Up until now, Wikipedia has written about the band W.E.T. (Work Of Art, Eclipse, Talisman) in English, but now I can't find it. Only in German. What is the reason for this? 46.139.144.117 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article W.E.T. (band) was deleted on 20 February 2017, the reason being (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) - That deletion was over 7 years ago, so hardly "up until now", but I can't find it under any other title. Arjayay (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that even this year they wrote about them in English. I thought about them:
I see no relation between your link and Wikipedia. W.E.T. (Q4016784) has links to articles in German, Italian and Portuguese but no English link since W.E.T. (band) was deleted in 2017. If you used a browser with machine translation to English then it's possible you actually saw one of the three non-English Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia itself does not offer machine translation. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it in German, but not in English. They even wrote about them in English this year. Is it possible that it was deleted because it is being edited as the new album might be coming out which is still no news? 46.139.144.117 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the front page of Facebook. The content is tailored to the viewer. You keep posting links where nobody else can find anything related to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know any other way, because I can't find it either. Even this year, Wikipedia wrote about them in English. Then suddenly I couldn't find the English wikipedia about them. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The jpeg that you linked to above is from this article from 2018. The site blabbermouth.net prevents people from opening links directly to their images so that competitors don't use up all their bandwidth. The solution there is to link to the actual webpage you were reading and not an image you found on it. The same site posted another article in 2020, they're mentioned in passing in 2023, again on blabbermouth.net which seems to have more coverage of this particular band than anywhere else. In particular the English Wikipedia hasn't had an article on W.E.T. since 2017. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember how it was. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't have seen it in English at the beginning of 2024 either. I saw it in English then. But I can't find it for a few days. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It really was wikipedia. I don't know which day it disappeared, because I last looked for it sometime in the spring of 2024, since then I looked for it for the first time and I couldn't find it anymore. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It really was wikipedia. I don't know which day it disappeared, because I last looked for it sometime in the spring of 2024, since then I looked for it for the first time and I couldn't find it anymore. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've given you the most likely plausible explanations for what it is that you saw. You are, of course, free to not accept these, but we have nothing else to say about it. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this article had been deleted in 2017, I would not have seen the albums listed in the discography. I would never have found this article before. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for 4m, but I couldn't find it either. Maybe they could delete it because it is being edited because of the new album (which will be released this year)? 46.139.144.117 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the last Wikipedia article I found about them at the beginning of this year removed? I am waiting for an answer from whoever deals with such edits. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your question sounds to me like "There's a tree over there, so how can there be a cloud in the sky?"
What has that FB post to do with WP? Just because something exists, it will not necessarily have (or keep having) a WP article, does that help? Articles on WP can be deleted. Fwiw, Wet (band) exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Wikipedia doesn't deal with hypothetical future releases with nothing to be said about them - see WP:SPECULATION for more info. If a reliable source were to come out with a release date, a name or anything more concrete than that one band member is working on it, then something could be added to article. To say that an album will be released 2024 is pure speculation, as even the Facebook post above doesn't say that and its well known that creative endevours can be years in the making and even abandonded at any stage. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
recently I have submitted this new page. It got rejected "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.
Freedomwriter90, you might think that you have done so, but vast swathes of your draft remain unreferenced, and your draft cannot possibly be accepted in its current state. You still have a lot of work to do. Cullen328 (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedomwriter90 You claim that all eight of the photographs are your "Own work", meaning that in the Wikipedia definition of these words, that you personally took all those photos. Is this true? And that suggests you have either a peronal or paid connection to Dr. Manohar - is that true? David notMD (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Yinka and I'm new to wiki and have been trying to make as much contributions as i can and so far it's pretty much going well. I made a wiki article on a really notable political figure in my country which i think will be so great to have on wiki because he is well known nationally here but has little media coverage as he is of the far more older generation. In a history class i attended he was talked about and i decided to gather all the resources/references i can and create a wiki article on this figure. the problem is wikipedia is asking for more reliable sources and i'm in between two mountains of abandoning an article which is legit due to minimal "reliable sources" i cited or keep trying. Yinka Williams (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Broc ! He does have articles on reliable sources in my country and also sources on the WP:NGRS list. but i guess i will work on modifying the article to only state the facts sourced from sources on the reliable sources list. Yinka Williams (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy Ping ? you mean like this Courtesy ping: SafariScribe ? Haha ! please forgive me i am spending a lot of time learning the terms but at least i get better and fall in love with writing more everyday as i learn. Yinka Williams (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ! I love this community. as a young researcher and writer who just turned 19 this is where to be ! I am making more adjustments to the article and i ran into a more few much more reliable citations using the list. I thank you so much for the guide ! Yinka Williams (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bracketing the deletion request in nowiki was wrong, but it does not matter. An editor made this one article: Benjamin Benedict Apugo. And then the same editor nominated if for deletion. That process typically takes 7-10 days, as the end of which an Administrator makes a keep ort delete decision. During this time you can work to improve the article and also propose at the AfD that it be kept, providing your reasons there. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, It was a mistake that i marked this article for deletion instead of the other. I don't know if that is my fault. but editors need to consider that know how to navigate wiki and skill of getting reliable info are two different things. i spent months researching this article and i see far less reliable articles on wiki. Please how do i revert this decision ? Yinka Williams (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot revert an AfD nomination. You can, as you did, make an argument for keeping the article at the AfD, and also improve the article. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnieszka653 I'm afraid that Teahouse hosts tend to be generalists who provide advice about editing, and are not specialists in arcane literature. On the other hand, that list has 85 page watchers, who are, presumably, interested in it. You should use the Talk Page to ask your question and perhaps mention you have started a discussion on the Talk Page of the Horror Project which relates to it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a fan of the Mythos, I think your 'standardisation' plan for this article is an excellent one, and I don't think overall length is a problem, since the Contents box enables easy navigation. I encourage you to continue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I have been using {avoided double redirect} incorrectly and creating categorization redundancy. I would like to request anyone with experience with automation to run a (hopefully already existing) script to prune redirects created by my account. Alternatively, any helpful pointers to completing this task on my own would be appreciated (should I try AWB?). Tule-hog (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Wikipedia for a while now and I cannot figure out how to make replies not indent, especially when using * to make a bullet point. It always automatically adds : to the beginning when I press "reply" even if I use the source editor, and I have to go back and make another edit to remove the :. Should I not be using the reply button and just using the source editor for the whole page or something?? PersusjCP (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PersusjCP: Yeah, that's the "Reply" button adding the automatic indent. I don't think there's a way to disable it. When replying to a discussion where I don't want the automatic indent, I usually just click "edit source" for the section and add my comment manually. CFA💬20:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, of course, you may be responding directly to a comment that already has a string of serially-indented replies that diverge from your point: in that case it's best to add only the appropriate 'one more colon', which is easiest using 'Edit source', but you can also use 'Reply' and then go immediately into Edit source to modify the number of colons. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I'm currently editing a page on Mordialloc, Victoria, and I'm just wondering what colour box colour should I use? i.e., the 903 bus route on wikipedia is generally red with the colour tag of d7171f like this: 903. If anybody knows about an organised colour system for bus stops, please let me know! Thanks! AntiMono (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Synoptics: Hi, I've fixed some of the citation errors in your draft that were causing some references to not display. Regarding your submission, it was declined because it needs more reliable sources to support the information. You're on the right track, but there are a few issues: Wiktionary is not a reliable source on Wikipedia because it is an open wiki and thus is user-generated content. SoundCloud also generally should not be used because it is more user-generated content. I don't know much about the three news articles you've cited; they seem to be local Christian newspapers so I don't see a reason they wouldn't be reliable. I'd imagine it'll be accepted if you find a few other news articles to use as citations. CFA💬01:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made suggested changes as far as I know. But I cannot get the lyrics and critical reviews to show up. Could someone please help me further? I am making great progress due to the help of two of you very gracious people. Thank you. I published the improvements I made. But did not resubmit yet. I want to make sure we get it right. Synoptics (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are so, so kind. I assumed you made the lyrics and critical reviews appear. If you did, thank you. I added the reference from the Baptist Messenger. The Baptist Press was already mentioned. But the K-love reference appears in the citations twice. Would you please make sure it does not appear twice if it's not supposed to appear the second time? I am so indebted to you. Synoptics (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Synoptics: Done. Fixed the duplicate reference. Not sure why the sections weren't showing before, but I didn't do anything to fix it. Probably just a glitch. Let us know if you need any more help. Happy editing! CFA💬04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to bother you again. I think I did something to make the critical review section disappear. What I did was paste the Metro Voice News reference after the first paragraph in the critical review section, and I pasted the abbreviated reference for the K-love radio article after the two last critical reviews paragraphs. The reference numbers showed up fine. But then after awhile, the critical review section disappeared. So I deleted those references, but that critical review section has not reappeared. Could you please help me figure out how to put those referenced after the first paragraph and the last two paragraphs? Also the Baptist Press reference needs to be pasted after the last sentence in the second paragraph. I did paste the appreviated reference there for the Baptist Press, and the footnote number showed up. But I deleted it, too, along with the others. Synoptics (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Lyrics were quoted by the Metro Voice News Artcile. I pasted that one after the last line of the lyrics, but the Lyrics disappeared eventually, not right away. When the Lyrics disappeared, there were deleted. I deleted the reference from Metro Voice News and pasted the Lyrics back in and they did stay. Can you please help me paste the Metro Voice News reference after the Lyrics to document that that's where they came fromt? Synoptics (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can ignore my last two messages. I fised some things. There are just two things I'd like to know if you would please help me. After the lyrics, the Metro Voice News reference needs to be placed after the last line. And at the end of the first paragraph in the Critical Review section, the Baptist Press refereneces needs to be added. I messed both up when I tried doing it. But I added two other great sources. Synoptics (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a wonderful way to make the info box superb, but do not know how to do this. Would you please make it look like the info box of Eternal Father, Strong to Save? In mine, Service Hymn of the Royal Navy would say Service Hymn of the Space Force. Navy Hymn has a sample audio. The sample audio for Space Force Hymn is at a link here: https://www.sheetmusicplus.com/en/product/creator-of-the-universe-the-space-force-hymn-21691914.html
This would be an outstanding touch with the title Creator of the Universe above the info box like the Navy Hymn does. Please help me. Synoptics (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The music in this audio is done by my friend: Sung by Dan Kreider and Hymnworks.com That could be below the audio just like Sung by the US Navy Band's "See Chanters" is below the audio on their info box. Synoptics (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To do it like Navy Hymn's info box: his goes in the info box too:
I managed to get the audio uploaded. Will you please help me put a nice header on it like on the info box? You are extremely nice. Also, I sourced the first paragraph. It's the same reference as the last paragraph. Did I do this correctly? Synoptics (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe seems stressed out. Nothing makes this article suitable to SafariScribe. i've complete revampled this to no avail. Synoptics (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Synoptics, although I am stressed, that doesn't mean you should keep resubmitting a draft without improvement, or seeking enquiry. However, you did well. I have moved your draft too. Congratulations! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!16:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The audio you linked is presumably copyrighted and can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. I looked on Commons for a free version but I couldn't find one. If you do, I'd be happy to add it to the infobox for you. CFA💬17:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright license listed anywhere, so I assume it can't. It gets a bit more complicated when it involves the government/military. If it was recorded by the Space Force itself then it would likely be in the public domain. I'm not the guy to ask about media copyright; maybe try asking a new question here or at the Help Desk. Happy editing! CFA💬17:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok if i publish any article directly without making Draft and getting reviewed.(Just asking is it possible or not,please dont get me wrong.) --kemel49(connect)(contri)04:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! You can move your article from the draft space to the mainspace with the move tool. Note that we still will review article per New Page Patrol, but it has a lower standard, and we can't just decline it, it has to be tagged for deletion. Lordseriouspig07:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.I see in bengali Wikipedia that one can use draft prefix if only he wishes.otherwise he can directly publish it.and i was in confusion if english wikipedia applies similar role or not.However, in bengali Wikipedia,if you publish a draft:article you can also move it by yourself to mainapace. overall every wikis follows different standards maybe and thats what made me confused. --kemel49(connect)(contri)07:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, although perhaps not recommended, on English Wikipedia you don't have to use the Draft namespace if you don't want to, right? So we are the same as Bengali Wikipedia in that regard? Commander Keane (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane Correct. Editors can create drafts wherever they like, perhaps never save/publishing them until they are finished. However, only autoconfirmed editors can then directly place their work into mainspace (e.g. by searching for the proposed article title and clicking on the redlink in the search output). WP:AUTOPATROLLED editors will usually do it that way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt12345673838: I see the draft has been reviewed and accepted. However, please stop removing the copyvio-revdel tag from the top of the article (this needs to be resolved by an administrator, if you disagree with it please post on the articles talk page. It's also considered bad form to remove maintenance templates from an article if you published it yourself, especially when other edits disagree with that removal. Mdann52 (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have resubmitted it, so you can see what the next reviewer says. He may be notable as a government official, but you haven't shown that yet. Most of the coverage about him is very brief, or the sources just document his actions. It would help to have sources that specifically describe which conduct merited him the award. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a more established editor, and this is a secondary account for the purpose of unpaid COI editing. This is my first draft for which I have a clear COI.
Unfortunately, the reviewer (with whom I have a fundamental disagreement on what sigcov for a company constitutes) is does not appear to be reachable, which means that the primary issue (excluding visual editor screw-ups, which I failed to check) of notability remains unaddressed. Could some (who preferably but not necessary speaks German) check the discussions on my talk page and on the draft, just to verify that at least the new sources are enough to get over the notability line?
Note for non-German editors: FAZ is a newspaper of record, and Juve, LTO and Azur are the three “standard” online legal news sites in Germany. HelixUnwinding (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HelixUnwinding: based on a fairly quick scan through the sources, they appear to be mostly routine business reporting, although I'd say #10 is quite solid, and #11 seems pretty good also. We normally require 3+ sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard as required by WP:NCORP, therefore my conclusion is that we're almost but not quite yet there. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. There is also this, which isn’t in the article yet. I also have this and this by FT, and this work with refugees, though I’m not sure if that’s an RS? Nevertheless, it should get us over the line, right?HelixUnwinding (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first FT article looks good for notability. It is based on the views of people independent of Bryter who have used it and the FT is certainly a WP:RS. The second is an interview, so not useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A pastor, Cliffe Knechtle, widely on the internet advertises his name as "Cliffe Knechtle wikipedia." I use wikipedia frequently to get info, but can NOT find any wikipedia commentary on Cliffe Knechtle. This is confusing... 2601:189:4580:D6C0:951B:C958:89C7:E1F2 (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been attempting to improve the Nonmetal article by editing its content on the historical discovery of nonmetals, such as hydrogen, carbon, and bromine. The context is that I'm trying to develop the article with a view to a (further) FAC nomination.
Recently, one editor has deleted all of this content, supported by another editor, on the grounds of irrelevance (eh?). It's now apparently up to me to achieve consensus for (re)inclusion of this disputed content per WP:ONUS. The content in question is here [1].
Really? This seems like a bizarre way to build encyclopedic content. The subject matter has been in the article since 2015. Through nine FAC nominations (2021–2024), there have been no objections or comments about its inclusion. The most recent content, was supported by five reliable sources. After nearly a decade, it is unlikely that this content has suddenly become non-notable. Removing such information could be seen as knowledge censorship, which contradicts Wikipedia's principles. Indeed, WP:FAC criterion 1b. is, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".
I've suggested to the initiating editor that if they still feel so disposed, the most appropriate course of action would be to seek to obtain consensus for removal of the content via an RFC. My suggestion was ignored, the initiatng editor simply reverted the content that I had re-added.
At this time I'm not sure whether to seek the assistance of an Admin, or to consider another option.
I'm not a new editor; I've been editing since 2011 (ca. 28,100 edits), and have managed to get three technical articles to FAC standard, but have never experienced anything like this before. It's rather demoralising. Thank you. — Sandbh (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandbh. I'm sorry you're experiencing a frustrating situation, and it's one I've also experienced. We have a weird situation where no one is quite sure how ONUS is meant to apply to long-standing content, but attempts to clarify the policy have been unsuccessful. As slow—perhaps unnecessarily so—as it might seem, you should pursue some dispute resolution. Maybe WP:Third opinion, if only one other editor is involved, or an WP:RFC or the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard if more people are participating. The good news is that the policy WP:NOCON says that the disputed content should probably be restored if no consensus can be reached.
You might also want to put a pin in that issue while you work through improving the rest of the article. It's likely you and the others will mostly agree on improvements to the article, and a shared experience in the trenches might make everyone a bit more amenable to compromise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks very much. ONUS says, "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." That is fine by me, once consensus is established. But how is consenus determined? In this case one editor, supported by another editor, removed the content. I objected and restored the content, which has once again been removed from the article. Does two against one represent "consensus" in favour of the two i.e. to delete? I doubt it. I'm not even sure this is the right place to ask such a question, and am happy to ask elsewhere if needs be. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the red and green (+) (-) numbers next to a user's reply in the "Revision History" tab on a Wki pages "Talk" section?
The green and red numbers in the revision history of articles and talk pages denote how many bytes were added or subtracted by the user's edit. Perception312 (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Travelingsponge: For context, one byte is roughly equal to one single character, so a (−60) means that the page lost about 60 characters in that edit. A (+40), on the other hand, means that the page gained about 40 characters in that edit. CFA💬14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Life is an important element in the ancient Egyptian temple tradition, it is also the name of the Mystery School I am now opening after studying this tradition for nearly 50 years. I have prepared a draft page in my sandbox (netertgold). I do not want to write a scholarly article on the subject but to present the opportunity to bring these teachings into the world through my books (see amazon) I do not want to offend the self-promotion rule which I perfectly understand. - (there are No fees involved in my school). so I am asking for your advice. My work is similar, though not identical to Dolores Ashcroft- Nowicki (SOL) who was my first teacher and also to the Fellowship of Isis - (both have Wicki pages)
Welcome to the Teahouse @Netertgold. You may not use your user page in this way. See WP:USER to see what is permitted on your user page. If you are now opening this school it is very unlikely to meet our notability criteria, and I think you will be wasting your time, but if you still want to go ahead I suggest you begin by reading Help:Your first article, and then follow the instructions on that page. Shantavira|feed me14:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP editor. Sorry you've had to wait so long for a reply. This is more of a holding response, as I'm not familiar with the use of the term myself. Could you link to where you've seen it in use please?
I can find no use of it here on English Wikipedia at all, though have found {{rfdef|en}} in use on our sister project, Wiktionary. There, it seems to be used to highlight a word where a definition is deemed to be needed, with the requirement of specifying in which language that definition is needed in. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:rfdef.
I could only find one page here on English Wikipedia which even mentions that template (but not in the format you've shown), though it still relates to people fixing Typos and the need to have clarity on Wiktionary (see Wikipedia:Typo Team/Wiktionary cheat sheet).
Maybe other users here have encountered this. Sorry I can't help further, but I just didn't want you to think your query was being completely ignored. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R2D2Poland Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. This edit you made looks fine to me, using a scan that you did yourself. To be honest, if you were unsure as to whether it was necessary, it might have been better to have raised it on the article's own talk page. But I think it was a useful addition - so thank you very much.
You're welcome :D. I was just thinking that you might've wanted to try it yourself (or disliked people editing your personal sandbox). Anyway, have a nice day! GoldRomean (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I source a PDF? I’m trying to source a pdf for an article but the default citation thing seems to return an error. I’ve accessed the link through a google search link - if that helps. SillySarah321 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the URL used should be for the PDF, not a Google search result. It might be that there's an error in the citation template syntax, SillySarah321. Could you paste it here so we can check it? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To cite that, you should use something like <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scotborders.gov.uk/downloads/file/831/broughton.pdf|title=Settlement profile: Broughton|work=Local Development Plan|publisher=Scottish Borders Council|accessdate=20 July 2024}}</ref>, which would render as "Settlement profile: Broughton"(PDF). Local Development Plan. Scottish Borders Council. Retrieved 20 July 2024. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Slovakia and I have been reading many of the edits made by other editors which have distinctly discriminatory and inaccurate information about some places that have cultural value in Slovakia.
In particular, any mention of Slavic gods is accompanied by a reference to a single paper by Catholic activists claiming that there never were any Slavic gods.
This is extremely problematic and offensive.
Many of the churches and monasteries in Slovakia are established on known holy springs. Those churches supplanted much older pagan worship temples.
This is well documented and known by most of the population.
Please do not interject your beliefs in order to erase the beliefs of others.
AntiDionysius, I am looking at you. Brusnice (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is a good example of that; I have absolutely zero opinion of or knowledge on the status of pre-Christian Slavic gods (except one time I did go to a traditional springtime festival in Czechia and drank mead and watched them burn an effigy of the personification of winter, which was fascinating, but I digress). I reverted your edit because, like I said in my message on your talk page, I was passing by and saw you changing something in an article without providing a source. I have no stake in the content dispute. I hadn't read the article before your edit. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the alterations in the English version of Wikipedia needs better review. Because I just went to the Slovak version and it included the fact that the monastery was established in the 1300s, with Roman coins showing habitation to the 9th. Who is disputing it? Brusnice (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. You're the one who said there are people making changes; presumably those are the people disputing it.
I agree, English Wikipedia could always do better. Part of keeping the Wiki up to high standards is stopping unsourced additions of content; that's why I reverted your edit. It's no deeper than that. If you want to re-make the edit with reference to a source, then go ahead. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brusnice, does the information in the Slovak version have a reference? If so, and assuming that reference meets the criteria at WP:42, you could add the information with that reference. Otherwise, on English Wikipedia, unsourced content is usually removed by whoever sees it, regardless of their religion, nationality, or anything else. If the information is well known in Slovakia, you should have no trouble finding a good reference to back you up. Sources don't need to be in English, but they do need to contain the information you're adding (or returning to the article if it was previously deleted).
Please also refrain from making comments that sound very much like personal attacks, such as 'do not interject your beliefs in order to erase the beliefs of others'. You are assuming that the editors removing information are doing it to attack your country's history due to their religious bias, rather than taking the removal in good faith and assuming they - like you - are trying to improve Wikipedia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brusnice, your guesses about what other editors know nothing about are not helpful. All that matters on Wikipedia is accurately summarizing what reliable sources say, not any editor's individual perception of another editor's knowledge or lack thereof. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This author took the information from the sign in the gallery, and from the information provided by the Slovak government when I was there last week.
Your sources are all theologians from supposed experts with no background in Ruthenian pagan practices, no degree from any Slovak or Ukrainian university, and who have never been to any of those places.
The single source that you all have quoted, repeatedly, in nearly every town referenced in eastern Slovakia or anything to do with Ruthenian gods is a Catholic activist that no one anyone in Slovakia has ever heard of.
It is clearly an attempt to rewrite history to suit evangelical biases.
Most of the villages and towns in the area have been established in the 9th century, but all the years given are in the 1400 to 1500s. This seems incredibly suspicious.
The Slovak version of Wikipedia gives much better historical information, yet the English version seems to have been written by GPT with a vendetta against paganism and Ruthenians.
Please remember that assuming good faith is something you are actually required to do here, not just asked to. But also, logically, it is just more likely that some people happen to have read different things to you and therefore internalised a different historiography than that there is a grand conspiracy at work. And it's really just not in your interest to assume everyone is on some crusade against you - this website works on consensus, so if you immediately get combative with neutral observers who are asking you to explain what you think, you make it less likely that the discussion goes your way.
Even aside from the intentions of the people who wrote the content you object to, you need to stop making everyone you're talking to responsible for those edits. You did that to me at the beginning of this discussion - saying that I was "interjecting" my "beliefs", when I had absolutely nothing to do with writing the article in the first place. Now when uninvolved editors ask you about what your specific objections are, you refer to "your sources", "the single source that you all have quoted" - again, equating the people on this message board with the writers of the article. English Wikipedia isn't written by a dozen people all in contact with each other, you know. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to save a draft while editing so as not lose all the work of the day
How to save a draft while editing so as not lose all the work of the day. if I refresh the page then many of my edits and contributions do not show up Gvbkwikiya (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You click "publish changes". That should be understood to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It used to say save, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public.(even drafts) 331dot (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, it appears that me decreasing the size myself hastily instead of waiting for the bot to do it has made it so that the bigger image didn't disappear.
How long will it take for the big image to disappear?
File: File:Seal of Ambazonia (Sako).pngKxeon (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fat-fingered the issue button twice in 20 minutes, don't think this is unique to me and seems annoying for any developer to be sent on a wild goose chase trying to figure out whats wrong with random pages when there isn't a problem
On 2024-05-22T20:48:31 I added a complete list of publications by John B. Goodenough, a Chemistry Nobel Prize recipient, who recently died at the age of 101.
3 weeks later, a deletionist removed my list, as recorded here:
John B. Goodenough: Revision history - Wikipedia
2024-06-11T08:08:44 Mikhail Ryazanov talk contribs m 41,597 bytes −224,070 →Works: MOS:CAPS, WP:NOTDATABASE (unformatted data dump isn't needed at all) undothank .
My question is: I feel, that the publication list is appropriate for Wikipedia, but I do not want to start a war with the deletionist. How do I proceed? Walter Tau (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome. While you don't need to start a "war", you do need to discuss your concerns with the other editor and explain why you see merit in your edit. If that fails to resolve the dispute, there are avenues of dispute resolution.
I would note that the user offered a policy to support their position. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of information about someone- notability and other policies, as well as consensus, determine what is included. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other Lists of Publications on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Ottaviano_Petrucci .
Thank you for your suggestion. I will send samples links with existing Publications Lists on Wikipedia.
What do I do, if the other editor dismisses the existing examples of Publications Lists?
Walter Tau, a massive 224 K byte complete list of publications is not appropriate. It is excessive. A properly written Wikipedia biography is not a complete curriculum vitae. Instead, compile a much more concise curated list of his most frequently cited works. Since you are one of Goodenough's past colleagues, you have a conflict of interest and should defer to editors lacking a conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Cullen328 . I understand your rationale.
I want to ask now about the "conflict of interest" policy,
Usually, people, who have conflicts of interest, are the ones, who know the most about the subject. I am sure, I am not the first person in such situation. What is the proper way to handle it? Walter Tau (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused how these suggestions reconcile to MOS:LISTSOFWORKS, which says: "Lists of published works should be included... The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship are encouraged..." (my emphasis) --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that implicity refers to things at least as substantial as very short books - including every article by an academic (or every article by a journalist for that matter) seems to be against the spirit. For instance this is obviously inappropriate. Perhaps the style guide should be considered in light of this example. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recommendation for a "complete list of works" does not extend to listing all science journal articles for which the person is an author or co-author. Again, the article already contains Selected works and Selected books. That is sufficient. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what you need to know can be found at your first article. You've already shown that you can edit an article (although I'd like to see some reliable sources along with your edits), so I'm wondering if you had any more specific question? -- D'n'B-t -- 10:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] Presumably because they needed it in the past, before the protection was added – feel free to search their 'View history' tabs. Note that they are only Semi-protected, which bars only users with no account (like me!), and those with accounts less than 4 days old and fewer than 10 edits.
Protection is not only an anti-vandalism measure, it also mitigates against good-faith but poor-quality edits by very inexperienced users, which subjects such as these seem likely to attract. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also observed that some editors are removing sourced content from Islam related articles. I also observed that some editors are getting blocked for adding sourced content if it is critical of Islam (like Kaalaka).-Ganeemath (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BuddyHeigh, if you find a page wrongly protected, or if the protection is unlikely to be necessary, or it has been so long that you think the situation might have changed and would like to check if it has, you should contact the protecting admin/s. Any editor is also able to request modification, including removal, of protection settings at WP:RFP. Saddam Hussein was protected in 2010 by an admin who's still active. So, you could ask him whether he'd be open to removing protection to see if people have lost interest. The same thing was apparently tried on the Gaddafi, and protection reinstated this year, after it became apparent that it was still necessary. If you have enough examples and reasons to believe the problem is systemic, you can start discussion about it on a central venue. Why the hell would you assume it has anything to do with their ethnicity??!! — Usedtobecool☎️11:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ganeemath, no he couldn't have. He is WP:INVOLVED. It's been less than two weeks since your account was created, which was less than two weeks after Kaalakaa was topic-banned. What made you think we're so easily bamboozled? — Usedtobecool☎️11:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I added it as an uncontroversial move, since this is the correct spelling of the book as witnessed by the book cover image uploaded from 1883 that I added today. Thank you for letting me know where to post this request. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I often upload book covers when the image is missing, but findable. Which book cover should I add when both are available and both are only a couple years apart, the earliest edition (in a foreign language), or the earliest edition in English (since this is the English Wikipedia after all)?
This is the English edition book cover from 2012, and this is the original book cover which was in French published a few years earlier in 2009. I can upload one image to the infobox, but I want to make sure that I am making the right choice about this going forward and not just using my own best judgment. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpeeroD You might be best to first create the article on Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Genève [de] to show that it really is considered the finest award in the watch industry. That would help with the notability claim for Delaneau. The German article exists but wouldn't be acceptable here as it, too, is poorly sourced. The French one is much better but still has issues. However, I see that there are nearly 30 articles which mention that prize on the English Wikipedia. Taking sources from these would, I'm pretty sure, be a good start. It is even mentioned in clock. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to answear Mike.
Would you mind taking a look again, i spent a few hours adding more
@SpeeroD I made an edit which removed the external links, which we don't place within article text. I think that your references to the independent write-ups will get this over the line for notability. I reduced the reference for thejewelleryeditor to a single cite to the group of articles there, which I think is a better way to do that. Let's see what the next reviewer says when you re-submit the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got this error several times when resubmiting? I tried reading the explaination but i dont understand whats wrong.
An error occurred (ratelimited: You've exceeded your rate limit. Please wait some time and try again.). Please try again or refer to the help desk. SpeeroD (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Landontogoodinnitu: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please read the entire message at the top of your draft—it explains exactly why your draft was declined and what you can do now. Note that correct doesn't mean verifiable—everything in your draft needs to be supported by reliable sources. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 14:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GARYRUE If you created a topic more niche than needed you can do two things. Firstly, you can just rescope the topic, i.e. add more information about the general topic to the article. If the more niche topic is independently notable and shouldn't be merged in it's entirety into a larger page, simply give a small section summarizing the daughter topic in the central article and link the daughter article with {{main article}}. If you give the specific example that you are talking about, I can go into more depth. ✶Quxyz✶15:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I'd like to do is delete the unpublished page I had created, keep my account and start over. But I don't see how to do that. (My apologies, I'm so very new at Wikipedia.)
If you're the sole editor of a page then you can add the template {{db-self}} to the page and an administrator will come along and delete it for you. That said, I can't see where you've created any pages. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Sleeperink is also you, then you should abandon one of the two accounts, as it is strongly encouraged to keep to one account per person (and one person per account). If you really want that page deleted, the you could log in as Sleeperink and add {{db-self}} to the page. However will get deleted anyway after a period of time once it's apparent that they're abandoned. Whichever one of the two accounts you stick with, you should definitely read some guidance on editing with a Conflict of Interest. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have spent hours in gathering information, sources and references, but my draft Draft:Rafael_Baghdasaryan keeps getting declined for "non-reliable" or not significant coverage. I have provided some of the most famous sources from Russia and Armenia, popular news websites which are trusted, criminology books, a video, and several more. I am ready to give more sources, but on the Russian and Armenian wikipedia article for him there are only few sources, of which I've mostly used, but still, in contrast, I get declined. Yeghishedaviti (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has lengthy content that is not referenced. Either add references or deleted the unreferenced content (even if you believe it to be true). David notMD (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For just one example, the Death section has seven paragraphs, but only the first has references, even though the others have quotations. All quotes must be referenced. David notMD (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - you can use the same reference more than once. If you're using the Visual editor then you just need to copy+paste the [1] to everywhere that it applies. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spino20012023, welcome to the Teahouse! The current Wikipedia page for Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade includes a summary of all the Macy's parades throughout the years. In general, in order for something to have its own article, it must meet certain criteria (please read Help:Your first article for more info!). The event must be notable and have been reported in reliable sources, such as newspapers. I see that 1997 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade has its own article, but from what I gather the event went wrong and was therefore picked up in many news outlets and the parade became historically notable. From a quick Google search, I can't see anything particularly notable about the 1998 parade. Perhaps you can see if anything in one of the existing articles needs improving and start there? Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks. I seem to remember a Wikipedia page, perhaps one part of the Manual of Style, explaining that "On 1 January 2000" has to be followed by a comma and "In January 2000" can be, but doesn't have to be followed by a comma. But I cannot find such a page, neither in the Manual of Style nor through a web search of Wikipedia. Does anybody know whether such a page exists? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of dates is stated in MOS:DATESNO. Templates like {{Use dmy dates}} ensure correct view of references, but for in-line text, a lot of visual editing is wasted on ensuring consistency of these formats, instead of leaving tedious tasks to a bot. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I thought you were referencing distinction between MD,Y contraction versus DMY. Use whatever you want, until someone corrects you with an obscure policy. Imho, the most important consistency is within the article itself. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know articles about countries that speak English natively are supposed to use the "formal"/"official" spelling and grammar used in that country (such as British English, Australian English). But what about other countries like India? Are they allowed to create their own standards as a descriptive rather than prescriptive process, so that Wikipedia has to follow them? Like in Rajendra Singh (RSS), we're supposed to use local phrasing, such as
During emergency he went underground and toured whole India.
He was born on 29 January in 1922 in village banail district buladshahar city of state Uttar Pradesh, when his father was posted there as an engineer.
What do you mean by "Article uses Category:Varieties of English templates"? That article doesn't. Also should "Indian English" be assumed to mean however average people speak English in India, even though average people in India aren't fluent in English? 2601:644:9083:5730:4597:6B0E:53F0:7347 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gandhi is famous around the world, not just to Indians. That article doesn't seem too different than British or American English, and doesn't have any of the unusual features that would be considered incorrect in the UK/USA/Canada/Australia/NZ/Ireland. Maybe articles that are written by Indians/Pakistanis, for Indians/Pakistanis would be written differently. 2601:644:9083:5730:4597:6B0E:53F0:7347 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Indians are allowed to develop Standard Indian English. Are you suggesting that a string such as "in village banail district buladshahar city of state Uttar Pradesh" would be okayed by the copyediting/proofreading team of a respected Indian periodical or publisher, and that it complies with Standard Indian English? -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I recently received an email from a company sharing that they can provide free consultancy services for drafting and editing Wikipedia articles. I also noticed that their company name is listed on this Wikipedia workpage here under the "List of paid editing companies." I am uncertain if this is an acceptable practice. May I seek some advice? Thank you! Ccyfferent (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ccyfferent, undisclosed paid editing is prohibited. Disclosed paid editing is allowed, however very few of us actually think it's a good thing, it is mostly just tolerated, begrudgingly. Any paid advocate would still be editing for their client as an individual editor, and would have to abide by all the rules same as everyone else, plus a few more:
They need to disclose their client and employer.
They may only submit drafts and make edit requests on the talk page of articles. Direct editing of articles would be limited to fixing typos and vandalisms.
Incompetence and time-wasting is tolerated less. They may not, for example, keep rehashing the same issues, keep posting walls of text and demand that volunteers review their proposals on their schedule.
If you do hire a paid editor and their conduct is poor, it will forever tarnish the reputation among Wikipedia editors of whichever topic they happen to be working for. If the topic is of wider interest, the misconduct is often even picked up by the media. The subject will invite closer scrutiny in the future. For example, a new article on a borderline notable topic is much more likely to be tolerated or not urgently sought deletion of, if created by an independent volunteer with some track record, than if it has prior history of having been pushed by paid editors or single purpose accounts with apparent conflicts of interest. Generally, I would advise that you refrain from hiring a paid service to write for you unless you are okay with losing your money and getting no results, with some likelihood of it getting back to you and tarnishing your reputation in real life. That is the most common outcome. Regards! — Usedtobecool☎️04:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Free" can be bait-and-switch, meaning they offer a "free" service, but for a fee can assign you to one of their more experienced editors. And so on, and so on. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the short description, usually at the top of the wikitext, invisible when viewing the page? I feel it would be useful to see the description that serves as a summary to the entire article, functioning as a WP:HATNOTE would.
Am I missing a setting to enable that, was this an intentional decision, or is this something I can propose at some forum? Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am autistic and due to that I frequently misperceive tone in text; sometimes I can come across a bit defensive when I misread people as being offensive. Ideally there would be an appropriate template I could put on my user page to communicate that:
I am not being purposefully dense, obtuse, or rude, but I might've missed some nuance
You'll have an easier time communicating with me if you're direct
PS: I still hold myself and expect to be held to WP:RULES including WP:CONDUCT; I am not asking for a free pass to be unkind, rather trying to clarify my communication style to editors who come across me. LinuxNCats (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am currently significantly expanding and improving the article Matthew Webb, but have some questions about the reliability of this book. The book is published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, but is not peer reviewed.
WP:Scholarship mentions that books should be vetted to be considered reliable, which is done by some reputable publishers. I have three questions:
Is there an online tool for checking the reputation of a publisher? If not, what is the best way to find out a publishers reputation.
If a publisher has not fact checked the book, is it considered unreliable, even with non-controversial topics?
If the source is determined to be reliable, are there any restrictions on how extensively it is used? There are a large amount of sources on Matthew Webb, but this is the only one that goes into detail in many areas of his life. Not using most of it would make the article much less comprehensive. It is a wonderful world (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@It is a wonderful world the publisher is certainly well-known and long-established. The back cover of the book has number of quotations from reviews, which you could seek out to judge how well the book was received (bearing in mind that there may be bad reviews they didn't include!). I can't tell from the snippets I can read in the archive whether Watson quotes her sources: clearly the book would be most useful if it did. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bebo12321. Are you asking why no one has created an article for the Mecca Mall in the city of Mecca? Usually an article about a topic does not exist for two reasons:
1) a volunteer has not gotten around to making one yet.
2) the topic does not pass our notability criteria and therefore does not merit an article at this time.
Malls are not inherently notable, so you would need to find significant coverage of the mall in multiple, independent, reliable sources in order to meet notability. Qcne(talk)14:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more notable because mecca mall jordan is a stub and theres a lot of articles about makkah mall in mecca, and i dont know how to really write an article so can someone make it? Bebo12321 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people and more specifically the notability guidelines for writers. Generally, a subject must have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. A good number to look for is 3 independent, reliable published sources that go in-depth about the subject. Currently, most of the references in your article only offer trivial mentions of the subject, which are not enough to establish notability. CFA💬15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been Declined twice, which is not the same as Rejected; the latter would have indicated that the reviewer saw no hope for success. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled this (as you could have done) and "As of 2024, the Highest IQ ever recorded is of YoungHoon Kim from South Korea whose IQ is 276". Shantavira|feed me16:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence quotient says: "For modern IQ tests, the raw score is transformed to a normal distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15." By this definition, IQ 276 would mean intelligence like 1 out of 2.3×1031 people. That's clearly nonsense. The mass of that many people would be about 500 times the Sun and they would end up as a black hole. However, a search shows the 276 claim is based on a definiton using a standard deviation of 24 instead of 15. Then it corresponds to 1 out of 8.9×1012. That makes a little more sense but it's still 1000 times the World population. I call bullshit. It's not sensible to claim that even if there were a thousand times as many humans, this person would probably still be the most intelligent. They must have used a test which doesn't give meaningful results at extremes. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With standard deviation 24, IQ 252 would correspond to 1 out of 8.3×109. That's around the actual World population and the highest IQ claim I might accept. Using the more common definition with standard deviation 15, it would be IQ 195. With this definition, IQ 276 changes to IQ 210. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, the Reference Desk is the place to ask questions not directly related to Wikipedia. The volunteers there will be better equipped to answer your question. CFA💬16:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you supposed to change citations if the webpage for example sources another webpage with the same yet original info? Fewsnake (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fewsnake, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't quite understand your question, but i think you are talking about a source which cites another source. The relevant policy is WP:SAYWHEREYOUSAWIT. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "PGA" posting contains incorrect information, but I am not an expert in how to change the error. It is related to the section called "Fall Series (now defunct)". The PGA does not award FEDEX Cup points during the events in November and December. The players (usually outside the top 50 for the current year) add to their season points the points earned during those events to determine their place in the top 125 players for the subsequent year. The PGA has made the new process very difficult for fans to understand. Someone from the PGA needs to assist in the correct explanation on your posting. 2601:680:CC01:6100:44B4:BC54:6B43:17D1 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which article are we discussing, specifically? I'm not finding a section heading with the text "Fall Series (now defunct)" anywhere. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to cite a text that's only available in EPUB format (at least, for now) and which I have read on a mobile device. That's different for me because I normally source from print books that I hold physically in my hand. What's the best way to cite the pagination, or make pagination clear that it's from an epub addition (as when/if a print copy or .pdf copy is available, presumably the pagination would vary in a big way)? JArthur1984 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JArthur1984: I believe that is what the format parameter in {{cite book}} is for, although that requires a URL. H:CS1 also says "Other notes about reprintings, etc., should be placed after the template, and before </ref>." CFA💬20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If you felt like giving us just a smidgin of an idea of what kind of help you wanted, and in relation to what article (not "profile" - we don't have those in Wikipedia), maybe somebody would be able to help you. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently attempted to make a new Wikipedia page, but it was declined. I thought that my 8+ sources would have done the job, but I might've missed something along the way. Could someone help me out with the creation and/or explain to me what went wrong?
Hello, Benjamin Arts, and welcome to the Teahouse.
While you are permitted to delete messages from your user talk page, it seems rather unkind to anybody who might want to help you to remove all the evidence of ever having created and submitted a draft from your user talk page!
As Draft:OrcaSemi has been deleted as unambiguous advertising, only admins can look at it and see what was in it anyway, but the reasons for the draft being declined were there on your user talk page before you blanked them.
Since I can't see the deleted draft, I can only give you general feedback; but I presume that you made the very common beginners' mistake (especially for those with a conflict of interest) of making your draft say what the company wants people to know about it, and it was probably based mostly on sources that come from the company.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Furthermore, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. I realise that, as a paid editor, you may be unwilling to do this. But how on earth would you expect to do a professional job in a completely new area (for you) without spending any time on training in the necessary skills? (You made twelve edits to various articles before you tried this, some of which were wrong because you were unaware of Wikipedia's policy on ENGVAR. There is no shame in this, but it is an example of how you are not yet familiar with Wikipedia's policies and procedures). ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Still learning the ropes. I saved the feedback onto a separate sheet for orderly purpose. I believe that neutral point of view can be utilized more for sure. Thanks for the feedback. Benjamin Arts (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sample: OrcaSemi's mission is to address the challenging design problems faced by engineers that large tech companies demand. It furthers this mission by providing customer's real-world analog problems and innovate [sic] solutions that enable life-changing products to be realized. Wikipedia cares little for companies' "missions", and instead wants descriptions of and commentary on the companies from disinterested reliable sources. Thank you for saying that the company is paying you; am I correct in inferring from your user page that you are planning to create an article about yourself? -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I will be sure to take into account more description-based writing on the page. As I am reading more, I am noticing that items like that a personal page might not be the best move... Benjamin Arts (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to create a draft article for "andamiro" (https://www.andamiro.com/global/), as it is a red link on many dance-game related articles.
However, the article seems barren without a proper company logo beside it. I am unsure how to add this, due to the process of actually adding the image talking about sorts of "CCL"'s that i personally have no idea about. HyperNover (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andamiro logo@HyperNover: Welcome to the Teahouse! I've uploaded the logo to Wikimedia Commons, the media repository used by Wikipedia. Since this logo is simple enough, it falls doesn't meet the threshold of originality and is considered to be in the public domain, free to use. It's now located at File:Andamiro logo.png, so you can add that to your draft article using [[File:Andamiro logo.png|thumb|Andamiro logo]] to achieve the result shown here. Hope this helps—let me know if you have any further questions! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperNover: Sure! The main issue here, from a quick look, is that you haven't added any sources to the article that would establish Andamiro's notability. Per our general notability guideline, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Andamiro has to pass this test before an article about it can exist. Out of the four references in your draft so far, two are links to the company's website (not independent), and two are to user-generated content (a forum and Wikipedia itself, not reliable). You'll need to do more research to find better sources before your draft will pass a review. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me some examples of what to look for?
Not really sure what independent sources i'm supposed to reference, i thought that meant like personal discussions separated from company
i got the alert that i wasn't supposed to reference wikipedia itself.
Is this like, news articles?
The whole company seems pretty notable to me, i'm not sure how to prove that either.
@Hoary@Bsoyka How's this for references? I tried to stick towards articles and news postings, rather than forum pages and alternate miscelanious websites. Other than what i've found, and basic knowledge that would be confusing to challenge, it's been difficult to find other references. HyperNover (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My submission was declined for not enough references
while this is unfortunate, i'm seriously at a lack for finding what i'm actually supposed to add
the pages regarding referencing and high quality sources are far too advanced for my english skills, and i'm not exactly sure what else i'm supposed to reference HyperNover (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HyperNover, remove any reference to Wikipedia. Remove any reference to the company itself for any achievement (such as that the company "was qualified as a military supplied security measurement company"). Remove any remaining reference that isn't what en:Wikipedia regards as a reliable source. Make sure that all the content does have a reference to what en:Wikipedia regards as a reliable source, and that the draft has references to sources that discuss the company in depth. When you've done that, submit the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My (personal) quick guide to successfully creating an article:
Find at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Critically evaluate each one against all three of the criteria in WP:42.
If you have found at least three (and not otherwise), forget everything that you know about the subject, and write a draft summarising what those sources say and nothing else. There's room for some editorial discretion here as to what is appropriate, but make sure you don't leave out something just because you disagree with it.
Hello. I would like to ask if there is any qualification needed for a song artist to get a separate page for their discography, maybe a minimum number of albums or songs? George13lol2 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the discography would get so bulky that, if it remained in the article about the "song artist" (singer?), that article would be horribly bulky. Of course books aren't discs, but they have similarities; if the content of what's now "Bibliography of Gianni Berengo Gardin" were instead a (large!) part of the article "Gianni Berengo Gardin", the latter would be grotesque. -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I see so I guess there is no specific guideline for that then. Thanks.
In regards to the selection of edits, should I try to stick towards topics i know about? or should I just help where I can with as many articles as i can HyperNover (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can do either, as you prefer. ("Knowing about topics" isn't as helpful as "knowing how to find reliable sources about topics".) Maproom (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HyperNover, Monoid ring is an example of an article that's on a topic that I don't understand and that I therefore avoid. In the state it was in when I first encountered it, Kościuszko at Racławice was an example of a draft (now article) on a topic of which I have close to zero knowledge but of which I think I have a degree of understanding that can help. Piotrus has a far better understanding of it than I do, but I think (and hope) that I too contributed to improving it. I suggest getting stuck in to one article at a time, each in a topic area that you understand; and always, as Maproom suggests, depending on reliable sources for any additions. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my name is Rosalyn, I am an employee at Klesch Group and wanted to reach out to the community for assistance around refreshing the A. Gary Klesch Wikipedia article. The article currently has two warning boxes for neutrality and referencing and I would like to work with neutral editors to ensure only well sourced information is used and the tone of the article is balanced.
As someone with a connection to Gary, I am keen not to make any changes unilaterally, but instead collaborate with neutral editors. I have left a recommendation for the article to be updated on the Talk page and wondered if anyone would be kind enough to review, share feedback and action?
Hello, Rosalyn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your paid status.
You have generally gone about this in the right way.
However, (and this is just my opinion) by requesting one huge monolithic change you may have made your change less likely to be picked up. Remember that we are all volunteers here, and people work on what they choose.
As you have presented the request - carefully worked though it is - an editor is going to have to take it on as a whole, which may take considerable time. It's possible somebody may decide to do so; but if you presented a series of separate, more focussed requests, I think it is more likely that people would take them on, one at a time.
I have't looked at your request in detail, and perhaps there's no way to break it up. But I encourage you to look and see if you can. ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine, I appreciate the guidance as I'm new to this! Thanks for the guidance on structuring the update suggestions - I'll have a look at breaking it up into smaller sections and update the talk page Rosalyn15 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of small proposed changes will be an improvement on one humungous rewrite, but it'll still be off-putting to us volunteers who actually do the work. How about starting with one small change to fix an error, and including a reference. If that goes well, then try another one or two. Maproom (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I'm new to wikipedia, my first article was declined today because it lacked formality and sources. I was said that it sounded more like an essay. I'm the orginal owner of the concept, I have all rights to concept, its a product of my pure human ingenuity. can someone help me re-edit it so I can submit it for review. would be lovely if someone can help. article is here, Draft:Quantum Economic Model, The future of economics - WikipediaKrypton369 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia article should ever advance an argument, conclusion, or recommendation, unless it is summarising an argument, conclusion, or recommendation from a single, attributed, reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your "original source" (researchgate)) is your own unpublished document from 2021. I concur with "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". David notMD (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Junurita a suggestion I give to new editors is to start out with simpler tasks, such as the ones listed at Wikipedia:Task Center. Writing a good quality article is no easy task. If you still want to do it, I would pick a topic in which you are familiar and for which you have access to sources. Broc (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edited a wikipedia page about Michael Wallis-Brown, head of Mobile Financial Services at Ericsson back in March. Now I noticed the page is gone. Can you please help and see what has happened? Original link: Michael Wallis-Brown
.... note that this was a "soft" deletion and you can request it be reinstated if you believe there are now suitable sources to meet the notability requirements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ofalk88. I can't see the deleted article, but judging from what was in the deletion discussion, I suggest that you look for sources each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42: reliable, independent, and with significant coverage of Wallis-Brown specifically, and ignore/remove pretty well all other sources. If you can't find at least three sources which meet this standard (and @Dclemens1971 said they looked for them last month) then give up. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ofalk88. Here you stated that you work for Ericsson. This makes you a paid editor for any article associated in any way with Ericsson, and it is a condition of the terms of use of Wikipedia that you make a formal declaration of that fact, preferably on your user page (details in that link). Please do this before making any other edits. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are creating new wiki entries for several Canadian artist with the aim of bringing visibility and recognition to artists who, for some strange reason, do not have a wiki.
Draft:Victor Arroyo Declined four times so far, all for not adequate references. IMDb is not considered a valid ref. Refs that he has lectured at several institutes of higher learning do not contribute to establishing notability. Also, each Wikipedia account must be for one person only, so no "we" allowed for actual editing. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the feedback!
Arroyo is notorious, as stated in several secondary sources. Being exhibited at the CCA (twice) and other museums, art galleries, and film festivals is not a small feat.
- In this particular case (visual artist and filmmaker) IMDB is a necessary source. Would you recommend then, removing altogether IMDB as a source?
- Would MUBI be considered a reliable secondary source?
https://mubi.com/en/cast/victor-arroyo
- To your knowledge, is there a dispute process for declined wiki entries?
- Is there a process for requesting a different reviewer, probably, specialized in fine arts?
Hi @Aguilaosol: your sources are almost entirely primary, and therefore cannot establish notability according to our general notability guideline WP:GNG. Unless you can find multiple sources which meet that standard, your only other option is to show that this person satisfies our special notability guideline for artists, WP:ARTIST. In so doing, you must produce evidence that clearly proves they objectively meet at least one of the four criteria in that guideline.
And no, there is no process for requesting a different reviewer, as such; in any case, two separate reviewers have already declined this draft for the same reason. Also, a reviewer does not need to be a subject-matter expert in order to assess whether a draft meets our guidelines and policies; as reviewers, we don't judge whether the subject "deserves" to have an article, but whether the draft satisfies our core requirements for publication. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aguilaosol, what we're looking for are secondary, independent sources on the artist or their work. This is a good one - you want more like that.
When you submit your drafts, make sure to tag them for WP:CANADA on the talk page. This will increase the likelihood that you get a reviewer who knows what you're talking about, and also will probably increase the likelihood you'll get someone who won't skip the draft because it has French-language sources. (Reviewers can review from the pile in any order, and most tend to stick to areas of interest/competence.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aguilaosol . Please note that "with the aim of bringing visibility and recognition to artists" is called promotion, and is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article titled "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" has a section in it that I believe to be vandalism. It reads:
"This article is about 2023 attacks on Israel from Gaza. For American attack on Afghanistan in 2001, see United States invasion of Afghanistan. For the war initiated by the attack, see Israel–Hamas war."
The bolded sentence is obviously not something that could be confused with the article's subject. Where can I report this to someone with WP:XC edit permissions? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this handy plugin states that that's a "Generally unreliable source", which means it's on WP:RSP. The listing there states There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an activism blog that publishes user-generated content with a progressive point of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.CommissarDoggoTalk?17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. So here is where you have to use your judgement. Other people's judgement may differ from yours, then you can talk about it. However, context matters. What from Vox do you want to use as a cite for what content on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now daily used at golf courses and resorts worldwide, this is the documented history and introduction of the first Golf Car Beverage Unit. Bobbrewer1000 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to write about the "Golf Car Beverage Unit", you would benefit from using references other people have wrote to support your writing. Wikipedia:Your first article is a place to start. Otherwise, your user pages will continue to be deleted. Reconrabbit18:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing an article on an artist, Peter Stilton. I've put in text and short references. I've got an alphabetical Word list of the references with fuller information. How do I use it to create a full reference list at the end of my article?
Also: how do I insert photos of the paintings? Do I need to have each photo in a separate file? (I cannot copy and paste?)
Thank you!!
Evelyn
@Frozen902 as fellow editors mentioned in the previous thread, you don't fulfill the minimum requirement for participation in an RfA, which is to have an extended confirmed account, that means 500 edits and 30 days of activity. If you want to be an admin as you state in your profile, I suggest you start working on Wikipedia as an editor, find areas in which you enjoy contributing, and learn the various policies and mechanisms. Broc (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Henri Mercier and Edouard Mercier are easily confused, because Henri's first name is Edouard; he is known by his middle name, Henri. I could not meet the challenge of inserting "not to be confused with" at the top of each article. Is another editor up to it? Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Edouard Joseph Mercier has an accent over the "E" in the Wikipedia article, but not in the title of the article. Edouard Henri Mercier does not have an accent over the "E" in his article, and the title of the article does not use "Edouard." I don't know in which cases an accent is appropriate.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had my first submission declined due to not being supported by reliable sources. See article attached Draft:Alina Stanila I have edited the article since it's been rejected. I would very much like to get someone to proofread/guide/help with this article. Thank you very much Artyschool (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was Declined (not Rejected, which is more severe), but subsequently Speedy deleted by an Administrator, so it and its history of edits can no longer be viewed by a non-Admin. You have the option of starting over, but content needs to be neutral point of view facts, not laudatory. And refs need to meet the standards mentionned above. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. The page Africa Social Impact Summit is yet to reviewed; it was created about 9 weeks ago. Please can it be reviewed, it is taking so long? thanks. Nnamdi93 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nnamdi93 You either created the article in mainspace or you moved it from draft straight to mainspace, either way it doesn't seem to have gone through the articles for creation process.
If you create a page in mainspace then one of two things will happen before it can be shown on search engines; either a new page patroller comes along and decides whether it's ok or not, or 90 days passes, after which it's automatically shown on search engines.
Although both new page patrol and articles for creation are both formal reviews, if you want to have the page be reviewed through articles for creation (which is the normal process for newer editors), I will happily move it to a draft so it can go through the articles for creation process, however do note that that process can take up to 3 months due to how backlogged they are. CommissarDoggoTalk?12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nnamdi93 Welcome to Teahouse! Africa Social Impact Summit is already published. It is still awaiting a review, which is more an additional quality assurance. I notice a heavy reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources, and fewer secondary sources. Some citations link to empty websites, for example msn.com. You are encouraged to continue making quality improvements to the article in the meantime. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nnamdi93. The draft reads very much as what ASIS wants people to know about itself, with a fair bit of meaningless PR-speak. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: SafariScribe ? Haha ! please forgive me i am spending a lot of time learning the terms but at least i get better and fall in love with writing more everyday as i learn. Yinka Williams (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: User:Synoptics/sandbox Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. Fixed the duplicate reference. Not sure why the sections weren't showing before, but I didn't do anything to fix it. Probably just a glitch. Let us know if you need any more help. Happy editing! C F A 💬 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Elliot Salkow
Fixed! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}