Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

MEDIUM.com

Is Medium not a reliable source? LarryKaz (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It's a blogging platform, and user-generated platforms are not considered reliable. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDIUM. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. LarryKaz (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally, no. However, I believe official medium sites of reliable publications can be considered reliable in some cases. For example, The Economist's medium platform. TLA^tlak 14:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Rio Grande 223 Editing Advice

Hi, another editor and I have had a disagreement over the editing direction for the Rio Grande 223 article; and a recent user on the talk page suggested we come to the Teahouse to request guidance in the matter. We have had a pretty lengthy debate on the talk page, but to summarize it we have very different ideas on what belongs in the article and have so far failed to reach consensus. Any guidance would be appreciate. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I will start off by summarizing a question that I usually ask when two or more editors at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard have an article content dispute. The purpose of any discussion of article content is to improve the encyclopedia. So I will usually ask each editor what specifically they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Identifying exactly what you want to change can be constructive.

Second, having taken one look at the article, which was not a detailed review, it is my initial opinion that some of the material, about the importance of railroads in the economic development of the Western United States, should be in the encyclopedia, but should not be in the article on the Rio Grande 223. I didn't review it in sufficient depth to have a recommendation as to where it should be discussed, or whether it is discussed. So there is an issue of off-topic content.

Third, you might try asking for an additional view at the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject. I haven't yet looked to see which one would be most likely to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That concern over the economic history of the railroad being off topic is my primary concern with the article, particularly since I also have doubts about the historical accuracy of many of the sources used. I also feel like the photographs of similar (but not the same) locomotives is similarly off topic. I would point to my last revision as to how I expressed my ideas on the article more fully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_223&oldid=1213584305 Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxtravis7992 There have already been two dispute resolution attempts. I doubt a third will achieve anything. Neither of you appear right or wrong from my perspective. Frankly, I feel whichever of you decides to let this go first is the real winner here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Xboxtravis7992, I disagree with MaxnaCarta's "both sides" assessment and agree with much of what Robert McClenon has to say. As the main author of a comparable article about an individual locomotive, Sierra No. 3, I have opinions on the dispute that are rooted in Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, and have offered my assessment at Talk: Rio Grande 223. I agree with several other editors who have offered similar assessments there. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I will certainly be delighted to have this matter resolved. Xboxtravis7992 and I have a fundamental disagreement, that we have debated at length on the talk page. We have reached an impasse.

He has erased the ENTIRE section on the engine's historical significance 5 times now (February 16, February 28, March 9, March 13, and now again on March 20), using one spurious pretext or another.

For example, he questions the accuracy of a couple sources, such as Lucius Beebe, then erases the whole section. This, despite the fact that the section has multiple sources, and most of the text is widely accepted historical fact that shouldn't need citations to begin with. The historical significance section is only six short paragraphs long, but has 48 citations!

I would like to think that is adequate.

Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even challenge the accuracy of the text. He just attacks a couple sources, then erases the whole section.

This is not good-faith editing.

Xboxtravis7992 says that the section describing the engine's historical significance is "fluff," "extraneous," "bloat" and "trivial." I disagree.

The engine IS historically significant. That’s why it deserves an article in Wikipedia.

D&RG 223 was built in 1881, and represents the most important period in D&RG history. This was the time of the D&RG’s explosive growth, and this dramatically transformed the region’s economy and dramatically increased its population. The railroad placed its largest order for locomotives ever (Class 60, C-16), and this was also the largest order for three-foot-gauge engines that Baldwin Locomotive Works had ever received. D&RG 223 was one of this huge class of engines (Class 60, C-16), and is one of only three of them still surviving. D&RG 223 is the embodiment of what author Robert Le Massena called the D&RG’s time of “glory.”

Is that not significant? Is that not relevant to the article?

The bottom line is this: Xboxtravis7992 doesn't want the "Rio Grande 223" article to contain a section on the historical significance of the engine. I do.

By his reasoning, the Wikipedia article on the "Titanic" should only contain information on its mechanical features and the route it took, and nothing about its historical significance.

That is the issue - should this article contain a section on the historical significance of the engine, or not? I hope that neutral editors/administrators will review the article and read the comments about it on the Talk page. DTParker1000 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@DTParker1000, I will note that five other editors have commented on the article talk page, besides you and Xboxtravis7992. The fact that you are still framing this as a disagreement between the two of you and asking for "neutral editors" to review suggests that you have not read or understood the comments of the other editors. As I read it, five neutral editors have already commented, and none agree with what you want to add to the article. I suggest that you review the other editors' comments and continue the discussion on the talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I have made several modifications to the text, and shortened the length of the section, in response to the comments from the other editors.

I have also made changes in response to Xboxtravis7992's comments.

The other editors seem satisfied. Only Xboxtravis7992 is not.

Xboxtravis7992 wishes to eliminate the section on the engine's historic significance. I do not.

DTParker1000 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:DTParker1000 - One of the rules for content mediation is "Comment on content, not contributors". It is also restated as "Discuss edits, not editors". Sometimes I state it in both forms because it often needs repeating. You are mostly talking about another editor. It shouldn't be necessary to identify the editor with whom you disagree if your disagreement is about content, and it appears that it is about content, but that you are personalizing it unnecessarily. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The key issues I have with the continued edits is primarily an issue of WP:Scope. I am insistent on removing the segment on "The Period of the D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" for it broadening the scope of the article beyond 223. In my opinion it adds nothing to the history of the engine, and distracts from the subject at hand and fails to meet the WP:Concise guidelines.

As I and User:Cullen328 both pointed out on the talk page, the citations in "The Period of the D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" fail to pass criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. The title of the segment itself is a violation of WP:PG "Content" for it's use of opinion and platitudes. The title of the section is also a logical fallacy as the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad would exist until the 1920's meaning that during the period described in the section 223 would not have been "D&RGW" 223.

The additions to the page also violate the rule for WP:No Original Research particular with the claims of how 223 should be restored visually to represent it's as built appearance. The revised edit made by DTParker1000 replaced this with WP:CREEP, instructing the reader on how Ogden needs to "chose a proper appearance for 223 when restored." This ties into the author's comments elsewhere on social media such as on the Facebook group "Save Ogden Union Station!" and "Railroads of the San Juan Mountains" where he further espouses the opinion of restoring 223 to it's as built appearance to be the best choice for restoration of the locomotive. Ultimately I believe the author is repeatedly editing Wikipedia articles to support his claims on railroad history on other social media sites, a clear violation of WP:NPOV rules.

I am passionate about this page, and it is why I have been so bold to remove "The Period of D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" again and again. I think of this quote from WP:CIR requirements, "a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up" I feel sums up this whole matter and even if intended to be in good faith, the repeated edits to the 223 page a mess they have made. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How

How do you add a note Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What eo you mean by a note? (and which article). The Talk page (see tab at upper left) is a place to start a discussion if you disagree with something in the article and want to leave a note. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a footnote is What í meant Blackmamba31248 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Á note like after a refrence Blackmamba31248 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Á note like after a refrence Blackmamba31248 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Or do you perhaps mean a reference (looking rather like a footnote)? Or an actual ("content") footnote (as opposed to a regular reference)? -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help with my signature

For some reason my signature has defaulted to normal. This is the code: TLA^tlak

But in the signature change section of the preferences, I'm getting a message saying:

Your signature contains invalid or deprecated HTML syntax: ⧼linterror-night-mode-unaware-background-color⧽:

I am no expert in HTML so I'm not sure what's wrong, could anyone help? Thanks. I'm tla (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @I'm tla, make sure that every opening tags has a closing tag for example

(<span> must end with </span>) even the self closing tag (<br>) shouldn't be written that way but this way instead (<br/>) ensure to follow this rule else you will keep getting the same error message by the preference, html may be sometime dynamic and may allows some mistakes which will be fixed by the browser, but your wiki-preference allows no mistake, hence every syntax must be accurate.

I hope this helps you, and if you got more question then I'm here to assist you.
Thisasia  (Talk)
17:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you. For some reason it just fixed itself, but I'm going to save this down in case I need it in the future. TLA^tlak 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla: You also need to make sure your signature complies with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Your username is I'm TLA, but your signature suggests it's simply TLA, which is incorrect. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

An RFC [1] was closed in 2021 with consensus that signatures don't have to match usernames in their entirety. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P only states that "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Unless consensus has changed since then, and there's another RfC that I'm unaware of, their current signature is fine. miranda ^:3 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern Bazza, but I'm pretty sure there are some admins who don't have their signature reflect their exact username so I'm assuming it's fine, also according to what miranda noted. TLA^tlak 12:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla: Your case may be a little different but see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Signature error. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have fixed itself, but noted, thanks. TLA^tlak 12:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Need some help to new articles

Hello I have just had two new articles about footballers refused - Marius Kryger Lindh and Bjarki Nielsen - and I can not understand why. The references should be valid. RonTho (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RonTho your message aren't very clear, but if you are having difficulties adding the reference on your project by the Auto citation, then i have addressed this issue @ line 47 of this page, but if this wasn't the problem you are talking about, then please try to elaborate more for readers better understanding.
Thisasia  (Talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I got this message, and can not understand what and where the problem is.

Declining submission: athlete - Submission is about an athlete not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH) RonTho (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@RonTho in general articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). In both cases your sources merely show that the subjects exist and are footballers. Each has a worldfootball.net basic stats listing, and a faroesoccer.com also basic stats listing that is also blocked from the UK and the US. As a person they can be shown to be notable by passing WP:NBASIC also see Wikipedia:Notability (sports) as listed from the decline notice, however we no longer have special criteria for football players. If any reliable sources have significant coverage on them please add and re-submit. Note, the sources do not have to be in English - Faroese and Danish articles are just as valid. Thanks for the ping Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Broken references

I want to edit information in a paragraph of an article. That paragraph contains links to broken references. Should I do anything with those references? I am unable to even ascertain what they contain. Mensch57 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Which article? Broken like ? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Shelby Mustang

See paragraph starting with "Total production for 1966 was 1,373 fastbacks"

The end of that paragraph has references 10, 11 and 12. The links for 11 and 12 are broken. The magazines for 10 and 11 are available used and I have ordered them. But reference 12 is online only it appears. Mensch57 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the links are broken. Here's the process:

1. Go to the Wayback Machine and search for the URL. If the page hasn't been archived there, add {{dead link}} after the reference and mutter unhappily for a little while.
2. If the URL is there, add it to the reference in the parameter "archive URL" (archive-url), and the date it was archived in "archive date" (archive-date)

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed it, but it's useful to know the steps for future reference. Here are the changes I made. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Deciding whether to nominate articles for deletion

I'm debating whether I should nominate these two articles for deletion: U.S. economic performance by presidential party and Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms. I have read WP:BEFORE and found the summary to be too succinct with a bunch of links to look at. If it had everything I need to know on one page, I feel I would be better informed on what to do about articles. I looked at the sources for each article and while I'm leaning towards not nominating these articles for deletion because a lot of reliable sources cover the economic performance of Democratic and Republican presidents and the jobs created by US presidents, but I am not sure that having an article comparing the economic performance of all Democratic and all Republican presidents is necessary. I am asking this because I am looking for a second opinion on what I should do. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, I have not looked at either of these articles. However, some comments: (i) If a Wikipedia "project page" about something as complex as nomination for deletion had everything anybody would need to know, people would either complain about its length or just ignore it. (ii) I am not sure that having articles about, say, Star Wars trivia is necessary. No, that's too polite: I'm sure that it's not necessary. Ditto for articles about individual, forgettable albums about forgettable bands, as well as oodles more Wikipedia articles. (iii) Although you are of course under no obligation to specify your deletion rationale here, I note that you don't specify it. (I don't believe that "not necessary" is a reason for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

While article longevity is not a measure of merit, the fact that the first dates to 2020 and the second to 2004, each with many editors contributing, suggests that other editors believe there is value in these articles existing. Both also get more than 100 views per day. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Hello. I’m sorry if this is the wrong place to signal this, I’m not that familiar with en.wiki yet, sadly. I just want to signal that user:Magonz and user:DTMGO, mainly active on controversial subjects like genocide of indigenous peoples, in a trolling manner, are the same user (positive check user), did some horrible translations from en.wiki to fr.wiki (they probably do not speak French), and edited the same pages. Cheers.

PS: oh I’m an idiot. Just should have looked at the inter wikis, but I guess I’m too lazy… Sorry. Here you have it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour Encyclopédisme, et bienvenue à en-wiki. Normally the place to report suspected sockpuppets would be W:SPI; but if a Checkuser has already confirmed on another version, I would think you should go straight to WP:ANI. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Links in boldface in the first sentence

Some Wikipedia articles, such as the Writers Guild of America Awards articles, may include links placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead that violate MOS:BOLDLINK. Is it right to remove each link from each boldface reiteration, or is it right to keep it as is? Abigbagel (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel: The bold part of the lede in that article is not a link, so it is following the MOS MOS:BOLDTITLE RudolfRed (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant the 1st Writers Guild of America Awards article and the 2nd Writers Guild of America Awards and so on. These articles and the following articles each violate MOS:BOLDLINK. Abigbagel (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel: I've removed the links on those two articles, with [[MOS:BOLDLINK]] in the edit summaries. Feel free to do so yourself for any other instances. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a good style-guide detail. But simply removing the link means readers lose the ability to find the parent-topic article. The "1st" and "2nd" editions of the awards should absolutely link to the awards article itself. The same guideline specifically tells us that. DMacks (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks, @Abigbagel: I've continued this discussion at Talk:1st Writers Guild of America Awards § Links in lead because it involved a specific article's content. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Some instances, such as this one, violate MOS:BOLDLINK in each succeeding article (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...), so would it be better to edit all succeeding articles to fit with MOS:BOLDLINK? Abigbagel (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Consistency among the series of articles is a good goal. Please join us at the talkpage Bazza_7 mentioned, where we are hashing out the wording. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

BLP Charles Haywood – citing the subjects own writing just to mention he wrote for them?

Regarding Charles Haywood, a user has continued to insert a paragraph of the subject's own writing for a few outlets, which reads: "Haywood has also published articles in a variety of conservative publications, including American Affairs, Chronicles Magazine,and The American Conservative" – and used these outlets as the citation. The sources are not being used to explain any of his views. It feels a bit WP:SOAPBOX-y to me... isn't it best to only mention he has written for outlets when a secondary source mentions it? E.g. in this Guardian piece it mentions he has written for the Claremont Institute, thus it seems more worthy of mention. I could be wrong, but what is best practice? Zenomonoz (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

isn't it best to only mention...when a secondary source mentions it? Yes, to avoid original research. WP:ABOUTSELF covers when a subject's own statements can be cited, but I doubt this situation is one of them. As for best practice, avoiding edit warring and opening a discussion on the article talk is probably wise. If that fails to produce an agreement, the steps at WP:DR are probably next. @Zenomonoz Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

adding new section to page

Hi, I'm been trying to decide if it'll be suitable to add a 'Looted Art' to the Yale University Art Gallery's to document when some of their South Asian objects were confiscated by Homeland Security in 2022, as well as its history of the having coins stolen from it in 1964. This idea is inspired by the Looted Art section in the page about the Met. Nefariousflyfly (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems suitable enough. Both the sources you linked to seem to be WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT. Though I'd recommend finding at least a few more sources before adding anything substantial. (Also maybe add this archive link to the NYT article citation so people who don't have an account can read it.) — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Formatting error help

On the article for Libs of TikTok, I tried to reformat how a citation was bundled, akin to how citations have been bundled in § Notes, but it seems to not have worked. It says it's missing a closing "</ref>", but I can't see where it's missing. Could someone please show me where I've messed up? — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed it. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Maps and places

If I were to make good 'building' article on wikipedia, what qualifies it? Another question is how do you add the the google maps thing when pinpointing the location? Thanks very much :) PeepeeDino (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PeepeeDino, could you specify what you mean by a 'building article'? For your second question, you are probably referring to the OpenStreetMaps you see in articles, which can be made using templates in Wikipedia:Maplink. CanonNi (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're wondering what would make a specific building worthy of an article, see Wikipedia:Notability. If you're looking specifically for advice on (or examples of) how to write a good-quality article about a notable building, I'd recommend consulting WikiProject Architecture. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@PeepeeDino: For the location, use {{Coord}}, inside {{Infobox Building}} if used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph Formatting

Hello, all. I just wanted to ask a question about paragraph formatting. How do you exactly format a paragraph, and are there any exceptions? If these questions could be answered, that would be great. Wiki-wiki-waka-waka-1249 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wiki-wiki-waka-waka-1249, you can see MOS:PARA for details on how paragraphs are formatted on the English Wikipedia. CanonNi (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Working on a new concept - a new term

Hello Wikipedians!

I am working on a new concept, a new term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Syndicated_Development - as this is living and breathing new concept & old concept, I would welcome all of you to think how such a thinking would succeed in the future. So please let's revise this concept as we all see fit. This is just a seed. Anyone interested to get involved in evolving such concept? At some stage for sure I would like to arrive at a book, a crowsourced thinking, a crowdplan, but I am not a writer or have a huge following base :). I have researched this topic also with Claude 3 Opus, but he didn't find anything close to what I am thinking... Have a great day! Liviuolos (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liviuolos: I know this is certainly not what you are hoping to hear, but that draft has no chance of being published on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is simply to summarize what other sources have already said – it is not a platform which hosts new ideas. For an article about your concept to be published, other people would need to write about your concept themselves (without input from you), then the article would need to contain only material that could be found in those works, in summary style (not in essay form as the article currently is). I would suggest that spending any more effort on this draft will be a waste of your time, unfortunately. Tollens (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Tollens, what would you suggest to create such a collaborative effort? Which would be the right collaborative ideation platform? I have to start from somewhere :). Suggestions? Thanks! Liviuolos (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any collaborative non-fiction book-writing platforms. You might want to see if you can contact people who have written similar things (though I have no idea who those people might be). Tollens (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You might try contacting publishing companies that have published books on similar/related subjects to see if they might be interested in publishing a book by you on this concept. Your draft might, suitably restructured, form the basis of an outline for the book. Writing such a book would, of course, be a major undertaking for you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your draft is original research and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be original research, only now it is original, but I want it to be collaborative research. :). A crowdsourced plan. Liviuolos (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liviuolos Judging by your username and the name of the author of the "forthcoming book" mentioned in your draft, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is forbidden by policy. After a time, when the book has been published and reviewed it may become wikinotable and someone may choose to write an article here about it: that should preferably not be you, the author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And I suspect that content in your draft is taken directly from your (copyright protected) book. Putting content in a Wikipedia article would mean that you surrender the use of your written work to everyone, for any use. I advise asking for deletion of the draft by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing copyrighted as this is something I am working on, I am trying to promote a concept that is dynamic, to be changed by many people, so exactly, it doesn't have to be by myself, or my own opinion at the end. A concept that is developed by many is more valuable than something developed by someone. I would rather give this to the world and evolve it into something good :). It's not for me to make money, it's not for me to make myself known. My name can be removed after all. I want just to start an idea. Anyone interested can join in and change it. That is the beauty of an evolving concept.

I actually thought that Wikipedia is the place to do it because of this debating and liberty to change things by the others. Maybe I am wrong... Liviuolos (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Liviuolos: I'm afraid that you are wrong in that respect, as others have said above. Wikipedia is neither for debating nor for publishing new ideas (Please see WP:NOT).

As for copyright: whenever you publish material in Wikipedia, you are explicitly agreeing to license it under a licence that will allow anybody to freely reproduce, reuse, or alter it, as long as they attribute it and (if they change it) release it under a compatible licence. You are of course free to publish it subsequently in a book; but you will not then be able to revoke the licence you have already granted on the material.

That might be what you intend; but if for example you are intending to get your work published by a commercial publisher, they may not be happy that you and they will have no control over the copyright. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in copyright, I am more thinking in a open source way. It's not about me. I am not interested so much in publishing, more in seeding a new idea, and like a tree it could grow into something really interesting, like a CrowdPlan, Crowd ideation platform, I have no clue.. Regarding a commercial publisher, maybe that's not the right approach. I would rather be a seeder than an author. So like in opensource, some projects start with an initial author, but end up in huge projects, some still stay with the original author forever. Liviuolos (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Liviuolos, I would think a blog would be an excellent way to expose your ideas and get collaborative comments from the public. Try Wordpress, Blogger, Medium, Tumblr, Drupal, or Joomla. More, at Category:Blog hosting services. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Mathglot (nice name BTW). Unfortunately it would take years to have reach. I don't have followers. Also, this would mean for me to adjust my thinking according to others. Instead I would like them to debate and establish the future thinking in a collaborative way. But you actually point out an important problem. We need something like Wikipedia, but for a new thinking, establishing the way of the future. So WikiFuture, WikiPlan or something similar, an ideation platform. Anyone knows an ideation global platform? Where things are done collaboratively? CrowdFuture / CrowdThinking ... thinking out loud...what about CrowdPlan? Liviuolos (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liviuolos I don't think there are many "ideation global platforms," but I know a few like InnoCentive and OpenIDEO. You might want to check them out. Also, Wikipedia might not be the best place for this kind of information. Leoneix _(talk) 04:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Experienced Teahouse hosts have made clear that your draft has no potential to become a Wikipedia article. I again recommend you delete the draft and look toward social media and the publication (self publication?) of your book to promote your concept. I see you have posted the same content on your LinkedIn account. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy on sources in linked article

Someone deleted text due to no source. However sources were in a linked article. Does wikipedia have a policy for this please? Hewer7 (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7 Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you specify which page the deletion happened on? For general Wikipedia policy on sources, see WP:SOURCE. CanonNi (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The deletion was in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology on the section on Shockwave Cosmology. It was suggested that I should link the shockwave cosmology article to that page. I believe that page should mainly summarise a variety of non-standard cosmologies and that, where there is a linked page with sources, sources should not be needed on the non-standard cosmology page. I couldn't readily find a mention of such circumstances in WP:SOURCE. Hewer7 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A source needs to be present on all pages. If you wish to include a summary of Shockwave cosmology on Non-standard_cosmology, you can use {{main}}. CanonNi (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

where do you see the policy stating that sources are needed on every page. From the policy I see :"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." So this only states that material (not pages) must have sources - it does not state where the inline citations need to be placed. I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one; 3) in a rapidly moving field such as cosmology sources may be updated in an article but be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations has made the issue very clear. CanonNi (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How to try to change wikipedia policy

I wish to seek to change the wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Currently this states "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations. I propose amending this with the additional sentence "Sources may be contained in a linked article."

  RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE

I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one, so anyone looking for useful information might not see it; 3) in a rapidly moving field sources may be updated in an article but that might be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you could take a look at WP:VPP. TLA^tlak 13:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks Hewer7 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7 I don't think your proposal will fly, because all articles are dynamic. You may feel that linked article A supports unsourced article B because you noticed today that it did so. However, someone may remove that source from article A tomorrow for whatever reason and now it doesn't. Readers can't be expected to click through to article A and notice the omission: they need to be able to verify article B content directly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I understand. Thanks to all who have explained. Hewer7 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why was 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:8883:EAE6:A711:9253 banned ??

can you please let me know what he did so I can avoid doing the same. 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you can check his contributions. Most, if not all, of his edits were nonsense and he was blocked from editing certain pages which he vandalized. CanonNi (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see good that he was banned 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Because article talk pages are only to be used for discussion of how to improve an article. See WP:TALK.Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also why does the my singing monsters page not have an islands tab?? 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by your "singing monsters page"? CanonNi (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the name of the game "my singing monsters" which I really enjoy 🤗🤗 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Most likely because the topic doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. CanonNi (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My Singing Monsters does meet notability and has a page. If it doesn't have a table of islands, that may just be because no one has added one (which the user could address) or because it is deemed trivial information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I will make sure I can help wherever possible 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the range User:2A02:C7C:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google) (which 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:8883:EAE6:A711:9253 belongs to) is (partially) blocked, not banned. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

personally I think he should be judging by his contributions page 90.214.152.236 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait is he unmanned today?? 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:482C:9ADF:B556:CFC2 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No, he's still partially blocked from editing certain pages. CanonNi (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

which ones ?? 90.214.152.236 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see the top of the contributions page, it shows which pages they've been blocked from editing. Bongi Mbonambi, Deglet Nour, Denise Welch, Forest Gate Community School, Jefté, John F. Kennedy Jr., List of Super Smash Bros. series characters, Talk:World Book Day and Talk:British Post Office scandal CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Approved new page marked as needs additional citations

I created a page which was then approved by someone else, only after they felt there were enough sources for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockwave_cosmology How do I challenge this, especially as they have not given any specific element needing more sources? Hewer7 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hewer7, what exactly are you trying to 'challenge'? CanonNi (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That an article, already considered to have sufficient sources, has been marked as needing more or other sources for unspecified reason(s). Hewer7 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of unsourced statements in Shockwave cosmology which certainly need to be sourced, there is nothing to challenge here? Article was accepted because the the topic is notable.Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which elements do you consider to be unsourced? Hewer7 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many unsourced sentences, it is easy to spot them. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources that "Per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." So presumably the issue may be more that I have included sources in one sentence which covers the whole paragraph, but I should instead move such references to the end of the paragraph? Hewer7 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing donation account?

How do I change the donation account for my Wiki monthly donation? Wmcpa7905 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wmcpa7905 Thank you for supporting all the work that the Wikimedia Foundation does (though note that none of it goes to the editors who create content here). As a result, we do not deal with financial matters such as donations. But you ought to be able to find the help you seek at this page: https://donate.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give Hoping this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article having an infobox debate?

Hi folks, I am pretty startled and would love some clarity:

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a decade now, and I have come across what (to me) feels like a situation I don't logically understand.

In the George Formby article, there is no infobox.

1) Why is it valid that there is no infobox on this page, if it will benefit the article? Doesn't the WP:MOS ask for articles to all be standardized? I believe infoboxes are a great way to see info at-a-glance, especially for 94% of readers who are presumably casual, and it doesn't seem logical to eschew an infobox if it is a facet of almost all famous persons. The one person last time who disagreed in 2022 wrote, "There is a summary already present (the first paragraph) that does a better job." To me this is the false dilemma fallacy (either the infobox is useful, or the first paragraph is useful). But can't we have both? ¿Por qué no los dos?

2) If not with a clear majority, how is consensus reached? Two years ago, there was a discussion wherein 7 of 8 editors agreed that the infobox should be added. When I tallied these 2022 votes and justified my bold infobox addition in Talk:George Formby, another user reverted my edits, writing, "Removed. Consensus is not gained by vote counting." Then how is consensus gained - when literally every single user agrees? This doesn't seem feasible, especially when circular reasoning and logical fallacies are used.

Sorry I am just so frustrated. I can't make sense of things, LOL! *furiously sips tea*

Thank you for reading. ~~~~ The Fonz (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous 2022 Talk page discussion is at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#Infobox. Only Nikkimaria argued against the Infobox; everybody else who commented was definitely in favour.

There was a previous, longer discussion back in 2014, at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#IB. That went back and forth without reaching a conclusion.

Then there was a further conclusion in 2014 at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#The_IB_trial,_continued, involving just four editors, which was closed saying "I think we have a consensus on this not to include an infobox on this page."

The 2022 conversation did not refer back to that decision, and I have to wonder whether ten years later it might not be reasonable to review it to see if that decision is still the consensus. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Evedawn99, there's no rule either way about including or excluding infoboxes. Casual readers may get the impression it's standard on Wikipedia however, just because so many articles have them. What makes consensus? I would suggest an WP:RFC on the topic. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What is this article having an infobox debate 90.214.152.236 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Talk page of George Formby about merits of it having an Infobox. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I am back here, George Formby is a featured article (FA). What may seem obvious or standard for much of the encyclopedia may become controversial when articles are taken through the rigorous process of making them into FAs. Editors weigh every aspect of an article during that process, taking nothing for granted. Now that it is an FA without an infobox, the editors who put in the hard work to get it that status get a little bit more leeway in trying to maintain the quality of the article. That usually means they get to ask for stronger or formal consensus for changes they disagree with, unlike what would be usual for most other articles. It's necessary because otherwise articles start to degrade really quickly and those editors would be helpless to stop it, in which case, editors would not want to do the hard work of making an FA in the first place. FA is an article made perfect as we can in a wiki; the tension comes from the antithetical nature of the two. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This has descended into edit warring at the article, and clearly not moving toward consensus on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit-warring is in the past, as the editor has been indefinitely blocked for some egregious personal attacks. Consensus building on the talk page can continue, as long as it takes. I would caution to anyone diving in that some of the most passionate wars on Wikipedia have been fought over infoboxes, and it remains designated a contentious topic by the arbitration committee. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

When ref is a source quoting Wikipedia among other "sources"

What is the established procedure in such cases? Im specifically talking about this page in Mendelian inheritance. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@InternetowyGołąb These are generally disallowed per WP:CIRC Mach61 20:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I'm well aware of it, I specifically meant, what should we do next once we find such a reference? Is there an appropriate template or something? Assuming I cannot substitute it for verifiable source in resonable time. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

InternetowyGołąb. It seems to me that we need to look at each case carefully. An article that cites Wikipedia among other sources may be fine, as long as the information for which it is cited is derived from a source other than Wikipedia. (I haven't looked at this case carefully to see which).

Sometimes the tag {{circular reporting}} will be appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that’s completely wrong. ‘circular reporting’ is to flag up a problem source that has used WP’s content but is being used as a reliable source. The only way to solve CIRC is to look at the original source, verify the second articles reflects is adequately and use it as the source in the second article.

InternetowyGołąb, the best course is to follow my first paragraph. If there is no source there, delete the CIRC reference and add a citation needed tag. Alternatively, see Template:Better source needed for a useful template - and leave an appropriate note to explain. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about "completely" wrong, though ColinFine did mistakenly name the wrong template. As the {{Circular reporting}} docs note:

If the source is clearly quoting or referencing Wikipedia, use {{Circular reference}} instead.

FeRDNYC (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

How to follow the active debate on Wikipedia bias?

EDIT: Thanks all I got some helpful resources here and I’m going to continue the conversation in some of the more targeted venues. Thanks again

How can editors follow the active debate over alleged left-leaning bias[2] on wikipedia? What teams are working on it? Are there RFCs or projects helping to research, understand and assess? Specifically, who is addressing left-leaning bias that affects reporting on [3]over political issues like Communism, Far Right and how we associate biography pages with these political affiliations.

This question is more about understanding the process & people involved than finding a conclusion to whether Wikipedia is biased at all.

Some areas I’ve searched

• Talk:Communism
• Talk:Far Right
• Talk:Far Left Politics
• WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Mass killings under communist regimes
• WP:Requests for comment/History and geography

Are there projects or committees that are actively addressing this topic? I see lots of discussions on talk pages, but those can be chaotic, hard to follow , and don’t seem to lead to a conclusion or decision.

Tonymetz 💬  21:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your question seems to have as a premise that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. This is a strange notion.126.255.97.137 (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The allegations may be unfounded but they are certainly not strange. Greater critics than me have raised them and they are worth addressing even if they are wrong. Tonymetz 💬 23:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a good example discussion with no clear resolution

What I’m asking for is how editors can follow those types of discussions and understand any resolution. And who is responsible for those resolutions? Tonymetz 💬 00:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz I see lots of discussions on talk pages, but those can be chaotic, hard to follow , and don’t seem to lead to a conclusion or decision. That is, however, our process, so if you're looking for discussion of these issues on Wikipedia, that's where you're likely to find it.

In addition to what other editors have mentioned, your question seems also to be based on the premise that, because it has been claimed by outside commenters that Wikipedia has this or that bias, there must be some central authority that (a) takes that claim seriously, and (b) has the responsibility of formulating a response (either to the allegation, or to the bias).

None of those things are true. The content of any given Wikipedia article is the product and responsibility of the editors who contributed to that article. There is no editorial board overseeing their work, and there is no approval process for "publication" (other than some peer review, if an article under pending changes protection is edited by anonymous or inexperienced editors). In short, There is no cabal, not even the Cabal to Eliminate Political Bias.

Plenty of people discuss Wikipedia's purported systemic biases, often at great length and with furious passion. But it's rarely discussed on Wikipedia, because discussing anything in the context of "all of Wikipedia" is just too broad to be useful. Specific accusations of a particular instance of biased content would most appropriately be discussed on the Talk page of the article in question. Any discussion anywhere else would most likely be directed there. FeRDNYC (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ll call this “the wikipedia myth” . In reality, less than a fraction of a percent of Wikipedia accounts are editors Among those, only a sliver participate in editing controversial pages. When a minority change is made, it’s usually overridden / reverted. When there’s an edit war, the page is locked.

Again, I’m not here to argue in favor of the bias. My question is about how any controversial topic is managed and resolved. There’s a lot of content on the early phase of conflict resolution , but little info on how resolutions and decisions are made. Tonymetz 💬 18:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz Perhaps some of these article will be of interest to you: Category:Wikipedia content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Larry Sanger is deeply biased against Wikipedia and has been glaringly wrong about online encyclopedias for over 20 years. Nothing he says should be taken at face value or given much attention. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but it's a common allegation and often discussed . I'm asking how to follow the debate. Tonymetz 💬 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz: There's Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but that would just be discussing how to improve the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s a great resource thanks. Do things ever resolve from the talk page? A decision or RFC ? I find the talk pages overwhelming. Tonymetz 💬 04:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Tonymetz, there is no index of places to watch; there is no committee working on it, for or against. Wikipedia is a volunteer project where nobody has more authority over content than anyone else. The bias, where they are there, are there 1. because the world itself has bias and Wikipedia is a tertiary source and/or 2. because of the makeup of the editorbase working on an article. It would not be an organised group of editors or an editorial committee in or outside of Wikipedia deliberately working to make it so.

People who come in with the notion that they're going to fix Wikipedia get into trouble very soon because there are no heroes and villains here. Wikipedia is just what happens when you build a wiki encyclopedia on the internet under the United States laws in the early 21st century. That said, to provide you the information you are looking for with the understanding that how you use it is your sole responsibility, you probably want to start by watching the reliable sources noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, perhaps WT:USA as well if you're an American. The first two pages will give a list of discussions most of which will get clear resolutions. The discussions are evaluated by editors who are not involved in those discussions, as explained at WP:CLOSE. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that there is no authority or status is a bit disingenuous and almost a myth here. There are committees e.g. for WP:ARC , WP:SPI and others. Plus older and higher volume accounts end up having more authority when edits are accepted, and when new articles are published. Some articles are only editable by certain users. Not anyone can write an WP:RFC or edit WP:MOS

What I’m aiming to do is understand how resolutions are made and enforced.

The resources you’ve shared are helpful and thanks. Tonymetz 💬 18:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz You can try to search the talk-space for whatever:[4]. WP:SIGNPOST may have content you find interesting. Perhaps the archives at User talk:Jimbo Wales too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:SIGNPOST that’s helpful ill have a look. Tonymetz 💬 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

He’s not alone. Visit controversial pages on politics and popular science you will see a vigorous debate over this. Tonymetz 💬 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Youtube as a Music Source

I know that Youtube links are generally not accepted as sources for articles, but I was wondering if it would be appropriate to link to a music video posted by an artist's official account when discussing a specific notable song? I could imagine this applying to self-publishing rules, but I wanted to double-check.Rylee Amelia (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rylee Amelia! It depends on the situation. Can you be more specific, please? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you've created two drafts, one on a musician and another on a song. The official music video will not prove the subject meets criteria for a standalone article because it is not independent of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can cite the subject's (or associate's) official channel on YouTube, social media etc, but only as a self-published source. Having said that, I'm wondering what kind of information citing a song could confirm. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rylee Amelia: You could add a link to the official music video to {{Infobox song}} inside {{External music video}} with {{YouTube}}. See Be the One (Dua Lipa song) as an example. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge List article into its Comparison article

Hi, I would like to merge 2 articles, by copying the differences of List_of_desktop_publishing_software into Comparison_of_desktop_publishing_software and then delete List_of_desktop_publishing_software. Am I allowed to do this? Or what is the best way I go about it?

Why? ...For the following reasons:

• All of the details are already in the comparison article, apart from the list of discontinued products that can be easily moved.
• The grouping of products by free/proprietary, then by OS support is messy, these details are easier to view/sort in the comparison article.
• The grouping of products by OS support is inconsistent as there are more operating systems, but it only lists a couple of them, to add the others would be messy, and these details are already easier to view/sort in the comparison article.
• So there is no useful purpose of the list article, I imagine that it was created before the comparison article, when it would have made sense.

Planned steps, if it is agreed to proceed:

Merge differences into the comparison article. Update all articles that cite it by adding a cite to the comparison article. Update all articles that cite to it by removing the cite to the list (or would a bot do this?). Mark the article for deletion. Would any effort on my part need to be put into the translations of the articles effected? When this is sorted correctly to do the same for several other Lists of various software articles.12think (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @12think and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:MERGE for details on the process of merging articles. CanonNi (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CanonNi, thank you I'll follow the steps, I should have known that there would be a documented procedure for this :-) 12think (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That's great! If you'd like, you can check out WP:INFOPAGES for a complete list of all procedure pages, like this one. CanonNi (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding some orders

Hello everyone, this article List of X-Men members is based on chronological order which is one of the format listed in Manual of Style/Comics. My question is what about those characters who joined in same issue but chronological order is not clear. For example X-Force and Phalanx invasion team members in Substitute teams section are in alphabetical order (another format listed in Manual of Style/Comics). Should I arrange those members who joined in same issue in alphabetical order for the sake of organisation as per above points? Sewnbegun (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sewnbegin. If list entries do not fall into chronological order, as seems to be the case here, then I think that alphabetical order is the logical fallback method of structuring such a list. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox usage: Civilian attack vs civil conflict for a massacre

Should the page Daxing Massacre use the civilian attack infobox as it stands right now or the civil conflict infobox, used in instances of other massacres? Where could I find usage tips/help on this? Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any guidance in choosing between these (note that the title "civilian attack" or "civil conflict" don't appear in the displayed text, so a reader doesn't know which you have chosen. Choose the one whose arguments better fit what you want to display. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of Infobox anthem on non-anthems?

Where can I find more info about the usage of Template:Infobox anthem on non-anthems like America the Beautiful? Is it allowed? Where would I find guidance on infobox usage when there isn't a talk page on the templates? Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say that is an anthem. The term can be used quite broadly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Artwhitemaster. As it happens, I think my answer to you in the previous section applies here too! --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely don't see an issue with use of the infobox itself. My only quibble would be with |prefix=Patriotic in the template arguments. (What does that even mean?) |prefix=Unofficial or something similar would seem to be more accurate, since the |prefix= field is documented as being an "Additional description of the anthem", and defaults to "National". Still, given that the song is not claimed to be a National or any other type of official anthem, it seems fine to use the infobox.

(Dixie (song) also uses {{Infobox anthem}}, and there again I would probably quibble only with |prefix=Unofficial national. As a New Yorker I don't see how "Dixie" is even an unofficial US anthem, so |prefix=Unofficial regional might better express the reality of the situation.) FeRDNYC (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, also: Templates do of course have their own talk pages, the one for the infobox is Template talk:Infobox anthem. However, it's rarely useful to discuss anything other than technical issues in the Template talk space, and this is definitely not a technical issue. FeRDNYC (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Article Reviewed

Hi where/how can one read the review of an article? Palisades1 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been an active editor for 10 years. Could you please be clearer in your question? At the simple level, when an AfC is Declined, the Reviewer states reason(s).David notMD (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Today I received the following notice: The page The Troubles (1920-1922) has been reviewed. Im not sure if I can access the review. Palisades1 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Palisades1 The Troubles (1920–1922) is a redirect to The Troubles in Ulster (1920–1922). All that has happened is that, somewhat belatedly, the new pages patrol has got round to checking that the redirect is valid. There is no peer review involved, so nothing to see. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it thanks. Palisades1 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edits

Hi everyone,
My "suggested edits" tab is no longer working after logging in on another browser, even if I have everything selected and logged into the first browser. I cleared my cache as well.

"No suggested edits are available at this time. Please try again later."

Does anyone have a fix for this? AngelicGaze (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi AngelicGaze, welcome to the Teahouse. I also get that message in three different browsers at Special:Homepage. It's made by MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-homepage-suggestededits-error-title. The documentation at translatewiki:MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-homepage-suggestededits-error-title/qqq says: "Text to use in the title of a card shown to the user when an error occurs in loading data for the suggested edits module." I guess it's a recent error and there is nothing you can do until it's fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answering! AngelicGaze (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@AngelicGaze: It sometimes works when I reload the page (F5 in Windows browsers) but it's very unstable. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Important notice

I signal this urgent question. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You have already received an answer on that page. Please keep the conversation in one place to avoid duplication of effort. It is not urgent. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre and @Shantavira: Inviting people to respond to that discussion is fine. A duplication would be asking the same question here without providing a link to the original discussion. However, I agree that it is not "urgent". GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Help updating wiki with COI tags

Hello, my wife's wiki page is very out of date, incomplete and inaccurate. I tried to edit it myself and was told that was a COI, which I fully understand now (I've never edited a wiki before). It was suggested that I post here to get help from other editors to update it with COI tags and proper sourcing. I have an updated entry ready to go, any help would be greatly appreciated! Here is her page:

Susan Mosher Nycwriter2 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We appreciate your making full disclosure of your conflict of interest. Post on the article's talk page, explaining what changes you'd like. DS (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Be sure to provide reliable sources which corroborate the information you want to add or change. Please note that sources that host user-generated content without editorial oversight are not considered reliable. In particular, neither IMDB nor BroadwayWorld are considered reliable; see WP:RSP for a list of commonly discussed sources. CodeTalker (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nycwriter2: You may also wish to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Recognized content template not working

I want to generate a recognized content list for WikiProject Apps, but the bot isn't working for some reason. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Which bot isn't working? Have you posted on the bot's talk page or the bot owner's talk page? GoingBatty (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you make an edit request?

I wanted tó Make an edit request on a extra protected page. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page. Identify the sentence that you want changed. Specify what you want it changed to. DS (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I did dó that, but then it was removed almost immedanyly, and í got a warning from an andiminastrptar on my talk page that sáid “ The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.” Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blackmamba31248 That was a general warning because you had contributed to a contentious topic, specifically the one discussed at WP:PIA. It didn't imply you had done anything wrong and the editor who added is experienced but not an administrator. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Blackmamba31248, and welcome to the Teahouse. As Mike Turnbull says, Selfstudier (who is a very experienced editor, but not an admin, by the way) put that message on your talk page, but it was not a warning directed at you.

Your edit at Talk:Mandatory Palestine was not very useful, because you neither specified precisely what change you were recommending to the article, nor gave a source for your claim; but I don't understand why Selfstudier removed your post there. ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Because it was not an edit request and non EC editors are not permitted to do anything other than file edit requests, per WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:EDITREQ for more details. CodeTalker (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary to use the formal template but it should be clear that it is an edit request (change X to Y) and sourced as necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I mistundertood Blackmamba31248 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

RouteMap template problems

I am having issues with the text formatting in my route map for this draft and on top of that, I am having trouble embedding it into my rail line info box template. I haven't got a clue what I am doing wrong. All help will be very much appreciated. :) matt. (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magmamatt: Hi there! If you don't receive an answer here, you can view the documentation on Template:Routemap and ask at Template talk:Routemap if needed. Good luck with your draft? GoingBatty (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you quick response- it means a lot. I’ve referenced the document and i’ve also cross referenced with other RouteMap templates- to elaborate on the issue, my route map is all out of line, literally. again i appreciate the response! :-) matt. (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Help Me!

How To Travel From Italy To France With A Fiat 8 HP Yahoofanon1867 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yahoofanon1867: The Teahouse is "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia". You could try the Wikipedia:Reference desk for questions that are not related to Wikipedia. Happy travelling! GoingBatty (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Or you could try Wikivoyage:Tourist office. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

How to make all links blue again

When a page has already been viewed, any and all links to it go from blue to purple. I know it's not much to many, but it sometimes just annoys the hell out of me.

How can I make all the links blue again? Usersnipedname (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usersnipedname That's your browser setting the colour, not Wikipedia. Try deleting your browser's history so it will "forget" which links you have already clicked through to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll try deleting my cookies first – I think that may be the problem. Usersnipedname (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usersnipedname: Help:Link color might also have some suggestions for you. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usersnipedname: Try saving this in your CSS:

.mw-body-content a:link:visited {color: #3366CC;} /* internal wikilinks */
.mw-body-content a:link.extiw:visited { color: #3366CC; } /* interwiki links */
.mw-body-content a:link.external { color: #3366CC; } /* external links */
.mw-body-content a:visited {color: #3366CC;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

how do i make an article

how do i make an article Lemonkeishere (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I recommend checking out Help:Your first article. Remsense诉 16:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'll give you my standard response: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..

Then, when you think you are ready, read your first article and go from there. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

To just make one right away, use the Article Wizard. However, I recommend teaching yourself some things about Wikipedia before you begin.

View ColinFine's reply for a more thorough explanation on this topic.

109.166.136.238 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Peter the Great and the Gregorian/Julian calendar

I noticed that in Peter the Great's Wikipedia page is incorrectly stated that he introduced the Gregorian calendar in Russia. According to my history of Russia book (written in Dutch) by J.W. Bezemer, he did introduce the Julian calendar. I also asked ChatGPT about the matter, which told me the Gregorian calendar was only introduced in Russia in 1918. Mioche28 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mioche28. The best place to discuss this is Talk:Peter the Great, and there are some fairly recent comments about this issue on that page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT is unreliable. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mioche28. However, in this case ChatGPT is right. See Old Style and New Style dates. Be bold and fix the error, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclowe (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Advice about a editor

after many years I need advice about the editing of user: Zacwill, who has decided that a quote referenced by many is not a quote and should be removed for the third time. The article in question Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet. I have removed a quote from houses of parliament via the independent newspaper which the editor described as a blog and have produced 3 extra references and a wikilink but the quote was once again removed with the summary of ‎(see previous edit summary). Advice on the suitability of the world renowned quote, the references and further steps to take. Once I know how to take this matter further I will obviously notify the editor. With thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Edmund Patrick, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The very first step in any content dispute (which is what you have) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, according to WP:BRD - as far as I can see that has not happened yet.

If the various editors involved are unable to come to a consensus, dispute resolution tells you what further steps to take.

If the issue is about the reliability of a source, WP:RSN is where to get that resolved. ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting information regarding copyrights status of image

Hello, this is my first post/comment/question on Tea House.

Well, I have a question, I have been working to develop an article, and recently it was proposed on March 21, 2024, for deletion: Baris Ozgur, and now I have received a notification that the image that I have used in the article (I had uploaded it at Wiki Commons) is violating copyrights as the same picture is being used by a person on LinkedIn (I assume the subject of the article is on LinkedIn).

However, the subject of the matter is that I have not taken this photo from LinkedIn but from another source, i.e., https://filmfreeway.com/BARISOZGUR. Now what is the way forward. Can I use this? as I thought this photo was publicly available in a public database.

If not, what is the way forward? Do I need to get permission from the subject or anybody else? Thank you. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The site seems quite specific that it isn't a free resource based on their about page, which says that creators retain 100% of the rights to the things they upload. You would have to get permission from the subject to use their image or ask them very nicely to upload one to Wikipedia themselves. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also following the instructions laid out here WP: UPI. I hope I am going in the right direction. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding content to a reference template

Q: How do I add a citation to a reference list that has been created using the reflist template? Chris Lowe (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Chris Lowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should find the answer in Referencing for Beginners. You add the citation where it applies in the text, and as long as you've put it inside <ref> ... </ref> , the software will automatically put it in the reflist. (I'm not familiar with editing with the Visual Editor, but I believe it wraps the citation appropriately). ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Updating a Disambiguation page

Springfield Park (Jacksonville) was previously named Confederate Park and is still listed as such on the disambiguation page for Confederate Park. I am unsure what the best way is to update the disambiguation page to reflect the park and page's new name. I've looked at MOS:DAB, but I'm still unsure of the best practice in this particular scenario. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As many people will still know it by its old name, it is probably prudent to simply leave the leave the entry on the disambig page intact . I have changed the link to point at the new title.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@OdinintheNorth: You could update the dab page so the Jacksonville park entry is similar to the first line on the dab page, such as:

• Confederate Park, a public park in Jacksonville, Florida, now known as Springfield Park

GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor reverting and making threats

How do I avoid having an editor continuing to revert my updates on a page, then threaten to have my account blocked simply because he does not agree with the information being presented? The information he continues to delete has been on this page for at least a decade. The theme song has it's own Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fall_Guy&action=history Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Snap-OnToolGuy. It seems that you have been adding original research to the article, and when Smuckola warned you on your user page, you deleted the warning. Could you clarify what's going on? CanonNi (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I added information that was previously in the article. He keeps reverting it and threatened to have me blocked. He refused to be civil about it, and appears to be nothing more than a bully and refuses to help a newcomer understand the policies. Look through his contributions, he has a serious attitude and apparently doesn't know how to properly communicate with people. Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"The information you added wasn't previously in the article and is unsourced. Could you provide a revision ID to prove that the information was previously in the article? Further more, he did warn you properly on your user page by saying "I specifically refrained from adding this warning to your talk page on your first violation because I saw your edit history with many WP:RSes, which indicates that you absolutely know better. This edit of yours is WP:OR which is a cardinal violation of what an encyclopedia is, so users can be blocked for that. Your blatant disregard of my link to the WP:OR policy in both of my edit summaries (today and long ago with the original removal), and your obvious misuse of WP:OWN, are triply wrong." CanonNi (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

From November, 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fall_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=1185586572 Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The revision you provided was also unsourced and its information was later removed. CanonNi (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Says it right here, https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/11/the-fall-guy-first-look-ryan-gosling-emily-blunt; "The Fall Guy TV series was the brainchild of Battlestar Galactica and Magnum, P.I. creator Glen Larson, and ran for five seasons on CBS from 1981-86. Majors starred as Colt Seavers and Heather Thomas was Jody Banks, a stuntwoman who joins him in tracking down escaped criminals. The pair frequently use their stunt skills to secure their targets. It had one of the more memorable theme songs in TV history, sung by Majors himself, in which he crooned about being “the unknown stuntman, who made Eastwood look so fine.” (Blake Shelton performs a modernized cover version for the film." Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Why haven't you included the source then? CanonNi (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's included right here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Stuntman Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a different article. Could you include the source on the article you're trying to add information to? WP:PROVEIT has made it very clear. CanonNi (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I did, and what if it gets reverted again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fall_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=1215435547 Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It most likely won't. If it does, you can see WP:DISPUTE and try to resolve the issue. CanonNi (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So another question, why is this allowed but my mine additions wasn't? There are no references to any of this info.

"Home media[edit source]

On June 5, 2007, 20th Century Fox released the first season of The Fall Guy on DVD in Region 1. As with a number of other TV shows of the era released on DVD, the six-disc set contains extensive music substitutions due to copyright reasons (as well as completely editing out the sequences with actor/singer Paul Williams, in the pilot). Due to poor sales, whether the remaining seasons will be released is unknown.[citation needed]

Season one was released on DVD in Region 2 in Germany and the UK. Season two has also been released in Region 2, in Germany on November 28, 2008, and in the UK on February 16, 2009." Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It has a {{citation needed}} tag, and you can help by adding a reliable source. CanonNi (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So could I have used the "citation needed" tag on the other paragraph that stated, "In season one, the montage of scenes was borrowed from the films Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry, The Stunt Man, Silver Streak, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Hot Rock, Our Man Flint, The Poseidon Adventure, Speedway, and Sky Riders. Exclusively for the season-one opening narration, Singin' in the Rain, The Blue Max, Race with the Devil, and Moving Violation were used. Also included is archival footage from stunt shows made in the 1930s." Snap-OnToolGuy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

On Creating a draft

I've been working today on a draft for a youtuber known as blackpenredpen link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blackpenredpen and I'm looking for reliable sources. Also if an experienced editor were able to take a look at the article and give me feedback I'd very much appreciated it.

Thanks Geordie.Obrien (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Geordie.Obrien. You can see Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for a beginner's guide on referencing with the visual editor. CanonNi (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please help me with Moneyview NPOV

The Moneyview article has been flagged as WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, even though I have tried to use as many independent sources, and put the content in as unbiased a manner as possible. Could someone else also help edit the article to be more in line with Wikipedia's content policies? Additionally, if someone could point out what I'm doing wrong, that'll help me with other articles in the future as well. Shashwat986 → talk 03:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

First Article

Hi, Im contributing my first article, i used the sandbox to practice and found a very useful template to add to my artcle when i searched for "football Profile"

Im wrtiing an article about a sports person and when i looked in templates there was a template i added that had fields in it such as Name, Age, Weight, Height, Position, Current Club, Clubs, Appearances, Goals and Assists. But now ive come to write my article i cant find that same template when i search for it...any suggestions? ScouseMouse213 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for Template:Infobox football biography? Shashwat986 → talk 03:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes i was!!!!!! Thank you so much ScouseMouse213 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the editor bar for scientific articles with numerous peer-reviewed sources cited.

Hello...my original draft was declined by an editor. It appears the key points to improve were: formal tone, including independent sources (which I had, all my sources are peer-reviewed for claims and statements), and removal of 'peacocking' terms. I've scrubbed and re-worked the article, but I'm not sure if it clears the bar for the three points above. Can someone please let me know if this article now still falls foul of the guidelines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Differential_Hall_Effect_Metrology_(DHEM) Semiconengineering (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Semiconengineering: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you have resubmitted your draft, so now the yellow box at the top of your draft states "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." Eventually, someone will review the draft and let you know if the draft is now ready to become an article. You may continue improving the draft while you are waiting, or use your skills to improve other articles. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that is the 'bar' or 'standard' written down someplace for me to compare and ensure, or is it 'tribal' knowledge? Semiconengineering (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing a bunch of links at once following a page move

The page TACL was recently moved to TACL (programming language) pursuant to a move discussion, with TACL itself being converted into a dab. Pretty much all of the links in mainspace that point to TACL should now be changed to look like [[TACL (programming language)|<previous display text>]]. There aren't that many pages which contain such a link, so it could feasibly be done manually, but would be quite tedious; is there some sort of tool I can use to quickly make all the changes at once? Ideally such a tool would allow me to...

1. change the link such that the display text remains the same (rather than changing it to "TACL (programming language)"), even if the link previously had no explicit display text—so if it looks like [[TACL]]) currently, it should be changed to [[TACL (programming language)|TACL]].
2. scope the changes to mainspace only (or at least let me manually select/deselect specific pages for inclusion).

Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy on article titles like "X and Y"

I remember reading a Wikipedia policy or perhaps an essay (it was definitely in WP: space) that contained the suggestion to limit article titles like "X and Y", as they often are signs of WP:NPOV issues or a WP:POVFORK. I am having trouble finding the policy/essay I am thinking of—can anyone point me in the right direction? I think one of the examples it gave was Islam and terrorism vs Islamic terrorism (with the latter being the preferred title for the article and the former as a redirect). Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Brusquedandelion. I believe you're looking for WP:AND. CanonNi (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)