Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:15, 7 June 2023 (Archiving 17 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1190) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Ask a question
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.


Can someone help me with my new draft, Draft:Dylan McCaffrey?

I needed help with my new draft. Can anyone help me expand it? 40.142.188.18 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not be co-authors. The burden is on you to add information and appropriate references before submitting the draft to review. David notMD (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should be aware that college football players rarely qualify as Wikipedia notable. If McCaffrey has not won a national award or set a NCAA Division I record or gained national media attention as an individual, very unlikely a draft about him would be accepted regardless of how much you put into it. More realistic to wait until he has a pro career. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A great way to let others improve your article is by adding appropriate wikiprojects to the article talk page, and reaching out to editors in those WikiProjects for assistance. For information on wikiprojects, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject and for a specific wikiproject, possibly try Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. Hope this helps! RossDG8-Talk 21:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying popup: "Your Userpage"

Every time I open a WP page now (even when logged in on my own user page) I get a popup titled "Your Userpage" It says: Your userpage is a place to tell other editors about yourself. You can share about your background and interests and what you'd like to contribute to the project--share as much or as little as you like..." Clicking on the options points you towards starting the WP Adventure! There seems to be no way to end this behavior. This can't be happening to just me, can it? BTW, just upgraded to a new PC with Windows 11. I wonder if that's it! Rp2006 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rp2006. It sounds like a Wikipedia Adventure script got stuck. Try "Start the adventure" at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure adn then "I'd like to leave". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sounded plausable.... so I just tried that, but unfortunately there was no change in the behavior! Rp2006 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I logged out and back in. Same thing. It thinks I am a new user! Rp2006 (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Edition book having same ISBN, but different page numbers

I'm trying to edit the Type 38 Arisaka page, but I realized that the book "The Type 38 Arisaka" and "The Type 38 Arisaka Revised Edition" has the same ISBN, but greatly different page numbers, with the revised edition being about 2/3rds the length due to the removal of many serial number charts. If I want to cite the revised edition, with the article still having citing from the original edition, what would I do to differentiate them? Rebel1945 (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per ISBN,org the revised edition should not have the same ISBN. See http://isbn.org/faqs_formats_reprints_editions Meters (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rebel1945, for those two books to share a single ISBN is something that should never happen. However, such things (and worse) do happen. There are various approaches; what I'd do is:
  • Put the bibliography of Type 38 rifle into alphabetical-by-author order, not only because doing so is the conventional thing, but also to reduce the risk that the hurried reader will notice only one of the pair.
  • Where the article now has for example "Allan and Macy. p.4-5", change this to "Allan and Macy (year), pp. 4–5" in which year is whichever is appropriate of 2007 and 2021.
  • Attach a note such as {{efn-lr|name=isbn_confusion|The 2007 and 2021 editions of this book have different content and different pagination; however, they share a single ISBN.}} to the end of either one of the two relevant bibliography entries.
  • Attach {{efn-lr|name=isbn_confusion}} to the end of the other relevant bibliography entry.
  • Immediately before the "References" section; add another header, "Notes"; and under this header, add {{notelist-lr}}
-- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC) typos fixed Hoary (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all indications, the authors appear to be self-publishing the revised edition. Maybe that's why the ISBN has not changed. User:Rebel1945, I see you've already added edition=Revised to the cite book template. You could create a separate reference for each version, and leave the old page numbers attached to the old version while adding new info with the pages in your version. For the sfn and harv families of shortened footnote templates, you can differentiate between the two editions using the ref= parameter in the citation templates. Definitely an unusual situation. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On notability

What would you say about a hypothetical article proposed to be created, entitled, Impacts of horseback riding therapy on children with cerebral palsy if there already exist non-wp:original research?

Let us assume that these are wp:rs.
I am already aware of :

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists

Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone other than the creator of the list. Wikipedia:SALAT

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article — 

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article — wp:NEXIST

list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelineWikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists

My question is, what is the black-and-white discriminating factor between notable and non-notable ...topics?
Thanks! 121.7.22.248 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not black-and-white, it can be a matter of judgment. Anyway, please see WP:MEDRS.   Maproom (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the depth of coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources. Any claims of medical efficacy must be supported by references that comply with WP:MEDREF. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Management of cerebral palsy for referenced mention of horse riding as an alternative therapy. Valid content and references, i.e., WP:MEDRS compliant, can be added there. Also see Equine-assisted therapy for mention of CP. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining about an editor

"These kind of nominations are very tedious for all concerned", " that's no skin off my nose, but perhaps that's why you've pettily felt the need to spam my talkpage?"--These type of statements are clearly undermining the dignity of the cricketer concerned, as we as, the one who nominated. Asking a veteran editor to look into this matter. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা This is not the place to raise grievances about user behavior. That is WP:ANI- but if you do that you are the one likely to be blocked, as the comments you have made are deeply disturbing for this collaborative project. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let a warning or just a small note be issued in that particular editor's talk page User talk:AssociateAffiliate. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only one being warned here is you. Religious bigotry is not tolerated here. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review status

Why is my article taking so long to be reviewed - its over 4 months since completed and i can see a reviewer has commented 'seems to pass'. This has been the status for over 4 months - please could you advise - is anything else required by me to complete the process? Draft:Christopher Aidan Gilligan Floralsignal (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floralsignal Hello. There is nothing that you can do other than continue to be patient, as noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,638 pending submissions waiting for review." There is only a very limited number of volunteer reviewers.
I converted your link to a standard internal llink, we don't need the whole url. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Floralsignal It shouldn't be too long now.
I "created" my first article by accident. It already existed, but something was wrong with it, which if I remember correctly, was that it was going to be deleted. So I added roughly a million links, and small bits of list type information.
Roughly 4 months later, when I had forgotten about it, I got a notification to say my article had been accepted. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Floralsignal, you've been told above "There is nothing that you can do other than continue to be patient". But that's not quite true. The main concern of any reviewer will be "do the sources cited in the draft establish that the subject is notable?" When a reviewer checks the first four sources and finds that none if them is an independent source, they may well decide that they have better uses for them time than checking the rest, and throw it back in the waiting list. If you would like to expedite the review process, you could remove most or all of the references which do nothing to help establish notability, so that a reviewer can more easily find the good ones (assuming there are any). Maproom (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to publish an article: did I do it correctly

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. If not, I apologize, and kindly request to let me know where I should go instead. But if this is the right place: I would like to have some help with publishing an article that I wrote. After writing and publishing several pages in the Dutch Wikipedia (as an example: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AISHE), I have made my first article for the English Wikipedia. The draft is: User:KlaasVanGiersbergen/Football Gini.

Now, publishing in the Dutch Wiki differs considerably from doing the same in the English Wiki, that has become clear to me. So, I have to learn something new.

For the English publication process, it seems to me that my next step should be, to add the AfC submission right at the beginning, after which a reviewer will inspect my article and, if it is found to be all right (perhaps after some feedback & edits), it will be published as an article. (Hopefully in the correct way & place - is there someone who can check that, please?)

Is this indeed the right way to have an article published? If so, then I should just wait until a reviewer visits the draft, I guess. But if not: can anybody tell me what I should do instead? Thanks! KlaasVanGiersbergen (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KlaasVanGiersbergen I fixed the submit at the top of your draft, so it is now a submitted draft. I also moved it to Draft:Football Gini. It needs a Lead. David notMD (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KlaasVanGiersbergen, your draft has no lead section. It starts with a section titled "Origins", but it doesn't say what it's about the origins of. I've read that section, and still have no idea what your draft is about. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how to create program

Boldhow to create the [rogram 106.198.40.117 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, this is the wikipedia teahouse, where we answer questions related to wikipedia editing. you will have to ask this elsewhere. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, what do you mean by program? If you mean project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject. If you mean an article, see Help:Your first article. Apmh 14:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read our article on Computer programming. Shantavira|feed me 14:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Engineerium

hello there, i'd like to change the title name of the wikipedia page 'british engineerium' to 'the british engineerium'. i can't seem to figure out how to do that? not sure if anyone can help/advise? many thanks, graeme https://thebritishengineerium.org/ Gboyd987 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). (Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters). Shantavira|feed me 14:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gboyd987, you may move the article to a new title yourself once you have been here 4 days and made at least 10 edits. See Help:How to move a page. @Shantavira, "The British Engineerium" (with capital letters) is a perfectly appropriate name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)#Names of groups, sports teams and companies. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gboyd987: I think Shantavira has the correct advice here. Note that British Engineerium has been classified as a good article since 2011, and no one has yet, apparently, felt that the title needed to be changed. If you feel strongly about the matter, follow the procedure described at WP:RM to request that the article be moved and see whether a consensus for the move develops. Deor (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi, I am trying to create a wiki page on a featured english artist. It won't let me upload images of his work- how do I go about this?

Thanks George Sweet (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to write the article and get it approved before even attempting to add images. Please read WP:YFA and WP:NARTIST before you do that. Shantavira|feed me 16:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @George Sweet, I see you are working on Draft:George Sweet. While you can certainly add images to an article while still in draft, all his work is likely to be covered by copyright. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. Also as recommended see WP:NARTIST for how to show that Sweet is well-enough known for an encyclopedia article. Your article has no references, so definitely read WP:YFA also known as Help:Your first article. Everything in the article must be supported by a source. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Uploading Non-Free Files for New Articles

In order to upload a non-free image to wikimedia it needs to be linked to a published page, but my unpublished page for this artist is still a draft until I can add images to it. How can I solve this paradox? I have 6 images including a self portrait and several examples of the artist's work, which I have permission to add but they are non-free. Gigapede (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gigapede: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy only allows non-free content to only be used in the aritcle namespace and only when all ten of these criteria are met. As explained also explained here, non-free content should be uploaded and added after a draft has been approved as an article. Finally, the fact that you want to upload six non-free image as an example of an artists work is not necessary prohibitted, but it could be considered exessive non-free use per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion and WP:NFC#Meeting the minimal usage criterion, and even possibly meeting the WP:NFC#Meeting the no free equivalent criterion. If the artist you're trying to create an article about is still living, then a non-free image of them isn't going to be allowed for primary identification purposes, even if it's a self-portrait. A non-free self-portrait could be allowed as a representative example of the artist's particular style, if they're particularly notable for their portraits and the self-portrait has been the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. Similarly, other examples of the artist's work might be OK if they're considered representative works or otherwise the subject of sourced critical commentary themselves, but six representative works might be pushing it a bit, particularly if they are all the same style, technique or genre. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I request for long standing Wikipedia guidelines on birthplaces to be changed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The OP has been advised that changes to current Wikipedia policy can be made at WP:VPR; they can also make a proposal at WT:MOSBIO since that the talk page corresponding to WP:BIRTHPLACE. There's nothing really more to discuss here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia drives me mad, which is why I stay away from it. IMDB may contain a lot of mistakes, be massively incomplete (even with feature films), and have loads of false information, but at least facts like birth details are a lot harder to remove, plus they use current locations, not historic locations.

Why?

1 - Because of people constantly removing mentions and references of City of Bradford, from people, places and things from City of Bradford. Largely those people are from towns and villages in Bradford itself, who like to pretend they're not from Bradford, and still refer to West Yorkshire, as the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Bradford (the 6th biggest city in the UK) is 3 times bigger than Manchester and Liverpool, twice the size of Birmingham, 17 times bigger than Westminster, and 141 times bigger than the tiny City of London, but because of these stupid guidelines, you'd think it was the other way around.

2 - Because Wikipedia, like most of the world, refuses to accept the fact that Greater London is not a city, and never has been.

It's a county and region which contain 2 tiny cities.

3 - Because of Wikipedia believing that all left wing sources in the UK are accurate, while all right wing sources in the UK are inaccurate, yet I constantly see mistakes in left wing sources like The Guardian and the Independent, every single time I read a story from them. It doesn't matter what the reference is being used to prove, or whether the source is listed as generally unreliable, deprecated or blacklisted, as soon as they're used, they're removed by liberals automatically, regardless of the explanations. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say you stay away from here, but here you are.
You may discuss changing a policy on its associated talk page, or at the Village Pump.
A source being "right wing" or "left wing" is not relevant as to its being considered a reliable source. What matters is its reputation for fact checking and editorial control. If they make stuff up out of whole cloth, they won't be considered reliable. If a source is making errors in its reporting, you need to take that up with the source, not us. If a media outlet has so many errors that it should be considered unreliable, that is a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Wikipedia considers left-wing sources as accurate while right-wing ones are considered inaccurate should be disabused by a brief look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Danstarr69. E.g. The Canary is listed as generally unreliable whereas the Telegraph is listed as generally reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Danstarr. Wikipedia, like most of the world is exactly the point. If you want a careful disquisition on the legal status and governance of Greater London or of City of Bradford MDC, you'll find it in those articles. But Wikipedia generally is not very interested in using official names, but refers to things (and people) using their WP:COMMONNAME, the name used in the majority of relevant sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Bradford ... is 3 times bigger than Manchester and Liverpool, twice the size of Birmingham". Bradford has a population of 366,000, Manchester 551,000, Liverpool 500,000, and Birmingham 1,144.000. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. XAM2175 (T) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom with a name like that, you might be interested in...
1 - Facts from the Office for National Statistics aka the only official source for UK statistics, by simply have a quick look at online census which even you should be able to do [1] & [2], without the need to download complicated XLS files.
2 - Looking the Subdivisions of England map or simply have a quick look at this zoomed in map I made earlier [3] to see that the propaganda you've been hearing for the last 20+ years is completely false.
Bradford - 141.3 square miles - 7th biggest city in England
Birmingham - 103.4 square miles - 15th biggest city in England
Manchester - 44.7 square miles - 19th biggest city in England
Liverpool - 43.2 square miles - 21st biggest city in England
Westminster - 8.1 square miles - 48th biggest city in England
London - 1.15 square miles - 55th biggest city in England
Birmingham population 2011 Census - 1,073,045
Bradford population 2011 Census - 522,452
Manchester population 2011 Census - 503,127
Liverpool population 2011 Census - 466,415
Westminster population 2011 Census - 219,396
City of London population 2011 Census - 7,375
Birmingham population 2020 Actual - 1,140,525
Manchester population 2020 Actual - 555,741
Bradford population 2020 Actual - 542,128
Liverpool population 2020 Actual- 500,474
Westminster population 2020 Actual - 269,848
City of London population 2020 Actual - 10,938
Birmingham population 2021 Census - 1,144,900
Manchester population 2021 Census - 552,000
Bradford population 2021 Census - 546,400
Liverpool population 2021 Census - 486,100
Westminster population 2021 Census - 204,300
City of London population 2021 Census - 8,600 Danstarr69 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, we're not interested in your fringe beliefs. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lettherebedarklight Everything I've said is fact.
Who reads The Canary, as it's not a mainstream newspaper like the others.
Every single right wing mainstream paper has restrictions, or are all blocked entirely in most Wikipedians eyes.
Whereas every single left wing mainstream paper is fine.
Bradford has always been bigger than Manchester in every sense until 2015, when it's population leapfrogged Bradford.
As you can clearly see from any UK map with city/town/borough borders,Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, and many more towns and cities are bigger than Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc by area.
London is not a city, never has been a city, and never will be a city, as it would be impossible to make it a city, unless the king forcibly removed the city status' of the City of Westminster and the City of London. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, that's about the same words right-wingers and flat earthers use. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered though according to a survey conducted by an independent news source, left wingers outnumber right wingers on Wikipedia 2:1. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Japanese Internment Camp under incorrect namespace

I was looking through Special:uncategorizedpages, and found something wrong after discovering a page called Japanese internment camp. It seems to function as a disambiguation page, but is filed under the main-space namespace. Is there some archaic exception to which pages can be disambiguation pages? Please let me know what I should do. SmileyTrek (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SmileyTrek: Yes disambiguation pages are quite common. You can read about them at Wikipedia:Disambiguation RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are typically in the mainspace. It's strange that this one was marked as uncategorized but I've removed that tag and added the Template:disambiguation template which is usually sufficient. WPscatter t/c 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, thank you. I thought it had to have (Disambiguation) under the title, and if it didn't have the namespace prefix it was mainspace, thank you SmileyTrek (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can read more at the policy page linked above and specifically at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but basically, pages only have disambiguators in the title if necessary, regardless of what kind of page it is. None of the pages linked at Japanese internment camp were deemed to be the primary topic, so users are brought to the disambiguation page by default when they search that title.
In contrast, though there are many things named starfish, the primary topic is the marine animal. So Starfish is the article for the animal, while Starfish (disambiguation) exists to list the other things.
Also, all of this is separate from namespaces, which separate things like articles, talk pages, help pages, etc. Disambiguation pages are main space articles just like all the others, as are redirects. WPscatter t/c 20:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I understand now. SmileyTrek (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bit discombobulated

hi i want to join a particular group (portal:countries) but i am not sure if there is a join form or anyting. IGotHacked12 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IGotHacked. I don't think there is a concept of "joining" a portal - a portal is just a page which contains lists of relevant articles and categories: any editor can edit it. (See WP:PORTAL). Perhaps you're thinking of WikiProject Countries? ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Approval: Notability/Tone

  Courtesy link: Draft:Jeff Hamilton

Hi! I'm a pop-culture and fashion fanatic, and I've recently decided to contribute here. I'm very new. I've read the guidelines regarding article origination, and I've attempted to follow them in my efforts to contribute. My most recent submission, however, was rejected on two counts: 1. The article reads like an ad (this may be true, I'm going to review); and 2. The article doesn't prove the subject's notability *because* my sources only make passing mentions of the subject.

I have reviewed the guidelines on notability. My sources are major publications including LA Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. To those who know him, the subject's notability is evident through the contributions his designs have made to iconography from popular culture (especially pop music and hip hop) as well as sports (most notably through his affiliation with the NBA). The user who rejected my submission noted that the sources provided only passing mentions of the subject, but the subject's history is nevertheless evinced in these articles. Collectively, they show that the subjects work was so sought after that Michael Jackson, Madonna, Drake, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela have all commissioned pieces from him and subsequently been photographed at seminal historical moments while wearing them. This person is known and beloved and deserves to be included.

Mind you, that last paragraph is both impassioned and impartial. It's a little irritating to work on something as a passion project just to encounter a wall from someone whose (accepted and published) submissions have included obscure nobility from feudal England. My article was not impartial. It's a dispensation of the facts that people to whom this subject's name evokes meaning and nostalgia already acknowledge as true, and the sources I provided verify everything in the article.

Anyone and everyone who knows/loves street culture, sports history, hip hop knows who this man is. In these subcultures, his name is so synonymous with status and success that he is name dropped on records by rappers like Jay-Z. His designs are indelible to the way basketball fans remember the history of their sport. I'm going to go back and work on this submission, but I can't help but feel like the user who rejected this article did so on the relevance of certain subcultures rather than that of my subject. Rickywrites (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rickywrites. I'm afraid you've been misled by the possibly unfortunate choice of the word "notable" to mean something a bit different from the usual definition. Wikipedia's use of notable basically means "there is enough material about the subject available in independent reliable publications to provide the basis of an article". A thousands mentions, however prestigious their authors and publications, aren't enough. Anything written or published by the subject or their associates isn't relevant - and that includes anything based on a press release, and most interviews.
The answer to your It's a little irritating to work on something as a passion project just to encounter a wall is to not write articles BACKWARD. If you begin by looking for suitable sources, and cannot find them, then you will know not to put any further effort into this subject. (You went on to make a comment about the reviewer: beyond an ability to understand and apply Wikipedia's policies, what a reviewer knows or has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant to their reviewing). ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I did write this backward. I wrote my first article in the same way. If I were writing an essay, I would start by reading. I only included information that I found already published by other sources. Rickywrites (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rickywrites, which would you say are the best three sources for Jeff Hamilton? (They should be reliable -- and thus not be based on interviews -- and go into some depth.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and USA Today. I cited these articles because they confirm assertions I make about the subject, ie celebrities who have commissioned pieces and the presence of these designs in sports and hip hop iconography. This person exists at the intersection fashion and pop/sports culture, not a lot of depth to plumb there. Still, this person has been known and admired for over three decades. Rickywrites (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ article. It's behind The Great Wall of Murdoch, so I can't read it. Somebody else will have to. LA Times article. Plenty of info about the lawsuit (though nothing about its result). Where's the USA Today story? -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tone and tautness. You write:
Following his emigration to California, Hamilton spent a few months prospecting for work before eventually finding a job with a fashion wholesale company. While working in LA’s garment district, Hamilton would frequently ride the elevator with Georges Marciano, the founder of Guess? Jeans. Over time, Hamilton and Marciano became friends. Hamilton eventually approached Marciano and asked if he could have the licensing rights to the Guess name so that he could create and market a line of men’s clothing. At the time, Guess only produced clothing for women, so Marciano agreed.
I might write:
A few months after arriving in California, Hamilton found a job with a fashion wholesale company. While working in LA's garment district, he met Georges Marciano, the founder of Guess? Jeans. Hamilton asked Marciano for the rights to the Guess name for a line of men’s clothing. Guess then only produced clothing for women, so Marciano agreed.
But that's only a hurried first draft. I could probably improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Much appreciated. I’ll work this tone into my rewrite. Rickywrites (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Draft Space

Hi. I can't find my draft space (or is it "draftspace")? Can someone please post the path to it? Thanks so much. Lord Milner (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Milner, it's User:Lord Milner/sandbox, User:Lord Milner/another sandbox, User:Lord Milner/yet another sandbox or for that matter User:Lord Milner/anything you like coming after your user page and a slash. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lord Milner. You haven't got a "draft space": the "Draft" namespace is common to everybody, and you can search for a particular draft by searching for the name including the Draft: on the front; or more generally in the draft space by using "Advanced search" and specifying the "Draft" namespace.
What I suspect you mean is your user space. Are you looking for User:Lord Milner/sandbox/Who United the Western Front During World War I, which I found by looking at your contributions?
If you want to see all subpages of your user space, go to your contributions Special:Contributions/Lord Milner, and pick "Subpages" from the bottom. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my contributions have come straight from "hell", and I have been told that i'm not using Wikipedia correctly. Is a draft page something I must create before listing new topics? (hell=sandbox). If so, that is the procedure I need. Thanks for your generosity. Lord Milner (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Milner: You have something of a history of creating articles and drafts that are quickly deleted, as your deleted contributions show. I'd recommend that you follow the AfC procedure in the future so that someone can review your drafts for suitability as mainspace articles. Deor (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. It looks like all new drafts are started at the AfC page, here: Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts
Does Draft namespace have real advantages over a personal sandbox? I get set in my ways. Lord Milner (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. There's not a lot to choose between them, and you can certainly carry on using personal sandboxes. Draft namespace was created specifically for the purpose, and AFC automatically puts drafts there and gives them an appropriate header; but you can add a corresponding header to a sandbox with {{user sandbox}}. Many people call their sandbox "sandbox" or "sandbox2" etc, which doesn't give a clue to the contents; but I see you use a named subpage of your sandbox anyway. People normally won't edit another editor's sandbox without being asked to, whereas a draft in draft space may be seen as already out in the community. One possibly negative point about drafts is that they are liable to be deleted if unchanged for six months, whereas pages in userspace only get deleted if they contravene a WP policy. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between redirect templates that use the "rcat shell" template and those that don't, aside from the visual aspects?

What is the difference between redirect templates that use the "rcat shell" template and those that don't, aside from the fact that they look different? LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 23:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi LOOKSQUARE and welcome to the Teahouse! {{rcat shell}} does not really do anything to a page apart from adding a description why a page is a redirect (is it a redirect from a misspelling? an alternative name? an ambiguous term? and so on), which can be helpful for people who go back to the redirect page asking about that. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 23:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

Hi everyone! I would like to know that to review other peoples Afc article draft submissions, do you have to be a higher rank than an extended confirmed user? If so, how can I become a reviewer? If not, then what is the link or area where I can review Afc submissions. (I'm very interested in this kind of work and I know when an article needs be accepted or declined.) Thank you guys very much! The Capitalist forever (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Capitalist forever: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. GoingBatty (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty:, thank you very much! The Capitalist forever (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exit List for Interstate 69E

Can someone help me with the exit list for Interstate 69E. I-69E is in Texas. Anyways, I added to the exit list but looks mess up. Tried different things but couldn't figure it out. I submitted it while it looked messed up. Please and thank you. Cwater1 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwater1: Welcome to the Teahouse! I reverted your edit. I suggest you post at Talk:Interstate 69E to specify exactly what changes you want made to the article, so other editors can assist you make the appropriate changes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you. I got a topic on the talk page started. :) Cwater1 (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I report a sockpuppet?

I noticed User:Youhavetodobetter seems to have responded when I asked User:Nothappycamping a question, like they forgot to change accounts or something here Talk:X-gender. Both are editing the exact same pages, seemingly trying to push an agenda against nonbinary people Special:Contributions/Youhavetodobetter Special:Contributions/Nothappycamping and Nothappycamping has received numerous warnings on their talk page User talk:Nothappycamping. How do I report them for sockpuppeting so administrators can check? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna assume good faith here and assume there's a story about a forgotten password here. But what do I know, I'm not a CU. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU what's a CU? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: You can file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. Instructions are on that page. RudolfRed (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed I just did and apparently I'm not the first to file, a report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nothappycamping Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle Huh, seems like my theory of forgotten passwords wasn't too far off. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

twitter

i just wanted to ask that i login the twitter account but their was a grey colur @and then my name was written . i want to hide it. i don't want that my name to be displayed on twitter . so i try to edit it also . but i don't know how to do it . so can anybody help me in hiding my name and make me Anonymous .

as i feel safe if am hidden . 21f2001128 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 21f2001128 and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is for answering questions about Wikipedia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how to change your @username and/or display name at Twitter: See this article. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly welcome to possible sockpuppeter

I have stumbled across what appears to be a very new user apparently sockpuppeting (two brand new accounts editing the same four pages in succession). Just pointing them to WP:SOCKPUPPET does not seem very welcoming; does anyone know a friendlier template or policy page that I could use, please? I couldn't find anything suitable at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. Or should I go straight to starting a sockpuppet investigation? Matt's talk 08:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, M.R.Forrester, it would be best to name the accounts here so experienced editors can examine the situation and give you situational advice. If you don't want them notified of this discussion, then use Template:Noping. Alternatively, there is this usertalk template that can be used: Template:Multiple account query. --Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender, the relevant user seems to be 陳元棟. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And who is or are the suspected sockpuppet(s), Melecie? Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to refer to some odd behaviour from User:香謝賢林欣彤. Shantavira|feed me 11:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are the accounts concerned, Softlavender. FYI 陳元棟 is a conventional (probably but not certainly male) Chinese personal name and 香謝賢林欣 is a punny expression of support for the Cantopop singer Mag Lam, so there's nothing objectionable about the usernames. Matt's talk 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M.R.Forrester are any of the two accounts' edits constructive? If not, I would report them to an administrator or noticeboard as WP:NOTHERE, WP:DE, and obvious sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft creation

I need help in my draft creation. I want to know that what points i needed to remove or change. I need some help in finalizing my draft. Draft Name:- Kuldeep Kumaar. Rajkumarsingh1988 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:Kuldeep Kumaar Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajkumarsingh1988: The draft needs published sources that provide significant coverage of Kumaar, not just passing mentions. The "Theatre" section has no references at all. Titles of films and plays should be italicized. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Rajkumarsingh1988 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the page

Hi I'm new to wikipedia. I want to remove some content that I believe is not required in The Concourse, Chatswood - Wikipedia. Should I discuss about it on the article's talk page? TNM101 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TNM101 and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you've only made eight edits, it's maybe better that you discuss the changes on the talk page, unless they're trivial, and especially if the text you want to remove is backed-up by sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks a lot. The text I want to remove does not have any citations TNM101 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there's a bunch of unsourced content in that article, there's never been a talkpage discussion, there hasn't been an article edit in 2023 and the last content edit was this addition of unsourced text in February 2019, I don't think there's likely to be much engagement on the talkpage; I would suggest TNM101 would be better off being bold and making the change. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already added a topic on the talkpage. Should I delete it now? TNM101 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the edit. Thank you for helping me TNM101 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't delete what you wrote on the Talk page, but you could give a reply to yourself, stating that you went ahead and made changes. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TNM101 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete or disused terms in historical articles

Do you have any kind of guideline, perhaps somewhere in your style manual, around the use of a now obsolete term in an article covering the period when it was in common use? What this comes down to is whether your article about the period should include the term then in use or whether that term should be overwritten by a modern equivalent that did not exist, within context, at the time.

This concerns a technical term but I'm not giving you specifics as yet until I first see if you have any stated policy or guideline on disused terminology. Overwriting a term that was valid at the time, because one of your "experts" does not like it, amounts to rewriting history. Don't worry, it's not about using the N-word or something so offensive. Thanks in anticipation. 92.31.5.221 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps add that a note about the change of terminology would be entirely appropriate. 92.31.5.221 (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In most situations a simple explanatory footnote can be used to explain. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any policy, so it would all depend on context, e.g. if the term is linked to an explanation (or a footnote) then it should be fine. Do the reliable sources use that word? "Obsolete" is a relative concept; a word that is unfamiliar to you might still be be the correct one in that context. Also beware of introducing anachronisms. Shantavira|feed me 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you expect the average reader of the article to be familiar with the term (if it's not explanatory)? That might help. Dege31 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second the notes above about using a footnote. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary suggests that in some cases the word switch should be avoided. Without more information I can't really tell whether your case would be covered though. Tollens (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia has an article on the obsolete term (e.g. mangonel, thirlage), I'd recommending using it, and wikilinking to its article. Maproom (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not replying sooner but thank you, all, for five very helpful suggestions. This would not be a contested vocabulary and, although there isn't an actual article on the term, I think it should be used with a footnote that explains the recent change of terminology. I'll consider it further but, again, thank you very much for your interest. All the best. 92.31.5.221 (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Walker Image with Toledo Blue Stockings

In your entry for FLEET WALKER, the first African-American to play a full season of baseball for a Major League team (1884), you have an image of him with his team, the Toledo Blue Stockings. My Question: Is that image in the public domain? Do you need to cite a source for your images? (It is published in the Zang biography of Fleet Walker, and there is attributed to an individual, who is acknowledged.) 71.218.254.240 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i assume this is about File:1882 University of Michigan baseball team.jpg. yes, the file is in the public domain, as works created before 1928 fall under public domain under united states law. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lettherebedarklight is correct that it is in the public domain. In regards to your question about citing a source, I assume you are talking about citing the image in Wikipedia? Files uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons force you to provide a source (when you click that image it will bring up those details), so there's no need for an additional reference in the article. If you are talking about citing your sources in another place than Wikipedia, it largely depends on what you are doing. Because there is no copyright, no attribution is required for use in other works, but if you are writing an academic paper or something else that always requires citations, you will need to provide attribution in that case. Tollens (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of all Wikipedia pages I've added references to?

Is there a way to get a list of Wikipedia pages I've added references to? I plan to do upkeep for all the sources I use for my Wikipedia contributions. Like sometimes there's better quality scans that become available for gaming magazines that I cite which I want to update the Wikipedia articles with in a straightforward way. Esoptr0n (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can search your contributions' edit summaries via https://sigma.toolforge.org/summary.py?name=Esoptr0n&search=ref&max=500&server=enwiki&ns=None This relies on you being systematic in your edit summaries though, but it's worth a try to start. Umimmak (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. Esoptr0n (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theakston Brewery

Can some one have a look at the following link on Theakston Brewery "Brewer goes back to its roots". I just can not get it to work. Regards Devokewater 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Devokewater it works for me. Maybe you have a browser setting to only allow https (secure connections) and this link only works as http? There is a sort of https version this but it does not render exactly the same and has some page issues. KylieTastic (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be able to access the webpage, if that's what you're wondering. Are you looking for help creating references? Tollens (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes help is required in creating the reference. Regards -- Devokewater 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KylieTastic it working now. Regards -- Devokewater 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KylieTastic could you fix this one too "Brewer Theakston's expands plant". BBC News. 10 September 2003. Retrieved 8 December, 2004. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Regards -- Devokewater 18:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Tollens (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name of article

Hi,

I'm editing this Wikipedia article: Stuart Pimm and would like to change the name of the article to Stuart L. Pimm. I haven't been able to find a place where to change the name of the article. Can you please help me? I'm working with Visual Editor.

Naturesolutionary Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naturesolutionary: You can do this by moving the article if you are autoconfirmed, but I can do it for you if appropriate. Before I do, please note that article titles should use the most common name used to refer to the subject. This doesn't seem based on my quick scan to be the case here - is this correct, or is their middle initial commonly used (not just in citations)? Tollens (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Naturesolutionary. The procedure is called "moving" but new accounts such as yours do not have that power. You can ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be grateful if you moved the article for me. Thank you. I looked at different websites and I think that the Stuart L. Pimm is more common and appropriate. (ResearchGate, Britannica, various articles). Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ResearchGate and Britannica will likely use the full name of a person regardless - what articles in particular are you referencing? When I look through the list of sources in the article which are not academic (which always use a middle initial), I see this CV, that only uses the middle initial in the title, this article that only uses the middle initial in the title and first sentence, this article that does not include a middle initial, this article with no initial, this article with no initial, and this article with no initial. Is there something I'm misunderstanding, or were you primarily considering the academic sources? Tollens (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable enough?

Hello! I've been doing research on my great-grandfather. He was a radio operator in World War 2 and his plane was shot down during Operation Market Garden over the Netherlands. He was held in a prisoner of war camp and participated in a death march to a concentration camp where he was eventually liberated by US forces. I've done extensive research on him, the other people involved in the crash, and the events of his life and surrounding the mission. I could write articles about each of those topics, however I am not sure if the people involved are notable enough? Jacobpie09 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check reliable, verifiable, independent Regards -- Devokewater 18:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline for people outlines a couple criteria you can use to gauge notability - it really comes down to the amount of coverage they received in reliable sources. For the most relevant parts of the policy, you'll probably want to read WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO (both part of the larger guideline I linked above). Keep in mind that people notable only for their connection with a single event are often excluded - that policy is available at WP:SINGLEEVENT. Tollens (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jacobpie09. For what it's worth, my uncle was a crew member on a U.S. bomber shot down over Italy in 1943. My wife's uncle spent 2-1/2 years in a Japanese POW camp in the Philippines. Neither survived. In this case, it depends on whether your great-grandfather is the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent published sources. Your unpublished research cannot be used. See No original research, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the fine suggestions before this, I recommend WP:YFA, WP:42, and WP:BACKWARD. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the concentration camp was Berga concentration camp there is that article about it, but note that it does not connect to articles about any of the prisoners. David notMD (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change the way a dead link is presented

I recently made a dumb error when trying to access an internet link that had been transferred to archive.org - I clicked the words "the original", thinking this would lead to the original document from which the quote was taken, and then when it failed got the impression that the link was not working. I think it is misleading that a dead link is presented in the same format as a working one. For the benefit of users who are not fluent in the Wikipedia presentation, could the structure that implements these links be modified to use words such as "the original link" or "the old link", to lessen the chances of misunderstanding? Or could the text be in red rather than blue, as for other dead links? The particular link that confused me is the James Randi link 11 in section "Criticism" of the article "Skinwalker Ranch". 203.221.25.134 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor,
You may want to check out the Village Pump. We cannot do much to help here. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and advertisment-like information

Hello. I am quite new and I mainly copy-edit articles and sections with a neutral point of view issue. How could a neutral point of view could be reached, if there is a lack of consensus between editors? For example, in this article Lister Mills there were some issues with neutrality, but my edit has been reverted by another editor. My question is not about this article per se, but I would like to know how consensus is typically reached to remove advertisment-like information and improve neutrality. Chiserc (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You simply discuss the matter with the relevant editor(s), typically on the talk page of the affected article. You can notify the involved editors that you'd like their input using the {{ping}} template (as an example, if you wanted to notify me you would write {{ping|Tollens}}, which renders as @Tollens:). Try looking at a few random talk pages for examples of content discussions. Other editors don't typically mind discussing content with you if you'd like. In this particular case, feel free to create a new section on Talk:Lister Mills and describe your concern, pinging the relevant editor. Tollens (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you very much! Chiserc (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know our total number of contributions?

How do we know our total number of contributions?

Is there an automated counter? 1IceCloudStation (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a counter available at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/1IceCloudStation - the link (titled 'Edit count') is located at the very bottom of your contributions page. Tollens (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1IceCloudStation: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can also see your total number of edits at Special:Preferences. GoingBatty (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do not if a lot of us know of this.
I just want to suggest that a message about this when we start on Wikipedia or something could help a lot of people. 1IceCloudStation (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing that might result in people being more concerned about their number of edits instead of the quality of their edits. There's a lot of information that is higher on the priority list for people to know, IMO. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is okay to continue on this topic:
I don't know if exists, but some sort of award or recognition for quality edits could help in terms of that issue. For example, editing the mathematics articles can be challenging and the edit help a lot of readers of Wikipedia articles. Starlighsky (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After I wrote this, I just noticed the grading system. Starlighsky (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starlighsky: Some editors give other editors barnstars or other sorts of wikilove for quality work. GoingBatty (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. Starlighsky (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People (for example, me) can put on their User page indicators for articles they have raised to Good or Featured. David notMD (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1IceCloudStation personally what I'm most proud of is the systemic bias barnstar I received. I've made a lot of edits, some controversial, but that one is my fave accomplishment. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the badge!
The Systemic Bias Barnstar
For continual high quality editing on neglected Chinese and Japanese topics and pages Starlighsky (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a really important question: Can we delete items that are false according to the reference?

I have found some items that are false on the pages. It may have been misunderstood when it was written. Where I see this almost consistently is for awards or prizes. Sometimes, it was a misunderstanding:

The person worked at a company and the company received an award.

All in all, it seems logical to delete things that are clearly false, but wanted to make sure.

Starlighsky (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can absolutely delete anything that is blatantly false - just make sure to explain in your edit summary what you're doing and why, so that other editors can verify that the removal was appropriate - unexplained deletions are often reverted. Tollens (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starlighsky: There are several things you could do, including boldly deleting the erroneous information, tagging the reference with {{failed verification}}, or starting a conversation on the article's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which pages have the most page watchers?

Hi everyone. Is there a place I can find a list of the pages that have the most page watchers? Thanks Trawle (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Trawle. Please see Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages by namespace. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen, I notice that one is dated 2017 though. Surely things have changed in the last 6 years? Trawle (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup 2601:480:4104:A550:29FD:CB22:BBFD:FCC (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trawle, there are instructions at the top about how to request an update. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen, I’m afraid I don’t see any instructions. Is there a link I might be missing? Trawle (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trawle, at the top of that page, it says If you would like a historical database report be run again, see the main database reports talk page. Here is the link: Wikipedia talk:Database reports. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving a conflict

The article is Michael Lockshin (film director)

There is an editor who for unexplained reasons keeps removing content with citations and replacing it with uncited information, without an explanation. This is growing into an annoyance for me because this has happened multiple times over the course of several weeks (but not often enough to complain about an edit war). The editor was also told on their talk page to stop making that specific edit (at least, without an explanation) by another editor, but seems to have ignored it and continues to make the same edit over and over. I would like any advice for a resolution. Thanks, Jaguarnik (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger warning left on that editor's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who do I contact about needed edits in locked articles?

For example, I noticed that the article on Donald Trump, which can only be edited by those with over 500 edits and so on, had what seemed like an inappropriate reference to those who declare large financial losses and so on. I am not the level to edit. How do I let those who can edit know about the issue?

Starlighsky (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starlighsky. Discuss your concern at Talk: Donald Trump. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ovechkin page

I noticed on the Alexander Ovechkin Wikipedia page, the first site says he shoots 'Left Wing' which is not the proper verbiage...it should just be shoots 'Left'. But you go to the second page and its says he shoots 'right'. I was actually going there to find out which way he shoots so now Im confused. Is there a way to get it edited to be proper on both pages or who should I contact?

- A very concerned about Alexander Ovechkins stick fan ;) Vegabond81 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ovechkin is a hockey player. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that knowledgeable about hockey terminology but this reminds me of the controversy over whether Andrew Tate was Orthodox or Muslim when Orthodox was a term referring to his kickboxing form not religion Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Winger (ice hockey). "Left winger" and "right winger" in hockey have nothing to do with politics. These terms refer to the player's usual position on the ice. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out...

As I was looking across Wikipedia, I realised that the "post-20th century Space Race" or "modern space race" isn't a thing on here! The modern space race between the U.S., China, and Russia has been referenced more and more frequently across the Web (more so through Euronews, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Guardian, WIRED, and the Washington Past). There are a lot more if you look, so I was wondering whether it was time to create a separate article for this "modern space race" - or is it just WP:TOOSOON?. I do understand there is a "billionaire space race", but surely you can see there is not really a 'superb' relation. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 00:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @WellThisIsTheReaper:, and welcome to the Teahouse! This topic in my opinion is notable and you have reliable sources so I would recommend writing a draft and submitting it to Afc (just to make sure the article is notable enough).This subject appears to be written about by many independent sources, so I think you are good to go. As time goes by other editors can add more sources and information as more news articles, reports ect. appear. Happy Editing!   The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to copy an existing page?

If advisable, how can one copy an existing page (article) to the sandbox? I want to write a new article about a chemical compound that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. I think it's easiest to copy an existing article (such as the one on Allyl_isothiocyanate) and then modify it in the sandbox with data for the new compound. I don't want to replace the existing article. How can I copy an existing page? Is there a better way to create a new page using the template of an existing one? Mitality (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mitality. Yes, you can copy an article into your personal sandbox for the purpose you describe. Copy and paste the Wikicode using the source editor. Mention the source article in your edit summary. Do not use the main sandbox because it gets cleared out regularly. Be sure that you eliminate all traces of the original topic as you edit. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links subject bar

Hi, I hope you are doing good. I have a question related to the subject bar that is present on some of the articles as here: Priyanka Chopra#External links. I just wanted to know the merit of adding this to the biography articles. Can I proceed with that? 456legend(talk) 02:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@456legend: You're referring to the template {{Priyanka Chopra}} that happens to be under the "external links" heading but isn't actually part of that section. That template includes several article titles and it can be included at the bottom of those articles if appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist No sorry, I am referring to the subject bar that contains the commons category, wiki data item and subject related portals. 456legend(talk) 02:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@456legend: Oh, you're referring to Template:Subject bar. There is no harm adding it to other articles (with appropriately different parameters, of course). Be sure to read the documentation. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist Thank you very much for the input. 456legend(talk) 03:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1158941911"