Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Help with a new page for an academic researcher[edit]


I am seeking input on how to improve this page: Draft:Saad Bhamla

It was rejected on the following grounds:


This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Having read the eight academic-specific criteria, it is clear that Prof. Bhamla meets several of these. I have also cited reliable secondary sources (e.g., NSF, NIH, etc.) to support this assertion.

I do need some help on the advertisement vs encyclopedia rejection. Most academic bios are written in the form that I supplied, but any tips on converting it into an encyclopedia-style diction would be appreciated.

Many thanks! Xwallawallax (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At a glance, the subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Please remove any inline external links in the article; those are not permitted per WP:EL. Which NACADEMIC criteria do you think the subject meets? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prof Bhamla has met criteria 1 and 2.
There are multiple examples for Criteria 1. One notable one is his naming as a major disruptor by Newsweek, a reputed magazine that is known to rank research institutions.
Criteria 2 is also straightforward - the awards I noted in the original draft are highly competitive, national, and prestigious awards.
Thanks for tips of inline external links, did not realize those were against the rules. Xwallawallax (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Newsweek, since 2013, is generally not considered a reliable source due to their deteriorated journalistic practices, including for purposes of establishing notability.
  2. Do any of these awards have articles themselves? I took a look and didn't see them well-covered at a glance to establish their own notability. I hope you understand that this merely feels like it's pushing the issue back a level.
Remsense 04:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Thanks - I did not know that. Looking into the linked article, it does seem that Newsweek is in the "yellow" category, with this major caveat: "Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". Here is the article that lists Prof. Bhamla: This is a distinction from the magazine - they select a cohort of 10 prominent researchers each year. It is definitely not clickbait and not pay to play.
  2. I am willing to accept that Newsweek is of dubious reputability (although the distinction from the magazine is still notable), but the US NASEM is not. Here is a news article from them that highlights a major and prestigious award that Prof. Bhamla has won:
Xwallawallax (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not my area of expertise, so I will bow out and let people where it is take over, but I suppose if I had to speak on a personal, gut-feeling level, reading the newsweek article, the headline coupled with its presentation does feel very clickbait to me, but again, I do not feel comfortable deciding one way or the other, so I will abstain as to whether this should be accepted or not. Remsense 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for chiming in and helping me understand the process further.
Looking at Wikipedia:NACADEMIC requirements, they note: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."
"The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."
I feel that (a) the US NASEM article and the US NASEM as an institution are both reliable sources, (b) the Schmidt Futures award is a highly prestigious academic honor at an international level, according to the wikipedia article on this award: National Academies Communication Award Xwallawallax (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree. The National Academies Communication Award programme ended in 2019, and is not the same as the "Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communication", which makes ~48 awards per year. The subject here is not listed as a Top Award winner at [1] and it is difficult to construe this award as highly prestigious. Both awards were national, not international. I don't see any of the other awards as highly prestigious; they appear to be routine and/or local in character. Ref 6, by the way, does not support the assertion made. I'm sure the subject is a very fine academic, but your enthusiasm for him meeting the criteria does not make it so. Hyperbole in the article - "notable projects", "work is recognized by numerous awards including" is unhelpful; promotional writing such as this is always a red flag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm - I do think that most research-active academics would find this award as highly prestigious.
There are only 24 awards per year (, and only three per category. Prof. Bhamla was one of the three awarded in Research Scientist: Later Career.
At any rate, the combination of Prof. Bhamla's awards (Schmidt Futures Excellence in Sci. Comm., Criterion 2a notable foundation/society), publications in especially prestigious journals (, Criterion 1e, partial), notable and impactful inventions (, Criterion 1b), and his coverage in mainstream media (,,, Criterion 7a) strongly suggests that Prof. Bhamla meets the notability requirements.
I apologize for not including some of these other sources in my original draft and I am interested to know your thoughts on these. Xwallawallax (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xwallawallax: To demonstrate notability, you need to provide multiple independent sources. Articles written by Bhamla, interviews of Bhamla, and videos of Bhamla are not considered independent. GoingBatty (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts are that it is a bit soon to say whether an award first implemented in 2022 is "highly prestigeous". The whirygig thing is interesting, but does it amount to a "notable and impactful invention"? Wired noticed it, but credit it to another researcher. What impact has it had? 1b asks for "In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." PR for the TED talk seems minimal. Butt flicking insects and their superpropulsion do not amount to 7a "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". What impact has it had? So, I really do not think there is an NACADEMIC pass here. Your best shot now is to find sufficient news media to get a WP:GNG pass. You have nothing in the article about butt flicking and there may be some centrifuge press which would show the sort of sustained interest in the subject's work needed for GNG. Or there may not, and it might all be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xwallawallax: Note that the requirements say "reliable sources", meaning more than one. GoingBatty (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From looking at the notability rule, the article is allowed if he is promote to full professor (tenure) बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It's commonly known that:
Newsweek = NewsWeak ! (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with WP:TOOSOON. He is an assistant professor. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as to why lesser awards do not contribute. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, all, for the feedback - very helpful despite the sometimes condescending tone.
I do think there is a case to be made for Criterion 1 and 7. Here are multiple sources that have covered Prof Bhamla's work:
Worm blobs: ; ;
Insect pee: ; ; + TED talk already discussed (1.3M views)
I do not think the assistant professor designation is sufficient to declare "Too soon" - there are other junior faculty with wikipedia entries that have similar caliber awards as Prof. Bhamla and significantly fewer external sources covering their research.
How do I proceed from here? I am happy to rewrite the article with the new information disclosed in this thread and submit it for re-evaluation - I admit my first draft was very bare bones. Xwallawallax (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Criterion 1 is for the people that everyone in their field cites. We'd expect to see something like a very high h-index, but that isn't the case here.
Criterion 7 is for people who are quoted in the popular media all the time, or who have written bestsellers for a lay audience. A couple of news articles about their work is not what this is about, this is for people who are regularly being asked on to news shows to comment on the science news of the day, even when they didn't have anything to do with the research themselves.
As to How do I proceed from here?, I would suggest you find a new subject who is more clearly notable. Some of the articles on winners of the National Medal of Science are quite short and could use expansion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the additional explanation. I hate to use 'what about-ism' but it is clear that the criterions are not being applied evenly with this candidate vs. others that are already up on Wikipedia.
For instance, can you point to the source in this page that meets one of the criterion? Xwallawallax (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an example of somebody who does meet Criterion 1, for her development of nanoparticles that cross the blood-brain barrier - citations 4 through 9 of the article support that. They consequently also have a high h-index considering the stage of their career, and the individual papers associated with the discovery all have quite high citation counts. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MrOllie Different draft???? The subject of this draft is male and refs 4-9 have nothing to do with nanoparticles. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD: I was addressing a follow up question about how Elizabeth Nance meets notability criteria. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had missed that Xwallawallax had held up Elizabeth Nance as an example of an Assistant Professor meriting an article. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating another article[edit]

So, I have made one article (Until This Shakes Apart), and the got a notice that it was accepted. but in it, it said Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. And that's swell, but I don't wan't to just have the power to make any draft. Can I revoke this? I'd prefer if I can make a draft, but still let others review it, before it is accepted, in case I f*ck something up. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can upload a draft by affixing [[Draft:]] to the beginning of the title and then making the page there. Explodicator7331 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 15:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always create my articles using the Article Wizard [2], which gives you the option of creating a draft to be reviewed, or publishing the article directly – which will then be looked at by a new page patroller. I did some freelance writing before my first Wikipedia article, and I still felt safer having my first few Wikipedia articles submitted for review before being published, because I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what I was doing before trusting that I wouldn't mess up and publish something that wouldn't meet Wiki standards. Best wishes on your future projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Babysharkboss2, the notice says you may create articles directly, not that you must. I've been here for many, many years now, and I've only just had my first article published. You can keep using AFC as long as you like, no one is going to tell you to stop. Madam Fatal (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 18:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article to be Posted With no Reply[edit]

I've sent an article for review in May 2023, and I still have no reply if it was accepted or not. Please help to clarify on how long does it take to get a response. Thank you! ChanthyChun (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to your Talk page, Draft:ByDzyne was Declined twice in 2020 and then deleted in 2021 for inactivity. Your contributions show no other activity. What was the title of the article you are asking about? David notMD (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title is ByDzyne Inc. ChanthyChun (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia does not show a draft titled Draft:ByDzyne Inc. or Draft:Byzyne David notMD (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you recently create a new version which was then Speedy deleted, leaving no trace of its existence? David notMD (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving draft with review pending to mainspace[edit]

Hi, I recently just created my first article through the AfC process, and now it's been waiting for a review for a couple days. I realised that as an autoconfirmed user I can just move the draft into mainspace and I'm fairly confident that the article is up to standard. Am I allowed to remove the "Review Waiting" tag and move the page? Here is the article draft in question: Draft:College Square (Dublin) LynxesDesmond (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LynxesDesmond: You are, yes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not specific to this situation at all—just in general: if you are autoconfirmed and put something in the mainspace, you want to be prepared to defend it at Articles for Deletion if someone thinks the sources you provide don't show that the subject meets criteria for a standalone article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass Change[edit]

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is as follows: would it be recommended to change (move/reformat) all articles pertaining to the supreme court in one of the United States into this format for consistency: (Supreme Court of XXXX)? I noticed inconsistency within the titles throughout various states and this format would fit all states consistently. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi UnexpectedSmoreInquisition. I think such a mass change would be unwise. The names of the highest courts are set by each state (presumably in each state's constitution). Some of the states' highest courts don't even have the term "supreme court" contained in their name (e.g. New York Court of Appeals, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court). Consistency in related article titles is one of our article title criteria, but getting the names right is more important. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, @Firefangledfeathers. I was under the assumption the names were colloquial, not legal. My mistake. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition. Actually the primary choice of name is neither official nor colloquial but whatever name is used in the bulk of the reliable sources: see WP:COMMONNAME. So if in fact all the newspapers referred to all the courts as "Supreme Court of XXXX" then your consistent choice would be appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, luckily for me, it seems each supreme court has a website that states their name. However, news reports are conflicting on some, but I'll comb through a couple and report back here later. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am a Canadian singer, songwriter with music on all major streaming channels. I am a member of the CCMA and CMA. I have recorded a total 31 songs and released 26 so far. My distributor is Distrokid. I would appreciate If I could be part of the Singer, Songwriter list. Thanks Malcolm Foenander 2001:1970:4BA8:6000:B45A:9F1B:6C9D:FB6 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's probably not going to happen, Malcolm Foenander. Singer-songwriter features very well known Singer-songwriters. Your career seems to be a couple of years old? [3] Beyond that observation, wikipedia does not take requests for inclusions on lists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of singer-songwriters includes all who have a page, and no other criteria. If you meet the criteria to have a page, you may be listed, but please note that we recommend people not to write articles about themselves. Mach61 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Malcolm. Basically, like hundreds of artists, business people, and others, you have the erroneous basic assumption that Wikipedia is a place to publicize yourself. It is not, in any way. Wikipedia can have an article about you only if you have been indepedently written about sufficiently to meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:notability, and if that does happen, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and will not necessarily say what you want it to say. I suggest you concentrate on places that allow promotion. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewed article not indexed by Google[edit]

I created the article Redmond Central Connector over two weeks ago. It was reviewed the same day I created it. However, Google is not indexing it. Other reviewed pages of a similar age are being indexed. How can I fix this, if possible? DirtyHarry991 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, it's not indexed by Google but is by, say, Duckduckgo. I can't suggest anything; we've had problems with Google before, but it's wholly outside of our control. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might just have bad SEO, if you haven't looked multiple pages. @hotel, which I moved to mainspace, doesn't show up at the top of searches for "athotel" (and "@hotel" is identical to "hotel") Mach61 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DirtyHarry991 i tried checking the cached version of the page and it is showing a different wiki page: Eastside Rail Corridor. Have you implemented the redirection from Redmond Central Connector to Eastside Rail Corridor earlier? Vbhavanisankar (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redmond Central Connector originally redirected to Eastside Rail Corridor. When I wrote the article for Redmond Central Connector, an admin performed a round-robin move so I could create the page. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for checking the caches, it appears that Google has not crawled any of the pages that link to my article since Nov. 12. I will try making edits to linked pages to see if that will make it update. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. You can try sharing the link on social media handles to enhance the chances of the page being indexed by Google. Additionally, since the page has very few words, consider adding more content. Vbhavanisankar (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What time did Jesus not know? .... Enlighten me. Seventhsent001 (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question makes no sense, so, hard to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Teahouse is for questions about using Wikipedia. Try asking your question at WP:RDH, but try to make your question clear. RudolfRed (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked Seventhsent001. Their contributions are gibberish. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jesus did not know "Clobberin' time!", "Show time!", "In the nick of time", bed time or Daylight Savings Time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talkcontribs) 03:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a carpenter, he would presumably have known when to Stop--Hammer Time. DMacks (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if he saw everyone's personal info sins across all the times ever that one time, he would probably know what all of those were cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 11:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case anyone wants an actual answer to this question, it is "the time of his second coming". See Matthew 24:36. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are there special significance criteria for deceased people? (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the Notability guideline for people applies to all people, living or dead. There is a special, stringent policy for biographies of living people because of the potential for real damage that a poorly written biography presents. See WP:BLP for complete details. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But in the articles that lists deceased people not all of them are notable; for example, see Deaths in 2023. Aminabzz (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: There's a comment in the article which states "If a Wikipedia article for the dead does not yet exist, reconsider whether the subject is actually notable. If so, consider writing an article yourself. Those without a Wikipedia article are removed after one month." GoingBatty (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop asking me to donate[edit]

I don't want to donate to you. No thanks. I am extremely poor as it is, i can literally hold my all of my cash balance in my hands right now. It's fifteen dollars. Literally. Fifteen dollars. And I can't spend my fifteen dollars because everybody hates me. They wont sell things to me. So i live in this dilapidated, destroyed house that nobody cares about me being in. Half my insulation is missing and my window doesn't close very easily. Even if i had more than 15 dollars, i can't give it to you because it's physical cash. I cannot email you cash. I can MAIL you cash but that's more than fifteen bucks. I am seriously thinking of whether i will die tonight of sheer cold simply by freezing to death in my sleep, and you think i can give you money.

My fingers are pink already and it's only 8:45 pm as I'm typing this. I wish I had the nerve to beg everybody for money but i don't. I can't. I need to conserve energy. I should seriously stop typing this but i don't care anymore. You can pry my money from my cold dead hands, literally, my cold dead hands. It is absolutely fucking freezing out here. And you want me to spare you 3 dollars. Insane. Go sleep in your nice, warm server room. Hope you're happy.

Stay humble. 2601:204:C500:1280:8D0F:A955:E466:2147 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bummer. If you register and use a wikipedia account, you can then set your account preferences such that you are not shown donation adverts; see Preferences / Banners. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, no one who is presently reading this is responsible for the fundraising regimen or its banners, we are all just volunteers here. If you want to make the banners go away permanently, one way to do that is to create an account, and you can disable to display of fundraising banners or other types as well in your account preferences. Hope this helps. Remsense 04:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that $15 is more than I've ever gotten for 10 years of editing. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another method to disable donation banners is to use the Thank You page. This will suppress banners on the same device using the same browser. However, you have to go to this page on every device, and it's probably better to just register, sync histories between devices, then Preferences → Banners → uncheck Fundarising ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 05:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bottom line is that nobody, whether extremely poor or very wealthy or anywhere in between is obligated to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is rolling in cash. They certainly do not need money from poor people. This is a free encyclopedia snd we take that literally. I have been a Wikipedia editor for 14 years, and an adminstrator for six years, and I have never donated a penny to the Wikimedia Foundation. Instead, I have donated countless thousands of hours to expanding and improving this encyclopedia, which I consider to be much more valuable than a few bucks here and there, which are quickly forgotten. Cullen328 (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one wants you to donate if you cannot afford it. A donation is just that- a donation, not a demand for payment. As noted by others, you can make the messages go away if you create an account and disable them in your account preferences. Without an account, Wikipedia has no way to know that you have seen the donation requests. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you go to preferences, you can turn off the banner. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That only works if they have an account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undisclosed Payment[edit]

I began to edit my first major page for Yinka Ash, a fashion designer in Nigeria and I guess I messed up and now the article is flagged as most likely done with undisclosed Payment, which I did not get paid for.

How do I fix it?

Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was added by @Fred Zepelin:. I've removed it. You two should discuss the issue. If you do have WP:COI you need to declare it, Anoghena Okoyomoh. If you do not, then you do not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really do not, I just wanted to contribute, I guess I was too enthusiastic, but I see the photo I used for the subject matter, I got from his website, so I took that down as well. Thank you so very much, I think I'll just take a back seat for now, don't wanna ruin someone's image because of me. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anoghena Okoyomoh, remember that every image used on wikipedia needs to be free to use - you can't use a copyrighted image from someone's website. If you try to use an image like that, we're all going to assume that you are the copyright holder, which would mean that you have a conflict of interest. -- asilvering (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh, that makes sense, I will note this. Thank you so much Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone tell me, where is problem in my draft?[edit]

draft: Needy Foundation Md Shahedul Alam Khan (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Md Shahedul Alam Khan: Welcome to the Teahouse! To demonstrate that this organization meets Wikipedia's definition of a "notable" organization, you should write the draft based on what independent sources have published about the organization. At first glance, it appears that 13 of the 16 references are from the Needy Foundation, which would be primary sources. However, at closer inspection, it appears that you uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons and then using them as sources, and these cannot be used as references. If you are being paid by this organization, or you are otherwise affiliated with the organization, then you have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose before continuing with the draft. GoingBatty (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Md Shahedul Alam Khan, Infobox lists you as the founder. Are you trying to create an article for your organization? Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Md Shahedul Alam Khan. Like most inexperienced Wikipedia editors who try the challenging task of creating an article, you have gone about it BACKWARDS (please read the essay at that link).
I always advise new editors to spend some weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles before trying this difficult task. ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons User:Abhilash Pillai V[edit]

This page created on wikipedia has been rejecting saying that the username exists already

Abhilash Pillai V (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At Commons you created an article-like page that has been nominated for Speedy deletion. Commmons is for images. At Wikipedia you created the same content at your User page User:Abhilash Pillai V. This has also been nominated for Speedy deletion. See WP:UP for purposes of User page. If you are convinced that you as a topic is article worthy (see WP:AUTO) then use WP:YFA to create and submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abhilash Pillai V, I notice that your page User:Abhilash Pillai V tells the reader that "his unwavering commitment to filmmaking soon bore fruit". I get the impression from this kind of thing that you wish to promote yourself here. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unable To Upload Content[edit]

I don't why, but for some time I am unable to access Wikipedia commons and cant upload any material. Was I banned? Procrastinater (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Procrastinater! You do not seem to be blocked from Commons. Are you sure you are logged in there? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Procrastinater: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you provide more details, we can provide more assistance. What is the URL of the Wikimedia Commons page you are trying to access? What steps are you performing on that page? What results are you receiving? GoingBatty (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, GoingBatty. I get this error as soon as i launch wikipedia commons home page using URL:
This site can’t be reached’s DNS address could not be found. Diagnosing the problem.
I have designed some vector images for different forces , wanted to upload them. Please Help. Procrastinater (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a problem at your end - in your computer / phone or router. See for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Procrastinater: If you can't resolve that issue in a reasonable amount of time, you could upload the images to the English Wikipedia, and then ask for help to have them exported to Commons. GoingBatty (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing in two languages[edit]

I would like to edit in two languages. I understand that the number of my contributions is liked to various editing privileges: does that mean I need to maintain two accounts, one for each language ? Or will a single account be able to handle different privileges in different languages ? (eg allowed to edit semi-protected articles in language A but not allowed to in language B) דןברקת (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @דןברקת, and welcome to the Teahouse! Since unified login was introduced, accounts on all Wikimedia projects are linked. This means you just need to login to the other wiki, and an account will be created for you automatically. And yes, edit counts are counted separately for each wiki, as you describe. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@דןברקת If you wish to, you can see your contributions across various language Wikipedias. Be aware, though, that it doesn't show everything - just 20 edits per wiki. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@דןברקת just in case you're interested in translation, you may want to read WP:HOWTRANS. -- asilvering (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using a Wikidata photo on a Wikipedia page[edit]

Somewhere I saw a page explaining how to do this and how attribute properly but I have no idea where it is now. So... what is the proper form of attribution under Creative Commons licence CC0 and where do I put it? Thank you so much. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oona Wikiwalker, if you see a photo at Wikidata, it's already at Wikimedia Commons. And since it's there, you can use it in Wikipedia. Click on it, get its title, and use that. Example: c:File:Facing library at the University of Rochester.jpg is a photo at Commons that's not yet used in Wikipedia. In order to use it, add File:Facing library at the University of Rochester.jpg to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a relief! Thank you so much!Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One wiki account login to two device.[edit]

Actually I wanted to know from senior wikipedians, if it is possible to access only one account on the two device (like office system and my phone)? This is my account that remains connected to the office system. But I'm often not in the office. Can I sign in to the same account on my phone? What is your approach? Please guide me.

Thanks with regards! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Youknowwhoistheman: Yes, it is absolutely possible to stay logged in to the same account on multiple devices – if you select "Keep me logged in" while logging in, as long as you do not click the log out button and have cookies enabled in your browser (if you don't know if cookies are enabled, they probably are), you should automatically remain logged in. Tollens (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK entry[edit]

I decided to post a new DYK entry for the main page. I've never done it before, but it looks buggy on the talk page there. I wasn't sure where to post about it looking bugged out, Template talk:Did you know , and I wasn't sure how to fix it. Anyone around that knows what to do? Regards Govvy (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nm, I think I fixed it. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Govvy Yes, that did it (despite my subsequent attempt to mess things up, which I self-reverted)! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to fix my draft for publishing?[edit]

hello i have been trying to publish an article ( but it gets declined every time. I, infact, also added the news articles available in the public domain in the reference section yet its getting turned down. Can you tell me the reason for this and how to fix this. Offmark1 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Offmark1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to fix this is by finding sources which actually contribute to establishing that the film is notable. Some of them may be reliable (though the Times of India is not widely regarded that way) but none of them appear to be independent of Irani and his associates. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Offmark1 you might find WP:ICTFSOURCES useful. It's a list of sources by reliability specifically maintained by the cinema task force of WP:INDIA. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi the fix[edit]

You are not logged in. To be notified when someone replies and receive attribution with your name instead of your IP address, you can log in or create an account.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Ter (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I can't understand your question – if you were looking to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you do have a question about using or editing Wikipedia, would you please clarify what you're asking about? Tollens (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article update[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to update my wikipedia page with proof that a section was purely rumours. I have sworn affidavits to provide and would like to have my edit approved please. Ralimampeule (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ralimampeule Hello and welcome. Court documents or affidavits are primary sources. If the sources summarized in the article about you(not "your wikipedia page") are not being summarized accurately, please detail the errors on Talk:Rali Mampeule along with independent reliable sources that support your proposed edits. If the sources are summarized accurately, but are in error, you will need to first take that up with the sources, but then follow the advice either on your user talk page, or at WP:LIBEL. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Library[edit]

Hello Teahouse. Today my question is: could someone with access to the Wikipedia library please help me out? I'm aware I do not have access to the resources within, but wish to research a subject somewhat hard to find sources for, but close to completion. The article in question is about fueskichelcher, a Luxembourgish pastry. I'm trying to find just a couple more citations. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition! I have performed searches for all three terms specified in your draft in ProQuest and EBSCOhost, which turned up nothing useful. However, I proceeded to also search with the free Google Scholar, which gave me a citation to a book called Lëtzebuergesch schwätzen: Einblick in die luxemburgische Sprache. I cannot get the book myself, but maybe you can find it at a library. I also found an article in Russian, called "Люксембургская кулинарная лексика: страноведческий и языковой аспекты" there. It's available online, but I'm not sure whether it's okay to link here. Hope this helps. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: Welcome to the Teahouse! I went to the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library page, and found that you could also ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just adding that if you go to resource request it will be much more helpful if you can ask for a specific source. Editors there aren't intending to do the research for you, just to give you access to the sources that you're paywalled from. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannot change the title of our page after name change[edit]

Dear All,

How can I change the title of an article (in our case United Business School) to reflect our rebranding (change to "UBI Business School"): United Business Institutes

Thank you! Vincentwy.tam (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vincentwy.tam Hello and welcome. Changing the title of an article requires what in Wikipedia jargon is called a page move; you may request this at Requested Moves- but first you will will need to declare your relationship with this institution. If you work for them, see WP:PAID. If you have some other relationship with them where you are not paid, see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

submission rejected?[edit]

can you tell me why my submission was not approved if any mistake? please guide me any one Ahmed12322 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahmed12322: there are two obvious reasons why User:Ahmed12322/sandbox was declined. It cites no sources, and it doesn't start by stating what its subject is. Maproom (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the advice left by reviewers at the top of your draft? (which is User:Ahmed12322/sandbox) Your draft is completely unsourced, and written in the style of an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ahmed12322: The draft also contains elements of "how-to" writing, which a Wikipiedia article should not. Deor (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal titulary[edit]

In articles for Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs (from Akhenaten to Senusret III and others), in the infobox there is a "Royal titulary" with a "show" link with it. But when we click on the show button nothing happens. Aminabzz (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works for me. Try raising the issue at Template talk:Infobox pharaoh. Also try different browsers, disabling extensions, etc. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 17:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works for me too. @Sungodtemple, your username kinda sounds like it was written in hieroglyphs originally! And I'm a little surprised I actually spelled hieroglyphs correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: Most editors use the desktop site where it works for me but it's broken in mobile. Please say if you use the mobile version when you report interface and layout issues. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Yes; I'm using mobile phone. I will try on desktop too. Aminabzz (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: The bottom of pages in the mobile version have a "Desktop" link. This works for me on an iPhone 8. If I log out in mobile then a third thing happens: There is no show link (and the hidden content is still not displayed). I will look into the issue more when I have better time and see if I can fix it or report it to the right people. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used the desktop version and it worked. I also logged out on mobile and I didn't see the show link just like you. Aminabzz (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filling in missing chemicals[edit]

Is it useful to start creating articles from red links on User:Graeme_Bartlett/missing_chemicals? I noticed that some of these articles might already exist or have disambiguation-style articles already (e.g., a listed missing article is Amyl bromide, but this is covered under Bromopentane though the specific chemical amyl bromide is referring to does not have its own article (which would probably be titled 1-Bromopentane). The info on most of these pages I would be creating would have a basic chembox with information from Pubchem/Chemspider and a physical description from CAMEO, maybe some uses if they're easily found on Pubchem literature. Reconrabbit (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to add that for a lot of these chemicals, it's difficult to provide more information than a cursory description and their physical properties, as most of the literature covering more in-depth use are primary sources from scientific journals and would require published synthesis that does not exist yet. Reconrabbit (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reconrabbit There are a lot of "missing" chemicals which would have plenty of secondary sources: natural products for example. However, if you want specific types almost certain to be notable, take a look a the red links on list of insecticides, list of fungicides and list of herbicides. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Edit Button, Only Edit Source[edit]

Hi all. I am trying to make edits to an article I wrote, but for some reason, the "edit" button has completely disappeared, and I can only see "edit source" now to edit the wikicode. Does anyone know what happened and how I can get the "edit" button back so I can edit the page using the visual editor? Spatton27 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spatton27: Check the Editing section of your Preferences to see if "Enable visual editor" somehow became unselected. RudolfRed (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Spatton27 to add to this, you can have both appear as well. That is useful if you prefer doing different tasks with the visual editor vs the code editor
But also in some namespaces you can't use visual editor, here you can only edit source for example. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Spatton27 In addition to the advice above, whenever you're using one of our two editors, it's easy to switch back and forth between them at any time during the editing process (even without saving what you're doing). Look for the dark, sloping pencil icon on the right-hand side of the editing toolbar menu. Click that and you can select the other one to work with, and then switch back again if you want to. (I do this quite a bit when working with citations, as I prefer entering my details in source editor before returning to Visual Editor to carry on editing). Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all so much! I was able to access the visual editor using the pencil as you recommended. I appreciate your quick help! Spatton27 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I appeal a draft deletion that was not reversed?[edit]

Over the last two years I've slowely chipped away at this draft: I logged in today to add resources and keep pruning the page but discovered it had been deleted for inactivity, which is understandable. But my request for the draft to be restored was declined, stating the page was a copyright violation of the artist's bio. I have never used any content from the artist bio to build this page. Can someone please help me with this issue? ADDENDUM: I've looked at the artist's bio page and I don't see the anything remotely close to any copying from her website. I can't help that the chronology of her history will be a consistent timeline no matter where her history is outlined. Please help. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@1987atomheartbrother, you'll have to take this up with the admin who declined your refund request. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm sorry, that might not have been a full answer to your question. You can ask the admin directly on their talk page. Make sure you give a link to the draft like you did here, so they know what you're talking about. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1987atomheartbrother, you asked for undeletion of Machan Taylor, which was deleted as a copyvio in 2016. You need to ask for undeletion of Draft:Machan Taylor, which was deleted as abandoned on October 3, 2023. Meters (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that all makes sense now and I got the help I needed. I truly appreciate everyone's help. 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions[edit]

Hullo, peolpes. This was originally just one question, but I realized I had another question. Question one: I recently decided to have some topicons on my user page, and I was wondering if there was any way to have the topicons in a specific order, or if it is just random. Question two: I have a user subpage for my awards. I was asking if there was a way to have the award templates in a sort of "gallery" similar to image galleries. That's all. Thanccs! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 21:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For topicons order, you should be able to use |sortkey=. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"mark my edits as minor by default"[edit]

Where'd that go? Did the minor-edits-are-bad-we-should-deprecate-them group succeed in removing that option via an RfC? Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Edward-Woodrow. It was removed from the English Wikipedia in 2011 after huge support at Help talk:Minor edit/Archive 1#Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ? and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 69#"Mark all edits as minor by default" should be disabled. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 2011? Funny, I only started editing last year. Clearly, my memory is playing tricks on me... Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Edward-Woodrow: Special:CentralAuth/Edward-Woodrow shows you have edited several Wikimedia wikis. The English Wikipedia is the only one where the option is removed. It's done with code in
// T26313, turn off minordefault on enwiki
if ( $wgDBname === 'enwiki' ) {
	$wgHiddenPrefs[] = 'minordefault';
There may be some editing tool which adds a similar option for edits made with the tool. The removed preference was at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, and still is at other wikis like commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this message a warning?[edit]

When you want to log in to your account (on mobile view) you see this message:

"Wikipedia is made by people like you.

Log in to contribute."

But the message has a warning sign. Why is this a warning? This is just a simple sentence about Wikipedia.

Please remove the warning sign. User:Aminabzz (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aminabzz where? Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I again forgot to mention the browser and OS. I will edit the entry. Aminabzz (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: The icon can be seen by logged out users at uselang=qqx shows that we can change the text at MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-generic-login-new but the icon is added by MediaWiki itself. I don't know why a warning icon is used. MediaWiki changes can be requested at Phabricator. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Agreed. It's too menacing to novice unregistered editors, because it's a big scary sign that confuses people. QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 23:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You are already logged in as Aminabzz. Use the form below to log in as another user."
Even this has a warning icon! Aminabzz (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signing again[edit]

Whenever I edit my entries on teahouse or talk pages I remove my previous signature and add the four tildes again (on both mobile and desktop views) Because the hour of previous signature differs from current time.

Is it a must do in editing the talk entries? If yes, can we have it fixed so that we don't have to resign our talk entries when editing them? I mean to have signatures update on their own. Aminabzz (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aminabzz: I don't think I've ever edited the date on my signature, and I don't think you should. It's supposed to be when the comment was added, also to give some clarity on the timeline of the discussion.
By the way, if you add five tildes (~~~~~), you'll get just the date (23:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)) QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 23:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments says that Best practice is to add a new timestamp, e.g., <ins>; edited ~~~~~</ins>, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post. Rusty4321 talk contribs 23:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing other editors' comments[edit]

Why are regular editors able to edit other editors' comments? Shouldn't it be something that only a mod can do?

At least we (as regular editors) can just suggest edits to other editors' comments so that they approve or reject. Aminabzz (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean, you can edit minor stuff like format errors, layout errors, unsigned signature, remove off-topic posts, etc. (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments) Rusty4321 talk contribs 23:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And a user with bad intentions can remove a whole section with all of its comments. I think it's better to prevent than to cure. Aminabzz (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect the removal of this ability would require major changes to the programming of the platform, but I have no technical knowledge of the matter.
However, actually changing another's comment is very heavily frowned upon in the community. Even correcting an obvious typo that's breaking an intended link, or wikilinking an unlinked word, are things which in the past I have done (once!) and been admonished for (even after adding my own comment saying what I had done and why). Instead one should, in most users' opinions, add one's own (polite) comment with the necessary correction.
Any edit to another's comment is usually noticed and complained about by the original commenter and/or others in the discourse very quickly, and I believe persistent offenders have in the past been blocked if not banned.
Wikipedia does not have "mods" as such (see Wikipedia:Moderators): the community as a whole does the "modding" by consensus. Admins have some analogous powers, but don't use them for such a purpose. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: Wikipedia has chosen for convenience to use the same software for articles and discussions. That means you can edit posts by others. Two alternatives for discussions have been developed but rejected by the English Wikipedia, first Wikipedia:LiquidThreads and later Wikipedia:Flow. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of corpses[edit]

Hi teahouse, can anyone point me to a style guideline, essay, or discussion anywhere about the use of photos of corpses in articles? I'm of course aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, but it's very normal for press and publishers to have some kind of guideline on when they are useful and when they are crossing a line (into voyeurism, privacy/rights violations, tastelessness, and all kinds of other reasons), and I expect we've had that discussion somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asilvering: Closest I can find at the moment is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images. RudolfRed (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @RudolfRed, that's close enough. -- asilvering (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, that only mentioned "vulgar or obscene" as the reasons an image can be potentially offensive. I just added "horrifying". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Singer- Songwriter[edit]

Trying to write my biography Anthon Joseph Caesar Aka Mafiandan6ixx Singer Songwriter and a Graphics Designer Born And Raise In Guyana at the age of 10 Years Old He Started Music And Since Then He's Making Ways Genre Gothic Dancehall record label is Mafiandan6ixx Entertainment. Caesar 199726 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to have a Wikipedia article you have to be notable enough. For example, you should be at least as famous as James Hetfield. Aminabzz (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Caesar 199726 User pages are not the place to attempt drafting an article. See WP:YFA for how to create and submit a draft. For a living person, all facts must be supported by independent references (see WP:42). Per WP:AUTO attempts at autobiography are frowned upon. See WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aminabzz: A musician does not have to be as famous as James Hetfield for Wikipedia to have an article about them.
@Caesar 199726. The actual Wikipedia notability criteria for musicians are at WP:MUSICBIO. GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fast Scrolling the notifications[edit]

On mobile phone I have to fast scroll down or up the notifications with my finger twice. With the first attempt nothing happens. With the second attempt the page scrolls. Do others have the same issue? I've never experienced it before. Aminabzz (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time Zone[edit]

On Phabricator I corrected my time zone and it told me all your time zones on platforms have been synched. But here I still see the UTC time. Aminabzz (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Aminabzz. The time zone setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering controls the display of log entries like page histories, user contributions and watchlists. Signatures are saved in the wikitext and not affected by that setting. Here at the English Wikipedia, Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". See more at Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken link[edit]

There’s a page called “Article Deletion” linked in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. I think it was deleted and I want to replace it, but I can’t find a page with the same name. I’m really new to Wikipedia and I don’t want to risk accidental vandalism. What can I do? Thanks! Koitoast (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Koitoast: That was a user's essay that was deleted. I don't think anything replaced it, so I suggest just removing it from that See Also section. RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signatures for articles guide?[edit]

Is there a tutorial or guide on how to make signatures for various people's articles?

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KatoKungLee: A signature that you might see on an article (e.g. Bill Gates) is just an image - see Help:Images. There are some instructions on how to use the various signature-related parameters of an infobox at Template:Infobox person#Parameters. There is also some information at commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KatoKungLee: If you mean how to convert it to a vector format, you must just increase the contrast, and then import in into Inkscape, then click Path > Trace bitmap, play around with the settings, and upload it under the {{PD-signature}} tag. QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 12:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stjepan Miletić[edit]

I recently created the Stjepan Miletić page, but it doesn't link to any of the other language pages that exist, such as hr:Stjepan Miletić. I don't like using the translate option when I create pages from Croatian Wikipedia, so I avoid it. When I created the page for Milan Ogrizović, a very charitable Wikipedian fixed the issue for me, but I would like to know how to do it from now on so that I could avoid having to bother another for help. TL;DR: How do I link a Croatian language Wikipedia page on a topic to the English language one I created? Thanks in advance! ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThaesOfereode: Welcome to the Teahouse! Here are the steps you can follow:
  1. Go to hr:Stjepan Miletić
  2. Find the Wikidata link, which is called "Stavka na Wikipodatcima"
  3. At the top right of the Wikidata page is a list of 5 entries for Wikipedias with an article about Miletić. Click the "edit" link.
  4. A new entry is created at the bottom of this section. Enter "en" in the wiki field and "Stjepan Miletić" in the other field. Then click "publish".
  5. Go to the English Wikipedia article for Stjepan Miletić. At the top right, confirm that it now links to the other 5 Wikipedias you saw on Wikidata.
Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome! Thank you so much for your help! ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also do this directly on en-wiki, which is usually how I do it. Go to where the language options are and there should be an "add links" button (or similar, depending on your default wikipedia skin). Click that, fill out the brief form, double-check that the article title was linked correctly (ie, that you haven't accidentally made a link between two different Stjepan Miletićs), and accept the change. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entry on Gilbert Stuart (artist)[edit]

I'm trying to update and correct the entry but am thwarted. Under endnote 43, would someone please add pp. 80, 105-06, and 118. And please eliminate the automated notations at the ends of notes 43 and 44. In note 49, the surname is Fielding, not Mantle.

The notes are out of order in the text: see note 18 after 33. In note 13, it's odd to include the street address of the press. I would put this book: Genius of Gilbert Stuart under Bibliography.

In the top row of the illustrations, can you replace Jacob Rodriquez Rivera (not by Stuart) with William Curtis, dated 1775? Curtis is at It is by Stuart and would fit there because of the date. Many thanks if you can do this.

It's difficult to correct the misconception that Stuart's middle name was Charles. This is an error. He was baptized without a middle name. Please remove the middle name under the first illustration. I'd be grateful for your kind help. DEvans2 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the note/reference numbering order, these are numbered according to the first time they appear in the infobox and main text, but the same reference can be used more than once. In this case, ref [18] first appears between [17] and [19] in section Gilbert Stuart#England and Ireland), and twice more in sections Gilbert Stuart#Boston, 1805–1828 and Gilbert Stuart#Legacy. You will see that in the References list these uses are designated as 18. a, b and c. Note that if another, new reference is added or an existing one removed, all those first appearing after it will automatically be renumbered. This is doubtless why some of your quoted ref numbers above are currently off by one.
I have removed the spurious "Charles" as the cited source reference [1] does not contain it: however, if it's present in other, apparently reliable sources, someone might use one of them to re-add it, in which case the D of WP:BRD can commence, and perhaps explanatory text might be required in the article itself. (Did he never use it, did he adopt it later in life?) For your future reference, the infobox code usually appears before any separately editable sections, but can be found by using the very top 'Edit' tab that applies to the whole article.
I can't see that it hurts to have PUP's street address in the, anyway quite short, reference, particularly as the company has two other addresses (in Oxford and Beijing) which might publish titles independently of the Main Office (as is the case with some other similar publishers).
Regarding replacing the Rivera portrait, I will leave that to others as I am not experienced with image placements. If the Rivera portrait is not by Stuart, you might want to take up the matter at Wikimedia Commons to avoid its future mis-use. I can't address your other points in the notes as I lack the specialised knowledge to identify the missing source data and corroborate the Fielding/Mantle matter. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing a photo of me from Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, there is a photo of me on Wikipedia, which I did not give permission to be used here. It was taken at a public event, but I'm not a famous person, and I'm sure other photos will be available. Could I ask for this photo to be deleted? Scarceintheworld (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also it's not mine; a stranger took a photo of me. Scarceintheworld (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Scarceintheworld. Asking for a photo to be "removed from a Wikipedia article" and "deleted from Wikipedia" are not necessary the same thing. Files, such as photos, uploaded to Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) tend to only be deleted due to some serious violation of relevant policy (e.g. a copyright violation). In such cases, "deletion" means hiding the file from public view so that it no longer can be used on any Wikipedia page. Because of this, only a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons administrator can delete a file. "Removal", on the other hand, simply means removing the file's sytax from a Wikipedia page so that it's no longer being displayed on that page. The file is still publicly visible and still may be being used on other Wikipedia pages. There can be various reasons for removing a file, and anyone who can edit a page can remove a file's syntax from said page. Random removals, however, are often reverted and in many cases discussion on the page's corresponding talk page or a relevant noticeboard take place to determine whether a consensus can be established to remove the file. Since you didn't give the name of the file you want deleted (perhaps intentionally), I would suggest you try seeking assistance about this via email instead and don't post anymore about it on any Wikipedia page. All Wikipedia pages are publicly viewable and it's generally not wise to post personally identifying information on any of them unless you understand and accept the risks of doing so; the more you post, the greater the chance of you posting something that you might later wish you hadn't. I wouldn't even advise you trying to remove the photo yourself because you will need to explain why which will also connect you to the photo. So, my suggestion to you would be to email WP:OVERSIGHT and see what Oversight has to say. At some point, you may be asked to verify that the photo is actually of you, but this will be done via email. An oversighter should be able to assess the situation and figure out what's best for you and what's best for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Scarceintheworld: see Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people, Greenman (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for your help. Scarceintheworld (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikipedia magazine[edit]

is there any wikipedia magazine avaialble hardcopy name (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what you are asking. Can you explain using more words? Ca talk to me! 10:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm assuming that they're asking about any physical (dead tree or paper-form) books or magazines of Wikipedia. in that case I'd say not really one provided by Wikipedia, but there are some services that allow you to print or DIY your own book, see Help:Books for more (although note that the process of creating books is really old and not really that well supported anymore). happy editing!
as a side note, if anyone else knows of another way to make wikipedia books/pdfs containing multiple articles apart from PediaPress and MW2Latex which are listed above, please {{ping}} me, I'd really like to see it too! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is the Signpost, though it is not a hard copy. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article[edit]

Please tell me what the problem is because it didn't seem constructive.Why is the page not accepted? Draft:Md Sunnat Ali Mollik Loverman Kingdom (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loverman Kingdom Hello and welcome. There are several unsourced sections of your draft; in an article about living people, every substantive fact must be sourced to a reliable source. Please see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot Please tell me what is that unsource category. The page is structured with all the information. Loverman Kingdom (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The early life section is entirely unsourced. Most of the career section is unsourced, and the end of the Liberation War section is unsourced. Every substantive claim about a living person must have a source. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Loverman Kingdom You removed the prevous decline notice, which I have restored as it helps reviewers see whether the draft has been improved to address the reasons for the decline. You have re-submitted for review without adding full citations, for example to the early life and some of the career subsections. In this state, it is likely to be rapidly declined again. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Loverman Kingdom As I predicted, your second submission was declined by User:DoubleGrazing today as lacking sufficient sources. You have despite my advice and a Talk Page warning by another editor for the third time deleted decline notices. This is unlikely to assist getting your draft accepted. In addition, you have uploaded a picture of Mollik to Wikimedia Commons as your own work. What is your relationship to him? Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull No relation. The said personality is a Bangladeshi freedom fighter and journalist, it is certainly known. Loverman Kingdom (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Loverman Kingdom How did you take a picture of him? 331dot (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be libel?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 – Apparently so QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 13:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be libelous to put something celebrating the death of a certain war criminal that died recently on my user page? QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 12:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the very least, it would be poor taste. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Edward-Woodrow: Less poor taste than carpet bombing 150,000 civilians (at least in my opinion) /hj QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 13:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know full well that the dead cannot sue for libel, QuickQuokka, so it's not clear a) what your question is and b) why you have asked it here. Many people are delighted that Kissinger is dead. Most of them manage not to be performative about it on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was not convicted of any war crimes by a court, so it would be a BLP violation to name him a "war criminal". There is some leeway in expressing your personal views on your user page, but it shouldn't be the main purpose. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuickQuokka: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to user pages and note Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead. See also Wikipedia:User pages#POLEMIC. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image Replacement in entry for Gilbert Stuart (artist)[edit]

In the top row of illustrations, I'd like to replace Jacob Rodrigues Rivera (an old misattribution; not by Stuart), if possible, with William Curtis, 1775. Curtis is at Although the Curtis portrait is not in color, it is by Stuart and retains the chronology by being definitely from 1775 (documented). I'll go to WikiCommons to let them know about the Rivera portrait. I don't know how to do this and would be grateful for any kind help. Thanks to the person who assisted me before. DEvans2 (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy links: Gilbert Stuart, commons:File:Jacob Rodriguez Rivera.jpg, wikidata:Q460867, commons:File:William Curtis - Gilbert Stuart.tif.
Hello, DEvans2, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can replace the image in the article by simply replacing the filename File:Jacob Rodriguez Rivera.jpg by File:William Curtis - Gilbert Stuart.tif (you need to get the spaces, punctuation, etc exactly right, so I suggest copying and pasting).
To pursue the issue of the misattribution, go to commons:COM:Help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, I have zero experience in this. How do you replace a file name? I could not delete the previous one. Also how do you add the new label, William Curtis, 1775, under the imported image. Thanks. DEvans2 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DEvans2: I've done it for you, but, if you want, I can show you how to do it in my sandbox, so that you can deal with similar errors or changes yourself in the future. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much! Can you change the date to 1775, not c. 1775 and not italicized? It's important for stylistic comparisons that it's an absolute, documented date. I don't think I'll ever be doing this again. I appreciate this help. DEvans2 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to edit excessive and unrelated info[edit]


I am a novice editor and I have found myself working on the Wartime sexual violence page. What I would like to know is how I should proceed in regard to the subsection on the Imperial Japanese Army. It is filled with excessive and unrelated information, but I do not wish to delete the detailed work of someone else without additional input. Should I save unrelated informative info to my personal files and transfer that information to a related page? Or should I just mass delete? Any help is much appreciated.

Many thanks! Cicadalovemail (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Cicadalovemail, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The simple answer is that you don't have to save anything, because a) text in Wikipedia does not belong to anybody and the person who wrote it has no proprietary control over it, and b) it will all still be there in the history of the article anyway
But before removing significant material, I would suggest discussing it on the article's talk page. (You could even copy the material you want to remove into that discussion, so that it will still be readily accessible there if you do go ahead and delete it), If nobody has disagreed in, say, a week, go ahead and remove it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response! Hope you have a good day! Cicadalovemail (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cicadalovemail: Building on the good answer above, if you decide to delete some text, please use a edit summary explaining why you're being constructive and thoughtful by deleting the material. If someone else reverts your edit and restores the text, you can discuss it on the article's talk page and come to a consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) In looking at the before/after, I agree that much, perhaps the majority of the content about Japan during WWII had nothing to do with wartime sexual violence. You cut a lot of that and reduced references in that section from ~100 to ~30. It is possible that an editor who watches this article will revert your massive cut. The proper next step will be to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, inviting the dissenting editor. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add to this that, because you are a new editor, it is reasonably likely that someone will revert your content removals. Easier said than done, but don't let this discourage you! Go to the Talk page as you've been advised, and everything should work out in the end. If you're having trouble, you can come back here to ask for another set of eyes on the problem. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the curious, the article is Wartime sexual violence, and as expected, it is a depressing read. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mfw i see m.en[edit]

en links, when clicked by someone using the mobile layout, will automatically shunt the user to their m.en counterparts. m.en links, when clicked by someone using the desktop layout, won't automatically shunt the user to their en counterparts, which is the opposite of convenient

they also don't work with the navigation popup gadget (hallowed be its name), which is the opposite of convenient

with that in mind, is there any problem in indiscriminately editing m.en links to be not that, aside from any issues with editing other people's replies? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 16:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cogsan: Please give some examples of links you are proposing to change. Ideally, any links will just be Wikilinks and not bare urls. RudolfRed (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What RudolfRed says is the point, Cogsan. Replacing external links to Wikimedia and related sites by wikilinks is a good idea; replacing them with a different external link is not. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's this ani thread that led me to ask this, though it can really apply to any instance of mobile wikilinks
but i also stumbled into the fitting guidelines, and i think i can treat them as "doing that is fine i guess" without a lot of mental gymnastics, as they're just wikilinks but worse
thanks anyway cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 17:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to edit a page title[edit]

Texas Board of Professional Engineers

How do you edit the title of a page? The page titled: “Texas Board of Professional Engineers” should be changed to “Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors”. The engineering board and the surveying board were combined into one board in 2019 as stated on the page. Austineagle (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved the page since your account is currently too new to perform a move (you need ten edits and an account age of at least 4 days). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, how do you make a diagonal line in a edit? I really need to know so I can seperate different sections![edit]

How do you make a diagonal line in the editor? Removingthegraffiti (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what do you mean a diagonal line? Do you mean you want a to make a new HEADER/section in the article, or like, an actual LINE
In the article? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 18:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Removingthegraffiti, welcome to the Teahouse. A diagonal line is tilted like a slash / or backslash \. Is that really what you mean? If you mean a horizontal line like the one posted above by Babysharkboss2 then we don't do that in articles per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Horizontal rule, but one is automatically added below level 2 headings like == Section ==. See more at Help:Section. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I meant a straight line. Thank you! Removingthegraffiti (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steps to secure permission to use from a willing copyright holder[edit]

Hello. This is my first visit to Teahouse about my first new article draft. I intend to soon submit my article Draft:PLEXUS West Coast Women’s Press for review.

A problematic issue is the draft’s use of a photo (of the early PLEXUS staff) from the August 15, 1974 edition of the now-defunct Berkeley Barb newspaper. User:Peaceray a helpful editor has given me some preliminary suggestions (Draft talk:PLEXUS West Coast Women’s Press) about my draft article, including the suggestion to bring this question to the Teahouse for advice.

I wrote: “One of the images, an early staff photo, was published by the Berkeley Barb whose full archive is now available open access on JSTOR. I have gotten in touch with the copyright owner, oldest child of the now-deceased publisher. They indicated an intent to give me permission to use the photo from their article, but they are traveling overseas right now. I could use some advice about how to convert that intent-to-permit into a form that Wikipedia will accept.”

Can someone guide me in obtaining copyright permission in the correct form from the holder?

BananaSlug (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BananaSlug All the correct (email) forms are on Wikipedia Commons. See c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team for full details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. The presence or not of a photo will have no effect on whether your draft is accepted, as it will not contribute to the wikinotability of the topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I have forward this information to the copyright holder (specifically ...Declaration of consent...) encouraging them (or their lawyer) to use the Interactive Release Generator. — BananaSlug (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Herriot / Alf Wight[edit]

At present, Wikipedia treats Alf Wight, the real life vet who wrote under the pen name James Herriot, as the latter, however there are some differences between the real life of Alf versus the fictional life of James, and I am half convinced that the article should be under Alf's name despite Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames,_pen_names,_stage_names,_cognomens ... I raised this topic as Talk:James_Herriot#Redirect_(again), without comment as yet; perhaps anyone with views on this would like to comment there. Of course if the consensus is that there should be no change, I will not mind! Thanks in advance - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tony 1212 I think you're probably correct (I haven't looked into this enough to comment "officially" on the Talk page), but I'm not sure posting here is the most effective way to get the attention of people who are likely to have encountered this kind of question before. Maybe try WP:WPBIO or maybe WP:BOOKS as well? If you don't get much input, my suggestion would be to make a formal WP:RfD about swapping James Alfred Wight with James Herriot. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @asilvering, I have added "Rfc|bio" to the relevant Talk page section, will see what happens... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just spent the afternoon researching an author and wrote a complete updated to the page after being notified it was due for deletion. I just had my edit reverted as constructive. This can not be right. What do I need to do please? Markpeloton (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, didn't see the other edits (only the last one). Wikipedia has pretty strict sourcing requirements for biographies of living people, and claims about someone's private life requires sources to be mentioned. Feel free to add back the parts with sources! Good luck editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Markpeloton (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical question about infobox[edit]

Greetings to all! I have a technical question: I have just created the article Batak Hydropower Cascade and in the infobox there is a repeating image, which I have not added. I guess there is some kind of automatic connection between the article and the image, and I really don't want to have it in the infobox, and even less, to have it three times. Since I would most likely not easily understand how to overcome these issues, I would highly appreciate if someone could edit out the images.

And another question: is it possible to add the geographic map of Bulgaria in the infobox, instead of the current one.

Sorry if the questions are mundane, but I am really terrible in all technical aspects of editing. Thank you in advance. --Gligan (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here it is c:File:Bulgaria-geographic map-en.svg
Regarding the repetitive image, I too couldn't figure it out. Leoneix (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for giving it a try. I hope someone would figure it out.
As for the map, my idea is to have the map like in this article, for example. In the infobox of the Bulgarian settlements, I have figured out how to replace the administrative map with the geographic one, like this (see line 16) but for this infobox template this trick does not work. --Gligan (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I copy and paste the whole code on Batak Hydropower Cascade to my sandbox, the images to do not appear. The infobox is perfectly fine. Hope this helps other editors who are looking into this. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, this is weird. The images are not visible now. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, now I managed to figure it out myself. Apparently, the image in question was connected to the wikidata page of the Batak Hydropower Cascade/Way. I removed it there and it disappeared from the infobox.
Now only the question of pure aesthetics, not importance, remains: if it is possible to have the relieve map in this type of infobox, instead of the administrative. --Gligan (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Infobox dam}} pulls the image from the article's wikidata item when image= is null. Your sandbox has no wikidata item. The cure will be to use something other than {{Infobox dam}} for the components of Batak Hydropower Cascade (or find a means of overriding the template's default behaviour). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is entirely wrong to vandalise the wikidata item by removing its image, because the WP templates are fouled up. I've readded the image to WD. Please do not remove it again. Other users of that WD item should be afforded the courtesy of it having its image. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vandalism is, by definition, bad faith, which clearly isn't the case here… -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dicdef of vandalism says nothing about bad faith. It is merely "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, I was just using Wikipedia's definition, which says: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Similarly, Wikidata's definition: a deliberate attempt to damage or compromise the integrity of Wikidata. […] [A]ny good-faith attempt to improve Wikidata is not vandalism. It is not fitting to accuse good-faith but mistaken editors of vandalism. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tagishsimon: My edit was not meant as a vandalism. I did not know that removing an image counts like one. The definitions used in some English-speaking countries are not familiar with me and certainly I had no clue that such an action may be defined as "destruction".
In any case, I hope another user could find a solution to the issue. --Gligan (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an odd tact to take—is it not expected to use Wikipedia's working definition of an important word like 'vandalism' when not otherwise specified, especially when attempting to help inquiring editors? Remsense 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should also change tact to tack, Remsense. But thanks for joining in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's beside the point, but I am aware of the provenance of the idiom. Not all variants are malapropisms or points for confusion.Remsense 20:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, the problem seems to be {{Infobox dam}} pulling the image from Wikidata if none is specified. Is there precedent for adding a parameter to disable this? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a noimg parameter that, if nonempty, prevents any image, including from Wikidata, from being displayed. See {{Infobox dam/sandbox}}, and User:Maddy from Celeste/sandbox for how the article's infobox would look with this change. If we agree on this, I can put in an edit request to have this implemented in the actual infobox. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Infobox dam}} uses Module:InfoboxImage which automatically suppresses certain image names. I have used image=No image available.png.[4] We could just document this but I don't know whether the list of suppressed image names is completely stable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd sure hope that a central module like that would provide a stable interface. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. --Gligan (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have suggested an |image=no parameter at Module talk:InfoboxImage#Explicit option to not add image. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Archive url's to Reference's which are still live - Is it against policy? Yes or No?[edit]

Years ago I was told by an admin on here that archive url's from Wayback Machine, etc, should only be added to references if the original url is dead, and it was apparently a policy.

I agreed with them as adding Archive url's to live url's make it look like they're dead, so someone less experienced might decide to replace them with a different link, or remove them altogether, without clicking on the link itself to see if it is actually dead.

A couple of weeks ago I noticed an admin (who has only been on Wikipedia for a few years, yet became an admin almost immediately) adding archive url's to every single reference on an article, so I told them what that admin told me.

They haven't replied to my reply, although someone else has, and they've said that they do the same, and isn't against policy. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Danstarr69,
Adding an archive URL should be fine, even if the site is still up. To do that, see Wikipedia:Link rot#Internet archives, which provides info about adding an archive URL to a template.
Happy editing! ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:EARLYARCHIVE is a how-to page rather than a policy or guideline, but it specifically recommends adding archive links while the source is still live. The {{cite web}} template includes a parameter to control how the archive and original link are ordered based on whether the original page is still live. I know of no policy or guideline which prohibits or even discourages giving archive links for pages while they are still live. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should totally add archive links while the page is still live, especially if the page isn't already archived in one of those repositories. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To emphasize Edward-Woodrow's point, adding archive URLs to live sources (be sure to set the 'url-status' parameter to 'live' when you do) is usually extremely, extremely helpful for a number of reasons. 1) It means that the citation will continue to be useful once the source goes down. The InternetArchiveBot is both imperfect and (relatively) slow. I've seen many cases where the IAB thinks a link is unrecoverable when it's trivially recoverable by a human (but this discourages editors from trying because of the 'permanent dead link' tag it leaves), and it processes batches of 5000 articles at a time compared to Wikipedia's 6.75 billion. Meanwhile, a human reader both stumbling across the dead link and having the know-how and motivation to recover or flag it is rare. 2) Archives can be more difficult to obtain once the original source is dead – a proper archive may not exist where it could've had someone taken the time to create one, or if it does, it may not be at the same URL as the current one (for an example of this, IGN a long time ago changed their URL format, and Wikipedia still has probably hundreds if not thousands of citations linking to the old format which shows a 404 and doesn't redirect). 3) It saves other volunteers time as well down the road. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clear up one major misconception, there's usually no need to archive a live link yourself. URLs inside a citation templates on Wikipedia are automatically queued to be archived by Internet Archive. It can take awhile before a new URL is noticed and then archived, so if you expect the site to go down or the content to drift in the short term, it makes sense to archive the source yourself.
Adding archives to live links as a mass action is not against policy, but some editors consider it disruptive. We've had lots of conversations about this at Wikipedia talk:Link rot, Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, and Help talk:Citation Style 1. You can always take a snapshot of your source at Internet Archive and take no action at Wikipedia if you're worried about the future availability of the source but don't believe in adding archives to live URLs.
Of course, not all sources should be archived. I sometimes wonder how many of Internet Archive's literal eight hundred billion webpages are custom 404 errors, publisher paywalls that can't be logged into, and similar non-archive snapshots. These should generally be removed on sight, since they waste the time of both editors and readers. Folly Mox (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

book articles without a cover image[edit]

i'd like to help add book cover images within the guidelines of fair use. i have gotten pretty good at doing that. is there a way that i could pull a list of articles about books, likely modern books so that the image is readily findable, that might not have a cover image in their infobox? I could help add those images. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Iljhgtn. We have Category:Books with missing cover. incategory:"Books with missing cover" insource:/published *= *20/ and incategory:"Books with missing cover" insource:/published *= *199/ combines it with a recent year in |published=. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
one returned result was Bruno Maddox which is an author, not a book. Overall though this is a great answer. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bruno Maddox is there correctly actually - scroll down a bit and you'll find the infobox with missing cover. -- asilvering (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i see it now. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that trying to add a non-free book cover to Bruno Maddox is most likely going to fail WP:NFCC#8 due to WP:NFC#cite_note-3. If the category is simply being populated by articles using {{Infobox book}} with an empty |image= parameter, then I suggest you just don't automatically assumethat a non-free book cover should be added to every article listed in the category. For stand-alone article about books, where the image is being added to main infobox at the top of the article for primary identification purposes, then adding a non-free book cover is probably OK; for other types of articles or other types of uses, chances are that's it's not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC);[Note: Poste dited by Marchjuly to add the word "assume" to second sentence. -- 22:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
ok, i will only add it then for those atop the article in the primary infobox and will leave the rest alone going forward. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok new question for you two. once i upload an image. look at Lennon Bermuda for example. it should no longer show up in the list right? I have clicked refresh even and it still shows up in the 2000s list. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think because this is dependent on another template (rather than being a maintenance category that is manually added by editors), it will not immediately update. I can't give you anything more specific than that because I don't know much about the back end of mediawiki. -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iljhgtn: Once you upload an image AND add it to the article's infobox, the category should no longer appear. The Lennon Bermuda article has TWO infoboxes: {{Infobox album}} with an image, and {{Infobox book}} without an image. I don't know which infobox should have the image. GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh the book actually. my mistake on that. i will move them Iljhgtn (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
actually others have cover images too.. not sure now if this is reliable. check out Henderson's Boys Iljhgtn (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a cover image, that is a logo for the book series. The individual books within the series don't have cover images. RudolfRed (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i see Iljhgtn (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That search is incomplete. A_House_on_Water is a 2022 book missing a cover image. The infobox is using "publication date" not "published" so that explain it. RudolfRed (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
can you help to fix the search? i did find others that were returning what i was looking for such as Lennon Bermuda, which i will find and upload a fair use image for right now.. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replying to myself, the search may not be incomplete, I think I misunderstood a previous comment. RudolfRed (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This finds both published and pub_date: incategory:"Books with missing cover" insource:/(published|pub_date) *= *20/. File:My Little Blue Dress book cover.jpg#Summary inaccurately says: "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." I don't know fair use rules for images in article sections about subtopics. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
interesting point. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think it is still fair use, maybe just the description could be amended? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fair use perhaps but fair use and non-free content are not one and the same for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use; so, it's best not to mix up the two concepts. In-body use of non-free cover art (with or without an infobox) is almost always considered WP:DECORATIVE non-free use per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 absent any sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself. The same applies to most other types of cover art like album covers, magazine covers, DVD covers, etc. Most infoboxes have a parameter for images by default, but that doesn't automatically make it OK for a non-free image to be used there. In some cases, non-free book cover art could be used in an article about the person who created the cover as an example of their work or particular style, but generally they're not allowed to be used in articles about authors just because the author wrote the book which the cover represents. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add a missing "doesn't" to the second to last sentence. -- 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
i see. so restrictive! thank you though. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Marchjuly. Did you miss a "doesn't" in "that automatically make it OK"? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I did. Thank you for a catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

Split interpretations of policy leading to confusion[edit]

It seems Admins and Editors alike all have different interpretations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Where one page using criteria A gets deemed as within guidelines, another page using "criteria A" gets deleted or drafted by other editors.

Specifically, there seems to be an issue with citations and how many are needed. There seems to be no consensus on how many citations a subject needs. How many citations should a good wikipedia article have? How can I find worthy citations outside of google (Tools, resources, etc?)

ALSO: Seeing as how OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't valid argument to base the quality of an article/page:

How do I find reference articles that aren't just "other articles that exist," and are actually GOOD articles? Comintell (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In answer to the first question, the answer is not an ordinal, so much as All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose) - per Wikipedia:Good article criteria#The six good article criteria.
As to the second, ~39k of them at Category:Good articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best examples will be at WP:FA. As for how many, there are some editors who act as though all statements need to be sourced; that isn't actually the policy. The policy is that all statements need to be verifiable. But I'm not sure this is actually what you mean to ask - it sounds to me like you're asking about notability. The consensus on that is at WP:N. If you want to get a better handle on how it works, my advice is to lurk at WP:AFD for a while. -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tagishsimon: Changed your category to a category link. GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Comintell: Note that "Good articles" (GA) has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which you may not have intended with your question. For more information on how Wikipedia articles are graded based on their quality, see Wikipedia:Content assessment. GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would pause for a moment to consider what consensus on this would even look like. It seems absurd to set a fixed number, does it not? Unfortunately, flexibility and arbitrariness go hand in hand: for me, it's clear the pros of the former are worth the cons of the letter for a point like this. Remsense 02:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Comintell In relation to your How can I find worthy citations question, there is a useful template that you'll often see on an article-for-deletion discussion or on the Talk Page of articles. It also works within your sandbox. It is {{find sources}} which renders as
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · AP · TWL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Remsense. Trying to find some hard, fixed number shouldn't be a goal. Some topics need more, complex, citations, others don't. And so on. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

starting a new thread after that last one[edit]

if i am adding a book infobox image according to fair use rules, does it matter where i found the picture? Like what if i find it for sale on amazon or something, would that count? Again, I would fill in the wizard guidelines all separately and properly, but just wondering if where i find the image matters a whole lot. Does it need to officially be from the publisher? Sometimes that is not available, obviously when possible that is the first source and first type of place that i look for and that i try to stick to exclusively but it is just not always available. do those just not get images uploaded then in those cases? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see Celebrations, Rituals of Peace and Prayer for an example where i had to use Barnes and Noble as a source. I will hold off on more of these until i know that that is acceptable, when it is a last resort for locating a book cover image for the infobox under fair use guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should try and stick to official sources for non-free use as much as possible in order to avoid any problems with WP:NFCC#4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion). Non-free content is required to be published with the consent of the the copyright holder. A website like Amazon or Barnes and Nobles should be OK because the copyright holder of the book most likely has either explicity or implicitly given their consent for the book to be sold in such a way. Personal blogs, or other types of WP:UGC websites probably should be avoided if they're not officially connected to the copyright holder. Moreover, photos taken by others of book covers should also be avoided if possible because the photo itself (depending upon whether it's a slavish reproduction of the cover) might also be eligible for copyright protection, seperate from the cover itself. Such a photo could still probably be used per relevant Wikipedia policy, but it might show only part of the cover or perhaps include other copyrightable elements which futher complicates things. Finally, if you're going to continue to upload non-free book covers, you probably will avoid confusing yourself and others if you stop refering to relevant Wikipedia policy as "fair use rules" because they're not the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
where am i referring to that so that i can stop doing that? thank you for clarifying too. amazon and barnes and noble seem to be common sources for book covers, but if i can find the image from the publishing house then that is preferred. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You call it "fair use rules" in your initial post here: if i am adding a book infobox image according to fair use rules, does it matter where i found the picture?. Remember that Wikipedia's licence allows for explicitly commercial reuse of wp content - what might be fair use on wikipedia alone won't be fair use for all hypothetical commercial reuse. -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i see. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 1 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]
@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]

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]

Aftermath as a section title for prowrestling shows[edit]

I've found and changed a few sections titled "Aftermath" to "Plot Summary" for a few prowrestling tv specials. When I clicked see also, I just kept finding more. Am I wrong to update these, or does Wikipedia prefer an in-universe description for these shows? Should I continue? Ultraneutral (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While WP:INUNIVERSE is a continual problem faced in the pro wrestling corner of Wikipedia (I say this as someone who heavily edits those areas), this format is currently the accepted style for pro wrestling event articles (see WP:PW/MOS). Changing this format would require consensus at WP:PW. — Czello (music) 08:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not one who edits much in that corner, but [5] doesn't quite make sense to me. If that is "plot summary", isn't "Storylines" and "Event" plot summaries too? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ultraneutral: Looking at Survivor Series (2017), it seems that the "Aftermath" section discusses what happened AFTER Survivor Series. I would expect a "Plot Summary" section to discuss what happened DURING Survivor Series. However, I agree with the suggestion about to discuss with the members of the WikiProject. GoingBatty (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Together Price[edit]

Hello Teahouse Community!

Good day to you all. I have a question regarding my draft, Draft:Together Price, which has been declined a couple of times. I was wondering if the sources below are reliable. If you could also check the page itself, that would be great.

El Mundo La Stampa Corriere della Sera El Español Il Sole 24 Ore

Thank you.~~ CGxoxo (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that most of them are, CGxoxo. I'd guess that the others are too. NB you have been asked for sources that are reliable and "in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)" and secondary and disinterested. (Incidentally, what does "platform" mean here? Just "company"?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Referencing routine financial transactions does not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 16:17, 1 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]

Goal achived[edit]

Hello I have achived the sole goal of this account and logged back into my main account @Casper King. What steps would I use in order to disengage this account as it is now a sock puppet? HelpCasperking (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HelpCasperking you can just stop using the account, and declare the WP:SOCKLEGIT purpose on your user page. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if sockpuppet would be it, I think it'd be WP:SPA Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it is an account with a singular purpose, it is not considered to be a single-purpose account as that essay defines it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, HelpCasperking is just an alternative account. We don't call them WP:SOCK or WP:SPA unless they are used for certain things. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty preview[edit]

The preview for Hell Gate currently shows me a picture next to space for text, but without any text in it. Looking at the wikitext, the article starts with two images, the first with a landscape and the second with a portrait orientation. The one in the preview is the portrait one. Is this a known issue?

- 2A02:560:58AF:6800:EC6B:2655:5895:CC79 (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some things can prevent the preview feature from finding the right text. I have moved {{Coord}} to the bottom.[6] That works for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]