Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


whimsical wikis[edit]

TO whoever this might concern, I am a Nonwikipedian and I heard the Wikipedians created pages on a whim that exist only for their own sake. These pages interest me, is there a category specifically for them? Thank you. Sincerely, a curious netizen.  71.233.148.84 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi ip user and welcome to the teahouse! the closest we have to joke pages are stuff archived in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, the April Fools deletion discussions, and other stuff at Category:Wikipedia humor, although none of these are formal articles. there is also Unusual articles, a list of weird formal articles although ones that do exist (not just made on a whim). happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP user, also note that for new users creating pages there is a review process called Articles for creation. For all new articles, (created by both new users who passed the AfC process as well as more experienced users creating articles) there is another group of reviewers called the New pages patrol. Whew, that's big mouthful :) Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might enjoy reading about the Zhemao hoaxes. Shantavira|feed me 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe you just mean user pages. DS (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good one, you make a good point. Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 23:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do recommend Uncyclopedia for general silliness! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about purpose of user account[edit]

Hi. Could I understand the main idea of creating an account? I know how to create an account, but could tell me the main idea of this? Thanks! 100.11.109.128 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome. You may find reading WP:ACCOUNT helpful. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now registered. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edits will be attributed to a username, your IP address will not be published, you can have a user page, you can set up e-mail notifications, you can customize the user interface through Special:Preferences, etc. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eventually you will be able to edit semiprotected, and extended confirmed protected pages. Also, you can only become an administrator if you are registered. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You get tons of benefits from having an account. Cwater1 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol @Cwater1: they were blocked merely two days after account creation for sockpuppetry — Python Drink (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh That is when they try to bypass a block. Cwater1 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft submission rejected[edit]

I dont know why my draft submission got rejected multiple times??? Kumarr Deven (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's just consider the latest time, Kumarr Deven. Curb Safe Charmer has, on your user talk page, provided two reasons for declining it. And I quote from your draft: Late Gopal Babu Goswami has immortalized his name in golden letters by giving his incomparable contribution to Uttarakhand Geet Music. Even though Gopal Babu is no more today, but the songs derived from his melodious voice are still in people's hearts. Even today, the melodious folk songs sung by gopal babu Goswami give the fragrance of soil in the country and abroad. If you don't know what's wrong with that, Wikipedia is not for you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draft:Gopal Babu Goswami has been deleted four times. Your effort Draft:GOPAL BABU GOSWAMI has been declined (not rejected) once. Much/most of your own draft is your own desciptions rather than from referenced sources. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get what your intentions are - you are clearly fascinated by Late Gopal Babu Goswami's work and it always feels bad when your article you worked on gets declined. BUT... You have to keep something in mind Wikipedia relies on citations to referenced materials and not personal beliefs and thoughts. I would highly recommend you to read https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference and then start your new draft. Komchi 07:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind reply. Kumarr Deven (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your edits. Unfortunately, I had to request a speedy deletion on the draft, which was then deleted. We usually need to follow a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Your article's quotations, including immortalised and uncited puffery on early life, is IMHO unacceptable even for a draft. Therefore, I'd recommend you start from scratch and write a better article that is not unambiguously promotional; otherwise, another editor might request speedy deletion again. I hope this helps; if there are any questions, please let me know! VickKiang (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Hoary, I believe your comment here is quite harsh and insensitive. I understand that you may have been upset at the obvious, however Wikipedia is for everyone. Creating new articles in Wikipedia? Maybe not for everyone. Have some Tea. Best. OtuNwachinemere (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OtuNwachinemere It's pretty clear that @Hoary meant that creating articles might not be for this editor. Wikipedia is, indeed, the encyclopedia that (almost) anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules, do not spam, do not engage in puffery, do not edit with an undisclosed financial stake, always assume good faith, treat fellow editors with respect, do not violate the copyright rules that are in place (mostly because of copyright laws), cite all sources, etc. etc. etc. David10244 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move and merge discussions[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the most specific or fitting forum, but I was wondering if merge discussions have an automated and centralized discussion like moves do.

I know Template:Requested move exists, but I don't remember if there is an equivalent for merges. Likewise, I know that current move discussions are listed in WP:RM#C and that there is Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, but from what I gather discussions that use the requested move template are listed automatically in WP:RM#C, while I'm not aware of a similar case with mergers. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NoonIcarus: from wikipedia:proposed article mergers#How to propose a merger:

Step 1: Create a place for discussion. Go to the Talk Page (also known as the discussion page) of the target article (the one you want to merge to) and create a section (eg: "Merger proposal") to discuss the merger. If there's already a discussion on the talk page regarding the merger, you can omit this step. Whether the discussion is new or old, make sure the discussion section names all articles involved and links to them. The section name can be anything that includes the word merge (for example ==Merger discussion==).
Step 2: Put one of the merger tags at the top of the articles you wish to be merged. The templates {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}}, or {{merge}} are the most common ones. Remember to make sure that the Discuss link in each tag points to the section you've created in step 1 (this is to prevent having two separate discussions on different talk pages).

is this what you were looking for? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a rather unsatisfactory corner of the universe. I made a suggestion for a merge, following the instructions above, at Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Suggested Merge. You'd have thought that a merge on a relatively high-profile article like Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart would attract attention, but I got only two responses, one saying that there was no point in requesting a merge because merge requests just sit there unprocessed for "years upon years" and the other opposing the merge on the grounds that the other article (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church) was so bad that no information from it could improve the main article; and yet also asserting that the other article wouldn't get deleted at AfD so it might as well still exist (to be fair, I think both halves of this assessment are correct). Most processes in Wikipedia have a definite end-point at which someone does something. Merging doesn't. If you propose deletion as a solution to a problem, the result might be merge, delete, keep, draftify or any number of genuine actions, but there will be a decision of some sort from AfD. If you propose a merger as above, there seems to be no reason why anything should ever happen. (pinging @Lettherebedarklight: who may have more positive experiences!) Elemimele (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight: Many thanks for the feedback! I think in other words my question is specifically if there is a way that merge discussions are listed automatically for the community, just like AfDs are, since from what I gather they currently have to be listed manually. While the mentioned templates notifies editors and readers in the article, I understand this would be limited to the specific page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NoonIcarus: no, i don't think so.
@Elemimele: i have not used the proposed merger system ever, so... 🤷 lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my committed identity valid?[edit]

I'm considering a new committed identity for Wikimedia projects.

My new committed identity is a PDF file, approximately 75 KB of size, containing the following information:

  • Introduction (about the committed identity itself)
  • My Wikimedia username
  • Biographical information (real name, day and month of birth and country of residence)
  • Legal name and first three and last two digits of my Brazilian CPF number (A CPF number looks like 000.000.000-00 where the last two digits are check digits)
  • Identity verification instructions

The person verifying my committed identity will verify the hash of my committed identity PDF file, then ask me to send them my CPF registration proof card ("Comprovante de Inscrição CPF"), which contains my legal name, CPF number, date of birth, as well as a QR code which can be used to verify the authenticity of the document and check the registration status (regular, suspended, canceled, etc.). The registration status must be regular, as specified in the "Identity verification instructions" on the committed identity. The legal name, birthday and CPF number on the CPF card must match my committed identity. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the person verifying the committed identity must scan the QR code in the CPF card, check if it's a HTTPS URL whose domain is servicos.receita.fazenda.gov.br, then if it is, open the URL and check if my legal name appears in the page located at the URL. If my legal name appears the CPF card is valid. Then the person must check whether the registration status ("Situação cadastral") is regular. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPEditor42: why do you want this? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight: I want to combine the standard committed identity (a shared secret, stored electronically) with one of my government issued documents (which is stored physically, in a safe place). This helps me further prove my identity to administrators. Using a document like this is even mentioned in the committed identity template documentation.
I will also consider other committed identity options. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPEditor42: that's not what i meant. why do you want a committed identity? a strong password should be sufficient security. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight: I already use a strong password and TOTP.
With a committed identity, you can ask an administrator to reset your password if you can't access your e-mail address. It also makes it easier to recover a compromised account. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPEditor42: right, but this is incredibly difficult for administrators to crack. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 15:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On Wikipedia, the point of a Wikipedia:Committed identity is that it is relatively hard to "crack" but relatively easy to verify for the administrator checking your claim. Your proposed scheme does make it much harder for an attacker to crack, but it also makes it much harder for an administrator to check. I would advise against it. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The administrator would have to follow the verification instructions, which I will make very clear. It also has translations for the content in the card. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no doubt that your instructions will be clear. But it’s still a lot more work than applying a hash function to a given string and checking the output. Even if it were not, the point of having a standardized process is that whoever applies it (in that case, the reviewing admin) can do so efficiently, without having to read and understand new instructions every time.
Please answer Lettherebedarklight’s question above. Why is the standard process not enough for you? Do you have reasons to suspect that your committed identity will be subject to cracking attempts much more than a random Wikipedian’s? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tigraan: OK. I answered Lettherebedarklight, see the answer above. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 22:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tigraan You can advise against having a committed identity, but many Wikipedia editors have one. I don't know how to set them up, but I would answer the OP if I knew the answer. Your advice can be taken into account, but I think the OP ought to get an answer... David10244 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will also consider other text formats such as a plain text file, since they're easier for me to edit if I need to. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As well as adding some more information. I am still creating the committed identity. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 23:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a similar option at my verification page, though I do agree with the above points i.r.t. "advanced" methods being difficult to replicate for the verifying user. I'd suggest also providing a secure, yet simpler, method (PGP via Keybase is a good option). — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to lock a page[edit]

Hi Team, I work at a film production company in Mumbai. We have wikipedia pages for our films and one of them is constantly getting edited with incorrect information. Is there a way for us to lock or protect it from being edited since we can proof the veracity of the facts we provide. 123.252.206.147 (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you will need to make a formal paid editing disclosure; this is easier to do with an account, but you aren't required to have an account. If the articles about your films have a demonstratable problem with vandalism or other disruption, you may request page protection at this page. Articles are not protected preemptively, or to merely prevent others from editing them- there must be evidence of a problem. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
prove it on the talk page of the article. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 09:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you didn't quite say it in so many words, but your expression "we have wikipedia pages" implies that you could perhaps feel as if the pages in question are 'yours', which they're not. See WP:OWNERSHIP, which explains this. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, DoubleGrazing is right. You do not have articles about your films on Wikipedia; Wikipedia has articles about films that you may have a connection with (you might have even created and directed the films). The films might be yours, but the articles are not. You cannot lock a WP article to your preferred wording or content. If the assertions and statements about your films (that you think are correct) are reliably sourced, then changes made by others (which are not reliably sourced) will not stick. If the articles are being edited with information that is reliably sourced, then that information should stay, even if you disagree with what is said. David10244 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Questioner is a mere sockpuppet attempting to evade a block -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

how to block a wikipedia user from editing? Slippy Sausage (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have no edits to the main encyclopedia, so I am wondering what has prompted this question. Only administrators may block users- and obtaining the adminstrator tools is not easy, and requires a history of productive contributions and an understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Any user may report inappropriate actions at the proper locations(such as vandalism, which is reported to WP:AIV) 331dot (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot I wanna be an administrator, how to gain access to that right? Slippy Sausage (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage Gaining the administrator toolset is not easy and takes a long time, usually years. You must have an extensive edit history showing a substantial understanding of Wikipedia policies, and show a need for having the toolset. If that happens, then a community discussion takes place for approval. Having the administrator tools gives you no more authority or status than any other editor. Frankly, you have zero chance of gaining the administrator tools anytime soon, so your best bet is to just concentrate on being a good editor. How do you want to participate in editing this encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot my primary goal is to block vandals and create bots. Slippy Sausage (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slippy Sausage, you can do anti-vandalism work without the ability to block vandals; there are many tools available (see WP:CVU to get started). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd rather not take advice from an IP editor. Slippy Sausage (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage (ec) The above user is absolutely correct. You can do probably 95% of tasks here without having the administrator tools. Many people work against vandalism without being administrators. If you build up an extensive, years long history of effective anti-vandalism work, the community may later see it fit to grant you the admin tools, but as I said, there is zero chance of that happening anytime soon.
You would be wise to listen to that user. Many users without accounts have participated here for years, and are extremely knowledgable. Do not dismiss them. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slippy Sausage: From what I've seen in many discussions with administrators as participants, as well as some talks about granting admin privileges, I would say you're not likely to ever become a Wikipedia administrator with this attitude. --CiaPan (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CiaPan I don't think you're an an administrator here so you don't know much about adminship and shouldn't be out here saying that I can't be an admin. You've been here for almost 20 years and yet you haven't done enough to be an administrator and it doesn't look like you're going to be one ever. So you should worry about yourself rather than biting other editors. Slippy Sausage (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage You continue to show an argumentative attitude and a lack of understanding for what it takes to become an Administrator. Basically, a person has to apply. You started this account today, and so far have made zero article edits, so I am a bit curious about how you can to know about Administratorship, Teahouse, IP editors, anti-vandalism and creating bots, as new-to-Wikipedia editors rarely start out by knowing what goes on 'backstage.' David notMD (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suspicion that IP 2603:9001:2706:9100:405:C94E:E9F4:1543 and possibly User:Prettycurefan75 (query on how to be an Administrator, posted at Teahouse two days ago, are the same person). David notMD (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David notMD I read some of the wikipedia policies and guidelines before creating an account and have made some edits from my IP in the past so it's not surprising that I've a better understanding of wikipedia than even many long term editors. Slippy Sausage (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David notMD utter rubbish this is my only wikipedia account stop accusing me of using multiple accounts without any evidence. Slippy Sausage (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slippy Sausage: What concerns me, with your ZERO constructive contribution here you are among those least qualified to judge if I did enough or why I am not an admin here. What concerns you, I really wish you good luck. Alas, I don't expect it soon. However, if you stop teaching and start learning, if you show as a reliable contributor, not a slippy big mouth, I will see you at your RfA. But for now ...EOT. --CiaPan (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is clearly not Slippy Sausage's first rodeo. Seems they are back to settle some scores from their earlier incarnations.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even though I initially voiced the suspicion, the denial of multiple accounts was clear. Consider WP:STICK amd WP:BEAR, and let this discussion die. David notMD (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLOCKED AS SOCK David notMD (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i don't know how to edit[edit]

bottom text 2603:9001:2706:9100:405:C94E:E9F4:1543 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like you grasped the basics already! Face-smile.svg CiaPan (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hahaha Komchi 14:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, IP editor, and welcome! You have successfully published an edit; you can check out the Introduction for more information about editing Wikipedia. Did you have a more specific editing question? Perfect4th (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. You will get the hang of it Cwater1 (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are determiners capitalized in article titles?[edit]

MOS:TITLECAPS doesn't seem to mention any rules regarding determiners. I'm trying to move an article with a Japanese title to its English title, and the English title contains the determiner "its". Should it be capitalized or not? Harushiga (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Harushiga: "Determiners" is not a term frequently used in (nontechnical) discussions of English grammar. Its would normally be described as a possessive pronoun, and such words are indeed capitalized in titles (in accordance with the second bulleted item under "Always capitalized" in MOS:TITLECAPS). Deor (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks for the answer! Harushiga (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bots[edit]

Questioner is a mere sockpuppet attempting to evade a block -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How can I create bots or automated programs on wikipedia? Slippy Sausage (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slippy Sausage, bots need to be approved before use - see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. The instructions at the top have links to other useful pages about creating and operating bots. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find additional information at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But what can I find the steps to create a bot? Slippy Sausage (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This account has been blocked as a sock. Girth Summit (blether) 06:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsurprising, Girth Summit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

list problem[edit]

Hi, i'm trying to make a page on Lace code but i can't figure out how to make those lists that split sections? Starryxavien (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Starryxavien Assuming you mean a table of contents, you don't make it, it will appear automatically once you have 4 sections - Please see H:TOC for more details - Arjayay (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you create sections in Draft:Lace Code the software will automatically create a table of contents. A note - references are essential. David notMD (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starryxavien You might be better to expand part of the existing article at Skinhead#Footwear, which talks about that subject (but doesn't have proper citations). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding PDF Citations/Refrences.[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to make a page on a school (irrelevant) anyways I am trying to add a citation to a sentence I wrote about it's history. For some reason I can't figuire out how to add a pdf as a citation plz help. Msaskiw (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Msaskiw, welcome to the Teahouse. Where is this pdf hosted? Is it online? The generic template for citing web content is {{cite web}}. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@199.208.172.35It is hosted on the web, example.pdf . It is hosted online. Msaskiw (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Msaskiw, then all you need to do is plug the information into the {{cite web}} template (url, title and website name should be readily available). Then put the result between <ref> and </ref> and you're all set. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more detailed instructions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Msaskiw Is the PDF hosted by a site with a reputation for fact-checking, that is, not a blog or personal web site? David10244 (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Msaskiw, and welcome to the Teahouse. If this is about the draft in your sandbox, please note that sources from the school are of little value for Wikipedia. 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. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I use a picture?[edit]

I do apologize if this is self explanatory or not where I should ask this. Wikimedia's upload wizard has it so that only copyright free images are allowed. However I contacted the City of Dubuque and they responded, "We ask that you give photo credit to the City of Dubuque. I'm am not familiar with what makes a photo free license or public domain. However, you do have permission to use them as long as you credit the City properly." Can I use a map from them? Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Marshmallo3535, welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: no - that is not enough. If the photo has not been released somewhere under a compatible license, then permission must be sent in writing to Commons by the copyright holder. We do have a board specifically for copyright questions, it's WP:MCQ. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I'll be asking them as to what I can do. Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Marshmallo, and wecleom to the Teahouse. The IP editor is partly right, but it is not enough for the copyright holder to send "permission". They must formally release it under a suitable licence. See donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I send the city that page or is there something else I need to do? Marshmallo3535 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Marshmallo3535. Send them a link to that page. Cullen328 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marshmallo3535: If you have not sent the email yet, here’s what I advise to send as a reply to their previous email:
As you took the photo, you can choose any license you want to share it. You can choose to release the image under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons - Attribution - ShareAlike) license, which is standard on Wikipedia. In that case, you can specify any reasonable photo credit you want (for instance "image courtesy of the City of Dubuque" and/or include a weblink to the City’s webpage). However, note that the license is not just for Wikipedia; anyone who find the photo from Wikipedia can reuse it for any other purpose, as long as they keep the same license and photo credit. You could also choose to release it into the public domain, but in that case, anyone can reuse it for any purpose, even without any photo credit - Wikipedia will credit the source because of its internal policy, but there is no guarantee that a future reuser will do the same.
Legally, all we need from the Wikipedia/Commons side is that they sign the proper paperwork. Morally, it is better if they understand what they are signing for.
(There are also a few email templates at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sent the email last night. I asked that the city had rights over it and if they would allow an attribution license. I picked attribution after looking through a bunch of those tags because that sounded the most like what I was told. I asked her if the city wanted anything specific and gave her a couple links to attribution license and general wikimedia tags.
I thank you for helping me; and I am greatly sorry if I made a mistake. Marshmallo3535 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marshmallo3535 You said "I asked that the city had rights over it". Did you mean "I asked if the city had rights over it"? David10244 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do apologize. More precisely I said "I just want to check that the map is the city's work". Marshmallo3535 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice About Style to New Editors[edit]

I am wondering whether there is some way that new editors who want to contribute to Wikipedia can be given advice as to various ways in which the writing style used in Wikipedia may be different from the style used for other sorts of writing. The example that prompts this question (if it is a question) is a case in Deletion Review that focuses on style. A new editor created a biography of a living person of a fashion designer. The article was nominated for speedy deletion as G11, exclusively promotional, and was speedily deleted. The originator appealed the deletion to Deletion Review and said that the tone was adequately neutral and there were references and there was no COI. The DRV input has been mixed between editors who endorsed the deletion and editors who said that it was not exclusively promotional and should be sent to AFD instead. The originator said

I try to always write in a positive manner that engages the reader.

I think that statement illustrates a sort of cognitive disconnect, in that many editors, like the originator, are trying to write in an enthusiastic manner, which is not neutral point of view. This is not the first or second time that I have seen an editor who said that they had no COI, and I believed that statement, who was writing as if they had a conflict of interest because they thought that was the way to write. If they had writing experience, for instance, as a sportswriter for their college newspaper, that was the style that would have been encouraged.

So my first (and probably only) question is whether there is anything that Wikipedia can or should do for new editors to explain how neutral point of view may be different from other writing styles. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also have a comment, which is that it is sometimes hard for a reviewer to tell whether an editor is writing the way that they are because they have a COI or because they believe in writing enthusiastically. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. The core content policy is, of course, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also relevant is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So does that mean people are conflating NP:NPOV and MOS:WTW? Explodicator7331 (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, words to watch should be avoided when trying to write from a neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Robert McClenon, that bit about 'engaging the reader' must have been most disheartening to read. I'd guess that its author is young and perhaps recently out of high school. Many writing instructors in schools would applaud a student's engaging style, as opposed to an overall disengaged style, especially in a school with low achievement. The editor you describe seems to be unfamiliar with intellectual engagement, and is opting for emotional engagement, which is clearly the opposite of NPOV. My sympathies.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. My question is how to explain to new editors that they should not write enthusiastically. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do not think that there is any problem with conflating the policy NPOV and the guideline WTW. I think that both lead to the same conclusion from different directions. If there is ever a stark conflict between a core content policy and a guideline (which seems unlikely in 2022), then the policy would prevail. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe the problem Robert McClenon identifies is fairly common, and goes beyond the "words to watch" list. It is more about the type of writing we do (which has consequences on the tone required, hence WTW, but not only). What we do is called technical writing - a form of literature where the goal is not to elicit any emotions in the reader, nor to convince them, but to convey information in a clear, unambiguous, and concise form. That is obviously true for articles on quantum physics, but I would argue it also applies to biographies, history articles etc. - those are not supposed to be hagiographies or epic poems, but a just-the-facts summary.
Unfortunately I never found any good guide (i.e. both precise and short) on- or off-Wikipedia to link to when an editor pops up with that problem at the Teahouse. Tip #2 from [1] comes close. I usually advise to "be boring", which is provocative and not entirely true, but cuts to the heart of the matter. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, the originator has also asked about the article in question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Raffiey_Nasir. As other editors have noted, I see this as an instance of a more general issue having to do with appropriate writing styles. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote an old meme, "just the facts, ma'am" succinctly describes the style required. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps some of the AfC, NPP and MOS editors could be recruited into drafting a simple essay on the do's and don'ts of writing a new article that can be dropped on Talk page of enthusiastic editors who are not suspected of COI. A step beyond welcome template and simpler than WP:YFA. Suspect much of the content exists, just scattered. Slywriter (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Robert McClenon, this is a really interesting question, and a tough problem to address. On the one hand, these policies on writing style are important to maintain, but we also want to support people to enthusiastically contribute here. I think one manner of addressing these needs is to show editors how it is fully possible to engage readers while also writing in an neural manner. You could show examples of other articles (in this case, other biographies) that are written well and do a decent job of summarizing the sources they are based on. These don't even need to necessarily be FA- or GA-class articles. I also think it can be helpful to be clear that when we write in a promotional or non-neutral way, it has consequences for readers. It can make it difficult for readers to distinguish facts from opinions. It can make it seem like there is only one perspective on an issue, when there may be many. It can overstate the importance of a claim, when it may not be especially important. Explaining the value of neutral writing can make its purpose more clear, even if it may be hard to do. I JethroBT drop me a line 02:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2,022[edit]

Looking at Aitit there is a curious catagory - Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2,022 which I don’t seem to be able to remove. Padres Hana (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Padres Hana, welcome to the Teahouse. I fixed the problem in this diff (there are several other articles which also need to be fixed). At Template:Infobox settlement, there are the following instructions: "References and {{citation needed}} tags are to be included in their respective section footnotes field." This is because numeric values, such as 2022, are automatically formatted in many of the fields, which breaks the date formatting in the tag (and adds the article to an incorrect category). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait until we get to the year 10,000...... David10244 (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If my edits are on my watch list, are they waiting to be reviewed and accepted?[edit]

Hi - First, I am new at this! Learning as much as I can so I improve my wikipedia editing skills. My question is: I have made several article edits, some of which consist of adding content to an article. These now appear on my Watch List (permanent). At this point, do I need to do another step or are these edits waiting to be reviewed prior to being accepted? If and when they are accepted, will they disappear from my Watch List? How does an editor know when the edits have been accepted? Thanks in advance! Letudo (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barring CRASHlock those edits are live. Your watchlist merely shows you the most recent edit - whether it was done by you or by someone else - to those pages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much! Letudo (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Letudo You might like to read the guidance at WP:W which covers all the details about watchlists and how you can maintain your own set. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are all the Wikimedia projects multilingual?[edit]

 – Combined queries. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Multilingual Wikimedia projects 2607:FEA8:FD00:80B8:F5E7:1560:A31C:2F16 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am figuring out why Wikimedia projects are multilingual. Can you please tell me?

Hello. The Wikimedia Foundation saysWe help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge. "Everyone" implies content in all regularly spoken languages. Cullen328 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 Are all of the projects within the encyclopedia multilingual? David10244 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David10244, when you talk about Wikimedia projects, and projects within this encyclopedia, you are talking about two very different things. A Wikimedia project has its own website, its own policies and guidelines, and its own governance. Wikipedia is not one project. It is 329 separate projects in 329 languages. So, Wikipedia as a whole is the second most multilingual project in human history, after Bible translations, but each individual Wikipedia is monolingual. Wikimedia Commons is multilingual. I am not familiar enough with the smaller projects to evaluate them. Here on English Wikipedia, we have various WikiProjects, some of which are active but most of which are inactive. They all operate in English, but do not have separate websites or their own policies. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help- Draft:The Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN)[edit]

I need assistance with the page "Draft:The Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN)"I have made edits suggested by the reviewer. They also mentioned that the sources used for references were not reliable(which I have taken care of), so I have reviewed others and have removed those that were not reliable. FranklinA47 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declined 28 August and resubmitted 28 August, after edits. It is in the pile of drafts awaiting a reviewer. The system is not a queue. Could be as long as several months. David notMD (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, FranklinA47. Please be aware that many articles related to Blockchain and Cryptocurrency have been subjected to disruption by promoters and scammers for years. Accordingly, all related articles in that broad topic area are subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This gives adminstrators the power to swiftly impose sanctions such as blocks or topic bans on any editor working in that topic area who engages in disruptive editing. So, please be very cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This standard warning means that while you have not yet done anything specifically bad, the shithammer is hovering. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help editing List of Most Expensive Cars Sold at Auction page![edit]

Hi, everyone! I recently edited the List of Most Expensive Cars Sold at Auction page, by adding the third line about the 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO which was sold at a private auction in 2018 for a price of $70 million. But the car needs to be added to the Absolute Record table, and the interactive graph needs to be updated as well with the proper numbers for the total number of cars that each brand has listed on the page. SuperHyper74 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SuperHyper74. The best place for you to ask about this is probably at Talk:List of most expensive cars sold at auction. There's nothing wrong asking about it here at the Teahouse per se and perhaps someone will be able to sort things out, but article talk pages are typically where you're going to find Wikipedias familiar with the specifics of an article (particulary when it comes to things like "interactive graphs") and you might get a much faster response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice!! SuperHyper74 (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raffiey Nasir[edit]

Hi everyone! I was wondering if you have some tips how I could improve my article. It was rejected, as it was deemed too positive/non-neutral. I tried to see what revisions I could make, but without much success. Any tips would be highly appreciated. Thanks. Draft:Raffiey Nasir ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ResearchedEditor100 Hello. Just noting that the draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission is not possible. Declined means resubmission is possible. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, User:331dot. Still learning the jargon. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NOTE: An earlier version of this was Speedy deleted as G11, contested, and confirmed to be deleted. RE100 has now created and submitted a new version, now declined. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:ResearchedEditor100 - See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Advice_About_Style_to_New_Editors above, which is my follow-up to the issue about your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I get banned for not creating an account here?[edit]

User:Jeff G. wants to block me for not creating an account. Is this allowed? 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! In this case, the user is referring to this ANI report, and Tamzin has asked Jeff G. to give diffs on the allegations. To answer the user's concern: no, you can't be banned for not creating an account. There is a difference between blocks and bans on Wikipedia, so please take note of that. Jolly1253 (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

Steve Vladeck begins, "Stephen Isaiah Vladeck (born September 26, 1979)." The list of his publications identify him as "Vladeck, Stephen I."

It does not seem appropriate to title an article with a nickname, especially when the publications listed show that he does not publish under a nickname. I don't know how to change a title. I posted this comment at Talk:Steve Vladeck, but I always get quicker responses at the Teahouse. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Maurice Magnus. That is not a nickname, it is, apparently, his full legal name, and this says "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information." Nicknames are sometimes included too, depending on how well-known they are. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@97.113.27.216 (talk) I don't understand. It appears that his most complete name, Stephen Isaiah Vladeck, appears at the beginning of the article, but that the title of the article, Steve Vladeck, uses a nickname. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Me again, different IP) @Maurice Magnus, the article title is a different thing again - see here. Quoting from that page: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." A look through the sources (not the publications list, the sources talking about him) should tell you which name they most commonly use. If it isn't "Steve", then yes, it should be changed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you say "(not the publications list, the sources talking about him)," I d and the hits were a mix of "Steve"s and "Stephen"s. I guess, then, that we can let it be. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer the other part of your question, @Maurice Magnus, changing a title is done by performing a page move (WP:MOVE). Those can be requested here or, in most cases, an autoconfirmed user can simply do it themselves, though - like everything else on Wikipedia - if it's likely to be controversial, it should probably be discussed first. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Maurice Magnus -You may be interested to read MOS:HYPOCORISM. DS (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My laptop now has been damaged[edit]

I have my Lenovo laptop but now my laptop is damaged and didn't receives Wi-Fi connection when too far from Wi-Fi router. So I can only edit Wikipedia by place my laptop close proximity within Wi-Fi router. My plan is replacing my Lenovo laptop with Asus one, but should I logged out Wikipedia account from my Lenovo and re-logged in to Asus ones? Please help. Lkas123 (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lkas123: Wikipedia uses cookies to keep you logged in to the site. Unless you find a way to transfer your browser's data from the old device to the new device, your login will not automtically transfer between devices, meaning you have to log in on your new device again. AFAIK the MediaWiki software currently only allows one active login session per account, and starting a new one ends the previous one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have three active login sessions. MediaWiki does not end a session unless the user changes their password or the session expires. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Lkas123 and welcome to the teahouse? do you plan to give away the old laptop? if so, you may want to log out from all your accounts there to avoid others accessing your accounts. happy editing!
@Victor Schmidt, I'm not sure if my brain is mush rn and don't understand this properly, but afaik no? I've had Wikipedia logged on on all my devices and rarely need to relog. 💜  melecie  talk - 11:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm maybe its some sort of setting or they have changed it since I last switched devices... Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can be logged in in multiple devices and multiple browsers on the same device. If you log out in any of them then they are all logged out. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Troy Tulowitzki (baseball player) reference cleanup[edit]

Go to article, career statistics section, reference#93. Can you please clean up that reference for me? Cant figure out what I did wrong. Thank you and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theairportman33531, I have fixed the error. Kpddg (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.Have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

community[edit]

please tell me all the pages with names that imply a village or town or simaler i want to put them on my watchlist (i use that as my bookmark since there is no acual bookmark feature that i am aware of) Allaoi (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Allaoi You can use Categories to find such settlements (for example Category:Populated places by country) but I think that there would be far too many for you to follow them all. You could of course just watchlist those you were intending to work on, for example in your own country. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
also i mean stuff like the teahouse and village stocks Allaoi (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or Category:Populated places by type by country. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
can i ask if there is a way to bookmark pages? the watchlist works, but is limiting Allaoi (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but bookmarks are a function of your browser, not Wikipedia. In Chrome, for example, you would click on the five-pointed star at the top right to bookmark a page. Shantavira|feed me 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, do you also know how to find more pages like the teahouse and village stocks, in the way of their title giveing a feeling of a country village? Allaoi (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you mean on en-WP, Wikipedia:Dashboard may have some of what you want. If you mean on any language WP, check the links under "languages", higher up on the left side on the Teahouse page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no i mean pages with names simalr to the Teahouse or Village stocks, meaning they have names that typicaly are given to spots in small villages or camping sites Allaoi (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid you have gotten us a bit confused as to what you need, Allaoi. Wikipedia has the village pump, but no stocks. There is also the Help desk.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quisqualis, we do have stocks - they're thisaway. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i mean more pages with titles simalr to those Allaoi (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi, there is no way to locate such pages except by combing through the backend area of Wikipedia looking for them, which is something you'd have to do yourself. That's not a way pages are categorized outside of article space, and it's very unlikely that anyone has decided to make such a list for their own personal use. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok thanks Allaoi (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wait backend? where can i find that? Allaoi (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi, "backend" is a general term for all the pages on Wikipedia that are not articles, including the Teahouse, Help Desk, noticeboards, and various other things created to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. See frontend and backend for where the term comes from. If you go to the search bar at the top of this page and click the little magnifying glass, then click where it says "Add namespaces" (under "Search in"), you'll see a long list of all the backend spaces on Wikipedia, and you can search within them (best to remove Article space first!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help editing an article about an organization with which I am affiliated[edit]

Hi,

I am affiliated with the University of Richmond, and I know there are protocols around making edits for an organization with which you are affiliated. However, my institution just formally changed the name of its law school, and I would like the entry to correctly reflect that.

Specifically, on https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Richmond_School_of_Law, "T.C. Williams School of Law" needs to be changed to "University of Richmond School of Law" in two instances at the top. Here is an independent source for validation: https:nbc12.com/2022/09/23/uofr-changes-law-school-name-university-richmond-school-law/.

Would someone be able to help or point me in the right direction?

Thank you! Hms440 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hms440: Normally an editor with a conflict of interest would make an edit request on the article talk page. I have made the change, but in the future, you can create a proposal on Talk:University of Richmond School of Law, and preface your proposal with the tag {{request edit}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if I showed support correctly[edit]

I wanted to show support for renaming the page for Speedrun to Speedrunning, but I don't know how, and I ended up trying to do that by replying, and now I'm not sure if that was correct. If it wasn't, could someone please explain how to do it correctly? Thanks. Mellofonemoment (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussions customarily use bullet points for individual responses. Sadly the Wikipedia "Reply" feature does not support this yet, so you have to edit the actual wikitext of the page. You can see how others have responded, basically like: * Your opinion here ~~~~. Madeline (part of me) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Mellofonemoment. Please note that "showing support" is not really germane in discussions in Wikipedia. If you have an argument to present that has not already been advanced, then by all means present it. But a hundred or a thousand people posting "Move" (or any other choice) without giving any reasons beyond "I agree" does not (or should not) affect the outcome. See WP:!VOTE. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help with Goodlife Clothing page[edit]

I have created the Draft:Goodlife Clothing page, but was declined a second time today, even after I made extensive edits for neutral tone and references. I leaned on two other similar pages - Buck Mason and Everlane - for tone, and the sources are also all very similar. Can anyone please help me understand what I can do to improve the article? Thanks in advance! Empress7dg (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Empress7dg: the reviewer left a comment on the page, and you have not corrected the article. That one phrase comes across as promotional. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much @Anachronist! I didn't see the comments at first, but now that I have, I understand the note around the phrasing. I'll revise it. Thanks also for linking to the source legend. I'll see what other sources I can find to bring substance to the article. Empress7dg (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buck Mason is a bad example. You changed very little between second Declined and resubmitting. Try to improve the article before is is reviewed again. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When do I get qualify to write an article?[edit]

Hi everyone! I feel great about the opportunity to share this platform with great editors. Please, when will I be qualified to write an article here? I want to try out a subject I have made good research on.

I am looking forward to your reply. Have a great time! Emmanuelnsejohnson (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Emmanuelnsejohnson, welcome to the Teahouse! Anyone can write an article here, even an IP editor like myself - there is no qualification process. However, writing a new article is much more difficult than it looks. The best place to start is by reading Help:Your first article very closely, and taking a look at Referencing for beginners. There's also a tutorial at Help:Introduction. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, so much. Emmanuelnsejohnson (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emmanuelnsejohnson:(edit conflict) The autoconfirmed user right is needed to directly create pages in mainspace, articles included. However, no user rights are nessesary to create a draft, and later submit it for review. Usage of the draft process is strongely reccomended. Please see Your first article for more details about what Wikipedia expects from articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...if you'd like to do something else to gain experience before starting an article, you may want to check the task center. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 23:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your response. Thank you. Emmanuelnsejohnson (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Emmanuelnsejohnson (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emmanuelnsejohnson I hope your research consists of finding reliable sources that you can cite in your article. WP does not allow original research to be the basis of an article. David10244 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed a fabricated statement, editor reverted it[edit]

Hello, I recently noticed a suspicious claim on the article Death of Tim Piazza, saw that the cited article had no such information at all, and removed the statement--only for an editor who frequents that page to revert my correction with no comment. This editor does not respond to comments on their talk page. What's the best course of action here? Cotni.mkw (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cotni.mkw, try WP:Third opinion, or, if it gets serious, WP:ANI. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that most dispute resolution options require at least an attempt at discussion on the talk page (Talk:Death of Tim Piazza), so a post there and a ping of the reverting editor should be the very first place to go. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cotni.mkw, according to the BBC, the assertion is correct. Just replace the reference that gives a 404 error. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up on Requested Edits for Herbalife Nutrition[edit]

Hi, I have a disclosed COI for Herbalife Nutrition. I wanted to ask for input on proposed changes to the page. The editor I was speaking with deferred to decisions to other editors, who have not yet given any feedback. I would really appreciate it if someone could look at my proposed edits and publish them. Here is the link: https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herbalife_Nutrition#Conflict_of_Interest_Edit_Request_2 Finncomms8495 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for disclosing your paid editing! It is amazing how many paid editors fail to take this basic step. I personally don't have the time to review the requested edit, but remember that Wikipedia is volunteer-based. There is no obligation for anyone to review it. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Finncomms8495 You used the correct template to make your request, so an editor who works on that sort of thing should get to it in due course. It would help if you were to convert your bare URLs into proper {{cite news}} citations. I'm not an expert in the topic but the requests and sources seem reasonable to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have declined the request, with a detailed explanation at the talk page. The attempt to remove certain sources (especially that one) without saying why is clearly not acceptable ("it reflects badly on Herbalife" is of course not a policy reason for removal). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block quotations and can a plaque be used as a source?[edit]

How can an editor properly use MOS:BQ? I tried to quote a plaque with block quotations, but I was reverted. I wanted to add the quoted text from the plaque because I felt that I could not otherwise write about what the plaque was saying due to lack of sources talking about it. Could I use the plaque itself as a source for the information it contains? ShaveKongo (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ShaveKongo. You can use Template: Cite sign whichis used to create citations for signs, plaques, gravestones, and other non-video visuals. You do need to consider the reliability of the plaque. If it was installed by a government agency, museum or recognized historical society, it is probably reliable. But many things called plaques are put up by random people and so are not reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate it, thanks Cullen! ShaveKongo (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE[edit]

I made article article less promotional and added references from more reliable sources such as HuffPost, Forbes, INC Magazine, Newspapers, and Black Enterprise. I've noticed other people wikipedia pages have the same reliable sources.

Wikipedia article link: https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wayne_Ayers MarcusMoore360 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MarcusMoore360: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much. I added more sources and added the citations in the wikipedia article that was needed. I also added External links as well. Is there anything else I have to add? MarcusMoore360 (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STATUS: Draft:Wayne Ayers resubmitted to AfC and waiting for a review. David notMD (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References in other languages[edit]

Hello! Am I allowed to use references (e.g. articles, websites) in other languages for pages in the English Wikipedia? Thanks in advance! Scuffedsherm (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scuffedsherm: Hello! Per WP:NONENG, using non-English sources are allowed, but if there's an English-language source that verifies the same information, it is preferred that we use the English one so that our English-speaking readers can more easily verify the information being cited. - Aoidh (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How should I deal with controversial edits?[edit]

Hello,

I have tried to add an infobox (like this) to the article Teal independents. After my edit, it was swiftly undone by another user. I would like to see the infobox added to the page and I have since opened a discussion in the article's talk page. Is this the correct thing to do?

Thank you! - GA Melbourne (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GA Melbourne Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you did exactly the correct thing. The process here on Wikipedia is summarised as WP:BRD, standing for "be BOLD and if REVERTED, DISCUSS the issue" with other editors in attempts to reach a WP:CONSENSUS for what should be included in the article. Bearing in mind that we are all volunteers, it can take a while for others to respond but you can always WP:PING people to draw attention to your Talk Page comment. That shouldn't be necessary for gaining attention from experienced editors who have the page on their watchlist. And always assume good faith! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for your response! How long after discussing the issue on the talk page should I reinstate my change if there is no response? - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 11:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GA Melbourne I generally give it a week but in the specific case you are interested in I'd make that a week after pinging the reverting editor. I'd be concerned about the prior section at Talk:Teal independents#Colors used Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Received with Thanks, noted! - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 12:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GA Melbourne has started a discussion on the article's Talk page and invited the editor who reverted the attempt at an Infobox. David notMD (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connecting with GLAM[edit]

Hi, I'd like to get in touch with someone at Wikipedia:GLAM. There are lists of editors who work on projects in various countries, but the country I'm interested in (Colombia) does not appear, so I'm not sure who to contact. Plus, the information there seems to be about GLAM rather than instructions for editors, so I might be in the wrong place altogether. Weirdly, I can't seem to find a Talk page or help desk for general inquires.

In case context helps: I'm working on Muisca raft and found a treasure trove of images in this publication, which I know are from the Gold Museum, Bogotá. I inquired at commons here as to whether it's possible for an editor to request images directly from a museum. They kindly referred me to the VRT and also GLAM. VRT appears to be a ticketing system, once the process is underway. My hope is that someone at GLAM can orient me to (1) whether obtaining these images is possible in my case; (2) how hard it would be; and (3) how to get started.

Thank you! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 08:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @GuineaPigC77: Not an answer to your question (which is about asking the museum to make new photographs, if I understand correctly), but the folks at WP:RX are great at finding stuff that has already been published. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    Thanks @Tigraan! What you're suggesting is better than what I had in mind. (The publication in question contains an additional photograph the museum may or may not have, and which would also be useful for the article.) I think WP:RX is what I was looking for without knowing it. Thanks! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 16:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GuineaPigC77, the talk page for the project is at Wikipedia talk:GLAM. It doesn't appear to be heavily used, but it does have a fair number of watchers, so maybe you'll find someone to answer your question. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I feel a little silly for not pursuing the talk page, but I made an assumption that it was for discussing the project itself, not for specific inquires. I'll try Tigraan's suggestion and if that doesn't work I'll leave a message on the talk page in case any of the watchers will see it. Many thanks. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 17:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GuineaPigC77, you're welcome! May Assyrian cuneiform U1202D MesZL 10.svgAssyrian cuneiform U1212D MesZL 631 or U122B9 MesZL 632 and MesZL 633.svg light your path. 😉 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yours! ;-) GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 18:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my wikipedia article okay?[edit]

I created a wikipedia article and I want someone to double check it please. Draft:Kiki Ayers MarcusMoore360 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MarcusMoore360 Hello and welcome. I've added the information required to allow you to submit the draft for a review. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarcusMoore360 I get "access denied" on trying to verify the first citation (possibly because I'm in the UK). Looking at many of the other references, they are based on interviews and press releases: perhaps not surprising for a publicist who launched a PR firm. However, to show her notability in Wikipedia's sense, you need to focus on any sources which are WP:INDEPENDENT of her and give significant coverage, as well as being reliable. Quality is more important than quantity. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Edit and publsih the article[edit]

Hi I have done the edit as requested earlier I wanted to confirm if this under the review kind regards nagma AmirMehdiKazmi (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @AmirMehdiKazmi and welcome to the teahouse! are you referring to Draft:Amir Mehdi and/or User:AmirMehdiKazmi/sandbox? as stated in your talk page, writing an autobiography is discouraged for multiple reasons (which are outlined in the autobiography guideline) and it's best not to write one about yourself at all. additionally, never ever copy and paste text from the internet into anything you write in Wikipedia, that would be considered a copyright violation and can lead to you being blocked. if you want to write about something else, please check out Your first article to learn how, as well as Reliable sources to learn how you can cite your sources (since that is required in Wikipedia), and Notability to learn what can and can't have an article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AmirMehdiKazmi If Draft:Amir Mehdi isresubmitted as it is now, it will surely be Declined again, as Wikipedia requires that references be properly inserted in the body of the article. The software then creates reference numbers and lists the refs in References. Furthermore, as this is about a living person (you), every factual statement must be verified by a reference or else deleted (even if true). David notMD (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article submission - is Draft:Deep Lake (Deep Learning) good to go or needs more edits? (disclaimer, affiliated with the article topic)[edit]

Hi there! looking to submit this article for review, but wanted to get feedback beforehand if this is "good to go" or would need some more work.

Draft:Deep Lake (Deep Learning)#Deep Lake Performance against alternatives, and added third-party references as well.

I copied the structure from https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_lake Tensieal (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tensieal I'm pretty familiar with standard IT terminology but I have to say I found the draft pretty impenetrable. The concepts need to be explained in much simpler language appropriate to the majority of readers. A couple of specific points. 1) According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the main article (the part below the table of contents). In the current draft, much of what is in the lead is not mentioned anywhere later (e.g. time traveling, SQL) or not in enough detail later. 2) There should be no external links within the body text such as are present in the "Background" section: see WP:ELPOINTS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Michael D. Turnbull, yes, this is what i was concerned with. Thanks a lot. I'll rewrite to simplify (and take care of the other issues). thanks a lot! Tensieal (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Michael D. Turnbullcould you please take a second look? I've made the text simpler and added examples of the features, which should make the topic more understandable and the lead section now actually summarizes the article. I based the new version off https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_lake and https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumPy

Regarding simplicity of the text, it's a rather complex subject in itself but anyone who has a beginner level knowledge with terminology (such as data lakes and machine learning) should be able to grasp what the article is about. Tensieal (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

apologies for the typo, i meant should now* be able to understand. Tensieal (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Tensieal. You should probably include brief explanations of, or wikilinks to articles (if they exist) about, all specialist-area terminology. Remember, this is a global encyclopaedia aimed at general readers, not just people with a prior grounding in a subject. Many readers may not have English as a first language; some may be reading the article because they've come across a reference to "Deep Lake" for the first time and want to find out what that means. I myself have used computers for professional purposes, one way or another, since the 1970's, but have never, ever, heard of "data lakes" before now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.129 (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
totally on board with all of what you said, @90.193.128.129. I've included all references present on wikipedia, deep learning domain is like 5-10 years old, so not a lot is written on it. :(
I'll do my best to be more general. :) Tensieal (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tensieal I've taken a look and made some minor edits, including removing some weird characters (unicode 2028). It will be interesting to see what comments you get from the expert reviewers. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you so much for your help @Michael D. Turnbull. in the meantime, i'll work on simplifying, hopefully the feedback will be positive. i'll keep you posted!!! Tensieal (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tensieal, you need to decide what the article is to be about − "deep lake", which I think is a machine learning tool or technique, or "Deep Lake", which is I think a product. Switching from one to the other without warning the reader helps make the draft confusing. And a Wikipedia article should be about a single topic. Maproom (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's a very fair comment, I was aiming it to be about deep lake - a data storage and manipulation method (see: data lake wiki Data lake). I'll make necessary adjustments tomorrow. Tensieal (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still pretty impenetrable (from a person with no IT connection, but three degrees from MIT). Try harder. David notMD (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree with David notMD. And, Tensieal, there are reference problems here. The first is to Github, which to me looks like a dump/webhost, the second and third are to Arxiv, meaning the articles are not peer-reviewed and published for real, and the fourth is another Github thing, with "" as the publisher in the citation. Oh, I took out your first word. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Drmies, I do take refs very seriously. Both arXiv articles are in the later stages of peer-review process and will be published very shortly.
    Regarding the fourth cite, the original post announcing JAX actually asks people to use that citation, that's why I used it. It's odd that they didn't yet publish a paper on it, but it's one of the most popular frameworks out there! Any suggestions in this case? I mean I can provide a reference to a peer-review article that uses JAX (published at the most prestigious computer vision conference), but that wouldn't be the original JAX paper. What do you think? Tensieal (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tensieal "Both arXiv articles are in the later stages of peer-review process and will be published very shortly." How do you know these articles will be published? And when is "very shortly"? David10244 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hey @David notMD. thanks for your tip. do you mind reading through Data lake and https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumPy for me? It would be useful to understand how does this draft fair against those, let's say my article is impenetrable 9 on a scale from 1 to 10. Where do those two stand for you? Tensieal (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, a confession that my MIT degrees were in the 'wet' sciences (biology, nutrition, nutritional biochemistry). Data lake is rated C-class. I agree. General readability not bad, but it is jargony, and some sentences/paragraphs are a 'sea of blue', (A Wikipedia term meaning that too many words are Wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles in an attempt to explain stuff.) Non-tech readers get tired from having to bounce from DL to those articles and back. Also, Hadoop-based, siloing, using name dropping of companies that are known to use the term "data lake." Criticism (data swamp, data graveyard (in Talk) could use expanding. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NumPy is rated START. It is VERY jargony, useful only to IT people. Also choppy writing, probably due to edits over time by many people, with no one person taking on improving the article as a whole. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD oh! OK! this is good to know, because my mental heuristic was picking (1) the closest category page (data lake) and (2) most popular Python package that's vaguely related to what we do (NumPy allows you to wrangle with multidimensional arrays of data, while Deep Lake allows you to stream the arrays to ML models).
Perhaps I should pick better references, I will do some sleuthing, and if you can be so kind and (dis)approve when I get back to you with those it would be really appreciated! Your comments re: the other two are still very useful for re-working the page. I wonder where does the balance lie on writing for non-technical audiences and technical ones when it comes to highly specialized subjects like this. Tensieal (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peruse Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. P.S. I will be here less ofter over coming days, as COVID has struck our household. David notMD (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft deletion[edit]

Hi. I would like to have my draft deleted. Draft:Understanding Your Body. And I am not quite sure what to do and where to go. I need some help. Wikiwow:) Wikiwow:) (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just paste {{Db-g7}} at the top of the draft. It's a user requested speedy deletion. See WP:G7 - X201 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help in getting the draft approved[edit]

https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sreedharan_Sobhana Can anyone tell me what else needs to be changed in the above link?

One of the award mentioned has reference link of dhammawiki, hence is a renowned award. Reference links for few awards are given too.

TIA. 2406:7400:73:F1D7:0:0:0:101 (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plenty needs to be changed. The section "Early life" has no references. The next section, "Buddhist Temple", has no reference after the first sentence. But the first sentence, or anyway much of it, appears to be referenced. I quote: "In 2007, Master Sobhana built a Buddhist Temple, Sri Dharma Bodhi Temple". And the reference for this assertion? A map, which of course provides no evidence whatever for anyone having built the temple. As a reference, this is worthless. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, phrases like "learning the ropes to the hairdressing trade", "ventured into the electronic manufacturing industry", "booming", "passion", "step into Fashion field in India", "wore the same timeless outfit", "walked the ramp" ... these are not written in an encyclopedic style.
From Wikipedia:TONE: "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." David10244 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft Page[edit]

One of my mentor who is renowned educationist of the country, has his Wikipedia page as a draft. So can i contribute to that page and move it to publish or only the owner can do it so. 121.52.159.174 (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP editor. Anyone can contribute to an article on Wikipedia (except for a few which have been given some level of protection owing to persistent vandalism) and you are equally welcome to contribute to improve Draft articles. As a matter of courtesy, I wouldn't add to a draft in another user's sandbox without asking them on their Talk Page whether they minded my doing so and I certainly would not move anything into mainspace without agreement: and as an IP you can't do that in any case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If by "move to publish" you meant submit to Articles for Creation for review, you can do that without having an account, but you shouldn't without asking the subject of the article. As to the draft about your mentor, is that an autobiography, or did someone else create it? Is it clear to him that Wikipedia has 'articles,' not 'pages,' and that the subject of an article does not own control of the article? David notMD (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page improvements[edit]

I need the page Emmanuel Igboke to be improved by copyediting, proper cats and so on, Thanks in advance and God bless Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Dorathy Nnaji, welcome back to the Teahouse. We have cleanup templates for this purpose - {{copy edit}} and {{improve categories}}, for instance. A full list can be found here. You could also post on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Dorathy Nnaji. Leaving aside questions of grammar, etc., easily addressed, one thing you probably need to clarify yourself is what "Achara layout" means. I can find no relevant place (i.e. in Africa not India) called Achara in Wikipedia (apparently it means "Elephant grass"?), nor – from our various articles relating to Nigerian administration – what a "layout" is. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.129 (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article has been reverted to previous[edit]

I made a lot of visual edits to a couple of pages, but they seem to have reverted to how they were previously. Is there a way of knowing why?


1999–2000 Manchester United F.C. season & 2000–01 Manchester United F.C. season Talbot140690 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checking the article history page would help. I reverted your edits because they were very large changes made without consensus approval. – PeeJay 11:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I will stick to creation of new articles that are missing. Talbot140690 (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Talbot140690! while you can, writing a whole new article could be harder than rewriting one that already exists. I won't say you shouldn't (if you want to experience article creation or want to write an article anyway you can), but if you want something easier than this to do, you could check out stuff at the task center. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Melecie. I seem to have found success with quite a lot of recent creations so will continue doing that for now, lots of gaps to fill in :) Talbot140690 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But PeeJay, I glanced at one of these histories, and you'd reverted a pile of edits with the pithy but alas uninformative edit summary "no". The relevant talk page also has no explanation. Should the sheer size of large changes made without consensus approval bring about their reversion, explained with "no"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the reversions seems to be noted withwhy change the format? (diff), although I think it could be more informative if phrased in another way. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The format of soccer season articles is something that has been discussed to death at WT:FOOTY. The general consensus as far as I'm aware is that we should follow WP:COLLAPSE, which says "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading." (bolding in the original text). That means Template:Footballbox collapsible should be deprecated by design, but unfortunately it keeps getting used because a whole heap of editors of soccer articles have decided to ignore that rule. – PeeJay 12:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I presumed (incorrectly), that the collapsible way of doing things was the more up to date way (based on most other pages) and attempted to bring the older seasons up to date. Will leave those alone. Talbot140690 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redlining[edit]

How can you intentionaly redline a topic when putting it in brackets takes you to a disambiguation page (without that topic)? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As in [[Peter Best (podiatrist)|Peter Best]] -- but only if this would be likely to help the reader. -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you sepeculate on the part in parentheses? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Somebody might then create an article on "Peter Best (chiropodist)" and the redlinking would then be wasted (or worse, lead to a content fork). So very often this kind of redlinking is unhelpful. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the topic does not exist, and you do not think it deserves an article, a better option would be to not link but put a hidden comment. That warns future editors to not link to an incorrect topic. For instance, In 2021, John Smith and Joe Biden hijacked a car. <--! That Biden is a gardener, do not link to the US president. --> TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seconded. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links allows to add the same red link to the disambiguation page in some cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When can I know that an article is accepted on Wikipedia (and can relax) ?[edit]

I have recently rewritten and taken out of draft an article https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Suknik and am not 100% sure about at what point will I know that it is accepted and will not be deleted, or if there is anything else I need to do ? Advice welcome. (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a deletion discussion happening here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzhak Suknik, the results of that discussion will decide whether the article remains. Esolo5002 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The particular answer in the case of that article is that I have sent it to AfD again (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yitzhak_Suknik). Sorry, but taking it upon yourself to move the article into mainspace again was not wise, after it was deleted following clear consensus at a well-attended discussion.
In theory, the previous deletion means that it has been decided that there are not enough good sources about the subject of the article to show that it passes WP:GNG. If such a conclusion was correct, no article would be acceptable, no matter how well-written, and any more time you spend polishing the article is a waste of time. (If you do not understand what GNG is after reading the link, do ask, we will be happy to explain.) In fact, we even have a speedy deletion criterion that allows to delete recreation of articles deleted at AfD, which could arguably be used here.
In practice, it often happens that the quality of the draft influences the evaluation at AFD. (See WP:HEY.) I can see that the references have been substantially improved (though in my opinion not to the level required by a significant margin, hence the trip back to AfD).
If the new AfD discussion ends in a keep, then the article is probably safe from deletion for the time being. (If not, well... Please don’t try again unless you have read and understood the policies about notability.) Although it would still be subject to the normal editing process, and you have no control about its content, in practice articles about minor historical figures rarely undergo substantial edits. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Tigraan. Thank you for your speedy response.
I have spent some months on reworking this article adding a number of new sources with help from people who are experts in this area of history which I had hoped clearly shown his 'notability' within one of the greatest acts of defiance against the Nazi program of annihilation of the Jews in Europe, know as the 'Warsaw Ghetto Uprising'. Two particular items cover his importance - one in the first ever attack against the Germans on January 18th and the other being his central role in arms manufacturing against all odds.
I have never got a clear answer on what is 'notable enough' for Wikipedia and I find it difficult to understand how a judgement can be made without knowing the context of the story. I would very much appreciate it if you could read it again and reconsider the deletion recommendation.
PS
This event (which come up to its 80th anniversary next year) and the participants are not very well covered on Wikipedia and I wonder whether there is a general view that actually it was not that important an event and any further details or information are not deemed important enough?
There are a couple of other articles on the Warsaw Ghetto on Wikipedia which may assist you.
https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto
https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@, notability is determined purely based on what other people have written about someone, not on what they've done. They may have done many extremely important things, but if no one else has noticed and decided they were important/interesting/unusual enough to write about, they have not achieved notability. Context is not important here; only the existence of reliable sources available for us to summarize. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Understood. When you say on what other people have written this is exactly what I have been working on, and this is the frustrating point because there appears to be no precise criteria of what would be sufficient citations or sources, and I have seen so many pages with less on Wikipedia (and I know this is not accepted as an argument ... but it needs to be said). All the sources are reliable and written from first hand experience of the event or known experts in the field. How many more are needed to have 'noticed' Yitzhak ? (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@, there are, indeed, many poor articles on Wikipedia, for many reasons, and this often misleads people. It's a problem for which a solution has yet to be found; a solution may not even be possible without altering some of Wikipedia's fundamental principles.
I can give you the general advice handed out to folks writing articles, though I'm sure you've probably already received it. Reviewers like to see three sources that meet every one of the requirements: reliable, independent, published, secondary, and containing significant coverage. Your article seems to be teetering on the edge of success (apparently the sources are a bit hard to evaluate). It may survive the AfD; it may not. You rolled the dice by moving it to mainspace instead of going through AfC, and now it's time to see where they fall. You can always try improving the sourcing in the meantime, if possible. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is Wikipedia not user friendly?[edit]

Its challenging to navigate through the platform and locate things I am looking for.

I had a lesson about finding a missing articles list for universities. After the training I found it challenging to find the list on my own.

Is Wikipedia considering simplifying the website for new editors? Serah Phiri (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @Serah Phiri and welcome to the teahouse! pages regarding editor work are usually kept in the Wikipedia namespace (prefixed with "Wikipedia:", like this page!), which by default don't show up in search (only articles do, since the articles are what most readers are here for, not the miscellaneous editor pages). you can search for them easily by prefixing your search with "Wikipedia:" or "WP:" (like searching for "WP:Teahouse" to get here), or setting your search to All or just including Wikipedia.
as for what you may be looking for, are you trying to head to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Colleges and Universities? the title's long, but there's a shortcut WP:MISSING to get there quickly. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Limerick Greenway[edit]

Hi, I tried to create my first piece for Limerick Greenway in the sandbox earlier today. I tried to publish but there was an error and now all the information is gone. Can you advise ? Limerick Greenway LimerickGreenway 13:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @LimerickGreenway, welcome to the Teahouse. I can't see that what you published made it to Wikipedia's servers. In that case, unless your browser has stored the information and you can retrieve it using the "Back" button, there's nothing to be done. It's very good practice to save what you're working on in a separate text editor, so that you have a copy in case something unexpected happens.
On another note, your username may not be in compliance with our policies, since it seems to represent an organization of some kind rather than you as an individual. You may need to either abandon this account for a new one or request a change of name via WP:RENAME. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I am working on the Limerick Greenway and wanted to enter up to date information and create a page for this. Can you advise on the best steps forward as I am doing this on behalf of work so can I use this account as declared from an organisation ? Limerick Greenway LimerickGreenway 14:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LimerickGreenway, first you will need to either change your account name or switch to a new account, as I explained above. It's very likely that this one will be blocked in short order if you don't. Second, you need to read WP:PAID carefully and follow the instructions. Then you should also read Help:Your first article and WP:NORG to get an idea of what we're looking for in an article. If this organization does not have significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, it's best to abandon your effort now - you will be wasting your company's time and money. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that we already have Great Southern Trail#Limerick Greenway. Not sure if this is the same thing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for the information above and the Great Southern Trail is no longer inexistence and was an historic group set up before the trail was updated to a Greenway. Therefore there is a need to provide accurate Limerick Greenway information as people don't seem to be getting this through wikipedia at the moment. This is then linking to other online accounts. It's just to ensure accurate information and relevant links. Limerick Greenway LimerickGreenway 14:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LimerickGreenway, once you've followed the instructions above about your user name and declaring your paid editing status, you're free to make {{edit request}}s on the talk page of Great Southern Trail outlining the updates you want and - this is important - citing sources for those updates. Uninvolved editors will evaluate and implement the requests. You are not forbidden from editing the article yourself, but it is very strongly discouraged, especially since you seem to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. You can also attempt to write a separate article on the Limerick Greenway, but writing new articles is extremely difficult, especially for newcomers. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing to realise, LimerickGreenway is thatTherefore there is a need to provide accurate Limerick Greenway information as people don't seem to be getting this through wikipedia at the moment is not what WIkipedia is about. There may be a need, but it is not Wikipedia's need. Wikipedia is neither a business directory, a tourist guide, nor a means of promotion (see What Wikipedia is not. Nor is it required to be up to date: past companies that meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability are every bit as relevant to Wikipedia as current companies that do so, and very much more relevant than present companies which do not. ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

untitled[edit]

how can I add my name on wikipedia. 161.69.122.15 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. That entirely depends on where you want to add your name, and what exactly you mean by "add my name" in the first place. Putting your name in or on an article is unlikely to happen unless you can demonstrate you are notable in some way; putting your name elsewhere isn't generally a good idea for privacy reasons, unless by "name" you mean the IP address you use or the user name of your account if you choose to create one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

editing glitch which moves cursor, disallows my use of capital letters[edit]

When I open a new discussion section nowadays, it seems I am allowed to use capital letters some of the time, as here where I have used "When" and "I". But some of the time, even within the same edit where I have successfully used some capital letters, I am disallowed: when I type a capital letter the cursor is moved to the beginning of the of the posting. The only way I can proceed is to use "when" and "i", etc. What gives? Is there something in my account which needs to be changed? --Doncram (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Doncram, welcome to the Teahouse. That's very odd indeed. The folks at VPT are probably best suited to help you, but perhaps a little more information is in order - does this only happen when starting a new discussion/section? Have you noticed it in both source and VE mode? Does switching between them help at all? Do you have any special discussion tools enabled on your account? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I am opening a discussion section at VPT with same title (so it will soon be at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#editing glitch which moves cursor, disallows my use of capital letters), giving some more info, too. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I get someone to amend or edit your page named:List of Jim Crow law examples by state[edit]

They list Washington state as having a law against interracial marriage in 1866-1887,This would have been impossible,Washington State did not achieve statehood until 1889. The area they were talking about was the Washington territory and would not fall under statehood. To blatantly label states for something that never happened in their time of statehood is not polite. I am a born and raised Washingtonian and am tired of being blamed for what never happened in racial matters. 73.157.103.162 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: List of Jim Crow law examples by state - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other states in that article list laws that were enacted before statehood. One can infer that these laws were passed when the future states were Territories. A much greater problem with that list article is that the vast majority of laws are unreferenced. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the direct answer to your question is that you can open a discussion at the talk page Talk:List of Jim Crow law examples by state. But be aware that Wikipedia works by consensus. Just because it is obvious to you that it should be changed does not mean that others will necessarily agree with you (and David has given a reason for not changing it). So if it matters to you, your job is to present arguments that will persuade others to agree with you: merely stating your position may not be effective. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page stalker banner thing[edit]

I'd like to put the talk page stalker banner thing on my talk page. I seem to have some—which I see as a wonderful thing—and I'd like to advertise it to would be vandals that sometimes others might respond on my behalf, especially if/when I am busy. TY. Moops T 18:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Oopsemoops - are you asking what the code is? See Wikipedia:TPS/banner. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. That is what I was looking for. I had just searched "Talk page stalkers", with no luck, in the search bar before coming here to the teahouse. Moops T 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oopsemoops, it's in an odd namespace. I searched "Template: talk page stalker" and got {{Talk page stalker}}, which is not quite right, but fortunately there's a link to the banner in "See also" at the bottom. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just created some redirects so that others do not have the same problem in the future. :) Moops T 19:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oopsemoops did you intend to create TP Stalk in article namespace? I think it'd be better off moved to template space. Madeline (part of me) 20:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't create TP Stalk. That particle page was created by Xeno in 2009. Moops T 20:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You created the redirect TP Stalk just today: [2]. Normally redirects to templates are placed in template namespace, so it should be Template:TP Stalk. Madeline (part of me) 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foreign Wikipedia articles[edit]

How does one link to foreign wikipedia articles? I have seen it done but not sure where to look... Thanks, GrahamHardy (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The usual way to do it is with {{ill}}. It displays a redlink with a small link to another wiki of your choosing. If the article is later created on English Wikipedia, it automatically links to that instead. Madeline (part of me) 20:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GrahamHardy: If you're trying to create an inter-language wikilink from within an article, you preface the name with the language abbreviation preceded by a colon. For example, the Muhammad article on Wikipedia (which we link as [[Muhammad]]) is fa:محمد on the Farsi Wikipedia (which we link as [[:fa:محمد]] or [[:fa:%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF]]). You can pipe the link to replace the default display, as in Muhammand in Farsi (coded as [[:fa:محمد|Muhammad in Farsi]]). This is explained in Help:Link#Interwiki links. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right that that works, Anachronist, but Madeline's solution is generally preferred, because it makes clear that there is no English language article but explicitly provides the link with its language code (see WP:SURPRISE), and if an English article is subsequently created, the template automatically links to it. ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

catalytic converters[edit]

Recently, a major television network has a piece on the substitution of copper for other rare metals in catalytic converters. I have found no information in wikipedia on same. Interested in whether there are any start up companies producing products with same particularly for the automobile industry. 100.6.159.160 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question would be better suited to the Science section of the Reference Desk. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, very few start-up companies have articles about the company on WP -- new companies often don't have enough reliable information published about them by reliable, independent sources to base an article on. David10244 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help[edit]

my friend is on a whitelist with family link that doesn't allow . how can i help him get to his sites normaly (on chromebook) Allaoi (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure this is the right place for that sort of question, the teahouse relates to questions about editing Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does have a Family Link article if you'd like to learn more about the application! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
look im the one with the whitelist, and this is the only way i can contact people on the internet if you or anyone else knows how to get around it please tell me Allaoi (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi: You can try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. I don't even know what the question means but maybe they do. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoi Are you trying to circumvent the software that enforces the browser going only to sites that are on the whitelist? I'm not sure that even the Reference Desk will, or should, help you with that -- depending on who set up the Family List software, and whether your friend should be circumventing that. Having said all that, I am against censorship in general... David10244 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preferred term?[edit]

Is there a preference for using "Videography" vs "Video" (or "Videos") in band articles? "Videography" matches up with "Discography" both verbally and visually, but to me "Videos" sounds less pretentious. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UKRAINE DEFENSE CONTACT GROUP[edit]

Wikipedia is missing an important page for Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG). This is US Defense Department project that is 3 month old and has already made 5 meetings.

This contact group is explained sufficiently by search via DOD reports and elsewhere. When I search Ukraine Defense Contact Group Wiki -- there are obsolete legacy hits.


Newer hits via -- [3]https:nato.usmission.gov/ukraine-defense-contact-group-secretary-of-defense-austin-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-milley-press-avail/

Thank you for looking into this issue, 20 and 30 and 40 nations in contact group to assist Ukraine and perhaps Wikipedia needs new article to explain this complex international meeting group, which is locating into new HQ in Germany. 71.222.62.189 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]