Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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

On tagging

Hello, @Johnuniq and (less tactfully) @Softlavender have noted that my tagging efforts may have issues, so I would like to get an understanding on how to proceed further. I've cobbled together a python script (will clarify even if I hope it's obvious with the edits I've made that I'm not running an unauthorized bot) that spits out a "link density" ratio, and while I wish I had the technical skills to refine the results, I feel like I've been able to bring attention to a lot of very old pages (pretty much every page I edited in the last day or so was created before 2005) that are in need of such. I'm aware of the issues, though apparently not enough, about overtagging, I "clearly" feel like they were constructive (or else why would I have made the edit?), but some apparently disagree, so I would like to know in particular which of my edits contained "bogus tags". Akaibu (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked at your list of contributions and picked this. As I look at the article I notice no shortage of internal links. I'm puzzled by the addition of the template and not surprised by its removal. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh is that why I've had so many watchlist notifications about this category. @Akaibu, I think you might want to tweak the script a bit so that it takes the size of the article into consideration? A much longer article, if it's not repeating the same wikilinks over and over, will naturally have a lower link density than a shorter one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary @Asilvering while yes I agree the case of Fresnel's article is already pretty well linked, it nonetheless showed up as among some of the lowest that my script has found(in the lowest 5k out of the ~million pages scanned so far), I will note that there are a number of references to "biaxial" of various nature, of which Index ellipsoid looks to have a redirect of that name, is not linked on Fresnel's article, and in fact does mention Fresnel in the article itself. I'm not sure where exactly this should/would be reference, but that's one of the reason I added these templates, is that they bring eyes to an issue, the underlinked template is in fact a newcomer task and many of the pages I've put it on has had plenty of productive edits made by other newcomers(I still regard myself as such). Akaibu (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu: The instructions for {{underlinked}} say there is no consensus on what constitutes "too few" links. Use editor discretion: you should not just be blindly tagging articles based on the output of a script. The fact that an article is in the lowest 0.5% for link density is not sufficient information to judge whether or not it is underlinked to the point of needing a cleanup tag. It would be much more useful for you to find one article which you think on your own judgement is underlinked, and then add some needed links, than it is for you to blindly tag any number of articles.

In general both script-assisted editing and adding maintenance tags are things which are probably better off left to people who have some experience with Wikipedia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public I'll agree that there isn't a minimum amount of links required for a page, however, I've found that low link density can be a sign of other problems, such as the case of me tagging Acoustic theory being far too technical, as well as despite describing a "field of study", makes no mention on who is part of this field(i.e. a history of the field of study), etc.

Basically, I'm not blindly tagging upon the list, but using it as a metric to have people look closer at pages that have been overlooked(this page for example has been mostly unchanged since 2008). Akaibu (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu, the people who will mostly be directed to a page when you use the "underlinked" tag are newcomers using their newcomer homepage suggestions to make easy edits. You might get some more attention to the overlooked parts of the article like this, but mostly the editors going through that tag will be looking for easy fixes to do while they dip their toes into wikipedia editing. If your script turns up some article that isn't actually all that underlinked, but could use some other attention, just tag with the other relevant maintenance tags so it gets to the right editors. (Well, hopefully.) By the way, if you find articles that aren't in any wikiprojects, that's often a reason for them being unattended, and adding the relevant wikiprojects can help sort them into the right maintenance queues. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I recommend that you slow way down with your tagging and carefully examine each article first, and only tag when you are reasonably sure that other editors would agree. "Link density" is not a concern that I have heard in 15 years of editing. If you think that an article is underlinked, by far the best thing for you to do is add some wikilinks instead of tagging it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have heard many concerns about link density – but only when there are too many. Usually these are placed by someone who wants to inflate the importance of their subject, or by someone who is just eager to add links. I have never heard a complaint of too few links. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to emphasise this point. You aren't really helping improve wikipedia by tagging lots of pages with underlinked template, especially on the basis of a script. I'd recommend using your script to find pages then actually improving the article with wikilinks. Newystats (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I bring to attention a wikitable i made during my 48-hour block, with 5000 pages created from 2005 or before with the lowest "link density", since my personal judgement seems to be in conflict with best practice, so I've taken to documenting my opinions/reviews of these pages, I was waiting till I had made more progress on the matter, but I feel the need to bring it up because in my review of the pages, I came across Colegio Tarbut, a page that has been written in Spanish since it's 2005 creation; I hope this and my documenting of other pages shows the merit of this metric. Akaibu (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty - I just pulled the English version out of the page history from 2023. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering ah! I guess I was indeed hasty, I merely checked the oldest version vs a few of the recent, thanks for the quick work! Akaibu (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A rookie mistake! (that I also make all the time...) -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I took a brief look at an article near the top of your list about a topic that interests me. That article is Display size. I then read that article and the notion that its "link density" is too low is simply ludicrous. There are plenty of wikilinks in that article. There must be something seriously wrong with your algorithm. I noticed also that some of the other articles near that article on your list are bibliographies. As long as Wikipedia allows bibliography articles to contain works that are not themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles, then of course bibliographies of prolific authors will have relatively few wikilinks. That's another problem. So, I am sorry to say this, but I think that you have not yet demonstrated that this "link density" concept is useful for improving the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 there are now a sufficient amount of links on Display size, see the state of the article when I had initially assessed it Akaibu (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, I assumed that the list you asked me to look at was current instead of outdated. That illustrates the proper response to the problem: Add useful wikilinks to articles instead of spending time compiling lists such as this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But look at who added the links, @Cullen328. They're all newbies, summoned by the newcomer module. It's a good task to tag instead of doing it yourself, if you find an article that is underlinked, because it's a task new editors feel able to do. Those of us who know the ropes already can work on the harder stuff. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering i tried doing just that but i got blocked for that, i supposed because i was trying to document all the problems the page has and being declared that i was tagbombing, thus my solution being this list. Akaibu (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

can you look for the opposite? the nearly orphan articles, such that What links here is nearly zero?.... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@69.181.17.113 I could probably do such, but I'm not sure if that would actually be productive, as that would likely encourage people to potentially insert a given article page into pages that don't duly need them, at best if you encounter pages which you think might warrant being linked across the project more, something like Edward's Find ink tool is a good one, alternatively Lourdes's Backlinks userscript, though I consider both of these as perhaps having an unacceptable rate of false positives due to not taking into account parts of the text that is already linked among a few other template related issues. Akaibu (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Link converter for Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedians

Can I convert links to Wikipedia:VisualEditor? Manually changing links to the required grammar format on Wikipedia is time-consuming. Can I convert links by Wikipedia:VisualEditor? please ping to me when I should check the answer for my inquiry. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of terminology is confusing; what do you mean by required grammar format? If you're asking whether it's okay to change links when using the visual editor, the answer is yes. Some editors might find it annoying if the wiki markup isn't perfect because of the use of the visual editor, but the end visual result is the same.

After reading the next section, I will say that the above generally applies to wikilinks within Wikipedia; Creamastra offers great advice for dealing with citing and external links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Citoid, the citation tool integrated in VisualEditor's visual and wikitext modes, may be what Goodtiming8871 needs. every template has a grammar. ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, :) I noticed that VisualEditor needs more update. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry for reference

FYI

 – Merging with above section

Below is a sample link. I wonder if it is possible to automatically convert this link to the Wikipedia source format.

reference [1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For most links, you can press the "cite" button in the Visual Editor, paste the link into the input box, and it will produce a formatted reference. Cremastra (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you and I appreciate your support. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft checking

Can you please checkt the draft that I am working on right now? The draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw its still a work in progess I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed all of the subjective and non-encyclopaedic language. Why do you believe he is notable? As an author? Teacher? What justifies him being referred to as "Dr."? Can you find more references for what people have written about him? David notMD (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not gotten ti what made him notable because as I said, it's a work in progress. But however, he is a notable man as he is one of the leaders of the Mizo insurgency and an autjor of many different books. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

also, I forgot to add why he was notable. sorry. 😅 I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• in the draft

I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

also, you deleted his works that I have noted down 💀. I haven't completed it so, you will have some questions. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

pls ignore this one I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

pls reply quick I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is under any obligation to reply quickly. Do you have a particular need for a speedy resolution here? 331dot (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

And also from the Criminal charges, I think one can take a guess to what made him notable I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have a great knowledge. Writing an article starts with the references that establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense, because if they are not, every single moment spent on the draft is wasted effort.

An article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing less, and not very much more. A selected list of a subject's creations/works may be included, but unless the article explains why they are notable (by summarising what published sources have said about them) there is no point. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

kk I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

btw, what do you think should be the minimum number of references? I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You should have at least three independent reliable sources. Right now you have one - one of the sources you have cited is a book written by the biography subject so it is not independent. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you please review my draft again? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

oh, no, no. The one that I am citing is a republished version of the original book. In the book that I cited, the publisher was R. Lalrawna, a stranger not even related to Dr. James Dokhuma. In the book that I cited, he created a section of the life of James so that people who did not know him well could get to know him. So, it is independent.@MrOllie I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly not independent, the biography subject wrote the book himself. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

no. The the person Dr James, wrote the book Ṭawng Un Hrilhfiahna without the section of his life. It is only after the publication of R. Lalrawna that the section describing his life came. How do I know? You may ask. Its because I have the whole book with me. One from 1987 and one from 2018. The newest version was revised a little, with corrections of typing mistakes and such and the addition of the section of his life. If you are still not clear, just ask it very specifically. I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the point MrOllie is trying to make is that the bulk of the content remains autobiographical. The content from the original (even if altered a little for the purposes of fixing errors in spelling, grammar, etc.) is still not independent of the subject who wrote it originally, as it has essentially been reprinted. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't believe in what I personally call source laundering, where the provenance of content magically changes when it is reprinted by a third party; as far as I can tell, the book still credits Dokhuma as the author as the bulk of it is still his writing.
From what I understand, the only significant addition that is only present in the second book is a publisher's(?) note on who Dokhuma is. Theoretically, whoever wrote the biographical section could be used as a source if it satisfies the golden rule, but I suspect using that section for citations will be limited due to its proximity with Dokhuma's reprinted content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but the only thing added extra was that section describing his life. After that, nothing on the book changed(except some spelling mistake). The book is about Mizo Ṭawng Upa( roughly translated to Elderly Language, its a bit like idioms and phrases but there is a big difference. They can be somehow grouped together) I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, can you please review my draft pls? the link is Draft:James Dokhuma# I have a great knowledge (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but the only thing added extra was that section describing his life. After that, nothing on the book changed(except some spelling mistake).
— User:I have a great knowledge 14:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly the point I'm making. It's still his writing, so it's not independent from him to be used as a source that demonstrates wikinotability, regardless of who the publisher is and whatever addenda were added. You may be able to use it as a primary source in a limited fashion, but it doesn't contribute to the (ideally at least) three independent reliable sources that reviewers want to see in drafts to show Dokhuma is wikinotable.

Also, can you please review my draft pls?
No; I am not an AFC reviewer and I have no intention of being one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No, its the writing of R. Lalrawna, not Dokhuma. If I am not saying what you mean, please clarify it more. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Lalrawna is credited as the publisher in your citation, not the author. The work is still Dokhuma's. That's like saying I Am Malala is a source that can establish wikinotability for Malala Yousafzai because it was published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson in the UK, or Little, Brown and Company in the US, even though the author is the subject herself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

but that section was not created by Dokhuma, so it cannot be an autobiography I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I said the book might be possibly used to establish wikinotability (in a limited fashion) if you're only using that section and nothing else, but reviewers are more likely to ask you to use another source as it's far too close in proximity to the author's writing that makes up the majority of the book. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

ooh, ok. thx for info. Also, the organisation that gave him an award, The Mizo Academy of Letters, wrote his life story. Can that one be used as the main one instead? I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You need more references that show he is notable, I can only see two references repeatedly used. You can also remove statements you can't find references for, that way the article can stand as a stub. But, generally two citations are not enough for biography Tesleemah (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting help with band photo upload

Hi there. I've noticed that several band articles on Wikipedia are using a press kit photo, from the group's prime years, as the main infobox image. This phenomenon can be seen on the pages for acts like Duran Duran, Soft Cell and New Order (among a number of others).

Perhaps someone would know if this[2] 1985 photo of Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark meets the relevant [non-]copyright criteria to be placed in their infobox. The entire press kit can be seen here.[3] This image would be useful as it captures the band at their peak of popularity in the 80s and is likely how most people best remember the visual of OMD.

If the photo is determined to be permissible, I would be most grateful if a more experienced user could upload it using the relevant settings. I have upped this crop to ImgHippo[4] (with a slight rotation applied and an artefact removed). Thank you for any assistance. Paulie302 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The question to be answered is whether the non-free images provides something that can't be represented by a free image. In this case I'd say that the free image currently used on the page represents the subject just as well as the proposed non-free image and so there's no justification to use the non-free image. fr33kman 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't altogether clear in my original post: I am not at all advocating for the use of a non-free image. The Duran, Soft Cell and New Order press kit images are free, per the attached licensing details. Since the OMD image is also from a press kit of the same period, I am hoping that someone with expertise can determine whether it too is public domain. Paulie302 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The point is two things: 1) The image you're suggesting isn't free, AND 2) a good-enough image exists that IS free. Non-free images are all ignored, as soon as a good-enough free one exists. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You have done all the due diligence and can confirm the OMD image is not free? The Duran, Soft Cell and New Order images are free, and they too are from 1980s press kits. Paulie302 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought this had already been settled by the previous person's response. Obviously not. Sorry for misleading you. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah no worries. :) Paulie302 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant public domain template is {{PD-US-1989}}. If you look at c:File:Duran Duran 1983.jpg § Summary, c:File:Soft Cell (1983 Sire publicity photo) 02.jpg § Summary, and c:File:New Order, 1985.jpg § Summary, it should give you a sense of how to establish that the template applies. (I'm on my phone right now, so I can't check the copyright status myself, but I should be able to help later today.) jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The image looks to be permissible along the same lines as the Duran one. I think I've managed the upload. Paulie302 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

the photo has no copyright notice , does that make it public domain?.... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No; by default, all copyright-eligible works are copyrighted. Wikipedia:Public domain describes three ways that works can be in the public domain: they are ineligible for copyright ({{PD-ineligible}}), they are too old ({{PD-old}}), or they have been released into the public domain by the copyright holder ({{PD-self}}). jlwoodwa (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia stop using the term "Asian and Pacific Islander"? on the demographics section for pages on U.S. places?

Most pages for cities and counties in the U.S. have tables showing the ethnic demographics of the city, listing the percentages of the population who identify as "Non-Hispanic White", "Black", "Hispanic or Latino", etc. Most of these tables use the term "Asian", while some pages like Orange County, Florida and Cleveland say "Asian and Pacific Islander". I've tried to edit these tables to just say Asian but my edits get reverted back. The US census hasn't used this term "Asian and Pacific Islander" in over two decades, so there's no need to use it now. As an an American of Vietnamese descent, I personally feel uncomfortable seeing this term used because I find it to be too broad, lumping together many different people groups that have very distinct appearances and cultures, and because I do not feel a strong connection to Pacific Islanders.

Can Wikipedia use the terms "Asian" or "Asian American" in the demographics section of places in the U.S. instead of "Asian or Pacific Islander"? PIs should be listed under their own category or left off. That's all I want to change. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They did split it off to "Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander" some time ago, so this is a good question, but I'm not sure it is one that can be handled by the Teahouse. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I know the census did, but I am talking about Wikipedia's use of the term API Americans. It's inconsistent across pages and yet when I wish to shorten it to just Asian other users will revert my edits back as if this term must be used. Where on Wikipedia should I take this issue? JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@JohnIllinois1827: I think it will probably have to continue being shown, every time someone talks about an old census. The old census says what it says, and we can't pretend it said something else.

But if people are continuing to use it for newer census data too, because they mistakenly think it's still official, in those cases I think you're absolutely right. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, newer census data split the AA and PI. The Cleveland page will say Asian and Pacific Islander, but it's source for the 2020 statistic splits the two groups. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem. The source for the 1990 census does not split the two groups, and its data is being directly compared in a table to other decades. You can't simply rename the row at Cleveland#Demographics to "Asian" without impacting the accuracy of the data represented throughout that entire row.

One possible solution would be to add another row for "Pacific Islander" in every table. For the decades that combine the two, you could combine both rows in that column and display a single, combined percentage just as the sources do. Have a look at HELP:TABLE#Colspan and rowspan on how this can be accomplished (example BBB), or perhaps an editor at one of those pages can assist (if not, reach back out here, and I'm sure one of us will be glad to).

One quick note about your "too broad concern" due to "very distinct appearances and cultures"...

Asian is still broad, ranging from Pakistani and Indian all the way to Korean and Japanese. One could reasonably present the same argument that each of these groups "have very distinct appearances and culture". The census grouping Black could even be considered more broad by definition. It would probably be best to drop this line of reasoning. The stronger argument is following the change made by the U.S. census report. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow your advice on combining two rows but I'm stuck. Sorry. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're arguing, but saying "Asian and Pacific Islander also wouldn't be accurate for labeling the newer data, since that isn't the term used now. Also, Cleveland's 2020 census reveals that PIs are 0.0% of Cleveland's population, so even if the 1990 numbers are different, I doubt that the percentages are. It wouldn't really change the percentages for Asians that much. It is what it is, but I don't know why we as a nation focus so much on a group whose population is often low enough to round down to zero and overall nationwide doesn't even cross 0.5%.

I agree that "Asian" itself is very broad, but why make it even broader and more diverse by dragging another continent into the label? It's simply too broad. Asia is already the largest continent in the world, larger than both Americas combined, and yet the continent has to be made even larger by including Oceania. JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JohnIllinois1827: I get it, but to fix this the way you want to fix it you're going to have to travel backwards in time and convince long-dead government officials and bureaucrats to un-write their census categories. We aren't free to decide to give false reports of what it said back then; the census stuff is history, and we can't do present-day politics to it. Real people had to answer that question even though it wasn't a good question, and we can't suddenly claim they were answering a different question. They might have answered differently if the question had been better. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but why is it more preferable to use the old, outdated term over the current term? JohnIllinois1827 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Asian and Pacific Islander also wouldn't be accurate for labeling the newer data" – More than likely, the editor that added the newer data (back when it was released) didn't see an easy way to handle this predicament and just combined the two percentages in the table to avoid disturbing the historical data. This is all a moot point now, since the earlier suggestion above should solve that concern, assuming you can achieve consensus to do so.
• "even if the 1990 numbers are different, I doubt that the percentages are" – You could be correct, but this would be a personal observation and speculative, which is a form of original research. We couldn't use this in any way on Wikipedia unless it was directly backed by a reliable source.
• "Asian itself is very broad, but why make it even broader...by dragging another continent into the label" – To be clear, this broadness isn't being "made" by Wikipedians. In fact, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All of this came from older U.S. census reports, which are still being cited and compared in tables.

-- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the term "Asian and Pacific Islander" was retired after 2000, I think one solution would be to only show census data from 2000 onward to avoid this predicament. Or, another answer would be to use the term "Asian", but include a footnote saying "Included Pacific Islanders until 2000". Are these solutions feasible? 2601:248:601:A010:F0F3:40DE:7D21:1E74 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The footnote sounds feasible as well. Lots of possibilities I'm sure. Probably best to discuss solutions at a WikiProject like the one Hoary suggested below. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't say it's better, I say we have no choice. We must use the old wording for the old stuff and the new wording for the new stuff. We have no right to "fix" the categories to make them say what we'd like them to say, or for convenience or whatever. All we can do is faithfully report what's really on there. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

JohnIllinois1827, how about bringing up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States? (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans might seem better, but responses to suggestions etc posted there are rare indeed.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing and creating content re Iowa railroads 1850-1880

I am new to this but less new than my previous Teahouse. Is it possible and appropriate to ask anyone who is interested to see what I have done and give me feedback? The last time I posted in Teahouse I got lots of helpful comments. Should I be using a bot to clean up citations or is it automatic?MarkWHowe (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe I think it's okay to just WP:be bold and edit. If you have any questions and would like to seek help, you could ask anyone that you think is interested or maybe come here to the Teahouse for specific editing questions. Usually, if someone thinks your edit is not constructive or appropriate they will revert and leave a useful message on your talk page. There, you could discuss the matter with the editor about your edit.

You can use a variety of bots to clean up citations, including User:Citation bot, User:InternetArchiveBot, and more. However, if you use these bots, you should check the results and making sure they're correct. I often forget to do that, sometimes. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

For you could ask anyone that you think is interested, another place to find such people is the WikiProject relevant to whatever you're working on. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did put my name and interest under 'trains' but there are hundreds there and no response. So I'm stirring the pot.  :-} MarkWHowe (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I recall there is a way to see all the edits that have been made to a topic in the previous few months but I can't recall how I got there. And also if there were any reversions/ deletions that were made. Sadly I keep getting to some great new site but then can't recall how I got there.  :-{ MarkWHowe (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe To see edits for a certain article, click on the View History tab on the right hand side of the navigation bar (after Read, Edit, Edit Source). To see your own edits, use Special:MyContributions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I just reorganized the Wikipedia "Galena and Chicago Union Railroad" history sections titled:

"Looking at Iowa and the Missouri River"

"The 1864 Great Consolidation of the Chicago & NorthWestern Railway"

I went bold like you advised but I would be discouraged if it were reverted. I would much rather get it fixed quickly in place. MarkWHowe (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: The edits you made can't be fixed in place per se because that's really how Wikipedia works. The best you can hope for is that others also feel your edits were improvements and WP:SILENCE. FWIW, being reverted is part of the Wikipedia experience; so, it's not really a reason to feel discouraged. If it happens and the revert is not really a clear-cut case of WP:VANDALISM, you should try and sort things out through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

IDU - there is no reason I can see that edits cannot be fixed. To me a reversion is a 'start from scratch'. I have already been thru' that phase. Now I would much prefer something more productive, like '3rd paragraph needs more citations' or 'citation #19 doesn't work'. We should be here to help each other. MarkWHowe (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

​ I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "fixed". Are you asking whether mistakes can be "fixed" or whether pages can be "locked"? If you're asking about the former, then for sure mistakes can be corrected as long as doing so is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're asking about the latter, then pages can be WP:PROTECTed, but this is almost always only done in cases of ongoing serious disruption or a long history of repeated disruption.

Wikipedia is, after all, intended to be a collaborative editing project and pages aren't WP:OWNed by any one particular editor or group of editors. For this reason, pages aren't protected (i.e. "locked") simply for the sake of preserving one editor's or one group of editors' preferred version of the page. Wikipedia gives everyone a chance to be WP:BOLD, and disagreements over article content are expected to be resolved in accordance with WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and WP:CONSENSUS. So, if the edits you made as seen by others as being in accordanc with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they will likely stand the test of time or be used by others as a foundtion for further improving the article. If, on the other hand, others find them to be lacking in some way, they might be reverted (entirely or partially) or otherwise corrected. This is essentially what you're agreeing to everytime you click the "Publish changes" button and acknowledge your acceptance of foundation:Terms of Use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of 'locked' and I don't think I would approve of that. My background is science and peer review is the only way to arrive at 'truth', if there is such a thing, or at least as close as we can get. If someone can 'revert' a page for bureaucratic reasons without giving the author a chance to correct it , I think we would both agree that is wrong. Disagreement on the 'facts' is a different issue and that is how we get closer to 'truth'. That is where we come up with the term 'alternate facts' and those discussions are the most interesting. I don't expect that will be an issue in my present case however, but unless someone responds there can be no review.

Sadly, the only scholars I know about on the subject seem to die just as I learn about them. To wit; H. Roger Grant. I'm hoping my edits will flush out somebody taking up the torch. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: See WP:VNT and WP:EXPERT for more details, but Wikipedia articles aren't peered reviewed in the sense that you'd expect from a peer-reviewed journal or other type of publication; there is WP:PEERREVIEW, but articles are essentially be reviewed by those reading them. So, if someone feels that the content you added isn't an improvement, they are allowed to revert it or correct it. The hope is that they will do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and leave an WP:ES explaining why. This, however, isn't already the case. The idea behind WP:DR is to encourage discussion as a way to resolve content disputes and avoid WP:EDITWARs; the former can help establish a consensus one way or the other whereas the latter only leads to disruption. So, if you edits are reverted for some reason and it doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case of vandalism, then it's probably better to try and sort things out through talk page discussion than though dueling edit summaries. Not matter how right you'll might know yourself to be, you won't be given any special consideration if you simply resort to back and forth reverting absent any real serious policy problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That does sound ugly, and unproductive. Thanks. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Another interesting issue is the validity of letters as source material. It is frequently stated here that a letter doesn't establish the validity of a statement. True, but if the validity of the letter can be established, like signature or statement of an authority, then what can be established as fact is that that person wrote that. One of my battles may be that issue; I have letters written by presidents, governors, senators and superintendents etc. that I use as sources, not so much as that what they said is true but that they said it. Then you may say that sounds like original research, but if it can be backed up by published means it simply adds interest to the article. I have seen examples of letters in Wikip. articles, entered with apparent impunity. Another interesting discussion. MarkWHowe (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

​Personal letters are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF types of sources at best and can only be used in certain ways, and any interpretations of them might be considered WP:OR if written in Wikipedia's voice; personal letters which have been discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources, however, can often be cited as long as the secondary sources is considered to be a WP:RS, the source is used in proper WP:RSCONTEXT and the source is properly WP:ATTRIBUTEd. So, if you're considered to clearly be an established content expert per WP:CITESELF and WP:EXPERTSPS, then you could possibly add citations to your own work if there are no WP:UNDUE issues and you can do so in a WP:NPOV; if, others disagree, you'll have to establish a consensus to the contrary through article talk page discussion or at WP:RSN. As for the examples you might have seen in other articles, Wikipedia has over six million articles and many if not most aren't being constanly monitored or assessed. So, lots of WP:OTHERCONTENT gets added that probably shouldn't have been added. So, if you come across some content, you can be WP:BOLD by trying to fix it yourself or by removing it. If someone disagrees, you can try to engage them in discussion on the article's talk page to see whether things can be resolved. If they refuse to engage, you can move to the next step of the DR process and WP:SEEKHELP. As long as you remain cool and WP:CIVIL, you've done your part. If the other party starts getting really out of line, you can seek administrator assistance at one of the administrator noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I avoid that at all costs! What I have seen made perfect sense historically and verifiable as legit. Thanks again. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:MarkWHowe/sandbox --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Alan Watt (author, radio commentator)

how can I contribute to Wikipedia by submitting a quote written by a man whose name appears in a Wikipedia disambiguation page in red letters? the page I am referring to is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watt

I will be creating a new page about him and his work, but first — if it is doable — I would like to submit some of his most enlightening quotes to Wikiquote. Thanks, Charles Fabara Writing is easy (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I think you may be mistaking Wikipedia (which is where we find ourselves) for Wikiquote. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Not knowing if there is a teahouse for wiki quote, I am wondering if someone in the Wikipedia teahouse knows if I can, or if anyone can, or is permitted to, submit a quote by someone whose name appears and Wikipedia and red letters. 2600:1017:B8C0:CF4A:3D87:1ED5:A326:20E9 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Hoary: I need to create a new Wikipedia page for "Alan Watt" (author and radio commentator). Can you help me do that? Thanks, Charles (username: Writing is easy) Writing is easy (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Create the page Draft:Alan Watt (author and radio commentator) and submit it for review, but don't write the article WP:BACKWARD. Write it forward. That means, find reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him first, before you write a single word. If he's obscure, you may not get traction with Wikiquote. I have removed your addition of his name to the disambiguation page because it seems like you're trying to promote his website. What is your association with this person? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Anachronist.

Good and correct and knowledable advice.I am trying to make people aware of the mountains of data his website makes available. I am endeavoring to, now that he died, having dedicated his life to educating people about the workings of the New World Order. He has been a guest on hundreds of Internet radio shows. Those hosts interviewed Alan Watt, which is to say the "covered him", because he is obscure, but worth knowing about. It seems he worked to not be part of mainstream society, such as Wikipedia. Now that he died of a heart attack in 2021. His wife is thinking whether she wants to have Wikipedia have a page about her deceased husband or not. If she tells me she does. I want to be ready to write it. I never met Alan Watt in person. I only emailed him a few times. I bought two of his books. And I am in email contact with his wife, Melissa. I thank you for, and agree with, your advice to, "Write it forward" (not "BACKWARD"), meaning after finding reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him. He was well known in certain underground Internet networks or large groups. In 2006, Alex Jones interviewed him on PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.com. I look forward to reading your kind reply. Thanks, Charles (Writing is easy) Writing is easy (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

His wife's desire to have a Wikipedia article, or not, doesn't matter. We have a policy: Wikipedia is not a memorial site and shouldn't be used that way. Nor is it a platform for "getting the word out". Wikipedia publishes articles about topics that are notable, with notability defined as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews aren't independent of the subject, so those sources don't count toward notability; they can be used only to verify statements he made. And InfoWars fails the reliability requirement; in fact it is blacklisted on Wikipedia so you couldn't link to it anyway; see WP:INFOWARS.

Articles on demonstrably notable topics are kept. Articles on non-notable subjects are deleted (or never started). If those outcomes are against his wife's wishes, there's really nothing she can do about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist:

I agree that Wikipedia is not and should never start being a "memorial site". It is an excellent and unique encyclopedia. "Getting the word out" is an interesting idea. I do want to make Wikipedia's users and Internet searchers aware of his research findings. That is why I am interesed in creating a Wikipedia page for Alan Watt, an author whose main point was to suggest people think for themselves.

The essence of his notability, of the value of his findings, may ultimately lie in his findings themselves. Anyone who reads some of his findings can rationally decide if they are or are not "notable" and worth sharing on Wikipedia.

Do you see of a way his notability requirement could be fulfilled? The challenge is that because his research and his conclusions were so different, sometimes opposite the mainstream views that he stayed away from mainstream media.

The conundrum is that author Alan Watt was a mostly a recluse, but his research reveals the inner workings of the ruling elites throughout the ages. Inner workings conscious individuals like you would probably be very happy to become aware of.

I don't see a way to present some independent source as VALIDATING Alan Watt and his research findings. I see that his might be a similar situation as Galileo's who discovered some shocking facts, but the establishment put him under house arrest. The only light at the end of this tunnel we seem to be in might be for some Wikipedia judges to read at least one of Alan Watt's articles, or see the video I send you a link to, titled "Reality Check", and thinking for themselves see for themselves that Alan Watt knew things the more intelligent people will be grateful someone told them about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhrYRzvVssM&list=PL0273C286EBCA0464&index=1

All the best,

Charles

"Writing is Easy" Writing is easy (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Until you can grasp what "notability" actually means in the context of Wikipedia, I do not see a way forward. Please read the pages I lined to earlier if you haven't yet. Notability doesn't mean importance, it doesn't mean value, it doesn't mean validation. It means significant coverage by reliable independent sources, nothing else. I could self-publish a rock-solid plan for achieving world peace, which is undeniably important and has value, but if there is no coverage of my work, then it isn't notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be studying your quick and kind reply, Sir. Writing is easy (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about the coverage requirement, I wonder if it really means that in order for Wikipedia to display any statement, some major mainstream media outlet has had to have covered it. And that reminds me of a quote I read on the window of the Brooklyn College Library around 2007. It said something like: For it to be "newsworthy", it has to have been covered by a major media outlet. In order for a major media outlet to cover it, it has to be newsworthy". I am surprised that after so many years I remember a semblance of it.

And all that makes me wonder if some people are being narrow-minded and afraid of new views. Somebody has to be first. It also resembles a Catch-22 situation. It's "almost" like saying: "Hey, we invented the airplane!" And "The New York Times" or "Wikipedia's" editors saying, sorry, no major media has covered it so it is not newsworthy. Newsworthy, and notability, look, at this point, to me, arbitrary, thus closed-minded. Almost like a type of establishment club.

Also, some scholar said that even if he does not agree with someone's points of view, he supports their right to express them. Is Wikipedia a fact source for facts some entities have already arbitrarily, of course, approved? I do also see that not every whimsical idea and viewpoint would work in Wikipedia. But, perhaps I am biased because his findings make sense go me, I do think Wikipedia's readers would be glad and grateful they could read them there.

I admit, the situation is not black and white, it is not mathematical. It is subject to interpretation.

Thanks, Anachronist.

https://www.unomaha.edu/office-of-strategic-marketing-and-communications/public-relations/what-is-newsworthy.php

What is the meaning of the word anachronist?

a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place. especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present.

Respectfully, may I ask if you are you more into the past or the future? Writing is easy (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a media outlet be major or mainstream. We require only that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is independent of the subject it's covering. A media outlet often becomes "mainstream" by virtue of gaining public trust in its coverage of a wide variety of topics. But we have articles citing significant coverage in minor news outlets with a political bias (bias doesn't mean unreliable), in niche trade publications, in gaming websites, in academic books, in low-circulation scholarly journals, and other things that aren't considered mainstream; just look at the list of reliable sources in WP:RSP. As for my username, see the second sentence on my user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. I will be thinking about what you were kind enough to inform me about. 2604:2000:6FC0:4:3161:7469:3434:D60C (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q90023730

https://reasonator.toolforge.org/?lang=es&q=Q90023730 Writing is easy (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist points out that you'd need "reliable source coverage of him that is independent of him". True. It means coverage of him that (i) is independent of him and (ii) is from what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. Not what he, or you, or I would regard as reliable sources, but what Wikipedia would. As I gaze at his website, I sense that amassing such coverage would be difficult, if not impossible. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That website sure doesn't give you a confident feeling, does it? Lots of promotion of self-published works. Even the website about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus was more convincing. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

But the formatting/design has a certain period charm. (1996 or so, perhaps?). -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Hoary, his website is original-looking and unique. Originality and uniqueness are good.

Since you know Wikipedia, do you see a way we or I could fulfill that notability requirement? The catch or challenge is that because his research and his conclusions were so esoteric, so different or sometimes opposite the mainstream views, he stayed away from mainstream media. All that presents a conundrum. An author who was a mostly a recluse, but whose research reveals the inner workings of the ruling elites throughoutthe ages. Writing is easy (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no conundrum at all. If he stayed away from mainstream media, it was only to avoid being found out, keeping his circle limited to people he was able to hoodwink. But from the way you're acting, it seems clear that he in fact craved coverage in mainstream media all along, and that the media wisely ignored him. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiquote says "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people, or because it is attributed to a notable individual, or appeared in a notable work." Perhaps not a good fit for Alan Watt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would just add that redlinks are not permitted on disambiguation pages, per WP:DDD. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Factual errors in citing

It is important that we do not have lies in Wikipedia. The article There's a Small Hotel asserts that a cited book contains a particular statement. It does not. This is easily confirmed by searching the book on line. I removed the lie and substituted a different citation that gives a sensible explanation of the story. Someone has reverted the text to what it was before, apparently failing to notice what I said in the Edit Summary. What can be done? It would be unseemly for this to be changed back and forth ad infinitum.Roryjohnston (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can contact them on their talk page to point this out, perhaps they didn't see the error you are trying to correct. Tesleemah (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Roryjohnston. This is probably something you should discuss on the article's talk page. The editor who reverted you has provided a quote from the source in support of the content they restored. The source might be wrong, but that's something to at least first try to resolve through article talk page discussion. Finally, it might be a good idea to consider the reversion of your edit as having been made in good faith, and refrain from referring to the content in question as a "lie". It's not uncommon for reliable sources to provide conflicting information on the same subject. Whether that's the case here is something to figure out through talk page discussion. Using the word "lie" runs the risk of starting the discussion off on the wrong foot and creating an atmosphere not conducive to friendly discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. There is confusion that needs to be cleared up. This has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing with each other. It’s about correctly interpreting what a source says. The quotation from Nolan does not establish that Richard Rodgers went to Stockton. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Roryjohnston, your "someone" is Pdebee. As Marchjuly suggests, you and Pdebee should discuss this on Talk:There's a Small Hotel. It's been 16 years since anyone discussed a proposed or actual edit there. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To: Roryjohnston

Copy: Tesleemah, Marchjuly, Hoary

Dear Colleague,
Thank you for your interest in "There's a Small Hotel" and in aiming to get it right. As Marchjuly suggested, I am happy to work with you in a collaborative way, per WP:DISPUTED. In the past, when I came across similar situations while creating articles myself, I opted to write a footnote to indicate that the fact in question is disputed across the sources, as I did in the first entry, here (see "i"). This way, we demonstrate to the reader that various sources themselves are in conflict about the fact, without us having to do any more than simply point this out. With this in mind, I will now continue this discussion at the article's talk page later today, and I invite you to join me in this constructive effort. Thank you.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. I have figured out that this has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Rory; I have replied to your entry at the article's talk page and will now apply your suggested correction. Thank you for following up on this and please accept my apologies for my part in this confusion.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 07:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Copy of a documentary

How does one obtain a copy of a documentary? Archived 12-07-2916

History of a great Nation

Johann Gottfried Schadel, by Valentyn Sokolovsky (1995)

National Television Company of Ukraine

Please reply: Alla Leever Thank you 134.56.195.248 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia Wikipedia. We have an article about National Television Company of Ukraine but are not affiliated with them. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia hasn't invented time travel yet. You'll just have to wait 892 years for it to be archived.^[Humor] jlwoodwa (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I am new here on this english site and wanted to ask how i could translate a german wiki site, that I created myself in english and publish it here?

Translation of articels in the german wikipedia to english wikipedia Lester1960 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See Help:Translation Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse @Lester1960! In short, absolutely. See Help:Translation as Lectonar suggested and check out WP:Wikiproject Germany in case it is relevant to Germany. I am happy to look it over as well, as someone who frequently translates articles from German to English (see Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen, Works Constitution Act) etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lester1960, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume this is de:Mario Lachat? It looks to me as if all the citations in that article are either to works by Lachat, or to sites published by organisations he belongs to; in other words, none of them are indepedent. This is not normally sufficient to establish notability in English Wikipedia - though the requirements for notability of academics are a bit different, and I don't fully understand them. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Lester1960 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why my draft is being rejected

draft:Aggelina Papadopoulou.Actress in 'Maria'by Pablo Larrain (imdb has all her information) 2A02:85F:E0DF:3800:599:614F:A547:848D (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, per WP:IMDB Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT to 2A02: Once a query has been answered by an editor it is wrong to delete the query and answer, so I reverted your deletion. Draft:Aggelina Papadopoulou has been Declined five times, so it may be time to abandon your effort. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, one really shouldn't be writing about oneself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IDK, it doesn't reek of self-promo/autobio to me. Just a poorly put together filmography. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

You still need to add more independent reliable references for your article to be notable. Tesleemah (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

How should I move Draft:Childhood dementia to the mainspace?

Hello. I created a draft for Childhood dementia (a devastating yet under-recognised group of diseases) 14 days ago, and have progressively improved it. I've now been trying to make sure it meets Wikipedia's policies well enough to move on to the article space , especially the core policies (WP:NPOV, V, and NOR). From my understanding reading the policies, I *think* it's in a state where it can be moved to the mainspace. But it's possible I'm mistaken.

While I am auto-confirmed, since Childhood dementia is currently a redirect {{r with possibilities}}, trying to publish the draft through the normal path fails.

How should I proceed? Should I make a request at WP:RM? Does the article need more work before being published? Or should I proceed with a different option?

Thank you in advance for your time. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion to see if anyone has suggestions for improvement. Moving over a redirect merely requires a technical move request, but a page mover may hesitate to fufill such a request if the draft appears unready. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There's that big blue button that says "submit the draft for review". Click that and follow the process.

Though I will say with empty sections, it's doubtful people will accept it as ready for prime time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's certainly a viable topic with some decent sourcing available/used. Bon courage (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Rotideypoc41352, Headbomb, and Bon courage.

To Headbomb: I've thought about submitting it for review, but since I heard it can take some weeks to months for an article to be, and this is still a fairly unknown yet very important topic, I thought it'd be better to put in work to make it ready relatively quickly and publish it directly.

Important note: I do want to make it clear that the reason I made this article *is* to raise awareness (so advocacy in a way. I did make sure to read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:ADVOCACY) but I will try my darnest to respect wikipedia's rules and help make the article encyclopedic. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Weeks/months tend to be for articles that are less well written (e.g. missing sections), or for topics no one cares about (random tech investor). The better written an article is, the easier (and more interesting) it is to review. Make sure to tag the talk page with relevant wikiproject banners (here, {{WP Medicine}} and {{WP Disability}} come to mind, Talk:Dementia might have more), so they get notified when the article is submitted for review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'll try to work on fleshing out the placeholder sections, which should help.

Also, I see I've already heeded your advice! Tagging the talk page with relevant wikiprojects (including {{WP Medicine}}, {{WP Disability}} and others) was one of the first things I did after creating the draft, since I saw it recommended in "Improving your odds of a speedy review" on the AfC submission template. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but to me, the way you've described your advocacy point of view sounds like it ought to be fine: as long as the article has no elements of advocacy in it, you are who you are. It may be uncomfortable to have to avoid adding things such as advice, treatments that aren't well recognized yet, or unofficial symptoms to the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This type of situation requires admin help, which can be requested here: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests It's possible that dropping a simple sentence in each of the empty sections – though theoretically not required – would reassure the admin that it's really an uncontroversial move.

I like the variety of sources that you've used. The one about psychosocial impact would probably be useful for putting something in the ==Society and culture== section (e.g., anything about school and friendship). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha. I think the variety is mostly an accident, since I just couldn't find all that many sources on it, which is to be expected. Though, before I found some of the other sources, I did add verywellhealth.com for a bit but quickly realized its blocked and considered unreliable, or at least inconsistent. Wouldn't be a good look for the article to use it instead of higher quality sources. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you submit Draft:Childhood dementia to AfC rather than move it to mainspace. The AfC backlog is not a queue, so it may be reviewed sooner than your think. If to mainspace, in time the New Pages Patrol could move it back to draft. Also either remove or fill in the now-blank sections. What you have is typical for diseases, but there may not be available refs for those sections. Otherwise, interesting topic. David notMD (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated the redirect for deletion and can review the AFC once that happens. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about my page

Hi, my name is Eric Kessler. I searched for "Wikipedia Help" and was directed to this forum. Right now there is a Wikipedia article about me (just search for my name). Several of the details in the article are incorrect, including my title as identified in the first sentence. I haven’t been a senior managing director or in an executive role at Arabella Advisors since 2020.

The article only has five references, and of those five only one article is actually about me. There is also an "external link" to a site called InfluenceWatch that doesn't seem to be encyclopedic.

Given the above, I have a question that I'm hoping one of you can answer: Is it possible to ask for an article about yourself to be deleted? I'm flattered that Wikipedia thinks I'm important enough for a page, but given that the information on the page is incorrect and the sourcing is so thin, I have a hard time believing such an entry should exist. Any information you can provide (or resources you can point me to) would be greatly appreciated. Are there any other forums where biographical issues like this are discussed? EJKessler (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your best bet it to likely go to the talk page and point out the errors (with sources backing your point, or pointing out how the current refs don't back the claims made in the article), and that things need to be updated. I've removed the InfluenceWatch link as obvious political nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard and use it to propose changes. However, given the dearth of significant coverage about you, the Eric Kessler article could also be nominated for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You can also nominate the article for deletion - taking a quick look at the available sourcing, it looks like it probably doesn't meet our guidelines for notability and should be merged into the Arabella Advisors article, though you'd want to do a more careful search before nominating. (As a general rule, we look for 2-3 reliable independent sources primarily about the subject, and interviews do not count here). The process is described at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion, or I can do it on your behalf. Rusalkii (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a search on Google News and found a few obituaries for people with the same name, and this article, but that's all. I think it qualifies for WP:AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

there are a lot of Eric Kesslers 69.181.17.113 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so why are you listing sources about all of them on the article talk page? Providing no analysis? That isn't helpful. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Kessler. Anyone is welcome to comment there. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for removing InfluenceWatch and nominating the article for deletion. As Anarchonist noted, there is very little existing coverage of me which is why I was so amazed that I had my own Wikipedia article. Would it be appropriate for me to comment on the deletion discussion? EJKessler (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to comment, but in general it may be wiser to leave it alone if it is going your way. Wikipedians can react unpredictably to comments from article subjects, particularly on anything related to politics. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just so you're aware of the process, a deletion discussion generally lasts for one week, after which the end date is either extended if there has been no participation, or the discussion is closed and the article is kept or deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@EJKessler: as an expert on Eric Kessler, can you show us some WP:RS and third party URLs that have biographical information about you? For example Early life, Education, Family ? So, were you involved trying to ban Coors Brewing Company at a college? Most of the top of the search results that I can see are from conservative or Republican websites. 69.181.17.113 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Um, if you read this discussion, it is clear that he prefers deletion of the article about him. Therefore he has no obligation to find sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful responses and your input about the deletion process. I will stay out of the deletion discussion. I see that there are suddenly a lot of links being shared on my article’s Talk page, more than I can keep up with and many seem insubstantial or don’t even mention me. Under the list of Chicago resources especially, these links include quite a few that are not about me at all and focus on family members, including people who have passed. The whole thing honestly feels unsettling. EJKessler (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

your family is "early life" and where you came from. they are all related to you, found by searching your name and facts known about you. it seems you are a very wealthy person who prefers privacy, yet is involved in democratic politics facing vigorous republican opposition. 69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

it really should not feel that unsettling, all these links are already PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. you even had publicity in High School. ...69.181.17.113 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally if someone dug up every bit of information publicly available about me and my family I would feel pretty unsettled, even if no one was doing anything wrong. Please try to avoid dumping dozens of tangentially related sources without any commentary on why they contribute to notability. Rusalkii (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with my draft

Hi, this is my first Wikipedia article. I don’t want to keep trying to publish it until it gets approved. Most information that I could get online is linked and referenced in the page. Could you please get me helpful tips to get it approved for publishing? Thank you!

Draft:Valdemar Cardoso da Rocha Jr. Strlbr (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Strlbr: You have not shown that he is notable. (Wikipedia uses the word "notable" in a special way.) If this is really all the information you can find, it means you cannot make an article about him. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. His work is definitely “notable”, so I have to understand how to show it. I looked up a few pages that would be comparable and was not able to understand based on what they were notable. Could you please explain it to me?

Like this one for instance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Hagenauer Strlbr (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this subject, but I think the Hagenauer article you linked would probably not be accepted today. Notability standards have gone up.

Also, I did not make a mistake when I said "he" (Cardoso) might not be notable. It is not his work, but his notability as a person that they are talking about. Wikipedia is looking for reports about Cardoso made by publishers who are not connected to him (not the ones who publish his work, not his colleagues or his employees, etc). TooManyFingers (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Strlbr: All of the best tips are given to you already – the links in the "declined" notices show you a lot of things to read. All of them show something about what went wrong, and all of them show tips for what to do next. But here's an extra example (it's silly, but it's useful):

If I say "Einstein was important in his field of study", but Wikipedia doesn't believe me, I can show articles in major newspapers saying stuff like "Einstein is one of the major scientists of the 20th century", I can show a lot of books about Einstein's work written by people who never met him, ... the Einstein article is easy to support, because there's so much proof that Einstein has major importance.

But if I say "I am an important scientist", and Wikipedia doesn't believe me, I might ask my friends to vouch for me ... but that's not useful. Nobody has written reports about me. Nobody has written books about me. Wikipedia should not believe my friends. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Government Works

In some pages works of the Ethiopian Government are deemed Public Domain with the following reason: Important note: Works prepared by the Government of Ethiopia and its employees are prepared in a fashion for general news format and noncommercial publication and for public dissemination freely an equivalent to how laws and non-laws at the legislative and administrative ministerial positions are free and public in a general distributable format: and as such copyright laws usually do not legally apply for such a basis. I would like to use some footage in a documentary but my legal department is looking for a source for this information. Can anyone point me to an official Ethiopian government site/document that states this. He does not consider Proclamation No. 410/2004 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection Part 1 Section 5 sufficient. 65.95.141.171 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That was added to Template:PD-Ethiopia a few months ago, by CtasACT. @CtasACT: can you explain? DS (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We have information on Ethiopian copyright at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Second Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_shooting Needs to bew updated. The title needs to be changed to "Second Attempted assassination of Donald Trump" sicne the FBI and Secrert Service have confirmed that former president Trump was the target of the gunman 72.218.87.16 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, not calling it what it actually is goes against Wikipedia's policy about political opinions.

The only people who are referring to this event as the "Trump International Golf Club shooting" are the Far Left. Literally every media organization, every federal and state agency, Trump, his political opponents, and even foreign dignitaries have acknowledged it as an assassination attempt. 72.218.87.16 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! See the active discussion at Talk:Trump_International_Golf_Club_shooting#Requested_move_15_September_2024, where there is a lengthy discussion about exactly that. :) SirMemeGod  20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reading complexity within articles

There's obviously not a one size fits all answer to this, but in general, at what reading level should articles be written at? I was skimming through Blades in the Dark and, despite playing the game myself, I found the section on mechanics to be complex enough that I needed to consult a dictionary for words like "elide" or "eschew" (I also feel it goes into excessive detail that may go against WP:NOTAGUIDE, but that's beside my immediate question)

My own reading level isn't quite where I'd like it to be, but I feel like I shouldn't be confused trying to read about a topic I'm familiar with. Is there possibly a WP or MOS page I can look through regarding this? LaffyTaffer (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer: About the article you described, I think there's no need for those words because easier more common ones would be just as good. I would be inclined to edit them out (probably while simplifying a few other things along the way).

Whoever famously said something like "... as simple as possible – but not simpler", I tend to agree with them. I think we should never "dumb down" a TOPIC, but I think, keeping that in mind, we should keep our WORDS reasonably simple. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. When I get time, I'll see about replacing the words to ones simple enough for someone like me to understand haha LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

LaffyTaffer, you may find Wikipedia:Writing better articles to be well worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

After looking closer at that content, there's enough odd writing and plain inaccuracies to game rules that I started wondering if might have been AI generated. I'm gonna try doing a big rewrite, which will be a big enough edit that I'm intimidated. But I'm sure this essay is going to be a great starting point to help me out. Thank you so much!!! ❤️ LaffyTaffer (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers it was Einstein, probably: [5]. I was surprised - I expected to find it in Strunk and White. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why. To me, Strunk and White is valuable (if at all) only for some little quotations like that, that hit on something important. Mostly, there are enough books better than theirs that they hardly merit a look. The way they ignore their own advice is instructive. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, LaffyTaffer, that unreferenced content was written by an editor with little experience who has not edited since 2017. Cullen328 (talk)

My opinion: 8th grade level. Not only because our target audience includes 8th-graders, but because many high school graduates read at (what the "experts" call) 8th grade level. Of course there are web-based tools to tell you the reading level for a body of text, so it's not hard to do. It's our mission to inform, not to improve reading skills skills, and not to show how smart Wikipedia is. Wouldn't it be great if there was a site-wide consensus on this? One can dream. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Edited 07:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, some articles could get away with a lower level, and if they can then they should. There are certainly articles that might require a higher level than you're suggesting, but I think they should do so because they can't get by with less, not because they're free to do more. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In theory, a "site-wide consensus" could make provisions for sensible variances, without being overly complex or uselessly vague. Speaking more practically, I doubt the community could withstand the shock. And consensus would become hopelessly mired in debate about the sensible variances. variances. Before you could sneeze, it would be overly complex or uselessly vague. (Moral: We are limited by our model of decision-making—this is but one example.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Edited 08:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As for the 8th grade reading level, that style belongs on the Simple English Wikipedia, in my view. My personal metric is the reading level of a high school senior getting better than average grades. But this "reading level" issue is topic specific. Except for the opening sentence or two, we should not expect the same reading level in an article about a pop culture topic as in articles about advanced topics in subatomic physics, biochemistry or advanced mathematics. To name a few. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're relegating half of our readers to Simple English Wikipedia (to their embarrassment), but there is no easy way to know. If I had the energy, I'd do a deeper dive into the literature, which no doubt exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, if the reading level of our articles about our most searched topics was too high, then social media would be flooded with complaints like "Wows thet weekipoudua article were 2 kompleekated!!!", and yet for years, we remain the #7 website in traffic and #1 by far in originally written educational content. We have ten plus billion pageviews each month. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You assume that people care to admit publicly that Wikipedia is 2 kompleekated for them—even under the "anonymity" of the internet. The stats tell us there is nothing better available for free. They don't tell us how much the average reader is actually comprehending. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, "kompleekated" refers to things like word and sentence length in this context. Has nothing to do with the difficulty of the ideas being conveyed, and everything to do with how they are conveyed. Most subjects can be conveyed with simple, Trumanesque language, and the rest could be accommodated under "sensible variances". In theory. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer I don't think that anyone has yet pointed you to WP:TECHNICAL which is the established guidance that answers your original question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for, all of the resources provided as well as the above discussion have been tremendously helpful. Much appreciated. LaffyTaffer (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten the description of Blades in the Dark in order to be more readable and accurate to the rules of the game, doing my best to keep the discussion and resources here in mind. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to ask for feedback here, but this is the largest edit I've ever made, and with my inexperience I'm worried I may have made some critical mistakes. LaffyTaffer (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry about images (logos from student competitions)

In the case of creating/editing articles about student competitions or the like, which have an official logo, but don't have an exact regulamentation to use it, how do I safely add the logo in the article? I'm asking this as I included a logo in Draft:Olimpíada Nacional de Ciências, mistakingly labeling it as "Own work" in order to add the image to the page. I might've transgressed some image rule on Wikimedia Commons, so I would appreciate if someone could help! G4B-XD-3l (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the olympiad doesn't present any license for logo usage, but neither any logo copyright, leaving to assume that the logo can be used freely. Just want to confirm

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@G4B-XD-3l: When they don't clearly say it's free to use, and license information is not posted, that means it is not free.

The copyright law is written so that it is basically impossible for anyone to give up their rights by accident or default. (The law even makes things inconvenient for someone who WANTS to give up their rights!) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I'll remove the logo to prevent any problems. Thanks for the info

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is best, for now. But you might want to explore the rules more carefully, when you have time; there may be reasons why this use is OK and can be put back up. I am not an images expert. I just know that when copyright is the issue, be very cautious, and assume that nothing is OK to use – until you really know.

WP:LOGOS is one important place to look. It may have much better news than what I gave. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@G4B-XD-3l: Just hoping you see this; I don't want you to think removing it was the final answer. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I kept it removed as I'm not acquainted entirely with the rules yet, and I haven't read the page you suggested yet. I'll check it out whenever I have enough time. Thanks for the help

G4B-XD-3l (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Clearing my talk page

So I want to clear my talk page, just a generic purge of discussions that are now long irrelevant. The thing is, I can't figure out how to clear it. How do I clear it? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Best practice is to archive things. Help:Archiving (plain and simple) explains the simplest way. Help:Archiving a talk page has more details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You can simply just delete all of the text on your talk page, though archiving is much more preferred as recommended above. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Plot for movies

are there any rules for writing the plot for wikipedia movie articles? Do we describe the movie in full or just the basic outline? Random8999 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Full is great, outline is fine. MOS:PLOT has more information (but very dense). Don't forget to tell us the ending! Many editors try to avoid "spoilers", but one of the most helpful things a wikipedia article can provide about a work is its full plot, since most other websites only carry a teaser-style synopsis. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, a few overenthusiastic people start tending toward too much detail when explaining plots. I know it's only because they love their topic (or they have a thing for detail), but ... A non-passionate telling of the plot often works better. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The guideline calling for a plot summary of 400 to 700 words is excellent advice. As TooManyFingers points out, a "passionate" plot summary is inappropriate because of the core content policy of the Neutral point of view. The plot summary of an a acclaimed film that won many Oscars should be written in the same emotionless "just the facts" style as the plot summary of a clunker that flopped at the box office and was panned by the critics. Concentrate only on the plot when writing plot summaries and ignore reception by fans and critics in that particular section. There are other sections of the article that discuss reception and acclaim. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with validity of sources and notability?

Myself and a team of others are currently trying to get a page published for Nasser Bin Ghaith, an imprisoned human rights activist. Our helpful mentor has raised the issue of human rights organisations and the possibility that they aren't valid as sources as they may appear biased. These are international organisations that do work with governments. Should these sources be stricken or is it worth attempting to publish?

Our mentor also raised questions on notability, in that a lot of sources are passing mentions and not explicitly and exclusively discussing Dr. Bin Ghaith. He has appeared in mentions in numerous international news publications, as well as United Nations and Human Rights Council discussions, as well as government documents. I would argue that part of the notability issue is that due to the United Arab Emirates governments history of censorship and undisclosed legal sources, he may not come up near as much publicly. I would make the case that this page would contribute to his notability, free of the influence of government. There are also others within the same trials he was tried on that have their own Wikipedia pages.

Any help clearing up these issues would be greatly appreciated.

Regards UndergradSolidarity4AcademicFreedom (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nasser Bin Ghaith Al Marri -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the skill to answer all of this properly, but I can say one thing: EVERY source is biased, and "biased" does not mean "lying".

I hope that people with experience and intelligence better than mine will respond soon with more useful information, and I hope the people governing UAE learn fairness and compassion. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see other stuff exists; these other articles(what you term "pages") could also be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. We cannot invent sources that do not exist- if government censorship prevents their from being sources, we can do nothing about that- you would need to pressure the UAE to allow a free press/free speech(yes, I know that's not an easy task). You have submitted the draft for review, a volunteer will eventually review it.

If you're working with a team of editors, you will want to make that clear on your user pages, to avoid accusations of sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

UndergradSolidarity4AcademicFreedom, when you write Myself and a team of others, that makes experienced Wikipedia editors immediately concerned. A Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only, and team use of a Wikipedia account is forbidden. It could possibly be acceptable if every person on the team had their own separate Wikipedia account and openly disclosed their membership in that team. I see no other team accounts editing that draft. And your Right great wrongs style of username also raises concern. Your username is problematic and you should change it. As for your statement that this page would contribute to his notability, free of the influence of government, that idealistic statement indicates that you do not yet understand how Wikipedia actually works. Wikipedia articles do not contribute to notability. Instead, they neutrally describe topics that are already notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about copyright and images

Guten morgen. I apologise if this is not the right place, but I come here to ask about images about copyrighted characters. I notice that in the English Wikipedia, fair use is used much more liberally than in other languages--for instance, see the image used for Homer Simpson on here, vs the image used on Spanish Wikipedia [Homer Simpson]. That is to say, I want to know how copyright would work on Wikipedia regarding [6]this image I've made (Image description: Construction paper cutout of Kenny from South Park). I was hoping to upload it as an alternative, much like how Spanish Wikipedia uses graffiti images to represent characters, but I'm not sure how it would all go down. I saw one guideline against fan art of copyrighted characters, and the entire point of the fair use images here is to represent ideas where no free use alternative exists, but considering how Spanish Wikipedia has their graffiti images I want to know about how it works. Thank you. WeInTheUSA (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

WeInTheUSA, your question actually raises a number of questions. One is of the copyright status of the Homer Simpson photo you point to. Its uploader says that it's their "own work", but it's not clear from this whether the painting too is their own work. (I think that we can assume that the comic character the painting is based on is not their own work.) "Common sense" may say that we don't have to worry about such niceties because the photo's hosting at Commons (and its use in articles) demonstrates that its copyright status is OK. Wrong, as files hosted by Commons are often removed because of belatedly realized copyright problems. Maybe it's OK on Commons (imaginably it's a freedom-of-panorama matter), maybe not; the best place to ask is c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Let's suppose for a moment that there are no copyright concerns (and for reasons other than freedom of panorama). We could infer that your picture of Kenny from South Park would also raise no copyright concerns. Then a question would be: Does en:Wikipedia want comic characters to be illustrated by people's imitations of authentic representations of those characters? (I have no idea.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Username COI

Out of curiosity, if I were to try editing the Sirocco article, would that trigger a Conflict of Interest bot flag because of my username? I don't plan on adding anything to articles titled "Sirocco", this question is purely out of interest and me not wanting to test it for fear of being slapped by a bot. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The wind is not a person, so really you're fine. But could there be an error like this? Honestly I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you were instead "Scirocco745", and you were spotted augmenting/debasing the article Volkswagen Scirocco with material about, let's say, some company's eco-friendly, economical, and generally amazing opportunities for electrifying these old cars, you might expect some attention. -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough! If that were the case, I definitely wouldn't blame the bot hehe. Thanks for answering my silly question! Sirocco745 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Who governs the censorship in Wikipedia?

Is there a body which fact checks and censors the articles? If yes, then how do they prevent biases from emerging? Ibditaafsan (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ut oh. <covers head> ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Firstly, see WP:Not censored.

Articles are either Drafted and submitted for assessment, or created directly and then (nearly always) assessed by the New Pages Patrol before being made visible to search engine webcrawlers. In either case, they are checked to confirm that they are properly corroborated by citations referencing Reliable sources that verify the facts they contain.

The assessors will also decline (pending satisfactory improvements) drafts that show obvious bias or imbalance (or anything else contrary to Wikipedia's principles and policies), but even after acceptance, articles are subject to perpetual further improvement, and anyone who reads and edits Wikipedia (and about 100,000 different individuals edit every month) can both point out an article's deficiencies and/or actively edit it to improve it. Hope this sheds some light. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is unavoidable for there to be bias. Here are a couple of interesting essays about bias on Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Systemic bias
• User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

Some bias is a good thing. It's also a good thing to have an open mind, but not open to the point where your brain falls out. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a very interesting quote. I'll have to remember that one. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

When people ask about bias, they are often implicitly sure that "bias" is a universally-agreed-upon topic, and that preventing it ought therefore to be primarily a matter of responsible administration and policy application.

But "bias" has more than one relevant meaning in this context, those meanings are difficult to untangle, and I think one of the biggest obstacles to dealing effectively with bias on Wikipedia is the amount and intensity of hand-waving that ensues when people who are "very certain" of the issue discover that their certainty is merely superficial, that correct answers are much less evident than they thought, and they hunt for ways to revert to the simplistic idea they were sure of yesterday. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty unpromising sign that the OP's first edit is this question, and their other edit bluelinking their username. Folly Mox (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Well ... I was going to say "maybe that's not a sign of anything", but yeah it probably is. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No Stash Content

Please how do I resolve this

No stashed content found for 0/01640d0f-7511-11ef-bda1-cde2bc2321fe

I am trying to publish an article ISAAC CARES (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ISAAC CARES, and welcome to the Teahouse. That message is a technical message (nothing to do with the content of what you are writing), and usually means that you have left an editing session open for too long before saving. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Copypaste the wikicode of the page or section you're editing (you will probably need to switch to the source editor) into an external app on your device, then start a new editing session on the page you are working on and paste the saved content over the existing content. This will allow you to save your work.

To avoid this problem in the future, commit ("Publish") your edits more frequently. I try for a twenty minute time limit before saving, but any less than two hours is pretty unlikely to lose the content stashed serverside. Folly Mox (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

number of lakes in bangalore

reliable research papers Amitprasad123456 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Amitprasad, and welcome to the Teahouse. This place is for getting help with editing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions.

Unless you can find the answer in our article Bangalore, I suggest asking at the Humanities section of the Reference Desk. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding more citations and removing a maintenance template

Hello, I created an article, after some helpful advice from the community and further edits/citations it was in review status and then after several weeks it was published.

Recently I got notification that the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations.

I have found another potential citation which I can add.

Should I remove the maintenance template or not? My understanding is that only a user without conflict of interest should remove. Therefore as I wrote the article and have updated I do have a COI and thus I should NOT remove the template.

Have I understood correctly? MotionMogul123 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@MotionMogul123 The article Eurospares was accepted through artciles for creation on 13 September, so I find it a bit odd that another new page reviewer User:MaxnaCarta marked it with having problems of notability. Maybe they would like to reconsider, after your recent addition of another source. You are correct that in view of your COI, you should not yourself remove the tag. Strictly speaking as a declared WP:PAID editor you should only make very limited changes to the article now it is in mainspace (see WP:ASFAQ), and add most new material via edit requests on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to you for the clarification and for the observation @Michael D. Turnbull. I will consider the addition via the Talk Page. MotionMogul123 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@MotionMogul123: I'd like to clarify something, just in case: COI is not because you wrote or updated the article. COI is because of who you know and who you work for. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input @TooManyFingers, that is helpful and understood. MotionMogul123 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

to formate a quote

Hello, fellow-wikipedians, as i don't add quotes often, i do have a small problem with formatting... i can formate it like this {{blockquote |text=Each stroke of paint, each thickened line<br /> Slashes the sky in a sudden design<br /> That shatters us on the inside<br /><br /> Is it the path to holiness<br />Is it the math, the map to bliss<br />Is it the pulse of the galaxies<br />Or is it the song that sings in me? |author=Amy Antin |source=Song ‘’Ivo Ringe’’ in the album ‘’The First Song in the Morning’’, 2020 }} - but i would like to add the source more precisely: {{cite book |last=Antin |first=Amy |publisher=Werner Meyer |title=Ivo Ringe. In: First Song of the Morning: Lyrics and Intros |place=Husum |date=2022 |isbn=978-3-87062-354-8 |page=141}}</ref>}} - and how would i do this???

I know that there must be a way, i just don't know: HOW :-) Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig I think that the template {{Poem quote}} does what you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mike, this looks great, but i still need a way to give the reference... normally i would write "Amy Antin: Song Ivo Ringe in "First Song in the Morning", 2020" - but then the reference to the book is missing still. Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig: Does one of the templates mentioned at WP:CITET look suitable for this situation? (Scroll down to see the details of what's in them and how they work.)

Or, you might find a similarly complex citation already done by someone else, and copy their format. I guess there's no guarantee that they've done it right, but it would be better than nothing. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this link. I remember that i already had this problem once, it seems that the English wikipedia doesn't stress as much as the German wikipedia to not only give the poem, but also a detailed source of it as a reference. Will have to "bastel" a bit to hopefully get all together :-). Will have a also detailed look at your link. Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've heard that the English one has more rules and is stricter. This might be just because the English one has received more articles and has more often been a target for garbage. Or because of some kind of "rules culture" on here. I agree with almost all the rules that I'm aware of and I wouldn't want to throw them out, but for every rule I learn it seems like there are a hundred more waiting to eat my brain. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I include a hyperlink to the copyrighted image as an inline citation?

If a paragraph requires a figure to clarify its meaning, but I found no suitable free images to add to the article due to copyright restrictions, can I include a hyperlink to the copyrighted image as an inline citation for readers to access the image directly and enhance their understanding of the content?

Can I make something like this inline citation? PecMo (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi PecMo, and thanks for your work on biomedical topics. Generally, yes. If an image is published by a reliable source, and if the image is the best part of the source to cite for a given bit of article content, go for it. I would cite it differently, by specifying the journal article using Template:Cite journal and using the at= parameter to specify the figure number. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Copyrights § Linking to copyrighted works. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Not sure what they are looking for.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2024) This biographical article is written like a résumé. (June 2024) Dehmling (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It would help to know which article you are referring to, but that is a standard message and it will contain blue links that will lead you to further explanations. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Primary sources" means "people with firsthand knowledge". Please try to erase all material that comes from "someone who really knows", and replace it with what third parties have said.

"Like a résumé" means "listing every accomplishment, especially those no one cares about". Please cut back the list of accomplishments to just the essential few. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dehmling: Maybe the best way to know which of the subject's accomplishments should stay in the article is to only keep the ones that have already been mentioned in third-party source.

Wikipedia editors with limited experience often decide to show every good thing their subject has ever done, hoping that this will count as "evidence" that the subject should have a Wikipedia article. But it doesn't count. Recognition from reliable third-party sources is (nearly) all that counts. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Dehmling and welcome to the Teahouse.

You also asked this question under a help template on your user talk page, where, at least, you gave the additional context that you are asking about Chuck Douglas.

That maintenance message or 'tag' has not simply 'popped up'. It was placed by another editor some months ago. As these other helpers have explained, the tag is asking editors to help improve the article by supplying additional references - it currently has a lot of material without footnotes - and by changing the writing style, as it currently reads too much like a CV or resume. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft submission

Something very strange happened. When I was just reading my draft, I realized that the submission button disappeared. What to do? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt if a submission button is really needed today ...

Is it true that reference number 1 is a book that he wrote? A book by the subject of the article is generally a poor reference, except in the little parts of the article where that book is being discussed. How would the article be affected if reference number 1 was removed, and replaced with references from third parties? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Its is about the Mizo language (book is Ṭawng Un Hrilhfiahna, roughly translated to elderly language) though the author did not write his life story in it, the publisher did. so, its not an autobiography. you can think of it like a publisher's note. I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please link the draft you're asking about. Draft:Lusei has been submitted for review. RudolfRed (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry – I didn't think to check for more articles. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

its another one Draft:James Dokhuma I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Does it make sense that we can't use things that he wrote himself (and not by his relatives or friends either)? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers The main task for new editors writing drafts is to understand the notability guidelines, which is why most drafts are declined. This means (roughly) providing three cited sources which meet the golden rules. Once a biographical draft has such sources and is likely to be accepted as notable, then it can be expanded using WP:ABOUTSELF sources and, for example, a listing of selected publications. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The draft in question (the last time I saw it) relied almost exclusively on one book, apparently authored by the subject. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Child Star 2024 Demi Lovato

Child Star (film) is like no other film article I have ever read. The main section is Promotion. There seems to be an excess of superlative adjectives, and indirect sentences. It does not seem "encyclopedic". Would someone take a look and steer the the article in a better direction? 69.181.17.113 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It can be tough to steer an article in a good direction, if there are determined efforts to steer it not-so-good at the same time. Conflict is tricky; fights are bad for Wikipedia, even if I'm fighting for the right things.

If an editor is really going over the line, bullying and refusing to listen, sometimes something has to be done about it. Very often it turns out that editors on both sides of such an issue are somewhat guilty. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The best place by far to discuss these issues is Talk:Child Star (film) where promotional concerns are not even mentioned. The current version does not seem excessively promotional to me, except for that section heading. What is lacking is how movie critics assess the film. The concept is fascinating. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the following writing technique merit being displayed on Wikipedia?

Writing a Sentence in Idea Units

Writing each of a sentence's idea units on a new line lets people write perfect sentences because it lets them organize each sentence's parts by writing each of its idea units on a new line. Each sentence contains at least one idea unit, comprised of one to about ten words. The left column shows the sentence’s idea units. The number in parenthesis specifies the number of words the idea unit has.

IDEA UNITS

In the order you think of them, (7) using the shortest, simplest, and fewest words (7) write each idea unit (4) on a new line, (4) one idea unit under the other, (6) then reorder them. (3)

If you think that an idea unit (7) might work better elsewhere, (4) move it there. (3)

Keep re-ordering the idea units (5) till the sentence says (4) exactly what you want it to say (7) in the exact way you want to say it. (9)

Delete all unnecessary words. (4)

_______________________________________________

The above technique may or may not be new. It is from a book titled "Write Talking". The technique helps me easily write and perfect sentences. It is worth including it in "Wikipedia". Thanks!

2604:2000:6FC0:4:3161:7469:3434:D60C (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, this is pretty good writing advice, but Wikipedia isn't really a place to discuss writing advice. Though you will find that there are many essays about writing, hiding in the User: and Wikipedia: sections of the project. If you decide to stick around and make an account, you may want to make some reference to this technique in an essay like that yourself. But because wikipedia is not a hosting service, if that's all you write on the project, it will probably be deleted. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The URL for the Amazon.com page where "Write Talking" is displayed is https://a.co/d/a10Esyv. Writing is easy (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My answer is yes, IP, this is the wrong place, and sorry, but I don't think there is a right place for it on WP. Your text here isn't very well written, so it seems you haven't applied it to your own writing. Carlstak (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. May I trouble you to please point out the defects you spotted? Writing is easy (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Right off the bat you tell your readers it's the "most fascinating way to write". You should show your readers how something is interesting and not tell them it's "fascinating", which doesn't actually impart any information. Saying it's the "most fascinating" is presumptuous and only compounds the literary offense. I shouldn't have to tell you what's wrong with "but new to Wikipedia, am I mistaken...", but it doesn't even make sense, and you omitted the necessary question mark. Carlstak (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What matters is that you are following the writing guide on Wikipedia and that whatever you are writing on follow the notability guide as per WP:Notable and that they are sourced using reliable independent reference. Tesleemah (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Writing is easy (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

How to use ChatGPT to overcome dead sites?

less a question than an answer -- I discovered a very useful prompt that follows the form of "Can you tell me where the MassGIS libraries went after decommission of their original site?" I believe this could be useful for other users. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Alas, ChatGPT's answers cannot be relied upon. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(and one of the reasons is that while they are sometimes true, they are often ridiculously false, and there is no reliable way to tell the difference.) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, but in this case it's obviously easy to verify if what ChatGPT said is true/useful: just go to the site it gives you. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're having a hard time looking something up, sure, why not. You can't put ChatGPT into an article, but it might help find a lost item. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hans Bergel: Is it Notable?

Hans Bergel is an historian, and three pages refer to a non-existent page, called Hans Bergel.

I was asking if it would be notable enough to create a separate Wikipedia page for Hans Bergel or need to leave it

[7] This is the page. Kavya79 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kavya79: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like all other articles, Bergel would require sources that satisfy Wikipedia's golden rule to establish wikinotability. You may wish to draft an article if you're thinking of taking on this endeavour. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As you will know, Kavya79, he has a substantial, referenced article in the Romanian Wikipedia, and there are many substantial-looking hits on him from googling: I'd have been very surprised if he doesn't qualify as notable by en.Wikipedia standards.

However, I notice that the Draft you have submitted, though referenced, has many paragraphs without any citations. It may be that you are applying a single citation to multiple paragraphs at a time, but I suggest that you need instead to make more numerous cites, each supporting one or two sentences at most. It's quite usual to cite the same work multiple times, specifying a particular page each time: Help:References and page numbers shows how to do this. Good luck!{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about the Main Page

Hello, I have a question about the Main Page, but cannot ask on its Talk page, so I hope this is the right place to ask instead.

Here's my question. The Main Page contains the following snippet near the very end:

{{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow}}||}}

What is this for? No matter whether the check succeeds or not, this does (transcludes) nothing. Surely it was put there for a reason, however. Stúlkan (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Stúlkan, welcome to the Teahouse. It does transclude Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow to perform the #if check. Nothing is displayed but the transclusion has other effects. Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow has a "View source" tab instead of Edit. If you click it then you get a message that the page is cascade-protected. All pages transcluded on Main Page are automatically part of this cascade protection. The main purpose is to ensure that only administrators can edit content which affects the main page but the code extends this protection to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

nævis (SMCU) receiving a Wikipedia page

Just so you know, nævis, digital character from the SM Culture Universe has her very own single song named "Done" meaning that she needs a Wikipedia page for people needing info. Can I do this? Jacketpedia (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jacketpedia No. But you may want to edit on this wiki instead. -- asilvering (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sports Stats sub pages

Hello! I'm a huge fan of sports Stats and I created an account mainly because I believe that's my area of expertise. Many many many moons ago when I was younger I used to edit some Wikipedia pages and certainly wasn't as into Stats as I am now. I know Wikipedia has certain standards for notability so I was wondering if it would be possible for more obscure stuff to use my User page for some fun Stats information. I've seen people create subpages using their user page and I want to learn how to do that and also think that would be a good way for me to practice things like learning how to make tables and such. If this is stuff that would be better served for not being on Wikipedia I completely understand too lol GoingToTheDisco (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Consider practice at your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GoingToTheDisco: Whatever you put on your userpage or any subpages in your userspace is going to need to be in accordance with Wikipedia:User pages for it to avoid being removed/deleted. Users are generally given a bit a leeway when it comes to what's allowed, but userpages aren't owned by users and egregious violations of WP:UPNO often end up tagged for speedy deletion (sometimes quickly). -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes understood! I think the sandbox idea sounds like a better option after further review lol. Or even a sports blog xD. Thank you for the suggestions!! GoingToTheDisco (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

​The sandbox idea is fine for messing around with tables and experimenting on how to use them in articles, but it wouldn't be appropriate for simply creating an page of sports stats just for fun or which has no value to the project as a whole. Something like that could end up being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

IPA rejection

- /mnwtth/

- /skiˈd/

- /b/

- auu'u'uu'ugh 2405:9800:B931:68C:C911:E5FD:699D:6EE3 (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly: It's good that these bits of garbage were rejected as pronunciations. "Pronunciations" of random things that aren't pronounceable in English are intentionally not recognized. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with illegal site promotion

I've gone ahead and reverted stuff on main space but i'm fairly sure that Special:Contributions/Conraldjake should be IP banned, info nuked from the site, and info forwarded to relevant authorities due to promoting a pretty clearly illegal mercantile site, if anyone wants to forward this to where ever relevant? Akaibu (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I see their user talk is blank. Have you tried warning them first? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 this, I believe, is clearly a user not here to build(and is in fact a Dread Pirate Roberts type) and that admin action is needed, not being a case of biting a newbie; I've seen these kinds of promotional drive bys for other stuff of this nature on other places on the internet(the telegram link on the site sharing the same name as the user is another clue from my experience) Akaibu (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If confident in your assessment, you are free to ask WP:AIV for help. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Seeing innapopriate external links, I'll usually leave a 4im warning (not assuming good faith here) the first time and report them straight to AIV if it continues. You can also skip the warning if you believe it is needed. win8x (talking | spying) 14:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding images from an External site with unclear licensing terms

I'm refering to the Wikipedia Article "Burunga Massacre"

So I've taken note of the fact that no "proper" images ie. visual of the massacre is available on Wikipedia. I'd like to add some as there are some images on Google parsed from different sites. If I take an Article from India Today it does have the images I want but does not make its lisencing terms clear. It would be of much help if you could help in my efforts to document this massacre. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

For images, "unclear licensing" means "no". The only way you could use those images is with proof of written permission from the publisher of India Today. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if one could use it under 'fair use' since this is a massacre we are talking about and things are sensitive. If you could review it personally it be a great help. Thanks. 😊 Caesarian Cobol (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Finding out that the licensing is unclear IS a personal review. Using news images without clear licensing is definitely illegal. Wikipedia is not the place for "getting the word out". TooManyFingers (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Alan Watt - New World Order, Dissector of the

Hi, Everyone: Seeing how helpful it is to know the facts Alan Watt, a New World Order reseacher and author wrote or spoke in about 100 radio interviews available on his website, "though he was not (covered; mentioned) in the mainstream media or other sources (mainstream media really being a hotbed of mostly lies), I am certain a page on Alan Watt would help improve Wikipedia. We had some discussions with Wikipedia editors who insisted he had to have been covered by reliable sources, and I pointed out that because his research findings confirmed that the mainstream media is a hotbed of mostly lies, and society, with all due respect, is, if you dissect it, fraudulent, he stayed away from society. He was a recluse. He died in 2021.

The good news is that reading Wikipedia's page on IGNORE ALL RULES, (I guess that title means "sometimes"), I believe we have found the logic(al) basis to proceed with the creation of an Alan Watt - "Dissector of the New World Order" page.

His website is CuttingThroughTheMatrix.com

Please comment to see if enough editors agree that his extremely helpful findings that help people who take the time to find things out (which might be about 5% or less of the population) know what is really going on, would help improve Wikipedia and help them live better.

Thanks, Writing is Easy (Author of "Write Talking" https://a.co/d/a10Esyv)

WIKIPEDIA SAYS: Use common sense "WP:COMMON" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:COMMON (disambiguation). Shortcuts WP:UCS WP:COMMON WP:SENSE WP:COMMONSENSE Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't reference a bunch of shortcut links to official policies. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. Writing is easy (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Writing is easy You have already been given reasons not to proceed with an article at WP:Teahouse#Alan Watt (author, radio commentator). Your proposal to ignore not only the "rules" but the advice is unlikely to sway opinion. Among other problems, if there are no pubished sources, you would be forced into original research (i.e. your personal opinions), which have no place in Wikipedia. At best, you could try to write and publish his biography elsewhere in a reliable source, which could then be the basis of an article here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a minimal start at Draft:Alan Watt page biography. If you can find references, continue. If not, not. Interviews do not count. Your other effort (Draft:Bedroom Ventilation) has been declined for lack of references and for being in essay style. David notMD (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't common sense suggest that without reliable sources about a person we don't have any information about that person to include in an article? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's true what you say about "mainstream media really being a hotbed of mostly lies", then Wikipedia is probably not where your work belongs, and probably not where you belong either. If you create an article about Alan Watt, other people are going to add all of the mainstream media opinions they can find into that article, and you will be powerless to stop that from happening. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You have submitted two drafts to AfC without references. Please do no do this again, as just a waste of reviewers' time. David notMD (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What does "AfC" mean? Writing is easy (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles for creation (see link) is the process that new editors must use to draft and seek approval for their work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Turnbull. Writing is easy (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft Rejection

Hey guys, for about a year I’ve been trying to publish Draft:Cayden Brown. I keep getting a notice saying that the publications and citations aren’t up to par. Someone please help Brownjustice (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Brownjustice. Are you Cayden Brown? If so, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Your draft has severe problems with the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Examples of unacceptable language include His work in this position garnered significant attention due to his unbroken series of courtroom victories and Brown seeks to educate and empower young people to seize positions of power within their communities and Cayden Brown is a powerful speaker who has addressed some of the world’s most respected platforms and His boldness in addressing critical issues has earned him global recognition as a leading figure in child rights advocacy and Cayden Brown identifies as a Black man of faith and He is active on social media, where he shares insights about his work and advocacy efforts. Many assertions in the draft are unreferenced, violating another core content policy, Verifiability. The draft resembles a promotional brochure as opposed to a neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh that’s actually really helpful. I’m not Cayden but he posted on Twitter that he wanted a page so I’m trying to help get him one. I took that language from his website bio so that makes sense why it’s not neutral Brownjustice (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As well as being promotional, the text from his website is subject to copyright and can't be copy-pasted into a Wikipedia article without permission. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Brownjustice, when I scrolled to the bottom of that website, I saw the copyright symbol. It is both a violation of Wikipedia's Copyright violations policy and real world copyright law to add massive quantities of copyrighted material to Wikipedia. I am sorry but I will have to delete the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t directly copy and paste it. I was just using the same style is what I meant Brownjustice (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Large parts were copy-pasted word-for-word. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that "not up to par" is not how they described it... What did they actually say was the problem? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit said “Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.” even though I cited major publications Brownjustice (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Draft:Cayden Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Brownjustice A few things immediately strike me about your draft. 1) Brown is a powerful speaker.....He also graced the cover of The Michigan Chronicle’s September 2023 issue. The citations don't say anything about his power or his grace, so that's peacock wording that is against Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. 2) Large portions are uncited, which is against the biography of living people policy. 3) There are external links from the body text, which are not allowed (see WP:ELPOINTS). Brown may well be wikinotable but your draft needs a lot more work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! I just edited the draft to have much more neutrality but would you mind elaborating on points 2 and 3? I’m having trouble knowing exactly what to cite because the only feedback I got prior to this was to include more publications Brownjustice (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deleted for copyright infringement (subjects webpage). If you intend to start over, do not copy or close paraphrase anything. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That sucks because I worked to rephrase it and didn’t violate the rule. Do I have to start all over?

How do I find someone who knows how to do it correctly? Brownjustice (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Like many newcomers to Wikipedia, you have decided to start by writing a whole new article, rather than learning the ropes first. Try contributing on other articles that cover areas you are interested in for a while, then read the good advice at this essay and especially the detailed policy for biographies. Long-time editors here know that the chances of newcomers writing acceptable full articles straight off is about 1 in 100. Don't let that put you off: there are many ways to contribute here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that advice. I honestly only came here to help Cayden Brown because he should already have a page but it’s too much to learn for one. Can you point me who to ask who can properly write one? Brownjustice (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Brownjustice, I see no evidence that Brown has attended law school or passed the Michigan bar exam. He participates in a teen diversion plan that calls its volunteers "attorneys" in quotation marks. He is not an actual attorney and Wikipedia will never say that he is, unless the State Bar of Michigan says he is. Cullen328 (talk)\

All attorneys in Michigan are required by law to be members of that state bar association. I just checked their website. There is no member named Cayden Brown. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Like you said, it’s within the diversion program Brownjustice (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

He is NOT AN ATTORNEY but your draft said he was. Cullen328 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

“…in the 52-1 teen court diversion program.” As does every publication outline. In future drafts I’ll however be sure to never leave “attorney” standing alone but always place it within context of what the program allows for the teen volunteers Brownjustice (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If an online publication calls him an attorney, that calls into question the reliability of that source, Brownjustice. Cullen328 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot going on here. The Cayden Brown here appears to go by thecaydenbrown on Twitter and styles himself as a 17-year-old who works as a "teen juvenile defense attorney." Following the actual links that mention him, that's not an actual attorney job, but as a participant in a peer court for at-risk teenagers in which he acts as an "attorney" on trials for other teenagers as an intervention program. His request for someone to make a Wikipedia page was back in January, in response which someone gave him a link to firm he could hire to write his Wikipedia page, for which he thanked the responder. A lot of the references on his website seem to be exaggerated; the first two referenced I checked did not reference him.

Honestly, if this editor is, in good faith, representing Brown as a lawyer with an "unbroken series of courtroom victories," I would have serious questions about them creating this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You’re great at research. You must’ve missed the recent WXYZ interview where Cayden was interviewed IN the courtroom where he argues cases with the Judge that presides over his cases affirming all of that: https://www.wxyz.com/news/voices/meet-the-local-teen-making-waves-in-the-legal-world-who-also-spoke-at-the-un Brownjustice (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Interviews don't really count, because it's Cayden doing the talking. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Very false. Watch it before commenting! This is sad… we have a young kid here doing amazing things and he’s being discounted before any true research is done Brownjustice (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's explanations of what notability is, before you say "very false". TooManyFingers (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

While it's correct to WP:AGF where possible, the fact that you're responding in this manner to an analysis of notabilty and sourcing which you asked about is causing me to increasingly doubt that you do not have a connection in some way with Brown beyond simply seeing an eight-month-old tweet and wishing to help him out. That he's doing things for a good cause is not relevant here; notability is not a reward for good works. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(Interviews do count for settling whether he said something, but not for whether he's notable.) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Brownjustice, if you are being paid to write an article, then you must comply with the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. The conflict of interest disclosure is not sufficient. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey he didn’t pay me. I was just trying to do something nice but it seems like there’s more to this so I probably won’t try again Brownjustice (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Brownjustice: As Michael D. Turnbull pointed out, creating a new article from scratch is something that new editors are gently discouraged from doing from the start. We suggest spending a few months making edits to existing articles, learning what is and isn't considered a source that establishes wikinotability, and reading good and featured articles of a similar topic to the one you wish to write—in this case an article that happens to be a biography of a living person.
You should also be aware that if an article about Brown does manage to be accepted, neither he nor his proponents will have any control over the article, and if sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia report something negative about him, it will not be scrubbed. Consider that an article about him isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

YouTube Videos

Hi, I was wondering whether YouTube videos (or vlogs on other virtual platforms) are eligible to be cited as references when writing an entry. Thank you! DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DemirWikiTR34. If the video has been uploaded to YouTube by a professional news organisation then the answer is likely yes, but many videos on there are self-published and therefore not usable outside of very specific circumstances. See WP:RSPYT and WP:SELFPUB for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry. I understand it. Some videos on YouTube are not reliable, I very agree. But there are some videos, which publishe by independent people but their credibility can be seen arguable. It makes things harder. There is no problem to find references for the entries which are more well-known in media but there are some new things which can be written as an entry but there are very few resources about them. In this case, Wikipedia prefers waiting. This is understandable but a bir barrier for expanding the knowledge range. (For instance, I am in a difficulty to find many references about the Antarctic Film Festival which isn't known very widened. There are a few of YouTube reels talking about the details of the festival. But all are from ordinary users.) Anyway, thank you for your time and efforts for me. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right that "Wikipedia prefers waiting". On that, you might be interested to read WP:LAGGING. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Disturbing anonymous users

Hi, Some(maybe one person) with IP 2405:201:A415:2930:A82C:6A8D:6F7B:2C2B has been continuously editing ESPN World Fame 100 without citing. I assume, the user is trying to replace some other name who is not featured there. Kindly, protect this page.. since, this article has no future events to include on it. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 18:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto You need to alert the admins at WP:AIV. Note that you are also expected to warn the IP on their Talk Page first. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The user is temporarily blocked, I saw. Now, no need to take more action.... —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Beginning with this diff, two editors have added a term ("white-supremacist") to a page's short description without citing a source.

Talk page discussion is here.

What's the best way to proceed?

ClifV (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

ClifV, the best way to proceed is to stop objecting to a white supremacist group being called white supremacist. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to anyone calling anything by any term, but am under the impression that WP:BURDEN applies as much to that page (the short description, in this case) as it does to any other.

ClifV (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV There are literally FOUR citations in the first sentence of the article supporting that statement!

What more do you expect?

(We don't add citations to short descriptions - that's why they're called 'short descriptions') Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed those sources, as you can see on the talk page, and none of them describe MDE as white supremacist. The lede of the article also does not use the term*.
EDIT: *as applied to the subject
ClifV (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV In that case (and I've not looked at the citations given, or others used in that article), your issue is less with the short description than the wording of the lead. I suggest you focus on that, as you do indeed appear to be doing. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Help for 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence

In 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence, some statements of individuas have been added. As a result, approximately 40-45% of the words match with the 3 websites. Will this be considered a copyright violation? TheNeutrality (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheNeutrality: Which individuals made these statements? Which websites have been copied? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If statements are properly attributed (they're in quotation marks and have a footnote to the source), it's usually fine. You don't want to make really really big blockquotes, but a couple of sentences is ok. Whether it's a good idea to use quotes is a different question. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Potential advertisement - can anyone tag?

I believe the article Lycée International de Londres Winston Churchill reads like an advertisement, but I am unsure if I can tag it, not having many edits. Can I or do you have to be more experienced? SillySarah321 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@SillySarah321 The main problem with that article is that it cites no sources and I assume that the main source has been the website of the school. You can certainly add extra tags if appropriate: there is no qualification required. The worst that might happen is that someone else would revert your edit, or object to what is called "drive-by tagging" (see WP:TAGGING). Also, it would be helpful to explain on the Talk Page exactly what you think is wrong (or even try to fix it) but without suitable sources, fixing will be difficult. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up, SillySarah321 (and good to see you here again!). Rather than tagging the article, I've rewritten it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

How to classify stub-class articles after expansion?

Hi! Quick question, once you've expanded on a stub article, should you remove the stub template and the category assessment on the talk page or should you leave it until someone else is able to independently assess the updated article's quality? WP:DESTUB seems to indicate that you should remove both, but I'm not entirely clear on that. If so, should you remove the tag/category assessment without replacing it with anything or should you just place it in, for example, the Start class? Spookyaki (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Spookyaki The guidance at WP:ASSESS is useful in deciding what rating to give an article and the advice is to be bold, certainly up to C class. WP:RATER can be useful if you are not experienced with rating articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, but would this apply to an article that consists primarily of expansions to a stub that I myself made? In other words, am I allowed to assess my own contributions? Spookyaki (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the guidance at WP:ASSESS says Generally speaking, all editors, including editors who have written or improved an article, are encouraged to boldly set any quality rating. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Thanks! Spookyaki (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Spookyaki, I routinely reassess stubs to start when the article has been expanded. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

How can we save our work without updating?

How can we save our work while continuing to edit, without refreshing or updating the entire page, especially when translating a page from English to Turkish? (Because I can't finish my translation sometimes and need to continue later on.) Thank you in advance for your help. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DemirWikiTR34, when you are working on a draft, you can hit the blue "Publish changes" button as frequently as you want. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: Welcome to the Teahouse. As Cullen328 noted; the Publish changes button should be understood to mean "save and publish changes". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What I will typically do if I'm working on a longer section that would take multiple sessions to complete is copy the text over to my sandbox (see H:SAND) and just publish changes there until it's ready to be published on the actual page I'm editing. Not sure if that's common practice, though. Spookyaki (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Spookyaki, that is common practice and you can have multiple sandboxes for various topics if you want. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)