Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, 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

An admittedly politics - adjacent question

Hello Wikipedians. Ok, how much of the Wikipedia staff and editors have a left bias? This ratio might say something about the factuality of certain articles. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I stay far away from editing any articles that are political or controversial in any way. On the articles I do work on I may occasionally give a short quote from a written opinion, and state that one reviewer had this to say on the topic (giving a good reference for the quote) but I strive to not let the world know my opinion on any given subject. (I don’t need added drama in my life.) All that is written is done by volunteers, so there isn’t any Wikipedia staff. I believe all the paid employees work to keep the website up and running. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Slaythe: Wikipedia editors (who, as Karen has noted, are volunteers) are not required to declare our political positions or lack thereof, so there cannot be a meaningful measure of how many editors have a particular "bias". If you are concerned about the neutrality or verifiability of Wikipedia as a whole, it's worth rereading the core principles. You may also find that your concerns have been raised by many others and summarised and addressed at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You know, as a side note, there are propaganda tools that left-biased journo's use to the left's advantage. One of those being "lying by omission", which bluntly means presenting infos you prefer over others, resulting in overreporting and underreporting on the respective infos. There also other techniques they use that are more subtle and powerful. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of how many editors there are at Wikipedia? That will give you an answer.

I don't have the actual numbers myself (and cba to dig them out), and related to that is the question as to exactly how many are 'active' editors as opposed to somebody who just chipped in with one obscure article two decades ago. Either way it will be a VERY LARGE NUMBER.

Consequently, from a pure maths perspective, Wikipedia editors are a sub-set of the world, and I would argue that any 'bias' at Wikipedia is going to be a simple reflection of the bias that exists across the entire population of the planet. Does that help?

Having said all that, the factuality of 'certain articles' may well be dependant on the subject in question. Articles with a political angle may well attract biased editors like moths to a flame, whereas editors like myself remember that fire is a dangerous thing, and stay as far away as possible. But bias creeps in to the most surprising places, such as an article about a military unit I am currently editing, where a deficiency in equipment levels was blamed on budget cutbacks during the Carter administration, for chrissake!.

LOL, I've just checked Carter's page to see if he's still with us, and if he survives the next three days, he will be exactly 100 years old. I wonder if he has ever considered standing again?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

For those who are curious, there are 117,842 Wikipedians who have made an edit in the last 30 days last time I checked. That doesn't even account for the IPs! TheWikiToby (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say more than right-biased ones. Do note Wikipedia is definitely not the most left-biased it could be; Take the extreme, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Wikipedia frames the government of Israel and its population as the same entity (contrary to, say, Iran). Some leftist-ier places (I am specifically talking about the Israeli Left here, but more exist) already consider Israel to be a dictatorship, and as such, do not use this framing. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia awards

Is there a Wiki award for keeping a long daily editing streak? If yes, how long should it be to get awarded? Benzekre (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre, I don't think that kind of award exists here. The closest thing is maybe WP:EDITS, where it shows a list of editors who have contributed to the encyclopedia the most. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 07:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre You might be interested to look at Wikipedia:Service awards. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre Just in case you are not aware of it, you can use Special:Impact/Benzekre to automatically show your longest editing streak within your last 1,000 edits: which in your case as a newcomer means all edits so far. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre: In case you're wondering, look no further than WP:Database reports/Longest active user editing streaks (led by Johnny Au (talk · contribs).) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this info! 217.71.190.224 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing me! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

However, Special:Impact/Johnny Au does not show the correct editing streak. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is "Sex Type Icon After User Name" really necessary?

I have been Wikipedia user for 2 weeks. I am from Turkey. When I marked sex type button as "male" in my profile settings, then I noticed that Wikipedia had added male icon "♂" to my user name. That was just a demographic information for Wikipedia might be used for statistical reasons. Should we really know the sex type of the user when we look at his/her/their user name. I find it a bit unnecessarily support to the discrimination. Yes I also know that we don't have to declare our sex type. But here I want to emphasize something different. There is no problem to declare our sex type and to be shown it here, but it is not needed to highlight in our usernames. There may be a different place / part here for it. I'd like to learn your view. Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no other reason to specify your gender onsite, so if you would prefer other editors not know, you are free to change the setting back to unspecified. Remsense ‥ 论 09:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The way shouldn't be this. I can declare my gender but I don't want it to be shown as an addition to my username. We don't need such bias labelling. In which social media, do user's genders are shown this much directly? Nearly none. If the other user wants to know it, it is shown as a minor detail somewhere in profile, but not at the user name. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate: the preference serves no other function onsite than the social function. If you are uncomfortable with yours being specified, you can leave it unspecified. Other editors are free to make the same choice. I would suggest that you defer to other editors as to whether they choose to divulge this piece of information about themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 10:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also—this is perhaps a more analytical point, but one you may find enlightening—there is a considerable issue online where many spaces are assumed to be "male" by default. As such, if one lacks the ability to specify, that could also result in uncomfortable social dynamics for certain people. If one would like others to know, there's no reason it should be hidden where it will never be seen—the only reason to specify is so that others know. Remsense ‥ 论 10:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to help clarify a possible misunderstanding: You state I can declare my gender but I don't want it to be shown. This is self-contradictory. To whom are you declaring your gender? Everything in Wikipedia is public. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Basically above. You can simply choose not to use this option. I don't indicate my gender or pronouns because I simply don't care. If someone misgenders me or uses the wrong pronouns, I equally don't care. I also generally don't disclose on Wikipedia my age, marital status, education, field of work, or what type car I drive, again...because I don't care. If other's wish to do so, then it's not offensive to me. I still just don't care. If others wish to disclose that they really love chinchillas, Coachella, or Coca Cola, then okay. It doesn't affect me. GMG^talk 12:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  The matter is not about being offended or not. It is about the lifting all discriminative labelling wher it is necessary. The rules of Wikipedia is not something can't be changed. We are in a free world and have right to interpret the meanings of all acions, settings in the light of new approaches. All human being's duty is to expand the border of equailty and to stop discrimination on every level. Settings options can't be alleged as a choice if we don't want to express our gender. I can express my gender but I have right not to see gender identity as an addition to my username. All I am saying is about human rights. Likewise we can reach a better place where gender equality can find its balance. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @DemirWikiTR34 My I ask where exactly you are seeing the "♂" icon? I've been on Wikipedia for years and have never noticed it anywhere "in my username", despite declaring in the settings for my account that I prefer masculine gender when people refer to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I see on my user page and also I see these icon on some other users' their own pages too. Here is my user page link: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1:DemirWikiTR34 I wish I could add a screen shot but the box doesn't let it. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Again, the only purpose of that setting is if you want to tell other editors this information. Just go to your user preferences and put your gender as unspecified. Others clearly like having this option. If say...someone had a gender ambiguous name like Tracy for a boy, or Charlie for a girl, I could see how it could be annoying if others kept referring to you wrongly. GMG^talk 13:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK, @DemirWikiTR34, I see that icon at the Turkish Wikipedia you linked but it doesn't appear here on the English Wikipedia on my userpage or on yours; nor at my page on the Turkish-language version, despite my gender being part of my global settings, so it must be something in the settings for what I assume is your "home" Wikipedia: all have separate policies. It is, I suppose, possible that you see the icon when you look at my userpage there: some items change according to who is looking at the page. Anyway, I suggest you ask at the Turkish helpdesk or equivalent of our WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, you are right. When I checked your page, I didn't see the icon and also I checked some other users in English too and no icon. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: Special:Preferences says: "The software uses this value to address you and to mention you to others using the selected grammatical gender option. Your selection will be publicly visible to others". It's not for statistical reasons. I don't know Turkish but I examined the Turkish Wikipedia. They have made a default gadget which displays the gender symbol. It's "Hızlı bilgi" (quick information according to Google Translate) at tr:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. You can disable the gadget but it will only prevent yourself from seeing gender symbols. Each Wikipedia language makes their own decisions. You have to discuss it at the Turkish Wikipedia if you want the gadget to remove this feature. The gadget has a talk page at tr:MediaWiki tartışma:Gadget-HizliBilgi.js but the activity is low. I don't know where else to discuss this at the Turkish Wikipedia. If the feature is removed then it will still be possible to find the gender setting of a user but few people will do it, unless the Turkish Wikipedia adds it in other places. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all this information. In fact, I also started to a discussion in Wikipedia Turkish but the response that I got is the same here. I mean settings, options etc. No one wants to talk really about the ssence of the matter. In Wikipedia, I have just noticed that there is also no box for whom wants to thick as "non-binary". Many companies have started to add this box in their gender section. I undertand that Wikipedia is more cautious about issues referring to gender poltics and wants to keep the conventional approach. It may be a bit disappointing but that's what we have here. I also didn't understand why gender icon is considered as a local preference. Gender equality is a matter which requires to be defended universally. Anyway I gave up my insistence. Here some things change really so slowly. Anyway, thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: The reason for creating the setting is determining how to refer to users with words. The options say (in English):

• Unspecified: Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions", "that editor") (default)
• Use feminine terms when possible (e.g. "her contributions")
• Use masculine terms when possible (e.g. "his contributions")

I'm not sure what a single non-binary option would add over unspecified. The gender symbols are an addition made by the Turkish Wikipedia. There are around 1000 Wikimedia wikis at Special:SiteMatrix. I don't know whether other wikis do this. However, there are languages where the word "User" is different for male and female users, and the word automatically changes on user pages. This is done by the MediaWiki software which powers Wikimedia wikis. See e.g. the Spanish user pages es:Usuario:Rotondus (male) versus es:Usuaria:Mel 23 (female). Unspecifed also displays as Usuario. Some female Spanish users might be offended by being called Usuario. Apart from such languages, the gender-setting is not displayed automatically by MediaWiki itself anywhere as far as I know, but local wikis have great freedom to determine local policies and practices in general. Users who know the software well enough can always find the gender setting of somebody. See more at translatewiki:Gender. The English Wikipedia has many options at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Gender#Gender nonconforming for users who want to display something specific on their user page. You can also make your own user box or just write something without a userbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

A setting like this, or the options as described, aren't going to satisfy everyone. I don't specify my gender in my preferences because it isn't relevant to my work here. I have been referred to as he/him or she/her. I don't care which, anyone can refer to me by either gender. I do strongly object to being referred to as singular they/them, however. That grammatical affectation always rankled me, so I don't use it myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the matter is not about what we prefer. If we consider this issue over us, iy may lead us to wrong outcome. The matter is how the settings' options should be more preferrable for all users without making them feel discriminated or frustrated. Many US universities, organizations and private companies have started to present more choices to their users, applicant regarding gender type. As for me, I marked "male" box because I am a man but I have respect for whom wants to mark "they/their" option which is currently non-exist in "Free" Wikipeadia environment. Calling someone with "they/their" is not gramatically wrong because "they" used to be used for "he, she, it" in a singular forms in many documents up to the end of 19th century in Britain. How "you" has singular and plural form, the situation of "they" was the same for the singular form. We should consider this without our gender approach for the sake of people who wants to express their gender more freely. As for male, female icon, I learned that this setting is not used in Wikipedia English but in Wikipedia Turkish. All sexist icons have already left in many countries. I don't know why Wikipedia Turkish has still kept it. Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Point of interest: "you" was originally plural, and evolved to be used as singular, replacing thou, thee, and thy or thine (singular subject, object, and possessive, respectively). And I tend to say "you all" for plural "you", as they say "y'all" in the southern United States. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

)) Thank you for the useful information, I learned something new. English is not my native language. All I want is formations (states, companies, etc.) to give more spaces to individuals in terms of freedom and rights. I met with these lines of Sheakespeare on Wikipedia while I was reading about gender neutrality "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend" William Shakespeare, A Comedy of Errors, 1623)" I admit that I used to consider this issue not important but I admitted that it was important. In my native language, Turkish, we don't have male, female forms in pronouns, and even articles like in German, der, die, das. I hope Wikipedia also let more spaces to gender neutrality in near future.

Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, how do I get better?

I've been fascinated by this site for a while now and after rewatching The Cryptids of Wikipedia for the fourth or fifth time now, alongside some other Wikipedia based videos, I caved in and made an account to do some editing of my own! I'm wondering how I can improve my Wiki editing skills as well as what to do with my talk page, if there's even a point in editing that Avienby (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

One important point, if only informed by your other edit recently, is to never make personal attacks against other editors. Remsense ‥ 论 09:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, the last thing we need is for hostility to spread on here of all places. Won't make that mistake again. Avienby (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby no, no real point in editing your talk page, though if you end up getting many, many discussions listed on it, you may want to set up an archive bot. For now, don't worry about it. I have some general advice for newbies on my userpage. I'd also suggest joining a wikiproject, if you are interested in any particular topic. Some wikiprojects are very active, some less so, but basically all of them maintain some kind of list of articles, and that can help you find tasks you're interested in. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, if you want to get better at editing. Try to do the harder edits like referencing, and you will become a good Wikipedia editor!! Susbush (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Full name or acronym?

When specifying where a link is from in brackets, would I use the full name of the country or the acronym for it?

For example: 'Example Law (US)' or 'Example Law (United States)' Galaxy111 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms_in_page_titles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify your question on two counts;

• are you talking about a Wiki link, such a ACI or United Airways, where the country of origin becomes abundantly clear once you have digested the contents of the pop-up screen? And are users on mobile devices less likely to benefit from these pop-up boxes, and therefore need more help?
• are you talking about country acronyms such as (It) when you wish to indicate (Italy)?

Unfortunately, the example you gave was for the United States, where (US) or (USA) is internationally recognised. Likewise (UK) is almost as well accepted. But this does not apply to all countries. How many readers would associate (HR) with Croatia?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, you can see what I mean in the external links section of the 3-feet law page, I am not talking about country acronyms but just shortenings. Galaxy111 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Having glanced at the 3-feet law page, (US) looks perfectly correct in my eyes. And after some digging I found MOS:USA which confirms this, and gives some useful pointers regarding when United States (in full) is more appropriate.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Galaxy111 (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Kambodsja er fri!" - Norwegian Socialist Song About Khmer Rouge

Is this notable to make a new article on the encyclopedia? It ended up to be a bit ironic, because the Khmer Rouge was notable for human rights abuses and genocide. Lan Pee (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esjtvZiYSho Lan Pee (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You should check is there are any refers to the song from reliable sources, such as newspapers or music sites. My check didn't show any such reports. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lan Pee, and welcome to the Teahouse. While there are some special rules for certain types of subject, in most cases "notable" in Wikipedia is not about what the subject is, or does, or says, or creates, but about what has been published about the subject.

The question to answer, usually, is: "Has there been enough material about this subject published to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia is only interested in reliably published material (not user media, blogs, wikis, random websites, or user-generated sites like iMDB and Ancestry.com); and for this purpose, Wikipedia is not interested in anything that the subject or people associated with the subject say or want to say.

So in this purpose, you would need to find where people had written about the song, in some depth. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Lan Pee, the notability guideline for songs can be found at WP:NSONG. It is all about the depth of coverage of the song in reliable independent sources. Whether or not the song is controversial or "ironic" is irrelevant. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Income

Can i add manually as infobox parameter, annual income of a person? Thanks! Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Afaict by Template:Infobox person, no. And if you intend to add it to an article, you need to cite a good source for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia Aside from the REALLY good PUBLISHED source needed, I can't think of a single reason why that would be appropriate. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

money makes the world go round 😊 Joking aside, I think that especially in the infoboxes of politicians there should be the parameter income. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 01:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pallikari You can suggest it at Template talk:Infobox person. Money can be important (even justifying a separate article:Category:Wealth by individuals), but the infobox is generally for simple, uncontroversial facts covered in the article text, and "income" might not be that at all, depending. Plus in WP-style it would have to be "as of 2022" or whatever can be sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pallikari We have articles such as salaries of members of the United Kingdom Parliament, since in the UK at least the income for a politician is a set figure. I assume that other countries have similar systems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see...indeed there are problems for infobox use. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How can earn money in Wikipedia

With you How I can Earn money on Wikipedia Myntrashopper (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Myntrashopper Paid editing is strongly discouraged. Editors for hire have an inherent conflict of interest with their employers, which they must disclose and which limits the editing they can do. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Myntrashopper, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you can't: that's not what Wikipedia is for. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to get a Wikipedia page for our company started but always getting declined

For context: this was the draft: Draft:KOL (Key Opinion Leaders)

Question: Would any of the experience editors on Teahouse consider getting the page started so there is no conflict of interest? --Koc2a885f (talk · contribs)

I'm not surprised it keeps getting declined. I can find no evidence that the company is notable, in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. The draft cites two sources: one is behind a paywall, which is not in itself a problem, but means that I can't judge whether it provides evidence of notability; the other is not independent of the subject, being written by the company's CTO. I tried a Google search for "key opinion leaders", and found nothing about the company. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Koc2a885f, the relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and reviewers are strict about it. I see no evidence that this company meets that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask a question: Hypothetically, imagine that for example, our company was under siege by a "Corporate Spy Ring", could I create a page for the "Corporate Espionage Operation" itself (not the company being targeted)? Would that be an even relevant enough to merit a wikipedia page? Koc2a885f (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koc2a885f, you'd then be trying to show that "Corporate Spy Ring" met the guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. So, it's possible, but it would still depend on significant, secondary coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Always" strongly suggests "more than once". Yet Draft:KOL (Key Opinion Leaders) doesn't seem to have been deleted more than once. I wondered about "Draft:Key Opinion Leaders". Yes, this has existed and was deleted, as the creation of "User:NewYorkerChic", which was just another username of an extraordinarily energetic spammer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Koc2a885f, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your words "get a Wikipedia page started for our company" sound as if you have a very common misunderstanding, and think that Wikipedia is like social media, a place where you can tell the world about your company. It is not: it is an encyclopaedia

If Wikipedia ever has an article about your company - whoever writes it - the article will not belong to your company, will not be controlled by your company, will not necessarily say what you would like it to say, should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with your company have published about it, not what the company has said or wants to say, and may be edited by almost anybody in the world except people associated with your company (as they would have conflict of interest). Please see WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Concurrent requested moves on the same page

There is currently a requested move on Trump International Golf Club (West Palm Beach); while I strongly oppose the current requested move to include the state name, I do think the page should be moved to remove parentheses (for various reasons that I won't mention here so as to not canvass). Is it allowed to have a second requested move on a page that currently has one going on? Unnamed anon (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that will just add a lot of confusion. You can bring up the other question in the move discussion that's already ongoing - a bit messy, but this kind of thing happens all the time. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

protocol for deleting/merging pages?

Hi, I'm back. I ran across these two pages while looking through the cleanup list for WP:ALGAE: Chlorophytina and Tetraphytina. The long story short is that based on all sources I can find, the chlorophytina page is incorrect and tetraphytina describes what is actually chlorophytina. (Also, sources on the pages currently are for the most part unhelpful and don't included the name of the groups in them...) I just posted on both Talk pages, but it's unlikely to be a "hot topic" for anyone. And I'm thinking there won't be a big debate around consensus.

I've read WP:DEL, WP:DOM and WP:MAD but as a newbie, I'm not sure I fully understand. It seems like it would fall under this - WP:ATD-M, since they're essentially redundant pages?

Is there a way to submit this? (I know - be bold. But as I've only been around < 1 month, I don't think I have the technical knowhow or understanding at this point.) Cyanochic (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic, what I would do here is a WP:BLAR from Chlorophytina to Tetraphytina. If there's anything in the Chlorophytina article that you think should be in the other one, you can copy-paste it over (make sure your edit summary is very clear about where you got the original text from, for attribution reasons). -- asilvering (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll give that a read now! Does the fact that the title Chlorophytina is the correct name for the content of the current Tetraphytina page change which page should be blanked? (e.g. Tetraphytina is not an accepted name anywhere AFAICT)

Like should I just copy paste all of Tetraphytina to Chlorophytina, then blank and redirect tetraphytina to chlorophytina? Cyanochic (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I misunderstood your initial post - I would do the blank-and-redirect from Tetraphytina to Chlorophytina. Basically, you want the correct information at the correct title. Whichever title is incorrect, that should be redirected to the correct title. If the correct content isn't at the correct title, copy it from the incorrect title (leaving attribution in your edit summary when you do this). Basically, what you're trying to do here is make sure that the correct content is where it belongs, that there is no incorrect content anywhere (except the page history), and that the incorrect title points to the correct title. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Great thank you so much for your help! Cyanochic (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you (or another wonderful helper) is around to check what I've done with setting up the redirect and leaving information, I'd super appreciate it since this is my first time ever setting up any sort of redirect. Relevant pages - Talk:Tetraphytina, Chlorophytina and Talk:Chlorophytina. Cyanochic (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I moved the WP:BLAR notice for you. :) -- asilvering (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I think I misunderstood where it goes. Thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Worthy Entry - Noob Editor!

hi all im trying to get traction and a page sorted for local disability campaigner and football club owner who has a documentary coming out on tuesday globally On TNT and Discovery +

The story is inspirational and a wiki page is fully deserved for George to have a place and be notarised on WIKI

can anyone help and expand on this talk, i started in sandbox but im so lame i do minor edits and changes as the world goes by but never really write from scratch

there really is so much to put in too! Talk:George Dowell#George Dowell MBE 2. Barshuts (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barshuts Unfortunately, what you're trying to do is promote this person. People promote things for all sorts of reasons, and that doesn't make them bad people (or advertisers), but any form of promotion is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Editors use a guideline called notability to determine whether a subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia – basically, if the subject has significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources which are independent from the subject, then it is "notable". There are exceptions to this guideline (which is called WP:GNG), specific to different subjects. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and see if the subject meets any of the criteria there. Don't hesitate to ask for more help or guidance – no-one here denies that our guidelines can often be confusing or intimidating. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This person is actually likely notable, as they were awarded an MBE on the New Year's honours list, which would seem to meet the first criterion at WP:ANYBIO. There seems to be significant coverage of him. I'm happy to help you create a draft through the Article for Creation process if you want. Cremastra (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

An MBE alone doesn't usually confer notability - that takes a higher-grade OBE or above; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Dickson MBE - but the TV documentary does and both together certainly do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: How is this promotional? OP makes the case that the subject has already received wider recognition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

“gain traction” sounds like wanting to promote a person -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a little AGF and recognize that others might not use our standard terminology. GMG^talk 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The OP wants to get traction and The story is inspirational which comes across as promotional, as NotCharizard said. Cremastra (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So we Wikipedia editors may only write about things that do not inspire us. Got it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

deleting text versus adding "citation needed"

A Task Center task took me to the BLP of a notable statistician. I took care of the task but noticed that almost all of the citations are to third-party SPSs (e.g., university webpages, professional organization webpages), contrary to WP:BLPSPS, while other parts of the article's text have no citations. I was able to find a couple of non-SPS sources and will try to reference some of the article's contents to one of those. My question: for article text that I'm unable to find a RS for, is there some policy guiding whether I should delete the text versus adding a "citation needed" tag? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRS, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. The operative word here would be "contentious". Remsense ‥ 论 00:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add "likely to be private". We don't want, for example, people's date of birth to be in an article unless it's widely known. How can we tell it's widely known? Because (I'm simplifying here) there's a published source that contains that information. A birth date or the name of someone's kids isn't all that likely to be contentious, but that doesn't mean we should keep it around. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, @Asilvering, the contents doesn't strike me as contentious or private. It's almost all about his professional work. For example, it says "The Mardia Prize (founded by Kantilal Mardia) is awarded by the Royal Statistical Society. This award is given annually/biennially to support interdisciplinary workshops. The aim of these workshops is to bring together statisticians and other science communities who can help in developing new interdisciplinary area and maintain a sustained focus." That needs some copy editing, but the Royal Statistical Society's website confirms it; however, my understanding is that that's considered a SPS. One of the other sources I found confirms that there's a Royal Statistical Society prize called the Mardia prize, but it doesn't include the info about the prize having been founded by Mardia (rather than just named in his honor) or what the aim of the prize is. So that's the kind of thing I'm wondering about. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Some users would still advocate straight-up removal per WP:BURDEN. Cremastra (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine as far as contentiousness or privacy would go, which would narrow the question as to whether you feel the material can be verified in a reliable source. If you think it can be, tag it. If not, consider removing it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you can just use the self-published source for that, it's fine. They're the ones who would know what their own prize is for. -- asilvering (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article," and the Royal Statistical Society page wasn't written or published by Mardia, so I didn't think I could use it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I assure you this kind of reliable source for a simple fact like "won x award" is totally fine. The other information, ie "this award is for... the aim is..." is about the prize, not the person - so BLPSPS doesn't matter for that information. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, thank you for clarifying that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is far from the fist time I've seen people under that misapprehension. It leads, in some instances, to good content been removed; and new editors being bitten. We need to clarify WP:BLPRS accordingly; done here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles undeleted without notice

I noticed that the articles merged for Articles for deletion/Pilot (Helluva Boss) were reverted by the user Canadienne Comedienne to their pre-deletion state without any notice. All the articles were reverted with the following edit summary: "That discussion was in July 2023 for a less-detailed version of this page; it is May 2024 now, and article has been updated since then, no longer meeting deletion specs." How should this be handled? Treetop-64bit (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Treetop-64bit: CC is blocked as a sock. You may revert their edits if you think that is the best course of action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Easy edits

I still count myself as a relatively inexperienced editor with something approaching a thousand edits, but a short while ago I allowed myself to be side-tracked by an 'easy edit' topic that passed under my nose. In the event the article needs a total overhaul (IMO), but I saw two easy improvements and made them. Now I am feeling guilty because they were so easy, perhaps I should have left them in place for another, even more inexperienced editor, to rattle off?

Yes, I am aware that 'Suggested Edits' has three levels and I could apply some filters, but I am also wondering why there isn't an automated process for promoting editors to higher levels of difficulty. On the other hand I have delved into some alleged 'easy edits' that left me totally baffled, either by their complexity, or the fact I could see nothing wrong that needed editing.

I guess I am still learning.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, can I get a bit more clarification to answer your question? Susbush (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I was asking the editing community if my experience was normal, and whether experienced editors would apply easy edits if they came across them, or leave them as a learning tool for less experienced editors? The other reply (from @Andy Mabbett) suggests it is not an issue. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We are not short of needed edits, at any level of complexity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, I have been editing Wikipedia for over 15 years, and if I see a situation where an "easy edit" would clearly improve the encyclopedia, I make the edit. The notion of leaving it to a less experienced editor never crosses my mind. Cullen328 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Me too. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I need help for making the phonetic usage visible

i need to make the phonetic usage of the letter Draft:Shha with Cil top visible on the navbox Infobox Cyrillic letter 2.49.60.209 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Given that Draft:Shha with Cil top has been rejected (not just declined) it is not clear why you are spending time on it, and in particular, why you are spending time on anything other than finding suitable sources to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Adequate sources are the only thing that might cause @NoobThreePointOh to reconsider the rejection. ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Two IP editors - probably the same person - have been making misleading and uncited edits to a number of pages recently. Sometimes this person reverts their own edit, other times another editor gets there first. They have been warned about this behaviour.

Should this be reported as vandalism?

Special:Contributions/82.4.208.76

Special:Contributions/148.252.144.117

Bob (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a constant background noise of anonymous editors engaging in sporadic, often invisible, and seemingly inscrutable edits—I kind of like it, it's a nice reminder that millions of people use this resource every day—and that I will never, ever understand what technical, personal, or editorial circumstances inform much of their behavior as recorded in page histories. Since vandalism is hurting the encyclopedia in bad faith, there is often not a meaningful answer to that question. I call this "gray-faith editing", when given my very narrow perspective, I can't really WP:AGF for an editor because I do not understand the pattern of edits enough to assume anything. It's like a few edits dashed off by a Boltzmann brain. Remsense ‥ 论 14:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a photo of my Father “Canadian “ whom served in WW2” Also my Mother also served in WW2”

Canadians that came home to Canada 🇨🇦 in or after WW2 2605:8D80:462:1A58:7000:9BC7:62D1:F60 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Do you have a question about anything Wikipedia-related? SirMemeGod  17:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I request feedback

The article was reviewed multiple times, initially accepted but later unreviewed and nominated for deletion, despite improvements. The nominator claims notability issues, it is relisted with no external comment, See Nasib Piriyev. I came here because it happened before on articles I created, and discussions were closed as Soft Deletion. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@12eeWikiUser, you've done your part already, and there's nothing more to be done here. Other editors will weigh in about whether the subject is notable or not. There's no amount of improvement that can fix an article if the subject isn't notable. However, until you get the hang of how notability works on wikipedia, when you're writing future articles, I would suggest using fewer sources and keeping mostly to what can be said about the subject of the article. Experienced editors look at an article about an "entrepreneur" with this many references and immediately think "WP:REFBOMB". -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, this is helpful, thanks for the feedback. Let me keep improving and will do better in future articles. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 12eeWikiUser. I have just commented on the deletion discussion, but I will expand that here, because I suspect it is the problem you have had all along. Not one of the sources you link to in that discussion contains significant coverage off Piriyev, and so none of them contributes in any way to establishing that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense.

You need to look critically at all sources, and check that they meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. Only if they do will they contribute at all to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @ColinFine, this cannot be an excuse but, one of the challenges I used to (I think it is not only me) as an editor focusing on biographies about Africa and Middle east, is the lack of enough sources that meet WP:42. I often verify notability using WP:BASIC. That's why I think there is nothing wrong with Nasib Piriyev because it verifies WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@12eeWikiUser, WP:BASIC and WP:42 say the same thing. -- asilvering (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, sure, they say same thing. I see that under Wikipedia:Notability (people) which has (WP:BASIC), it explains specific criteria we can rely on for a topic which has some challenges in meeting WP:42. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any category

Is there any categories tracking all the pages that are using {{GBurl}}?
also is there any categories that are tracking all pages that are using the whole google book url starting with books.google.com? ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You're in luck! You can see the list of pages that transclude any given template at Special:WhatLinksHere: in your case see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Google Books URL. Remsense ‥ 论 18:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out with that. is there any way we can trace external links like books.google.com. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Would a search for [insource:"books.google.com"] work for you? Like this one? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Thanks mates for helping me out, shall learn a lot more in upcoming days from you. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I had to double-check, but we do indeed have Special:LinkSearch/books.google.com that does what you want! Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Semantic Brand Score Page Creation

Hi everybody. I am struggling to get this article accepted and I am stuck. I have answered several comments and made edits, but would love the help of an experienced editor to know how to move forward: Draft:Semantic Brand Score. The last comment is about the unavailabilty of reliable secondary sources, but there are so many, even listed in the talk page of the article, so I don't know what to do next. WarmKomorebi (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Without looking at your sources, I find it surprising that of your fourteen citations in the draft, and thirteen on the Talk page, only one contains the phrase "Semantic brand score" in its title. This causes me to wonder how many of them have significant coverage of the concept, as opposed to mentioning it in passing. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

All these works use the metric, not just mention it. Then there are many other papers citing the metric but not really using it, which are not listed as secondary sources. 109.54.163.39 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this score discussed in relevant textbooks? (Meanwhile, I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic Brand Score continues to be worth reading.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are textbooks mandatory, or is newspapers and papers enough as secondary sources? I read the page marked for deletion but that was when secondary sources were not available in large quantities. 109.54.163.39 (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, textbooks aren't mandatory. But mere mentions don't suffice. What sources describe or evaluate the methodology that's the subject of this draft? -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For example, all these works (also mentioned in the article Talk Page) provide a detailed description of the Semantic Brand Score and use it in their analyses (and hypotheses):

- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631930582X?via%3Dihub

- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.12435

- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13278-022-00917-5

- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10478487

- https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8

- https://www.politesi.polimi.it/handle/10589/150944?mode=complete

- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/polish-twitter-immigrants-during-2021-belaruseuropean-kasia-parys

This other work just describes it:

- https://www.athensjournals.gr/tourism/2021-8-2-4-Bianchino.pdf

I have only mentioned secondary sources. WarmKomorebi (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

WarmKomorebi, I looked at the first of these. A description within it starts "To measure the importance of particular memes, the so-called semantic brand score (SBS) developed by Fronzetti Colladon (2018) is adopted." Most of what follows about SBS is attributed to (or taken directly from) the paper it refers to as "Fronzetti Colladon, 2018". The final sentence says "By combining frequencies and centrality measures, the SBS serves as a useful metric to measure importance of nodes in a network that may also help to fathom the diversity of organizational memes in terms of their importance." This looks like the authors' own judgement rather than merely a rehash of what Colladon says. I wouldn't call this passage a "detailed description", but it is a start. Two minor tips: First, the LinkedIn piece has a named author (Kasia Parys). Secondly, the draft says "The SBS is a composite indicator with three dimensions: prevalence, diversity and connectivity", which is comprehensible -- but is illustrated with File:SemanticBrandScore 01.jpg which neither adds nor explains anything, thereby managing to detract from the draft, and which I suggest you remove. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Hoary! I have fixed the LinkedIn reference adding the name and removed the image you suggested. More detailed descriptions of the SBS in secondary sources can be found for example here:

- https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13278-022-00917-5.pdf (end of page 6 and beginning of page 7)

- https://www.politesi.polimi.it/handle/10589/150944?mode=complete (end of page 27 until page 29) WarmKomorebi (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Temperature chart

What is the difference in "Mean Maximum", "Mean Daily Maximum" and "Daily Mean"? 38.94.112.73 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This page is for help with editing Wikipedia. I suggest you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The context is the climate sections in Wikipedia articles about cities, I presume. Without getting into advanced math, you can get a better understanding by reading Mean and Average. In simplified terms, "mean" is the most common form of mathematical "average". So think of these fields as "average maximum temperature" and "average daily maximum temperature" and "Daily average temperature". I visited Alaska a few months ago, and these charts were very useful for understanding the typical weather in various Alaskan cities in June. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How to change the icon for the "Buddhism portal"

Hello, I am the creator of Portal:Buddhism.

I've noticed that when adding a link to the Buddhism portal on a webpage, there is automatically a white dharma wheel to the left of the link.

I'm considering possibly changing this image to a yellow-colored one, to make it more visible to light-mode viewers.

How can I change this file? Zoozoor (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Zoozoor. Unfortunately, I'm not able to reproduce the issue you're referring to. Would you be kind enough to provide a WP:DIFF to the type of edit you're referring to so we can try the same edit and see what you mean. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, unfortunately I cannot provide a Diff because I don't even know how to modify this icon in the first place.

If you go to Buddhism#See also and look at the box on the right, which says "Buddhism portal," you'll notice the white icon immediately to the left. That's the icon I'm trying to edit.

However, I think I have solved the issue! I went to Template:Portal and I believe that's where I can change this icon. Zoozoor (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I spoke too soon -- the page Module:Portal/images/b can only be modified by template editors. Are you capable of editing this page? If anyone can, I'd appreciate replacing the Buddhism icon with "File: Dharma Wheel (2).svg". Zoozoor (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Module:Portal can't handle File: Dharma Wheel (2).svg in Special:Diff/1248725653, please change it to Dharma Wheel (2).svg. Sam Sailor 08:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops. And I knew that too. Anyway, it's been fixed by another editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I make this legitimate edit without getting in trouble

There are a couple of good faith edits that I’m trying to make on Spanish Wikipedia that I made on English Wikipedia with no trouble. The edits are to remove reference to a claim that is verifiably false. This claim is spread across 2 Wikipedia pages. Every time I try to make these edits it is reversed by the same Wikipedia user. I have created full edit summaries, I have created relevant posts on the discussion pages, I have tried to engage this user both on my talk page and on their talk page and this user has not engaged me in any of these places. The user just continuously reverts my changes without engaging with any of my points. What makes this more difficult is that this user seems to be some sort of admin and threatened me with a ban if I continue. I have no idea what to do.

What’s more bizarre is that when I got another user’s help to make one of the changes I was trying to make, the edit was not reverted. (One of the same edits that was reverted when I made it was not reverted when another user made it).

I’m not a Wikipedia pro or anything but I really feel like I’m doing everything by the book. The user who keeps reverting my changes does not seem to be acting in good faith and is not engaging with me in any way. I still want to make the edits but I don’t want to get banned.

What do I do? Oscopo talk) 23:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Oscopo. The Teahouse is for questions about editing the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines. You will have to ask for help at their help desk or administrator's noticeboard. They may have an equivalent to the Teahouse. Coffeehouse, perhaps? Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oscopo: Try asking on es:Wikipedia:Café. Oddly, that's what WP:HELPDESK shows as the corresponding Spanish page, it isn't shown here on the Teahouse. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ve asked my question there. Oscopo (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think our teahouse is unusual and most wikis just have the help desk. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox error

So i just creating this article, HMS Diamond (1904), and there seems to be a big error with the infobox contents. Somehow the entire first paragraph has become a part of the infobox, causing the IB to not render properly. Why is this happening, and can someone help me fix it? Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved, please ignore the message above. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In case some future reader is looking through the archives for solutions to similar problems: Special:Diff/1248697209. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Scam for my client Title new Page Added

Mohammad Hossain is a musical artists, I want to release a biographical data of his name on Wikipedia, now I am looking at Mohammad Hossain name charge, there is no page of his name in Wikipedia but a person named Imam Hossain is redirecting Mohammad Hossain's page now I How can I use it? MohammadHossain00 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone, including Mohammad Hossain himself, is welcome to create Draft:Mohammad Hossain, if this complies with Wikipedia policy and if Mohammad Hossain is notable. (The fact that "Mohammad Hossain" currently redirects to Imam Hossain won't matter.) But I'm puzzled. Are you saying that you are Mohammad Hossain? Why a "scam"? (Are you planning a scam?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

no I am Mohammad Hossain no I am studying music class together with Mohammad Hossain I am studying together with sir in musical industry today he is a famous musician so I want to release biography in his name.Because I know a lot about him, and no, sorry, I'm not a scammer , I'm a business man. MohammadHossain00 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

MohammadHossain00, if you are not named Mohammed Hossain but are planning to write a draft about somebody named Mohammad Hossain, then your username "MohammadHossain00" is misleading. Please stop using it, think of a different username (one that doesn't suggest that you are Mohammad Hossain), and use that. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok noted MohammadHossain00 (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

But please also note, @MohammadHossain00, that if he is your client, then you are a paid editor, and you must make the formal declaration specified in that link. If you are not being paid (then I wonder why you describe him as your "client"), you still have a conflict of interest, and need to understand what difference that makes to editing about him. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

One more point. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Help me / guide me on a declined page to sort it

I have less experience and would like help with the page Draft:Lu Heng so i can to re-submit it having sorted the issues raised by the moderator to ensure it is not declined again. CrystalStacy (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, your draft says that he runs a non-profit organization that strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future.

1. That claim is highly promotional
2. That claim is entirely unreferenced
3. That is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
4. I have operated small business websites for 25 years and have also been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years and am therefore part of the "entire Internet community". Why have I never heard of this person if his contributions have been so sweeping? Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, excellent questions above from Cullen328. Rephrased/different questions:

• Wording: If "the entire Internet community" doesn't mean "everyone using the internet", what does it mean? What does "achieve an empowered digital future" mean? What does "[be] focused to promote internet governance education" mean?
• Notability: What would you say are the three best sources for information on him? (Please here, in this thread, link to the three.)
• Conflict of interest: The photograph of Lu Heng was clearly taken with his cooperation. You've said it's your "own work". We can infer that you worked with Lu Heng on this article. Please respond promptly to the request Timtrent made of you almost three months ago.

-- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I think they have made a response to my question about paid editing. I am not sure that they have replied to the broader WP:COI issue. @CrystalStacy Please add to your response to the paid editing question ny explaining what, if any, personal relationship, broadly construed, with the subject of the photograph.

To help you, I will ask this question formally on your user talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The words "strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future", which appear twice in the article, give the impression that Heng is just a bullshitter. Does he or his organisation actually do anytrhing? Maproom (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @Hoary @Maproom Thank you for your valuable feedback on the draft. I understand the importance of ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality, verifiability, and notability, and I will address each point raised.

1. "Strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future" – Promotional Claim and Lack of Sources:

You are correct that the phrase "entire Internet community" and "empowered digital future" are broad and potentially promotional without clarification. Upon reflection, these statements could be seen as subjective and lacking specific detail. I will revise this wording to focus more on measurable initiatives or collaborations the LARUS Foundation has been involved in, such as its internship program with the University of Hong Kong, without overstating its reach.

To avoid unsupported claims, I will provide clear references to these partnerships, ensuring they are factual and verifiable. I am also working to find independent sources to corroborate the impact of the Foundation’s work.

2. Notability – Why haven't I heard of him if his contributions are so sweeping?

I appreciate the point raised regarding the claim’s scope versus its recognition in the wider community. The current draft could give the impression of sweeping contributions, which was not my intention. Moving forward, I will focus on presenting Lu Heng’s work and impact within more specific contexts, such as the legal disputes involving AFRINIC, where his actions have been covered in news sources and industry reports, rather than making broad statements.

I will also ensure that reliable, independent sources are linked to highlight the areas in which his work is notable, such as his involvement in the Pacific Telecommunications Council and his legal challenges regarding IP address management.

3. Conflict of Interest and Photo Attribution:

The photo of Lu Heng used in the draft was sourced from his official website, heng.lu, which explicitly allows the use of his images with proper attribution. I have credited the photo to larus.net, as per the terms specified on the website. I have not worked directly with Lu Heng in the creation of this article, and my aim is to present a neutral, well-sourced biography based solely on verifiable, publicly available information.

4. Clarifying Phrases:

• "The entire Internet community" will be replaced with more specific references to the stakeholders involved in the LARUS Foundation’s work, such as students, academic institutions, and policy organizations.
• "Achieve an empowered digital future" is indeed vague and will be replaced with clear examples of the Foundation’s initiatives, such as educational programs and partnerships.
• "Focused on promoting internet governance education" will be clarified by citing specific events or conferences where Heng has participated or contributed to discussions on internet governance.

5. Best Sources for Notability:

The three best sources I will provide to support Lu Heng's notability are:

1. Pacific Telecommunications Council (PTC) – Election Results: 2020 PTC Board of Governors and Advisory Council
2. AFRINIC-related coverage – "https://www.itweb.co.za/article/battle-for-millions-of-african-ip-addresses-turns-nasty/DZQ58vV8P43MzXy2", ITWeb (2022)
3. University of Hong Kong partnerships – Internships with LARUS Foundation - https://english.hku.hk/Undergraduate/Internships

I will continue refining the draft to meet Wikipedia’s standards and look forward to any additional guidance you may have. CrystalStacy (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will atttribute the phot as am suppose to, error on my part CrystalStacy (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Just looking at source #3. That webpage does not mention Lu Heng at all and merely namechecks the LARUS Foundation. To show notability you need to find reliable sources that are simultaneously independent, and with significant coverage about him. If that's the best you can do, there is no hope of creating an acceptable draft, which I suspect you are trying to write backwards. Please read all the items I have linked before returning to update the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CrystalStacy. A couple of further points:

• Note that almost everything in an article should be verifiable from sources wholly independent of the subject. Materials from the foundation or university are not indepednent, and can be used in very limited ways in an article (see WP:NIS). Your 1 and 3 above clearly fail this test - I haven't looked at 2.
• I do't see anything on https://www.flagshippioneering.com that releases the images under any kind of licence. I may have missed something; but unless it explictly releases it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, it is not acceptable in Wikimedia Commons. See image use policy, and donating copyright materials
• Did you use AI to generate this reply?

ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, The three best sources [you] will provide to support Lu Heng's notability fail to support a claim to notability (as understood by and for en:Wikipedia). With no evidence of (en:Wikipedia-style) notability, no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary @ColinFine @Michael D. Turnbull From the responses i gather:-

1. The sources provided come to question and will need to provide reliable ones - if it is not too much to ask can you let me know by example the ones provided why each disqualifies ( bear with me i am new at this and in learning process)
2. Lu's image should be under an aceptable licence by Wikimedia Comms and properly accredited.
3. Provide reasonable claim to notability for the page on Lu.

Awaiting your guidance as i keep reading the items you have linked for my reference as i keep researching on other possible notable sources. Thank you. CrystalStacy (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, you first need to show that Lu is notable. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Notability (people) and pages to which that page links that seem relevant to Lu. If something written there is not understandable, feel free to ask here. A photograph of Lu will neither help demonstrate that he's notable nor otherwise help the chances of the draft to become an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary Okay, thank you. Let me read and fully understand Wikipedia:Notability (people) before i continue . Will reach out incase of any questions. CrystalStacy (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@CrystalStacy You ask why each source disqualifies (to show notability) and in the cases of these three that's easy to state. #1 has his name and picture and no text about him. #2 says Cloud Innovation’s founder is Chinese entrepreneur Heng Lu. No more. #3 Not even his name. So all three lack significant coverage, irrespective whether or not they are reliable (which they may well be). Independence is debatable but irrelevant if the coverage is lacking. All we have is proof this man exists but like many business people and organisations it's all run-of-the-mill. en:Wikipedia needs much more to avoid being swamped by trivia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull duly noted. CrystalStacy (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you remove part of the talk page on other user?

I was thinking about removing some part of Japaneses' talk page because he rudely said the f word at the two users, I was thinking about removing only this part, but I was thinking would that violate Wikipedia's rule? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed rude (in a very routine kind of way). But we don't remove material just because it's rude. And of course it says much less about its addressees than it says about the writer. Please leave it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the consquences if somebody just removed it even when they are told not to, even if they are trying to remove some words on the talk page of other user's? Do they get a warning or a block?

Like in the talk page. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The consequences that might follow from an editor doing something even when they are told not to depends on the nature of what they have done, and the credibility and authority of whoever gave the warning. If an adminstrator warns you to not violate a core content policy or other highly important policy, and then you defiantly go ahead and violate that policy, then expect to be blocked. The same applies to a warning from any experienced, well-informed editor. If an obviously inexperienced editor acting in bad faith warns you incorrectly, then you can disregard that warning. You need to have a well enough developed understanding of policy to correctly conclude that a warning is not valid. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you not to remove things from another editor's talk page unless you are absolutely certain that no one would object. Routine f-bombs do not qualify, especially when the rude language is from the user on their own page. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And in this specific case, the f-bombs are evidence as to why this editor has been blocked. Leave the comments alone, please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was because he was a sockpuppet of Equador83838/Cool828, when blocked and announced in his talk page, he [Japanese] shouted f-word at the two. User talk:Japaneses - Wikipedia.

Don't worry, I would not violate your rules. I promised not to edit. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi. I discovered a page that was flagged 3 years ago on Talk as WP:HOAX. The page is Tibet Area (administrative division)

I completely agree with the editor's assessment 3 years ago. Briefly, the text creates an historical hoax dated to 1912, then builds on the hoax to justify subsequent events. Clever.

For those at Teahouse who are learning about the subject... The Qing surrendered to Tibet and were expelled from 1912-1913, overlapping the nascent ROC years. The ROC wasn't creating administrative subdivisions in Tibet in 1912, but asking the 13th Dalai Lama in 1913-1914 for his recognition of ROC (Others; Shakya, "13th Dalai Lama, Tubten Gyatso" at Treasury of Lives). Numerous scholars - including Carole McGranahan, Tsering Shakya, Y. Tsomu, the Chinese author below - never mention the so-called ROC "Tibet Area". It didn't happen.

The hoax is further revealed by Chiang Kai-shek's own personal papers that were released (reliably reviewed, published in a book, carried at JSTOR, printed in Tiawan - I'll find the title), where he discusses his leadership's necessarily hollow political positions on Tibet, until 1945 after which the civil war with the communists kept him busy until his fall in 1949.

The page which needs to be deleted has as its first 4 sources an atlas, a population survey, and 2 unknown authors. Their opinions appear quite bogus.

I just spent (too much) time on the page editing the most egregious aspects so as to protect unsuspecting readers - before the page is actually deleted. I'm adding as much information as possible here in order to save us time.

What is next? Hopefully a speedy delete? Just trying to be helpful and to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Metokpema (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Metokpema, the Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia and that certainly includes discussion of deletion processes. But you cannot reasonably expect that Teahouse hosts will have topic area expertise in Chinese administrative divisions of 112 years ago, or any familiarity with the scholars you mention. All that level of detail belongs at Talk:Tibet Area (administrative division). But despite what you said, there was no consensus three years ago that this is a hoax. Maybe it is a hoax and maybe it isn't. The place to narrow that down is through discussion at the article talk page. There are three distinct deletion processes, which are speedy deletion, proposed deletion and Articles for Deletion. Familiarize yourself with those options, and be prepared to make an effective case for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If I were you or a subject-matter expert, I might as well take it to AFD to gather further consensus on the next course of action for this topic. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Metokpema: Since there has been no resolution on the article talk page, a better place to discuss this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet. Rather than duplicating the existing discussion, you could post a pointer there, to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody please help me - I don't feel safe here

I don't really feel safe being here on Wikipedia at the moment. I've requested rollback permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback which I take back and should've never done. I got a response I didn't like (not because it was denied, because it just felt it was too civil for me). I have ASD and can get upset, sensitive about things and get stressed out easily. No one here is really respecting me on all the hard work I do here to improve the railway station articles in Melbourne, add more images to railways in Melbourne and to fight vandalism. I feel like I've being treated as a bad faith editor. Can somebody reassure me this is a safe place for everyone? I want to continue editing here. Am I really a bad faith editor? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sure you are doing a great job here, but it can be difficult. I suggest that you just stop editing Wikipedia for a few hours, as I am about to do as I am going to bed here in Australia. Yes, it is safe place. If you get messages you do not like, just delete them and ignore them. Bduke (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey PEPSI697, thanks for your contributions! (I'm also in Melbourne, but not as dedicated to transport topics as you are.) I'll admit to being puzzled at the edit you made at RFP/R and your comment here, because I don't think I've ever seen anyone accused of being too civil here. In any case, while you are welcome to archive or delete messages on your own talk page, deleting feedback from an administrator on a formal request for permissions could be seen as an indication that you might not always comply with the policies, guidelines, or (sometimes unwritten) conventions that have developed here over many years. In other words, I can see why an admin would hesitate to give rollback permissions to someone who had deleted that same admin's comments without a good reason. This doesn't necessarily mean that you are seen as a bad-faith editor – just that you did something that wasn't a great look, but you can learn from this experience. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that they mean "uncivil". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting it out, I mean't uncivil. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to remove your rollback right, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. You got the right because an administrator felt you could be trusted with it. You can keep it and not use it, or you can ask that it be removed. Let me know. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

They were never granted rollback. I think the thing they "take back" is the request for the permission. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure what you mean by “too civil”, but I also have ASD and can become overwhelmed or easily upset by criticism on Wikipedia, especially by those who believe editing experience gives them the right to be rude. The best thing to do in this situation for me is to take a break from Wikipedia and come back when I am no longer upset, be it a week or a few months. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 22:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean't uncivil. See WP:CIV PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason I went to the teahouse was because I felt like I was accused of being a bad faith editor by an admin. Now, I never intend to make any personal attacks. So am I going to get blocked? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697: You can read the blocking policy to see the actual rules. I don't see anything block-worthy on your part (but note that I am not an administrator) but I think that continuing to pursue this inquiry here and on Fastily's talk page is starting to look a bit like both paranoia and harassment. Making stringent rules (both on Fastily's and on your own talk page) about how other editors are supposed to interact with you is also going to rub people the wrong way. I do sympathise with you – it's challenging when one person who is sensitive to criticism comes up against another who can be a bit blunt. When I see conflicts like this I find it useful to return to Tamzin's guidance for taking care of your own mental health and also being more mindful of how your behaviour can impact other editors and the good of the encyclopaedia as a whole. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697, there was nothing uncivil about Fastily's response to your Rollback request. And he has never even remotely called you a bad-faith editor or implied that you were one. If you interpret others' replies to you so incorrectly, Wikipedia may not be the best place for you, because Wikipedia has many guidelines and policies which need to be observed, and citing those is not an attack on you or your good faith. You might consider finding a fan-wiki or some other type of venue to participate in, if you find standard feedback on Wikipedia so disconcerting as to "not feel safe here". Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've moved on from this situation (unless no other replies come). I'll leave the rollback request behind and may try again in a few months or in a year if I'm still allowed to. I'll concentrate on fighting vandalism and other bad faith edits and updating and improving railway station articles in Australia or other public transport related content. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Images removed from page?!

Hi I've been editing a page about the contemporary artist, Studio Lenca. However I just noticed that all the images (that I took) have been removed. Can you tell me why this is?

Thanks,

Oliver Frida1984 (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Frida1984, welcome to the Teahouse. The files were deleted at Wikimedia Commons as suspected copyright violations and you were notified at commons:User talk:Frida1984. Paintings are usually copyrighted and it's not allowed to publish a photo of a copyrighted work. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frida1984 If you are in contact with the artist, you can ask them to permit your upload of what is called a "derivative work" (i.e. your photo of their creation). This can be done by email: see Commons:Volunteer Response Team for the full details. Admins at Commons can "undelete" your files, so Studio Lenca would just need to know the filenames you used and give appropriate permission. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Layered COI and tone problems

Unity Day (United States) happens this month, and the article seems to have copied from the organization's website multiple times over the years, and has major sourcing and tone problems. I can't handle it right now and am not an expert at "cutting through the noise", especially with a national event, so I humbly request someone else fix it. Thank you! QuietCicada chirp 13:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That article's contribution history is replete with COI edits. I have semiprotected it due to past disruption.

I also removed the History section entirely due to being mostly promotional fluff written in first-person ("our") peppered with citations to YouTube. You can look at my revert and see if there's anything in there that's salvageable. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding article links to other articles

Hello.

I am new to the Wikipedia editing system and wondering how I add links to articles (Visual Mode).

I can complete some general grammatical errors in the articles but cant add links.

I hope you can give me an guide or answer on how to add links. Xboxfan38 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Xboxfan38, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It depends on what kind of link you are trying to add. The whole thing is summarised on Help:Link.

(My answer is about the source editor, as I'm not familiar with the Visual editor: see Help:VisualEditor for more information about that.)

To add a wikilink (for example a link to another Wikipedia article) you put it in double square brackets, for example [[Mexico]] displays as Mexico. To get it to display text different from the name of the article, see piped links.

To add a citation to an external source, see referencing for beginners.

If you are talking about a link to an external website, this is something you should very rarely do in an article (see WP:EL), but you can just type the full URL (eg https://google.com gives https://google.com ) ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxfan38: Welcome to the Teahouse. In the visual editor there are a few ways to do this. You can

• click on the button in the toolbar to get the link dialogue box, or
• type [[ where you want the link to appear to get the same dialogue box, or
• if you're using Windows, use the shortcut Ctrl+K.

From there you can choose to either add a wikilink or an external link. Please make sure you're adding links that follow style guidelines, particularly those on external links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Diagram removed from page

Added a diagram of my creation to two pages (List of longest-living organisms and Longevity in the non-human section) that just got removed (reverted to the previous version). I was wondering what could be done in that regard, since the only comment was "illegible diagram with bonus inappropriate external link" and I don't really know both why it got removed exactly and how to, in case, provide a better contribution to the pages. I could maybe ask the editor but I still find hard to navigate the talk section as of now.

Thank you in advance! Yobonnie (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Yobonnie, the "bonus inappropriate external link" alludes to Wikipedia's policy on external links. In the majority of cases, external links, i.e. links to sites other than Wikipedia, do not belong in the body text or image captions of an article. As for whether that is a helpful diagram, you should discuss this issue on the talk pages of the relevant articles – editorial decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I see! Thank you very much Yobonnie (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Thinking of working on a new article. I've edited a decent amount but never written an article from scratch.

Is there a list of publications that are acceptable as sources? Preferred as sources? Not acceptable as sources?

I'm also curious about how to add pictures -- how to be sure that and make apparent that the photo is in the public domain or otherwise not in violation of copyright. Jreiss17 (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a list of commonly discussed sources, of varying degrees of acceptability. Please read more about reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jreiss17 Welcome! WP:RSP is a list of sources that have been repeatedly discussed on WP. It looks extensive but it's a drop in the ocean. Generally not accepted: social media, blogs and wikis. Preferred: books (not self-published ones) if you have them. WP:BACKWARD may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

On pictures: rule of thumb is that any random picture you find online is under copyright and can't be used, but there is devil in the details. I assume you know about Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Jreiss17, there are countless reliable sources that have never been debated or contested on Wikipedia, because there is no need to contest them. These include books by academics published by respected university presses and peer reviewed articles published by respected academic journals. One step down might be articles in journals published by by respected long-standing historical societies. The most important skill of a long term productive Wikipedia editor is the ability to independently evaluate the reliability of a source. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

the role of the paparazzi

death of princess diana

BOAZ ARAKA (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@BOAZ ARAKA Welcome to the Teahouse, which is a place to ask questions about using and editing Wikipedia. If you have a question, we will attempt to answer it. Meanwhile you may wish to read the article Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also worth reading, BOAZ ARAKA, is Paparazzi. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

make a page

i want to make new page about Jewish Educational Media (JEM) but i have no idea how to make a wikipidia page and i dont know where to get citations YisroelB501 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to find reliable, disinterested, substantive sources, YisroelB501. That will be your job: you can't just ask others to do it. (Of course, if you encounter problems, others may well help you.) Then you'll have to summarize what they say, and specify which part comes from where. The needed sources don't necessarily exist: for many imaginable subjects, adequate sources don't exist, and no article can be created. Before you continue work on your creation Draft:Jewish Educational Media, it's a good idea to get experience improving existing articles. (Most articles can be improved.) Your experience with existing articles will make your work on a new draft very much easier. ¶ Incidentally, it seems to me that whoever wrote the prose that's in Draft:Jewish Educational Media wouldn't have also written "i want to make new page" (above). Is what's in the draft actually written by you? -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hoary (or any admin passing by), at the risk of asking silly questions: is there anything salvageable in the version of Jewish Educational Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deleted way back in 2007? And out of curiosity, what was the reason for its deletion? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Very reasonable questions, Rotideypoc41352. (1) Nope. (It was only 485 bytes long.) (2) To my surprise, I see no reason. (All I know is that no WP:AfD/JEM exists.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

i keep getting rejected beacause of unreliable sources

can somebody look at my article and give me some feedback Benjamin Fallah (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not rejected but declined. Benjamin Fallah, as your very title above suggests ("[because] of unreliable sources"), you've already got feedback. You can see it on User talk:Benjamin Fallah. How is it inadequate? Or which part of it (or which page to which it links) don't you understand? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Fallah, vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, violating the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship

Where can I find a list of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship? It has been on Wikipedia (by this or some similar name) before and it is very interesting and something an encyclopedia should have. GotoGothenburg (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GotoGothenburg, Wikipedia has Ancestral background of presidents of the United States. Another unrelated wiki called Familypedia has Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the Lancer TTRPG notable enough to warrant an Article?

I am a new user and am interested in eventually creating the article for the Lancer Tabletop Roleplaying system, which I think I have sufficiently checked does not exist yet, not even as a redirect article. I plan to complete smaller tasks and edits before undertaking this. In the meantime, I would like to ask if this subject warrants an article at all.

Dungeons and Dragons has a page, as the most popular and well-known TTRPG. Pathfinder by Paizo has a page, as another quite popular alternative to and (originally) derivative of D&D. Starfinder has a page, as a spin-off of the Pathfinder system altered and adapted to a Sci-Fi setting. Call of Cthulu and several Warhammer: 40, 000 systems are marginally less popular still. I think the variety above merits some consideration for Lancer, as a published system itself. Pancakes0708 (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Pancakes0708, welcome to Wikipedia! The criteria for a topic having its own Wikipedia article are described at Wikipedia:Notability. In short, you want to see if you can find sources that are reliable, independent of the game's authors, and that provide significant coverage of the game, meaning they discuss it at some depth. These sources are the ones you will base the article on; if there are not enough sources that meet these criteria, writing an article is not worthwhile. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I did check the Notability guide, I see I misunderstood the order of operations, as it were.

I'll have a hunt around for some good secondary sources and see if there's enough to warrant an article.

Either way, looking forward to doing my little contributions, it's nice to be a little helper where it's needed <3 Pancakes0708 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)