Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Changing wikipedia articles about people after they have died[edit]

Hi,

This has boggled my mind quite alot lately, and I couldn't find any answers with search engines so I want to ask here:

When someone with a wikipedia article dies, is there some kind of automatical system to turn sentences written in the present tense into imperfects (like turning "Obama is an american politian" into "Obama was an american politian")? Is it all done manually or is there some other way to fix those things. 91.153.156.177 (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe there is an automatic way to change tense on articles. I have looked at a couple articles of lesser-known people who died after the article was written where there was a mix of "she is" and "she was" phrases in sentences, and I manually edited the article so everything read "she was." Karenthewriter (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying! 91.153.156.177 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is actually a task requiring a certain amount of nuance, so an automated tool would have to be very sophisticated. Imagine a world record sausage-thrower. He was the first man to throw a sausage more than 500 yards, he is the only man to have thrown a sausage more than 600 yards, he holds the record for the longest throw ever, but was the world champion until he was killed by a rebounding bratwurst. We need a mix of present and past tense depending on the context. Quite often, it's very subtle: Claudius is the Roman emperor best-known for invading Britain. Claudius was a Roman emperor, who is best known... . Claudius was a Roman emperor who invaded Britain. Elemimele (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
..." killed by a rebounding bratwurst" Brilliant! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On conducting a whimsical websearch, I found to my surprise that Sausage-throwing as a sporting contest actually exists, albeit at low level, in England, Switzerland and Germany. Perhaps an article might be created in anticipation of its eventual acceptance as an Olympic event. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed - there are other weird contests, too. (example). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Oh, I've witnessed that several times in both England and Scotland, and competed at least once. I've yet to encounter Dwile flonking in the flesh, although I've had a book of games that includes it for years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging sections together[edit]

Sorry if this is a technically advanced question. If it is, please direct me to the correct place. I have been working on restructuring the sections in the vital articles list at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History and I am trying to merge the sections together. If you look in the Contemporary history section, there are duplicates of sections. Before, there was 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries and I have changed them to Late modern and Contemporary. However, it seems like when I try to merge the sections together using the source editor, the process is very tedious and involves scrolling up and down. TLDR: it's a hassle. I am looking for a good tool that I can use to make the process a lot easier. I tried using AI tools like ChatGPT and Bard, but I had no luck with those. I am hoping that someone can point me in the right direction on how I can solve this problem. Interstellarity (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Interstellarity. It's very nice to see you back in the Teahouse again!
I can't offer an elegant solution, but I can suggest how I would approach the task. I'd add an {{in use}} template to the List before I started anything. I would then open three adjacent browser windows.
In one, I'd simply View the article and use the Contents list on the left side to navigate to where I see sections duplicated.
I'd then open that article twice so I have two sets of identical source code side by side. The left side I would treat as the 'donor' and the other one as the recipient.
Scrolling down through in View mode, I'd locate the first article in a duplicated section and make a written note of it. (I found Pelee and Sars at the top of two 'General' sections in the Americas. From my donor page I'd select all the articles I want to copy over. To find the right place quickly, I'd Ctrl-F on 'Sars' or 'Pelee', and I'd then drag and drop them into the recipient page's section. I'd repeat that process for all duplicate sections - possibly using pen and paper to tick each one off as I go.
To sort a long list of articles into alphanumeric order, I might copy them over into Excel where I could sort them and then copy them back - probably one section at a time.
I won't say that's necessarily easiest way of doing it, but I'm pretty sure it'd work for me. Before saving the page, I'd want to carefully preview it - or even copy and save it in my Sandbox to check everything looks OK.
How does that sound? (Don't forget to remove the 'in use' template afterwards) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Sounds good. I'll look into it tomorrow. How are you up at 2 AM writing all this? It's almost 9 PM from where I am. Interstellarity (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Interstellarity LOL! I'm retired now and can snooze in and get up late in the mornings if I want to! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick, I have successfully merged the sections together. I am trying to sort the pages alphabetically. I tried using LibreOffice Calc, which is a similar program to Excel, and I have no luck sorting the pages alphabetically. I am also trying to put events that happened prior to 1945 in the Late modern section and the events that happened after that time period into the Contemporary section. Although I started working on it, I am hoping that someone can help me with it as well. I don't think anybody at the Teahouse can really help me with that, so I was hoping that someone can point me into the right direction so that I can get some assistance doing this although I am willing to do some work if need be. Regards, Interstellarity (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Interstellarity. My apologies for missing your ping. I'd suggest that to get help, you explain what you're trying to do and what help you seek on the List's own talk page at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5.
Then, rather than repeating everything again, simply post a call to help on the talk pages of both these WikiProjects: WP:WikiProject Vital Articles and WP:WikiProject History. Just link to where the discussion is taking place so that people can go to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 and make suggestions there, with everything happening all in one place, not three. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Just did. Thank you for your help. Interstellarity (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all,

I have only just recently opened an account with Wikipedia (although I have edited before as an unregistered user). I'm a children's television historian.


I'm having some problems regarding sourcing for the Make Way for Noddy cast. In the UK, the cast never receive any credit on screen, so I've been trying to track them down for a long time now. I've finally managed to get ahold of the full cast list directly from the UK's voice director, but this it seems is not sufficient (even paired with the only instance I can find of the cast being credited onscreen in the UK, as if they're going to completely recast for a special episode or something). I find the the fact that this is not sufficient extremely disheartening, like all my efforts have been in vain.


My argument is - how do you verify any uncredited cast or crew? It's not uncommon for them to not receive on-screen credit, take old cartoons for example. All that information is obtained by people, like me, who go directly to the people who worked on it and get the information directly from the horse's mouth. It's not documented anywhere; it just comes from the source. And it's even less uncommon for voice actors to be listed without specifying who they actually voices which also would be a problem going by these guidelines. If we all stuck to these guidelines, we'd never truly know anything unless it's credited onscreen - imagine how short Daws Butler or June Foray's filmographies would be!


I think this site would be better operated in matters like these by going by a quantum of proof - ie. there's more proof than not. I mean, it's not as if I'm editing the results of a World Cup, we're talking about a children's TV show from the early 2000's - what possible motive would I have for fabricating that (unless I was adding myself to the cast or something!).


It's like if I went on Amazon and made a Kindle ebook titled "Make Way for Noddy Cast" and put my email from the voice director in quotes inside, you'd probably except it (based on what I've seen on other pages). How is this any different? Simple answer: it's not.


For full information, including links to screenshots, see my original thread with user Waxworker: User talk:Waxworker#Make Way for Noddy


Thank you,

Ed. EdwardBohan89 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdwardBohan89 As you probably know, IMDb contains that sort of information (see this link) and although Wikipedia does not consider that a reliablle source, because it is user-generated, we do allow external links to these entries as part of our articles. Your only alternative is to publish your research in another outlet considered as reliable and then quote that publication here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, EdwardBohan89, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the answer is that you cannot add unpublished information to a Wikipedia article. Verifiability is a core principle: we want a reader in Birmingham next week or Buffalo next month or Bangaluru next year, to be able to verify the information in an article (it doesn't have to be easy: needing to order a copy from a major library, for example, is acceptable).
The problem is not that anybody doubts your veracity: it's that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Suppose you insert unsourced information, and next year somebody changes that - out of a sincere belief that it was wrong, or by mistake, or out of malice to somebody, or out of vandalism. That change may or may not be noticed, and an editor look to correct it. But if there is no published source, that editor has no way of knowing which is the correct information, and nor has any future reader.
If you can get your research published by a reliable source, then it can be referenced in a Wikipedia article - though you should not add it yourself, because that would be regarded as a conflict of interest ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine & @Michael D. Turnbull,
Thank you both for taking the time to explain and in a more respectful manner than the last guy I might add!
My main gripe with it all is that anyone can be an expert in any field, just because someone is published, doesn't necessarily mean they're any more right from some unknown guy like me. I see it all over Wikipedia. Especially on pages for old cartoons from Warner Bros, Fleischer Studios etc. Who really knows who provided, say for example, the voice of the baby Swee'Pea in the old Popeye cartoons. Answer is: we don't know for certain - one book written by an expert says one thing, another says another, the company has long since been closed/merged and everyone who worked on it are dead. How come that's allowed to go unchallenged? And as I pointed out on the Make Way for Noddy page, how did it come to pass that Ben Small was attached to so many characters in the first place? We knew he worked on the show, but why was it never challenged before as to who he voiced? I see no source for that (and as it turns out this information IS wrong going by the voice director for the show).
I know that has to be some form of proof - but I genuinely thought I had provided enough. But hey-ho, it is what it is I guess.
I've had my findings in this matter put out on several IMDB episodes for Make Way for Noddy (I'll do the rest in due course).
Sorry for the rant, but it's just very frustrating. I'm sure you understand. As I said before, it's like having all your hard work slung back in your face, but I shouldn't keep going on at people who are just doing what Wikipedia says is "the right way of doing things", please forgive me.
Thanks again for your response. It is much appreciated.
Ed EdwardBohan89 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EdwardBohan89: There are times when reliable published sources disagree, and we can indicate that in an article by stating that source 1 states X and source 2 states Y. GoingBatty (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research, those should help explain things. Happy editing! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changed a section (References) but article did not reflect same. Why? [Reverted just in case.][edit]

Short form of question:

Why would a published change to a section of an article _not_ show up when subsequently viewing the enclosing article?

2601:1C2:801:4420:38D0:1FAA:645C:CB4C (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC) A Nony MouseReply[reply]


Question again, very long form:

In re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIC_168789840

curprev 18:23, 25 October 2023‎ 2601:1c2:801:4420:38d0:1faa:645c:cb4c talk‎ 13,239 bytes 0‎ Undid revision 1181867911 WHY did said rev have no visible effect? Reverting from abundance of caution. by 2601:1C2:801:4420:38D0:1FAA:645C:CB4C (talk) undo Tag: Undo


curprev 18:19, 25 October 2023‎ 2601:1c2:801:4420:38d0:1faa:645c:cb4c talk‎ 13,239 bytes 0‎ →‎References: Re-order refs to match order of call out in article text (i.e. prev "5" was first, now re-ordered same ref to be "1"). 2601:1C2:801:4420:38D0:1FAA:645C:CB4C (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC) A Nony Mouse undo Tag: Reverted 21 October 2023Reply[reply]


I find it confusing when the first citation in an article is to source "5". So I moved the first reference called out in the article to be first in the list in the References section. This was preparation for sorting all of them. My change was to the References section. Previewing the Reference section showed the Reference section appearing exactly as expected/intended, no errors. So I published the change.

I then viewed the main/full/article page. My change was missing. The old/former/previous content of the Reference section was displayed.

Why? What if anything did I do wrong? How to troubleshoot?

Regardless, I immediately reverted/undid the change lest something else that I do not understand cause problems.

[I acknowledge that I am doing something picky. And I am quite aware of how "delicate" such ordering can be when many people are making all manner of changes over time.] 2601:1C2:801:4420:38D0:1FAA:645C:CB4C (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations in the Infobox (when there is one) come before any citations in the main text of the article, so if as in this case there are 4 (different) citations in the infobox the first (different) one in the text has to be be "[5]".
The numbering of citations is performed automatically, so that if one is removed or added all the others will be renumbered as necessary without an editor having to do anything. It's best therefore not to fiddle with them for the sake of personal aesthetics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a special rule for infoboxes. References are numbered in the order they are used in the code for the page. Infoboxes are usually first in the source code and therefore also first in the produced code. They have a CSS class with float: right which places them to the right with later content allowed to float to their left if there is room. If you make the window very narrow in the desktop version then the infobox is displayed on top with the lead text below it and not to the left or before. The mobile version has special treatment of infoboxes and may display them later than they appear in the code. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to both of you.
2601:1C2:801:4420:B437:7DE2:F06B:B6D6 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC) A Nony MouseReply[reply]

Completing the translation of article Translation Christiane Benner[edit]

Europe's largest industrial union has a woman as the leader. I try to complete a translation of her german wikipedia page. Draft:Christiane Benner. ()()I have technical difficulties with the reference link to the newspaper tagesspiegel which I was not able to fix without help. Otherwise. I would like to have a second opinion on this aticle before i move it into the normal space for articles. My questions: 1. Can somebody please help me with the error message of the Tagesspiegel reference? 2. Is the article ready to be moved? Feel free to edit and move the article Aberlin2 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aberlin2, I made some changes which fixed the error currently shown; but I'd created a worse error and so reverted what I'd done. I note that your citations have parameters "titel" and "autor", which isn't how we spell those words here. Unfortunately, copying a citation verbatim from one language of Wikipedia to another often doesn't work. Maproom (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now fixed the error that was causing a warning. The character between the two words of "IG Metall" was something weird, which I've replaced by a regular space. Maproom (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for youre support i moved the article to the article space and hope this was not to early but i was worried that another person tries to translate her page without noticing my already done work Aberlin2 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though, anomiebot does tend to swing by and fix those soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To sort out those annoying reference errors, when I translate from German WP, what I tend to do is open the original German reference and then recreate a reference in the English WP using the citation templates provided by the source editor. This has the advantage that the syntax will be correct for English WP, and also gives me a chance to check (a) that the source really says what the German WP claims, (b) is still there, and (c) doesn't say anything else that's actually useful. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My article was deleted without any notice. Is it common on Wkikipedia?[edit]

Hello Wikipedia guys. Thanks for watching my question. I'm a new member to Wikipedia and I posted the 3rd article few days ago. But it was deleted suddenly without any notice. Is it common on Wikipedia? I think it is undemocratic and unfair. I thought if my article was not good for Wikipedia it should be noticed and discussed. But there was not any notice and deleted suddenly. I think my article handles very common matter about " How to enjoy old lens", and neutral and verifiable. The guy deleted my article said "Wikipedia cannot handle New matters". Is it right? If it is common in Wikipedia, I cannot handle "Recent(new) topics" on Wikipedia. I think it will degrade the presence of Wikipedia.

How do you think about it?

The deleted article is on my Sandbox. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:TomoakiKasuga/sandbox

The guy deleted my article is --柏尾菓子 The talk with him is below and I think it is meaningless to talk with him.


”オールドレンズ 楽しみ方 評価手法 井の頭レンズ研究所” を削除されたようですが、不当であると考えます。オールドレンズの楽しみ方を書いており、新しいレンズ評価手法を考えており、従来の手法とは違う方法ですから、参考データとしてサイトを参照するのは当然と考えます。これがだめなら新しい方法はWikiには載せられないという事になりませんか?


「新しい方法」をWikipediaに載せることはいけません。独自研究です。そういう方法があるという、信頼できる情報源による出典による、専門家などが分析した資料を用いて記事を作成してください。Wikipedia:ウィキペディアは何ではないか、Wikipedia:中立的な観点などもご参考ください。--柏尾菓子(会話) 2023年10月24日 (火) 02:51 (UTC) TomoakiKasuga (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TomoakiKasuga, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like this is about the Japanese Wikipedia, a completely different website than the English Wikipedia – we cannot help you very well with issues there. However, as I assume their rules about original research are similar to ours, I will say that he is correct that the article does appear to consist largely if not entirely of original research, which is (at least here on the English Wikipedia) unfortunately not allowed. I cannot comment on the speed of the deletion as I am entirely unfamiliar with the deletion process at the Japanese Wikipedia. Tollens (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No response from Japanese Wikipedia mailing list... TomoakiKasuga (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi TomoakiKasuga. Each of the local Wikipedias is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines, and its own community applying and enforcing those policies and guidelines. The Teahouse is really intended for questions about English Wikipedia and it's better to ask questions about Japanese Wikipedia over on Japanese Wikipedia. You can try the Japanese Wikipedia Help Desk at ja:Wikipedia:利用案内 and see if someone there is able to answer your question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No response from Japanese Wikipedia mailing list. It seems as Japanese Wikipedia is dead. At least it is not friendly to new comer. I won't use it more. TomoakiKasuga (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, TomoakiKasuga, Japanese Wikipedia is not dead. It is alive and vibrant. Editors there need to follow their policies and guidelines, just as editors on the English Wikipedia need to follow our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Wikipedia needs to be friendly to members. Without it it is same as dead. No need. English Wikipedia is alive. TomoakiKasuga (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TomoakiKasuga: You have received a response from the Japanese Wikipedia mailing list - see ja:利用者‐会話:TomoakiKasuga. GoingBatty (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not the mailing-list. TomoakiKasuga (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi GoingBatty, It's OK to delete with this process. But there was no process like this this time. So I was very surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/Speedy_deletion TomoakiKasuga (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I export the reference list of a Wikipedia page to import into EndNote or Zotero?[edit]

I have a large page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Smooth_Island_(Tasmania) which I want to rewrite via Microsoft Word. I'll need to use a reference manager like EndNote or Zotero. How can I export the page, and it's reference list, to ensure the numbered inline citations don't become a complete mess once I start moving sections around in Microsoft Word?

Thanks Vitreology (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vitreology: The reference list is built from the references inside the article's wikitext. Its not something you can export or import separately. I'm not sure how well importing the article to Word, editing, and then trying to export to wiki text will work. You may want to start with a small changes instead of a large rewrite to see how it goes before you spend a lot of time on this. RudolfRed (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vitreology: I will second what RudolfRed recommended above about "major rewrites". Generally, it's better to be WP:CAUTIOUS is such situations and work on improving an article gradually then to try and do so in one fell swoop. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which users try to improve and build upon the edits made by others. Unless an article is in absolutely horrible shape or is nothing more that a few sentences, completely disregarding the work of others who might have previously edited an article (without a really good policy based reason for doing so) is often viewed unfavorably and can lead to a quick revert per WP:BRD. By at least explaining what you'd like to do on the article's talk page, you're giving others a chance to offer feedback and perhaps point out policy or guideline issues that you might not be aware of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, if you have a look at it, I've written 99.9999% of the content of that page. There is not anyone else to consider at this stage. Vitreology (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's the case, then go ahead and knock yourself out. Making changes in bits and pieces can, however, still be beneficial to others since it makes it easier to follow what you're doing instead of trying to decipher one massive rewrite. Here are some suggestions on your rewrite. You should set thumbnail images to a fixed pixed width because it forces everyone to see the image at the same size regardless of the device they're using. This could create MOS:ACCESS issues for user who are reading the article, but who aren't using the same device that you're using. It's better to scale images instead as explained in MOS:UPRIGHT. You should try and refraing from using MOS:ALLCAPS whenever possible, even in citations. You should pick one of the acceptable WP:CITESTYLE and apply it consistently throughout the article. You should also avoid WP:BAREURLs whenever possible. You should also make sure the date format is consistent (including in citations) throughout the article per MOS:DATEUNIFY. Finally, you might want to consider other ways to display the images being used in the article since MOS:SANDWICHing too many images into an article can make it difficult to read, particularly for those using smartphones or other portable devices. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much appreciated, thank you.
I really would love to know how to cleanly extract the references from the article. I've tried many approaches and so far nothing has worked.
I'd really like to be able to export the article's reflist into either a RIS or BibTeX format. Vitreology (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Vitreology. Since the reflist does not exist until the Mediawiki software displays the page, it is unlikely there will be a solution unless somebody has specifically progammed it. A quick search does not offer anything. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Vitreology, if you have the Zotero browser extension it should be possible to extract the machine-readable metadata exposed by the standard citation templates as per Wikipedia:COinS. Specifically, it looks like it will give you a list of the refs on the page when you go through the right click context menu, with the options Zotero Connector > Save to Zotero > Save to Zotero (COinS), and you can then click select all in the window that pops up. I've taken a quick look at the page in question and it seems to work there. Alpha3031 (tc) 11:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vitreology: Go to the article, click "Edit source", select all the wikicode, copy it, and paste it into Word. When you move sections around in Word, be sure to move the associated references with them. When you copy from Word and paste back into the Wikipedia source editor, the Mediawiki software will take care of all the reference numbering and formatting for you. GoingBatty (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vitreology I wouldn't recommend using Word for this sort of editing offline. Much better to use text editors like WordPad, which won't mess around with the wikicode. Word will likely convert two consecutive ' characters into a single quote character ", or worse a smartquote character, which will ruin the code, because double ' characters are used to indicate italics. I edit offline all the time, just copy/pasting the new code into my sandbox to Preview the resulting text. There is no need to save/publish the sandbox as you proceed, since you will be saving the offline version. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to deal with following?[edit]

So an user has been following me. We got into an argument on one page which dragged on and now he has arrived on another page where I later went. What do I do if this continues? It is preventing me from editing freely. MrMkG (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the first instance I would recommend you to try to ignore it, refrain from editing that article or responding to their comments if you can and continue your editing elsewhere. Perhaps come back to that article at a later time when they've moved on to something else. If they continue to follow you across multiple articles then I would recommend reporting at WP:ANI. Polyamorph (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Situation - the dispute exists at length on the Talk page of MrMkG. Issue is editing disputes at what Wikipedia designates as contentious topics. David notMD (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you User:Polyamorph and User:David notMD. The problem is solved. He went away on his own saying he doesn't want to discuss with me anymore. I hope he will not follow me anymore.
It is true the topic is sensitive and I am not sure how to act right now. But I am seeing a much bigger problem on that page. The very charecter of the topic has been morphed into something else. Into a view that is not even put under any consideration in the academic world. Sources given as citations are not being followed and weird claims made nilly willy. Can you people come and see? I think it needs people to edit it who can look at the topic from a distance. MrMkG (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrMkG What article is the problem? Are you talking about Bangladesh genocide? -- asilvering (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'm trying to find information about a small company, but I just can't find any good sources. Do you all have any recommended websites to get good sources for beginners? Flobeigor (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Flobeigor We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this planned article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The issue is that the company is unlikely to be notable if you can find no useful references with ease. Look for news media, but beware PR material and press releases, both of which are inappropriate.Read HELP:YFA, and do not start to draft before you have references.
Are you connected with this company in any manner? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's my grandfather's one. I wanted to add it to the wikipedia But I know I can't just use ''my grandpa is the owner, so you should absolutely trust me'' Thanks, though. Flobeigor (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Flobeigor, you'll want to follow the instructions at WP:COI. I warn you also that it's pretty tough to write articles on companies, especially small ones, because the bar for notability is set very high. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the title in italics?[edit]

Hello, how can I make the italic title disappear? Buda Chronicle OrionNimrod (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OrionNimrod: This can be done by adding the parameter |italic title=no within the infobox template. Tollens (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Tollens, but do you know the reason why the title is italic if I did not use the "italic title" template? Because this is automatic because of the book template? OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The {{Infobox book}} template automatically italicizes the title, since book titles are typically written in italics. Tollens (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

नया रायपुर को अधिकारिक नाम नवा रायपुर करने हेतु[edit]

जब मै गूगल पर नवा रायपुर खोज करता हूं तो विकीपीडिया नया रायपुर प्रदर्शित करता है जो की उचित नहीं है इसमें सुधार की आवश्यकता है,क्या आप नवी मुंबई को नया मुंबई प्रदर्शित करते हैं तो यह नवा रायपुर के साथ क्यों? Mr.chhattisi (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machine translation:
To change the official name of Naya Raipur to Nava Raipur
When I search Nava Raipur on Google Wikipedia displays Naya Raipur which is not fair it needs improvement, do you display Navi Mumbai as Naya Mumbai then why it with Nava Raipur? Tollens (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Courtesy link: Naya Raipur Tollens (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr.chhattisi: I have moved the page to the title Nava Raipur. Please try to use English when contributing in the future, or provide a machine translation if you are unable to. You may also be interested in contributing to the Hindi Wikipedia.
मशीनी अनुवाद: मैंने पृष्ठ को नवा रायपुर शीर्षक पर स्थानांतरित कर दिया है। कृपया भविष्य में योगदान करते समय अंग्रेजी का उपयोग करने का प्रयास करें, या यदि आप असमर्थ हैं तो मशीनी अनुवाद प्रदान करें। आपको हिन्दी विकिपीडिया में योगदान देने में भी रुचि हो सकती है।. Tollens (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to others: I am not 100% confident in that pagemove but because I see an old talk page section with no replies asking about this exact rename, and because most recent sources used "Nava Raipur" over "Naya Raipur" in my brief search, I moved it – looks like the article doesn't get a whole lot of activity. If you disagree with the move please do feel free to revert me. Tollens (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Test result[edit]

As I'm new to Wikipedia, I have wrote 3 levels of articles in order to know how Wikipedia works. The first one is with very precise information: https://w.wiki/7sDF The second one is with so so good information: https://w.wiki/7sDC The 3rd one is with rough information: https://w.wiki/7uTC After uploading, the first one is OK with no comments. And the second one is OK with some comments. And the third one was deleted without any notice, and I asked why deleted to Japanese Wikipedia mailing-list. But there was no response from them. I have asked same thing here and got some responses. The problem is the 3rd article was deleted without any notice and no responses from Japanese Wikipedia mailing-list. I was very surprised by such unpleasant responses. I cannot trust such undemocratic interface for Wikipedia. So I decided not to use Wikipedia more. I think it is better to change Japanese Wikipedia managers. TomoakiKasuga (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am preparing a detailed response to this query. Please wait. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, TomoakiKasuga. Each language wiki operates under its own policies and guidelines, so we normally avoid commenting on issues beyond English Wikipedia. However, if I pretend for a moment that you had created those pages here on English Wikipedia, I would have had only minor concerns about the first two you linked to - namely that I would want to see more inline citations after each statement of fact, rather than just a list of hard-to access reference list just at the bottom. I would however have said "well done" on creating those two new articles - it's not an easy thing to do. I would hope you would have been encouraged by this.
Now, your third article would not fit within our ideas of an encyclopaedia article. It is more of a '"How to do it" article, and would hit our WP:NOTMANUAL policy. It was more of a chatty help page, better fitting a personal blog or magazine, not an encyclopaedia. It would not have survived long here, either, though I would have hoped someone would have had the courtesy to explain to you why this happened. I'm not aware of any mailing lists, but here we would expect an editor who has had article deleted to be able to approach the deleting administrator and politely seek an explanation.
I genuinely hope you are not put off by this experience and that you continue contributing to Japanese Wikipedia. I also had one of my first articles put up for deletion when I first started here - it is common that people do not always appreciate all the criteria under which Wikipedia works. In essence, it's an encyclopaedia of notable things, not an instructional aid, nor a site to promote a business, or favourite musician or pop personality. Don't let one hiccup put you off! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nick. Thanks for kind response. If there is a message like this in Japanese Wikipedia, it's nice. But I felt there is a very bad feelings in Japanese Wikipedia, so it's very hard to contribute to it. Anyway thanks for kind response. TomoakiKasuga (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TomoakiKasuga: You are most welcome. But I did notice that you actually received a reply on your talk page on Japanese Wikipedia to your email which did explain the circumstances. It was written by User:柏尾菓子, and you could always have responded to them on your talk page and asked questions. However, I think the message they left for you was very similar to the explanation I have outlined above, namely that your article was original research, or essay-like, so not acceptable for Japanese Wikipedia.
To be fair, many of us experienced editors are often accused of being rude or blunt here, too. We can come across as intolerant of simple errors made by new editors such as yourself. (That's why this 'Teahouse' forum was established, so as to be an extra-friendly place to seek advice).
But the reality is that on English Wikipedia we have 6.7 milllion existing articles and about 500 new ones created every single day, and hundreds more that fail to make it. On Japanese Wikipedia, you have 1.39 million articles. With so few volunteer editors on each project, we simply do not have the time to leave lengthy explanations. Instead, we rely on 'templated' messages which contain links to key policies. We sort of 'expect' new editors like yourself to take the time to read them, simply because we don't have that time ourselves to deal personally with the authors of every draft article that fails our 'notability' criteria. Inevitably those actions, be they rejection or immediate deletion of an inappropriate page, can leave people feeling mistreated.
The time we spend helping editors in the way you and I have interacted here is actually quite a rare thing - and that's what's makes the Teahouse a special place for new editors on English Wikipedia. I'm afraid I can't see an equivalent place specifically for new editors on Japanese Wikipedia (there's a language list at the top right of this page showing 31 different languages that do have one.) But this link should take you to the Japanese equivalent of our own Help Desk if you ever need help and guidance there. Happy editing and 幸運を! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nick, It's OK to delete with this process. But there was no process like this this time. So I was very surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/Speedy_deletion TomoakiKasuga (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TomoakiKasuga, お疲れ様でした, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I'm sorry you've had this negative experience on ja-wiki. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the only way ja-wiki will become friendlier is if more friendly people join it (and that means you!). So, please keep at it. It looks like your first article is notable, so it shouldn't be deleted. That's really good! Most people don't write an article that meets wikipedia's guidelines on the first try. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi asilvering Thanks for reply. It's good to hear my first article is good enough. It helps me to stay at Wikipedia. Thank you! :-) TomoakiKasuga (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nick, It's OK to delete with this process. But there was no process like this this time. So I was very surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/Speedy_deletion TomoakiKasuga (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments that have nothing to do with the topic[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confused!

 Courtesy link: Confused! Linked to the wrong article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 12:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at the first sentence. Is this relevant? Why does the mod reverse my editing saying my reason wasnt good enough to remove that? 87.69.169.120 (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a question you might ask (preferably after rewording for clarity) at the article's talk page. 1.33.56.248 (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the IP address was right to remove that. That edit clearly does not belong there and is a harassment edit against the President of the United States. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
incidentally, that was the wrong link
this is the right one
good job removing the vandalism :D cogsan(give me attention)(see my deeds) 12:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lemonaka is not a mod (or admin), just an editor patrolling for vandalism who didn't quite look closely enough at what they were reverting. I've re-added the disambig which got lost in the shuffle. IP editor, leaving more descriptive edit summaries can help prevent such reverts, but it's probably going to happen sooner or later. Discussing things with the reverting editor on their talk page usually clears up the situation. 57.140.16.31 (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Midori No Sora and @57.140.16.31, hello, welcome to the teahouse! I'm not regularly checking wiki issues today, and sorry a lot for lagging. This is totally my problem for nasty reverting without checking closely. The next time you may directly revert my edits with proper edit summary, and (or) leave a comment on my talk page and may get a quicker response.
Again, I do admit that I was a little bit puzzled yesterday, leaving messes for others to clean up. As for mod, no, I'm not a sysop, at least on this project. These are sysops, or modder whatever you called.
I'm just a common editor on this project. And even worse, I admit that I edited like a bot sometime, I've read that reply, nothing uncivil. I may get false positive and then reverted something helpful. If I did that, please help to give me feedback or ask me to stop directly.
In order to minimize future false positive, I will increase the ORES threshold for patrolling. Best wishes. -Lemonaka‎ 16:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, appreciate that :) 87.69.169.120 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lemonaka, in the context of Wikipedia, "sysop" is an established synonym for "administrator". But if it suggests that administrators operate the system (however defined), it's misleading and unfortunate. Administrators can, where appropriate, "delete" articles and other pages, and reverse such "deletions"; they can also change protection levels and block other users and reverse such blocks. And that's about it. Although they should avoid unnecessarily raising other users' tempers, they don't "moderate", and Wikipedia lacks moderators. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not autoconfirmed yet???[edit]

I should meet the requirements, but for some reason the user group hasn't been granted yet. Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your account is not four days old yet, it will be tomorrow(from my point of view). 331dot (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a particular need to be autoconfirmed? 331dot (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sort of. I'm in WikiProject Video Games, but a lot of game-related articles are semi-protected, so it minimizes the amount of work I can realistically get done on this particular project. Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian TBH: One day is not an unrealistic extra period of time to wait whilst you hone your editing skills. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Too late! ...Sockpuppet of a user banned from Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My edit has been removed; how do I find out why?[edit]

Hello.

I am a new Wikipedia user, finding my way.

Earlier today I dded this edit to the Wikipedia page of HSBC bank:

Violations record

HSBC's violation record in Violation Tracker UK can be found here.

HSBC's violation record in Violation Tracker USA can be found here.

But when I go to that page I see what I added is no longer there.

Does anybody know why?

What I added was purely factual, so it's not as if I have behave irresponsibly.

Any thoughts please, anybody?

Thanks for any help that might be offered. One of many Concerned Citizens (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of many Concerned Citizens Wikipedia is not the place for you to give your views about HSBC or to tell people where to find information about it. Per the article edit history your edit was removed. If you have independent reliable sources that report on documented violations of regulations or the law that have been adjudicated, please offer them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, One of many. I recommend you also read WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going forward, Wikipedia advises that editors be bold in their edits, but if reverted (what was deleted can be seen at View history), then discuss on the Talk page of the article to see if consensus can be reached. Editor 331dot suggested a path to presenting information with reliable references. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Three Sons Episode page[edit]

Does anyone know why seasons 10, 11 & 12 cannot be viewed on the List of My Three Sons episodes page. They were there not long ago. The source code for the three seasons are there. They work perfectly when seen with preview. A lot of work went into those seasons and they should be viewable. Thanks for any help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_My_Three_Sons_episodes# Entercontainment (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already answered at the help desk. Entercontainment don't post a question on both Teahouse and Help desk as it will lead to a waste of volunteer effort. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am so sorry. This is the first time I've done this. Again, I'm so sorry. Entercontainment (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What staff tools have age limits?[edit]

Okay, I'm 12, but I've been starting to correct vandalism, and am thinking about submitting a request for Rollback rights on the wiki in a few months. Are there any age requirements for user groups, and which ones would I even be able to obtain at my age? Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian Hello, welcome to the teahouse. Usually rollback does not have any age requirements, the only hard requirements for something is related to privacy, for example, checkuser, VRT and Oversighter. However, usually sysops are preferred to be adults. -Lemonaka‎ 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For children, especially younger children on this project, I strongly recommend you to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors -Lemonaka‎ 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP blocked as sockpuppet, my blindness. -Lemonaka‎ 10:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biographical article[edit]

I've been working on a biographical article but having trouble getting accurate, good references. One editor suggested the sandbox. Can I copy and paste the entire article to my sandbox and can others still offer advice and editing there. Otherwise, what is the point?

What the heck is this? I just asked my question above here... Nricketts (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Nricketts, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you typed your question into the subject field, which means it turned into the title of a post rather than an actual post. I've tweaked it a bit for you. 57.140.16.31 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Arnold Hendrick - 57.140.16.31 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Nricketts. I don't understand what you're saying about the sandbox: it seems irrelevant to me, as you have a draft in Draft:Arnold Hendrick, and you can continue working on that draft.
If you are having difficulty finding good references, it may be that Hnedrick does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - unfortunately people in some creative areas simply don't get written about much. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I just added another reference. I know there are more I just don't have the time it takes to mess with this. Nricketts (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nricketts: When you say that you "don't have the time", do you mean to track down the references, or to format them for Wikipedia? If it's the formatting, let us know, because this can be mostly automated from a URL/ISBN/ETC. Rjjiii (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

انا أريد العمل في المزارع[edit]

Mohamd alabou 160.164.181.142 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machine translation: I want to work on farms Tollens (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article Farm can certainly be edited by IP users, providing content is added in English and cited to WP:Reliable Sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello IP editor! You may be interested in WikiProject Agriculture, or some of these articles? Please try to use English when contributing in the future, or provide a machine translation if you are unable to do so – you might alternatively prefer to contribute to the Arabic Wikipedia. Tollens (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unexplained removals[edit]

There have been unexplained removal of sentences from some Islam related articles like Rape in Pakistan, Kafir etc. especially after the 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict started. I request editors to restore sourced text wherever they are being removed.-112.133.244.13 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked in the history of Rape in Pakistan. It took only a few seconds for me to understand that the removal is explained as the work of sockpuppets. If I misunderstand, feel free to bring up the matter in Talk:Rape in Pakistan. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Hoary! Though not involved, I found your statement above ambiguous. Do you mean the removals were performed by sockpuppets (as your text literally means) or that it was the work of sockpuppets that was being removed?
Barbardo, as an involved editor who has been very active in this and other related articles, do you want to enlarge on what's being going on? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that was poorly written. Better: "the removals were described as deletion of additions by sockpuppets", or similar. Specifically:
However, the teahouse isn't the best place to discuss this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary The above IP is a sockpuppet of 1Firang. I reverted their (now blocked) IP and 2 other accounts who I believe are sockpuppets of a proxy abusing socks of @Lau Cheng based on the editing pattern (which I had done on multiple other articles weeks ago). Though I didn't explain why I reverted the IP. I believe Barbardo was doing the same. Kiu99 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[1][2] Okay this is definitely the sockpuppet of 1Firang. The sneaky canvassing attempts they are making here is a thing have done before to win edit wars. Kiu99 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP who posted this turned out to be the same sockpuppet as before. Barbardo (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.133.244.13
Just adding the IP it was a block evasion attempt Barbardo (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem uploading the translation[edit]

Good day,

I translated my webside from Czech to English and run into a problem uploading the translation. Wikipedia tells me I need confirmation from an Experience Editor. How should I proceed please? I am a new member.

Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards

Mária Lobotková Mária Lobotková (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome. You need to submit your draft for a review using the Article Wizard. Accounts new to the English Wikipedia cannot directly create articles. Please understand that the English Wikipedia likely has different rules than the Czech Wikipedia, you will need to make sure that your topic meets our definition of notability and sourcing requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translating non-English text to use in English Wikipedia articles,[edit]

Can anybody point me to any protocols on translating text from other languages for inclusion in articles, please?

When the article is of little importance, an effort by contributors themselves, or even by online translation, may be sufficient. But when we get to subjects of any significance, it is easy to see that through ignorance, bias or incompetence contributors could be corrupting the original material, with consequences ranging from just embarrassing to dangerous.

Should the source of all translations be logged, so that we can judge their reliability? Belle Fast (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:TRANSLATION for guidance. Since you are extended-confirmed, you can use WP:CXT, which... has benefits and has problems. Edward-Woodrowtalk 12:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you use CXT, @Belle Fast, my advice is to have the draft publish to your userspace, not to mainspace (you can change this in the settings, but you have to do it for each individual article you translate - annoying). Then you can fix up the problems that CXT creates. Otherwise, you will probably get hounded by over-eager new page patrollers before you get a chance to make any fixes. -- asilvering (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Belle Fast Note that many newcomers to translation don't realise that each Wikipedia language version has its own rules about notability and the ones here for the English Wikipedia are quite stringent. Make sure that the foreign-language article has adequate sourcing so you can establish that notability, either from the existing sources or by adding extra ones you have found independently, or your work may be wasted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to make sandbox ready for AFC?[edit]

Every time i click on the link to my sandbox, it redirects to Honeycomb moray (disambiguation), is there a way to get it to not be a redirect (and make it possible for an AFC submission) Abdullah raji (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdullah raji you submitted it for review successfully. It was moved to Draft:Honeycomb moray (disambiguation) as the draft prefix is preferred for drafts. Someone accepted the draft, and it was finally moved to Honeycomb moray (disambiguation).
If you want to remove a redirect, you can click on the little pop up at the top of the page that says "(Redirected from XY)", then you can edit the page as normally. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Template:Improve categories" resolutions?[edit]

Hi friends, I’ve been coming across a few instances where there is a “Template:Improve categories” in an article, followed by several edits adding appropriate categories, but I haven't seen any guidance/consensus on what constitutes *enough* categories or time passed for when such a template can and should be removed, and haven't yet come across anything on talk pages reflecting on this. I'm curious, when is it the right time to remove such a Template? Would love any ideas or wisdom you might have <3 TL;DR -- when is it safe to remove a "Template:Improve categories"? Waterfelt (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Waterfelt, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure I've seen any specific guidance on this either. Maybe there is some I've overlooked, but I'd suggest this is more of a subjective matter. You didn't list any examples, so it's hard to comment. Obviously, the basic ones do need to be included so that any topic can be grouped with similar articles to aid its discovery. You could look at very similar articles and see what categories they have been placed in. Reading the article right the way through to ensure all the main potential categorisation possibilities have been addressed. If you're confident they have been reasonably addressed, then by all means remove the template. If not, leave it there for another editor to stress over! Further information at WP:Categorization and WP:Categorization dos and don'ts. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much Nick Moyes. This is super helpful. I had an inkling this sort of subjective judgement was the case, but didn't want to just assume as a newcomer. Cheers! Waterfelt (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where can I find toppage to message[edit]

I need to measage a person from toppage where do i find it Spideog&123 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spideog&123 I think you mean the Talk Page of another editor that you wish to use to leave them a message. The link to these pages is in their signature, although yours is currently a redlink because it doesn't currently have any content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Mike. Spideog&123 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, help me with templates. Need their fix. СтасС (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@СтасС: The template {{EIy}} does not exist. What are you trying to do with it? Perhaps an alternative can be found. RudolfRed (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.--СтасС (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a template in uk-wiki, uk:Шаблон:ЕІУ, which formats references to the Encyclopaedia of Ukrainian History [uk].
The article reads like machine translation, so I thought it was an unacknowledged translation from Історія Ямполя, but in fact that was only created today (and is likely an unattributed translation from the English article). ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much.--СтасС (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding indexing of my article[edit]

Recently I have created an article Premanand Ji Maharaj, but still this article is not indexed on Google search ?? What thing is preventing this article from indexing? WikiAnchor10 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, WikiAnchor10. In most cases, a new article is not indexed for search engines until either it has been reviewed by a New Pages Patroller, or 90 days has passed. Read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for detailed information. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Premanand Ji Maharaj says that its subject is a sanyasi and a spiritual teacher, but doesn't explain what he's notable for. I assume that if I could read Hindi I could find out from the sources; but it would be good to see more explanation in the article. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how do I make a article[edit]

i don't know how 207.192.241.227 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, as an IP, you are limited in what you can do. I would recommend creating an account and then following the advice at this page. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that nearly everybody who tries to create a new article as the first thing they do has a frustrating and miserable time, because it takes some time to understand the rather singular requirements of Wikipedia. For this reason I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles - especially adding references where they are lacking (this is the most time consuming and sometimes difficult part of editing, but it is an absolute non-negotiable requirement for creating a new article. If you try to create a new article without understanding sources, you will fail).
I remember when I started editing, eighteen years ago, I so much wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article. Now I know that there are far far far more valuable ways to improve Wikipedia than creating new articles - I've only ever created a dozen or so. ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsalting[edit]

Hi, I was going to accept Draft:Elvish Yadav but the title has been salted. Can you please tell me the process for unsalting, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Atlantic306. WP:Protection_policy#create says . Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § Current requests for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks, i'll make a request, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted article move to draftspace[edit]

Would an admin be kind of nough to move the deleted article for Adam Guillette to draftspace? He's been in the news lately and I'd like to see what was there. Also a possible lerge candidate to Accuracy in Media. Thank you kindly. The deleting admin is "semi-retired". Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can move it into your user space. Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be great User:Ruslik0. Can you please alert me when it's moved and where? Thanks! Have a great weekend. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page[edit]

Hi there, I just made and sent my first page for review. Please could somebody check it for me Journalist0071 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Journalist0071 and welcome to the Teahouse.
You are asking about Draft:Navina Evans, right?
You need a source for the Awards section. Your section titles need to be fixed (the edit button is not a part of the section header). We have a policy document called MOS:LASTNAME which you have not consistently followed. There are other parts of that document that apply to where the title Dr. or post-nomial CBE should be given.
I question whether the photo you took is your "own work", given that the same photo appears at the top of a letter published by Evans on the NHS website.
Look again at each of your sources to determine if they represent secondary, independent reporting about Evans. Too much dependence on "official" sources is a problem because they cannot be used to establish notability. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite what jmcgnh says, it looks like a reasonable job for a first attempt, but I haven't looked closely. I am not a reviewer, and your draft will sit in the heap until a reviewer chooses to pick it up. That might be tomorrow, or it might be months away. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Journalist0071, GoingBatty perhaps suggests that provision of a reference for the "Awards" section is all that this draft needs before resubmission. If this is indeed what's meant, then I warmly disagree. The draft isn't all bad, but it's written in PR-speak. Please see Draft talk:Navina Evans#Prose. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidance on an article for deletion[edit]

I was asked to review 1986 Lewisham London Borough Council election.

The 'This article has multiple issues.' dates back to July 2019 and June 2021. I agreed with those comments and proposed that the article should be deleted.

The editor who removed that proposal seems to be the author of the incomplete information from May 2010.

I do not understand the reason given for keeping the article: "not prodable".

As the editor responded promptly, I consider that they would have been aware of the 'multiple issues' concerns. Does the other editor have a COI by being the author?

Please can someone else consider this matter. I only came to this article because it was one that needed consideration. BlueWren0123 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@bluewren0123: you have already asked this question here. please do not ask questions in more than one place. ltbdl (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user make a big mistake of Julie Brown's birth year.[edit]

The user 2600:1004:B11A:5DAA:94D2:A4BF:4C7C:D061 has messed up the year of the actress Julie Brown 1958. Not 1954. The user is making a mistake. I have fixed the right year. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference shown for the birth date of Julie Brown does not mention when she was born. Would you be able to find a reliable reference that states the year of her birth? Karenthewriter (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Karenthewriter: The reference does have a date, at least for me – if you scroll up there is a "Born" field. I can alter the URL so that it loads the page at the top rather than the middle; I was also initially confused about where the date was in the cited source. Tollens (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fiction Category Question[edit]

There's Books set in ??? categories.

There's TV shows set in ??? categories.

There's Films set in ??? categories.

But are there any categories for places which are the main topic, but aren't actually set there?

For example Spine Chillers' Bradford in my Dreams where the main topic is the City of Bradford. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's Category:Books about cities; this does already include for example Category:Books about London, but it doesn't seem to have yet been much exploited. Rightly or wrongly, it's a subcategory of Category:Non-fiction books by topic; this may inhibit its use for fiction. -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not familiar with Bradford in my Dreams. Are you saying it is set somewhere other than Bradford? I'm struggling to understand how a film could not be set in a place if that place is its main topic. In any case I suspect there are too few examples to warrant a separate category. Shantavira|feed me 08:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you submit someone else's article draft?[edit]

I'd like to know if that is allowed, because I just stumbled upon a draft that looked very good and worth for submitting even though it was never edited by me. EditorEpic (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @EditorEpic: you can, at least technically speaking, in the sense that nobody 'owns' any draft or article. Whether you should is a different matter: there may be a reason why the author hasn't submitted it yet, and they might be upset if you do so prematurely (in their opinion). As a courtesy, you should probably at least ask them first if it's okay to do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EditorEpic: If you're referring to Draft:Quackity, I would advise against submitting it right now – it currently does not have the sources that would be required to demonstrate the subject's notability, and so would be almost certainly declined. Before any draft is submitted, it should have at least three references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject which discuss the subject of the draft. Draft:Quackity currently only has references to YouTube videos (which are unreliable because anyone can make them), news sources which are either considered unreliable (see WP:RSP#Sportskeeda and WP:RSP#Distractify) or not sufficient to establish notability (see WP:RSP#Dexerto), and sources which are automatically generated and therefore considered routine. If you're able to find additional sources that would demonstrate that the draft meets the notability guidelines, feel free to add them in and submit the draft, but it doesn't appear likely to be accepted in its current state. Tollens (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Wikipedia page has not been published.[edit]

Hello, My name is Harmangeet SIngh and i creat a page of a actor, lyricist and poet but My Wikipedia page has not been published. Harmangeet Singh (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's right, Harmangeet Singh, Draft:Binder Pal Fateh hasn't been converted into an article. On 20 March '23, it was rejected. As Bonadea wrote at the time:
No independent sources, no sources that discuss him at any depth, no secondary sources. This source doesn't even mention him, this is a listing on a website whose aim is "providing services to the Actors and Models fraternity", the textile-industries source doesn't mention him and anyway it's just another database listing, and we can't use an autogenerated page about a song as a source.
You were asked to stop working on this. That didn't work, and therefore I'll repeat: Please stop working on this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Draft for review.[edit]

Hello, I’ve completed a wiki draft titled “Draft:The Phone Up Studios Inc”. can someone kindly review the article. I don’t want to submit it for actual review and it disappoint me. So if someone can take a look, and let me know if you do you think that it will pass approval, or if not give kindly explain what needs to be corrected.

Thanks! Hjared (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hjared, where are the reliable sources that describe or discuss this company in depth? -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meanwhile, let me quote: This not only marked the conclusion of an era but also signified a profound transformation. Through a final and momentous process of rebranding and restructuring, they emerged anew as The Phone Up Studios. The conclusion of an era? A profound transformation? A momentous process? I read this stuff, and, wondering about its authorship, I read this -- and somehow I can't take seriously what I read. But then I don't have a PhD. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image discussion[edit]

Please, what are the steps to be taken as an editor of you feel that an image on an article (infobox image) should be replaced or removed? I have already started a discussion on the article's talk page but I want some form of official contributions from other editors. Jõsé hola 11:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]