]]) 14:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)<sup>Edited ~~~~~ to clarify my point</sup>; the five ~ insert the timestamp) to help make it clearer to others what has been changed. But that's not normally needed. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Others in the discussion are more likely to notice if you leave a new comment than if you edit an existing one, so one question to ask yourself is: Is the thing I'm adding something I'd want to be sure others who read the initial comment see? Sdkb ^talk 20:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! That makes a lot of sense, and I’ll keep this in mind for my stay at Wikipedia. Sophon96 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Loss of my Work in Sandbox.....what happened?

Hello Teahouse! Still learning about the Wikipedia process. It looks like there is a bit of a learning curve for me! Somehow I lost my edit of a bio I was working on in my sandbox. I never hit any kind of delete button. Last time I saw it, I had put it up in my tabs and then it got X'ed out. Would that delete my work? I am thinking that I should do my rough draft in my word processor. Any ideas or help would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks for your thoughts...... Creative Lizzie (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't publish your changes to your sandbox, it unfortunately won't be saved. That's likely what happened here. You can see someone else who had this issue here. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For sure, that is exactly what happened. Thank you for your thoughts on this. I so thank you for your input and now feel my rough draft needs to be developed in another location until it is molded then smoothed into something that makes sense. Then I will put into Wikipedia for publishing.:) Creative Lizzie (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Creative Lizzie! Sorry to hear of the difficulties. Your contribution history is here. I'm unfortunately not seeing anything in it that looks like saving a draft, so Commissar Doggo's hypothesis is likely what happened. The pages here (for the source editor) and here (for VisualEditor) provide instructions on saving your edits. Best, Sdkb ^talk 20:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Commissar Doggo, Many thanks for your input and links! I saw "Publish" a while back but was asked to wait for publishing by another consultant. Besides that,

I had thoroughly moved the print around and added all kinds of thoughts plus additions. No one would have understood most of it. I think it would be nice to have an "In Process Save Writing/Rough Draft" button that maybe would last for a week or ?. I would not have wanted to publish what I had done yet. The bio I am working on requires lots of research and citations which takes a lot of time. So at the present, I believe I have to start anew in my word processor but I fortunately saved a lot of my sources. I will have to put the finished work into Wikipedia when done.This one needs thorough citations to support my writing. All the best and thanks again!! Creative Lizzie Creative Lizzie (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Creative Lizzie: - I will add my voice to the chorus saying it's a pity this happened. I think we have all been bitten by it at some stage. The lesson is to save your work regularly - don't spend hours of crafting something and risk losing it if it doesn't get saved for some reason.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if you hit the "publish" button, if the page you are editing is in your sandbox, the only people who will see it are you and anyone checking the recent changes on Wikipedia. Of course you can work in a word processor as well to be safe, but writing piecemeal in your sandbox makes it easier to ensure formatting and references are consistent. Published work can always be edited. Reconrabbit 22:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Creative Lizzie (talk) Hello Gronk Oz and Recon RabbitCreative Lizzie (talk) So enjoy hearing your voices. It made me feel a bit better to hear others have been bitten by this one. There was definitely some crafting but hopefully it will come back even better. I agree working piecemeal would be the best; I assume everyone would understand that the bio is in development and needs a major amount of citations? I hope nobody will want to redo my beginning efforts in the sandbox. This one definitely needs time. Many thanks to all of you for your time, explanations, links and effort with my loss!! You are the best!! Cream Creative Lizzie (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Can sandbox writing can be edited when published? I assume it can but how is the writer supposed to develop it in sandbox with other edits? That would be very confusing at first! Creative Lizzie (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Double check to make sure you click publish. There is also show preview. A thing should saying your edits was published when clicking publish. Cwater1 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Creative Lizzie. I have used sandbox pages extensively for close to 15 years. I publish my sandbox pages frequently because, like you, I do not want to lose anything. Often, my first edit to a new sandbox is a single bare URL to a reliable source. I publish it. Then I add more bare URLs, publishing each as I go. Then, I transform each URL into a reference with full bibliographic details, and I publish, publish, publish as I go along. I reach a point where I have perhaps six fully formatted references and not a single word of prose. Then, I started summarizing in my own words what the reliable sources say, publishing frequently. I rearrange, add section headers and perhaps images, format things properly, and copyedit. I may hit publish 50 times during this sandbox process and that's OK. Only then do I move the sandbox to the main space of the encyclopedia. Not one of my new articles has ever been deleted. My personal opinion is that trying to write articles in a word processor is a frustrating waste of time. Developing content in a sandbox enables you to constantly see what the work would look like as an actual encyclopedia article, which I find very helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, my response to Cwater1 was meant for you!! This shows you a bit of my learning curve! Your ideas are wonderful and i am going to use them!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if our interface ought to be saying "save" rather than "publish" when creating draft or sandbox pages. Would that have made it clearer? Sdkb ^talk 00:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that could possibly be easier to understand. Maybe "Save" and maybe "Publish" for the final work. I think "Publish" is a bit confusing. For me, being a newspaper man's daughter, publish means going to press!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

However, publish edits and final copy mean 2 different things to me. It is a language issue for sure. Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

But then some people who'd "saved" would complain that what they'd saved was merely a working draft and that they'd no idea that others could actually see it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly why the Wikimedia Foundation changed "Save" to "Publish" several years ago. Some editors were writing angry, threatening screeds in their sandbox pages, and were surprised to learn that other editors could read what they wrote. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.I am understanding more about wikipedia all the time!! Creative Lizzie (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! There are definitely issues either way. Creative Lizzie (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Different strokes. I'd never use a word processor for composing an article (it would try to be "helpful", in undesirable ways), but I routinely use a text editor for this purpose. My own choice is Geany, but most are OK. (For Windows, Notepad++ is good.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Issue?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue fixed. Cwater1 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Is there an issue? See Talk:Erin_&_Aaron#Issue. Cwater1 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: Fixed Cwater1 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much for this great way to get started! I can see how that would work for me. Working with a word processor is a backward way to go but I could not figure out an alternative. Now I have a plan with steps. Very smart indeed! My hope is that this work will bring supported knowledge of a great American and make sense sequentially. Again, I appreciate the time and effort you took to write this......very grateful for your sharing! Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So sorry Cwater 1, this was meant for Cullen328. Thank you for your understanding. Creative Lizzie (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. So many things going on I imagine. Closing discussion anyways since the issue I was facing is fixed.Cwater1 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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

editing an article

Hi

I have made a few edits to a couple of Wikipedia pages recently - in good faith, but sadly to no good end.

It is a huge disappointment to see that they have all been taken down, without any good reason as far as I can see.

It is a great shame, as I spent a long time researching and fact checking the information. I can imagine that this will strongly discourage further contributions.  

I do not expect a response, but I think that it is rather dispiriting to have contributions dismissed in this fashion.

Best regards

Richard M Richard Move (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while your edits seem constructive, some of it is either unsourced or poorly sourced (such as to fandomwiki sites, something that goes against the policy on user generated content), leading to otherwise constructive edits (such as breaking up paragraphs into more readable chunks) being reverted due to them also containing stuff that is deemed unconstructive. Another reason why your edits may be judged more harshly is because they're on a featured article, and are thus held to an incredibly high standard.

It's very clear to me that you want to work constructively, and I'd really hate for poor experiences now to push you away so please, if you have any questions at all about Wikipedia policies or just general editing then please feel free to leave a message in the Teahouse or on my talk page. I'm sure anyone would be more than happy to help. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that`s much appreciated. I appreciate the feedback.

Best regards. Richard Move (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard Move, one or two comments on your user talk page, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, do seem somewhat gruff. Newcomers may be inclined to mark their edits as "minor" from a certain modesty ("I am making no major claims for this edit"). But that's not at all what "This is a minor edit" is for. (If I were to write "well-intensioned", save the result, and then think "oops!" and edit a second time merely to change the "s" to "t", this second edit would rightfully be "minor".) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, Thanks, that`s much appreciated. I appreciate the feedback - I`ll have another bash at writing an edit.

Apologies to yourself (and all and sundry) if I came across as moody - I was happy to see that my edits were 'accepted' but then surprised to see it taken down a couple of days later (despite at least one of them being clearly visible on the German version of the Wikipedia page.)

Best regards. Richard Move (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's understandable for you to feel disheartened when you've made edits and they're removed. It's not a good feeling and it's undoubtedly one that even those reverting your edits have felt in the past; I know I definitely have. I find it helpful to remember that Wikipedia is one of the few websites out there operated entirely on the back of good faith. It might even be a good idea for you to join the Wikipedia Discord server if you're interested so you can interact with likeminded editors and get constructive criticism or help on your edits in real time.

It might also be a good idea to head to the task centre to see whether there's anything on there that you might be interested in to ease you into editing a little bit. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Which template should be used for unesco documents?

Just now i read Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations/UN references, there is link to visual editor. Which template should i use? Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m (talk • contribs)

Which template should you use for what purpose, Id,Ik'+(&sZP4^m? If it's a template for citing a UNESCO document that is a book, then Template:Cite book; if for citing a standalone printed document that's a lot smaller than a book, then Template:Cite document; if for citing something that's primarily for the web, then Template:Cite web. And there are other possibilities. -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How do i use CC licence?

I don't know how to use CC licence. I want CC BY Attribution licence

please explain how to obtain and use CC licence. it's important because I'm uploading a picture to Wikimedia Commons Akhinesh777 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of the image, you can simply select the CC BY 4.0 license when you upload the image via the Upload Wizard. It is also advisable that you read Commons:Licensing before uploading anything.

Additionally, in the future, if you have any questions relating to Commons, it's probably better to ask them at Commons:Help desk. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do i have to save the License Text Code in pdf, is it important? Akhinesh777 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no such action is required on your part. The license is freely available to read at the link above, and the file being tagged with the license on its commons page is all that is required (assuming you are the file's copyright holder). — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wayback Machine behaving weirdly

Can someone else please try archiving this link for me. The Wayback Machine said it successfully captured a snapshot, but it just keeps sending me back to the "this page has not been archived, but it is available on the web" page, and it won't let me try and archive it again. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You can use archive.ph or archive.today if the problem keeps occurring. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You or someone else successfully archived that webpage. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This snapshot was my attempt to archive it. Apparently it's just decided to work now? No idea what was going on there, but thanks for the suggestions anyway. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toast for Teddy In my experience, sometimes there is a delay between an archive being captured and it showing up when you try to search for it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Duly noted. Thanks. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

List of all articles

Is there a category or page which contains a list of all articles on this site? ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55 well there's almost 7 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, so any list would probably be impossible unfortunately :( TLA (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a list of all articles at Special:AllPages. Yes, it is a long list but not impossible. You will probably want to refine the list by using the selection box to begin at a certain point in the alphabet, such as A. Entries in italics are redirects rather than articles. I don't think it's possible to exclude those. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh damn, I had no idea! Learned something today. TLA (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Depending on your use case, page Contents may be helpful. It is a directory of various outline articles and categories. ♠ Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Help Needed Regarding New Article

Hi, I am working on this page - Draft:Eshal Fayyaz

I need help deciding what more improvements are needed to publish this. Leezaroy (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Leezaroy Interviews (refs 9-14) should not be used as references, and #9 was so 'sticky' that I had to turn off my computer to get out of that website. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing the official logo of a school

Hello, I am looking to change the official logo of a school: Singapore Chinese Girls' School, to better reflect the official logo.

Disclaimer, I am an employee of the school and the current logo on the page is outdated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Chinese_Girls%27_School SCGSS ICT (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@SCGSS ICT is there a change of the logo? The official website looks the same as here? – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes the old logo has text in black colour. The new logo has white text. SCGSS ICT (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Mr Zheng at SCGS, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have changed your user name, but there is another thing that you must do before you do anything about the logo, and that is to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor - see that link for how to do so.

Then you can make an edit request on the talk page of the article for somebody to upload the new logo (tell them where to find it) and update it in the article. ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SCGSS ICT, you can check out Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard to upload files. Make sure it complies with the copyright and image use policy! After that, as you do have a COI, it would be best if you could request the change on SCGS's talk page. TLA (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Bye

It's Akhinesh and i decided to stop creating Article and editing on Wikipedia. I think the administrators are jealous for i creating an article. I provided reliable sources to an article that i created it was decline yesterday by @Encoded. I said to him that i provided Reliable sources to it but he didn't respond Akhinesh777 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's Draft:Redmi Note 13 as it was when I declined it. I pointed out that it needed more than a single sentence of text (which was all that it then had), and that it needed what Wikipedia classes as "reliable sources". The template said "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted." In its current state, the draft has zero sentences and you have removed reviewer comments and that notice. Here's Draft:Oppo A37 as it was when Encoded declined it. It was rather more promising, with four sentences. But I'm left wondering how it merits an article, rather than just a mention within Oppo phones. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Akhinesh777, sorry to hear you're considering leaving Wikipedia. The reason I didn't respond is because I have a lot on at university at the moment, and when you sent the message today it was early morning in my timezone and I was asleep. Unfortunately I wasn't able to accept the article because there are guidelines that reviewers have to follow to accept them, it's nothing personal against you. I'd recommend having a look at WP:RS if you'd like to continue the draft. Thanks, Encoded Talk to me! 08:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Akhinesh777. I'm sorry you're feeling disappointed. I'm afraid that that is a common experience of editors who immediately start the challenging task of creating a new article. Would you build a car as your first ever engineering project? Or enter a major tournament in a sport you took up yesterday? No, you would spend time learning the skills you need.

Please spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles, and then perhaps you will feel ready to have another try at creating articles. But creating new articles isn't the only way to participate in Wikipedia: I have been here for eighteen years, and made over 24 000 edits, but I have only ever created a handful of articles. ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Need Help on an Article to remove Promotional Content Ad box

Hi,

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and after the usual edits, I contributed a page, Resilient Pakistan and where there is no problem on the notability or lack of sources, the problem lies with the tone. I have made improvements to change the promotional tone and give it a more factual, objective, neutral tone, but, it seems that I cannot get rid of the Promotion content ad box. even after taking care of the words that Wikipedia don't approve of.

Can anyone please head to the Page and advise me please on how to improve my content.

Much appreciated the help I would be receiving. Ayshaipath (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Ayshaipath. I first noticed that on your LinkedIn page(that you link to on your user page) you identify yourself as a "social media content writer" and that you offer "Writing, Team Building, Brand Marketing, Research Skills, Content Marketing, Market Research, Marketing Strategy, Editing, User Experience Writing, and Blogging" as services, but you told Wikishovel on Talk:Resilient Pakistan that you have no conflict of interest with this topic. So you are saying that your job is to write on social media but you aren't performing your job for this book? I just want to know if that's what you're saying.

I also see that you made 10 edits and waited four days to be able to directly create the article about this book- the exact amount of time required which suggests you came to Wikipedia expressly for writing about this book. It's usually better for new users inexperienced in creating articles to use the draft submission process(WP:AFC) so that any issues are worked out before the work involved is made a part of the encyclopedia.

As someone whose job involves writing more promotionally, even if you aren't doing your job for this book, you may be too much of a social media writer to write as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 331 dot for citing out what I already know. There are things much larger than your Job. Things such as self growth, looking for writing arenas outside your comfort zone, and creating venues for one self. You did a background check, and this is certain that I am a writer, who excels in creative writing. My strong hold lies with stories, prose, poetry, imaginative writing that showcases creativity. Wikipedia requires another kind of tone for writing altogether. and what is the harm in trying and who says I haven't done editing before. (people can make new accounts as well)

Yes, I don't have a personal setting with the book, or the author, what I said on the talk page, is truth. But, here even after contemplating about who I am, and what I work for, you haven't given one advice on how to correct the particular problem.

Let's say, there is a personal choice involved in here, many writers have the power to give it a complete neutral feel and like, for writers are often doing such tasks, where their own opinion on the subject does not matter.

Kindly, if there any advices on the writing tone. Please advise.

My choices are of no concern here. Thanks! Ayshaipath (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I clicked on one reference. It turned out to be a retailer. I clicked on another. It read like a PR puff. Near its head, it says "pr"; from which I infer that it is indeed a PR puff. I couldn't be bothered to click on a third reference. Remove the junk sources and consider whether the sources that remain show that this self-published book is notable (where notability) is defined by and for Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see! I'll comb through it again to make it neat. Ayshaipath (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you allow this to be a draft so that you can take your time to resolve the issues Hoary mentions and submit it for review by other editors.

I also suggest- if you have used another account as you're suggesting- that you read WP:ALTACCN. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. I have made this page using this account from which I am commenting. I simply mentioned that I have somewhat of a minor experience. Anyways, I will look into it.

Thank you Ayshaipath (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The above comments notwithstanding, a closer look at Wikipedia:Notability (books)] could prove helpful. Lectonar (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is written exactly like mine. it has only four references. half a page content, and there are retailers, and book reviews on the references. There are no ad box above. @331dot@Hoary Ayshaipath (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, for a book published by Stanford University Press, the WP:BURDEN is to show that it lacks WP:N. For a WP:SPS, the burden of proof is to show that it has WP:N. So, the two pages are not in the same league. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine may or may not be good. If it's poor, no surprise: Wikipedia has many poor articles. Their high number is no reason to allow them to proliferate. So, is it any good? Well, let's start with a quick (and necessarily inadequate) look at its references. It has four. One is the description provided by its publisher, Stanford University Press. This is usable for a very limited range of purposes but does nothing to establish notability. As for the other three, one is a detailed and serious review published by a think-tank; another, published on a website unfamiliar to me, is similar, and is by the very eminent Richard Falk; the third, published by an institute with which I'm unfamiliar, is again long and thoughtful, and is by someone described as a "professor of law at the UCLA School of Law". Does the article Resilient Pakistan cite comparably substantial reviews? -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the article to draft space Draft:Resilient Pakistan where it can be improved before submission. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

and you have the right to do it? Ayshaipath (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I could have nominated it for deletion at WP:AFD but in draft there is the opportunity to improve it. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You can take a look at Wikipedia:Draftify for more information on the process. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I offered you the chance to agree to it but yes, an editor may do that. I also advised you that gaming the system to allow yourself to directly create it was inadvisable. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at another of the references for Resilient Pakistan. It's "Author lauded for cherishing Pakistanis’ resilience". In fact much of this article is instead about "Two other books, 'Our Quaid' and its Urdu version". As for Resilient Pakistan, we don't learn much; but we are told that "Journalist Khurshid Hyder said Haya's book was a labour of love as she had done a lot of research and fact-finding to make it an authentic book." Really. It does also say that this "book by defence analyst and security expert Ikram Sehgal's daughter Haya Fatima Sehgal was launched at the Quaid-i-Azam Museum", where it was given what sounds like a most appreciative speech by said defence analyst and security expert, "who is also the vice-chairman of the museum board". Quite a coincidence. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

What does this imply?

I asked for an advice, and now my page is in drafts and my account is up for deletion.

I was new here, instead of being helped, I am shunned to side.

I thought I read everything about it, and I was ready to try.

But, I was mistaken I guess.

Thanks everyone for your help.

There are too many things here. It is not just simply posting an article! Wikipedia is indeed is an epic forum.

I will learn more about it and try again some other time! Ayshaipath (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ayshaipath. I'm sorry that you have had a disappointing time, but (as I said to another new editor just above) that is a common experience for new editors who immediately try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have learnt much about how Wikipedia works.

I always advise new editors to spend time improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning about Wikipedia's principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability before they ever try to create an article. ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Your article being moved to draft status was done by an Asministrator to give you unlimited time to remedy shortfalls in the article. The alternative was to nominate it for deletion, which would have limited you to roughly 7-10 days to salvage the article. In addition to this draft, you created Haya Fatima Sehgal - about the author of the book - and that article is at AfD. Last, you have been asked on your Talk page to clear up whether either of these efforts are paid work. If so, that must be stated on your User page. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Theroadislong is a very experienced new page reviewer but not an administrator. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My error David notMD (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I might have overlooked a few use of terms, and misinterpreted a few things which has caused confusion and hustle from my side. I am still trying to understand wikipedia and want to work here as a fair contributor.

I want to thank everyone here on this thread, @331dot@Chaotic Enby@ColinFine@David notMD@Hoary@Lectonar@Michael D. Turnbull@Tgeorgescu for giving me honest and blunt replies and suggestions.

I do understand Wikpedia works on very different set of rules and regulation, terms and conditions, and other things!!

I apologize for not understanding the exact terms, and I will try to abide by them all.

Thank you! Ayshaipath (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Feel free to work on the article in draftspace (there's no time pressure!), and to resubmit it when the time is right. Draftification doesn't mean it's rejected, just that it needs more improvement, which is a very common thing when writing your first article. Good luck! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You say on your talk page that "I work for a company. the author of the book is asociated to the company i work for" this means you are deemed to be a paid editor and MUST make the required disclosure. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This is true even if she is not specificlly your client at the company, as the company would have a perceived benefit for there being articles about her and her book. David notMD (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware of that. I thought personal direct relations were only the term. @David notMD

Please can you tell me how to disclose this particular aspect. @Theroadislong so I can keep on improving the articles and contribute more to Wikipedia outside my domain of company. Ayshaipath (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAID, which has details of what and where to declare, with the templates to use. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Images in User Page

Hi there, I would like to know if I could add an image to my user page. The image is of General Grievous from Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, specifically the one where he shows off his lightsaber collection to Anakin and Obiwan. However, I am not very aware of copyright on Wikipedia or how images can be uploaded or approved. So, if I could get some advice on this, that would be very much appreciated. Conyo14 (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Is this an image that is already on Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know. I know that it's on the fandom wiki, but I haven't seen this specific image on Wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is the specific image: [6]. Conyo14 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 Short answer no. WP allows itself some very limited non-free use of images, but only in the WP-articles themselves. You can use these [7] or anything else you find on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Good Morming

would it be possible to compile a list of the most cited foreign articles in the body of text on wikipedia in english? 2804:14C:5BB1:9473:A4D0:ADC6:8ED4:4A8E (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Can you clarify your request? Wikipedia articles don't cite articles from foreign-language versions of Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We do on occasions wikilink to pages in other-language versions (for example if they have a biography of a named individual who doesn't have one in English). I don't know if such links can be counted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine that any such links would be counted at Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles since they are already red links. At least, they could be counted using the code there, since the page isn't a complete list. Reconrabbit 15:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the editor is looking for the most linked non-English Wikipedia articles (e.g., the French Wikipedia has an article but English doesn't), or the most cited non-English newspaper articles (e.g., the English Wikipedia cites a French newspaper article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Reconrabbit. 2804:14C:5BB1:9473:B69B:1451:FF5B:26A3 (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki

Hello I am trying to figure out how to contact the person in charge of www.Wikipedia.org ??? to fix a small error on that page specifically.

Thanks Q1w2E3 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Q1w2E3! I can't get you that contact, but I'm sure someone at the Teahouse could help. You could also make an edit request at the talk page of the article you want to edit, or edit it yourself. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Q1w2E3 That URL has no Talk Page. See WP:WMF for details including contacts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the error? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's handled at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/1619/ – so, a completely different system. If you want, you can login ("Login" button at the top, then "Log in or Register MediaWiki" button in the middle) and try to add a new task. Alternatively, you can explain the problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and ask someone there to route it to the right place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How to get a page un-redirected?

Hello! Been editing a bunch lately and a BLP has lead me down a rabbit hole. There is an art movement called Art Brut, that under that exact name, has historical significance. However, it currently redirects to a page called "Outside Art" which is a similar movement. If I think Art Brut needs to have it's own page where do I bring this up? Slacker13 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Slacker13! To overwrite a redirect, you just need to delete the redirect template and write your article over it. See WP:EDRED. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slacker13 You could use the WP:AfC process to get feedback on a draft Draft:Art Brut you create and when accepted, the draft would be moved over the redirect by the accepting reviewer. Depends a bit on how confident you are that your article will pass muster, especially regarding notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Slacker13. Asparagusus's suggestion is certainly possible, if you think you can write an acceptable article in one go. Otherwise I would suggest developing it in a draft, and then either submitting it for review, or if you are confident that it is acceptable, requesting that it be moved over the redirect. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks all!! Slacker13 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup and UEFA Champions League moved to level 3 (1000 articles)

I suggest the articles be moved from level 4 to level 3 of vital articles and would like to know your opinion. Thanks 14 novembre (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @14 novembre, I believe the location to propose changes to level 3 of WP:Vital articles is on the talk page for level 3: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles where there are instructions to do so (yes, level 3 is at the base name for VA). If you're asking for general thoughts before such a proposal, then that may still be the best place for that but others may have thoughts here as well. My vague guess is it's unlikely based on looking at the three articles in the sports section of level 3, largely since Association football itself is currently level 3. But I am not very active there. Skynxnex (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sahi_Siva

Is this article now ready to be moved into the mainspace from the draft space? 81.104.111.169 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. In order for a draft article to be suitable for mainspace, it needs to be accepted by a reviewer. Right now, it is awaiting such a decision, which can take anywhere from a week to months. If it gets declined, you will need to revise your draft before it is suitable for inclusion in the mainspace, and then resubmit it for review after making the changes. I hope this helps answer your question. You should be notified when it is reviewed. — theki ^{(hit me up)} 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made a few grammar and style corrections, but I think the article is still lacking in sufficient sources to be accepted. You need several (ideally at least three) sources that are all independent of the subject and contain in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. As far as I can see, none of the sources currently in the article meet those requirements. There are a lot of sources that simply show that particular songs or performances exist but don't discuss either the songs or Siva himself in any detail. The only reference that says anything significant about Siva is the Local London reference, but that seems to have been written by Siva himself, so is not independent. I think you should work on finding better sources. CodeTalker (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker Are BBC Network references not independent of the subject and in-depth? Do they not appear as in-depth interview coverages? 81.104.111.169 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Interviews, by definition, are not independent of the person being interviewed. You need to find sources that are not interviews. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok 57.140.16.1 . Your feedback has been truly helpful for the development of Singer Sahi Siva's article. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Interviews of the article's subject that are also about the article's subject are non-independent. However, interviews of someone else about the article's subject are independent of the subject.

"Kai talks about Kai in an interview" is non-independent for an article about Kai. But "Lee talks about Kai in an interview" is independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@CodeTalker Thank you for the information - but your judgement is wrong ! The Local London article was not written by Sahiththiyan Sivapalan and written by Shathuriya Sivapalan (two different people) 81.104.111.169 (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

And are the two Sivapalans connected or do they just happen to have the same name? If they are connected at all, it is not independent. ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine The two Sivapalans are not connected. They are independent. 81.104.111.169 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you know that they are independent? Can you provide the sources that lead you to say that? Or do you have a personal connection with one or both of them?

I'm puzzled because this source refers to "Shathuriya Sivapalan" as a musician "fondly known as Sahi Siva". Did the source mistake one of the Sivapalans for the other? CodeTalker (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sample: He has also talked about how independent artists like himself have recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic in his exclusive interview with BBC Asian Network. Also, Sid Sriram praised the independent artist and mentioned in an interview with BBC Asian Network that he has an interest to work with Sahi Siva because of his good voice. Many people have been interviewed about the recovery of their business from the pestilence. (And the "exclusive" interview: Who or what was excluded from what, exactly?) Many people have an interest in working with many other people. Many people mention many other people in interviews. This kind of material seems very trivial. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor may want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Difference between revisions colorscheme

Hi, I would like to change the yellow and blue highlights in the edit changes to red and green respectively, to not confuse which is which. Is this possible? If so, how do I do this? Coulomb1 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Coulomb1– if you go into your preferences page, and go to the "Appearance" tab, you can provide custom CSS rules for specific themes, all of Wikipedia regardless of theme, or all of its sister sites as well.

If you need a quick way to change it, you can go to your common.css at User:Coulomb1/common.css (or the CSS file for the specific theme that you are using) and add the following CSS:

.diff-deletedline {
  border-color: /*[red color of choice]*/;
}
.diff-addedline {
  border-color: /*[green color of choice]*/;
}

If you want to just use plain, fully saturated red and green, then you can just use "red" and "green" as the color values, respectively, or you can provide a hex code. Let me know if you need further assistance. — theki ^{(hit me up)} 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! Coulomb1 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

New Here!

Hi everyone - I am new here with the goal of updating and contributing to the existing English wikipedia site of an artist, whose work I love. I understand that everyone who contributes to wikipedia can be overwritten by any other contributor and that consensus is achieved in this way. Being new, I'd like to avoid typical pitfalls of inexperiences contributors. For example, I heard that more than 4 edits per month from any contributor to the same page would raise a flag - is this true? Any help is much appreciated! HCR24 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24 Welcome to Wikipedia! On pitfalls: The Wikipedia article on your artist is supposed to be a summary of independent reliable sources (WP:RS) about that artist. Not what they have to say about them self or how great their fans think they are. Assuming it's a living person, every factoid in it should be cited, and take the time to read WP:BLP. See WP:ADVOCACY and WP:PEACOCK. The "4 edits per month" thing sounds like advice to someone who is WP:PAID to edit but wants to do it undetected. That's not you, right? However, see also WP:SPA. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful. Re: the "4 edits per month", Skynxnex below explained it, when he brought up Edit warring. Re: SPA accounts, what if someone where into, let's Christopher Marlowe, and everything concerning him and his work and therefore pretty much exclusively contributes to everything Christopher Marlowe? (Which would be a very natural and innocent thing for that person to do. Especially since Marlowe is long dead). Is that something that would be flagged? HCR24 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24, as WP:SPA says, many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest. We do sometimes get descendants of famous (or would-be famous) folks coming around to puff up their articles, which turns into a problem, but all you need to do is follow the advice above about following sources and watching your language, and all shall be well. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! HCR24 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24 I just want to mention here that I started Christopher Marlowe in fiction and Marlowe portrait. Never read any of his plays though. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, you gotta read the plays! HCR24 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've read a few, @HCR24; I thought Shakes Marlowe did some good work there. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's possible the 4 edits per month per page came a miscommunication/understanding of WP:Edit warring, here performing 4 or more reverts (undoing some or all of another editor's changes) per day per page is a bright-line rule, know as the three-revert rule (3RR), violation (you can edit war without breaking that line, of course). Luckily it's easy to avoid edit warring: just slowdown and discuss with any edits with whom you may disagree about changes.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång also gave good advice and I left on your talk page a welcome message that includes additional links to documentation and links to ways to learn how (and where) to contribute, in general. Skynxnex (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it, very helpful - also for the links! HCR24 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about any potential major pitfalls beyond not using reliable sources and, you know, citing your sources in the first place. As for the 4 edits, like Skynxnex said that's probably a misconception based on the edit warring policy.

I've made more than 4 edits on several different pages within a matter of 30 minutes to an hour, let alone over the course of a month. I've also seen people do it constantly. While more suspicious to someone doing recent changes patrols, it's not a problem and there's nothing against doing so. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. But say, how does one cite a book (in this case by an tenured academic), that *is* published and freely available, in book form, but the text of which is not available online? What confuses me is I can cite the book and the author, but the text/lines of the book I am citing are not readily available online, so how can anyone verify the citation? Can you upload a picture of relevant page in the book, or how do people deal with this? HCR24 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@HCR24, there's no need to upload anything (and doing so might be a copyright violation). Off-line sources are perfectly acceptable; you just need to provide enough information for someone to find the source if they want to look up the information. See WP:Offline sources. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay - eccellent, thanks for the link! That makes sense. It's all a tad overwhelming on the first afternoon, but I am slowly starting to get it... Thanks for the help, makes this less intimidating. Appreciate it. HCR24 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty natural to be overwhelmed, there are so many policies and general rules on Wikipedia, so many places to see, things to join and things to do. I'd advise going to the task centre to see what piques your fancy; maybe you'll find something you didn't realise was there but you'll enjoy. That's what happened with me and recent change patrols. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will check it out! HCR24 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Alerting a WikiProject

I want to add an article that is sorely lacking in quality to Wikiproject Israel's ToDo list, how do I do that?

The article in question: Efrat (organization) JohnR1Roberts (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Efrat (organization) includes blatantly contradictory statements about Efrat's objectives. This could be fixed by basing the article entirely on what others have said about Efrat, as recommended by Wikipedia policy, and omitting mention on what its own members say about it. Maproom (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily contradictory – or at least no more contradictory than an abortion provider refusing to provide prenatal care. In my area, the main abortion provider supports a woman's choice, whatever it is, by providing both abortion care and prenatal care, but not all providers can provide such a wide range of services. I think it might sound confusing if you come to the subject with an American POV, but I suspect that most of the world doesn't automatically see promising food, clothing, and diapers to pregnant women as an anti-abortion program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please, help me!

Hi, please check my article for compliance with Wikipedia rules. I will not refuse your professional advice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EGOV.PRESS

I just finished editing. Thanks. Zzremin (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Zzremin the draft will be reviewed in due time. Please be patient. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Now accepted as Egov.Press. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia.

(Sorry, I'm not good at using subject lines properly) I was curious about how to get certain boxes with text under my user, (for example, the one box that says "this editor was in the Second Great Edit War") and I was also curious about what I should put on my user page. (I'm new to Wikipedia, and was curious with how to use the features I've seen) TechnicianMan (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

TechnicianMan, please see WP:Userboxes and WP:User pages. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, how would I add a userbox to my page? I'm trying to find out how but the information is confusing me. TechnicianMan (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Just enter into the editor mode at the top of the page, and you should be in Visual editing mode. You can then click the insert button at the top of the page, in the toolbar. then select "template" and search for the one you would like. Geardona (talk to me?) 03:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still lost. Should I just look up a video on how to add an existing userbox? TechnicianMan (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Help:Introduction to editing with VisualEditor/1 Geardona (talk to me?) 03:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@TechnicianMan if you click "edit source" on anyone else's userpage (or open Visual Editor, then switch to source mode), you'll see how they've coded it. So if you see a particular userbox you like, you can always just copy it over to your own. -- asilvering (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome!
There are tons of things you can make for your userpage! (see Wikipedia:Userpage for guidelines, and Wikipedia:Userpage design center for ideas.) Geardona (talk to me?) 03:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There are indeed tons of things you can make for your user page. Suggestion: Do none of them until you've demonstrated via your contributions that your primary interest here is the improvement of articles. (So far, you've made a total of one edit to an article.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Recovering a draft

I was creating a page about a colonial official (Gustav von Oertzen) I left this page unedited for 6 months and I have noticed it has been deleted could someone help me with the recovery process? TeaEnjoyer737 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@TeaEnjoyer737, You can go to Wikipedia:REFUND/G13 and follow the instructions on that page to get it back. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, TeaEnjoyer737. Please make at least some improvement to Draft:Gustav von Oertzen (Colonial Official) very quickly, else it may be deleted again. Once you've edited it in some way, there's no rush for further work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone who is good at AfD please help me with this?

I thought that before I attempt going through the AfD process and inevitably make some mistakes, maybe someone else might be interested in taking a crack at it. What do you think?

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Lisec

And here is the discussion page for the article in question, which provides some context (resume-like page with notability issues, possible source issues): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joshua_Lisec

I appreciate your help, and if I have erred in making this request here, please let me know. Thanks, FrodeAnthelm (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

FrodeAnthelm, I presume that you've gone through the cited sources. If you believe that they don't add up to Wikipedia-defined notability and if other good sources don't seem to exist, I think you should take a crack at it yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding pop-culture pages, but especially comics.

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

Sewnbegun, if you're working on lists, Help:List, Manual of Style/Lists and Stand-alone lists might be helpful. But don't worry too much about reading every word of these. Just use them as references if you get stuck. Really, the best way to learn is just to get started and try to do what you see on similar articles. If you're not sure whether you did something right, you can always have someone else check it afterward. It's really easy to undo mistakes if needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Wansho Laundry

Just made this article, and I'm ready to move it into the mainspace. I have some questions with the lede I used though. Should the owners names be bolded with their birthdates, like a duo such as Rhett & Link? The laundry shop's notability is in exact parallel with its two owners who model for it (please read the article's lede for some content). TLA (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm going to keep it this way and publish as I'm quite sure this is the right formatting after looking through Category:Business duos. If anyone has something add/change, please feel free, I think it's a very interesting topic! TLA (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

can this be a good introduction...

Can this be a good introduction or background if my research proposal is an investigation into the causes of accidents in road construction sites?

Extended content

Road is the root that leads people from place to another place. Due to the availability of roots people can move easily by foot, by donkeys or horses’ cart, camels, bullock cart or ox cart, bicycles, motor bikes, personal car, buses, trucks, and trains to deliver their products to the market and enter businesses with the nearby neighbours. Many young entrepreneurs have gained some little wealth through roads quick delivery to the consumers and that is another way of boosting up the economy of the country. With that desire even the small communities or constituencies within Uganda would wish to prioritized on having good roads and that has successfully been echoed by both the local and the central government to construct the rural, district, trunk and regional roads to ease the enter trading and movability among the communities. As there are demands for road constructions in the country, it has also created another competition from the bidders in which some with a negligent of road construction site safety that can safeguard the workers at site. An accident is typically defined as an unforeseen event that results in harm, injury, damage, or loss. In the context of road construction sites, accidents can involve workers, equipment, vehicles, and bystanders. Understanding the causes of accidents in road construction sites is crucial for improving safety measures and preventing future incidents (Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Construction Safety and Health), World Health Organization (WHO) report on road traffic injuries in Uganda, Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) accident reports and safety guidelines, Journal articles on road construction safety and accident prevention, Government reports on road infrastructure development and safety measures in Uganda. Safety regulations in road construction sites refer to the guidelines and rules set by government agencies or industry organizations to ensure the safety of workers, equipment, and the public during construction activities. These regulations often cover areas such as traffic control, personal protective equipment, equipment operation, and hazard communication. Workers at site are exposed to severe incidents such as struck by moving vehicles or equipment, falls from heights, electrocution, burns from hot materials or equipment, struck by falling objects, and caught in between objects or equipment. This study will later address all aspects of preventive measures that will mitigate the road construction site accidents that leads to fatalities and permanent disability. Disabilities can be physical, cognitive, sensory, or mental health related, and can have a significant impact on a person's daily life and functioning. Some major issues and sub-problems that will be looked at by the studies are like lack of proper training and safety protocols for construction workers, inadequate supervision and monitoring of work activities, poor communication and coordination among workers and contractors, unsafe working conditions and equipment, insufficient traffic control measures, and failure to comply with regulations and standards. In this exploration of investigating the causes of accidents in road construction sites in Uganda, the key independent variables that are expecting will be factors like weather conditions, traffic volume, worker experience, and safety protocols. Whereas the dependent variable will be the events of accidents at the road construction site. The event this study will like to look at will be mostly the relationship between these independent variables and the frequency and acuteness of accidents at road construction sites. This study of investigating the causes of accidents in road construction sites in Uganda will later explore the hypothesis such as the poor communication among workers that leads to an escalation risk of accidents in road construction sites, inadequate safety training for workers contributes to a higher rate of accidents in road construction sites and insufficient supervision and oversight on construction sites results in more accidents occurring as it is mentioned above. The studies will later on visit the boundaries of specific aspects of accidents in road construction sites such as the types of accidents, the locations where they occur, the time periods being studied, the specific causes being investigated, and any other relevant parameters that will help narrow down the scope of the research. The key concepts of this study are as follows: Accidents, road construction site, safety regulations, risk factors, and other key concepts that will be relevant to research. Mahafis

(talk) 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mahafis. Unfortunately, we can't advise you on things other than editing Wikipedia, such as a research proposal that you're writing. Are you a university student? If so, could you ask your tutor or someone else at the university for advice on this instead? That would be my suggestion. We can only help with matters relating to Wikipedia editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Mahafis I will advise you that the answer IMHO is no. The very first sentence contains at least six mistakes. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Very much "No". Shorten by more than half by deleting all content that is about roads in general, leaving only content about causes of accidents at construction sites. David notMD (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Archiving URLs

I've posted a question about archive site preferences on Help talk:Archiving a source under the heading Preferences but mention it here since previous posts there have received little reaction. I'd be grateful if anyone with suggestions could reply there. Mcljlm (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I get some assistance in correcting a picture description?

Howdy, a near cave-being here. Fixing and changing stuff digital is not my strong suit by any stretch of imagination. I simply noticed that the first photo's description here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_fin is wrong. Yes, it's a small thing, but I hate it and would like to see it fixed. The gray missile is to the left of the white missile. It is on the white missile's right side. 2600:1700:5D10:B7D0:DC02:C201:B0B4:CA73 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Changed it. It's a pretty simple fix, just use the visual editor and you can edit it directly instead of trying to find it in the source. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Template documentation

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

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

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

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

Cheers! :)

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

Can i get help to solve a Conflict of interest and Notability of people

they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). RamKrishna20 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 2601:41:C202:890:B0B2:5F86:3FDD:4C84 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is about Ram Krishna Bantawa, an excessively promotional and poorly referenced autobiography. It's likely to be deleted unless someone with knowledge of Nepali and of Wikipedia policies can improve it. Maproom (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

How many sources do I need to create a Wikipedia article?!

In numbers how many exactly sources do I need?! JarvikLarsson23 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

JarvikLarsson23 It's more about the quality of the coverage than the quantity. One scholarly book about a topic is better than several tabloid articles. But a good rule of thumb is to start with three sources before writing an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

JarvikLarsson23, the three sources mentioned above must each have three specific attributes. Each must be reliable and must devote significant coverage to the topic, and must be fully independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@JarvikLarsson23 Two of your citations in your draft come from the company's website. They can't be used in this case because they're not independent of the subject. You'll need to find more independent, reliable sources if you want your draft to be accepted. Cheers ‍ Relativity 00:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Feeling like Himmler´s ghost here (draft review)

I tried to publish an article about a company, almost identical to 1000s of other articles, and I feel as if my "review" was a little ... strange. First thing was I got three messages about conflict of interest. I replied twice, and the person was very rude and acted strange and terse. Then I realized the article had been reviewed six hours earlier, before I made about nine more edits. What´s really strange is that it didn´t say so on the page until I clicked the link in the notification list. There, it said "This is just advertising!", by a third user.

So.. I published an article a teeny weeny bit early, just cosmetic changes. One user is telling me I´m a "black hat", a user called pigsofwing says a review has been done, and a user who has made 40 pages about pots is telling me an article practically identical to 1000s of others is "just advertising exclamation mark".

I don´t know who to talk to, and i don´t know how, frankly, because I don´t think talking to these three people will make a lick of difference one way or the other, and we haven´t even said hello.

This is the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ABL_Group NilsenAudun (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hiya! You keep posting in different locations. Maybe life would be easier if you chose one location to have a conversation. When you leave a message somewhere, refresh the page after a minute or two and you probably already find a reply. If not, try again after 5 minutes. Perhaps the templates felt strange to you, but they are standard procedure here on Wikipedia. On my own talkpage I also received the same welcome template. And explaining our conflict of interest and paid editing policies is not rude; these messages are carefully crafted by community members to be helpful. Can we have a conversation here please? If you reply here I will also reply here. Messages for you were left at the talkpage of the draft, on the AfC helpdesk and the normal helpdesk and your talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help me draft an article?

Please :) Cyao123 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cyao123 I'm happy to help. At the moment there isn't good sources that are applicable for Wikipedia (please see the message you received as it was declined). But I did a bit of research and you can try incorporating these two, which look promising:

• https://www.juneauempire.com/sports/foy-chasing-fmc-natatorium-pool-record/
• https://www.thetelegraph.com/sports/article/IHSA-moving-state-swim-meet-to-Westmont-16416519.php

TLA (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check my article

Dear participants! Please check my article for compliance with Wikipedia rules. After receiving the "notability" tag, I rewrote the article, adding authoritative sources and evidence of significance. Thank you. Egov.Press Zzremin (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Merging WP:AFD nominations

I've just listed Nano Nuclear Energy and Jay Jiang Yu for deletion. They are parallel subjects and use very similar sourcing, would it be appropiate to merge this? I don't actually know how to merge them so if someone thinks it's appropriate and can help me with that that would be awesome. TLA (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla seems best to discuss them individually. Multiple articles are discussed in a single AFD when the topics are so similar it's unlikely that one topic would have substantially more/different coverage than any other in the set. That happens rarely enough that you almost never get anywhere with those kind of AFDs. I noticed that you mentioned one article in the other but not vice versa. May want to mention the AFD instead and do it both ways. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright sounds good, will keep it that way. I'll mention NNE in Jay Jiang Yu's AFD, thanks. TLA (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)