Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
just trying to figure out how to bring to someone's attention that this article about Lorna Patterson has info that conflicts with all other sites I've visited. It's listed as Oct. 1,1956 in Wikipedia but is listed as July 1,1956 on all other sites I've visited. Just wanted to alert someone so that info can be verified/ confirmed to be valid. 2603:800C:3D06:D0EB:1599:5E71:1FC7:EA80 (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The date of birth was changed from July 1,1956 by an IP editor without explanation in 2017 so I have changed it back and added (what looks like) a reliable source. The editor also changed the date of birth of Abby Elliott, but that had already been reverted. TSventon (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there a policy about using the quote parameter in a cite tag?
Latest comment: 2 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion
When adding or editing a ref using one of the cite tags, one parameter is the quote attribute which is for including "Relevant text quoted from the source".
I'm not finding any guidelines about when or how to use this parameter other than that. I prefer to include a brief sentence or clause via the quote parameter so that anyone can hover over the cite and see that it supports the referenced material. Of course, it needs to be short enough to not violate copyright, but other than that I'm not seeing any guidance.
Another editor on a page I watch is "fixing" cites and the quotes are being removed. I'm not sure if this is due to some policy, or it's an artifact of the visual editor (which has some issues with dealing with references). So, before I say "Hey, let's restore all these quotes in the citations" I'd like to know if I'm on solid ground. Thanks Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Citations never require quotes, and many editors see them as unnecessary clutter. I'm not sure where the guidance on this is located, but I think the idea is that an editor can write whatever they want in the |quote= parameter, so the only real way to verify a citation supports a claim is to inspect the original source. In practice, quotes inside citation templates have a tendency to duplicate the text citing them. Folly Mox (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
A pox on |quote= which causes way too much clutter. For the record, I am not the editor who is removing quotations from articles on OP's watchlist. If the quotation is necessary for the article, place the quotation in the article and cite it. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations.
So, it seems like there is varying opinion about whether to include this parameter, but no consensus or policy one way or another. Is this a correct reading?
Seems to me that when citing a long article (or a book) a concise excerpt means someone trying to validate the citation doesn't have to hunt for it. But this is just my opinion, and I didn't start this thread to solicit opinion, I'm looking for policy or some other guidance ala the MOS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No pox from me! In principle, a citation asserts that the cited source contains text to support the claim. The challenge is how to verify which portion of the text actually supports the claim ... and when there are multiple claims/sources involved, you don't even know which claim is supported by which source. Providing a quote means that you're making very clear what content you feel supports the pertinent claims. Having the precise text enables the reader to determine if the claim actually is supported by the text. That's a lot easier than reading through perhaps a chapter of text and wondering which content presumably supports a given claim. Fabrickator (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Clearly we are going to disagree. But could you clarify? You wrote and when there are multiple claims/sources involved, you don't even know which claim is supported by which source. What? Each claim should be paired with its own citation so that the claim/source pairing is clear. If the condition you describe refers to a bundle of citations (WP:BUNDLING), it is better unbundle so that each claim is independently sourced and cited. If that is not what you mean, please explain.
A footnote may also contain a relevant quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations.
In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article.
Taken as a whole, I read the WP:FQ guidance to mean: quote when necessary else leave the quotations out.
That's not how I read it. A cite is sufficient without a comment, which implies comments are not a requirement. But they may be "useful" or "helpful" and I don't see anything that implies they should be included only when necessary. That seems to be making things up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Presumably those who hew to may be "useful" or "helpful" see the inclusion of quotations as necessary to some degree. I'm pretty sure that I never said only when necessary. (emphasis mine). I do not believe that may be "useful" or "helpful" should be used by editors as a 'carte blanche' to insert quotations into references that they create.
Yes, my personal view is that quotations are rarely necessary in any sense of that word. I believe that lifting a quotation out of its source deprives the quoted text of its context. Without context, the meaning of a quotation gets fuzzy. Nothing at en.wiki is permanent so quoted text is subject to the same 'improvements' that are applied to regular article text (spelling, punctuation, etc) which can alter a quotation's meaning; I have seen quotation text that has been altered by (perhaps well meaning) editors modernizing archaic language, for example. An already fuzzy quotation becomes fuzzier. Quotations are fragile. For these reasons, I do not accept that quotations ensure that the reader can see precisely what we claim is supported by the source. Let the readers themselves decide what the source actually says.
The only necessary use for |quote= that comes to mind is as an in-source locator when the cited text lacks any other form of in-source locator (page number, section number, etc); this is an issue that arises when citing certain ebooks. For these cases, a brief incipit of minimal length that can be used as a search string is sufficient to help the reader locate the text that our editor claims will support our article's text.
Yeah, I know, you didn't want opinion but there it is anyway.
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I recently created an account and the same day, I got a message saying one of my recent edits were undone. I did not make an edit and I was wondering if this has ever happened before; if it was a mistake, if someone else used my account or if something else happened. Thanks, P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peetzareea (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Peetzareea: Contributions by your username can be found at Special:Contributions/Peetzareea, which you can also access via the "user contributions" item in the "tools" menu. If you did not make these contributions, then someone else is making edits under your user name. Change your password and log out, and always log out when you leave your computer from now on. -Arch dude (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Respected Sir/Ma'am
Greetings! Hope this email reaches you well.
I am Mohammad Rasool Mohammadi an Afghan National, i worked in different capacity to backed GOIRA (Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) for bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan, and i also did the social activities especially in women empowerment, Human right and etc. As now GOIRA ( Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) collapsed and the coalition forces are pulled out from Afghanistan, now due to my previous activities my personal safety became under tremendous threats, therefore I'm requesting to apply for the international protection act to find a safe haven for myself.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
Hello. This is a forum for getting help editing Wikipedia, and we are unable to help with other matters. We have no affiliation with any national governments or international organisations. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello,
I just found this sentence: "Myxococcus is a single celled predatory bacteria that are facultative bacteria." Some sense can be guessed but it looks rather strange to me. In particular, what does "facultative bacteria" mean? A bacteria is not "facultatively" a bacteria - it's one or it's not - even though it can form colonies acting like a single organism that does not resemble bacteria at first glance. 176.159.12.72 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have a topic page Facultative. It might be intended to refer to their Quorum sensing abilities, but that article does not use the term, nor do the three references cited in the relevant paragraph, so I think that usage would be dubious and certainly in need of clarification. Is there a Microbiologist in the house? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Greetings and felicitations. Where do I give feedback on the software used on Talk pages such this very one—the software I am using right now? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you the pointer. The problem is finding where that place is. :-/ I did check my preferences before posting, but did not locate anything that seemed relevant. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I can't see how to copy a Wikipedia page into a sandbox and edit it there. I felt that I should because when In tried to edit the real page I got an error message when previewing it and everything I tried warned that my edits might be lost. PedantJFH (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your description of what you want to do isn't entirely clear, PedantJFH, but it does sound very similar to what Robert McClenon warned you not to attempt eight years ago. Robert McClenon described ways by which you might succeed in achieving your aims. Did he misunderstand you? Or do I misunderstand you when I infer that you're still trying to do what he warned you not to attempt? -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I remember reading (on the Wikipedia namespace) about a particular practice where a page is moved from Title A to Title B (and the two titles have no relationship to each other) and its contents completely changed from that of Title A to that of Title B. I noticed that this particular practice isn't even listed on the Vandalism page. What is the name of this practice, and on which WP namespace article(s) has this practice been documented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.100.178 (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is a question that has been on the tip of my tongue until about 5 minutes ago, when an article which needs a pronto deletion was created. It doesn't meet the WP:SPEEDYDELETE criteria, but meets other criteria for deletion. So my question is, do I have to wait to AfD an article, or can I just go ahead with it? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 06:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is literally no minimum time and if the article clearly does not comply with policies and guidelines, you can nominate it at AfD immediately. However, if the article is being actively edited to improve it in the period right after creation, I would recommend waiting until the article stabilizes before nominating it for deletion, and only after a good faith search for sources demonstrating notability, as described at WP:BEFORE. Editors perceived as aggressive deletionists who have not done their notability homework in advance may receive an unfriendly response. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, okay. This is an article topic that has already been quasi-deleted before (creator moved it back to draftspace because of an immediate AfD), and the WikiProject it falls under have specific WP:TOOSOON rules. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 07:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mmunji1 for the page name, we use the name that most people call it, so it is easier to look up the article. The legal name is in the first sentence.
The majority of the #Premierships and #Eightball sections are unreferenced, and honestly they should mostly be removed, with the most important ones remaining there, to balance the article out so it isn't just listing a bunch of awards.
Peejay saying If you revert again, I will escalate this discussion to the admins. is too far in my opinion. But he is right that you need to talk it out, and that you should not automatically assume that he has an agenda against the football club. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your statement on my talk page where you said "We have issues with NSW and persons from that state trying to take ownership of the name" suggested you did have some sort of official involvement with the club. If that is not the case, I apologise, but being paid is not the only thing that creates a conflict of interests, it just means you are required to declare it; even if you are just a member of the club, that is a conflict of interests that means you should be discouraged from editing this article. Nevertheless, I have noted that much of the content of the article was lifted directly from the club's website. This is not allowed due to copyright law. The content on the club's website belongs to them and cannot be reproduced here verbatim. I've been looking very carefully at this article, and to be honest, I'm struggling to see how the club satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines; however, I don't care enough to start the deletion procedure. If someone else wants to, I would probably support it, but it's not worth my time to lead the discussion. I'll also point out that the only person to have made any meaningful contribution to this article is Mmunji1 themself. Read into that what you will, Sungodtemple. – PeeJay14:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Notability has been proven and should not be removed. The majority of sporting pages refer to premierships and Australian representation.
Mmunji1 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know what you mean by "notability has been proven and should not be removed". I am extremely dubious that a listing on what appears to be their own site, and two articles in newspapers which do not appear themselves to be significant enough to be covered in Wikipedia, and without bylines or (in one case) even a title, add up to establishing notability. I have tagged the article as requiring more sources and possibly failing to establish notability.
Not previously involved, but examining the History, the (defective) reference was added by the OP above. This was correctly reverted by Dr. Chance Padberg, and then re-added with the error corrected by EarthquakeInterest.
The reference is being used to corroborate a variant spelling – 'Edorardo' – of the name that otherwise does not appear in the list article, and appears only once in one other article in Wikipedia that also refers to the same person as 'Edoardo', and that uses the same reference.
However, the linked source does not use the spelling 'Edorardo', it uses 'Edoardo', so the citation is incorrect.
I have therefore removed the variant and reference from Edoardo, and corrected what was obviously a typo in the other article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Someone created a wiki page for me. He created reference that don't exist, biased the page unfairly in his favor, diminished the influence I had in the research field and generally distorted the story of my professional career. I want to edit the page to make it reflect a truer and more honest accounting of my life Frank Werblin (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Frank Werblin "would" is now irrelevant, because it was unwise.
Now, this gets difficult. This is the internet. While we have no reason to doubt that you are Werblin, we also have no reason to know that you are, and this makes life interesting. It is conceivable that someone might masquerade as Werblin in order to discredit while stating that they are Werblin wishing to correct a great wrong. I'm sure you understand these mental gymnastics.
It is shutting of the stable door post horse exit at speed to state here that you "want" to edit the page when you have already and been reverted multiple times.
Oh, thanks! I knew there would be and I think I may have read something like that, but somehow I had completely missed it this time. — AP 499D25(talk)04:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have additional information for the Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company page but I am 82 years of age and I really can not figure out what to do. Can somebody download my input for me please? 139.168.199.245 (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 hours ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I have adjusted the address on Wikipedia article, however, the map is still showing the outdated one. I have also adjusted address on OpenStreetMap, but nothing changes. What should I do? EFIEDUCATION (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Never mind. Someone already updated the Wikidata entry. The article is still confused though - interestingly enough, the map is centered on the wrong location but has the marker in the correct spot. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sungodtemple: The centering of the map was based on the coordinates in Wikidata, which were for the previous location. I've changed them, and the map is now properly centered. Deor (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@EFIEDUCATION:@Sungodtemple: OK, I was confused, since the Fashion Retail Academy article itself still had the coordinates of the former location. I've emended them and undone my Wikidata change, so now the map is showing the correct location (though still uncentered, since it is trying to include both the old location and the new one). Perhaps the centering issue is a caching problem that will be cleared up in time. Deor (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please post your suggestion on the talk page Talk:Dashavatara. Balarama is mentioned several times in that article, as well as Gautama, so I cannot tell what change you are suggesting: please be clearer. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DanCherek Brilliant, thanks. I thought I'd tried every variation of line breaks, but evidently not. Tables really are somewhat bewildering! Thanks again. PamD15:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I would like to post the biography of a Trinidad and Tobagoian psychiatrist and researcher who has added to the history of suicide information. Please advise on how I could do that. TrinbagoianNetwork (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, TrinbagoianNetwork. Many people who try the challenging task of creating a new article without spending a considerable time learning how Wikipedia works and how to interact with other editors, have a frustrating and miserable experience. I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent at least a few weeks making improvements to existing articles, and learning about such core concepts as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability.
Once they have an understanding of those ideas, then is the time to read your first article carefully, and start looking for the reliable independent sources| without which an article is impossible. If they can find these, then they can start writing a summary of what those sources say - not a summary of what they themselves know about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 hours ago5 comments2 people in discussion
A brand new article, Ranveer Singh Filmography, has a star at the top to proclaim that it is a Featured List. I would like to verify if this is true - is there somewhere to check whether a particular article is actually a Featured List? I looked at Wikipedia:Featured lists but it does not appear to have any search capability like this. Gronk Oz (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not listed at WP:FL so I have removed the Featured list template. Also a FL would normally have an Article history with a link to the FL nomination discussion on its talk page. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm able to input the subject I'm interested in......when I open your website I cannot find the usual space which allows me to type in my inquiry. Do28ris (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do28ris, that happens when the screen is too narrow to display a search box. There should be a magnifying glass icon at the top of the page and if you click on it the search box should come back. TSventon (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
What is your question? You resubmitted Draft:Rashtriya Jankranti Morcha six days ago, and you have continued to make improvements to it. It does not look to me as if you have enough sources that meet the triple criteria in 42 to establish notability, as many of them seem to be mere listings, or about their performance in a particular election. But I may be wrong. ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello. The article Downtown Community School is in poor condition, probably because it closed down 53 years ago, and few people care about it now. As for alumni, Richard Kostelanetz is the first one mentioned, but no reference to a reliable source is given, and his own biography article does not mention that he attended the school. That is not good at all. The relevant policy is verifiability. My opinion, which is widely shared, is that only alumni who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles should be included as alumni, and it us not the role of an individual Wikipedia editor to decide that some person is "prominent". So, if you want to add alumni, I recommend that you limit yourself to those who already have Wikipedia biographies that verify that the people in question attended the Downtown Community School. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, someone else created my user page, mistaking it for my talk page (that user is now perma-blocked). Is it possible to delete my user page again (i.e. the link to it is "red" again)? I come from de:wikipedia, where this is possible. Thanks in advance! MeAmME (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply