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

Memorable editing tales?

The more I get involved in Wiki editing and read Teahouse and Help Desk replies from senior editors, the more I’m curious if somewhere there’s a collection of stories about intriguing editing situations they’ve been been involved in over the years. I can just picture the old-timers sitting around a campfire under the stars sharing memorable tales.

Augnablik (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Some of this may be of interest:

• WP:HOAXLIST
• WP:LAME
• WP:PRESS 24
• WP:SIGNPOST
• Depths of Wikipedia
• Wikipediocracy
• User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest AfDs

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång … you’ve certainly expanded my to-do list exponentially! I delved into your first suggestion, WP:HOAXLIST, and found myself alternately in laughter and horror that so many hoaxes had actually gotten through Wikipedia’s security posts — even if they amount to only something like 1% of all posts. That’s 1% too many.

I think I have my reading all cut out for me over the next week, with your suggested list. Augnablik (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik One more: WP:CITOGENESIS. This [1] is a favorite of mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik You might find some of the 'hairiest tales' being dewscribed during the week-long discussion process when an editor applies to become an administrator. Quite ofte,n the applicants are asked to describe difficult or challenging editing situations they have found themselves having to deal with. You can read mine here, and you simply have to change the url by replacing the username of the editor you're interested in hearing more from.

Sometimes the questioners tease out fascinating issues the applicant has encountered - sometimes dealing with them well; other times not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

My already long reading list provided by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång has expanded hugely with your suggestion to read “some of the ‘hairiest tales’ … during the week-long discussion process when an editor applies to become an administrator."

Actually, Nick, this will probably surprise you but it's the second time that I’ve read your write-up for your exam week. The first was a few months ago when, as has occurred with some frequency, you gave me a particularly helpful answer to one of my questions in the Teahouse. I don’t remember what that question was, but I do remember the deep resonance I felt. So I decided to find out more about you. When I went to your user page, I eventually found a link to your write-up.

Reading it made me feel an even closer bond with you and the other senior editors as well, even those I hadn’t yet connected with, as I became aware of some of the behind-the-scenes work you’ve all had to carry on. I think it must have been through reading your write-up that I felt an unusually strong sense of commitment to the Wikipedia mission and of belonging in its editor community that brought me to a much further point than no accumulation of editor points could have.

I hope all editors get to find out about such stories from your merry band. Augnablik (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And for a (somewhat) fictitious cases, but based on "real" events, and also and to highlight the sometimes very pronounced hairiness of Wiki-bureaucracy, see WP:LIGHTBULB and Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Maybe also the BJAODN part of Wikipedia:Silly Things. Lectonar (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

😱 WP:LIGHTBULB is a scream, @Lectonar! Once recuperated from the acute hilarity attack it brought on, I'll get to your other suggestions. Augnablik (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik What a kind thing to say! Thank you. I'm glad my and others efforts here have inspired you. That's precisely what we need in order to ensure a good supply of younger enthusiastic and committed editors. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"Younger" editors? If only you knew, Nick! 😂 Well, your other two adjectives fit me ("enthusiastic" and "committed").

Now, thanks to you and several others, I have my own private collection of memorable editing tales. Wish someone would do a great service and weave them together for the enjoyment of all involved in Wiki editing, from the badgeless to those with the largest badge collection. Augnablik (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, you are "someone" - did I hear you volunteering? WP:JUSTDOIT - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Arjayay, I just checked WebMD to see what might account for your question and this is what I found out:

”If what you heard really doesn’t have a source, it might be an ‘auditory hallucination.’” 😂 Augnablik (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Another one for your collection:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you’ve contributed to this thread several times now, and you seem to be an editor who might have quite a badge collection in addition to memorable editing tales … how about you taking this project ahead? Augnablik (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I edit pages like WP:PRESS 24 quite a bit, I also add items to "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" when I find them (see Talk:Recession for an example). With those and the other pages, I think the area is reasonably covered (with some bonus-content on my userpage). We also have a, thankfully small, number of WP-articles about WP-content, see Category:Wikipedia content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, how to get everything available into one space rather than spread out in many different places in Wikidom. Augnablik (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These are some interesting stories. Thanks for sharing! Fiona la Rue (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village stocks is essential reading. Get some popcorn first! Schwede66 09:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The only problem with eating popcorn while reading Village Stocks, @Schwede66, is likelihood of choking on it while laughing, crying, "oh-no-ing," and the like! These are all real events, like "indefinitely blocked WP co-founder and head honcho Jimbo"? Augnablik (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the real deal. And yes, I should have issued a health warning for the popcorn. Schwede66 09:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I invoke our Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Lectonar (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding 'Draft:Nicole Sahin'

Hi there, I wrote this article (Draft:Nicole Sahin) a few weeks back, and subsequently received feedback that the tone of some of the content was promotional and that some of the references weren't reliable. I have rectified the issues (or at least I believe I have) and I would now like to know where and how to ask one of you special Wikipedia souls to review it. Can you advise, please? KWriteReturn (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

KWriteReturn I (who am soulless) just looked at a single sentence, namely:

In 2005, Sahin joined the newly founded High Street Partners (HSP), a software-enabled international business services firm which facilitated the international expansion of fast-growing tech companies including Tesla and Duke University.

This cites one source, which doesn't mention "Sahin" (whose referent I think I understand) or "software-enabled" or "business services" (whose meanings, if any, I don't understand). (Does "business services" here mean advising businesses about all sorts of regulations? The source does talk about that.) It doesn't say that Tesla was growing fast.

Incidentally, "an extended period of time travelling" made me think of something about Doctor Who; but on rereading, it seemed to mean just "a long period travelling". Well, how long? (Just be direct: "after two years travelling" or whatever. Citing a reliable source, of course.)

The whole thing is in a kind of corporate-advertising-speak.

Thank you for being upfront about article creation for income. Hope you're being paid handsomely! -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary, I have made more edits based on the feedback I have received - would you mind taking another look at Draft:Nicole Sahin to see if it's acceptable for publishing? KWriteReturn (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If she's both (A) "best known as the CEO and founder of G-P (Globalization Partners)" and (B) notable, I'd expect G-P to be notable. And if G-P is notable, I'd expect that it would have an article here ... but it doesn't. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Great point @Hoary. I've come across a lot of secondary sources for G-P which would attest to its notability, so I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Does this preclude Sahin from having an article of her own? KWriteReturn (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, @Hoary. I made more edits to the article, today - could you please let me know if it's ready for publishing? KWriteReturn (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't examined the history of the draft in detail, but it does look as if the warnings at the top were placed there by JSFarman. I'd ask (on User talk:JSFarman) if they are still needed. If they are, improve the draft so that they're no longer needed. If/when they aren't, submit the draft for review. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the article gives the latest valuation of her company, without providing a clear explanation of what it does. This makes it look like a WeWork-style scam - such scams often try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. It doesn't look good. Maproom (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom: what's WeWork? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If only you had a good encylopedia to hand, you'd be able to look up WeWork.   Maproom (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about the article "Yatai City"

I was browsing through categories when I found the article for Yatai City. The point of view seems skewed and the sources seem either dubious or outright deprecated, as in the case of the Epoch Times. When I tried to find better sources with a quick google, there are only a few that seemed good. I just wanted to check that attempting to fix the article (which would probably require a full rewrite) was the correct course of action given that based on its recency and lack of a talk page I don't think it's been reviewed. Zygmeyer (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's very much the correct course -- unless, of course, the reliable sources aren't sufficient, whereupon AfD is called for. I note that the city is "strategically situated" (as if many others were situated by somebody blindfolded and sticking a pin into a map); and that "infrastructure construction" [can't we coin "infrastruction"?] was "on wasteland" -- as major "development" so often is, at least until one examines the criteria used to dub it "wasteland". Et cetera. Unfortunately I can't read either Chinese or Burmese and so can't help, but I wish you well. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: "strategically situated" is actually a term, and used often in military/conflicts related stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, could it not be expressed for ease of understanding (rather as "collateral damage" can be expressed as "killing civilians")? -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing contentious article

Hi. The "Gaza floating pier" article has a message that users with <500 edits may not edit it, but the article is not explicitly protected. I made an edit request, but the wizard gives an error message because the page is not protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_floating_pier#Adjust_short_description

Does the protection status of the page need to be adjusted, or is this simply an edge case not covered by the wizard? Will my edit request still be processed even if this warning appears? Yawkat (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yawkat, I believe that page protection is optional, Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard set lists page protection as one of the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator. I couldn't see the warning, but your request was answered. TSventon (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

question (about sources for persons)

Is there a section on Wikipedia where it talks about sources for persons? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons certainly covers much of this, but if you have further questions in this area that it doesn't answer, feel free to return here and specify them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked through the reference you linked , @ 94.2.67.173, and there found a stunning revelation: that it’s permissible to cite material from the personal website of a living person writing about himself. This is fantastic to learn!

I thought only third-party material could be used in Wiki articles.

Thank you! Augnablik (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Questions off limits?

As a Wikipedia member since 2009, with just dozens of [edit] edits over that period of time, I hope you can help clarify participation in Talk discussions.

I asked two questions today in discussions, related specifically to article information policy, and making no content changes. Both questions regarded editing clarification. Both questions were deleted without explanation. I have linked the two instances below for your easy access. Can you help me understand why questions would simply be deleted rather than at least referred to sources relevant to answering them?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1224569412

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANakba&oldid=prev&diff=1224554040

Any and all direction is greatly appreciated. Jetpower (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jetpower, welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the reverts was explained in the edit summaries: [3] [4]. Blue text like WP:ARBECR and WP:ECR is clickable links (leading to the same place here). "see header notice" in the first edit summary refers to the box "Warning: active arbitration remedies" near the top of Talk:Gaza–Israel conflict. The box can also be seen at Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement. Your account has too few edits to participate in discussions about the Arab–Israeli conflict, maybe the most contentious topic in Wikipedia where numerous unproductive discussions have gone out of control. The account must be over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. Your account creation was actually in 2008 but you only have 64 edits. It may seem unfair that you aren't allowed to participate in those discussions but the decision wasn't taken ligthly and you haven't seen the problems which caused it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jetpower. The articles and talk pages you are trying to edit are under strict Extended confirmed protection. All articles without exception having to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict have these heightened restrictions. Edit requests are limited to utterly uncontroversial things like typographical errors or misspellings. Other than that, you are not permitted to edit in that topic area. Your account is old enough but has made only 64 edits. You need to make at least 436 more productive, useful edits, and do not try to crank them out thoughtlessly. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; PrimeHunter. As a sometime forum moderator and social media group leader, I am familiar with challenges of "gone out of control," and I empathize with the folks who deal with that here. I also understand and agree that some consensus-based guideline is necessary to facilitate participation in content editing. With that in mind, "Talk" sections provide insights into the whys and wherefores of articles. I believe that finding a way to increase "Talk" section interactivity with non-veteran yet verified editors can serve to improve content - especially with contentious topics - and to increase the understanding that Wikipedia strives to inculcate in viewership. Thanks again. Jetpower (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Your are certainly entitled to your opinion on this, Jetpower, but over two decades of experience has proven over and over and over again that there are certain highly contentious topic areas that brand new editors are almost universally unable to participate in without significant editing experience. The editing community has decided that any editor working in highly contentious topic areas like the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Israel-Hamas War in Gaza or Israel-Palestine more broadly must have an account that is over 30 days old and has over 500 edits. These restrictions are supported by editors with personal points of view on both sides of the conflict, and are intended to prevent well-meaning new editors from being blocked because they simply do not understand how we edit about highly contentious topics, and the elaborate, lengthy negotiations that must take place to build consensus among editors with divergent viewpoints in these topic areas. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft Review

Can anyone review Draft:RG Qluck Wise

Best regards, Abigailka (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abigailka Reviewers usually don't review drafts on request. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,709 pending submissions waiting for review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Abigailka, the text of Draft:RG Qluck Wise cites only two sources. The first appears to have been written by the subject, and the second is based on what he's said, so neither is independent of him. Please read about Wikipedia's concept of notability: to get your draft accepted, you'll need several reliable independent published sources. Maproom (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

searching for the appropriate place to discus misconduct by fellow editor?

Hello, What is the appropriate place to raise my concern regarding Gaming the use of Policies and guidelines of Wikipedia?

I have tried writing in the reliable source notice board and Found out it was not the right place, what is the right place? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what is exact issue. First official policy you need to consider WP:AGF i.e. assume good faith.

Usually I always say is if content dispute goes of the track then go back to the track according to the WP:DR. If your real concern is content then Would strongly advice to avoid personalization of dispute as much as possible.

Any personal issues still remain discuss at user talk page. Next step you can inform at admin talk page if any admin has handled the article or talk page. Follow WP:DDE protocol.( Emphasis added). Last resort is WP:ANI. Before going to WP:ANI you need to know WP:BOOMERANG. Bookku (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Bookku, thanks for the replay!

unfortunately, the editors from the group which I have suspicion in collaboration and "gaming the system" have also informed me I am Not Allowed to describe or discuss my Issue related to the topic as non-register user or it will count as "forum shopping"/"canvasing", and that basically I am Only allowed to Raise Edit Request that ~99% with the editors will agree with in that topic. (at least that what I was able to understand from the response)

.

for that reason, I will keeping my question Hypothetical and not exact to understand the policy and good editorial standard.

I've re-read all the policies and I am more confused then I was before :)

according to WP:DR,

if an editor try to gain consensus thro BOLD editing, and another editor remove his sources material, in requisite that the source is biased source, and he re-instate it without gaining consensus, then he has started an "edit-war", am I correct in my interpretation of the rule?

basically, I am Asking is what are the correct steps that I should Take if I see something like this happen again as an unregister user see Wrong Information That Have been inserted to Wikipedia. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

IP, you are trying to edit contentious articles with an IP. Some but not all contentious areas have seen enough disruption in the past that more severe remedies are in effect and more stringent rules apply than are explained for the general case in our policies and guidelines. The other editors are correct that you should not be editing Isreal-Palestine area as an unregistered editor. You need to register an account and gain sufficient experience editing elsewhere. This is so that everyone can get to know you as an editor and you get to know Wikipedia better before you dive into controversies from which very few editors emerge triumphant. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey UsedToBeCool, thank you for your comment,

just a clarification, I Am not trying to Edit contentious articles without register, I am trying to understand how unregister users can ask for clarification regarding violation made by registers users in the contentious fields articles, via edit request like it is allowed according to the policy.

thanks. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

IP, it is generally expected that established editors working that area will be the ones to bring up issues with other editors working in the same contentious topic area. If something is obvious, severe, etc. you could potentially bring it up and get it addressed but it is unlikely you've found something that all others have missed. There is very high level of vigilance and scrutiny in place on almost every article and every editor in that area from groups of editors with high level of competence and experience. If you must, you could bring it up with the editor concerned on their talk page, and failing that on the talk page of one of the admins. If you really have found something that everyone has missed, you may get the intended result. However, that is unlikely. More likely, you'll be raising one of the many common complaints editors on each side have about another, which lead nowhere, because if they could, they would have already. And you will likely get yourself blocked, because there is no way to tell a good faith unregistered passerby from a malicious actor that's using IPs to harass the opposiing side or continue previous beefs with editors concerned, anonymously. Yet again, if you are at all interested in the editing in this area, I would advise you to register an account and edit for a month or two in non-controversial areas, before you dive in. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Following an exchange with this editor at their talk page, I cannot help but feel that they are WP:NOTHERE Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

How do I create a page on mobile

How do i create a page on a mobile device Polarbear1224 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Same as on desktop. Since you're new you'll need to go through Articles for Creation. Read and inwardly digest the instructions there, then click on "Click here to start a new article". -- D'n'B-t -- 17:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Polarbear1224. Please read my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Help With Editing

Hi, let me tell you a scenario. I want to create a battle but I'm not sure how to add references in the battle infobox. Could you please tell me? I want to use a reference i got for the infobox, and for something else. Basically, I'm going to reuse the reference i put in the battle on other paragraphs as well. Thanks. Also, what is the difference between footnotes, references and sources? Thanks so much and have a good day! :) Fauji Enthusiast (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fauji Enthusiast: Add the <ref> where you fill in the info box item. I'm not sure how to describe it. Look at other article's as example, such as the info box in Battle of Gettysburgh RudolfRed (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

but the thing is they haven't reused the reference again, i want to reuse the reference in the infobox and not make duplicate references. Thanks for the help though! Appreciate it! :) Fauji Enthusiast (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fauji Enthusiast: Yes it does reuse references using WP:NAMEDREF RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's really easy if you use Visual Editor. Press "Cite" and then go to "Reuse" and select the reference you want to reuse — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Navbox on Mobile?

How can I enable NavBoxs in the when using the mobile view? I've tried to edit my user CSS, but the navboxes still do not render. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@BillHPike: I'm not sure you can. It's a long-standing problem.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T124168

RudolfRed (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi BillHPike. It's not possible. The navbox code is deliberately omitted to save space so there is nothing to unhide with CSS or JavaScript. The MinervaNeue skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering reminds of the mobile version but includes navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hey Teahouse, say if I wanted to create an article on Wikipedia. Is there certain requirements to do so? GoodHue291 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@GoodHue291 There aren't really any requirements that you in particular need to meet, more requirements that the article needs to meet. See your first article, the golden rules, the general notability guidelines and the guidance on not working backwards for the main things you'll need to be wary of.

That being said, you'll generally want to have some decent experience under your belt to make sure you understand how citations and the manual of style works; that's why people generally advise that you stick to making improvements to other articles until you feel absolutely ready and know that the article you plan to make is notable. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources on niche non-English topics and WP:BIAS

I am editing an article on a Japanese film that is considered niche in the west, and its reception section has many citations of western critics and academics. I am Japanese and am familiar with the film and also the topic in general, and I feel that many of the western sources being cited are of very low quality, being filled with demonstrably and factually wrong statements. However, when I called attention to these sources, I was told that they count as reliable by Wikipedia standards. An example of reasoning was "because this book was published by a reputable British publishing company" but I find it dubious that anyone at this company could possibly have the knowledge necessary to fact check such a book. Another editor posted a profile of the writer of the book, saying it makes him a reliable source, which basically read "this person has a PhD in an unrelated field and also wrote this book" - I questioned whether the book is a reliable source, and was told that going by Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability, the book is reliable because the author wrote the book. How does this make any sense?

Regarding a different source I also pointed out how it was filled with factual errors, with an especially bad one that it claims is "well-documented" with no sources, that the Wikipedia article itself refutes. Yet when I pointed this out, I was told "as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources". The only perspective I am bringing here is one of a Japanese person who is familiar with the topic. Am I not allowed to question sources that are clearly of low quality yet are being claimed as reliable?

It would be one thing if these sources were clearly marked as providing a western perspective on the topic, but some of them claimed to be speaking about Japan (and were clearly wrong), and others were presented as impartial objective fact despite being highly subjective if not demonstrably false. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Angel's Egg '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A single source provides the perspective of its author(s), I wouldn't extend it to sum up a "western perspective". If the source is wrong that can be raised on the talkpage, as you have done. You may find that supporting your statements with other sources, in any language, will bolster your case. CMD (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That was simply an example of one particularly bad source being pushed as reliable. Before I started editing the article, all of the sources listed on that article's reception section were western ones, and the entire reception section pushed a narrative that the film, I quote, "did not do well with critics on its release" completely disregarding that at the points in time of the western critic reviews (mostly 00s) the film had in fact been critically acclaimed for decades.

My question is, what am I even to do when there are so many bad western sources filled with demonstrable factual mistakes on a niche Japanese topic, with English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries insisting that they are reliable sources nevertheless solely based on the authors or publications and not on the actual content no matter how much the problematic content is pointed out. You say to find other sources, even in other languages, but sometimes claims in these English sources are so outlandish that nobody would even think to write down something that would refute them.

This is thankfully not quoted in the article, but the source I listed above said "this film remains obscure in Japan" which is obviously false because there were magazine articles and books writing about the film and posters in train stations all over Tokyo, which meant that nobody in Japan bothered to write down "this film is not obscure". Since this source is considered reliable, anyone could argue that because this white man said it was obscure in Japan, and nobody said it wasn't, it was obscure in Japan, facts be damned.

And again, when I questioned these sources, I was told "Please remember that as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources" so what can I even do about them if I am not allowed to bring my perspective as someone who actually knows about the topic/understands the language/actually saw things with my own eyes, and "override" clearly factually wrong sources?

27.84.15.217 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then what you need to do is find in-depth discussion of the movie in Japanese sources, and present those. On Wikipedia, we can only go from what sources say- so if you think what a source is saying is wrong, the only way you can counter that is by providing a reliable source that says the opposite. I'm familiar with the fact that, due to language barriers, two Wikis will have an article on the exact same topic that presents the subject in two very different lights. It's frustrating- but the only way to deal with it is to simply find other sources, prove they're reliable, and be very careful to not insert your own opinions into a conversation. It just unfairly prejudices other editors against you. So, instead of saying "It wasn't obscure in Japan- I saw tonnes of posters about it!" say "These high quality magazine/newspaper reporters wrote about this film at the time, saying XYZ about it. How can we fit this into the article?" GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

And what about claims that are so outlandish that there are no sources arguing against them because of how obvious they would be to any Japanese person? They are to be left as they are, perpetuating WP:BIAS and violating WP:NPOV? For example, the discussion regarding Yasuke often results in people bringing up the supposed Japanese saying "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood" which simply does not exist in Japan. There are no writings about this at all in Japan because nobody has heard of it, meaning there are no writings refuting it. It actually originates from how a white man made up a racist lie 150 years ago Yet there are many western English language articles, many on "reliable" websites, just bringing it up like it is fact. If someone were to quote that, is it simply to be taken as fact? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 27.84.15.217 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is obviously not a reliable source except for WP:ABOUTSELF since it consists of user generated content, so I am unsure why you linked to Reddit. The ability to evaluate the reliability of a source, and to explain convincingly why a given source is or is not reliable is among the most important skills of a productive Wikipedia editor. As for Yasuke, please note that Talk: Yasuke includes serious discussion of the reliability of sources. For some reason that I do not understand, that article has recently become highly contentious. Reddit, maybe? Editors need to insist on the use of the highest quality reliable sources, whether in Japanese or English or any other language. If ample high quality reliable sources about a Japanese topic exist in English, then use those sources. If the only high quality sources are in Japanese, then use the Japanese sources. When you write The only perspective I am bringing here is one of a Japanese person who is familiar with the topic, that is a classic example of No original research, which is forbidden on the English Wikipedia. You are just another random person on the internet. How does anybody know that you are actually Japanese instead of a glib Ethiopian who has read a bit about Japan? How does anyone know that you are "familiar with the topic" as opposed to being a convincing bullshit artist? We know that you are a productive editor based only on the quality of your source analysis and the quality of other reliable sources that you bring to the discussion. Unsubstantiated ad hominen remarks about "Western sources" accomplish nothing here, and leads to other editors ignoring your input. You need to be precise and analytical on the talk pages of the specific articles, instead of hurling divisive generalities around. That accomplishes nothing, except frustrating yourself and the other editors you interact with. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I purposely cited Reddit there , which is not considered a reliable source, because that post is the only accurate information I have actually seen in English regarding the supposed Japanese saying "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood" which is otherwise uncritically accepted as fact by sources that Wikipedia might very well regard as "reliable."

If you had bothered to actually read my posts, you would have seen that I mentioned pointing out demonstrable factual falsehoods in multiple western sources on a niche Japanese topic only for users to tell me that the sources are reliable by Wikipedia standards, because are published by reputable western publishers/websites. You appear to be intentionally mischaracterizing my concerns about low quality sources as "unsubstantiated ad hominem remarks" but them being western is relevant because that suggests they would not have the ability to fact check content on a niche Japanese topic. I was highlighting the systemic bias present in relying solely on Western sources for articles on non-Western topics, and was told that questioning these sources is "original research", a claim you are repeating, and I find this tone offensive, as it sounds like racially-biased gatekeeping and gaslighting against non-western editors. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES in Japanese language are not banned from en.wiki, but they have to be reliably published. I.e. not WP:SPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not about Japanese sources. It is about the systemic bias WP:BIAS caused by English sources of dubious quality which are judged as reliable sources by Wikipedia editors due to factors like their publishers being counted as reliable, because WP:SOURCES does not account for things like cultural contexts for niche non-western topics which a western publisher might have no expertise in and cannot fact check as a result.

I was asking for advice on how to deal with particularly bad cases where a statement might be so obviously outlandish as to be something natives would not even bother to write about, meaning there would be no sources to counter the false statement. My intention of mentioning the fake Japanese saying in relation to the Yasuke topic was to highlight how western media, many of which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, sometimes parrot such falsehoods without any factchecking at all, and the link to Reddit was to show how sometimes sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia can be far more accurate than supposed reliable sources as that post bothered to look into the source of the supposed saying and posted sources proving its origins. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

All reliable sources make mistakes, being reliable does not mean being infallible. Similarly, not being considered a reliable source does not mean a source is wrong, just that it is difficult to use it on Wikipedia. This applies to English and non-English sources. If the phrase you mention is used somewhere on Wikipedia, you should raise the issue on the relevant talkpage. CMD (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

When I questioned some "reliable" sources that were clearly filled with demonstrable factual falsehoods on Talk:Angel's Egg I was told "as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources" and that the source is still reliable solely because of its publisher (a British publisher, with the topic being that of a niche Japanese film. As I highlighted above, why should this publisher be considered reliable in this specific context?). Also, the person saying that did not address the issues regarding the source I brought up, only saying that the publisher makes the source reliable and that I am not allowed to question it. What is one even to do in such a case? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Erik, who made the comment. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think others here have echoed my sentiment. An editor cannot quote their brain or life experience to overturn what is printed in reliable sources. If an editor believes that a reliable source is potentially incorrect, find other reliable sources commenting on that point (not just a source that says the opposite), and report it all per WP:SOURCESDISAGREE. (And especially being honest in reporting if they find more reliable sources agreeing with that original perspective.) We do it all the time with film articles' critical receptions where some commentators will have different takeaways in analyzing the reviews.

Here, I was worried about how the book Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii by a reputable publisher and a credible author was considered to be not reliable and not fitting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Any book focused on the filmmaker is going to be context that matters, more than some generalist newspaper making an offhand comment about the film or the filmmaker.

If reliable sources contradict, we as editors cannot profess to know the truth. Maybe sources had access to something we don't. Maybe we are misled by our own firsthand or secondhand experiences. Our presumptions have to be put aside because that's not verifiable, unlike what is in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH may be of interest. I don't know why a western publisher would be unable to fact check something you say is so obvious, but if the facts are as demonstrable as you say, you should be able to demonstrate them. HerrWaus (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This also seems to be an overreading of the comments in question. Anyone can question a source, but as noted above there are ways to better convey the issues. CMD (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Special:Log/Spamblacklist

Greetings. I'm looking into whether it would be wise to ask for a particular website to be removed from the local spam blacklist. Specifically, I'm trying to see how many attempts to add links to this site have been blocked, and whether those attempts seem abusive.

The Special:Log/spamblacklist page looks like it should be useful - it looks like you can put "foo" into the Title field it would show you all the attempts to add links to foo.com. However, this never works. Is there a right way to use this page? Or is there a different page that would be more useful? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot. In the field "Target (title or User:username for user)", "title" means the wiki page somebody tried to edit. Special:Log/spamblacklist has no way to search for the links users tried to add. I don't know whether any external tools can do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:QUARRY. If they say it can't be done, then I guess it can't be done. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Hi everyone,

I noticed that there are templates for duplicate content, such as Template:Duplication. I'm curious if Wikipedia has any specific policies or guidelines regarding duplicated content. Additionally, what steps should be taken if an editor continues to create duplicate content? Is there a user warning template available for this situation, and can editors be formally warned?

Thank you for your help! Ckfasdf (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: It is difficult to answer questions in the abstract. Please state the article that is causing you concern, or at least give examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf If an entire article is a duplicate of another article, it can be tagged for speedy deletion under A10. Editors are allowed to copy part of one article into another article, if it makes sense to do so; they should say where they copied the text from in their edit summary. If the text they are adding makes no sense, then they can be warned for vandalism, and if they do not stop, you can report them to WP:AIV. Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing and Toadspike: The example are like this: an editor made an article, let's call it Article X. It has three sections, each one copied from sections of Articles A, B, and C. Since it's duplicating from three different articles (A/B/C), using A10 is tricky because A10 only applies to duplicates of a single article/section/source.

There is also straightforward example like this: the editor added a section to Article D and then copied that same section into Article E, which is a spin-off of Article D. Now, both articles D and E have exactly same section (or duplicate content). Ckfasdf (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as article X meets our requirements for notability, and all cases of copying were somehow attributed, both examples are okay. Toadspike [Talk] 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike: Even though it is duplicate content? Please note that the entire article X is essentially an exact copy of one section taken from article A, one section taken from article B, and one section taken from article C. IMO, duplicate content makes it difficult to update the information, as we usually simply update it in articles A/B/C, but now we also need to update it in article X. I also believe duplication issue is the reason we have A10. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If you link a specific article, maybe I can address this specific case, but as a general rule duplicate content is okay. If you’re worried about updating the same info across pages, you could set up one page to transclude content from the other. Articles need context, and sometimes several articles need the same context; we can’t ban people from explaining the same thing twice anywhere on the encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The example of this issue was the List of active Japanese military aircraft, which had 3 sections for each branch of the armed forces. The Air Self-Defense Force section was an exact duplicate of the aircraft inventory table found in the aircraft section of the Japan Air Self Defense Force. The Maritime Self-Defense Force section was an exact duplicate of the aircraft inventory table found in the aircraft section of the Fleet Air Force (JMSDF). Lastly, the Ground Self-Defense Force section was a duplicate (although not in the exact same format) of the aircraft inventory table found in the aircraft section of the List of equipment of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. As an editor who often updates aircraft inventory tables, I find it difficult to manage the same table across multiple articles. It would be more efficient if the inventory table were only included in one article. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ckfasdf Wikipedia articles tend to be written in summary style and things like WP:HATNOTES and WP:WIKILINKS often make it possible to avoid unnecessary duolication of detail when there's really no encyclopedic value to it. Figuring out what those cases are, however, often involves editorial assessments that can vary (perhaps quite a lot) from one person to the next; so, often the best thing to do is to discuss the matter of the relevant articles talk page to allow others to participate. Have you tried doing this with respect to these particular tables? You don't need to start a discussion on each article's talk page, you can just pick one and then add {{Please see}} templates to the other relevant article talk pages, and even possibly to relevant Wikipedia project talk pages as a way of letting others know about the discussion. While you might personally find it difficult to manage these tables across multiple article, nobody is expecting you to do it alone; moreover, others might not see that matter as being much of a "problem". You probably won't know that, however, until you start discussing the matter with those who appear to be most interested in these kinds of articles. Of course, you can WP:BOLDly remove the tables if you want, but they could just as easily be WP:BOLDly restored by someone else; so, it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS here and start discussing the matter on an article talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Since at least the 2022s, I have initiated discussions about duplication on those articles. Participants generally agree that duplication is an issue and aligns with WP:REDUNDANTFORK, usually resulting in the removal of the table and the inclusion of a wikilink/redirect instead. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I forgot that we have WP:REDUNDANTFORK, a guideline that is against duplicated content. The issue is that an editor keeps intentionally creating duplicate articles. Can I issue a warning for ignoring this guideline? Ckfasdf (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't need anyone's permission when it comes to issuing warnings and long as you think doing so is in the best interests of Wikipedia (i.e. the other person's edit is clearly not an improvement and is clearly a serious violation of one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). Issuing a warning, however, doesn't necessarily mean that the other user will heed it and stop whatever they've been doing; moreover, it can add more heat to an already heated discussion. In addition, a user warning also shouldn't be seen as a substitue for discussion or as a way to try to resolve a disagreement in one's favor.

Have you tried directly engaging with thie other user via article talk page discussion to clarify why you feel their edits aren't in accordance with relevant policy or guidelines? Are you just reverting this other editor and "explaining" things to them edit summaries? If there's been a clear and strong consensus (involving multiple users and strong policy-/guideline-based arguments) established through article talk page discussion against including these tables, then are you including links to the relevant discussion in your edit summaries or in follow up article talk page posts. The other person is going to be expected to honor an established consensus or seek a new consensus to replace it. If they refuse to do either after being made aware of its existence, then they're moving into disruptive editing territory and you can seek administrator assistance either at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI; you should, though, be aware of WP:BOOMERANG before you do because your part in all this will also be looked at too.

If you've tried article talk page discussion but had no success, maybe try seeking input the WikiProject level to seem what others interested in this type of article have to say. At some point one of you is going to need to intiate discussion about this at some level because continuing to revert each other is not good. In your case, I don't think reverting simply based on WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:CAUTIOUS or WP:WHENTABLE doesn't seem like it's going to be considered an exception to 3RR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft of upcoming movie

There is a new draft named Draft:Shadow of the Colossus (film) that was created a few minutes ago. The talk page is protected for unknown reasons, can someone unblock it? Please 201.188.133.126 (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The talk page is not protected. It simply doesn't exist. You can create it by adding content and publishing it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that blocked users are not allowed to edit even from a different IP address; the block relates to you personally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Company Page article Rejected

My article got rejected as it sounds more like an advert. It is a company page. Looking for suggestions on how to improve Pooja Hearzap (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pooja Hearzap Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It was indeed a company page. I have deleted it as blatant advertising. Please read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Please see WP:COI for information. Sage or something (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Huge Information Removal?

Hi all respected Wikipedians,

Is this content removal by User:S0091 authentic as per Wikipedia guidelines? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WNS_Global_Services&diff=prev&oldid=1224686788 Would be grateful for any assistance in this matter. 110.227.37.228 (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP Editor. I would have agreed with the removal- most of it is routine business activities based on press releases, which Wikipedia is not interested in.

Are you affiliated with the company? Qcne (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Moved page not showing in Google

my article has been moved to main space in the past two to three days now but still not appearing of Google,

please is there any solution?

Mnationonly (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mnationonly. As per WP:INDEXING, mainspace articles either appear in 90 days or when reviewed by a new page patroller, whichever is soonest. Qcne (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please how to get the page patroller to review it? Mnationonly (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of ten thousand pages to be reviewed, so I suggest you wait the 90 days. What's the rush? Qcne (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay no problem, thanks for the reply Mnationonly (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mnationonly: Patrollers don't have to work on the oldest articles first and the time varies greatly but it's often much faster than 90 days. A review or 90 days is required to allow indexing by external search engines. We don't control when they actually do it after that. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Much faster for real. Okay that's fine Mnationonly (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

help adding a name to an existing list?

I am a "techno-peasant" and want only to add the name of a missing professor to a list of "notable professors" on the existing Wikipedia page of an art academy. I have tried to learn how to do this online following Wikipedia "instructions" without success (too technical for my old brain!). Can someone guide me through this simple editing task in a simple way? Thank you! Sandramaura (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the missing professor have a Wikipedia article? Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sandramaura, welcome to the Teahouse. Please name the professor and link the page of the academy. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing Bharat Mehra Draft page in sandbox

I created a draft page for Bharat Mehra but did not submit it for review as my colleague advised me to practice in the Sandbox. Well, I created a page for Bharat Mehra in my sandbox and submitted what I thought was a practice publish where the sandbox software would flag what was wrong with my entry! Well, the submission was real time and rejected because it was duplicate of my unsubmitted draft! Here's the help I need:

1. I'd like to remove the old sandbox draft - is that ok? User:Researcherasc/sandbox - Help!
2. The submitted Bharat Mehra page awaiting review here: Draft:Bharat Mehra - just sharing but advice also welcome!

Thank you!

Anita Researcherasc (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! There should be no restriction with your sandbox, so you should be ok to do that. Sage or something (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sage or something thank you! Best, Anita Researcherasc (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome :)

Sage or something (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Researcherasc You can just WP:BLANK your own sandbox. Your draft has a lot of problems. In no particular order: 1) remove all external links from the body text; 2) remove all but the most important publications by Mehra and provide evidence that the ones left are indeed notable (e.g. based on citations); 3) remove anything not backed up by reliable, published sources and give inline citations for all that remains. The latter is a policy described at this link. You must show how Mehra is wikinotable, as described for academics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull thank you! This is helpful. Re draft: I deleted most of the external links and will keep checking. I managed to find his Google Scholar page - which I could not before, another problem to sort out for another day - but I have added Scholar and deleted most publications. Yes, my colleague who enticed me back into wiki editing did review the page over the weekend and emailed me " the main hurdle for page approval  is notability and Dr. Mehra's page certainly exceeds those requirements. (Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia)." I will re-read the inline cite policy again and also keep improving as I find the time. Thanks, again! Best, Anita Researcherasc (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Researcherasc. I used to work at a University where one of my tasks was to create academic bios on our research impact portal.

Your draft really reminds me of when I used to write those. That is not a good thing! A Wikipedia article is not a place to place a full resume.

I think Bharat does meet our WP:NACADEMIC criteria, but I would remove the Impact, Professional Associations, and Grants (Funded Research) sections entirely. They really don't provide any encyclopaedic value at all.

I am also a reviewer and would be happy to have another look at it once you remove those sections. Qcne (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sections deleted as recommended @Qcne thanks! Hope this passes now. Researcherasc (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't seem to get source #6 to load, do you have an alternative? Might only be available on the utk.edu network? Qcne (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Collapse a larger wiki table

I feel like this shouldn’t be too hard, but I cannot figure out how to make the entire table collapsible. It is too wide for good page style, the table can be found here: 2024 Lithuanian presidential election#Opinion polls Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: It can be done, but not as the default display: see MOS:DONTHIDE. A redesign might be better. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoblyblob: The names could use {{Vertical header}} to make the columns more narrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation finding rabbit hole

I was going though the Citation Hunt Tool, finding something that looks like mathematics, but looking into it, I don't know this came to be. The baseball example was added in 2013, but the latitude was added in 2022. If it's pure mathematics, does it need a citation, or would an explanation work?

Also, while researching, I found things that this might've been copied from, or maybe it's the other way around.

Page 9 of this scribd upload is almost one-to-one. I don't know where it comes from, and it doesn't show the latitude. After that, I also found this book "Bang to Eternity and Betwixt: Cosmos", which seems to have copied the Coriolis force article, and many, many more. I believe the entire book is almost entirely made up of Wikipedia articles.

I am unsure of what to in this situation. Should I just delete the [citation needed] on the basis of discrete mathematics, or should I continue searching for an example that might've just come from Watchwolf49z, and the latitude from finding ϕ in the Rossby number equation? Goofierknot (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete

PLEASE can someone delete User_talk:48JcL48. I am the person who created the page as I was renamed from 48JcL48 to 48JCL. I am requesting an admin to delete the page. 48JCL (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi 48JCL,

The page was not recreated by you, but by the person who renamed you. It is common (and seems like it's policy) to leave the old talk page as a redirect to the new talk page, so that all your old signature links aren't broken, and so people can find you under your new name. Based on a quick scrolling thru the rename log, that's what happens to everyone who is renamed, except for people who (a) are vanishing, or (b) did not have a user talk page when renamed. If you have some kind of special situation, I'd recommend asking User:Ternarius, the person who renamed your account, if it would be OK to delete the page. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

(more) it's also OK to blank it, rather than keep the redirect, if you prefer. That makes it a little more difficult for people to find you, though. But speedy criteria don't apply here. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Paid Article

I would like to request help from someone experienced on managing WP:PAID. I have seen that Daniel K. Winn may have been created in that manner. It has been edited (additions of information) by a few editors, 2-3 IPs and a user-editor. The IP-editors (1 and 2) are without almost any other history except for this article and the user-editor is now blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion. Although there is a paid disclosure, I think there is a serious issue of WP:COIRESPONSE, relying only "on the sources offered by the paid editor". I have also seen that the official website of Daniel K. Winn's gallery uses this article as an official channel, together in the list with other social media platforms (see my comment). Since I am not experienced in handing these issues, any help will be appreciated! Chiserc (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Chiserc. I see that you tagged the article for undisclosed paid editing. But PitViper2000 correctly disclosed their paid editing status in December, 2020, and correctly used the Articles for Creation process. The Winn article was accepted in July, 2021. The editor was blocked much later, in December, 2022, for misconduct unrelated to the Winn article. Can you please explain why you chose that tag, which does not seem accurate to me? Cullen328 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328. I understand that this tag may not be suitable, and others (e.g., advertising or neutrality issues) may be more. My concern is that the whole article is probably made through paid contributors (this user and IPs). Although there may not be a direct WP:COI through the AFC, https://www.winnslavin.com/ seems to use the article for promo as covert advertising by listing it as a social media-like platform and, for that, WP:PAID tag may be still relevant. I might be coming across as harsher than intended, but I was thinking of proposing the article for deletion for this purpose. However, I would like to have an opinion on that before proceeding. In any case, thank you for the help! Chiserc (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Chiserc, the editor complied with WP:PAID and complied with the requirement to use Articles for Creation. The article was accepted by an independent volunteer reviewer. The AFC process was set up largely for that reason, to allow editors with a conflict of interest to create drafts of new articles that are then reviewed by uninvolved volunteers. The reviewer who accepted the draft is highly experienced, still active and has never been blocked. The fact that PitViper2000 was blocked a year and a half later for misconduct unrelated to this article is irrelevant.

As for the art gallery linking to the article from their website, there is nothing improper about that, and it is commonplace. I don't know why you bring that up. In conclusion, I see no basis for a prod, and would oppose it. On the other hand, if you believe that editors with a conflict of interest have improperly influenced the article, then edit the article to remove the inappropriate material. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

To add to what Cullen said, a paid editor or a COI editor may make minor corrections to an article (spelling, grammar, numbers, names, dates), revert obvious vandalism, and add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Generally anything more substantive than that should be handled via edit requests on the talk page, although sometimes a paid editor can make a substantive change without the article requiring a 'paid' or 'coi' template if the edit complies with NPOV. Putting a paid or COI template in the article should be done only if you feel that there are some problematic things that would need review, and if you do that, you should start a discussion on the talk page. A template without a corresponding discussion is subject to removal by anyone. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wraparound of political party label within person infobox

Hi, When using the Template:Infobox_person, sometimes the 'Political party' label wraps around to another line e.g. Polly Billington, Dave Rowntree and Faiza Shaheen. However, sometimes it does not, which is easier to read e.g. Michael Ashcroft, Jackie Walker (activist) and Roz Savage. Please can someone advise me on how to stop the 'Political party' label from requiring two lines? Jontel (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have found the answer; it is due to the length of other responses. Sorry. Jontel (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Pencilmation not american? Its australian

Hi Wikipedias, Pencilmation was an australian animated series in 1992. MrInteractions2 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MrInteractions2. Our article Pencilmation discusses the 2004 YouTube web series. YouTube was not around in 1992, so perhaps there was another media franchise titled Pencilmation? However after a cursory Google search I cannot find anything from the 90s called that. Qcne (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hey Teahouse, for sentences in an article, is there a limit on how many citations/references you can put in a sentence?

So if I put 1,2,3 or 4, or even more citations for this sentence: "The dog went over the lazy cat" would it be acceptable on Wikipedia? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hi GoodHue291, welcome to the Teahouse! Check out WP:CITEKILL which I think answers this nicely. Qcne (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Qcne! :) GoodHue291 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Disputed Article

Hello. Is it possible to get a review of this disputed article for Harry L. Williams? I have made edits to my previous edits in an attempt to comply, and those have been further edited. The most recent comment was from OrangeMike who said, "This reads like it was written by Williams' press agent." I reached out to him a few weeks ago to ask what triggered his comment but have not heard back. I am working on behalf of Williams' current employer: Thurgood Marshall College Fund. I've disclosed all related information as a paid subcontractor. I'm not disagreeing, I simply want to get this article in good standing. I can guess what might be causing the issues, but an objective review would really help define this for me if at all possible. Thank you! Sigridtx (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sigridtx The sentence Under his guidance, TMCF has created innovative partnerships, grown organizational stability, and advanced HBCU bipartisan support is promotional, hagiographic and entirely unreferenced. Who says that? You? That is the sort of thing that OrangeMike was probably referring to. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328. I actually had that sentence flagged myself and appreciate you confirming that, as well as your response. Sigridtx (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sigridtx. What Cullen328 says -- though he has only pointed out one particularly egregious sentence. That aside, most of the references are to this or that among the subject's various employers. (Two are to pieces written by Williams himself.) Indeed, a quick look doesn't show me a single disinterested source. Where are the reliable, disinterested sources? (Do any exist?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary, I totally understand. A couple of quick things if you don't mind. In navigating through trying to get this compliant, I reviewed articles for similar subjects representing the Black college community (like Williams). In more than one article their employers' websites were cited but the article wasn't "flagged." Also, if I cite an online article Williams authored in context of "Williams writes opinion-editorials on issues such as higher education... (as stated in the article), can I not cite those? Nothing in disagreement here, just mentioning to get this straight. I appreciate your help! Sigridtx (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sigridtx. Sources not independent of the subject can be cited to support uncontroversial facts, but cannot be used to support the subject's Notability. (A 'controversial' fact, in this context, is one where a reader might say "Whoa, I'd like to see confirmation of that", or one where the fact has been challenged.) Non-independent sources should not be used extensively: most of the contents of an article needs to be a summary of what independent Reliable sources say.

Be aware of WP:Other stuff exists. A great many of Wikipedia's existing 6.8 million articles have deficiencies of varying seriousness (and there are far too few editors to bring about a rapid across-the-board improvement). Their faults do not justify editors allowing articles under active consideration to introduce or continue displaying similar faults. Rather than emulating cherrypicked less-than-great articles that happen to be about similar subjects, you would do better to look at a range of WP:Good articles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 878.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Image question

Hi everyone.

I found an image that I’d like to add to an article, and it has this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/. It can be a bit confusing figuring out what licenses allow me to post what images where, so I thought I’d check here. Can I upload an image with this license? If so, should it be to wikimedia commons or to this local wikipedia? Hopefully this is a fairly straightforward query, but any help gratefully received. Thanks. SwollenSails (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SwollenSails. That is a non-commercial license which is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. Acceptable licenses do not restrict commercial re-use, which is commonplace for Commons images. As for uploading to English Wikipedia, the image would have to comply with the very stringent standards described in the Non-free images policy. Since you have not described the image, I cannot give you any further guidance at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Best way to handle articles with controversial names

Hello,

I have been infrequently working on improving documentation of the 1989 mass expulsion event that occurred in Bulgaria and is little-known.

The issue is that the name itself of this event is controversial. The most commonly accepted name is "Big Excursion", which is a euphemistic name which originally employed officially by the perpetrators (the Bulgarian Communist Party). You will often find the event referred to by this name and this name only. This is a bit like if "Final Solution" was the most commonly use name to describe the Holocaust. Unsurprisingly, the name "Big Excursion" is frequently rejected by academics and victims/their descendants, though I have not seen concrete alternatives proposed in what I have read, just rejection of that name.

In light of that, I have titled the article Big Excursion so that it actually pops up when someone searches for it, but the primary name used in the article and info box is the purely descriptive name of "1989 forced migration". Within the article, I have used "Big Excursion" in quotes and explained that decision in a terminology section.

Would anyone please provide feedback on this choice and link to any relevant Wikipedia policies? Additionally can anyone link to other articles with controversial names for comparison? In some articles, it seems some of the names are outright rejected whereas in others, a descriptive name is use in line with "1989 forced migration" (e.g. January 6 United States Capitol attack). I intend to make another push at revising the article soon enough, so would greatly appreciate feedback that I could integrate into that. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles is the guideline on article-names. The "§Use commonly recognizable names" portion says in general to use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". So if there is only one widely used name, that's the article name. If there is scholarly commentary that the name is inappropriate, that's good article content. But if there's no specific alternative name that's at least somewhat-widely used, we might be stuck with the poor one. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

I will note that in the talk section as well. Pietrus1 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Pietrus1, if "Big Excursion" [...] is a euphemistic name which originally employed officially by the perpetrators, well, "ethnic cleansing" is a name that originated as a euphemism employed by the perps. All things being equal, Wikipedia should avoid euphemism, but one reason to tolerate (perhaps within scare quotes) a euphemistically intended term such as "ethnic cleansing" is that a good understanding of its actual reference can fairly soon outweigh any effect of its euphemistic intention. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

To give another example: "The Troubles" is also both a euphemism and the common name for that period of conflict, and it wouldn't really make sense to call that article anything else. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-reversing mirrors, aka True Mirrors(r)

Hi, thanks for letting me share:

Extended content

I am the producer of the first production, optically correct non-reversing mirror, sold under my registered trademark True Mirror(R). I've been doing this since 1992. There is a wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reversing_mirror) that discusses this, but with nothing about what it's like to experience one. It used to have links to some press articles about my journey with it, but those have been removed. The page is generally just the physics of this kind of mirror. I've discovered significant psychological elements within this kind of mirror after exhibiting to more than 25,000 people over the years. The main concept I discovered is that "our eyes communicate correctly when they look into this mirror, and they don't in reverse". Most faces become expression poor within seconds after making eye contact, dramatically unlike how the person uses their face to communicate to everyone else. The entire experience of (nearly) every living person includes looking into their eyes in reverse, and without them expressing correctly. The impacts are unknowable both in scale and depth, because any dynamic feedback loop with information distortion will be unpredictable. But it's happening for everyone, over a lifetime no less: Ubiquitous, unchallenged, unconscious and solitary. We are the only ones who know ourselves this way. Most importantly, our best expressions, such as our genuine smile, are impossible to maintain for more than a few seconds because the eyes are not communicating why we are smiling, causing it to feel non-genuine, causing it to stop. The contrast when people meet their eyes without being reversed can be quite remarkable. Smiles in particular look and feel correct, because its possible to accurately read the reason why within one's unreversed eyes, which causes them to last a long time, even grow into laughter sometimes. Other emotions and thoughts are likewise reflected correctly, allowing a more continuous sense of self. There are currently more than 750 videos on social media showing this effect of having one's eyes working properly to one's self. It can be a significant difference, and in many cases, quite positive differences. The reason:It's the same dynamic feedback loop, but without information distortion, so the expression looks, feels and expresses naturally. They become accurate and ongoing, creating long lived expressions that grow instead of fade. I believe that this can be good for our mental health in a number of ways, however there is no research yet.

My request is that someone help author entries into Wikipedia that reflect some of this, as I have struck out because it's original research not published, and because i have a commercial interest in it, it would be self-promoting.

Any ideas or network connections you could suggest on how to bring some of this new information to Wikipedia? I sincerely believe its compelling and worth it.

thanks

John Walter Jxwalter (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jxwalter. I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because none of what you've posted above is likely going to survive being added to any article (regardless of who is doing the adding) unless it can be supported by WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLESOURCES, isn't considered to be WP:UNDUE and is pretty much entirely re-written from a neutral point of view. You might also want to take a look at WP:ALTERNATIVE because there might be other sites which are more appropraite than Wikipedia where you can let others know about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with decades of experience as a Britannica editor, there isn’t anything wrong with what you intend to add so long as it is backed by reliable independent sources. The more sources you cite, generally speaking, the better. Obviously, on Wikipedia you should be prepared for a challenge to your addition, and for this reason I would suggest enlisting the help of colleagues to register and participate in consensus discussions. Hope this helps. Twinkmunt (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with "the more sources you cite, generally speaking, the better". See WP:CITEKILL.

The entire purpose of a citation in Wikipedia is to verify one or more pieces of information in an article. If a reliable independent source verifies a piece of information, then adding a second source for the same information is irrelevant clutter.

If a citation is not a reliable source, then it doesn't verify any information, and two, five, or twenty more unreliable sources still don't. The same applies to non-independent sources, unless the information they are verifying is uncontroversial factual information, as explained in WP:SPS. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I vote?

An editor requested to nominate an article on the AfD talk page. I nominated it. Can I post my vote or opinion on the AfD? GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Grabup, Yes you can, but it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. GrabUp - Talk 05:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Grabup, a deletion nomination is considered a clearcut recommendation to delete, unless you state clearly that it is a procedural nomination. That might be because an IP editor said that the article should be deleted, and you are nominating on their behalf. Otherwise, there is no reason to say Delete in the discussion of your own nomination. Other editors may well find that irritating. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Surely, thanks for your input, I am striking my vote. GrabUp - Talk 06:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I think your clarification may have had the opposite effect here. I don't want to add to that by telling them what to do again but you may wish to check the AFD. They did make a procedural nomination, though they didn't use those exact words. They should be clarifying the nom to make clear which parts were said by the other editor, but it is perfectly fine for them to participate further. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I think the situation will be clear to the closing administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Getting unblocked

Hello, I would like some help with creating an account. Trying to do so, I get that my address is blocked for a vandalism reasons, which I don't understand how or why. First time trying to create and acc. Error says to contact any admin, but for that I have to have and account. How do I solve this? Tried creating an acc through https://accounts.wmflabs.org, but did not receive email for confirmation, and on submission it says I need to confirm email, before an acc is created. Tried to make an appeal for block, but on appeal site it says "We were not able to locate your block. Please click the button below to correct the information in your appeal." And I filled everything. Tried wiki IRC help chat, no luck too. And this point it seems I'm going in circles. 46.249.160.41 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP! By 'address' do you mean email or IP? Sage or something (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Is having an unencyclopedic image description grounds for deletion or recaptioning?

The file Holy Land#/media/File:المسجد الاقصى.jpg's caption reads as follows:

"Jerusalem is the capital of the occupied city of Palestine, known by other names as Beit al-Maqdis, the City of Peace, and Elia. The city of Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world, and occupies a prominent position among the cities of the world; for its religious importance to Muslims. In Jerusalem, the graves are organized as if they were the lines of the history of the city and the book of its soil. All of them passed through here. Jerusalem accepts from it. Let it pass through it and read its evidences in all the languages of the people of the land." [emphasis added by me]

I do not believe that describing Jerusalem in this way is encyclopedic, as the status of Jerusalem is disputed. Is an image description subject to Wikipedia's rules? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi JohnR1Roberts Your link is for MediaViewer, a feature which can display file descriptions which are not displayed in articles using the image (unless you click the image to activate MediaViewer). In this case the image and description is not stored at Wikipedia but commons:File:المسجد الاقصى.jpg. The uploader made many such "descriptions" which are both inappropriate and irrelevant to the specific images. I will report it to Commons and expect it handled within a day. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thank you for explaining the location of the link's contents and reporting them to Commons. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that in general, you or anybody may edit the description of a file in Commons. But given the contentious area, I think PrimeHunter's action of raising it at the Commons Help Desk is a good choice. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Now reported at commons:Commons:Help desk#Inappropriate file descriptions by Sally.a.asmar. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Image age difference use

I have found an appropriate image to use for an infobox, but the image was taken about 50 years prior than when the election was held. Is it still encyclopedic to use, as the difference is a 70 year old to a college student. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What article, and what image? If it seems encyclopedic, be bold. Make sure there is no copyright before uploading, though.

Sage or something (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Need help deleting 2 uploaded photos

I need help adding a deletion tag to the following 2 photos I uploaded: (1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gary_Srery.jpg (2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gary_Srery_1959.jpg

I had thought they were copyright-free but turns out they are not and I need them deleted ASAP.

Thank you Newfoundlandia987767 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion on commons. In the future I would recommend using a gadget like TW global to help with cross project stuff. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the 'edit' section links?

Every page I visit has an 'edit' link to the right of each section heading, and I make heavy use of this feature.

However, User talk:Bennett1203 doesn't have these. It just has 'subscribe' links. I've looked at the page source and can't see anything amiss. Does anyone know why the section edit links aren't there? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They don't seem to show on my end either. The page might be protected? Sage or something (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That talk page isn't protected. Even if it was, I'm an admin, so page protection wouldn't affect that section editing feature. I can edit the whole page (and I did just now to accept a block appeal), but I can't edit an individual section. I thought maybe there was an unbalanced tag somewhere, but I don't see anything like that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Fixed by two edits like [5]. The page was transcluding the magic word __NOEDITSECTION__. See Help:Magic words#NOEDITSECTION. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha! It was hidden inside the {{box-header}} template. Thanks. I am mystified why that template would need to suppress section editing, however. It's still useful to edit sections that are inside the box. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

cool, a learning moment for me Sage or something (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Barry Devorzon

I am Barry Devorzon and after viewing my wikipedia page, I found the need to edit it to correct some of the information presented and to add to the information relating to my career. I published the new and more comprehensive Bio but the original bio and information comes up when I search on Barry Devorzon instead of the updated bio I created and published. How do I get the latest update I published to replace the original unedited Bio? Bdevorzon (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm not sure why the new version isn't showing, but you might also want to see WP:COI before making or editing pages of yourself or your company.

Sage or something (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You made two changes to Barry De Vorzon on May 18 as an IP, and they were properly reverted as promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You never published your changes. Good thing, too, as you should not edit a page about yourself. Please read WP:AUTOB. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Bdevorzon, because you have a conflict of interest about yourself, you shouldn't attempt to edit that article. You can make minor corrections such as spelling or grammar corrections. You can revert obvious vandalism. You can add citations to reliable sources that are independent of you. But anything more substantive than that, you should propose on the the talk page Talk:Barry De Vorzon. You may preface your proposal using the template {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page monitored by some editors. Your request should be in the form "change X to Y" or "add X after Y", or "remove X", and you need to explain why the change is needed, and you must cite reliable sources that are independent of you to support your request. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For background to the answers you' ve received, Bdevorzon, please see WP:ASFAQ. ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing a US WWII draft card

I am wondering if anyone can point me towards the conventions for citing WWII draft cards. These can be accessed alongside census records on websites such as Ancestry.com and FamilySearch. While census records have a citation template, I have been unable to locate one for draft cards. The cards can verify important biographical information such as complete names, citizenship status, and places of birth. RegalZ8790 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what source you are using. According to WP:RSP, the Wikipedia community considers ancestry.com and familysearch.com as unreliable and they shouldn't be used, although WP:RSP clarifies that in cases where these sites offer primary-source documents like draft cards and birth certificates, these could be used, but subject to WP:PRIMARY or WP:BLPPRIMARY, and possibly WP:OR.

To cite a draft card, I would just use the {{cite web}} template. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

stolen work

Walter I, Count of Brienne problem

i created a page for him the page got removed even though in the talks i asked for help about sources and references and for people to help and contribute back on sunday

today i find out that someone else yesterday created a page for him while my page was still in review

i need help to fix this problem and how to keep this from happening again

thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Briannemartindale, this is a collaborative project and anyone can work on any topic at any time. There is no such thing as "stolen work" in the sense that you are using that term. Please read WP:OWNERSHIP. To prevent it from happening again, write well referenced content that establishes notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, Walter I, Count of Brienne is vastly better than your Draft:Walter I of Brienne. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the other replies, since this is a collaborative project, see what you can merge from your draft into the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles are similar and the mainspace one's first revision does not look like a page creation. Kansas Bear may have opened OP's article to improve it before it got draftified and published the improved version after the draftification. WP:HISTMERGE would be best if so. When you've only written one article so far, it hurts more when first revision goes to someone else than after you've created dozen or a hundred. So, I wouldn't be too hard on OP. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I was unaware that Briannemartindale had a draft of Walter I of Brienne. I took the French version[6], translated(what I could), then started adding references. I did the same for Guy of Bar-sur-Seine. Judging from this list, there are plenty of Briennes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello Teahouse, weird question but..is there an age limit to edit on Wikipedia? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No, anyone can edit, although see also Wikipedia:Competence is required. I have even encountered an administrator who was a teenager. It can happen if an editor shows maturity and responsible behavior. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

GoodHue291, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is what I needed. Thanks Cullen! GoodHue291 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)