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

Deleted articule[edit]

Hi. I updated my boss info, but you guys think something is wrong or not true about it. So the info was not updated. I would like to know what is exactly wrong or what should I fix. DEBBI B 02 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:COI. Don't edit the article. Make suggestions on the talk page; provide reliable sources per WP:RS for your uggested changes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DEBBI B 02 There is a useful essay at WP:BOSS which you should read carefully and maybe show to him. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Courtesy link: Juan Carlos Paz y Puente
@DEBBI B 02, the most important thing you need to do is to provide published, reliable sources that support the information you want to add. Information that comes directly from you or from your boss without a source is not acceptable. You will also need to significantly tone down the promotional language like "has carved an illustrious career as a versatile and accomplished musician, leaving an indelible mark on the mexican music industry through his multifaceted talents", which is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. But the most important thing is to find sources. CodeTalker (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really clear.
Thanks a lot. DEBBI B 02 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added biographical data that was removed[edit]

Hi. I added biographical data to a page but it was removed. I don't understand why. OraGordon (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OraGordon it would help if you could show us the edit you're concerned about. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably this diff. You are adding inline external links (in this edit, in your Kindertransport. These are not permitted per WP:EL. I guess the Deborah Oppenheimer could be added with a reference, possibly Help:Referencing for beginners will help, idk. The Kindertransport Association external link is already listed in the external links section at the foot of the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Yes, that's correct. That was the paragraph. Am I permitted to add that detail without the external link? OraGordon (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OraGordon Yes, provided you still cite the source at the URL. Using the template {{cite web}} will work fine (see the template link for the parameters needed). Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your response and guidance in this matter. Take care. OraGordon (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OraGordon: I've re-added the content with a properly formatted citation to the article yesterday; so, there's nothing more you need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your response and help in this matter. Take care. OraGordon (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why is it not showing my impact?[edit]

i've gone into my homepage 3 times today, yet it still isn't showing

Abdullah raji (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean? The context of this is unclear. Equalwidth (C) 05:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, now it's working; anyways, if you don't know, it basically shows your stats in context of the wider project (sorry for my bad wording) Abdullah raji (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the curious, Special:Impact works for all users. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see a white square with the words "Your impact" in the top left corner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abdullah raji has "Display newcomer homepage" enabled at the bottom of Special:Preferences. I think it has been enabled by default for new users since it was introduced. It shows Special:Impact and more when you click your username at the top of pages. It works for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I enabled the homepage but "impact" is blank for me there too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will confirm it's working for me as well. Might be a Javascript issue? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:Impact/Gråbergs Gråa Sång also fails for me. I guess the feature doesn't like you. Special:Impact/Abdullah raji, Special:Impact/PrimeHunter and Special:Impact/Tenryuu all work for me. Special:Impact/Gråmunken also works so "å" doesn't break it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps my impact can't be measured with rational means. Your other examples work for me too, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your Swedish impact is measurable. sv:Special:Impact/Gråbergs Gråa Sång works for me so maybe sv:Special:Impact works for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, it's broken for me as well. I wonder what's causing this. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Impact/Gråbergs Gråa Sång works now! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hanuman page[edit]

Hi, I was just reading the Hanuman page and I removed a mention of some specific authors before I hit control+F and saw that one author was mentioned 48 times. I'm sure some of those times are just the bibliography but still, that seems to be way too many times to mention one author. More importantly, authors are typically mentioned in encyclopedia-style writing. Am I missing something? Can someone please explain this to me? Sorry for messaging here if there is somewhere else to ask these type of questions please let me know. Here is the url: Hanuman Thank you. Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hemmingweigh, you have already asked about this on the article's talk page. Wait for a few days for responses. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, of course! I will try to be patient. My question on the talk page was about two other authors. This question is about one single author being mentioned in the text of an article numerous times. Looking forward to some input. Hemmingweigh (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hemmingweigh, welcome to the Teahouse! Since Wikipedia articles are written by volunteers, sometimes we don't have all the sources available on a topic. If an editor has done a lot of work on an article but only has access to a few high quality sources, it's not uncommon for those sources to be cited very many times. This is especially true for topics where most of the sources are not in English, and editors have relied heavily on one or a few specialist English language treatments. Folly Mox (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your response Folly Mox. My question is about specifically naming an author. Citing them is understandable but all the encyclopedias I've read do not name authors in the text just cite them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemmingweigh (talkcontribs) 16:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hemmingweigh Part of the problem in Hanuman is that a single book (Lutgendorf, (2007)) is cited dozens of times with different page numbers. One simplification would be to have one single {{cite book}} and then use {{rp}} to mention the specific pages at each instance in the text. The same book certainly doesn't need to be in "further reading"! An alternative citation style is to have the sources at the end and use the {{sfn}} template. I agree that continually mentioning an author's name in the text is unnecessary unless giving an exact quote. Good luck with your tidying-up efforts! Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Michael, thank you for your input! I was feeling unsure about the rules/norms and so just wanted to confirm that it was in fact not useful to repeat the an authors name so frequently here. Will get to work removing specific mentions of the author's name and then try and clean up the citations afterward if I can figure it out. Thanks again to you and everyone else for addressing my question. Hemmingweigh (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it possible that some wikipedians are using their personal perspective to delete topics they think are not according to their view of the world? I am asking this, as an article that is published in the Dutch section without much sources was accepted, while it was denied after I translated it into english by a person who comes from a culture opposite to the culture of the topic. See the bottom of this page Basvossen (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basvossen, many people edit Wikipedia with a bias. However, in this case, the article, Draft:Livin' Blues did not have any sources and was moved to draftspace because of that. A perfectly valid reason. You may have thought that, since the Dutch Wikipedia had the article, English Wikipedia should have the same. Unfortunately, the two Wikipedias are separate projects and have separate standards of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please read the Your First Article page, as most of the content in your article right now is unacceptable. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 23:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Along with the above, I would be remiss not to point out that your comment about "who comes from a culture opposite to the culture of the topic" is both meaningless and incredibly rude, and to me clearly counts as a personal attack, the likes of which are not tolerated here. Remsense 23:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't have any idea what it could mean, until I went to the draftifying editor's userpage. Now I have an idea, and it isn't good; it goes far beyond personal attack. Basvossen, please don't make comments like this on Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was attempting to be accurate while remaining Teahouse-normative, but I may have undershot. Remsense 23:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scrolling up their talk page, I see it's not the first such comment they've made, either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A comparatively rare Teahouse boomerang, perhaps. Remsense 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible that some wikipedians are using their personal perspective to delete topics they think are not according to their view of the world? while it is possible, its bias and highly discouraged. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (talk to me!) (Slim Shady) 21:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Basvossen for repeated misconduct of various kinds. Cullen328 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

image for earthscraper page[edit]

i made a page on earthscrapers and i was hoping to add an image taken from this article, and i do not want to violate any fair use rules. I have gotten pretty good at knowing how and when fair use applies in the case of movie posters or book covers, but i am still quite novice at this when it comes to just images found online like this. if this can't be used, it can't be used, but i would like to learn if this is possible, what the guidelines are around that. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Images from the article you point to cannot be used; mainly, it fails criteria 1: No free equivalent. It is easy to conceive of an equivalent being created. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what do you mean an equivalent being created? who could help with that? you mean such as someone graphically designing their own unlicensed work that could go on the page? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone providing a graphic either as a CC0 or CC licenced image, yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See, for instance, Wikipedia:Requested pictures and Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iljhgtn: You keep referring to "fair use" by posting things like fair use rules and knowing how and when fair use applies in the case of movie posters or book covers, even though it's been pointed out to you above that "fair use" and "non-free content" aren't exactly the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia. CNN has no problems using the image you've linked to above on their website because they can make a valid fair use claim to do so under US copyright law; Wikipedia, more specifically English Wikipedia, has established its own house policy regarding the use of copyrighted content and this policy is, by design, much more restrictive than fair use. "Fair use" is a concept recognized under US copyright law, but it's not a universal internationally. Some countries follow something called fair dealing, but many countries don't allow such things at all. Similarly, when it comes to Wikimedia Foundation Project's like the various language Wikipedias or Wikimedia Commons, the policy regarding the use of such content varies quite a bit. Some, like Commons, allow zero fair use content as explained here and here, others like English Wikipedia allow such content to be used but with lots of restrictions. So, if you're going to start working in this area of (English) Wikipedia, you'll probably be better off if you avoid using the two terms interchangeably when discussing non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ah that makes sense. i will say "non-free content" now. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can anyone make a comparison of the following two articles based on their quality, source, info, number of images etc?---

Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Shami Red Round Thing (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Red Round Thing, welcome to teahouse. I don't get the reason to compare the articles. Both the articles are well written and cite reliable sources. If you have any other query, let us know. Leoneix (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current ratings of Stub and Start respectively are outdated. Both should be at least C-class. David notMD (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD: I changed both to C-class. Someone else can assess for B class if they like. GoingBatty (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this draft non-notable/WP:TOOSOON?[edit]

Hello, (other) Teahouse hosts. It has been some time since I dived into content creation, and I came across a company that has been making news headlines because of its launch of an AI text-to-video model.
I wanted to know whether or not this company, Pika Labs, or its model, Pika 1.0, necessarily merits an article. It appears to be covered by multiple reliable sources, so I assume it may meet WP:GNG, but I also wanted to receive some clarification if it was simply too soon to create this draft. Thanks!3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 04:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the stories seem to revolve around their $55M funding, with a sprinking of the inflated expectations phase of the AI hype cycle. WP:CORPDEPTH cautions against routine stories arising out of funding announcements. I would not be rushing to co-opt wikipedia into their PR blitz. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tagishsimon – OK! I will wait and check for further developments—if their model appears to revolutionize the market similar to ChatGPT, I will add the information and the sources promptly and then consider publishing to mainspace, but if the coverage is only ephemeral I will wait until further developments or the draft will be G13'd. Thanks!3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 12:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best donation method[edit]

I haven’t donated to Wikimedia Foundation in recent memory. This year I want to donate $30 Canadian. I can make a one-time credit card payment, or $2.50 a month all year.

1. If I donate a lump sum, will the foundation lose a smaller portion to service charges?

2. How big a cut do payment processors take? Egmonster (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Egmonster, Kindly note that Teahouse is for getting help for editing Wikipedia. For common donation issues and queries see and if you are facing problems donating, email at Leoneix (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While Leoneix is techniclly correct, none of the FAQs and other directly linked info seems to directly address what Egmonster is asking, except to point to that email adddress (among other [1] info) get answers to these "back-end" types of questions. DMacks (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demographic detail[edit]

On Frederick, Kansas: is this level of demographic detail appropriate for a settlement with less than 20 people? Kk.urban (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question, Kk.urban. No, it's meaningless and ludicrous. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What should be done about this? Technically, the US Census Bureau has the same amount of information about this settlement as any other city, but it does seem pointless. I don't know what should remain, or if there is some other group to discuss this with (WikiProject United States or something?) Kk.urban (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although it is somewhat absurd, it might be easier to leave it be. At the least, you'd have to come up with a heuristic linking population with extent of demographic detail: what size of population qualifies an article for such detail, at what population size should such detail be removed? On the face of it, the WP community has already discussed this sort of thing as part of the Rambot controversy, ~20 years ago. Frederick, Kansas is a Rambot article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, good points. It is now three years past the 2020 census, for which the same information is available, yet there has been no concerted effort to add it. What kind of information does Wikipedia actually want here? And should 2000 and 2010 data remain simply because that's when Wikipedia was created? Kk.urban (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This kind of thing also gets ported to other Wikipedias and external websites. For example, I am doing a mass update of US places in the Simple English Wikipedia. Kk.urban (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is ideal to have historic data in articles; it's probably possible to condense the text somewhat. But WP is nowhere near ideal; it lacks much of the (pre-2000) data that cannot easily be accessed by bots, and as you observe, lacks anyone to curate this article, let alone the tens of thousands of other articles. So I don't have a good answer for you, just a bad answer, which is that you should not be hasty about jettisoning information because it is not current. Meanwhile EN WP is not responsible for downstream uses of its data. If Simple EN wikipedia takes from EN wikipedia, so be it; EN wikipedia should not tailor its articles just because that happens. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was amused by the spurious precision of sentences like "There were 7 households, out of which none had children under the age of 18 living with them, 57.1% were married couples living together, and 42.9% were non-families". Maproom (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be (undeservedly) benevolent to this ridiculous article, I think that almost every article about a place with a population is ridiculous. Podunk, New York is a rare exception, so I'll take nearby Ithaca, New York. This tells us, in all seriousness, that "As of 2020, the city's population was 32,108." The precision is spurious, but it will have plenty of indignant defenders. (Ithaca is also -- very typically of a Wikipedia article -- "Situated on the southern shore of Cayuga Lake in the Finger Lakes region of New York, Ithaca is [blah blah]"; the word "situated" contributes nothing to the sentence, but editors wouldn't be happy about its removal.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#invoke:citation/CS1 appearing in citation[edit]

i am trying to cite a certain article on a page then this appears. Can you help me? Filipinohere (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which article? David notMD (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
its on List of earthquakes in 2023, I was trying to cite a Bengali language news article and then noticed that error which I've never experienced before on two years of editing in Wikipedia. Also another citation shows Template:Cite news. Filipinohere (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's happened is that the page is so big that the Wikipedia:Post-expand include size has been exceeded. This means that templates will not work past a certain point on the page. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 13:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tucson International Airport article fix.[edit]

Hello and good day. Go to Tucson Int'l Airport article, go to infobox on right, scroll down to Runways, where it says 8,408, column next to it that says convert:invalid number, replace with 2,563 with a line clear through it. Dont know how to correct this. Thank you for your assistance.Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done The runway 11R/29L is permanently closed and the data syntax is hidden now. Leoneix (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#invoke:navbox/template:navbox appearing in template[edit]

On the List of earthquakes in 2023 article, on the bottom of the page, the templates "earthquakes of 2023" and "earthquakes by year" appear. However recently, they have been replaced by linked text that says "Template:Navbox" "#invoke:Navbox" instead. The navbox templates haven't been edited in a while so I think the 2023 earthquakes page is the problem here. My friend also encountered a similar error where a Bengali language citation said "#invoke:citation/CS1", which I somehow manage to fix. What's the problem behind the navbox error and how can it be fixed? Quake1234 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See that next-to-last thread above this one, titled "#invoke:citation/CS1 appearing in citation". The article contains too many templates for the software to render all of them. Deor (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect and incomplete entry for me, Benjamin Huberman.[edit]

The entry for me -- Benjamin Huberman -- is incorrect and incomplete in several major respects. Is there a way to remedy this? 2601:703:100:FA10:C86A:3237:6C32:1F87 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Incorrect" and "incomplete" are two separate issues. All entries on all topics are incomplete in all encyclopedias; this is the nature of history.
Can you be more specific as to what is incorrect? DS (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia wants its biographies to be correct and equally is happy to expand them with citations to reliable sources. Advice for article subjects is given at WP:ASFAQ. Specifically, you can make suggestions to improve the article by posting on its Talk Page at Talk:Benjamin Huberman. Since you have a conflict of interest, it is best to use the template {{edit COI}} to make suggestions (click the link for details), so that uninvolved editors can decide whether your suggestion fits with our policies, the most important of which in this context is this one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

date a new article is reviewed[edit]

i added the gadget that lets me see when a new article is reviewed, now it has a little green checkmark next to the article title when its reviewed, but if i was curious about the actual date and time that an article is reviewed after the fact, is that another gadget? how culd i learn that information? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can find the date it was reviewed using Special:Log. I have a userscript, I believe it is Twinkle, that adds a link to the page log to the top of every page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i have twinkle, but i dont see what you are referring to. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me there is a tab at the top of each page called "Page", upon clicking which one of the options that appears is "Page logs". Might be another gadget or script providing these then. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page Review[edit]

I made this article - Mickey Charles - in September, but it never shows up on Google when searched for. Can an administrator review it, so it shows up? Thanks! Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i have a couple as well: Earthscraper, The Foundation for Harmony and Prosperity, and maybe another i'd need to check. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why can't we start a discussion on some Talk pages?[edit]

Not the best example but clicking on the big add topic button should do the trick

Some Talk pages don't have a "Start a discussion" button. Instead they have a "Read as Wiki page" in the bottom. Aminabzz (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should probably report this to the technical team. I’ve never seen any talk page like this. Equalwidth (C) 19:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Equalwidth They are talking about the mobile web layout.
@Aminabzz If the talk page is a red link, you will get a start dicussion message, if not, you should get a 'Add topic' button just above 'read as wiki page' which should allow you to start a discussion thread. Sohom (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: Please provide a link to the pages you are reporting a problem with. RudolfRed (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is one of them Aminabzz (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: I see an "Edit" icon near the top of the page. I think you can use that to start a new section, but I never use the mobile interface. RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Aminabzz (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Someone is going in and changing incorrectly to Volga German page and Juan Ciscomonni page! How do I stop that? Also a Chinese lobbyist, Urban, changed incorrectly! USA forefather founder Col. Southworth (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please create a separate post, you are technically posting under “Why can't we start a discussion on some Talk pages?”. Equalwidth (C) 19:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a new heading. RudolfRed (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appears that IP removed content twice from Volga Germans and it was restored and the editor warned. I did not see evidence of vandalism at Juan Ciscomani. Your May 2023 edits to that article were reverted as not referenced and not neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Handling sources in translation[edit]

Hey! I have been thinking a good way to train language skills might be to translate some wiki articles. So, I am trying to translate this article סעד מלכי [he] from Hebrew to English. I noticed that the references in this article are Hebrew-language newspaper clippings, preserved by the National Library of Israel. Can they be used in the English article too? Will this [1] way of referencing work? I inserted my own translation of the title of the article, and referenced it basically the way it is referenced in the Hebrew wiki. In WP:RSUE and WP:TRANSCRIPTION it sounds like in principle this is OK, but since the source is a scanned image I would guess this is hard to verify (one can't just paste the result in to google translate for example). MyOrbs (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC) MyOrbs (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "The land of Israel and the Balfour Declaration". 12 July 1923. Retrieved 2023-12-02.
@MyOrbs: Foreign language sources are allowed, but English language sources are preferred. I am not clear on what your citation question is. RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted confirmation that the reference I added will be OK, since it feels a bit hard to verify. But it seems to comply with the rules, and you make no complaint, so I will carry on :) MyOrbs (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For url use with all the extra stuff at the end. RudolfRed (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, indeed its possible to see the full publications as your link does, I used that in cases where the "clipping" only shows a part of an article. And now my draft is done!
I am a bit confused by what happened to the image, I think I messed something up there...(investigating) MyOrbs (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're doing great! I see you're using the content translation tool. That does tend to break some formatting (it's going to break everything a little bit differently depending on the origin wiki), so it's probably not your mistake, actually. Just keep sending your drafts to userspace instead of mainspace like you did for this one, and you'll be able to check anything that screwed up before sending it to mainspace.
A warning for you when translating from other wikis: make sure that you're translating something that meets WP:N and WP:V as defined by English Wikipedia. It looks like you picked a good article to start with, so don't worry about this one. I'm warning you pre-emptively because I see a lot of translators get frustrated when their translations get draftified or deleted for insufficient sourcing. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! How can you see what space the draft is in? I thought it is in my userspace because of the User/MyOrbs in the URL and title. Anyway I submitted the draft for review successfully I think, it seems that moving the draft to the space of drafts is not within my power, so I wait and see :) MyOrbs (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant "userspace, like you did for this one, instead of mainspace". You did the right thing! -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should warn you that your draft might linger in AfC for a bit since we don't (to my knowledge) have any reviewers who can read Hebrew. I posted a cry for help on WP:ISRAEL, so hopefully you don't need to wait too long. By the way, you might be interested in joining that wikiproject, or some other related ones, like WP:JH. WP:WIRED is probably the most active wikiproject and will be a great help if you ever run into trouble writing biographies on women. If you're interested in biographies of Zionists in particular, WP:SOCIALISM (largish, somewhat dormant) and WP:@ (tiny, active) might be of interest too, since many early-20thc nationalists combined those aims with left-wing politics. -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biography -[edit]

How do I upload a new biography for a woman who was outstanding in her time? NwanyiB (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't upload anything but I would recommend checking out this. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @NwanyiB, and welcome to the Teahouse! We have a guide at Help:Your first article. Please read and follow it carefully, especially the section "Gathering references and establishing notability". If you are interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of women, you may be interested in WikiProject Women in Red, a collaboration for exactly that. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask here, or on my talk page. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks much, Maddy. I do have a woman's biography that I would like to upload. I think this will fit well into Wiki's women's coverage. How can I get this done? I will check out wikiproject women in red. Thanks NwanyiB (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly do you mean when you say you "have a woman's biography"? If it is a biography someone else has written, you would need to get permission from the author and/or publisher first. If you mean you have written a biography yourself, I would recomment you to follow the guidance at Help:Your first article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seconded. Any piece already written (unless by a very experienced Wikipedian) will almost certainly not be compliant with Wikipedia's requirements of tone, content and source citation, and making it so will likely be a lengthy and frustrating process. Re-publishing verbatim an item already published elsewhere is completely forbidden. Much better to start from scratch, following the advice already linked and using the article creation wizard. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Wikipedia permit Bing Chat/Copilot text in its pages[edit]

I have been reading about tACS, which does not yet have a Wikipedia page. It is like playing back an EEG into the brain. I'd like to make this page, but I think Bing chat Copilot would do a better job, with more journal article references. Can I do that? 2600:6C55:6400:7C81:5C77:F887:B484:49D9 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should not. See Wikipedia:Large_language_models for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not, for many reasons, including the fact that large language models cannot be trusted to represent their sources intelligently or coherently, as well as legally, getting into issues of potential copyright violation. See WP:LLM for an essay that discusses how Wikipedia policies interact with this. Remsense 21:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Got it! NwanyiB (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Color of Blond[edit]

Is there a reason why the color blond is not in the list of colors on Beatles777! (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Beatles777!. Presumably, it is because blond is used to describe the color of hair, whereas the list is of color names in more general usage. You can raise the question at Talk:List of colors (alphabetical) if you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These sections about the north korean leaders in the kim dynasty are completly garbarge, do you agree?[edit] 2601:18B:8081:3220:3CA2:E031:BE02:7318 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to give constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement is the article's talk page: Talk:Kim family (North Korea). GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting for a video game that has changed its name?[edit]

I want to try elevating out of Start-class, and had a question before I start editing -- it's now known as "The Confines of the Crown" (per the end of its first paragraph on the article), should the title of the article be changed to suit the new title and "The Royal Trap" be cited as a previous title? CandyGallows (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CandyGallows, I don't think so. It looks to me from the lead that only the Steam version of the game has the new name. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for your time - I've found it under the new name on the developer's website as well as its version, does that affect anything? Apologies for not sharing initially. CandyGallows (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CandyGallows: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to discuss this question is the article's talk page: Talk:The Royal Trap. GoingBatty (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CandyGallows It doesn't change my interpretation of the problem, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't change someone else's. What should probably happen in either case is a redirect, so that someone looking for "The Confines of the Crown" gets to the right place. I'd just do that myself but it looks like you haven't created a redirect before, so do you want to have a go? WP:R for instructions. (It's much less complicated than the length of that page suggests.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sidebar is hiding when a Wikipedia page was last edited and all other writing below it[edit]

The Wikipedia Sidebar is now hiding when a Wikipedia page was last edited and all other writing below it, this was not the case a few days ago. (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not getting what you are trying to say. Consider elaborating your issue. Leoneix (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured out the problem (not the solution) at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sidebar is hiding when a Wikipedia page was last edited and links below it. A long TOC sidebar in Vector 2022 is covering the left part of the page footer. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to become a teahouse host[edit]

I am a lot more experienced than most editors here. Reason? I want to become a host here. How can I become a Teahouse host? What are the requirements? (I think I meet all of them and there’s no way where I would be presented as not even close). I will reach 500 edits today or tomorrow, which increases my chance of meeting all requirements. Equalwidth (C) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why you assume there's a set of requirements per se. However, are you truly experienced enough to locate the "Become a host" button at the top of this page, and then click it? That may send you on your way, cheers! :) Remsense 05:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is invisible. Equalwidth (C) 05:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! in that case, I would go to this page. Good luck. Remsense 05:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just need to make 45 more edits and I will become one! Equalwidth (C) 05:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
…500 mainspace edits? That’s a little strict so for that case the criteria will be 500 edits across all namespaces. Equalwidth (C) 06:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Equalwidth, nothing special happens when you sign up as a Teahouse host, so you don't need to worry about getting a certain number of edits to clear this imaginary bar. There isn't anything stopping you from answering other people's questions here, no matter what your edit count or account age is, so if you can help someone, just go ahead and do so! -- asilvering (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve successfully registered myself as a Teahouse host after reaching 500 edits. Equalwidth (C) 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I am a lot more experienced than most editors here." Well, no. The most active of Teahouse Hosts have been such for years, had accounts longer than that, and number their edits in the thousands (I am at >52,000 edits). That said, welcome! Teahouse needs more active Hosts. Start by offering advice only when you are sure your replies are correct David notMD (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a lot more experienced than most editors asking questions here Equalwidth (C) 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would hope so, this is a place for newcomers to ask questions! Remsense 06:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is essential is having enough knowledge and experience to ANSWER questions correctly. David notMD (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am concerned looking at their talk page: it seems to consist of an already extant track record of receiving advice and help from more experienced editors, which is met with silence at best and unequivocal disagreement usually. Plus the editing behavior I've happened to also see, featuring pretty arbitrary references to policy whether actually read beforehand or not. I would really recommend keeping an eye on this person's advice in the Teahouse, unfortunately. The enthusiasm is good, but. Remsense 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Equalwidth, becoming a Teahouse host is not a reward or a badge of honor. It is taking on an obligation to do your very best to provide friendly, accurate and informative answers to the questions that editors ask here. And to be willing to learn yourself. I have been editing for 14-1/2 years and have contributed to the Teahouse since its earliest days. I have made over 10,000 edits to the Teahouse. Do not be quick to answer a question unless you are highly confident that your answer is correct. This is not a race or a game. There are many questions that I do not answer because this is a very complex project, and after over 100,000 edits to Wikipedia, there are still aspects of the project that I do not fully understand. It is far better to remain silent than to give out incorrect information. Cullen328 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I knew all that… Equalwidth (C) 10:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you "knew all that", go ahead. But if you see that your Teahouse replies are being subsequently criticized/correct, consider stopping. Competency is required for all aspects of Wikipedia (WP:CIR), and can lead to you being indefinitely blocked if you persist and are consistently wrong. David notMD (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to note that Equalwidth was blocked for a week earlier today, for disruptive editing. Equalwidth, you'd still be welcome to help out at the Teahouse in the future, preferably when you have more experience, but it seems you need to work on your own behaviour first, before seeking to help others. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I challenge an uninvolved administrator's decision not to change date format?[edit]

In Nintendo article, it was retained as mdy for 11 years after early January 2004, but an editor unilaterally changed the date format in violation of MOS:DATERET and since then retained that date format for 7 years. And an uninvolved administrator closed a date format discussion, effectively stopping the discussion. The administrator said no consensus to change, so we default to the WP:EDITCON of the last seven years. So, I mainly said on administrator's talk page that mdy should be used based on MOS:NUM (and the WP:EDITCON does not prevent all changes without gaining consensus). The MOS:NUM states that if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The administrator lastly said on the administrator's talk page that the reason mdy shouldn't be used is because you're not even upset about wrong dates, you're upset about how the same dates are written out. According to this administrator's personal opinion, there is no reason for MOS:RETAIN rule to exist. In any case, even if an explicit consensus is not achieved, it should be changed to the first major contributor's date format, according to the MOS:NUM. The WP:EDITCON also does not prevent all changes from violating the rules. I don't want to continue endless arguments with this administrator because Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I would like to challenge this administrator's decision somewhere to change the date format. How do I challenge the administrator's decision not to change the date format? WAccount1234567890 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant statement in MOS:DATEFORMAT is:

If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

It seems that DMY is based on the 'strong national ties' given that Nintendo is one of the most famous Japanese companies. This is plausible—and personally, this would be my choice, but that's irrelevant here. I am not sure you have read the policy correctly, since you have said that "even if an explicit consensus is not achieved, it should be changed to the first major contributor's date format". This is not what the page appears to say. Remsense 05:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, User:WAccount1234567890, welcome to the Teahouse! Let it go. It's already not worth the editor time that's been spent on it, much less a further investment. WP:DTS is instructive in this situation. Twenty-six of your thirty contributions to this project have been about the date format at a single article. Surely there's something else you care about too? Folly Mox (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WAccount1234567890, focusing on date formats is a complete and total waste of time that does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. I highly recommend that you focus on substantive improvements to Wikipedia articles instead. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please see my talkpage. User talk:LordVoldemort728#Clarification on Wiki Page Reversion ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @LordVoldemort728 and welcome to the Teahouse! what are you asking about? 💜  melecie  talk - 07:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Melecie First see my talkpage. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How to deal with this editor who is "a member of social media team" of Suryabanshi Suraj? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
responded over at User talk:LordVoldemort728. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo’s “original upload log”[edit]

I am trying to edit the original upload log of a photo as it contains the full name of the author, which is incorrect.

I am unable to edit the page as it says I must upload a photo first. Can someone please advise. Thanks. EasyHorse (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi EasyHorse, welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed the surname from the displayed file page. It can still be found in logs. If you want more suppressed then you need a Commons administrator or oversighter. See commons:Commons:Oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's great. Thank you.
I'll have a look at the link you shared. EasyHorse (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article unreviewed[edit]

Hello! I hope you're doing well. I recently created an article on Harvinder Singh (IAS officer), and a reviewer suggested adding more relevant categories. I addressed the tag, but it's been a week, and the page is still unreviewed. I have NPP rights, but those aren't meant for reviewing my own articles. If any reviewer is here, could you please look into this and mark it as patrolled? Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheChunky Hi, this isn't likely to speed up the process of a review, nor have you provided a convincing reason why you should be bumped to the front of the queue over everyone else waiting for a NPP. All that said, I'm not entirely clear on what makes him notable- he seems to be an ordinary lower level government official. Admittedly I'm looking at this from a US perspective and the civil service process seems different in India. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot I am not seeking an immediate review, as I've mentioned that this is one of my recently crafted articles. The previous reviewer left the 'improve categories' tag, and unlike my other articles that usually get reviewed in three to four days, this one has ended up in the backlog. I'm reaching out to inquire if anyone is available to review it. I understand the importance of a thorough review process, and I'm not pressuring anyone to pass it without scrutiny. If the reviewer identifies any issues, feel free to tag them accordingly. I focus on creating articles only on notable subjects. Thank you for your consideration. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 16:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teahouse Hosts are not necessarily NPP reviewers. If not NPP reviewed, it will be approved automatically at 90 days. Be patient. David notMD (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, but sorry to say, I was not impressed. I am more concerned, Chunky being an AFC and NPP reviewer. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article of Georgios Dritsakos[edit]

I just submitted the draft of Georgios Dritsakos will be transferred to the articles about the retired Lieutenant General Georgios Dritsakos. He served as Adjutant of the Hellenic Air Force to the President of the Hellenic Republic Constantinos Stephanopoulos from 2002–2005. He was a Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel. Do you have somebody make an articles of Georgios Dritsakos? He is now the Governor of the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you resubmitted Draft:Georgios Dritsakos, which I just declined again because you haven't addressed the comments from the previous reviewers. Wikipedia editors are volunteers who write about what they like. I added some additional WikiProjects to the talk page in the hope that will get some more attention to your draft. You could also try asking at the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there is no guarantee that anyone will respond to your request. GoingBatty (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to explain this. How do I try to ask at the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles before somebody will help me out about the draft of Governor of the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority Georgios Dritsakos, former Adjutant to the President of the Hellenic Republic and the Retired Lieutenant General of the Hellenic Air Force? (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake![edit]

Hi, I have recently created a new article Mamidala Yashaswini Reddy with respective references but later when linking the article on an another article I found that another article already exists Yashaswini Reddy Mamidala but not developed to the mark compared to mine. So now should I request to delete mine and start developing the other or request to delete the other and let mine be in its place? I am confused, kindly please guide me. Thank you456legend (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 456legend (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've merged the text so that both articles have exactly the same content. Now please decide what the name of the subject is, and redirect the incorrectly named article to the correctly named article, and if necessary change the name in the text and infobox of the article. Mamidala Yashaswini Reddy vs Yashaswini Reddy Mamidala--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Tagishsimon, thank you for the swift response. I have redirected the Yashaswini Reddy Mamidala to Mamidala Yashaswini Reddy. Can you please check if I have performed the redirect properly? Since this is my first time making a redirect I am not sure. 456legend (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All good. On the page that is redirected, all of the other content gets removed, which I've done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thank you very much for the help. 456legend (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything I can do to improve article before submission?[edit]

Draft:The Jackson 5 Second National Tour Thealt3786 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thealt3786: Welcome to the Teahouse! Three months ago, the first reviewer told you "This draft lacks Reception information, either ticket sales information or reviews by critics." The personnel section also lacks any references. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How does the summary that comes in manual reverting come automatically? MP1999 ❯❯❯ Talk 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MP1999. The method at your section link does not produce an automatic edit summary. If you revert a single edit with an "undo" link then MediaWiki:Undo-summary is used. If you restore an old version with Twinkle using Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Restore and rollback then Twinkle adds an automatic edit summary. If you refer to "your revision will automatically be tagged with (Tag: Manual revert)" at your link then it's not an edit summary but a tag. It's added automatically by MediaWiki in some situations when it detects a revert. See phab:T256001 for discussion and gerrit:609242 for implementation. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with editors (and admins!) removing factual information[edit]

Hi there, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I've been trying to update some information for the city I live in. I've been attempting to update the Demographics section with raw unopinionated data from the most recent Census and American Community Survey, but I've had it repeatedly removed by editors. I attempted to undo the removal, and an admin reversed that and said it needed a 'consensus'. Is that true, that Wikipedia requires a consensus for raw demographic counts to be posted? I'm kind of concerned about it, and hoping someone can provide guidance. For reference, I'm talking about the Vista, CA Wikipedia page. (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Consensus is the way Wikipedia editors decide what information (and at what level of detail) is included in an article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure does not provide specify what demographic sources should or should not be included. The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a common way to start the process to determine consensus. I'm glad you're having a discussion at Talk:Vista, California page. You may need to have separate discussions for each topic you've added that has been reverted. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, thanks for your help. I had a discussion with the admin in question and sorted the issue. Reposting a question I posed to the admin here if anyone is open to answering:
"To follow up, I was wondering generally if there are any specific Wikipedia rules or policies relative to deleting otherwise factual information. As in, if an editor deletes a cited fact that is presented without opinion, does that still require discussion before undoing the removal? Or could the removal be considered vandalism or something, given that the edit removed a truthful and relevant fact. I always assumed Wikipedia would allow factual information to stand, so long as it is in fact relevant to the topic of the page. I'm planning a series of edits to update the page in question, and plan to support them all with citations, but I'm concerned about getting bogged down in 'discussions' over things that are actual facts, if that makes sense. Discussions relevant to whether or not something is relevant to the topic, whether or not it is actually true, or supported by a given reference, etc I can see would clearly warrant discussion. Just wondering what to do in the case someone undoes a factual edit over an undefined or overtly subjective/preferential reason, and whether that still requires discussion before reinstating the facts." (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is always required when another editor disagrees with content that you have added. A cycle of repeatedly adding and removing content without talk page discussion is Edit warring, which is blockable offense. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what I'm trying to ask is at what point would deleting factual information count as vandalism or some other offense? Surely consensus is not required for factual information, if the veracity of the fact itself is unchallenged. (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is still required when someone challenges factual information. Wikipedia does not aim to contain all factual information, and discussion is needed when we disagree about what factual information should be included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia: Vandalism begins by saying On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia. Any good faith disagreement about which content to include in an article is, by definition, not vandalism. False accusations of vandalism are a form of disruptive editing. You are incorrect that consensus is not required to add factual information. If the addition is contested by another editor, then gaining consensus is mandatory. According to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, which is policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia and Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. So, how is the decision made about what to include in a specific article? Through consensus among the editors interested in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You stated "Surely consensus is not required for factual information". However, consensus IS required, even for factual information. For example, imagine if we could find reliable published sources for the daily temperature for Vista for every day for the last 30 years, or every street name in Vista, or every person who ever served on the city council. While we could all agree that it was factual information, we would still not include all of it in the article. We don't have guidelines stating listing every possible piece of information and whether it should or should not be in the article. Instead, we rely on consensus building to make those determinations. GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, my full statement was "Surely consensus is not required for factual information, if the veracity of the fact itself is unchallenged." Still, I see your point about not including every possible data point. However, if someone is removing current factual data, such as current demographics, which is present on every other city page, without contesting the veracity of the data, is that not fitting the definition of vandalism? It seems to be that would be a deliberate intent to obstruct or defeat the purpose of the city project pages, especially because the city project guidelines do indeed specify that current demographic estimates should be included. If an act is believed to be vandalism, is there a way to report to admins, or what would be the proper avenue? (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edit summaries briefly explain why your edits were reverted, which demonstrate that you're having a difference of opinion, and the editors involved are not committing vandalism. I see you've started a discussion on the talk page about the Native American history, and suggest you do something similar for the demographic data. For reporting actual vandalism, there is WP:AIV, and it's important for you to read the big green section at the top before posting there. If you do post there, you might receive similar responses to those you received here. GoingBatty (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help With Sourcing An Article[edit]

Im having difficulty sourcing an article i wrote as the information is fact however its been collected through visual, audible and small mentions across many off-line sources. its currently been drafted and im stuggling to be able to source it. thank you, link provided: Draft:Ottawa Collegiate Board Weezyinator (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Weezyinator: Welcome to the Teahouse! In order for a Wikipedia article to be created, you must provide multiple independent sources to demonstrate what Wikipedia calls "notability". The specific notability criteria for organizations can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). When creating a draft, you should first find the sources, determine whether you can meet the notability criteria, and then write the draft. See WP:BACKWARD and Help:Your first article for more information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Weezyinator: I also suggest reviewing WP:EASYREFBEGIN to learn how to add a reference. References to off-line sources, as long as they are reliable published sources that are verifiable, such as books, newspapers, and magazines. GoingBatty (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retracing one's steps re things edit?[edit]

Is there a command that lists the several last articles that you have edited? ----MountVic127 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MountVic127: Welcome to the Teahouse! Special:Contributions/MountVic127 is what you're looking for. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi MountVic127. I don't know whether there is such a command, but there's a contributions history for each account which shows all edits made with the account (excluding edits made to deleted pages) that you can find by scrolling to the top of your browser and clicking on "Contributions" or going to any page in your username space and clicking on "User contributions" in the left sidebar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all. ----MountVic127 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MountVic127 One feature that I use and you may be interested to copy is to transclude (say) your last 10 edits on your UserPage. See mine for how it looks. The sourcecode to achieve this would be {{Special:Contribs/MountVic127|limit=10}} in your case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how do I write a new article without using the article wizard every time?[edit]

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesemaster12 (talkcontribs) 05:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cheesemaster12: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can create a page at User:Cheesemaster12/sandbox or as a draft and work on it at your leisure. When you are done with it, you can use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to ask for a review, or (if you've had success creating articles before) move it directly to articlespace. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheesemaster12, use of the Article Wizard is a convenience, and is entirely optional for established editors. Use of the Articles for creation process is also entirely optional for established editors. I have written over 100 new articles and none of them went through tje wizard or AFC. None has been deleted. That is because I understand Notability and other relevant Policies and guidelines, and I gather up my high quality references before trying to write a new article. Only then, I then create citations to those reliable sources, and begin summarizing what they say. This is how an acceptable Wikipedia should be written. Writing down what you think you know about the topic, and then later trying to find sources is the wrong approach that repeatedly leads to frustration. To summarize: find your reliable sources first and format them into references. Only then, summarize what your reliable sources say. Do not use weak or mediocre sources. Use only the highest quality reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. That approach followed correctly guarantees success. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheesemaster12, you haven't made many edits so far; and of those that you have made, a number have been reverted. I advise you to practise improving existing articles some more before you embark on creating a new article. That way you'll have a greater chance of success. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you decide to skip AfC and create an article in Mainspace, and it is not up to or close to Wikipedia standards, then New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP) reviewers are likely to convert it to a draft, start a deletion process at WP:AFD or just Speedy delete it. Hence, waste of your time. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reporting ERRORS on[edit]

About 20+ minutes ago, I got an error (but didn't capture it) when posting my edit for Cedar Vale, Kansas article, I waited then reposted my changes, then my changes seem to have be accepted. Next, I edited Chautauqua, Kansas article, then I received the following error. At this point, I stopped editing, I posted a comment in HELP, but no one answered, so I decided to come over here and post this comment. --- Database error / A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. / [ca5a6cfa-399f-4028-b508-2a9b98eec5f8] 2023-12-04 08:59:11: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError" --- • SbmeirowTalk • 09:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sbmeirow I too faced this error while publishing edits in an article few hours ago. I closed the tab and tried it again and it worked fine. Leoneix (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have encountered this issue two more times since my above reply. Leoneix (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has also been reported at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Database_error and a Phabricator ticket issued, so, the problem is not at your end, but at Wikipedia's end, and it will be looked at in due course. - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My registration date is incorrect. I'm not sure where to ask about this...[edit]

Like I said, I'm not sure who or where to address this matter, but I believe my registration date is incorrect.

The earliest edit I can find that I made is dated 23 June 2012 but on my account page it says I registered in 2015.

How do I get this corrected so my account shows the correct date/year that I actually created my account here?

Tallship (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't any way as far as I know to go back and change the date your account was created. The global log indicates you registered in 2015 so I don't know how you could have edited in 2012. It could have something to do with when accounts were made global across all projects, but someone with more knowledge than I would need to speak to that. Did you create your account on this project? No account creation date is listed for you, which suggests you created it on another project. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting that your Xtools record shows the first edit on 2012-06-23 09:02, while Special:CentralAuth/Tallship shows registration as 14:03, 17 March 2015. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tallship: The user creation log was started in 2005 and you aren't registered there. Is it possible your account was created before that and made no edit until 2012? I don't think the creation date can be found in that case. Special:CentralAuth/Tallship shows the global account creation, a system that didn't exist in 2005. The date shown there cannot and should not be changed. mw:SUL finalisation ended in 2015. Your account was in the last group to get global accounts because you didn't request it and your username existed at different wikis with different passwords. Before global accounts, different people could pick the same name at different wikis. MediaWiki had no way of telling whether it was the same person when the password was different. An account at meta which may or may not have been yours was automatically renamed to Tallship~metawiki.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Database query error[edit]

I'm trying to edit the article Rendcomb College, but on attempting to publish edits I'm getting the error A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. [e4bd566d-211d-4005-a055-d437f53b9ab2] 2023-12-04 11:45:17: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError". I have tried making smaller and larger edits to see if it is anything specific in the text that is causing the error, but am getting it on every edit. I am able to publish edits to other articles. Any ideas? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just seen the same question above this - apologies for duplication. I'll leave this up in case it's useful for anyone looking at the problem in general. I have tried closing the tab and re-opening and and still getting the same error. Will try in another browser later. Tacyarg (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has also been reported at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Database_error and a Phabricator ticket issued, so, the problem is not at your end, but at Wikipedia's end, and it will be looked at in due course. - Arjayay (talk)
Thank you, Arjayay. Tacyarg (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New and intimidated, could use some advice and encouragement.[edit]

Here's my situation. I could use something else to do to pass the time. I lost the taste for computer games quite a while ago, so that's a non-starter. Never been particularly outdoorsy, so all the outdoors things are a non-starter as well. Youtube's getting stale and transforming more and more into TV as time goes on, and I dislike TV so much that I haven't watched it in 12-14 years. While I do love to read, when it's the only thing to do, it starts to get old. Not to mention for an unknown reason I can't read a book more than 2-3 hours a day otherwise place names and character names begin to mean nothing to me.

I figured that I had this Wikipedia account I'm not using, so why not help out Wikipedia?

The thing is, even though I've looked through the new editors' tutorial and the introduction to contributing, I still feel completely intimidated! I'm worried I'm gonna mess something up and be told to go away and never come back. I do have some MediaWiki experience, so I feel confident in actually executing an edit, the markup isn't the scary thing to me. But I'm concerned I'm gonna break some rule or policy I don't know about or I may be interpreting differently than everybody else. Again, it's intimidating.

Advice? Thoughts? Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]