Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


About Submission : Indu Prabha Award[edit]

Indu Prabha Award is a new award instituted, by a charitable trust registered in Mumbai, it is an independent small effort to promote habit of writing, reading and generating interest in Hindi language. It is a currently at a nano level and no support from any govt or any body. Hence currently there are no independent reference. It is an effort without any paid reviews or media coverage. Its information available on wikipedia should not be based on coverage in other sources. Is it not better to have a pure information to reach out to more people? Healjoy (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Healjoy: Is it not better to have a pure information to reach out to more people? No.
Wikipedia is not for promotion. This includes both basic advertisement ("buy product X now! (paid for by company Y)"), but also more noble / disinterested / NGO-type work.
Wikipedia has somewhat objective criteria of WP:GNG for determining which topics have enough useful sourcing to write something about them. If those criteria were relaxed to substitute the judgement of editors about which causes are worthy of promotion, all hell would break loose. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Healjoy, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Healjoy In addition to all of that, information in Wikipedia must be verifiable (click here). If there are no reliable published sources, there is nothing that a reader can verify against. And that's not acceptable. Hence the need for sources. David10244 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resubmission of Article[edit]

Hello Wikipedians!

I drafted an article - Draft:Tanya Abraham which has been declined twice. At this point, I've added as many references as I can. I wanted your opinion on whether the article has potential or should I just give up on it?

Full disclosure- I am a volunteer at the NGO she runs and am not paid for this. Rainbownautinspace (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rainbownautinspace, your draft wasn't declined because it needed more references, but because it needed better references, ones which help to establish that the subject is notable by being to reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of her. Which three of the references you've supplied, in your opinion, best do this? Maproom (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For all - Rainbow has declared COI on USer page. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Rainbow - Maproom is asking for you to identify the three 'best' references here, so that Teahouse hosts can give an opinion as to whether those are sufficient to substantiate an article. This should be useful before you revise and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD @Maproom
I think these reliable sources mention the subject well-
[1]
[2]
[3]
Also I thank you all your guidance! I really want to be a good wiki editor, all your feedback is deeply appreciated. Rainbownautinspace (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All three of those sources are based on what the subject has said, and so are not independent. You need to find some reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of her. Maproom (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Refs 10, 11 and 12 only mention her by name as having curated the exhibit. This is not enough to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafting an Article[edit]

Hello people.

I would like to begin writing an article about the book God is my Co-Pilot by GEN Robert L Scott, Jr.. Would the book count as a reputable source in itself, or would I need additional sources, such as reviews from when the book was published (1943)?


Thanks, A1139530 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A1139530: Hello A11! The book would not count as its own reputable source as it would be considered a primary source. You would need to find additional source in order to actually prove the book's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if the original source material is considered a primary source, what would be? I ask because the book was written in 1943 and was a bestseller, which inspired the film of the same name, but as its 1943 original material and reviews and other sources may be harder to find. Thanks- A1139530 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530, you're correct that they may be hard to find, but those reviews are what you'll probably need to prove notability. See WP:NBOOK. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530: You might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Help:Your first article. Note that the sources you use (such as reviews) do not have to be online. GoingBatty (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) @A1139530: According to WP:BOOKCRIT, a book is presumed to be notable if it "has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture ...", so the book is probably notable; but that doesn't obviate the need for secondary sources. Reviews from the time may be rather difficult to find, but finding them shouldn't be impossible. If you track down published reviews or other sources about the book but don't have access to them, the folks at WP:REX may be able to help you. Deor (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530 "if the original source material is considered a primary source, what would be". That's a bit confusing. To perhaps clarify, the original source material, along with anything written by or said by the subject of an article, is considered a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Reviews and articles about the subject (not by the subject) are secondary sources, which are preferred. David10244 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530 This source [4] may be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, A1139530. The New York Times reviewed the book on July 25, 1943. The title is "A Fighting Georgian; GOD IS MY CO-PILOT. By Col. Robert L. Scott Jr. Illustrated by photographs. 277 pp. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. $2.50." The author was Frank S. Adams. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A1139530 I did a search at Google Books, and was able to look at numerous page of a book that may be useful to you. Go to: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Double_Ace/yYt_CwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22God+is+my+Co-pilot%22&printsec=frontcover And click on "Next" at the top of the page to see sections of Double Ace: The Life of Robert Lee Scott, Jr., Pilot, Hero, and Teller ofTall Tales, Saint Martin’s Publishing Group, 2016 (Use the page numbers that are useful to you for giving information on the book.) I hope this helps. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi[edit]

I’m new here any tips on editing

Many thanks, David DavidTDC3377 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest you take a look at WP:TIPS ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DavidTDC3377 Also check out Help:Introduction Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 02:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much DavidTDC3377 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if there was a list of everything[edit]

like, every article that'd be cool 97.70.254.63 (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and every single thing that exists or every other wiki also i don't know how to use htmls so how would you make an artivcle 97.70.254.63 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:NOTDATABASE.Sungodtemple (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are looking for a list of all Wikipedia articles, see Special:AllPages. You can also use the Wikipedia API to get a list of all articles. Sungodtemple (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You want a list of all 6.5 million articles in the English Wikipeoda? David10244 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am trying to make an article about veri peri but i am having issues[edit]

i am trying to make an article about veri peri the colour but i have 2 problems 1. i cant make an correct infobox with a colour box and 2.i am kind of having trouble finding ompletely reputable sources (other than pantone) and integrating them Abdullah raji (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very Peri
 
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet#6667AB
sRGBB (r, g, b)(102, 103, 171)
HSV (h, s, v)(239°, 40%, 67%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)(46, 56, 265°)
SourcePantone
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:VERI PERI | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library

hi @Abdullah raji and welcome to the teahouse! funny, I just added the very peri theme into my microsoft edge a few whiles ago! it's a good color anyway, perhaps check out the news articles by clicking in Find sources above to get sources? I'm just gonna note however, that as far as I know, apart from the more common colors and ones more known as minerals (Cerulean, Turquoise, Emerald, and Rose Quartz), no CotY has gotten a separate article yet, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, it'll just be hard. for the infobox, the code would be the following:
{{Infobox color
| title = Very Peri
| hex = 6667AB
| source = [[Pantone]]}}
...which would produce the infobox to the right. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thenk you veri much *veri peri joke inserted Abdullah raji (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ive done those steps but how do i add the color on the top Abdullah raji (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abdullah raji: your template had the hash in the web code, which didn't allow the color to be added, which I've fixed. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks Abdullah raji (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing a lot of text[edit]

Hi there. I'm working on doing a peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Logic/archive2

As part of the review I did a gentle re-write of the lead section; I want to share this with the requesting editor, but without altering the article yet. I'm going to block quote it, but it's a lot of text - does this belong in the review itself, or in the article's talk page, or does it not matter? Thank you! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and put it into the review, guessing it can be moved if that's wrong. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 10:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GuineaPigC77 You could ask @Phlsph7 directly but it is usually best to keep everything in one place, so in this case presumably on the Peer review page. You could always use the template {{collapse}} to place large blocks of text in with the option not to have them always on view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, glad to know, and thank you for the template! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 10:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move to Article space[edit]

I would like to move my article Draft:Nier: Automata (TV series) but the name was taken as a redirect. How can i overwrite the empty redirect? WillsEdtior777 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, WillsEdtior, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some people advocate a copy and paste (see copying within Wikipedia for how to handle the attribution). I think it is prefereble to ask an admin to move the draft: see WP:RM. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't it possible to remove the redirect? As i renamed the redirect and it caused this issue in the first place. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WillsEdtior777: Please don't move it to mainspace at this point. The draft doesn't show that the TV series is notable, and at least three of the four sources are non-independent and primary. Have a look at the general notability guideline to see what is required. Moving a draft that doesn't meet that guideline will very likely result in its being nominated for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add to the article soon. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bonadea, @WillsEdtior777 Bonadea: The article is in article space, even though you asked the OP not to move it there. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OP didn't move it; Link20XX was the one who removed all the content and inserted a redirect to Nier: Automata Ver1.1a that was created by Unnamelessness. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I redirected the page because I noticed that another user had created a mainspace article for it. While it is bad practice to create a page when a draft already exists for it, there is no policy against it, so I figured merging and redirecting was the best course of action. Link20XX (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xtools page for each editor[edit]

I've just discovered this page and been amazed at all the data Wikipedia collects on us editors. One thing I don't understand, however: are we being graded on our contributions? Some of the pages I've edited are marked "Starting," others have the letter B, and still others have the letter C.

I wish there'd been an explanation of what this means, perhaps just as a link taking us somewhere for a fuller explanation.


Augnablik (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Augnablik, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you are referring to the article quality grading, which can be found at WP:Content assessment. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yesllo, Augnablik. No, we are not "graded" on our contributions. As Jolly says, articles are generally graded, but the majority of articles have been worked on by multiple editors, so it would make no sense to ascribe the grading of an article to its editors. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, even when you are the only contributor, it has no bearing on your standing in the community. Tons of editors only create start- or C-class articles, and they're as important to our content-creation ecosystem as the ones who create good or featured articles. Often, the first group gets the ball rolling for the second group. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copypaste Issues[edit]

Hi,

I tagged Tweed Valley Hospital for copypaste but found the other copyright instructions confusing. Other than adding the tag with the link is there anything else I was supposed to do?

Carver1889 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think {{db-copyvio}} should do the trick. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just marked as WP:G11. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble with Cluebot III[edit]

I added Cluebot III to my talk page to archive discussions, but I did something wrong and it's archived discussions into a "January 2022" subpage (which includes May 2021 to Jan 2022 messages) and a "1" subpage. It's been like this for a while now and I haven't got round to asking about it. Is anyone able to tell me what I've done wrong, and if I can retrospectively fix (re-name) sub-pages? Or am I doomed to forever have a slightly annoyingly-incoherent archive list? Many thanks! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 14:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Unexpectedlydian, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want numbered archives then you fixed the archive instructions in [5]. You are free to move your archives around. If you use cut-and-paste then note the attribution requirement at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Name[edit]

I was a professional musician back in the 1970's and 80's - My stage name was Catfish Roy Mann. I performed at Gerdes Folk City in NYC. I was trying to add my name to the list of performers at Gerdes. I added my name but when I tried to create a profile page here on Wikipedia, they suggested not using my real name. So instead I created a profile page as "Catfish Roy". But when I click on my name on Gerdes List no page is referenced. How can I fix this? Catfish Roy (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Catfish Roy. I'm afraid you missed the fact Wikipedia is not means of promotion in general, and specifically it's not a place for self-promotion. --CiaPan (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm....look at Gerdes Folk City page - there is a list of about 100 musicians listed who played there. Catfish Roy (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usernames are not tied to article names in the sence that having a username which matches an article name doesn't grant oneself any sort of extra previleges or control of that article. Also, creating a user account here does not automatically create an article with the same name. Having a username that is the same as one's real name is discouraged as that means everybody can view what you are doing. This reasoning is also futher expanded in WP:REALWORLD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Catfish Roy: If you believe you meet any of the inclusion criteria described in WP:MUSICBIO, you can try your hand at writing an article, provided you write it as a draft and submit it for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for guidance. The list to which you tried to add your name is not an indiscriminate list; it is a list of links to other Wikipedia articles (and not links to user account pages). ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Catfish Roy (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Catfish Roy WP has its own, different terminology. When you said you tried to create a "profile page", technically you were trying to create a Wikipedia account. Your "user page" is not a profile like social media; its purpose is to tell others about you as a wikipedia editor. And, as mentioned, any user (with any account name) can edit (almost) any article in Wikipedia, as long as the editing guidelines are followed. David10244 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you David Catfish Roy (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this relationship be mentioned?[edit]

Hi, could I have some help assessing if mentioning a relationship is notable enough to include? I've edited the page of louise verneuil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Verneuil , including adding sources that reference her relationship with Alex turner. This section has been deleted by an IP editor. Looking back on the pages edit history I can see that editors have gone back and forth quite a lot on mentioning the relationship. I'd appreciate if a more experienced editor could chip in. Thanks Dontgiveupthedayjob (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dontgiveupthedayjob - I'm sure the regular volunteers here will advise on edit-warring and taking it to the article Talk page, but I wanted to shew how you got it wrong in the last edit, using your own interpretation of the article: "She has been in a relationship with the musician Alex Turner since 2018.". The article 'says' nothing of the sort, only that when written in December 2018 they'd had dates. It's very important in any Wikipedia article, but particularly a biography of a living person, to only write what's supported by the published source.--Rocknrollmancer (talk)
Hi Rocknrollmancer Thanks for your reply and help. I hadn't written that part of the article, but had added those two sources as it was previously unsourced. I can see how those sources don't properly support what was written though now. Would it be appropriate to write anything about the relationship if most available sources are discussing them dating rather than explicitly discussing a relationship? Thank you! Dontgiveupthedayjob (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Dontgiveupthedayjob - my bad for not trawling though the changes. I had guessed that aspect was why the Scandinavian IP removed it. If it's been reported upon then that should be adequate, providing it's termed sympathetically. Wikipedia is not censored.--Rocknrollmancer (talk)

Translation contributions for Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

I just came across a banner for the Wikimedia Foundation which read "We usually invite the world to create the sum of all human knowledge. Now we're inviting the world to create the sound of all human knowledge" while I was reading a Wikipedia article on Zager and Evans, and it provided a link for translation contributions. I guess this is for the recent "Sound of All Human Knowledge" contest. I am fluent in Dutch and am willing to contribute (I have already translated the above quote into Dutch) but was not sure how to contribute. When I clicked on the 'help to translate' link, the page it took me to wouldn't actually allow me to submit my translation.

I'll go ahead and provide my translation here:

Normaal gesproken nodigen we de hele wereld uit om de som van alle kennis die de mensheid bezit te creëren. Nu is de hele wereld uitgenodigd om het geluid dat komt uit alle kennis die de mensheid bezit te creëren. 173.80.41.189 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@173: You can submit a translation here. You'll need an account, although I'm pretty sure the wording you describe only shows up on the banner for logged-in users, so I assume you have one already. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been so long since I logged in here that I don't remember my username or password. 173.80.41.189 (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case you are welcome to create a new account. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replace a redirect with an article[edit]

I'd like to at some point replace current redirect Specialty Coffee Association with Draft:Specialty Coffee Association - how do I go about doing that? JackDunnCodes (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JackDunnCodes and welcome to the Teahouse.
The move on top of the redirect will be performed by the reviewer when your draft is accepted.
It looks like your draft has not done enough work to establish notability for the organization. Please read through the notability criteria that apply to organizations to see what you need to do. Once you think you've done all you can, it will be time to submit your draft for review. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipage[edit]

There is a WIKIPEDIA page about me, and there is some inaccurate information, I want to change it. Specially where my picture is. I did not create it.How do I change the information Krislichri (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to be about Kristina Lilley. On the one hand, you should not edit the article directly. On the other hand, children should not be named, so that was valid. The article can mention the name of your ex-husband as long as that information is referenced. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krislichri: I have partially reverted your edit, because you blanked out information that was cited to a source and left information that is cited to no sources at all, in violation of the the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Wikipedia only reports information found published in public sources. If the information reported in the cited source is incorrect, you need to contact the source to get them to correct it.
Because you have a conflict of interest about yoruself, you must refrain from making any substantive changes to the article except to correct spelling and grammar, remove obvious vandalism, and add citations to additional sources that are independent of you. Anything more substantive you should propose on Talk:Kristina Lilley.
The picture of you is being shown because that is what we have available. We cannot publish copyrighted images unless the copyright holder has released it to the Wikimedia Foundation under an acceptable free license. If you have a picture you want to upload, the photograppher (who owns the copyright) may upload it to https://commons.wikimedia.org/ while at the same time following the directions at WP:CONSENT. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The information is not accurate, and they mentioned the name of my children, plus the information under the picture is outdated. So , it is a biography about a living person ( which is me), and some information is not accurate. Is there a way to write to you privately, and I can explain??? Krislichri (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krislichri: Unfortunately, Wikipedia's accuracy depends on the sources' accuracy. If they're reporting inaccurate things about you that's something you have to take up with them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krislichri: Please re-read my previous response to you. It explains exactly what you can to to proceed. Basically, propose changes on the article's talk page, find better sources, and get a new photograph uploaded that can be released by the photographer under an acceptable license. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complete Wiki profile[edit]

Hi team,

Pease help me to complete a profile of wiki.

Thanks & Regards, Susheel Sharma 2405:201:401A:9098:801:3F99:F32B:1F3E (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia does not have "profiles". It has encyclopedia articles about notable topics. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural note, Cullen328 probbably meant to link to WP:GNG. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Corrected. Cullen328 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...additionally, if you're going to write a profile (biography) about yourself, don't. Please check out Autobiography for why not, as well as reasons why you may not want one here in the first place. happy reading & editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dachau Liberation reprisals[edit]

hiya, there are a few depictions of when U.S. soldiers shot concentration camp guards after liberating Dachau in various forms of media, for example in the film Shutter Island. i noticed there was no section for this on the events page, which i assumed was missing due to the subject matter itself or that no one had made a list yet. would it be appropriate for me to add this? Omsk346 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Omsk346. IN my opinion, it would not be appropriate to add such instances unless they had been discussed in secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omsk346, we already have an article on this topic. See Dachau liberation reprisals. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but lists of depictions of a person or event in popular culture are common on wikipedia. its also alluded to in band of brothers. Omsk346 (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omsk346, such lists should only include items which have been discussed in secondary sources (ideally with citations to those discussions), as mentioned above - see WP:POPCULTURE. Many folks come along and include items which do not qualify; feel free to remove them when you see them 97.113.27.216 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category[edit]

Hi Teahouse,

Please how do I create a category? Thank you so much. Afternoon Daydream (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Afternoon Daydream. Please read Wikipedia: Categorization#Creating category pages. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Afternoon Daydream (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whimsical wikis[edit]

TO whoever this might concern, I am a Nonwikipedian and I heard the Wikipedians created pages on a whim that exist only for their own sake. These pages interest me, is there a category specifically for them? Thank you. Sincerely, a curious netizen.  71.233.148.84 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi ip user and welcome to the teahouse! the closest we have to joke pages are stuff archived in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, the April Fools deletion discussions, and other stuff at Category:Wikipedia humor, although none of these are formal articles. there is also Unusual articles, a list of weird formal articles although ones that do exist (not just made on a whim). happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP user, also note that for new users creating pages there is a review process called Articles for creation. For all new articles, (created by both new users who passed the AfC process as well as more experienced users creating articles) there is another group of reviewers called the New pages patrol. Whew, that's big mouthful :) Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might enjoy reading about the Zhemao hoaxes. Shantavira|feed me 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HM Late Queen Edit[edit]

Please give suggestion whether this picture can be used instead the old one. File:Elizabeth II opens Welsh Parliament in 2021 (cropped 2).jpg Him9 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @Him9 and welcome to the teahouse! if I recall correctly, the image in Elizabeth II is set to an older formal photo that shows her during her younger years as queen, which would highlight her better than a photo where she is older. there's a lengthy discussion at the talk page, and while it's archived, the talk page isn't really accepting more requests to change the image again since this RfC is huge and recent. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a Tarantino version of encyclopedia[edit]

The simple English wikipedia has a page about it, but this one only has a redirect page about it. Is that normal?

Keeping it to professional stuff...

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:6C18:F1D7:8800:5D5A (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "A Tarantino version of encyclopedia", but yes, it is normal for different editions of Wikipedia not to contain articles on the same subjects (and if they do, for the articles to be very different): each edition is entirely independent from the others, and may have different policies, as well as different editors.
Having said that, editors are encouraged to translate articles from one edition to another, provided the subject meets the criteria set by the target edition, and the attributions required by the licensing are met. See WP:Translation. ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the page that the IP is referring to is Tarantino Wikipedia. The article on this Wikipedia is currently a redirect to List of Wikipedias. To the IP user: As what ColinFine has said, it is normal for a subject to have an article on one Wikipedia, but not on the other. Jolly1253 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have Tarantino dialect, though. Cullen328 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Simple English Wikipedia has 219,000 articles and the English Wikipedia has 6,555,000 so the opposite is much more common but they are free to create their own articles and they may have other notability rules or practices. I don't know statistics but I had to click "Show any page" 18 times at simple: to find one without English listed under "In other languages". It was simple:Margaret Hutton and we do have a Margaret Hutton but it's another woman. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what simple:Tarantino Wikipedia is written in, but it doesn't seem to be in English, simple or otherwise. Looks like a very bad machine translation. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article publishing[edit]

Hello, I prepared a new article called Bruno Samper, but it was rejected. Who can help me to update the article that it could be published for wikipedia. JaninaBZ (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JaninaBZ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Bruno Samper was declined, not rejected, which means that you are free to work on improving it and resubmit it.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Please specify at least three of your 36 references which are each all three of 1) Reliably published (which excludes iMDB and probably FWA), 2) independent of Samper (which excludes anything based on an interview or a press release, as well as publications by insitutions or conferences he attended), and 3) containing Significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing question[edit]

How to put sources into the editing, as I have to update the current events of my client. I dont want wikipedia to remove my edits for the future how I can improve my work here. Lakshaykk (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lakshaykk Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, if you are editing for a client, the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, please see WP:PAID for instructions. Please also read conflict of interest; you should avoid directly editing about your client, but you may make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page.331dot (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Team, thanks for reaching out. Would you help me out how exactly I can disclose the who is my employer or client who is paying me, where Do i have to mention all of these things Lakshaykk (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Lakshaykk. It is all explained in the link WP:PAID that 331dot gave you. I have tagged Antara Nandy for several problems. Please read your first article carefully to understand what these are about. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine Shouldn't Antara_Nandy be moved (back) to draft? David10244 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you wish. A quick glance failed to produce any suitable sources, so I think it's probably more efficient to go straight to AFD. But I haven't taken the time to do WP:BEFORE so far.
I observe that Lakshaykk has still not made the mandatory declaration, and has edited the article again, adding more unreferenced information, with, again, a misleading edit summary and claim of minor edit. I may take this to WP:ANI later today. ColinFine (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct format for including unrendered wikitext in talk page posts?[edit]

Hi, I've been wondering what the "correct" way to include wikitext that isn't supposed in talk page posts is, perhaps for an edit request or similar.

Is <pre> and HTML escaping fine?

Responses appreciated! --Holzklöppel (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're asking what I think you are, you can wrap anything in <nowiki> ... </nowiki> (as it appears here, not the way I coded it to make it appear!). I usually like to wrap it in <code> ... as well, to make it obvious that it's code. ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks!
--Holzklöppel (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

untitled[edit]

What is problem alireza jadidi Wikipedia Javan81 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Javan81: i'm not sure what your question is. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight They are probably asking about Draft:Alireza Jadidi. The draft was declined for a total of six times, with the recent submission declined due to lack of inline citations. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question concerning a pattern of behavior of another editor[edit]

Hi!

I don't know that I would describe myself as a Wikipedia newbie, but I'm also no expert — that's why I'm here at the Teahouse.

Anyhow, I was reading an article and noticed that the tone sounded a bit off, so I used WikiBlame to search one of the more suspect phrases. When I found the editor who was responsible for the insertion, I noticed that they had edited a lot of articles on the topic, and that they were (at least in my opinion) of poor quality — either violating WP:CRYSTAL or WP:WORDS, flattening nuance, as well as just straight up removing information with no explanation, even at the repeated objection of various other editors.

I would reach out to this editor to have a one-on-one discussion on their talk page, but I've read their talk page activity elsewhere, and have found that (a) a lot of these issues have been discussed at length, more than once, with said editor, and (b) they don't seem to be receptive to feedback, if not being a bit acidic.

I would love some guidance as to the best way to proceed. I care about these articles (like we all do) and the scale of this editor's contributions is really wide — I don't feel confident in addressing them just by myself.

If any further information is needed on this page, just holler. LocalWonk (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @LocalWonk, I appreciate you bringing this to out attention. Two things: This first one is a holler! What's the username of this user? Also, please note if you think it's serious enough, you can lodge a report here, if you consider it vandalism. Also check out Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings, and what I think would be the most useful for you, Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism. If you need further information, just reply and I'll try to help you out. Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 18:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Urban Versis 32,
The username in question is Lmharding. I have compiled a list (including links to relevant diffs) organized by article of what I think constitutes a pattern of behavior, as well as evidence that any constructive criticism or concerns from other editors have been ignored. Is this the best place to put it?
As for the second thing, I'm trying to assume good faith, but I have my doubts. I'm not sure if it being vandalism so clear cut.
Really appreciate your quick response and being willing to help. LocalWonk (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on this, WP:ANI is probably the way to go. Madeline (part of me) 18:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right about the AGF; I agree with @Madeline after you shared this new information. Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 22:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find more sources[edit]

I wrote two articles about the history of Luxembourg Luxembourg Communist Revolution and the Luxembourg Rebellion but I am having trouble finding more information about the events. I have a basic understanding of both events but I want to expand the articles. What should I do? LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LuxembourgLover, how did you acquire your understanding of the events? If from books or other published sources, you could try to get access to those sources, and improve the articles using what they say. Maproom (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the sources do not have to be online, LuxembourgLover, as long as they are reliably published. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LuxembourgLover And if your understanding of the events is from personal knowledge that has been gained over time, and is not from specific, published, cite-able sources, then you can't use that information in the article (because you won't be able to cite it). David10244 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurtköy Pendik article[edit]

Hello, Kurtköy, Pendik page has a Turkish language and an English one, I want to link the English page to the Turkish page, how can it be? Gökhan Kağan (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I solved my problem, I no longer need help :) Gökhan Kağan (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

i was editing a whole page on my sandbox and I accidently lost it all, is there a way i can get those back please Imasadgirl (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless you committed the edit to Wikipedia's servers by clicking "Publish page", no. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Imasadgirl. If you click the "back" key repeatedly, you may be able to restore your work. Cullen328 (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Imasadgirl, edits that you have 'Published' will be visible from you 'contributions' link in the upper right section of a page when you are logged in. I see that you saved your sandbox once and then blanked it. In your contributions click on the date and time preceding when you blanked it. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Imasadgirl: Ariconte refers to edits in 2020 at Special:Contributions/Imasadgirl. Your account hasn't saved anything since then. If the back button in your browser doesn't help then I'm afraid any work since then is lost. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

source[edit]

so is a source with ".com" or ".net" reliable? 104.235.71.214 (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends entirely on the source itself. See wp:RS. David10244 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That depends which source it is. The mere fact that some outfit (or person) uses such a tld is no assurance of quality whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did a new Move Request Discussion but ended up in the same section[edit]

I used the code for a move discussion, but it seems to have pasted it in the same green box as the previous move discussion. It shows up as a new section in the talk page table of contents, but shows up underneath the 2017 move discussion. It appears automatically in the Current Discussions here, so I think the code worked, but I am making sure I put it in the right area, because I know these things can be auto closed if I didn't do it correctly.

For article on Nadezhda TolokonnikovaPathofkarma (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pathofkarma. It looks like you did it right. The error was made in 2017 when the old discussion wasn't closed correctly. I have fixed it.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, looks much better now. Pathofkarma (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sports people's personal lives[edit]

Is there a reason why most sports people, especially less-famous sports people, only have sports related information in their articles?

They rarely have information about things like:

  • Where they were raised
  • Where they were educated
  • Who their families are
  • What they're doing now after sport

Etc, like it does on articles about other famous non-sports people.

Famous sports people nearly always seem to have famous relatives in sport or elsewhere, as I've found out countless times over the years, yet they're rarely mentioned in their Wikipedia articles.

Recently I've been updating IMDB pages (with birth details, bios, external links, missing productions etc) for a screenwriter/producer and former actress, who is married to a playwright/screenwriter, who have a former actress/screenwriter and musician daughter (I'm not sure what she's doing now), who has 2 former Premier League footballers as half-uncles who are the half-brothers of her mum. The least famous of them (the daughter) has a Wikipedia article, with no references other than her own personal website (which went dead in 2016, just like her parents' websites, and is hard to find out what she's been doing since 2011), and 2 IMDB links to 2 films released before she were born for someone else with the same name.

And now I've just updated a short film written by and starring a small time actor whose nephew played a few games in the Premier League, but mainly played in the National League (division) and National League North.

The 3 footballers all have Wikipedia articles obviously, but as usual none of them mention their screenwriter/producer/playwright/actor relatives, not even the former child actress with a Wikipedia article (which needs references adding). Danstarr69 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danstarr69: articles in wikipedia are based on reliable sources, and those sources are more likely to write about their sport activities and not their screenwriter/producer/playwright/actor relatives. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I imagine that most articles written about modestly famous athletes were written by editors with a primary interest in that sport (cricket, football, etc.), and thus did not bother with information typical of biographies. (Conversely, we rarely see height and weight info for non-athletes.) As for mention of article-worthy parents, siblings, children or more distant relatives in a Personal life section, perhaps valid if those people excelled in the same general area (both athletes, both musicians), but I personally see little benefit for a mention that the relative of an athlete was an author, politician or actor. David notMD (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David notMD I do. Having famous relatives named in an article about a famous sportsperson, can help you find you find out even more interesting information about them.
Like that small time actor I mentioned earlier. I randomly found out he was the uncle of a former professional footballer, and in the next article I read about him I found out that his daughter is also an small time actor, with her biggest film/TV role so far being a character that appears in Coronation Street a couple of times a year (also she has an uncredited role in one of the biggest grossing films of all time). She'll no doubt get bigger film/TV roles in future going off her stage roles so far.
If or when his daughter becomes a mainstream film/TV actress, it'll be interesting to know that her dad is also an actor, and her cousin was a footballer. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Danstarr69: I think most people would agree that mentioning notable relative A on the page of person B is OK if (1) both A and B are notable (don’t assume someone is notable if they have an unsourced three-line stub, but don’t assume someone is not just because the article does not exist yet), and (2) the link between those persons is adequately sourced.
Now, let me preface further advice with the warning that I am very much anti-personal-info in articles, much more so than the average editor, and that advice does not reflect current interpretation of policy. I would like the guideline at WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE to be "do not write anything about non-notable people"; that is a possible interpretation of the text of that guideline but clearly not the one that is applied.
I advise not to put in Wikipedia information about non-notable persons, even if adequately sourced, by piggybacking on the article of another person. If you find a press clipping from a local newspaper in 1987 where notable person B talks about how his brother A is an up-and-coming actor, congratulations, you are a master source-sleuth. If you reproduce that information on one of the most well-read sites on the internet without caring that A might have become a janitor after failing in his acting career, you’re kind of a jerk. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, Tsk, tsk on name-calling. When does this get non-useful to an article about a person? A notable grandparent? great-grandparent? First cousin? See Barrymore family for extreme example, including spouses who were also in the acting biz. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe "jerk" is a strong word, but I maintain the general sentiment that an editor who considers only inside-Wikipedia guidelines while disregarding outside-Wikipedia repercussions is not a pleasant person.
I see your point, but I would rather have the distinction based on available sources rather than as a measure of genealogical proximity. Sources are a (somewhat) objective standard, family proximity is highly dependent on both personal and cultural context. How do you fit in godparents for instance? In my cultural sphere they are chosen as a token of friendship from the parents and have rather light and informal obligations towards the godchild (along the lines of "take them to the movies once a year"); in other places, being a godparent is a commitment to adopting the child should something happen to the parents.
Maybe you can send Barrymore family to AfD, but if someone picks up a source discussing the family (as a family rather than individual members) I am pretty sure it will stay. (I am not a fan either, but that’s how things are.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tigraan A master source-sleuth is exactly what I am.
I can find things which most people have forgotten about, or don't realise exist, through my various sources...
Mainly local newspaper archives, national film/TV archives, and The Wayback Machine/Archive Today to look at now dead websites/articles.
I've added and updated 1000s of things on IMDB which some people clearly want to forget about, but the difference between IMDB and Wikipedia, is that those things they want to forget about will never be removed from IMDB.
What type of things am I talking about? Mainly things like Short Films they made or starred in, early in their career, which they've since deleted or made private on their websites, social media profiles, CV's etc, as they're now embarrassed by those films which other people who worked on those films might be proud of.
That's why I don't announce what I'm doing to the people involved, even after I've updated them, as I always end up finding more related productions which need adding or updating.
In the last few days I've updated the cast and crew of a mainstream feature film where at least 75% of the cast and crew were missing (along with all the companies). I seriously doubt any of those people were embarrassed about working on that film, but they were missing nonetheless. I can't even remember how I got onto updating that film, other than it starred an actress/comedian who used a stage name, which was slightly different to her real name for the last few years of her life, yet was missing from her profile, along with some of her other film/TV credits which I've since added. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, if the article about an actor/director exists, I have zero qualms about adding parts of their filmography, even if those are embarrassing to them. My point was about information pertaining to non-notable relatives.
One might also argue that putting in stuff about notable persons but unrelated to their main activity is iffy. That is probably best handled on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, we certainly should not have a rule that being notable for X is a protection against items about Y. On the other hand, in the era of social media, "give me six tweets from the most honest man and I will find something embarrassing".
For instance, let’s assume an unlikely hypothetical where Nadia Murad had written bad Harry Potter fanfiction and tweeted a link to it in 2008 (when she was 15). I am pretty sure a mention about it in her article would be policy-compliant (WP:SPS), but personally, I would not put it in unless covered in depth by the mainstream press. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, with few exceptions, Wikipedia is not intended to be genealogy. David notMD (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Offline source[edit]

Can someone please explain me how to add offline sources in an article. I only have the pdf stored in my computer. I can't get the URL. How can I upload the pdf as a source. 202.164.130.27 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming it's a usable source per WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and what have you, see WP:OFFLINE. Cite it like you would an online source, but exclude the url. Fill in the cite-info you have, author, date, title, publisher, pagenumber etc etc. You can find info on how to add a reference correctly at WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. It may be a bit hard to get your head round in this internet age, but the fact is, for most sources, a URL or link is a conveinence to the reader, and not an essential part of the citation. What matters is that there is enougn information for the reader to evaluate the probable relevance and reliability (so author, title, date, publisher) and to find the source if they want to consult it (the same information, plus ISBN, DOI, URL etc).
If they can find the source only by going to a major library and ordering (and paying for) a copy, or by registering with a publisher or newspaper, that is acceptable.
If you have a PDF, the crucial thing to ask is, was this published by a reliable publisher? If so, you can cite it without the text being available online. If not, then you may not cite it, period. What you should not normally do is to try to upload the PDF somewhere. In many cases this would be a copyright violation anyway, and Wikipedia does not permit links to material which violates copyright. But even if there is no copyright issue, putting a PDF up on a random website is not publishing it reliably: how do we know that it is what you say it is? That it hasn't been altered? That's what the "reliable" bit in "reliable source" means: that the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating an autobiography[edit]

Hello Guys, Hope all is Good Can anyone assist me with a biography for Youssef Yassin. I have created an biography as he is a notable man and philanthropist in the Mena Region and well known and adore also. But actually this is my first time writing an article on wikipedia will really appreciate if anyone can assit,On how should i write the article and article layout. Thank you Husseinkyassin (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Husseinkyassin: read up on help:your first article. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Husseinkyassin You appear from the Draft:Youssef Yassin to be the brother of its subject. While it is not forbidden to write a draft where you have a conflict of interest, it is discouraged for the reasons mentioned at that link. Also, you have clearly included information which you know to be "true" because you are his brother but no-one can verify because you have not provided inline citations. Wikpedia has a strict policy for biographies of living people that all facts must be sourced: and to demonstrate that the person is notable in Wikipedia's meaning of that word these sources need to be reliable and independent. You currently have no sources at all of that type and the draft cannot be accepted until they are added. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
dear,
Thank you for the assist.That true as you mentions i'm his brother,In fact Youssef is notable In the Mena Region for his Donations and philanthropist and for his business he runs.So what i believe if i add independent and reliable Inline citations.it can be approved. Husseinkyassin (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not resubmit until all facts are either verified by independent references (not his website(s), interviews, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.) or else removed from the draft. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cát Bà Island is the largest of the 367 islands spanning 260 km2 (100 sq mi) that comprise the Cat Ba Archipelago, which makes up the southeastern edge of Lan Ha Bay in Northern Vietnam. Cat Ba island has a surface area of 285 km2 (110 sq mi)[clarification needed][edit]

The only clarification needed to the second sentence that might be appropriate is to state that the areas are stated to the closest one unit of area. 110.0000... square miles turn out to be 284.8987 square kilometers. Verifying that the area of Cat Ba is actually between 109.50000... and 110.4999999... square kilometers is a different issue to which I cannot contribute. The second sentence and the first one, however are in contradiction: it is impossible for the largest island of an archipelago (at 285 km2) to be larger than the 387 islands that comprise it (said to be 260 km2). The [clarification needed] is placed in a position that is confusing. You might consider giving the sources of the areas of the archipelago and of Cat Ba and pointing out the contradiction. Emilio Venezian (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emilio Venezian, when I look at Cát Bà Island on Google Earth, its area is less than 60 square miles. So that figure of 110 sq mi doesn't mean what it appears to mean. It is also incompatible with the statement at the start of the article, that the whole archipelago has an area of 100 sq mi. Maproom (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cass elliot[edit]

You state that cass elliot from the mamma's and pampas died in 1974 but at the Start of your article it reads she released her solo album in 1998 this must be an error 2001:8003:6C30:C200:AD1F:5EF0:131:9C04 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, what it says is Elliot released five solo albums. In 1998, she was posthumously.... If you do find any actual errors, feel free to be WP:BOLD and correct them (based on cited sources, of course.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft for review 'request for a decrease in protection' page[edit]

Hi, I have creating a draft page for Newgen Software which has been locked. Here is the draft. Please review it and decrease the protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neeshu30 @Malcolmxl5 Thanks Neeshu30 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neeshu30, you put it in your user page. Your user page is not a place for drafts. That matter aside, it's underreferenced and written in opaque corporate-advertising speak; so wherever you place it, it's not likely to be promoted to article status any time soon. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Neeshu, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks as if you have a (very common) misunderstanding about Wikipedia: the idea that Wikipedia is a platforn for Promotion (a.k.a. telling the world about something). Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that the world has already been told about, and not by the subject or its makers. In fact, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved it to Draft:Newgen Software Technologies Limited for now. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hudson &Rex actor Daniel Maslany Sept 25 episode[edit]

Did the above actor have a role this episode. 142.189.71.223 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please ask this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to write an article about someone I know[edit]

I recently met someone who I believe, as a public figure, is adequately noteworthy to have their own wikipedia page. I want to do it as I believe there should be more pages about powerful women on wikipedia.

Is this something I am allowed to do? Or is it breaking wiki rules? I have declared a CoI on my page.

The article would be about Dr. Zenna Hopson, the former Chairman of Ofsted, non-executive director on the board of the Royal Navy. She is also a regular contributor to Sky News and is on the board of several charities.

Thank you so much, I am so grateful for any help! AudraNoble1 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AudraNoble1: Hello Audra! Unfortunately you are wanting to do one of the hardest things to do when you first start editing Wikipedia which is creating an article. It is highly recommended you make smaller edits (such as grammar fixes, spelling fixes as long as it isn't changing between different variations of English, general copy edits) first before attempting to create an article.
If you insist on creating the article you must first determine if the person you are wanting to create an article on (in this case "Dr. Zenna Hopson") is notable according to Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and that all information in the article complies with Wikipedia's policy of biographies of living people. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AudraNoble1 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for declaring a COI. If you are compensated in any way by this person, you must also make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.
Wikipedia has articles, not pages. These articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability-such as the definition of a notable person. If you have such sources, and they are not press releases, announcements of routine activities, or otherwise related to the person, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for creation. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick Google of the name Zenna Hopson shows very few references which are WP:INDEPENDENT of her, unfortunately. You need to find about WP:THREE such sources to have any hope of getting a draft accepted. Focus on quality of sources, not quantity! Write-ups in newspapers that were not just based on interviews may be your best bet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Audra, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. As others have said, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks there is in editing Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia articles should be based on sources unconnected with the subject, it relies on finding such independent sources. Such sources are often harder to find for women than for men, and this systemic bias in news and publishing generally gets propagated in Wikipedia. There is a Project in Wikipedia devoted to redressing this imbalance, and you may find it useful to team up with other people from WP:WikiProject Women in Red. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI - Podcasts, interviews, press releases, social media, her publications, etc. can in some instances be references for information, but do not contribute to etablishing notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AudraNoble1: And you need to be aware that if you do succeed in getting such an article into Wikipedia, it won't be her own or their own or anybody else's own Wikipedia page. It will be an encyclopedia article about that person--an article that anybody at all will be able to edit. And then, if you/she/they do not like those edits, as long as they are relevant and well-supported by independent sources, there will be very little you/she/they can do about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question[edit]

can we start a bunch of different "clubs" or make wikiclubs that will basically be wikipedia chatrooms to talk about certain interests like science, star wars and tardigrades (please consider my suggestion) AkJackster (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what wut when AkJackster (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant like an actual chat room. AkJackster (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK, or a place to store content not related to the encyclopedia. That's just the way the project is intended, however there are of course many other places on the web to chat about fandoms and science. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, just wondering, thank you : ) AkJackster (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needing to delete an entire entry[edit]

Hi there! I need to delete my own entry and I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. HELP PLEASE! This was something that we did for a class, and Dr. Lightbown has contacted our professor and asked that we remove her article. I'd like to make sure that it's done properly without leaving any links back to her name. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patsy_M._Lightbown&action=edit RebeccaAndre (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link Patsy M. Lightbown. The topic appears to be notable and has been edited by assorted users, so it may not be easy to get it deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article was created in November 2020. You made substantial referenced additions in Nov and Dec 2020. The article exists, and is unlikely to be deleted. You could initiate an Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD) but in my opinon that would be declined. Subjects of articles have limited options for requestion deletion. As for your additions, you can delete those from the article, but as your references added at the time are valid, your efforts may be reverted by other editors. Your unreferenced content about her early years is already gone. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi @Rebecca! Wikipedia entries differ from social media profiles in that they are not owned by the subject, but rather by the encyclopedia. In other words, the entry on Lightbown isn't for her, but rather for our readers, and it'll only be deleted if that's what makes sense for our readers. We take the views of article subjects into consideration to a limited extent in some cases, but I have to agree with the above that it's not likely here. Wikipedia has a standard for when academics merit an article, and since Lightbown appears to clearly pass that standard, we seek to have an article on her (it likely would've been created by someone else sooner or later if it hadn't been by you).
Given that, it won't be possible to have the article deleted. However, I'm guessing there might be other reasons Lightbown contacted your professor about the article. If there are elements of it that Lightbown wishes to be changed, we'd be interested to know her perspective, although per above, we will only make changes if they comport with our policies, and she shouldn't edit the article directly herself. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your thorough answers. She had actually attempted to edit the article herself, but found that she could not, and was advised that only the creators could delete it (which I am one of them) and then reached out to my professor. There are some things that do need correction, and there are editing issues that Dr. Lightbown would prefer to see. We are not professional writers by any means, and maybe we could have benefited with some more strenuous editing, but yes. It is not meeting specific standards.
I am not sure how to go about this at this point. She clearly wants it removed, some information is incorrect, and the information that IS provided is not provided in a way that she feels comfortable with. Any advice from here would be great! RebeccaAndre (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RebeccaAndre, very few Wikipedians are professional writers, so no worries there — the beauty of the project is that collectively we're able to make improvements we could not have on our own. Lightbown is welcome to come to the Teahouse here and ask for changes. She can also go to the talk page of the article about her and make an edit request there. If she does that, she should be sure to identify herself and to add {{Request edit}} above her comments to make sure another editor will review them (it might take a bit). I hope that's helpful, and feel free to ask any other questions that come up! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RebeccaAndre If you feel more comfortable, deletion is a possibility, under this section here. You can nominate for deletion with the reason being the subject is relatively unknown and is requesting deletion. If there is no consensus to keep after the discussion, it can be closed and the article can be deleted. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for all of the options! RebeccaAndre (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]