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

Ongoing News Event: Casey White & Vicky White

Hi, I was wondering if the recent ongoing event of prison escape by criminal and maximum security prisoner Casey White, in which he's been helped by a corrections officer named Vicky White (no relation) would be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? The event has been widely covered by national and international news and thus far the pair have evaded being captured (in itself atypical), but at what point does that cross over to being considered notable by wiki standards?

Additionally, I assume if the answer is yes, the article would have to be about this event itself rather than either one of the people involved (tho Casey White was the perpetrator of a 2015 interstate crime spree and convicted of murder in 2022). What are the best practices and naming/titling conventions for something like that?

Coverage: NYTimes, CNN, Newsweek, CBS (national) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWhippet (talkcontribs) 02:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SleepyWhippet (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SleepyWhippet: Not something I've been following, but yes, if this does meet the notability criteria at NCRIME, the article should be about the event, not the people (see CRIME)). ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 02:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what would a possible title be for the potential wiki Article? SleepyWhippet (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepyWhippet As of now, a possible title could be "tragedy all around". Sigh... (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@I hear you.., very disturbing and sad. SleepyWhippet (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe start with “Prison escape of Casey White” and if someone thinks up a better title we can move it. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could have an article about C. White, due to his "interstate crime spree", and include a section on the jailbreak? DS (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tomoharu Ushida

Hi, recently my draft has been declined. I would like to ask anyone help me to make it better to meet a standard for official Wikipedia page. Thank you. Shalom777br (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalom777br – All I can say is: revise it to meet the general notability guideline, and, since it's a biography, WP:ANYBIO. Traditionally, it means that all statements should be covered with reliable, secondary sources. In addition, multiple outlets must cover it significantly. You may also want to use {{find general sources}} and read WP:BLP since the article is a biography. Thanks. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advise. By the way, do you want to write about Tomoharu Ushida instead of me, to delete my article and publish yours? Thank you for your attention. Shalom777br (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shalom777br Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would advise not to ask any specific editor to create an article. However, you can request one at requested biographies. Nobody may pick up your article, but there's a better chance than just asking somebody. Have a good day/night!
Asparagusus (interaction) 21:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice! I put my request at requested biographies by nacionality (Japan). Have a good day too. Shalom777br (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom777br, posting at requested biographies would almost certainly be a waste of your time. ("Requested articles" is a depressing sight, studded with proposed vanity articles.) Your draft looks promising. I haven't clicked on any of the links you provide in the references, but some of these look promising too. I imagine that much of the writing about Ushida uses bland/gushy terms such as "excellent", "precocious", "inspirational", "perceptive", etc; however, some music criticism goes beyond this, saying what it is that makes a performance excellent, inspirational, etc. See if you can find some intelligent, informative criticism of his playing, and try to summarize this criticism and add it to your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. How about this one?
Shalom777br (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been created in multiple other languages Tomoharu Ushida. I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be in Wikipedia. --Deansfa (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After having a closer look, are you the one who creates the article in each version of Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]. Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended. --Deansfa (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in other-language Wikipedias doesn't necessarily mean it meets the inclusion criteria for English Wikipedia. Zindor (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in 30 other languages has 99% chance to meet inclusion criteria here. Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here). --Deansfa (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa Why is that not recommended? Is there a WP policy or essay on that? Just wondering. (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa I am still curious. When you said "Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended" -- is there a policy or essay on this? Also when you say the article might be notable "Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here)". Why is that? I would like to learn. (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I.P, i can see two reasons why it wouldn't be ideal. If there are issues with the version on one wiki it will bring those problems to all the other language wikis it is published at. Secondly, some subjects are treated in more depth in other languages, so a major aspect of the subject could be missed because only one language's sources are used; this can actually result in people being offended. This is a bit of non-issue when it comes to notability however because assessing notability by looking at whether it is included in other languages is an unreliable method (and i'm not sure why Deansfa is extolling the virtues of it). It's best to just assess against our actual inclusion criteria. Zindor (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not recommended because it's obvious that it will be an automatic translation in some language. The article in French is totally garbage, the first sentence of the biography is not grammatically correct (no verb). The second sentence uses a tense we don't use for biographies, the other sentences have a strong flavor of automatic translation (weird expression, nonsense, etc). --Deansfa (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor Well, if there happen to be NO issues with one version on one wiki, that's a good thing!
@Deansfa And yes, automatic translation is always bad. I suppose very few people are actually fluent in many, many languages... but the policy is, or should be, geared toward "not using automatic translations" rather than "do not create the same article in many language Wikipedias". You made it sound like a real policy, and I hadn't seen one -- but I understand the potential issues. Thanks. (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add those "This user is" boxes to my user page?

I see many peoples pages having "this user is a *insert thing here* do-er. " or "This user supports *insert thing here*"

How can I do it? Is it hard to do it? Can only certain people do it? Smotoe (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smotoe, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Kpddg (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Smotoe, and welcome to the Teahouse! Anyone who would like to can add a userbox to their userpage. You just have to copy and paste the relevant code into your userpage. For instance, putting {{user en}} on your userpage produces the userbox that says a person is a native speaker of the English language. If you see a userbox you like, you can just copy the code for it to your userpage. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Smotoe (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perfect4th Is there a "generic" userbox template that takes a parameter for *insert thing here*, or does each thing you want to say require its own userbox to be created? From that page, it looks like each variation needs to be created separately. As a computer programmer, that just seems inefficient to me. (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IP user! As far as I'm aware, in general separate users have to be created seperately. The exceptions are those with numbered variants (such as those listed here) and those which use piped variables. These are a little more flexible; here's an example of one that accepts any input in its {{{1}}} variable. It is also technically possible, I believe, to specify what the input will display. I made this talk page message for fun for the World Cup; parameters {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} accept FIFA codes that display their respective country's flag. Similar principles can be applied to userboxes. Perfect4th (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perfect4th I see that example with the numbered parameters. If the static text said "This user", and the template had a parm, that would seem to take a lot of work out of using userboxes. Or, there could be no static text, and just a parm. Although, could that lead to "unacceptable" or out-of-policy userboxes? (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, a userbox with the text "This user {{{1}}}" would be fine. Figuring out how to vary the color/image would take a little more work with a couple more parameters, but I know of no reason it wouldn't be possible. Perfect4th (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who needs colors and images? (just kidding) (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic scholarship getting strangled

Is this normal? . . . There's this group of 3 editors who claim to have a consensus against me, that (by my characterization here:) I'm basically not allowed to use any Roman Catholic [RC] theological sources, even in an RC-specific article. Despite a week of conversation, they have, not just reworked, but totally rolled back all my edits over the last month ((1) here, (2) here, (3) here, & (4) here), #3 of which was made merely to satisfy them. In the meantime, Wikipedia, by its silence, thereby makes readers think that there is absolutely no basis for belief in the Immaculate Conception, before the Middle Ages, when this is radically not true, as my attempted (but removed) chart demonstrates. Against my Church Fathers [CFs] & medieval sources, . . .

  • They say (← Clickable) That anything before AD/CE 1900 is a primary, not secondary source, that WP articles should rely only on secondary sources, and that I can only include primary sources if I also include their definition of a secondary source.
  • I reply that Secondary Sources can go back to CE/AD 300, according to these 2 sentences . . .
  • They say That those are just essays, not policies, and that their consensus carries more weight than an essay, so they can disregard those two essays. In so doing, they exclude 1500 years of Theological debates' arguments from inclusion within Wikipedia, and restrict articles to only statements from recent theological works, although 10 popes and an entire school of modern theology (the traditional RC one) eschews the new stuff as "Modernism", and holds that the older a source is, the more weighty it is, even, in the case of some CFs' statements, sometimes equal with scripture.   Nevertheless . . .
  • I grudgingly acquiesce by trying to add CFs' quotes, piecemeal, one at a time, including with each one a recent theological work, that cited and discussed that Church Father's quote.
  • They say that my recent source is "biased", coming as it is from an ardently RC Theologian. In so doing, they suggest that including RC Theologians' statements in an article about an idea believed only by the RC Church is "not how WP works," and that, for balance, I should also go "find . . . [statements in the CFs] disproving" the Immaculate Conception, or else I'm committing either WP:OR, or "Confirmation bias".

    Really? . . . Isn't this just religious censorship? How on earth are we fulfilling the WP:RNPOV policy, which says,
    In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Octavius2 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Octavius2 and welcome to the Teahouse. I see there's been a long discussion here. Wikipedia does indeed work by consensus, which seems to be against you. You could take the matter to WP:DR (dispute resolution), which is a long, formal process for hashing out complex disagreements. (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yuk, no, not there, nor here. Try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, expressing the issue more succinctly. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah @Johnbod & @, I already took it to the DRN, but it was closed as "out of scope." They suggested that I take it to the WP:RSN, as you said, Johnbod, but I didn't, as RSN seemed inactive, and a long shot, dealing only with modern news ("Perennial Sources"). But I'll try it there, since you suggest it, also. Octavius2 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Octavius2: Please stop your weird formatting of posts with pink/yellow and raw HTML markup, it makes your posts hard to read. You can use wiki markup to make bold, italics etc. but do it sparingly. Links appear in color in any reasonable browser (usually blue) and people know they are clickable.
I encourage you to read carefully Jdcompguy's post at DRN which is my opinion goes to the heart of the matter. The fact that certain (famous) theologians took certain positions is not proof that those positions were mainstream among the Church (whether the rank-and-file believers or the high clergy); you need a source independent of theologians to assert that. With that in mind, I do not think RSN (which is active) would help much.
On your talk page, you say it's not my job as a single editor to hunt for, or worry about such possible competing view; others can do that. I believe this is exactly where you have it wrong. You seem to think Wikipedia works as a disputation. For those unaware, a disputation is an adversarial system (somewhat resembling a modern court of law) where two persons defend conflicting views (based on scriptural authorities), and the hope is that truth emerges from the debate; the opponents do not even need to truly believe the position they defend, just to be able to adequately present the arguments for it. But Wikipedia is not an adversarial system aimed at discerning truth; it is a collaborative project aimed at documenting pre-existing knowledge. Wikipedia will never take position on whether (for instance) the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is correct or not, it will only document the history of that doctrine and position of various major Christian churches.
Ideally, you should edit in a way that nobody should correct you. In practice, that is hard; your own biases get in the way of writing a dispassionate summary, you tend to write more about subjects you know and care a lot about; but you should definitely try to minimize that tendency, not to amplify it and wait for the counterargument to come. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To JDCompguy's claim - Well, I disputed here and here JDCompguy's claim that my "sources do not make the assertion[s] themselves." JDCompguy wants explicit terminology, when, in reality, many of these terms overlap. You wouldn't remove a Physics claim, just because it posted some other rearrangement, or subset of the equation used in its source, would you? No, you'd import your background knowledge of basic algebra, and tolerate it. Well, that's how Theologians operate, too, to a degree: We understand that Lack of Original Sin implies (1a) Original Justice, (2a) Original Integrity, and (3a) Original Immortality. We also understand that these will manifest respectively as (1b) Righteousness, (2b) ordered passions, and (3b) incorrupt bodies. This is all introductory Theology101 background-knowledge. Therefore, if you can find ancient Christian sources that assert (1), (2), or (3), then that's evidence for Lack of Original Sin. Therefore I added an entire heavily-footnoted section (↖that 1st link) and chart, like basic Algebra, to explicitly lay out the overlapping of these terms. Of course, that was removed too, as supposedly WP:OR.
You're right:
It shouldn't be about (I.) whether the Immaculate Conception is right or wrong;
it should be about (II.) document[ing] the history of that doctrine and [the] position of various major Christian churches, especially the only one that believes in it; but
it's actually about (III.) completely banning the 1500-year-old Catholic Patrimony, and theological program, from Wikipedia, because, supposedly, Church Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, aren't sufficiently cool-headed/mature/neutral/academic -enough to be counted as Wikipedia secondary sources, the way that, say, classical historiographers like Livy, Plutarch, or Josephus are. I think it's just secret double-standard bigotry, by everyone who is secretly adversarial to the Catholic church. Octavius2 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't move this debate to the Teahouse, that is not the purpose of this space. Since DR has declined to handle things, continue either at the WikiProject, RSN or the talk page of the article(s) involved. (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't remove a Physics claim, just because it posted some other rearrangement, or subset of the equation used in its source, would you? No, you'd import your background knowledge of basic algebra, and tolerate it. It depends on the rearrangement. Generally speaking, maths/physics articles on Wikipedia about somewhat-complex topics are very lacking in citations. They are also incomprehensible to non-mathematicians/physicians. That creates a feedback loop where only mathematicians/physicians can read and edit them because it’s hard to understand the jargon and the "equation rearrangements", and the jargon and calculations do not get fixed because those who can read the article can understand how to do the rearrangements and do not see the need to cite a textbook for "common knowledge" [that is, common to anyone with a PhD about a related topic]. I suppose that few of them contain original research and that most of it is actually textbook-level stuff, but there is no way for a random reader to know that. That is not a good thing and you should definitely not emulate that aspect of math/physics articles in theology articles.
Also, what would be appropriate for a math/physics article presenting the current view of the subject, might not be appropriate for an article presenting the history of the underlying ideas. Everyone knows today that heat is a form of energy, and therefore "heat" and "energy" can be used interchangeably in some contexts; but 250 years ago, people believed that heat was a form of matter, and substituting "heat" for "energy" in one’s (modern) interpretation of historical documents would be inappropriate.
it should be about ... document[ing] the history of that doctrine and [the] position of various major Christian churches, especially the only one that believes in it - nope. If significant theological currents have opined on the matter, even if that’s to dismiss it as entirely unfounded for some reason or another, they should be included. For instance, it would be hugely inappropriate to give less weight to the Orthodox view on Filioque "because it’s Catholics who believe in it". Of course, that does not mean you should include those who did not have any opinion on the subject - I would expect that few Hindu theologians have opined on matters of Christian theology. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about the Orthodox' disbelieving view, which I'm happy to include.
I was merely saying that the Catholic view should be FULLY included. Agree?
And the Catholic view is not just that it is true, but that it's a dogma, i.e, something that the Catholic Church is claiming is "found in divine revelation," i.e, maximally old, as in, passed down either thru Scripture or the 12 Apostles. Therefore I want to include a section listing evidence for its oldness, but I haven't been permitted to do that. Octavius2 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say for the others, but you have grossly misrepresented some of my arguments. I did not wish to intervene, as it is your right to ask for fresh feedback on your editing from other people (even if you do so with hit piece headlines); but I really do not like to see my arguments being twisted the way you did. Veverve (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help in creating Wikipedia Article for organization

Hello all,

I work at the History of Diving Museum in Islamorada, Florida and was seeking assistance on the creation of a Wikipedia page for us. I know very little about editing but did see a note that employees should refrain from creating pages for their employer. I do however have lots of sources, information, and photos. Would it be possible to have help with this? I think we would fit in nicely for this category: Category:Maritime museums in Florida

Thank you for reading! Historyofdivingmuseum (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Historyofdivingmuseum: and welcome to Wikipedia and The Teahouse! One possibility is that you can create a draft article through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That is an optional service that allows users to create a draft and get feedback on it before it "goes live" on Wikipedia. Specifically, the AFC process, while optional for most users, is mandatory for users with a conflict of interest such as yourself. You can start it there. A couple of things to consider: 1) The AFC process is backlogged, and it can take some weeks or months for your article to be reviewed. 2) Reviews tend to be rather cursory and may tell you what is wrong, but not often how to fix it, nor will reviewers do any of the work of fixing the article (usually). Just be aware that the process can sometimes be frustrating to new users. 3) In general, topics are accepted as articles based primarily on how much independent reliable source text exists on the topic. This can often be something that is out of your control as a writer. While articles may also be rejected (and often are) for being written in an inappropriate tone, in my experience, the biggest problem is just that Wikipedia's standards of inclusion simply don't make allowances for any article on said topic. I have no idea if your museum is in this situation or not, but it is probably the most daunting hurdle to get over, and not one that even the best writer can overcome. If you're certain you have independent and reliable source material, if you can keep your writing neutral and of the correct tone, and if you can cite your sources so that the content is verifiable, then the AFC process is just what you want to use. You should also read Help:Your first article which covers some of the common pitfalls of writing articles. Also, as a side note, you may also want to head over to Wikipedia:Changing username and request that your account be renamed. Personal names and nicknames are acceptable usernames, but per Wikipedia:Username policy, "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted" because they imply that the account is being used in an official capacity by the group, and group accounts are not allowed. You can change your username to something else, and that will be fine. --Jayron32 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. There are a lot of articles from sources(magazines, newspapers) besides the Museum so I don't believe sources will be an issue. I will take care that the process you mentioned is followed and hope the page can be up.
As an aside, I was not requested to write the article for any promotional purposes but just think it would be of benefit to have some of the educational resources available to a wider, non-local audience.
Thank you again! Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historyofdivingmuseum (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would point out that Wikipedia article are not for the topic, but about the topic. Wikipedia is not concerned with any benefits to an organization related to the presence (or not) of an article about it on Wikipedia. Our only interest is in writing this encyclopedia. Any article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- not based on materials from the organization like interviews, press releases, announcements- to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every organization merits an article, even within the same field.
You can make a request for the creation of an article at Requested Articles, but it is so severely backlogged that any request may not be acted on, if ever. If you have appropriate sources from reliable sources that chose on their own to write about your museum, it is possible for you to submit a draft article for an independent review at Articles for Creation. I would advise against that; the best indicator that a subject merits an article is when an independent editor organically takes note of a topic receiving significant coverage and chooses on their own to write about it. Trying to force the issue isn't usually successful.
You will need to declare as a paid editor, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec × 3) @Historyofdivingmuseum: First of all, you should see the Wikipedia:Username policy to see why your chosen user name is not appropriate here, and follow the hint in WP:UNC section to change it. Next, you need to understand you can create a Wikipedia article about you, but you can't create a Wikipedia page for you (either you personally, your organization, your community etc.). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia), not a social media (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Specifically, Wikipedia is not means of promotion, so its articles are meant to serve readers, not subjects. This is what I try to distinguish by opposing 'about' to 'for'. And I suppose most of what Jayron32 wrote above follows from this. --CiaPan (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information.+ username changed!
I am not concerned with promotion as much as I think it would be of benefit to readers to have some of the educational resources available here(artifacts, history, etc.) available without having to visit in person. I think it is worth an article especially as there are smaller maritime museums with their own.
Cheers! Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Divingenthusiast2005, I'm assuming your museum has a lot of cool diving-related exhibits. If you could take photographs of those exhibits and upload them to Commons (under an appropriate license), they might be useful in illustrating diving-related articles. It's probably a quicker (and easier) way of getting the museum's information out there than writing an article on the museum itself, though of course you're welcome to do that too. (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea, I definitely want to edit other diving-related articles with additional information/histories provided by artifacts here, but when sourcing the photos as "x artifact on display at x museum" I feel it would be of benefit to have that page to link to. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Divingenthusiast2005:: From a quick online search, sadly I doubt that your museum is truly notable (but of course you might have found more sources than I did). Also, a smaller museums having a Wikipedia entry doesn't mean your museum needs to have one as well (as explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). However, I added a section to the Islamorada, Florida article which mentions the museum – such a mention has a lower bar to pass than a standalone article. Once you've uploaded pictures, one could be added there :) --LordPeterII (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. There are many sources that mention us, but online ones tend to be local. I am certain we have national-level articles, but they are typically in journals about SCUBA and diving history(so pretty niche, and not always available online). I will have to do some digging in our physical archives.
As for pictures, I put together this IMGUR album to start the process. What would be the process of posting them here? Please feel free to use them, and thank you for adding to the Islamorada article! I really appreciate that. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your concern that journals about SCUBA and diving history aren't available online. You can still cite the journals -- giving author, article title, journal title, issue date and page numbers for the article -- even if it isn't online. If the periodical is considered reliable it doesn't have to be readily available to be a good reference. Best wishes on your Wikipedia project. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but if a picture of the museum itself is needed, would this work? Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Divingenthusiast2005, assuming you took the photos yourself, the easiest way to upload them is to go here and follow the instructions. (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thank you for the info; Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can upload the same to Commons, now that there's none visible elsewhere. One thing I noticed on the entrance pic is that there is no EXIF info - suggesting it's been uploaded from a non-original source. This is the sort of thing the Commons volunteers will look for. Apologies it's so involved.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to crop the image yourself, too, @Divingenthusiast2005, so it's a bit more square and less landscape-y, they fit better in articles that way (see the "opening shot" at Louvre for instance). (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem, thank you for the advice. I'm turning in for the evening but for sure can upload a new picture and crop/arrange it accordingly tomorrow. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC - again - notwithstanding the above message...) Divingenthusiast2005 - I am not a Teahouser, but occasionally I look at selected posts. Please be aware at an early stage that Wikipe/media can only accept (as a repository) and use ('publish') images that are annotated to be copyright-free. That normally means not published elsewhere where there is no licence visible - copyright is assumed. I can't see any such info at Imgur, and I'm unfamiliar with it, but it's swamping me with adverts (too visitor-unfriendly - I couldn't easily scroll to the bottom). Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. All images uploaded were photos I took myself of the museum interior and artifacts therein, so I am assuming they would be alright to upload. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's complicated. Re-used (that is already published) images can only be hosted here (for anyone to re-use) when there is a specific release. The photographer normally 'owns' the copyright still, but releases usage to others, with specific conditions of attribution. You could take similar-but-noticeably different for use on WP.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with imgur either; there might be a way for an account holder to give their uploaded pictures an appropriate license, compatible with Commons. (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest thing to do Divingenthusiast2005 is to delete the main entrance pic from Imgur, then do as I suggested by uploading similar, not the same to Wikimedia Commons. Or delete all from Imgur, now that it's in the open. Just to confirm, Wikimedia Commons is entirely separate to English-language Wikipedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, they have been deleted. I will go through the process of uploading new images as I am sure many artifacts can be used for diving history related articles. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again Divingenthusiast2005 - the reply is sited above - Duhhh, page is jumping around.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Diving Museum now in mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

Drafting an article and it was denied because it says it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources". The subject of the article is noted on IMDB for all their roles, there is a complete local news story about him (with name and photos therein), another local news story that had video coverage of him in his philanthropic endeavors. Also included was a link to the charity that he actually started and runs (which includes events, photographs of him, etc.).

Trying to understand what is missing that IMDB to show all his movie credits, and published news articles speaking to his philanthropic nature aren't "reliable sources" (unless i'm possibly annotating the references incorrectly, possibly confusing "references" with "external links" (though the above are all in the "references" section. If there's anyone that can provide some assistance, possibly show me what I'm doing wrong, it would be greatly appreciated.

I am actually looking at another actor (Gregory Sporleder ) who has fewer references (only 1 reference that actually isn't a broken link and mentions him in it), and identical external links (IMDB)...and his page is up without an issue, so i'm trying to understand what is lacking here as this one seems to be more thoroughly annotated. ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page I'm trying to submit:

The one I am referring to that has 1 valid link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513. IMDb is not a reliable source. Please read WP:IMDB. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate. The link to the charity he runs is a primary source and obviously not an independent source and therefore is of no use in establishing notability. The three films he recently acted in appear to be low budget efforts that have not yet been released. Your reference titled "Community gets results for woman whose bike was stolen" does not mention Thompson. You have presented no evidence that this person is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for Gregory Sporleder, could that article be improved? Absolutely. But Sporleder has had many roles in major films and TV shows going back a third of a century. He is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 I'm sure that the local newspaper articles are good, reliable sources, but the problem is whether the actor is notable, as explained in notability. I have had a couple of local newspaper articles written about me, and have been seen in a couple of YouTube history documentaries, but I am not notable to anyone other than close friends and family members. Your article may be too soon and an article about the actor can be accepted when he becomes better known. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see WP:OSE (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage/userbox help

So I saw someone's userboxes and I thought they were really cool, so I made my own. I did that and with both the visual editor and the source editor my userpage looked fine, but when I published the changes it looked really weird. Could somebody help me fix it? My userpage is here.
Jabin127 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jabin127, it looks slightly unusual, that's all. Don't worry about it; just improve some articles. (Until you do, nobody will be interested in your likes, affiliations, experiences, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, i've made the markup a bit stricter. Jabin127, is that <br> tag part of your signature? You don't need it there and it'll end up as lint. While HTML does generally work here, the mediawiki software will for the most part handle line breaks and spacing without need to define it yourself. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jabin127 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Jimin (singer, born 1995)

I started a requested move and several days have passed since then, and it's only gotten two supports. I was wondering if that would be enough for it to be moved, or if it needs to be relisted for further responses. 52-whalien (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@52-whalien Requested Move discussions stay open for at least seven days, so it has only about a day to run, someone will come around to close it, as the nominator it should not be you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Editor has left name and phone number after complaint about a company on that company's talk page

I am watching The Dollar Store and I was informed of a change on the Talk Page:The Dollar Store. When I went there I saw a wordy complaint by an anonymous editor about an incident that had occurred between her and a store employee. At the end of the complaint she left her name and presumably her real phone number. What does one do in a case like this? Thank you bobdog54 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobdog54: Contact the oversight team. See WP:OVERSIGHT for instructions. The page you linked to does not exist, so please make sure you have the right page when you submit your request. RudolfRed (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy reply–It was Dollar Tree(my brain went into neutral). In the meantime, another anonymous editor deleted the entire comment and mentioned oversight so I will figure that they have stealthily taken care of the problem? Or not? bobdog54 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, I can't request oversight, that needs a registered user with an email address. I just wanted to get that post off the page... hopefully quietly, but ah well. (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply], assuming you have an email adress, you can email the overisght team directly, without the need to go through Wikipedia's email user feature. Their email adress is Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! I'd be worried about my report getting lost in the loads of junk mail which a public email address like that no doubt attracts, but it's better than nothing. Dealing with "simple" revdel requests is easier, usually I just check CAT:RFRD and here and ping a poor unsuspecting soul (since leaving a note on their talk page might draw undue attention to the issue), but maybe that's not really the best way to go about it. I've never used IRC (can IPs even use IRC?), but I'm told it's another option. (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted oversight and redacted the edit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias, lurking gorilla-admin (so large, yet so quiet!). (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobdog54 For next time, it is best not to post about such things on a highly visible page like the Teahouse so as to not attract more attention to the personal information, and you can contact WP:OVERSIGHT as mentioned above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had reservations about doing the post but had no idea what else to do. Now I know about Oversight and I thank everyone for their help and I can stop cringing about the way I went about asking my question. Live and Learn as I travel the road of Wikipedia. bobdog54 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible DAB for geological surveys in Australia

Dear Teahouse friends,

I'd like to create a DAB for Australian geological surveys, sometimes they can be tricky to find as they were done by different departments.

Would this be considered suitable? At present there is the overarching descriptive Geological survey. It has some linked examples it is not so nationally specific. There is a category but I believe a DAB would be of more value. Thank you for your advice!

If this type of disambiguation page is allowed, I would be adding these pages:

Geological Survey of South Australia

Geological Survey of Queensland

Geological Survey of Victoria

Geological Survey of Western Australia

SunnyBoi (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SunnyBoi I think that what you describe is better done using Wikipedia Categories. We already have Category:Geological surveys of Australia which seems to cover those you mention. So anyone looking at an article in this category can click through to find the others (i.e. the category will be at the bottom of the articles). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a question

Would it be ethical to count editing as volunteering hours at my school?  Ickydog23 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ickydog23, and welcome to the Teahouse! This is the sort of question you should probably ask your school. If your school needs help deciding if it is ok to count Wikipedia editing as volunteering, maybe point them this way. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also very difficult to determine how many hours someone spent edit-warring on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine... Sungodtemple (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a new parameter which is not already there in Infobox?

I would like to add a new parameter 'nearest metro station' so that it is easy to navigate in places like Delhi. How do I create it? Libreravi (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Libreravi! If you want to add a new parameter to a infobox, maybe start a discussion on the templates talk page. I wouldn't add it to the template directly if I were you, as templates are fiddly things. On some infoboxes, however, there are options to add another title and info, so maybe check out that. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Libreravi. HenryTemplo is right to suggest you discuss it first; but I would oppose adding this field, for three reasons. First, in most cases it would be original research; secondly, in some cases it would be a matter of opinion; thirdly, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create Wikipedia page...

How to create a wikipedia page without auto deletion?... What are procedure to launch a wikipedia page?... (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Wikipedia articles are not "auto deleted"; if you are referencing a specific article or draft(your edit history indicates no other contributions besides here) please tell us which one. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. It is recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what it expected of article content. If you create an account, you can use the new user tutorial as well.
If the topic you want to write about receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, and the topic meets the Wikipedia definition of notability, you may visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. Reading Your First Article will help as well. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I assume you talk about creating a new Wikipedia 'article (not just "page"). Since your IP adress has made no edits besdies this one, I cannot determine where your previous attempt failed, but in general the steps to create a new Wikipedia article are as follows:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find wikipedia article for Amar Bharati, does it exist?

I red about a man called Amar Bharati in this article and there seems to be all kinds of information on hin in the internet. However I can't find his Wikipedia page. The article mentions his wikimedia commons as the image source for the picture, I can't find the image as well. Where can I find his wikipedia page? Thank you very much. TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi TheFibonacciEffect and welcome to the teahouse! there doesn't seem to be an article about Amar Bharati at the moment, not even a deleted one. I also searched up at TinEye, and while that includes hits from many places including the BBC, Commons isn't one of them (plus I also searched up through Commons's search, which revealed nothing). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi TheFibonacciEffect There is no article on him in Wikipedia (nor a Draft). The reason you got a Google hit associated with "Amar Bharati Wikipedia" is because there is a reddit page that has this combinaton of words. I can't find that image on Commons, either, but it may have been deleted there for copyvio (or other reason) after being used elsewhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheFibonacciEffect, At the moment there is no article on him in Wikipedia, if he is notable then you are free to create article on him, if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject or you can create a draft on it. May be Article for creation, Your first article, relaible sources, and Notability helps you. Cheers and Happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the lack of any information that i can find besides that article, and the lack of sites that have that picture (despite TinEye saying they have) makes me doubt not only whether he is notable, but also whether the story is genuine. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so you will need some very solid reliable sources to even think of writing about him. ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Labeling

Can anyone help correct the post on Sarah (Sally) Hemings, who bore several children now known to be Thomas Jefferson’s. Alone among the most common Web sites about her, Wikipedia calls her a “quadroon,” a dated and offensive label. 2601:18E:8201:B600:EC5A:7C00:20EF:7DC9 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this is Talk:Sally Hemings. If you can achieve a consensus to change it, it can be changed. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying biographical content provided by the subject of an article

Genuinely puzzled and would appreciate advice. I made a small edit to a celebrity's self-reported biographical details to reflect that they are unverified. It has been reverted by a more experienced editor. I've raised it in Talk [see last item on Talk Page here] but will not change back as I think that would amount to edit warring. I'm happy to learn from being told I'm wrong, but it seems obvious to me that if claimed biographical data and backstories relevant to image-making are accepted at face value without verification, this will lead to immense amounts of nonsense in Wikipedia articles as insterted there by PRs via simply getting the celebrity to utter the words. A sensible way to report autobiography or comments in interviews seems to me to be to use the format; "x says"? Emmentalist (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emmentalist. I suggest that you read WP:INTERVIEW which says Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources—for instance, if an interview happens to be the clearest available source for where a person who is already properly established as notable was born, or for where they attended university, or for the fact that they identify as LGBTQ, then the interview can be used to source a statement of that fact. In this case, the person is indisputably notable, highly successful and widely honored, and the article is exceptionally well referenced. I am not aware of any credible accusations that he is a liar. Writing something like "Hamiliton says that he started studying karate at age 5" creates doubt where that is unwarranted. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Cullen328, can I just check that you read the article? It's behind a paywall. Perhaps you're a Telegraph subscriber? Davies, Gareth A (5 July 2007). "A salute to the real Lewis Hamilton". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 10 January 2022. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing issues

A Wikipedian left this message on my article about artist Reba Dickerson-Hill: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Spacing issues. (May 2022)." I'm new to wikipedia and have written at least a dozen other articles. I'm not sure what that means nor how to correct it. Could use some guidance. Thanks. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sherryleehoward. It was an IP editor who added that template, so it is difficult to reach out to them to ask why. Looking at the article Reba Dickerson-Hill, my suggestion is that the IP editor didn't like all these short sentences which could be redone as longer paragraphs. My only other comment is that you have WP:OVERKILL in a couple of places. Well done for creating an interesting article: have you thought of taking something out of it for WP:DYK so it can be linked on the front page and get lots of views? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bad news may be that you uploaded to Commons a picture that I doubt is your "own work" (i.e. you took the photo with your own camera). As Dickerson-Hill is dead, you could normally take such a picture from a website but it has to be uploaded only to English Wikipedia as fair-use (see WP:FAIRUSE) and meet all the conditions mentioned. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a photo from her son, which she paid a photographer to shoot (he didn't do a great job of it). Son gave me permission to use it for wikipedia knowing that it becomes common use. The artwork belongs to another son, also got permission to use it. The print is on the web because it has come up several times at auction. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike. That helps tremendously. I'll spread out the citations so they're not bunched at the end. I tend to write in short sentence because I think long complicated ones are unwieldy for the reader. I'll use full paragraphs rather than short ones. Not sure what you mean by taking something out of it for Did you know? How does that work? I have done articles on several neat artists & would love to get them noticed. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you can't claim "own work" for something that isn't yours Sherryleehoward. The copyright of the photo will (usually) be that of the photographer, not the son, and the resolution on Commons is so low that I doubt that the son had the original .jpg. I'm unclear what should happen to sort things out but others may comment. Click on the Did You Know link (or look at today's Main Page) to find out more about that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will sort out the photo. Thanks. Sherryleehoward (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sherryleehoward: there's nothing spacing-related that jumps at me, but when I looked at the version when that tag was placed, there were several instances of spaces between punctuation and reference. However, those seem to have been since sorted out, so I wouldn't worry about it. I've removed the tag now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DoubleGrazing. You folks have been so helpful. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a page section

Hello! I'm currently editing Curie (microarchitecture) , and it seems to me like the "Chips" section is extremely redundant, as the info from there is duplicated in the "GPU list" section (in fact it's even more detailed). Would removing this section as redundant run afoul of any WP rules? -- akmLaVx (t/c) 17:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akmlavx Like in most editing, it is encouraged that people be WP:BOLD with changes, being ready to work towards a consensus on the Talk Page of the article if anyone reverts/otherwise objects. More details at WP:BRD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- akmLaVx (t/c) 17:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making note of guidance by Associated Press on usage of word "internment"

The Associated Press sent a Style Note for May 2022 guiding writers to use the words "detained" or "incarcerated" rather than "interned" and to describe the larger event as "the incarceration of Japanese Americans". My question is where is the appropriate placement of a graf on this matter, specifically, on /internment_of_Japanese_Americans.

It would appear that wording would be handled as a Style Guideline.

Thank you in advance. CaptainHuggyface (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaptainHuggyface. This new development could be added to the section Internment of Japanese Americans#Terminology debate where these issues are already discussed at length. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Cullen328. I should have reviewed the page more closely. CaptainHuggyface (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange article and editor

The article Howie Weinberg is in my opinion seemingly not up to Wikipedia's standard, and one editor's contributions are only to this article. They removed the template I added for cleanup. I'm not really sure how to proceed after this, or if I even want to, but I'd really appreciate any advice. Ștefan Tărâță (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Tărâță, if the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, you can WP:PROD it or WP:AFD it. If it just needs cleanup then do it.Sungodtemple (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those impressive links actually mention the subject of the article ? Doug butler (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...or addresses the question? Shantavira|feed me 08:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what to do about my xylaria hypoxilon discoveries

Hello!This is Lark99,a newer editor also known as Sageost on Inaturalist. I am editing on wikipedia to bring my findings that i have named from the complex. I use my findings from identifications to name species vars. I am having a hard time siting my sources because my blog is apparently not a reliable source. what should i do? Lark999 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lark99: I would recommend finding a scientific journal that may publish your findings. Wikipedia is not the place to record or write about your findings or original research. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lark999 Right, if you can't find reliable, published sources that are independent of you, then Wikipedia can't have an article about your findings. It sounds like "your findings" are your original research (see WP:OR), and original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I Inline link an image from an external website to my Sandbox?

I would like to link an image from Flickr to my sandbox but cannot figure out how to. I had previously uploaded the image to Wiki Commons but it broke the guidelines and so was nominated for deletion. I'm now trying to Inline link the image from Flickr to my sandbox but it is not working.

I am using this code: <img src="" /> but the problem is that Flickr does not include the image name in the link followed by .jpg. The link is in this format: with no /picture.jpg at the end.

Google Photos does the same thing, as does Imgur, ImbBB and I assume every other image host website. I also tried embedding the image and using BBCode but nothing worked. I either get error messages or a useless stringS of text. Is there a way to do this? Old Hoar's Frost (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Old Hoar's Frost. I'm assuming the image is this. Is there a particularly good reason for displaying it in your sandbox? Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion also on user talk. Zindor (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Old Hoar's Frost, just for reference--loading external images inline is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, and <img> tags do not work in wikitext. This is for security reasons. To insert an image inline, it must be uploaded either to the English Wikipedia itself or to Wikimedia Commons, and then linked to using the [[File:...]] syntax. Writ Keeper  01:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I won't attempt to link anything further. Thanks for letting me know. Old Hoar's Frost (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the restriction on image hotlinking is to prevent people from doing something like
<img onerror="alert('Look, a harmless alert')" src="" alt="Log you out" /> (talk | contributions) 04:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] This specific instance wouldn't work anyway, because logging a user out requires a POST request. However, to my knowlege, there are three main reasons why inlining images is not possible: 1) copyright: Not all external sites are compatibility licensed. Allowing inline hotlinking would lead to a mess copyright-wise, as it is difficult to prevent people from hotlinking copyrighted images. 2) It could be abused, as above, to attack any site which doesn't poperly secure their non-idempotent GET methods (this is a type of persistent XSS attack). It doesn't work on Wikipedia because all state-modifying requests ar either required to be POST requests when they should do anything, or (in case of action=rollback Don't work without passing an inherently context-dependent rollback token. 3) Wikipedia gets a lot of visits per second (if you want to trust up to 150k requests / second, divided amongt all foundation Wikis). Allowing inline hotlining with such a high viewer rate means that Wikipedia could be directly responsible for crashing other site's servers, or at least overloading them, mainly when they can't handle the resulting request volume. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are the security issue I was referring to, on which I will not be elaborating for obvious reasons. Writ Keeper  06:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Idempotent is the best new word I've learned in a long time. (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Is there a policy on the systematic removal of history and talk?

I apologize for not responding more quickly. I was dealing with a positive test for covid.

The situation:

Private equity firm Vista Equity Partners has been in business 20 years and reports $90 billion in assets. It has acquired major companies in education, health, and other fields. The issue is the web pages of its education acquisitions.

Its founder (and chairman and CEO) has been very visible. He and VEP have Wikipedia pages, although their Wikipedia history pages go back only to early 2021 and have virtually no Talk beyond someone (not me) noting it is strange to have so little about such a prominent person, and a suggestion that a huge tax evasion case (resolved with a $100M fine) be made more prominent.

Among the major acquisitions are PowerSchool (the leading K-12 Student Information System vendor), which itself acquired Naviance (the leading student career guidance site) and Schoology (a major Learning Management System), Ellucian (leading higher education student information system) and others. These companies had long histories, some spun off by or formed as mergers of other established companies.

Wikipedia has no entries for most of these, or entries that have no history or talk pages and cover almost none of the historical record, and not even mentioning the acquisition.

For example, PowerSchool, a major company, has no page, but does show up in Wikipedia under the publisher Pearson, which bought it from Apple and sold it to Vista in 2015. Ellucian has no page, but you can find it mentioned in pages of the companies that merged to form it in 2012. Schoology has a page, but it only covers years before 2015, has no Talk page, its history changes page only goes back to December 2021. Other education acquisitions (EAB, Schoox) are similar.

I saw in one of the talk threads mention of checking the rules on "mass systematic deletion" of talk pages, but I am not sure what happened here. I did not spend time on these sites before. But I've never seen a hole like this around extremely well-known organizations and products. If it can be checked out that would be great. I have not looked into the status of health tech and other acquired firms. Jgrudin (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing some links: Vista Equity Partners, Robert F. Smith (investor), PowerSchool (a redirect to Pearson Education#PowerSchool), Naviance, Schoology. Nothing very peculiar stands out to me, but maybe someone else will want to take a closer look. (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jgrudin. I have taken a look at the edit histories of several of the articles that you are alluding to, and see no evidence of "systematic removal of history and talk" in recent years. Can you provide diffs of specific edits, or at the very least, a specific assertion that specific article X was inappropriately edited on a specific specified date at a specific specified time? Without such specific information, it is very difficult for Teahouse hosts to investigate your claims. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oritae -- random line breaks

Does anyone know why some of the lines here seem to break randomly? For example: "Their territory appears to have ..." -- The line breaks just breaks there, even though there's plenty of space left. Thanks, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: Yep, it's also breaking for me. I think it is all of the non-breaking spaces:
The Oritae were a&nbsp;people&nbsp;inhabiting&nbsp;the&nbsp;sea-coast&nbsp;of&nbsp;Gedrosia,&nbsp;with&nbsp;whom&nbsp;[[Alexander the Great|Alexander]]&nbsp;fell&nbsp;in&nbsp;on his&nbsp;march&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;[[Indus River|Indus]]&nbsp;to&nbsp;[[Persia]].<ref>Arr. ''Anab''. vi. 21, 22, 24, &c.</ref> Their&nbsp;territory&nbsp;appears&nbsp;to&nbsp;have been&nbsp;bounded&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;east&nbsp;by&nbsp;the&nbsp;[[Hun River (Liao River tributary)|Arabis]],&nbsp;and&nbsp;on&nbsp;the west&nbsp;by&nbsp;a&nbsp;mountain&nbsp;spur&nbsp;which&nbsp;reached&nbsp;the&nbsp;sea&nbsp;at Cape&nbsp;Moran.<ref name=":1" />
I removed the zero width spaces and it seems to be fine now. (talk | contributions) 04:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also, for posterity, the randomly breaking version is here. (talk | contributions) 04:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Why would someone go to the trouble of inserting all of these non-breaking spaces? Hmmm.... (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume there was a glitch when copy+pasting from a word processing program. (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is kinda weird. In the 2017 wikitext editor, they look like normal spaces to me. But when using wikEd, all the &nbsp; appear. (talk | contributions) 20:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about referencing

I've just added some references to the article Native Son (1951 film), and I have some questions. First, I used the same source for two references, #6 and #10. I know I'd usually have to use a sort of "ibid" style for the second reference (and I would need help with that), but I'm not sure it's appropriate here because some of the references that were there already use superscripts, and I don't know what they're there for, maybe another way of formatting the same reference multiple times? (Refs # 2, 3, 4, and 11; 1 and 13 don't use the superscripts.) Ref. #13 seems strange to me: it is short and in the Reference Notes subsection with all the others, but it refers to a full reference above under the Reference section heading. Why would that one reference be listed in different place, and be referred to separately? Finally, all the links in my reference work (#'s 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12) but the only links that are highlighted in blue are #'s 8 and 12. Is there a problem? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. That article uses a format that includes both references and reference notes. I find that style of referencing bizarre and incomprehensible, although I think that it is an an acceptable variant. As for references used more than once, WP:REFNAME should be informative. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328:I'm aware the WP:REFNAME exists, I just wasn't sure if it applied to the bizarre format. Could you discuss the superscripts and the blue highlights? Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: I didn't see any reason not to use the conventional single reflist in that article. Also (in regard to your other enquiry at the Teahouse) I converted the NYT's shouty house style into something more sensible. Just revert me if you don't like either change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

URL Access Level - Registration, Subscription or Limited?

If you have to pay to view a URL in full, is that classed as Registration, Subscription or Limited?

I suspect the answer is Subscription, however I don't know what it means by Limited so it could also be that. Danstarr69 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know specifically what you are referencing; are you attempting to edit an article? 331dot (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm correcting a "news" reference which someone has added incorrectly (along with other things on a stub article with just 2 references), so that it appears under references, rather than by itself.
I'm also adding a link to to that reference, along with an archive link.
You have to pay for a subscription to view articles there, so I want to know whether I should list the "URL Access Level" for that link as Registration, Subscription or Limited. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danstarr69. I checked on what other editors had done by searching for "" in the Wikipedia search box. I quickly found List of WBA world champions which has lots of these sort of references. They use Subscription=paid=red padlock, which seems correct to me when I click the link to that website. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull Any idea what "Limited" means? Danstarr69 (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume (but I've not checked the Help pages) that it is for sites which allow readers a limited number of views without payment. The UK Times website is like that see this link for how that works. So on that site I can do three searches/reads a week, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing my new article

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Cape doctor/Michael Mosoeu Moerane

I have just completed, after two weeks' work, an article on the black African composer Michael Mosoeu Moerane. I pushed the Publish button, but now I am wondering what happens next... Cape doctor (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is good stuff, Cape doctor. It's the best draft I've seen in quite a while. In preparation for its promotion to article status, I've moved it to Draft:Michael Mosoeu Moerane and posted an comment/request at its head that may annoy you -- but, well, writing for Wikipedia is a pain, as you've no doubt already realized. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cape doctor I see that the article has now been moved to Mainspace, so well done. Next steps are to add some categories (see WP:CATEGORY) so more people can find it. Also, are you aware of the did you know.... system which will place a "hook" from the article on to the Mainpage? Nomination is a bit of a faff the first time you do it but the nomination page (and more guidance) is here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is so encouraging, thank you Cape doctor (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, adding categories is I think an extraordinarily complex and difficult process for the new editor. I've added a bunch. However, my addition was rather sleepy and it's very likely that I've made the odd mistake and almost certain that I've failed to add some that beneficially could be added. Perhaps you'd care to look at my work and improve on it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, agreed! I just wanted to make Cape doctor aware of the system and maybe add Category:Choral composers as a learning exercise. Very often the editor who accepts a Draft adds some relevant categories but in this case Kenpmi did the move and perhaps because they are also relatively inexperienced didn't do that. I checked your own additions and they seem perfect, although I did remove Category:South African composers as that is implied by your addition of Category:South African male composers of which it is a sub-category. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Michael (and Hoary) - you have both greatly improved the article's visibility. Thank you! I didn't know about Categories and Hooks, thank you again. But I'm not sure what the status of the article is now and I'm terrified of messing it up. Additional Categories could be: Rhodes University alumni, W.B. du Bois, Pan-Africanism, Symphonic poem, Hymn, Church music, Spirituals, Maseru (capital of Lesotho), Morija (town in Lesotho), Thabo Mbeki, Epainette Mbeki, Joshua Pulumo Mohapeloa. Err.... how do I add them? Cape doctor (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cape doctor As Hoary said, I don't think you should worry too much about adding further categories and some of the possibilities you mention may not be established categories in any case. Your article is now part of the main encyclopaedia (we call this "Mainspace") and although it may not yet be indexed by third-party search engines like Google, it will be in due course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike
Does this mean that it is not public, or approved, yet and I can still work on it? I am trying to resolve the issue you mentioned about using "Private Collection" that you pointed out, by finding secondary sources (even ones already cited) that can support the same information. Should I carry on doing this? Cape doctor (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor, everything you write on WP is public, like this page we're on right now can be seen by anyone who knows where it is. Drafts are also public, but not indexed by, for example, Google. Michael Mosoeu Moerane is in article-space, but that doesn't mean you or anyone interested should stop improving it. WP:BOLD is the law of the land. All WP-articles are works in progress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Cape doctor (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought I had it. I'm really trying to grasp where the article "is" now, or where it "will be" when it is "published". If I log out and search for this article as an ordinary user, I can't see it or access it yet, and that is what is frustrating me. I'm looking for enlightenment... Cape doctor (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Cape doctor! To enlarge on something Michael D. Turnbull mentioned in passing; many editors can, and some do, publish articles straight to Mainspace without going through the review process yours has, and sometimes these are substandard. To limit the latter's exposure before they can be brought up to standard, access by Google's (and others') web crawlers is blocked either until the article has been checked by the New Page Patrol reviewers, or 90 days has passed. Before either of these, a Google (etc.) search won't find the article, though a search within Wikipedia will.
The NPP may release the new Article to the Web, improve it and then release it, or revert it to (or back to) Draft space for further work: in some extreme cases where someone has tried to slip blatantly poor material past us, they might even reject and delete the item.
You certainly don't have to worry about this; your article is good enought that the NPP will likely mark it as patrolled (lifting the crawler block) as soon as they see it (problematic cases take longer to decide on). After that it might take anything from minutes to a couple of days before the crawlers make their next pass. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor, If you type Michael Mosoeu Moerane into the WP-searchbox, you should find, wether logged in or not. It is where a WP-article should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor I have just done the NPP check and released the article for indexing by Google et al. Congratulations on a very nice new article! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, on your comment "I checked your own additions and they seem perfect, although I did remove Category:South African composers as that is implied by your addition of Category:South African male composers of which it is a sub-category": please see the pale blue box atop the latter category. Simply, where somebody is categorized as a male (or female) XYZ, it's entirely proper for that person also to be categorized as a [gender-unspecified] XYZ. (For newcomers here: Such an overlap contrasts with most categorization, whereby for instance anyone who's properly in Category:Scientists from Johannesburg shouldn't also be in either Category:People from Johannesburg or Category:South African scientists.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Hoary, I was, and still am, confused by the blue box at Category:South African male composers which says "It includes composers that can also be found in the parent category" (my emphasis). I took this to imply that the situation was normally the same as for your scientist example, with which I'm more familiar, whereas it seems to mean should be found. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cape doctor referred the reader to Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred a number of times, each time specifying the page number(s). The result was unnecessarily bulky, but (and I think more importantly) informative and helpful. One or more subsequent edits conflated these into a single reference, with an array of page numbers: it was now more tedious for anyone looking at the book to locate any particular assertion within it. Using Template:Rp, I've restored the specific page numbers where I can. "Where I can", because there are also newer references, whose specific page numbers I don't know. Cape doctor, as you seem to have access to a copy of the book and I do not, please readd missing page numbers. (More concretely, where there's a reference to the book but no page number, and the information can be found on pages 41–43, please expand plain <ref name="Gev"/> to <ref name="Gev"/>{{Rp|41–43}}.) Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else working on this?

Dear Experienced People,

I see we don't have Wikipedia biographies of either Gerlin Bean or Mavis Best, UK black women activists. I am happy to start working on one or two of these. How do I find out if anyone else has started on them? Wouldn't want to get in the way or duplicate. ~~~ Balance person (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balance person it does not appear that anyone is working on either. How do you find out? put the name in quotes in the searchbox, click "search for pages containing" then change the "search in" to "all" and re-search - there are 5 entries for each person (one of which is your question) - none are in draft articles or user sandboxes - someone could be working on it "off-wiki" but we have no way of ever knowing that - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful reply! I will have a go then.~~~ Balance person (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Hi, Balance person, welcome to the Teahouse. You can search drafts by putting Draft: in front of the name of the subject, so in this case putting Draft:Gerlin Bean etc in the search bar, but it's not as thorough as Arjayay's method so i would recommend you use that instead. Make sure to check the article subject against notability criteria before you start, from a quick look Gerlin Bean might have more sources to reference. Regards, Zindor (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you Zindor for your suggestion.~~~ Balance person (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not already aware, I'd recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Balance person. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you're already a member. I should have looked at your user page before making that suggestion! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha HA! Sort of thing I do all the time, Larry! Thanks! ~~~ Balance person (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how to upload info about a person

hi, i want to write about my father who is a politician and want to create a wikipedia page for him, how can i do that. (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have already started to do the drafting on your User Page, which is not the correct place for this. See WP:UPYES for what can go there. You have a steep learning curve to climb. Wikipedia does not have "pages" in the sense used by social media: it has articles about topics, not written in any way to benefit the topic but to benefit our readers. So, start by reading, not writing, first the help page WP:YFA and the policy page WP:BLP. Then read very carefully Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest editing. If you still want to proceed, use the WP:AFC process to create a draft that others will approve (or not). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi and thanks for contributing in wikipedia. Wikipedia has Articles instead of pages. Creating an articles is a hardest work in Wikipedia. If the subject is Notable then you are able to create article on that particular subject. I noticed that you are trying to write an article about your father, so you have to consider this conflict of interest and you must have the knowledge about reliable sources. And take a look at your first article and article for creation probably this may helps you. Thank you and happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] To be clear: Start a draft using WP:YFA. Copy all that content about your father now on your User page to draft. Delete all that content from your User page. State on your User page that you are creating a draft about your father. DO NOT YET SUBMIT THE DRAFT. Last, add refs to your draft. Every factual statement must be verified by a published reference. What you know to be true cannot be added unless described in a reliable source reference. It cannot be accepted without refs. David notMD (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better skin back

I clicked today: "Try out Wikipedia's new skin". It promised a lot of improvements. Not good. Seems to be for mini-screens. Since this is an experiment, according to the ad, how do I get back the better "skin" ? Jari Rauma (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jari Rauma, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you go to the "appearance" section of your preferences (should be on the top-right of your display), you should be able to change your Wikipedia skin back to the default. Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Jari Rauma and welcome to the teahouse! you can switch back to the previous skin by going to Preferences > Appearance > Skins > Vector legacy (2010). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 15:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. I found it myself also from Google. It took 20 minutes. There is an error in the wiki's instructions at this point. There it is said to look for the point "skin", but there was no word "skin". This is how foreigners are misled when you are not precise. For the new 2022 skin: I prefer Wikiwand and 2010 skin. Jari Rauma (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie hebdo issue no.2011

I took down a picture of a cartoon of what people thought was the prophet SAW but someone put it back on?? For what reason is this?? Lethalhuntress (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lethalhuntress. The simple answer is that Wikipedia is not censored. It is an encyclopaedia serving the whole world and different people will vary in what they consider as offensive. Provided that images are relevant to the articles in which they appear, they won't be removed just because someone dislikes them. Why did you choose to read that article out of the millions we have here? Were you expecting to find something you didn't like and could censor? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I was doing research for my studies and came across this, I had no intention to surf the internet and find offensive material, I just came across this, I have a life thank you. Lethalhuntress (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, I think your rhetorical question goes a little too far. I'm sure many people come to Wikipedia and look up some topic they feel strongly about a topic, in order to see how it's dealt with. And as far as that goes, I think there's nothing wrong with that; they can perhaps point out things where biases so common they're hardly recognized have crept in. I'm sure, for example, that many of the people who would censor things here backed by Newsmax and Life Lobby--as being unreliable sources--feel VERY strongly that NPR is to be trusted (whether it is or not); that Trump is a white-supremacist (whether he is or not); that his claims about election fraud are without basis (whether that's true or not); and that the SPLC labeling a group as a hate group is a clear indication that it IS a hate group (whether it is or not). I'm sure that claim that Wikipedia is not censored is made honestly. Nevertheless, there is certainly room for discussion about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More context at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. WP has stuff that can be seen as objectionable, it's like the rest of the internet/world in that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to reply to the person who commented on my comment. Thank you for your reply, but it’s not because I dislike it- it’s not a petty issue. This material is deemed offensive to not just me but all Muslims, it shouldn’t be allowed to appear on Wikipedia as it’s mocking our religion and frankly spreading misinformation, it doesn’t matter if Wikipedia is not censored, this isn’t freedom of speech this is an insult and a mockery. As a Muslim it’s my duty to warn you heavily of the consequences of these actions, but this isn’t where you can say what you can, I could literally create a page about other religions and chat shit about other things but I’m not, because humans have a duty to respect one another. If people wish to continue to upload stuff like this, then you’ll see consequences for yourself. Lethalhuntress (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you might expect, you are not the first person to comment on images that might be offensive to Muslims. Wikipedia has implemented a way to make it less likely you would see one. The Help page Help:Options to hide an image gives instruction about how to implement this on your account when logged in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lethalhuntress An encyclopedia that removed everything that offended one group or another would leave very little behind. Almost everything is offensive to someone. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what you mean by "spreading misinformation". Do you see any misinformation in the Charlie Hebdo article? Do you question that the magazine's cover was as shown? Maproom (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethalhuntress "I could literally create a page about other religions and chat shit about other things but I’m not..." Yes, you could create an article, and if that article was backed by reliable sources, there would be no reason for it to be deleted from WP. (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethalhuntress: I'd be careful writing things like [i]f people wish to continue to upload stuff like this, then you’ll see consequences for yourself, as that could be considered a veiled threat, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article literally specifically details the controversy that arose from the magazine issue being published. It doesn't promote or endorse the comic, it makes the WP article much more informative. Adding context to the controversy by showing the magazine's cover - literally the subject of the article - is not meant to disparage Muslims. It's to show the context behind the controversy. Not to mention the magazine was satirical. Lincoln1809 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map optimization in infobox

There is an article named Uttara. Recently I am working on its map in the infobox. I want to make its map like Inverted shape or shape from Template:Maplink. But I can't understand the template. Also there are coordinates feature I need to understand to make the map. How can I do it. Can anyone help me? Mehedi Abedin 18:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mehediabedin. There are a couple possibilities you can try (in no particular order). First, you can discuss what you want to do at Talk:Uttara (town) and see if any of the editors watching the article might be able to help. The next thing, you could try is asking about this at Template talk:Maplink to see if any of the editors watching the template's page might be able to help. You could also try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to see if any editors familiar with templates in general can help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me improve my first Article that got deleted

I have re-created the Article and moved it into Draft. The link is

Please help me in improving it and ultimately in publishing. Thanks Sabra143 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sabra143, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your first attempt was deleted as unambiguous advertising, and that looks likely to happen to your new draft as well unless you fundamentally rewrite it. To take just one example, The goods are made using cutting-edge technology and provide a carefully curated collection of trend-setting styles is pure advertising copy, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Remember that 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. Has an independent source (somebody completely unconnected with Bavincis) used these words about them? If so, then the article could explicitly quote them. But such evaluative language should never appear in Wikipedia's voice. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted inaccuracies / updates required but can't do myself

I'm not proficient enough at editing Wikipedia and don't at the moment have the time to learn properly - but I have found a string of linked pages that are very out of date. Is there a place where I can alert other willing and able editors to sort these pages out? Many thanks JackD (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackD: Just as you posted a comment here on this page, you can also post suggestions for improvements on the talk page of any article. That would be the best place to start. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cushdybernard: As a reality check, some articles have few viewers, and far fewer looking at the Talk pages of those articles. Posting here a Wikilink to one or two of the dated articles. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cushdybernard One simple thing you could do is to add the template {{update}} at the top of such articles. Many more people will read the article and see the template than will notice a comment on its Talk Page. Another good place to make such comments is on the Talk Page of any Projects interested in the article, which will be listed on its own Talk Page. So for this chemistry/EU-related article, a comment could go on any or all of the Projects which claim an interest in it. Although David notMD is correct in saying that links here at the Teahouse might help, this thread will very soon be lost in the Teahouse archive. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Fake Article for a Scavenger Hunt/ARG

I have had the idea for a Scavenger Hunt/ARG at my high school and I was wondering if I could create a fake article for this hunt. In it would contain clues for the hunt and different methods on encryption used. I plan for this to be done entirely alone and to start it as of March of next year LonePlayer (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested if I can do this and probably how to do this LonePlayer (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LonePlayer: Absolutely not. Wikipedia isn't a web-hosting service for personal use. It would be best to host that content on a free hosting service or blog site.
On the other hand, if your scavenger hunt met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (see WP:GNG) then there could be an article on it, but otherwise, no. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LonePlayer: Perhaps you should use another wiki farm, like Miraheze? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology Article Space

Im trying to get my Mythology onto Article Space

The title of the article is Asithis

Was wondering if it was declined

If so for what reason

Also how do I Improve my articles in the future so that I can get it into Article Space Asithis (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Asithis
hi Asithis and welcome to the teahouse! firstly, you would need to cite reliable sources about the topic, which your draft currently has none of (and this is required for verifiability). I advise you to read Your first article and Writing better articles as well, these allow you to write an article better. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asithis If you created this mythology yourself, then it won't be accepted as an article on WP until (as @Melecie says) the wider world has taken note, and published some commentary about it. Please see WP:ONEDAY. To get any articles approved, or any edits to stick, you will need better punctuation. Cheers. (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asithis Did you draw the artwork that is in the draft, yourself? (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Article, is being considered for deletion, have updated GNG sources but unsure how to contact editor who proposed deletion

I posted a new article Unicorn DAO, but it was flagged for deletion. The editor who proposed said some of the sources didn't pass GNG, so I removed them and included the following - TIME, CNN, Guardian.

There was also ref to Coin Telegraph a crypto news source, I'm not sure if this would count as GNG (is there a list somewhere?)

Anyways, I have updated sources and refs, but don't know how to reply / flag the editor in question. I submitted to the deletion discussion page some updates and included their user tag.

I understand there is quality control to sources, so want to make sure they are significant. Pathofkarma (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also wondering how you cite reports that are paywalled like ArtTactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talkcontribs) 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathofkarma, I haven't looked at either the article or the AfD for it, but would point out that for GNG what are needed aren't just reliable sources but substantive reliable sources. A Guardian article from which we can merely infer that yes, such-and-such a company exists, does business in Germany, and has been noticed by its rivals is very different for GNG purposes from another Guardian article that's devoted to the company, describes how it started, what business it does, how it has the second largest market share in Germany, that it crushed at least one of its major rivals, the problems it faces elsewhere within the EU, how its well-known dependence on Russian raw materials is now impacting its business, etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - I included a dedicated substantive article from Time, Rolling Stone, Decrypt and Coin Telegraph. The guardian mention is just for a specific data point. Hopefully adding a few sources fits the general notability guidelines. Pathofkarma (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Pathofkarma and welcome to the teahouse! to add on to the above, a list of the most frequently used sources can be found at perennial sources. The Times, CNN, and The Guardian are all okay sources in general although hoary's point still applies: it has to significantly cover the company. also, including a link to their userpage (plus signing your post) as you have done automatically notifies them to the conversation, however you could also do with using {{u}} or {{ping}} to ping them. and finally, you could attach a {{closed access}} template onto the reference or add |url-access=subscription to the citation template to indicate a source is paywalled. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 23:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side of the coin, @Pathofkarma, Coin Telegraph and Decrypt are probably not going to help - see here and here. (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - removed Coin Telegraph. Kept Decrypt because it is substantial. Not the main source - Times + Rolling Stone + Guardian the main. Pathofkarma (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. also added Rolling stone which is in the list of perrennial sources - RS covered 5+ paragraphs on company. and added the url-access worked great! Pathofkarma (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also adding variety which was on perennial list. Pathofkarma (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a verified source for information about a person's name

I was recently editing a Wikipedia page that is about my late mother-in-law. The page has existed for a number of years. One of the things I wanted to do was correct some information about her name. In particular, her first name at birth, was not the name that she went by as an adult. We wanted to correct that information and provide her birth name. I made a simple edit to do that. Someone objected to it because no source was provided for the information. I replied in the talk page that the source was personal communication from my wife, the daughter of the person who's Wikipedia page I was editing. I was told that this was not sufficient.

What I do have is a copy of her marriage license and also an image (that came from of the 1910 U.S. Census showing her name, and also a list of passengers from a ship arriving in the US that she was on. The problem is that these documents can't be found through an internet search. How do I make my documentation clear to someone who wants to know the source. What can I do to use these documents to show that my proposed edit is correct.

Thanks for your help. Fhnewell (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Fhnewell and welcome to the teahouse! unfortunately, you can't. information has to be from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and while it doesn't need to be accessible through the internet (offline sources are allowed as long as they still meet the other requirements), it has to be accessible and verifiable to those who seek for it (so personal communication is not usable, and which is why we are looking for published sources). there's also the matter of conflict of interest (which I advise you to read) where your editing may be influenced by her being your mother in law, which may make everything trickier. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fhnewell. Google can be your friend when looking for sources. There is an interview here where she talks about her name and when she started using Margot. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to that source. I will go back and edit the page using that as my source of information. Fhnewell (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fhnewell It is frustrating when things that you know are true are not accepted in a WP article. Sure, you would not lie, and likely not for this kind of info, but unfortunately some people make stuff up. That is why every asserted fact needs to be backed up with a published source, so that other readers can verify what you have said. Those are the rules here... (well, I mostly duplicated what Melecie said.) (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable Structure of a Wiki Article

Hello, I'm a university student currently editing Microscopic scale for a unit assignment, and my contributions have since been refined by another editor.

I have already sent my following question to the Wiki editor who made these changes via their talk page, but with concern for my assignment due date, I'd like to receive as much insight as soon as I can.

As the page was previously a stub, I made significant additions to it, including changing the structure of the existing information to the page. I made these changes according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Guidelines, under "Scientific object/concept".

A wiki editor then reverted the structural changes I made to the page. I have no problem with the changes they made, although I am now wondering what is the basis of their decision, and if there are other resources or guidelines I need to read before continuing to edit this article.

If anybody could suggest any reasons or direct me to any other resources, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Sleepymochi (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sleepymochi. Is your class something that is being supported by the Wiki Education Foundation (WikiEd) or did your teacher just assign you and your classmates some Wikipedia articles to edit? If your class is being assisted by WikiEd, then I suggest you discuss things with your WikiEd course advisor. If not, then perhaps you should ask your teacher to take a look at Wikipedia:Student assignments. If your teacher is grading your class on the edits it makes to Wikipedia, then your teacher might not really understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Any deadlines or other instructions your teacher has given your class are not likely going to matter much to other members of the Wikipedia community. Please understand, I'm not trying to discourage you in anyway; it's just that students and teachers often run into problems when their objectives or expections differ greatly from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sleepymochi. It looks to me like you made some major contributions to Microscopic scale, and another editor made some relatively minor changes, specifically moving the "History" section to the beginning of the body of the article. This is pretty much the standard practice for "History" sections of articles. You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Guidelines, but despite the word "Guidelines" appearing in the title of that page, that is not actually a Wikipedia guideline. Wikiprojects on their own cannot establish guidelines, which must be agreed to by the community as a whole. Please note that there have not been any edits to that page for five years, and no edits to its talk page for seven years. I consider a page like that to have negligible credibility at this point. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Consensus, which is exceptionally well established. If another editor contests one of your edits, then it is incumbent on you to build consensus for your proposed changes. I hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sleepymochi - If you have had an interaction with another editor that you are raising at a noticeboard such as this one, it is a usual courtesy to ping that editor. For some notice boards it is compulsory, but not here. That way it makes it easier to build consensus. Not pinging the other editor(s) can make them feel as if you are going behind their backs to get a different (better?) answer. I have replied on your talk page about the issue.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learning How To Add A Page For My Company

Is this where I can learn how to create a Wikipage for which is the company The Oklahoma Post ? Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gregorymoyer1, and welcome to the Teahouse! Articles on Wikipedia need to follow our reliable sourcing policy. For a helpful guide on creating articles, see here, for an an interactive wizard on how to create an article, please see here. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello @Gregorymoyer1: and Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can create your company's article but you have to consider this conflict of interest and must have the knowledge about reliable sources, organization. Your first article and Article for creation probably helps you for creating article. Thanks and happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the wizard. Cheers! I did read on the conflict and a couple steps to take as you said. I will do so. Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your unreferenced draft mentions that the media website was started in 2022. It is unlikely that it has been written about in other publications, which would be the reliable source references essential to establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to verify an edit for a company through its official channels

I work at a multinational organisation which is popular enough that people use its name inso much fake news.

Is there a way we can set up a verified email to make edits that cannot be undone on Wikipedia? Honestly, we see lots and lots of fake news about us in multiple languages.

Thanks, (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia does not operate based on ownership of content; pages cannot be "locked" based on a company's wishes. The project's prose is based on what is said in reliable, neutral sources. If you would like to edit your own company's article, please disclose your paid editing; failure to do so may result in blocks. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an existing Wikipedia article about the company? David notMD (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A company representative is certainly free to create an account indicating that they are a company representative(such as "JohnDoe of XYZ Company"). You don't have to use your real name. They will also need to make a formal paid editing declaration and read conflict of interest. But that representative will have no more rights than any other editor- they will have less, actually, due to the conflict of interest. They would generally not be able to directly make edits related to the company, and would need to propose them instead on the article talk page. If a source is actual "fake news", you will need to explain why. Note that negative information about your company is permitted to be in any Wikipedia article about it as long as it appears in a reliable source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF there is an existing article about the company, then you are allowed to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. Be specific, as in deleted _____, or replace ______ with _____. For each proposed change, you must provide a properly formated reference(s) in support of the proposed change. An editor with no connection to the company with either reject or implement the proposed change. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF there are repeated efforts to add false information to the article, you can request that the article be protected. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. Ths blocks unregistered editors and recently registered editors from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style

I'm planning to reference an article from The New Yorker magazine. The title of the piece is in all caps. Should I reproduce it that way when I format the reference? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a reason to do so per MOS:ALLCAPS unless the title includes initialisms or acronyms requiring each letter be capitalized. Some periodicals may use the all caps style per their house style, and while doing so might techincally not be a problem per WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR, in might create introduce some inconsistencies that could otherwise be easily avoided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly:No acronyms, just idiosyncrasy. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized there's already a reference in the article with its title in all caps, so I should follow suit for consistency's sake, right? That preexisting reference also causes confusion because it uses superscripts, and I don't if I should follow WP:REFNAME or not, because I don't know what the superscripts mean. See "Questions about references" above. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former cantons in {{cantons of (department)}}

Can I add the list of former cantons in the templates of cantons of French departments (like in Template:Cantons of Nord)? See :fr:Modèle:Palette Cantons du Nord for example. (I know that most of those articles will be red links, but over the course of time, interested people can make such articles) Excellenc1 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter message

I want to help translate some exisiting Wikipedia pages from Japanese to English. I couldn't get it to allow me to do that for a particular page, so I tried making a stand alone English version with links connecting it to the existing Japanese version, but when I finally submitted the page to get published, I got the spambot filter message.

It says I should contact an Administrator.

It's my first time trying to make/edit on Wikipedia so I don't really understand anything yet.

What should I do? Sayjay1995 (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayhay1995 Is this about the content at User:Sayjay1995/sandbox? David notMD (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In display, remove the left hand side panel/menu Quizjohn (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schools notablity

I want to write a article about a school how did i know that the school is notable enough or not. Saha86830 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Saha86830 and welcome to the teahouse! that would be found over at Notability (organizations) § Schools: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Saha86830 in practical terms, try to find three sources that are each: secondary (most commonly, news media), reliable, independent (no reason to be biased), and in-depth (roughly, 10+ lines on the school). If you can, especially if they aren't tiny local news sources, then it's likely notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bango plc submission (03/05)


I've updated a submission for Bango plc, found here: Draft:Bango plc. I appreciate it takes time to review pages, but would like to ask if there's an average wait time. Shehrozs (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shehrozs you need to click that blue 'resubmit' button, otherwise you will be waiting for a very long time indeed! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox name is showing.

I created a Wiki page for Zelipa Zulu and my sandbox name is showing. How do I rename or remove this? Jason4004 (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Jason4004. Currently it's in your sandbox (as you know). I've opted against moving it to a draft at the moment, as currently it risks being viewed as a very pro-subject page.
You can't use external links within the body of (what will be) an article. You also need references: I suggest taking a look at Help:Intro, specifically the referencing page. Once you've handled those two bits ask here again and someone can move it for you, and let you know how to submit it for review to try and become an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So just to clarify a Wiki page for a person is classed as an article? Jason4004 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Jason4004! that is correct, and when moving the page you move it to (Article). however I'd advise against moving it to there for now unless you know what you're doing, since it would be better for you to work on your draft and get feedback first, as if you move it to an (article)-prefixed page it can be deleted when it doesn't meet the required standards of an article, while a draft allow you to keep working on it even if it doesn't yet, then let a reviewer see if it's ready. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Jason4004 We tend to classify everything in Mainspace as articles. Few editors here like the term "page" as it has connotations of social media, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Also, it clarifies, for biographies, that the person being described does not WP:OWN their article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason4004 To clarify, User:Jason4004/sandbox is visible (and editable) to other editors, but not an article and not found be a search on "Zelipa Zulu" within Wikipedia or an outside search engine. The advised path is fix stuff, convert it to a draft, then submit the draft to AfC (Articles for Creation) to be reviewed, and either accepted, declined or rejected. As mentioned, no hyperlinks in the text. Some of the hyperlink connections can be turned into references. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Nigerian screenwriters for examples of accepted articles about screenwriters. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I can see I’m on a steep learning curve. I’ll keep it in draft and study examples. Thank you everyone so far! 2A00:23C4:38A2:6901:59A0:B5CD:ACEE:7688 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move image

Hi! I made a dumb misspelling when uploading File:Portraid of Matthew Morris Aid.jpg, but I'm unable to change the name. I have page mover permissions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PhotographyEdits To move files, you need to have a special file mover permission, or be an admin. I have tagged that image with {{Rename media}}, so hopefully a file mover/admin will move it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New entry not going in as same name exists

I am trying to create a page for a individual but the same name exists already for another different person. The name is John Kamara A Tech Entrepreneur and Wiki has the name already but for the footballer from Sierra Leonne. How do I add the page without being directed to edit the Footballer page please. THESE ARE 2 TOTALLY UNRELATED People Waranganayi (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just title it John Kamara (entrepreneur). However, be sure that it meets WP:NOTABILITY and is sourced by reliable, secondary sources. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Speatle! Waranganayi (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Waranganayi and welcome to the teahouse! while we're here, it's best to also read Your first article along with the two links above Notability and Reliable sources, each of those help articles would aid in creating a new article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melecie. Thank you. I have definitely read I'm however encountering this challenge that the name of the individual I am trying to add in exactly the same as someone who already exists on wiki. Please assist Waranganayi (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, you can title it John Kamara (entrepreneur). Kpddg (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Waranganayi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would advise you very strongly not to attempt to create an article directly in mainspace, but instead to use the articles for creation process, to create a draft of the article and submit it for review. Writing an encyclopaedia article is much more difficult than most people realise, and new editors generally have a somewhat frustrting time even if they do go via creating a draft: the likelihood of your very first attempt at an article being acceptable straight away is, I'm afraid, small. Going via this method has the additional advantage that you don't need to worry about the duplicate name. You can create Draft:John Kamara, and when you submit it for review and somebody accepts it, the reviewer will moveit to mainspace and handle the duplicate name appropriately.
Actually, I would advise you not even to create a draft until you have had a few months' experience learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring table content cells

I usually use the visual editor since I feel intimidated by the complexity of the source editor. But is there a quicker way to color in table content cells without having to switch back from one editor to another? Prodrummer619 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prodrummer619, welcome to the Teahouse! AFAIK, no. We have to switch to source editing for such advanced formatting. And, don't worry, the syntaxes maybe intimidating at first but becomes pretty helpful in some times. I hardly ever switch to visual editor now. Regards. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


how can i create an project TEEDKAAY (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TEEDKAAY: Hello TEEDKAAY and welcome to the Teahouse! Could you possibly elaborate what you meant with your question? Wikipedia doesn't have projects (outside of Wikiprojects). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Issues

I'm at a loss with understanding this notability thing. I was told that my submission was rejected for notability reasons and then to make edits to fix. Couple of years later (after finally finding online sources and paying for subscription), I added/replaced them with online sources from different news sources. But now I'm told that the submission will not be reviewed further and that the sources are not appropriate for establishing notability. What could be done? Michron777 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy, draft in question is Draft:Your Story Hour, which was Rejected three years ago. It was then deleted as having been abandoned, then recently restored. You could leave a query on the talk page of Reviewer User:K.e.coffman, who had posted the Rejected, as to whether that could be removed now that you are trying to improve the draft. Personally, I feel that a radio show that has been in existance for 70 years might be noteworthy. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortdesc helper

Hi folks at the Teahouse! I'm befuddled as to how to enable the Shortdesc helper gadget on my device. I went to its information page and found that I was supposed to look for it in the Preferences:Gadgets section, which I did, to no avail. I cannot find it. Can anyone help me with this? Or is there any alternative way of activating it which might help? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissoxciate Shortdesc helper (along with a lot of other gadgets) are not available on the mobile site. To use them you will need to swap to the desktop site, this can be done with the "desktop" button at the bottom of the page. (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for that! I hope once activated, they can still be used normally on the mobile site though? Dissoxciate (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissoxciate Nope, I'm afraid that's not the case, it can only be used on the desktop site. The desktop and mobile sites have different JavaScript API's and a few of the more complex gadgets and user scripts only work on the desktop site (another example is WP:TWINKLE). (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap, that doesn't sound too good. I guess I'll only be able to use it while on desktop then. Thanks for the heads-up, though! Appreciate it. Dissoxciate (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I created an article some time ago for a Canadian missing persons case (Disappearance of Dylan Ehler). This page has been subject to numerous edits, none citing valid sources, from parties who appear (or claim) to be personally involved with the Dylan Ehler case. I would therefore like to request some help from a reputed Wikipedia member, or members, in protecting this page from vandalism. There is now a person trying to put in unsourced information claiming that Dylan's parents were drug addicts and that his grandmother is criminally negligent, as well as a person trying to remove sourced information because it clashes with their own personal opinion. One person was on here awhile back claiming to be Dylan Ehler's mom, and they were chopping whole paragraphs out of the article for no reason, citing no valid sources or even any reasons why they were removing the information. Being from Nova Scotia myself, I know the case is highly contentious, and so there will be repeated vandalism on the page, most likely. Is there a way to protect the page? PetSematary182 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

PetSematary182 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. Pages are not protected preemptively, but will be if there is a demonstratable problem. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! PetSematary182 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PetSematary182: Hello PetSematary! I've removed some things from the article as they aren't really relevant to an encyclopedia article on a missing persons case (Such as a description of what they were wearing or where they were last seen, or that the town is most well-known for having an underwear factory). I suggest looking at some other articles relating to more modern missing persons cases (such as articles in the category Category:2020s missing person cases) to help know what is and isn't appropriate in the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is db-g12 suitable for draft with partial copyright violations?

Is {{db-g12}} appropriate to mark a draft for deletion (Draft:Organic fish) because of copyright violation when the entire three-paragraph lede is a verbatim copy of another source, but the later sub-sections appear to be OK, and cite the originals. In this case, there is also discussion of merging the content with an existing article (Organic aquaculture). How to just mark the portion that is in violation? if that's what I should do. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Willondon You can either remove the offending section then tag the article with {{Copyvio-revdel}} to ask that for any revisions with the material to be deleted, or you can list it at WP:Copyright problems where someone with expertise in dealing with copyvios will look at it. (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Resource Request

I have a resource request I am thinking of submitting at WP:RX at the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I would like access to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics which is a very important reference for mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. I do not have access through my university. Is there a way to obtain access to the CRC handbook as a Wikipedia editor? Ideally, I could access the database through the Wikipedia Library database portal if CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group partnered with Wikipedia. I realize this may be unrealistic, is there a way to find a pdf of CRC handbook, ideally the one with all the database material up to the 102nd edition? I have come to WP:TEA because I'm not sure what if WP:RX is for database requests.ScientistBuilder (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]