Contents

Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcoming place for new Wikipedians

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA

WP:TH

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

Hello, here is what has been reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humus&oldid=prev&diff=1172168818

Maybe the ´half´ is forum-like to call from what ever, but I cannot recognize from what, that claim, that pronouncement.
If this is in consent with Wikpedia´s definition of forum and as unacceptable comment for "Talk", then this should be explained some-where, please, how to understand the difference those both.
So what, please, defines a clear to understand the difference of talk and forum ?
Thank You.
Visionhelp (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for WP:NOTFORUM and maybe WP:TPG?Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visionhelp, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss specific ways to improve the article, based on what specific reliable sources say. It is not for general, unfocused discussion of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to improve.
My expectation to Wikipedia is the claims of Wikipedia already with reliable sources.
The statement "humus, is essential a waste product with little food value" cannot find a reliable source anywhere, please.
Pointing to it in "Talk" is not forum, please.
The claim of forum as reason to delete that, to my understanding, this all is being put from foot to head.
This just simple reason (the claim forum) this way, to me not defined clearly, allows to do what wants to be done.
This I cannot take really serious.
Thanks the interesst.
Visionhelp (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visionhelp: I'm having some difficulty understanding your comments. Are you using machine translation? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visionhelp: The diff you linked to showed you commenting about the subject, not making any suggestions for improvements, and linking to a site that violates the WP:NOTHOWTO guideline. I can understand that the previous comment was also forum-like and am surprised that Plantsurfer failed to delete it, as it expressed a personal belief without citing anything. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

machine translation? No, I am just upset and indignant, with Your permission, please.
Such statement - as a required precondition for Wikipedia aricles - requires a reliable source "humus, is essential a waste product with little food value".
Pointing to it being labeled, defined as, explained to talking about the subject just has to confuse me very much.
I did some notes of knowledge with sources, no first hand sources, and not one of my notes is being welcome, not even OK. This I CANNOT take Wikipedia there as serious at all. What here is to face by me is a rule, that is, in my opinion, very just arbitrary usable. Sorry, not to handle for me. Visionhelp (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

should i put the period inside of the "quotation marks" or not at the end of a sentence? ex. john and jill walked up the hill, john said, "jill you are a dolt." or is it, "jill you are a dolt". Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn Hello and welcome here. As much as I understand, In American English, periods and commas are typically placed inside quotation marks, like this "jill you are a dolt."

However, in British English, the placement of periods and commas depends on whether they are part of the quoted material. If they are, they are placed inside the quotation marks. If they are not, they are placed outside. For example: "jill you are a dolt".

Hope this helps! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so ENGVAR applies then. i will need to leave these alone mostly so i dont have ENGVAR provlems Iljhgtn (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per mos:lq, the answer depends on the quote, not the variety of english

so quoting an entire phrase like Karol claims that "Collecting the D-O-N-G letters was always the best part of DKC." would be correct and not even wrong

but if you want to quote a phrase until before it ends, like Karol's favorite part of DKC was "collecting the D-O-N-G letters". would be cool and good cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: In case you didn't see the previous reply. This isn't an ENGVAR thing. We have a guideline, MOS:LQ. If the quotation ends with punctuation, put the punctuation inside the quotation marks, otherwise put it outside. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thanks for the reply! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if the quotation is incomplete, wouldnt you want to end it with an ellipsis? This thing "..."? for example, lets say the full original material is, "Hop on spot, spot is a good dog and loves to run around", but you only are quoting some of it, "Hop on spot, spot is a good dog..." ? Would that be right? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally that's correct. See MOS:ELLIPSIS. CodeTalker (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a relative newbie and I would really like to know how I might improve the article I have submitted for creation at Draft:Gail_Renard. The references I've added seem to be the concern.

1st rejection was "By no means can the current sourcing be considered significant. Please read the guidelines before any additional submissions."

2nd rejection was "Please cite sources, and ensure that the article describes what the sources discuss."

Can someone steer me in the right direction for how I make this work? HGoody (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HGoody, what you have to do first is demonstrate that Renard is notable (as notability is defined by and for Wikipedia): after all, it's the failure to demonstrate this that is cited in each of the three "decline" notices. Is there significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about [her] in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of [her] (and of each other)? If so, please start by -- here, in this thread -- nominating three sources of this kind. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt, I will attempt an answer.

-Decades of writing for TV (IMDB & other wiki pages talk about the shows)

-Creating a show that won a BAFTA (covered by the BAFTA site and news sites)

-Being with John & Yoko at the Bed-in for peace (covered by BBC)

I guess my answer is at the crux of the problem. If a writer creates a show & it wins a BAFTA, then are sources that back up that fact not enough for notability? Do I need to also find evidence that people are talking about her doing it? HGoody (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A ref that confirms that a person won an award is useful, butif name only, as in X won Y, that is considered a passing mention, hence not sufficient as confirming notability. You need at least three refs having been written about Gail. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're running up against WP:NOTINHERITED here. Plenty of people write a notable show (or book, or whatever), but are not independently notable themselves. Wikipedia requires sources that are primarily about the author rather than the thing that they wrote. Similarly, the Bed-in stuff speaks to Lennon's notability, not hers. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HGoody, I invited you to nominate three sources. Admittedly this word has various shades of meaning, but in this context it means published texts, written and published independently of Renard, describing or discussing Renard or her works. (For joint works to which she contributed, her contributions to these need to be described or discussed.) These need not be online; and if a source is online it may be behind a paywall. And they needn't be in English. However, sources in English that are online and aren't behind paywalls would be more welcome. A quibble with MrOllie: I don't suppose that Renard had a starring role in "the Bed-in stuff"; but if she didn't, no matter: perhaps her involvement was itself written up by others; and the draft tells us that she had a reputable (non-vanity) publisher publish a book about the experience, a book that may have been reviewed. If a substantive write-up or review was published, feel free to nominate it as one of the three sources. -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your continued patience. It's really helpful to get all of this feedback

How would you rate these as sources?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/apr/30/johnlennon

http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2012/01/give-me-chance-book-review.html

https://televisionheaven.co.uk/reviews/echoes-of-louisa HGoody (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HGoody: The Guardian is a reliable source, but that piece isn't about Gail Renard, it's about an auction for song lyrics that she happens to own. I wouldn't say that counts toward notability. The second reference is a fan club and we would not use that. The third source telivisionheaven gives her only a brief mention, but describes her as "a Bafta award-winning television writer and performer". That source doesn't give her coverage for notability either, but may point the way to sources that do, if you can find coverage of her winning the Bafta award. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am aware this is a Wikipedia chat but I have a quick question regarding Wikimedia. I believe this File:William Campbell (Medal of Honor).jpg may not actually be the person it says it is. I have further reasoning at the talk page of William Campbell but I would like to see if there is a relevant forum on Wikimedia to discuss potential changes to the data of the original file. Sorry for the lack of relevance to the chat and thanks in advance! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clyde. That file is on Commons, so the best place to discuss it would be commons:Commons:Help desk. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed from article until issue settled at Commons. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add an over-quotation template for just a section, or should I use template:long quote instead? I'm looking at Gérald Darmanin#Intimidation against the Human Rights League. Artwhitemaster (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@artwhitemaster:

{{over-quotation|section=yes}} ltbdl (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artwhitemaster, it appears from the quotation marks that a miscellany of people who I'd expect would be expressing themselves in French have instead been expressing themselves in English. This is odd. Another oddity is the care currently taken to present what was merely "mentioned". (The writer probably doesn't fully understand the nuances of this verb.) And certain uses of the present tense, though normal if this were in French, are odd when it's instead in English. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passage cites an article that is entirely in French, so as far as I can see nothing within the quotation marks is actually a quotation, therefore I suggest you simply delete all those quotation marks. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I delete the entire section or just all the quotes? I agree with you that it seems like the entire section was written by one unregistered user and isn't in line with tone/neutrality. What should I do? Artwhitemaster (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I intended to create an article in English, which was actually a translation of a Persian article. Due to the lack of sources in English, I made the article with minimal information, but still it is not approved. This article in Persian is very complete and comprehensive and includes many Persian sources, but unfortunately there is such a problem for the English translation.

Draft English article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohsen_Bahrami

Persian article in Wikipedia: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86_%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C TheRealRainbowFlick (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies, so what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I cannot understand Persian but I do see that article is significantly longer- it is possible that a fully translated version might be acceptable, if it establishes that this man is notable as we define notability. It is not required that sources be in English. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. The article in Farsi has very reliable sources, but for English, there is only a summary of the sources, so it is much shorter than in Farsi. TheRealRainbowFlick (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi refs can be used for an English article. David notMD (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply, unfortunately the administrators reject the request. Please check if possible. It is true that some English sources are not valid, but some sources such as YJC in Iran are considered government and official sources that are referred to. Also, the sources referred to in the Persian article can be referred again.

Draft:Mohsen Bahrami TheRealRainbowFlick (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRealRainbowFlick. Sources do not have to be in English, but they do have to meet the criteria in the Golden rule. The one that people often don't understand, is independence. If it comes from Bahrami, his colleagues, his agents, his studio, it is not independent. If it comes from an interview with him, or a press release, it is not independent.

Looking at your sources (without being able to read Persian, or attempting to translate most of them):

1. is from Farsi Wikipedia. Wikipedia (any Wikipedia) is not a Reliable source, becuase it is user generated.

2. Biography. It is possible that this is independent, but it is much more likely that this comes from Bahrami or his associates, so it is not independent.

3. Biography. Certainly from Bahrami.

4. iMDB is not a reliable source, as it is user generated. See IMDB.

7. is a film review, which mentions Bahrami's name once. This is not significant coverage.

I haven't looked any further. But it is your responsibility to find at least three sources each of which meets all three of the criteria in golden rule. If you cannot find them, then you will know that Bahrami does not currently meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

A lesser point: giving 10 citations at the end of one paragraph is ridiculous. If they are supporting the same information, then choose one or two of them. If they are supporting different pieces of informatyion in the paragraph, put the citations immediately after the specific information they support. ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough explanation, I put those sources for more information but I can delete them and only 3 reliable sources which are official news agencies. I realized that maybe the number of invalid sources harms the valid sources as well. TheRealRainbowFlick (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello please I'm a new Wikipedia editor. First and foremost I would like to thank the Wikipedia theme on inviting me here to learn more and to become a professional editor. I would love to ask and to get guidelines on how to edit. I sincerely love to become an editor here on Wikipedia and I will love the guidelines and group of people or an individual who can support me by guiding me all through so I can be an editor who understand the mission. thanks. Chocobnj (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chocobnj. Learning to edit on Wikipedia is a bit like learning to drive a car. It's never wise to get behind the wheel on your first day and set off at high speed along the motorway with no understanding of the rules of the road. A crash is almost inevitable. And I see you did encounter a few problems when you started here!

I have added a simple 'welcome' message to the top of your Talk Page with a big blue link to [[Help:Introduction|'Learn more about editing']. You should work through this to understand the basics of editing.

First off, my advice is to make small edits to existing pages; adding references to Reliable Sources etc, is a very good way to learn. Never add content that you 'happen to know', but always base what you add on properly published sources (see WP:RS) that others can access and verify (see WP:V).

Never try to start creating an article in the main part of the encyclopedia. If you do, and if it doesn't look properly encyclopaedic within 30 minutes of being created, it will be speedily deleted. This is to avoid rubbish content remaining visible in the encyclopaedia.

Instead, use our 'wizard' at this page to help you create a WP:DRAFT. Work on that for as many days or weeks as you want. And only when it resembles a short but well-cited article should you consider submitting it for review and feedback. It is essential that any topic you try to create an article about actually meets our Notability Guidelines. We have detailed guidelines for specific topics (such as this one for people. If you can't show sources that demonstrate how 'Notability' has been met, then I'm afraid it won't be permitted to go into the main part of the public encyclopaedia. You can experiment with editing in your own Sandbox, by following the link in the dropdown menu at the 'person icon' in the top right corner of every page (assuming you're viewing it in desktop mode, not mobile).

I hope this helps. We must leave it to you to spend time reading the guidance pages, as we can't hand-hold everyone. But we're here to answer specific issues you may encounter as you learn how to drive (=edit) Wikipedia. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have had three attampts at articles Speedy Deleted, which strongly suggests you need to learn more before attempting an article again. Practice by improving existing articles. Given your history, do not move your drafts to mainspace. Instead, submit for review. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I have drafted a page for a famous Iranian-American tennis official and added more than enough credible sources, but my article has been declined twice, despite the fact that another editor confirmed the notability of the person.

Could you please have a look and help?

Draft:Ali Nili

Thanks in advance.

Regards, ManhattanMG (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ManhattanMG Hello and welcome. I've fixed your link so that it is easily viewable for people in their preferred version of Wikipedia(desktop or mobile).

You should remove language about his "passion" and "journey"; that is just promotional marketing speak. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss what they view as his passion, that might be okay. It seem that you are lacking in sources that give this man significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply, @331dot. Really appreciate your help.

Nili has umpired some of biggest tennis matches in recent years. I have provided sources form US Open, the Guardian, Sport Illustrated, Iranian biggest news agencies including IRNA.

Are these sources not credible?

Regards, ManhattanMG (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The credibility is not the issue. You need sources that do more than merely document his work, that say what makes him important as a tennis official. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply,

He has been awarded by United States Tennis Federation as a notable tennis umpire. I have provided the source. There are similar articles about less famous tennis umpires, so I'm wondering how they got approved? How can I talk to a tennis editor? ManhattanMG (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us, even for years. We can only address what we know about. This also does not mean that each article was "approved" by anyone. This process is not required of all users(though it's a good idea for the inexperienced), and this process has not always existed. If you would like to help us deal with other inappropriate articles, feel free to identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.

There are not necessarily specific "tennis editors"; editors may edit about any subject they choose. You could see if anyone is active at the Tennis WikiProject who could offer you advice.

The award may make him notable- but there still needs to be significant coverage of him personally, not mere documentation of his work and accomplishments. What are the absolute three best sources you have where the source discusses him on their own?(i.e. not an interview with him or merely telling what he has done) 331dot (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help greatly. The most important source is USOpen website (one of four tennis majors in the world) The other one is Mehrnews.org (One of Iran biggest new agency), there are also sources like SportsIllustrated and the Daily Express and the Guardian and a few more. ManhattanMG (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The organization giving him the award is a primary spurce. The Mehr source merely documents the awarding of the award. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That organization is not a marketing company, it is indeed one of biggest competitions in the world of tennis and it is absolutely credible and trustworthy. Based on the provided page, Mehr News is a secondary source, so I assume it might work here. ManhattanMG (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their trustworthiness is not the issue, I certainly believe them, but we mainly want to know what independent sources say about his being given the award. I could give him the 331dot Award for Tennis Officiating and tell people about it, but that means little until other people talk about it. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr News and other sources talked about him. These are credible news outlets in Iran. He is a tennis official and his name has also been mentioned in some tennis books as well, including Novak Djokovic biography. ManhattanMG (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least three outlets interviewed him in English as well as Persian. If he wasn't famous they wouldn't have done that. ManhattanMG (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but interviews are not independent. ltbdl (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "fame" is different from "notability". One can be famous but not notable, and be notable but not famous. I'm sure you are a good journalist, but journalistic writing is very different from encyclopedia writing, both in terms of style and what is being looked for. Awards do not inherently contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace PrizeorAcademy Award), or if independent reliable sources significantly discuss the importance of the award, what it represents, and why the person received one. Did the person's officiating lead to rule or policy changes? Did they have a particular influence on the sport? A baseball manager, Bobby Cox, merits an article because there is 1) extensive coverage of his career as a player and 2) he holds the record for being ejected from games as a manager and 3) independent sources extensively wrote about both. That's a particular influence on the sport. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your advice. I understand that the style was not appropriate and another contributor did a clean-up anf I'm thankful to him. ManhattanMG (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to explain the difference between notable and famous. I'm pretty sure he is more notable than the likes of Kim Kardashian. But I don't know how those celebrities have their own pages. ManhattanMG (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian merits an article because independent reliable sources have extensively written about her and her influence(even if it's in part famous for being famous). 331dot (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, the puff language/marketing speak needs to be removed as well. Do you have an association with this official? (like being his representative/agent) 331dot (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am an Iranian tennis journalist, I mostly write in Persian. Nili is famous in the world of tennis and I thought I should create a page for him. That's it. ManhattanMG (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) In addition there are a number of other puff phrases that need to be swept away. Just the facts please, not your opinions. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did some puffery clean-up. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One way to look at it, ManhattanMG is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. It follows that almost nothing that comes from Nili or his associates (which includes organizations that employ him or have awarded him prizes) is of relevance to a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I am not by any means his associate. I guess you guys don't follow tennis otherwise you wouldn't say he is not a notable person. I will be looking for a tennis editor. Thanks again. ManhattanMG (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we agree or disagree as editors, the simple fact remains that there MUST be third-party Reliable sources to ascertain/verify notability of any subject with a Wikipedia page. Hope this is of help to you. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, and that's precisely why I've provided various reputable news agencies as well as the official US Open website. These sources have a longstanding history and wouldn't publish misleading or promotional content on their platform. Just to clarify, the US Open's history traces back to 1881, reinforcing their credibility. ManhattanMG (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ManhattanMG! I think you are having difficulty with the word "notable" as it is used in Wikipedia jargon rather than in its usual English-language meaning – this is understandable, and I wish someone had introduced a different term 20-odd years ago, but now we're stuck with it.

In the jargon of Wikipedia editing, it does not mean "famous" or "well-known", or "influential", or "meritorious", or "important". Instead it means only "has been written (or broadcast) about at some lengthinseveral (preferably at least 3) published sources that are considered Reliable, independently of any influence by the subject or any person or organisation directly connected to them". (Phew!).

The "independent" excludes any interviews with the subject, PR releases about them, or writings and statements by themselves, relatives, friends, employers etc. no matter where they are published. Please read the more formal guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability and/or the shorter and less formal essay at WP:42.

Demonstrating a subject's "Notability" is a fundamental requirement for having an English-Language Wikipedia article about them (other-language Wikipedias may have different criteria, as each is an independent project). Once a subjects's "Notability" is proven according to all the criteria I described above, other lesser sources can be cited for particular facts (like date and place of birth, etc.), but "Notability" comes first. I hope this clarifies matters. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The major sources I have provided are "independent" and "reliable" by definition. ManhattanMG (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so (I haven't checked, but I'll take your word for it) but do they also discuss the subject and his importance at some length, and are they independent of him (meaning that he is not a member of them, or associated with them [including receiving awards from them], or employed by them in any way, even without renumeration)?

Note that I am not saying otherwise, but these are questions you need to ask about whether sources can demonstrate notability (in Wikipedia's sense), as opposed to merely confirming facts.

Note also that I know no more than any other average person about Tennis, and am not interested in it: I am merely advising you about general Wikipedia policies and requirements, in the light of 20 years' editing on Wikipedia, and a former career editing printed textbooks and encyclopaedias. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US Open, which starts today in New York, is a huge event with a substantial history. They don't pay tribute to nobodies. :-) ManhattanMG (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not confident enough to handle these issues, requesting assistance from more experienced editor(s):

1. rev. 1161278177 (from June) is a complete blanking of "criticisms" section that was allowed to stand on the fifth attempt after being summarily reverted as vandalism the first four times. Is this intentional or was it just overlooked? (The IP subsequently attracted a 48 hour block due to further disruption elsewhere.)
2. These recent edits appear to have added excerpts from poems written by the subject of the article. Ethiopia's copyright is death + 50 years; the author died in 1998, so this is copyvio, unless fair use applies? There is no accompanying literary commentary or other article text referencing these excerpts in order to say something about the author, though. (The copyvio edits were actually reverted by ClueBot, but then the IP from (1) showed up and restored the content.)

Thanks in advance, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:14EB:96C2:62B3:8FD3 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse IP editor. I am fairly OK with reinstating the 'Criticisms' section. The edit summary justifying its removal was invalid. There were indeed citations present. The fact that the key one was dead and not working is irrelevant. It's easy to find an archived copy of that citation on the Wayback Machine (see here).

To be honest, I've not yet read the source in detail, but I would point out that the criticism did not come from Arefayne Fantahun - they were just the author of the online piece (just one short paragraph) which otherwise simply reproduced already published criticism by Sahle Selassie B.Mariam in their 1990s "analysis of Kebede Michael's intellectual outlook".

I also suspect the quoted texts are a copyright violation unless already properly published elsewhere under an appropriate licence. They don't seem to be especially germane to the article, and we don't include lyrics or writings by other authors for the same reason. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling, as well as for the detailed explanation! I'm familiar with copyvio checking with earwig and requesting revdel of content copy-and-pasted from other websites, but wasn't sure how to approach this case. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:14EB:96C2:62B3:8FD3 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have now revdelled the (assumedly) copyrighted poems, and another editor has reinstated the Criticisms section, which is helpful. I have added a note to the article's Talk page to explain why it has been reinstated, highlighting the archived link and encouraging that to be fixed and the source to be check. I do not plan to do the latter two tasks myself. I'll keep it on my watchlist for the next few months, but let me know if the section gets deleted again, as this could verge on protracted edit-warring. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I carried out my first edit yesterday, and clicked the 'minor edit' box. However, having read the edit guidance more fully, I now realise it was actually a major edit. Does my mistake matter? if so, how can I rectify it? Gangnam Woodford (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer you in a simple manner, the answer is no because you did not know at first and we all make mistakes but now you know better. Happy editing Volten001 ^☎ 16:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gangnam Woodford (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above HollHopDrive123 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on your point? I think I see what you're getting at, but it's too vague for me to really engage. Pecopteris (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was just wondering if there's like a discord or something, like you would have in a job. HollHopDrive123 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a discord. See here for more information. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary:slave#Noun casualdejekyll 17:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently come across cited articles which require subscriptions to be read in full at source. In some cases versions at archiving sites, eg. the Wayback Machineorarchive.today, enable the whole article to be read. Is there any way to automatically alert editors who aren't aware of this to search archiving sites whenever they cite paywalled articles? Mcljlm (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: Welcome to the Teahouse. Most citation templates, like {{cite book}}, have parameters that visually inform readers as to whether a source is free to access or otherwise. Other than that it's really up to the editor to do that on their own. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point Tenryuu is that in many (most?) cases editors don't include archived URLs either because they don't realise there'll be a problem for most WP readers, that archived URLs are a way round it, or can't be bothered to search for/create them. I wondered if it's possible for them to be informed before edits are published similar to the way error notices appear. Is there a Wikipedia bot which could highlight the need to add archived URLs? If not can one be created? Mcljlm (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently I worked on wikipedia article named Rameshwar Lal dudi, I have added reliable sources to support the information on this article and now I think that the template on this article which says that it require citations is no longer required because it have proper citations. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAnchor10 - You can remove it if you feel your addressed the concerns.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAnchor10 Your Hindi sources are OK but it would help readers of this English article if you used the |trans-title= parameter to give a translation of each citation title. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I believe Wikipedia is open all, I believe is also offers the opportunity for one to learn more on a topic/entity. I have been contributing to EMY Africa Awards for sometime now and based on the knowledge gathered during my research, I created the pages Kojo Soboh and List of winners of EMY Africa Awards, as it has been done for several award schemes, which is up for deletion at the moment. I am abit surprised with the COI tag placed on me and why such a notable award scheme is been flagged for deletion. A quick on/off wikipedia search confirms its notability. Siagoddess (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siagoddess, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is indeed open to all to edit, but that does not mean that just anything may be inserted. Do you understand what notability means in English W£ikipedia? It is rare that a "quick search" will establish this for a topic, and an "on wikipedia search" is totally irrelevant for it.

I suggest you present the three most solid sources, each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42. Often the hardest one of those to establish is independence: remember that nothing written, published, or sponsored by the subject or any associate or organization associated with the subject will count, and that includes third party articles which are based on press releases. ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ColinFine, thanks for the clarification. Per WP:42, kindly go through these sources as suggested;

• https://www.graphic.com.gh/entertainment/showbiz-news/afro-soul-songstress-zahara-arrives-in-ghana-for-7th-emy-africa-awards.html
• https://myjoyonline.com/emy-africa-awards-2022-ibrahim-mahama-prof-elsie-kaufmann-don-jazzy-win-big-see-full-list/
• https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Johnnie-Walker-headlines-Exclusive-Men-of-the-Year-EMY-Africa-Awards-1387015
• https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/veep-urges-emy-awards-winners-to-influence-society.html
• https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/SportsArchive/EMY-Awards-nomination-has-motivated-me-Ampofo-Ankrah-558179
• http://www.businessghana.com/site/news/business/188837/28-To-receive-EMY-Africa-awards

Siagoddess (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Siagoddess. I don't see any independent significant coverage of the awards. Most of these say no more than a sentence about the awards. The one with most information about them, the Ghanaweb one, is an advertising piece by the sponsor of the awards, and so not independent. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine, what about these;

• https://businessday.ng/life-arts/article/bmy-africa-sets-new-path-for-excellence-in-award-shows/
• https://myjoyonline.com/emy-africa-awards-holds-soiree-in-lagos
• https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/ghana-news-emy-africa-celebrates-best-in-men-s-achievements-tonight.html
• https://www.peacefmonline.com/pages/showbiz/news/202208/473268.php

Siagoddess (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Riemann Hypothesis has this statement: "In 1997 Deshouillers, Effinger, te Riele, and Zinoviev showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies that every odd number greater than 5 is the sum of three primes." I look at the odd numbers 3 and 5 and wonder why the statement should not reference "every odd number greater than 1?" (Because 3=1+1+1 and 5=1+1+1.) Ozziemaland (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of second sum in the parentheses: 5=3+1+1 Ozziemaland (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The place to bring this up is on the article's talk page Talk:Riemann hypothesis. Note that what matters here is not what is true but what the source says. If the sources cited says "greater than 5", then that is what our article should say. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiOzziemaland. 1 is not considered a prime. See Prime number#Primality of one. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone's generation something that we would include in an infobox? For example, would it be cool to put millennial in the infobox for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezorbaby boomer in the infobox for Donald Trump?Iljhgtn (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth is all you need, we don't really need unnecessary clutter in the infobox Natelabs (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Trump is a baby boomer, it is just barely. He was born about ten months after Victory over Japan Day at the end of World War II. But my personal oservations mean nothing. The only relevant question is whether multiple reliable independent sources call him a "baby boomer". Given the massive amount of coverage of Trump, this ought to be a consistently repeated theme in coverage of Trump. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a quick google search showed these results on trump being a baby boomer: https://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/donald_trumps_the_ultimate_baby_boomer_how_boomer_entitlement_and_hollywood_explain_the_gop_front_runner/]https://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/donald_trumps_the_ultimate_baby_boomer_how_boomer_entitlement_and_hollywood_explain_the_gop_front_runner/

[1]https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/05/donald_trump_baby_boomer_how_the_candidate_was_shaped_by_his_generation.html

[2]https://qz.com/836658/donald-trumps-age-how-baby-boomer-generation-x-and-millennial-presidents-would-change-the-course-of-america

[3]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/07/the-baby-boomers-still-want-to-make-america-great-again

[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2016/10/25/7d0c6a62-9aef-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html Iljhgtn (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Natelabs, we don't need something unnecessary like that in the infobox Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Industrial Insect (talk • contribs) [reply]

I've nominated an article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALt lamp (2nd nomination)). I was thinking that it might be better merged, which I've discussed on the Afd page. How I can ask for input from editors of a specific area, like those of the pages that it might be merged into? 99% fad-free (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

99% fad-free, via deletion sorting lists. This AfD has already been added to two lists; if you believe that it should be added to more lists, you are free to add it to them. (Instructions appear atop each list.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hoary! I thought maybe there was a reason I shouldn't do that. 99% fad-free (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a contribution to the article Parkinson's disease in the Research section but I do not have permission to edit. I would like to add this research from the BMJ Gut journal

• Konings, Bo; Villatoro, Luisa (2023). "Gastrointestinal syndromes preceding a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease: testing Braak's hypothesis using a nationwide database for comparison with Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular diseases". BMJ Gut. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329685. Retrieved 27 August 2023.

TRESISR (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiTRESISR. When you're unable to edit a Wikipedia article because it has been protected by a Wikipedia administrator, you can still use the article's corresponding talk page to propose the changes you would like to make. You can do this either in the form of an edit request or perhaps a bit less formally through talk page discussion. Be advised, however, that articles about medical subjects seem to be bit more scrutinized and require higher quality sources than perhaps is the case with respect to aritlces about other subjects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that Wikipedia's articles are tertiary, not secondary reviews, a distinction of which many academic researchers are unaware. It is the job of secondary reviews in good medical journals to sift through the enormous quantity of high-quality research that a condition like Parkinson's generates, and it is for them to decide which primary sources are most influential of current understanding, and to synthesise an overview of what it all means. It is our job to provide an overview-of-overviews, referencing these secondary reviews. Our articles are rarely the place to refer to individual primary studies. We are absolutely not a place to advertise recent research; the bar for inclusion is rather high, but there is no shame in a primary article not reaching it. Elemimele (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in question: Electrical grid security in the United States and Electric grid security in the United States. Aren't they the same thing? Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ca. In my opinion, those two articles should probably be merged. Please see WP:MERGE for detailed instructions about the process. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Wikipedians! Great to be here, thank you to everyone for making this such an awesome place to be!

I have just one head scratching issue, and to be honest I'm kinda struggling with this one. Coming from high academics I should not be scratching my head about how to properly tone a wikipedia article but I'm mostly familiar with Awards, nominations, type of articles and I'm kind of stuck on something, I can't seem to find significant things like a music award nomination for the artist Draft:Doc Shebeleza (South African musician) which is an article I recently created and I would love the help from anyone willing to contribute by changing the tone of the article. I have since update and made the intro a more neutral point of view. it's kind of tricky to determine what should stay and what should particular be removed before being published. Also check the Career tab in the draft.

Kind regards and anybodys help is glady welcome! Frankymulls (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about a lack of award nominations, Frankymulls. Do worry about the promotional tone, which is overpowering. A randomly chosen sample: Reflecting on his journey, Doc Shebeleza, also known as Victor Bogopane, shared insights into his post-limelight endeavors. Rather than capitalizing on the wave of attention spurred by Cassper Nyovest's homage, he chose a different path. Collaborating with Cassper Nyovest on what would become his final recorded song, Monate So, Bogopane gracefully bid farewell to his extensive Kwaito career. What this actually means is elusive. It seems to be written less to inform (which is what we want) than to impress (which we don't want) -- and it doesn't impress. Make it informative. Base what you write directly on the reliable sources that you cite. -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! User:Hoary A nudge in the right direction was all I needed. I contributed to the encyclopedia before but when I look back at the work I did before, I see the huge difference between the old work and the current one. In the old contributions my work is informative and gives accurate information based on the reliable sources cited in a non promotional manner..

I just couldn't put 1 and 1 together as why my new work doesn't sound or have the exact tone as my previous work.

I'm fixing the draft up and will be publishing again after improvements have been made. Thanks for the reflections.

P.S - I didnt focus on neutral point of view when I wanted to draft the article, I just rewrote the information found in the reliable sources which I than put in my own words, I haven't really focused on changing the tone. I Just needed a heads up as to what direction to take the article. Because reading it back to myself didn't sound like encyclopedic material.

Have a nice day! Frankymulls (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page - biography for my father - he is engineer and professor at faculty of mechanical engineering, in Pristina- Kosovo. DafineMuriqi (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:DafineMuriqi I could help you in that field as I am a qualified professor but note that the topic needs to meet WP:Notability criteria and follow WP:reliable sources guidelines.

Also do create a new topic on this subject in the Teahouse so that others who are interested can also contribute to the article as this is a encyclopedia for everyone to edit.

Thank you Frankymulls (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Frankmull's guidance. Make sure to read our guideline on conflict of interest editing. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YFA describes how to create and then submit a referenced draft for review. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has articles - not 'biographies' - and that all fact content must be verified by reliable source references. WP:ACAD provides information on articles about academics. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good essay for incorporating the advice you've been given is at WP:BACKWARD. I highly suggest reading and understanding it before starting your draft. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I hope you are doing well. My name is Anas Baig, currently works at Securiti. I am trying to push my company page i.e Securiti.ai live on Wikipedia. How to push it live from sandbox? Right now it's in the sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anasbaig/sandbox

Please help:)

Thank you so much.

Kind regards, Anas Baig Anasbaig (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anasbaig. Firstly you must immediately declare your WP:Conflict of Interest and make a WP:PAID editing disclosure. Failure to do so is a breach of Wikimedia Terms and Conditions. Qcne (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anas, and welcome to the Teahouse. Once you have made the mandatory PAID disclosure, the next thing is to get rid of all the promotional language - which is most of your draft.

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

You may also find the essay BACKWARDS helpful. ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I am working on an article about a person (biography) and I need to prove their date of birth. My question is: How can I prove on Wikipedia that a certain person was born on a certain day? Do I need to wait for a reliable source or for that person to tell when they were born or is there a better way to prove it? Thank you for your time and for who helps me. Best Regards, MountSnake87 (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MountSnake87:

Welcome to the teahouse. You should wait for a reliable source. If the person tells you their date of birth in private correspondence, it cannot be used in Wikipedia, as it is unpublished. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point this out. Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY. I think it's worthy pointing it out. Cwater1 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

Some articles, especially biographies, are written using past tenses, for exampe: "John S. was a singer...".

Is it ok or should we systematically correct it using the present tense?

Fhaidi (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fhaidi:

Welcome to the teahouse. If the subject of the biography is deceased, their biography article should be written in the past tense. See MOS:BLPTENSE: Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense.

If you find a biography of a living person written in the past tense, you are more than welcome to correct it. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Very helpful, thanks a lot. Fhaidi (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the Durham Museum Wikipedia page, it is still listed as a heritage center, despite the article repeatedly commenting on its renaming as just 'Durham Museum.' Is there any way to change this?

The article in question is: Durham Museum and Heritage Centre46.208.35.141 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I fixed your link so the link will appear in whatever version people are using(mobile or desktop). An article is typically titled as whatever the most common name is for the topic, not necessarily the official or legal name(Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton, his legal name, and not William Jefferson Blythe, his birth name). If you think that "Durham Museum" is the correct name and moving it is uncontroversial, you may request a rename at Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm a first-time contributor and finding it difficult to get my proposed content published. I'm a professional writer of some 20 years, so I think the submission is fairly straightforward and easy to read, but I seem to keep running into citation difficulties. I'm not sure if I'm doing that wrong or if my subject just isn't worthy of a Wikipedia entry due to there not being enough reliable info out there to refer to. Can someone help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jessica_Greenfield

Best regards,

David Davidwalker1981 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

You've a few issues with your draft. You have a bunch of external links masquerading as references: check out WP:INCITE and WP:EXTERNAL which explains how to cite in-line with text and why external links shouldn't be in the body of the article.

You've used Discogs as a source: sorry, that can't be used. Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which explains why. Likewise LinkedIn (and other social media) shouldn't be used- we'd rather see secondary sources for this information. Qcne (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, think I've sorted those issues now - we'll see!

David Davidwalker1981 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, many thanks for all the helpful suggestions provided here. I have addressed the issues editors have noted, including cleaning up citations, etc. Any additional feedback would be greatly be appreciated that might help further improve the draft. Thank you so much. Echohk (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pbritti (talk), for your comment on the draft. I have removed the informal and non-neutral language in the members' profiles, as you suggested. Echohk (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Echohk: You need to remove all examples of unsubstantiated puffery and editorializing. For example the lead contains the word "unprecedented". That's as far as I got; I generally don't continue with articles that start out like that, and neither would most reviewers. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen a user (who I won't name) tag a talk page for a video game with {{British English}}, saying that the developers is based in France, so it must be in British English. Is there a policy saying it should be that way? Ebbedlila (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy or guideline. Common sense is usually the best way froward. Any other info is difficult to provide without seeing the actual edit and working out the editors intent. If the user is making a wholesale change from one form of English to another, they shouldn't do that. - X201 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy in this area is WP:ENGVAR. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebbedlila: WP:ENGVAR isn't really going to help here. It explains that the variety of English should remain consistent with an article, and that article topics with strong national ties to a particular variety of English should use that variety of English. But for articles with no ties to a particular flavor of English, you can use what you want. If you start it in American English, that's how it will be. If the largest market is American, then American English would be appropriate.

I'm remind of the game Minecraft, which originated in Europe, but the game developers deliberately spelled every word in the game in American English, and the Minecraft Wiki is also written accordingly, for that reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article "Sally Kempton" I tried to add a link to a book I found on Google Books under "External links" and as a reference after the sentence "Her article "Cutting Loose", published in Esquire in 1970, which critiqued societal gender norms, garnered significant attention". But when I click on the link it just goes to the search result highlighted and I have to click on the result again to get to the actual page. Can anyone please fix it so that it goes to the actual page without having to click through? (Or you could explain to me how to fix it, but I doubt I would understand frankly.) Thank you. Caravansera (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caravansera: Great question! Once you've opened the page, clear the search (for me, there's a grey bar; click the X box). Once you've done that, locate the button that looks like a pair of chain links above the displayed page. It'll open and reveal a URL link that can be copied. In this instance, the produced URL was this. Another explanation for this process is shown visually here. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It seems that somebody fixed it for me, but it's good to have the explanation here in case I need it again.Caravansera (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For the last month, I've been keeping tabs on a disruptive IP who has focused on removing stub templates from articles. The user has hopped IPs a couple times to evade blocks, meaning I've only seen their disruption several days after it was resumed. This makes clean up difficult. Is there a tool that would allow me to monitor when a specific stub template is removed without resorting to watching every article that has that template? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could maybe somehow set up a private edit filter to log it? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Please post your question over at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Someone may be able to make an edit filter so you can track these changes more easily. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward-Woodrow and Anachronist: I did not know such a thing was available. This is swell! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to change the title of a draft? I wanted to change the name of my draft Karu Research to read Karu Research (fashion brand) as I noticed that is more common for wikipedia pages on fashion brands.. Chainsawpunk (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chainsawpunk: Assuming you're using the more recent Wikipedia skin, look at the toolbar on the right of the page when you're on draft. There should be a link labeled "Move". You can select the next name there. However, in this instance, a disambiguating parenthetical doesn't strike me as necessary. If it is necessary, the editor that approves your draft will append it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! I will keep it the same, but thank you for letting me know about this tool regardless! Chainsawpunk (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected. On August 15 I posted a query to the AfC helpdesk, asking for clarification of several criticisms. I have not heard a response to date, and I'm wondering how long I should expect to wait before getting a response. I can't really move forward on revising my draft until I hear back.

I'm aware of the enormous backlog of drafts, but I already waited almost half a year for a decision on the draft. The criticisms were very brief and (for me) unhelpful, which is why I posted my query. Do I need to wait another half year to get the clarification that I need? The draft will only stay in draft space for a limited time unless I work on it. Johsebb (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johsebb. Your draft was declined not rejected, and there is a major difference. Vast swathes of your draft lack references, which creates concerns about Verifiability, which is a core content policy. In practice, every paragraph ought to have at least one reference. The lead section ought to be a simplified overview accessible to readers who are not experts in this field of mathematics. You should work on the obvious improvements that are needed. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cc @Paul Vaurie, draft reviewer. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I echo what Cullen328 said above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: I am QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} on a public network so please ping me in your replies.

Recently, I was editing Logic gate § Truth tables, to make the table cells with "0" in them red using {{no2}} to improve readability and consistency with other articles, but there was a problem on the second table. See below.

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-  style="background:#def;"
| colspan=2 | '''Input''' || colspan=6 | '''Output'''
|-  style="background:#def;"
|A||B|| AND || NAND ||OR|| NOR || XOR || XNOR
|-
| {{no2|0}} || {{no2|0}} || rowspan="3" | {{no2|0}} || rowspan="3" | {{yes2|1}} || {{no2|0}} || {{yes2|1}} || {{no2|0}} || {{yes2|1}}
|-
| {{no2|0}} || {{yes2|1}} || rowspan="3" | {{yes2|1}} || rowspan="3" | {{no2|0}} || rowspan="2" | {{yes2|1}} || rowspan=2 |  {{no2|0}} 
|-
| {{yes2|1}} || {{no2|0}} 
|-
| {{yes2|1}} || {{yes2|1}} || {{yes2|1}} || {{no2|0}} || {{no2|0}} || {{yes2|1}} 
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-  style="background:#def; text-align:center;"
| colspan=2 | '''Input''' || colspan=6 | '''Output'''
|-  style="background:#def; text-align:center;"
|A||B|| AND || NAND ||OR|| NOR || XOR || XNOR
|-  style="background:#dfd; text-align:center;"
|0 || 0 || rowspan="3" | 0 || rowspan="3" |1|| 0 ||1|| 0 ||1|-  style="background:#dfd; text-align:center;"
|0 ||1|| rowspan="3" |1|| rowspan="3" | 0 || rowspan="2" |1|| rowspan=2 |  0 
|-  style="background:#dfd; text-align:center;"
|1|| 0 
|-  style="background:#dfd; text-align:center;"
|1||1||1|| 0 || 0 ||1|}

Thanks in advance, 46.10.223.203 (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiQuickQuokka. {{no2}} says:

 Important: If you want to use other attributes for the table cells, e.g. colspan, rowspan, or style, they need to be put before the template call, and there must be no vertical bar (aka pipe) | in-between them

This applies to cell formatting templates in general. They add formatting code which must be before the pipe so they include their own pipe. Without pipes:

PrimeHunter (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you! Sorry for forgetting the documentation.

I will now put this table in the article. 46.10.223.203 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – 46.10.223.203 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Confirming it's me! QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Seeing A Controversial Image In Wikipedia Page. And I Want It To Be Changed. Firstly For Introduction The Page Is About:Ahmad Sirhindi And When You enter You Will See A Portrait Of Him. It Doesnt Seem Controversial But It Is A Very Controversial Image to Around 1.7 Billion Muslims Living And They Get Angry. Because We Dont Put Portraits Of Religious Figures On Wikipedia Page. Even Wikipedia Agrees With This Rule. It Doesnt Put Portraits Of People LIke Muhammad And His Companians And Even Modern Day People That Are Very Famous. We Want It To Be Changed. Many Editors Have Tried It But They Wont Let Us Edit it RERGaming123 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RERGaming123, welcome to the Teahouse. I hope Wikipedia is not censored answers your question. Have a good day, NotAGenious (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've already asked Edward Woodrow on his talk page, you won't get a different answer from anyone. HELP:NOSEE tells you how to hide images from yourself, but please do not attempt to remove the image from the article. Thank you for asking first though. NotAGenious (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even Wikipedia Agrees With This Rule. It Doesnt [sic] Put Portraits Of People LIke Muhammad And His Companians. No, it totally does. this image, for example, is used on the Muhammad article. Also, there no need to Write In Title Case Like This. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which Grammar checking software is allowed on Wikipedia? I know Grammarly inst but which are? or are they all not allowed? Subariba (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome! As far as I know, spellcheck software is not banned on Wikipedia. However, be careful with spellcheckers, as it could mess up markup if using the source editor, and they are not really smart enough to detect things such as American vs British English (as Wikipedia uses both). Lastly, it's best not to use autocorrect, and instead manually check detected errors. 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 20:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC) edited 20:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is the most used by editors? Subariba (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know which spellcheck software is most used, but I would say either the one built into the browser/operating system or one made by Wikipedians. Again, I didn't verify this, but this is my assumption. 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 21:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Subariba: See Wikipedia:Don't use Grammarly. It is quite clear to me that grammar checkers aren't used in Wikipedia articles, because I am often correcting grammar in them. I have also not seen a grammar checker that can do as good a job as a human with a good grasp of written English. You can participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar if it's still active.

As for spell checking Wikipedia:Spellchecking has some guidance about tools and techniques. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the public sandbox after someone informed me about it they also said there’s a personal sandbox but I got no clue where and what it is. 209.249.49.18 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only logged-in editors have a personal sandbox - consider creating an account if you would like to be able to access one. Tollens (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel like an idiot for not knowing this. 209.249.49.18 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can still make a sandbox over at Special:MyPage/sandbox, even without an account.

If this is a shared or dynamic IP, there is no guarantee that this sandbox will last. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 01:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: As logged out user that link shows me You need to log in or create an account to create this page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: I shall henceforth selftrout myself as I did not consider that unregistered users can't make new pages for the most part. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 01:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After doing more looking, it appears IP editors can create a sandbox in the Talk namespace, such as at Special:MyTalk/sandbox. (Though as mentioned above, if the IP is shared it still isn't personal per se.) Tollens (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. See also WP:ACCOUNT for the many other reasons that creating an account is a good idea. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 209.249.49.18 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I need help with the Scribunto extension.

I recently edited Module:Example/sandbox to expreriment (see my sandbox), but the ternary operator is just not working as expected, it's always giving out the plural form.

Onthe official Lua demo site, running basically the same code runs as expected:

function count_fruit(num_bananas, num_apples)
 local conj_bananas = num_bananas == 1 and 'banana' or 'bananas'
 local conj_apples = num_apples == 1 and 'apple' or 'apples'
 
 return 'I have ' .. num_bananas ..  ' ' .. conj_bananas .. ' and ' .. num_apples .. ' ' .. conj_apples
end

print(count_fruit(2,1))