Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1190

Archive 1191

Archive 1192

→

Help setting up a new wikipedia page

Hi I am an and want to set up a page for an Artist. Can anyone help me please?

Can this done without publishing until it is at least semi complete? TRMODELS (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TRMODELS.

You can create a draft article and submit for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Please note there is a four+ month waiting list, as articles are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers.

For your article to have a chance to be accepted the artist must show that they pass the Wikipedia:Notability threshold. In essence, you need to find significant coverage of the artist in independent, third party, secondary, reliable sources. If you cannot find those sources then the artist cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.

It would be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, plus the Wikipedia:Citing sources guide that explains how to cite sources.

Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.

Hope that helps! Qcne (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, if you are connected in any way to the artist, then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Qcne, thank you for taking the time. The page is for Timothy Richards www.timothyrichardscommissions.com

I am a newby so please forgive me if I am using the wrong language, like "page".

There is a lot of information to take in. Timothy is a one off who has over the past 36 years resurrected the ancient craf Architectural Model making in plaster. It is a highly academic and artistic craft. Tim has been named in publications and works with highest level institutions globally.

He is however now 68 and we are looking at his legacy and the preservation of the same. Having him listed on a Wiki page appears like one of those steps to take.

I am senior manager of the workshop which may be , as you pointed out, conflicting. Could you kindly advise.

I am aware that there is no such thing as ownership on a page.

I look forward to further advice and am grateful for your time.

Kind regards TRMODELS (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi TRMODELS, as you may or may not know Wikipedia generally does not allow articles made specifically to promote someone. Unless there have been a number of secondary unbaised sources written about Timothy (in newspapers, online articles etc) it's unlikely a page will be able to made for him. Primary sources like the website you mentioned are generally looked down upon on Wikipedia. I think your first job should be to find a lot of secondary sources on Timothy and create a draft article as mentioned by Qcne. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear 🐟🍟 thank you for pointing the above out. There are more sources independent of myself.I understand that a website is not relevant here. He has been mentioned and written about in Books, Magazines, newspapers etc.

The main question is, if there are so many COI's then who can actually put an article up about Tims work. The only reason I am wishing to do this is because of the global historical value of his work. 86.178.78.238 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

As to who can do it, typically an article is written by an independent editor who takes note of significant coverage of a topic and chooses to write about it. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you.

I feel quite defeated right now after all the messages which are all obviously meant very helpful and I am very grateful.

Yet, I feel each is telling me to back off.

everyone is telling me what can’t be done.

so really it’s left to chance complete If someone independent comes along and writes the article. Because it’s a specialist subject it may never happen?

kind regards 2A04:4A43:539F:E233:888D:5990:F88C:439C (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There is that possibility, yes. Please don't edit while logged out, and ask for a name change for your softblocked account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, TRMODELS, and welcome to the Teahouse. One more point in addition to the good points that Qcne has already made: You use the words "set up a page", which suggests that you think that you will in some sense own that page, and can subsequently change it as you wish . Please note that nobody owns a Wikipedia article: anybody may edit it, and you will have no more right to do so than anybody else. In fact, if you have a COI (as Qcne mentions at the end) then you will not be allowed to edit it at all, but only to make suggestions for changing it. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As in not edit it afterwards if you succeed in getting a draft accepted as an article. David notMD (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

List of hexagrams of the I Ching might need some cleanup

I stumbled upon the article List of hexagrams of the I Ching and found some strange texts, so I undid the change. After inspecting the edit history, I found the user Sudoh Neem has many edits before; I checked some of them and found they might be unrelated info (like the meaning of the Chinese characters in modern context and a Google search page as reference), but I can't decide what to do with those edits.

Most of those edits (and even the article itself) also lacks inline refs so I can't really tell if those additions has verifiable sources.

I'm not specifically against this one user; it's just that I feel some of the changes are not really necessary and adds noise to the article.

Ff19 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ff19, and welcome to the Teahouse. The right place to discuss the content of a particular article is that article's talk page: in this case, Talk:List of hexagrams of the I Ching. You should Ping that user, so that they know you have opened the discussion. If you don't think many people will see that talk page, you could put a note on WT:WikiProject China inviting participation in the discussion. ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Report for harrasment.

@Shshshsh is harrassing me a lot regarding an addition. @Fylindfotberserk already approved my addition at first but the previous one has crossed all the limits of harrasment. I will like to request an competent executive to look upon this matter whether i did any wrong edit or not . If they find any wrong about my addition i promise that i will apologize.

Here , User talk:SANKURDAS I got approval from @Fylindfotberserk.

It's that page where i made changes. Sridevi. SANKURDAS (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

SANKURDAS Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is not the place to raise user conduct issues, that may be done at the Incidents adminstrator's board. Please do not post on several user talk pages requesting assistance. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this suggestion. SANKURDAS (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not the same as harrassing you. Posting on the Talk pages of more than a half dozen editors, claiming you are being harrassed is wrong. Your edits to Sridevi have been reverted by more one editor. The proper place to attempt to reach consensus is the Talk page of the article, where it appears a discussion is ongoing. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagreement is fine but when you provide all the necessary proofs but still getting rejection that means harassment and harassment in the sense of being said completely different stuffs each time which was already specified there .

Like in that case

If you see there i provided the source from NEWS-18 which is branch of CNN-IBN , a national organisation.More of all i provided the link where that very person was awarded with that title and in my side i have FILMFARE MAGAZINE COVER photo also but can't able to post that.

And one more thing,

apart from that title , in the funeral section also i raised one disapproval regarding a mistake. Why any of them is not commenting upon that ?

You showcased one more user's disagreement but didn't specify one wikipedian's approval which I got at first in your comment .SANKURDAS (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not harassment at all. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you check all those comments which is made in that user's talk page ? SANKURDAS (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I did. It's not harassment. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Then it's my mistake. By the way what is your review upon those statements ? SANKURDAS (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has not been achieved on the Talk oage of Sridevi. That place, not here, is the only place to continue a discussion. Teahouse Hosts function as volunteers to advise editors on Wikipedia practices - not to solve content disputes. David notMD (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

How would I put a hat over the symbol Koppa or qoppa (Ϙ, ϙ)?

The symbol ϙ works very well. But how do I put a hat (circumflex) on it?

E.g., ${\hat {\beta }}_{0}$ puts a hat on the mathematical symbol \beta. I was not able to put a hat on coppa in this way.

I found that ${\hat {\mathrm {\coppa} }}$ puts a hat on ${\mathrm {\coppa} }$ but the letter is shifted out of the main text if you try to embody it there. Also ${\mathrm {\coppa} }$ is not good on all browsers. FraochmacFidachFoltruad (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi FraochmacFidachFoltruad, welcome to the Teahouse. ̂ is a combining character circumflex which works well for some characters, e.g. â. For ϙ it gives ϙ̂ where the circumflex is displayed a little to the right for me in Firefox. Is a circumflex supposed to apply to ϙ in language or is it just a math invention? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much PrimeHunter.

Yes, it is somewhat too much to the right in chrome too.

My circumflex is meant to apply to ϙ in language - i.e., in the main body of my text. FraochmacFidachFoltruad (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@FraochmacFidachFoltruad: I meant language as in writing words in a language where ϙ with circumflex is used as a letter. As far as I can tell, circumflex isn't used there. That may be why browsers refuse to display it on top of ϙ. A mathematician apparently invented this combination as a notation for something mathematical. ϙ<span style="position:relative; right:0.3em;">̂</span> is a hack which looks OK to me in Firefox but I don't promise it will be OK for others: ϙ̂. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The diacritic is misaligned for me, and I'm using Chrome. I don't think koppa is recognised as a valid character in LaTeX? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tenyruu. I think I have it fairly OK now. Just for completeness, you can get koppa in LaTeX but it takes a bit of work; here it is: https://www.icmp.lviv.ua/journal/zbirnyk.74/23601/art23601.pdf FraochmacFidachFoltruad (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again PrimeHunter (talk) . It didn't quite work on my Chrome but what you sent earlier is not too bad - the hat is just slightly shifted. With a few words of explanation I can make it work. FraochmacFidachFoltruad (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

3RR Question

Hi everyone,

I'm a new editor here. Last night I was checking recent changes for vandalism. Another new editor changed Roger Garrett. Before last night I had never heard of him - I have no skin in the game with the edits. The (other) new editor did three edits - one broke the infobox, another removed referenced content and the final one changed his date of birth - despite the removed date being referenced. I reverted all three edits. The other new user then posted on Roger Garrett's talk page. I can't understand exactly what they have written, I think they may have a friend who is an non-notable actor who shares Roger Garrett's name and they were trying to change the entry so it was about their friend.

My question is, in reverting the three edits, was I at risk of being blocked? I have looked at the 3RR page but I don't understand a about reverting edits that break the page or remove sourced claims?

Thanks for the help,

Puffin123 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Puffin123! In reverting those edits, I don't think you would be banned, as it says there that reverting what's obviously vandalism is an exemption.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 11:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Puffin123! As to your concern over 3RR, that applies if you've reverted the same person three times in a row. You've only done it twice, even though you made three edits to do so. If you reverted again, that would be three. But: the person may be correct that Wikipedia has got the birthdate and parents wrong. They say they know the guy, and our "referenced content" is actually sourced to a source we don't consider reliable -- a birth index. Now, Wikipedia doesn't use "I know the guy" as a source either, but what you have here is a content dispute, and you should take it to the talk page. Information that is disputed should be left out of the article until consensus is reached at talk.

@The Master of Hedgehogs, that's not obviously vandalism. It's a new user trying to correct information they know to be incorrect. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Still, I think that making an article about a notable actor read about a non-notable actor is kinda like vandalism.

-It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 11:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Master of Hedgehogs, it's not vandalism. Vandalism is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. It is not simply being incorrect or accidentally breaking an infobox. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee - So if the other editor had made another (incorrect or page breaking) edit which I had reverted, would I have been banned from editing the article? I've seen that you've also edited the article. I removed three categories related to information we're no longer considering reliable. If this is incorrect feel free to revert it. Puffin123 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Puffin123, if you'd reverted again, that would be 3. That's the official limit, so no, at that point someone assuming good faith might have told you (since you're new and aren't expected to know everything yet) that you were at your limit. If you then reverted the same information a 4th time in a single 24-hour period, you'd be officially edit-warring and could be blocked from editing completely (and not just from the article but from editing anything but your own talk page) by any administrator without anyone questioning it.

However: In all cases, if you revert someone and they revert you back, unless you are absolutely convinced it is actual intentional vandalism (rather than just simple wrongheadedness) it is best to go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the other editor, and start discussing the content dispute like adults instead of just reverting each other back and forth. I almost never revert anyone a second time unless it's at a biography of a living person and the information they're adding is negative. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and as to the page-breaking -- no reasonable admin would think fixing that, even four times, was edit warring. If you just fixed that (and didn't revert the content) a fourth time, and someone blocked you for it, others would definitely question the move. Valereee (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What do we call

What do we call the abbreviations, such as WP:RS or WP:TEA? Can these buy used to point to editors talk pages or only to more official Wikipedia pages? Can I write up my own theory of nonsense and get a link WP:MYTHEORY? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jtbobwaysf! Those abbreviations are called shortcuts. Shortcuts are only for pages starting with Wikipedia. It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 00:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Master of Hedgehogs: That is incorrect. See H:EDIT as an example. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

okay, sorry, didn't know

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 10:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I write up my own theory of nonsense and get a link WP:MYTHEORY? Sure, that's basically what essays are. But it'd be best to pick a shortcut that's more specific to your essay. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wpscatter: Thank you. So any essay can contain a shortcut? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there has been some pushback against shortcuts in mainspace pointing to essays in personal space. I can see the argument, but I do it myself and nobody's bothered me so far. So, go for it. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: There are no fixed rules. WP is an alias for the Wikipedia namespace so WP shortcuts usually go there but not always. Shortcuts are redirects and can be nominated for deletion or retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but it rarely happens if it sounds reasonable for the current target and it wasn't changed away from another target. Shortcuts almost never go to talk pages but many userspace essays have a shortcut. If a page has a shortcut then it's common to use the first letter of each word. If you write an essay called "Sortable tables are wonderful" then probably nobody will care if you make a WP:STAW shortcut but WP:WONDERFUL would be controversial. It's a common word, it could have been about a lot of things, few people will probably think your essay is wonderful or deserving of such a shortcut, and the essay is about sortable tables while "wonderful" was just a subjective word chosen by the author with no real connection to the topic. A good way to avoid objections or annoyance for a userspace shortcut is to avoid 1-3 letter shortcuts which are in limited supply, and avoid common words which could be about many things. Note that your "own theory of nonsense" should be Wikipedia-related to be hosted here at Wikipedia. We are WP:NOTWEBHOST. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, PrimeHunter! That all makes total sense (like avoiding 1-3 letter shortcuts because they might be more useful for something else) but I didn't have that understanding of it. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that, looking through this editors history, they are a relatively experienced editor who has linked to both essays, policies, and information pages recently, so it may not be necessary to explain the more basic elements of these types of pages. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I have been around a long time. Just was surprised when I saw WP links to user pages for a first time today. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The questions from User:Sinsyuan

Hello, I'm glad to ask you some questions about:

How to put the article to the WP:PR to discuss how to improve the article or rating?
How to add a new candidate at WP:GAC, WP:FAC, or WP:FLC?

Sinsyuan~Talk 08:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The GAC and FAC and FLC links include nomination instructions. David notMD (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sinsyuan For peer review, the instructions are at WP:PRG. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD and Michael D. Turnbull: Got it. Sinsyuan~Talk 13:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Names and titles for 16th-century nobility

Hello, I have been working on a set of articles centered around Catherine de Parthenay, who is also known as Viscountess of Rohan, Princess of Rohan, Catherine de Parthenay-Soubise, and Madame de Rohan-Soubise.

As I have worked on the article, and referencing related articles, I am realizing that using a surname, which in this case I take to be Parthenay doesn't seem to be quite right. It seems that other articles reference the persons first name + of / de, etc. + the common name, which in this case is "Catherine de Parthenay" or "Catherine de Parthenay, Viscountess of Rohan". This is a bit complicated when there are several people on the page with similar names, like Henri, Duke of Rohan. There is a Henri I and Henri II of Rohan, as an easy example. There are sometimes secondary titles that distinguish them from another similarly named person.

I couldn't figure out what project would be the best to ask this question, so I came here. My question is, after the initial use in the intro, how should a person be referred to when surname (or first name) is not practical?

Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am also interested in an answer to this. I am especially irritated that we use the surname (instead of the first name) even for women.-1Firang (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

More generally (and in reply to your comment immediately above), 1Firang, that is to do with WP:Encyclopedic style. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I hope that answers your question.-1Firang (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that particular usage is clearly different. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Esowteric: the name used subsequently in that article is "Parthenay" but should it not be "de Parthenay" like in the French Wikipedia?-1Firang (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Esowteric and 1Firang:, I think you're right 1Firang. It should be "de Parthanay", like "van Gogh". I will make those changes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the responses! I am not understading where the info is related to name usage in here: WP:Encyclopedic style.

Yesterday, I went ahead and worked on the Jean V of Parthenay article, where there had been several versions of the names - or very close names for two different people (François). I built a list of the names as I was working to make sure I was being consistent and to document the chosen names and titles Talk:Jean V of Parthenay#Names used in the article here, which is pretty much: The article title about them and then a short version like "Henry II of England" and "Henry II" - and sometimes no shortened version like "Francis, Duke of Guise", where the title was needed to differentiate the various Francis / François names.

I also looked about someone's title to identify them as a specific person, like Duchess of Montpensier --> Jacqueline de Longwy, Duchess of Montpensier, for the associated person by the date of the event being discussed. Here's the diff of the name changes.

It didn't work out to just use a / the family name, because there were cases where there were several people that had the same family name: Parthenay, d'Aubeterre, Guise, etc.

Please let me know your thoughts on this approach.

There are some other articles I worked on in the last week or sowhere there aren't multiple people being discussed with the same family name, so the question about whether to use "Parthenay" or "de Parthenay" is a great question, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

~~Clarified previous sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)~~

I have been thinking about "Parthenay" vs. "de Parthenay" and agree with the latter, as I stated above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I am assuming that this is an okay approach. So when someone has multiple titles, the one selected for the article I am guessing was how he was most commonly known.

The only thing that I think is an issue is that in my earnestness to not have multiple titles for the same person, there might be some who hadn't attained the title that is used for the article name by an event(s) mentioned in the article. For instance, Henri II of France became king in 1574, and before that was Duke of Orléans and then Duke of Anjou, but it seems most commonly known as Duke of Orléans.

In that case, I think I should use the title that is relevant for the time — and, in my opinion, refer to when he required the title in the article name, perhaps in a note. If anyone has an informed opinion better than my potentially flawed deduction, that would be really helpful to know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Carpenting

What are passing requirements of carpenting 41.114.139.92 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. Carpentry may have an answer to that, but it's probably better to ask at the reference desk (either miscellaneous or maybe science) or to use a search engine to search for said requirements in whichever location you're asking about. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Source in multiple languages

Heya folks. I recently came across this magazine that contains articles written in Southern Sámi, Norwegian, and Swedish. The one that I want to cite is in Swedish. Do I supply all the languages that the magazine is written in for the citation template, or just the article istelf? ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ArcticSeeress: are you referring to the language field in the citation template? I would just give the language the specific article you're citing is in. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I was referring to that. Thanks for the help! ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Add LEGACY FOR RAPPERs

I seem to see wiki added LeGacy on Lil Wayne wiki page. Can you add one for Jay-Z, Nas, and Kendrick. And also give me more descriptions of each of these rappers styles. ( wayne kendrick jay z nas eminem ) JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

JwillWiki454, the responses you got to your request immediately above apply to this request too. -- Hoary (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@JwillWiki454: Half of Jay's article is about his legacy. It just doesn't have a header called "legacy". Jay's article is arguably one of the best articles we have on a rapper...and...well...on probably the best rapper of all time. We actually say "greatest rapper of all time" in the second sentence. GMG ^talk 10:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Well Can You Have A Header Called Legacy For Jay Z Kendrick and Nas. Also be descriptive of their styles JwillWiki454 (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned above, if you have suggestions for additions or changes to the articles, you can either Wikipedia:Be bold and make the additions yourself, making sure that the additions you add are all sourced by independent, reliable sources. Alternatively you can make an edit request Wikipedia:Edit requests on the article Talk pages.

Wikipedia is run by volunteers, so your best bet is to follow the process in the above links. Qcne (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not really the way this works. The purpose of Wikipedia is that if you see something important that's missing, go add it. GMG ^talk 11:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really. See WP:Purpose of Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Can You Do It For Me or somebody else can do it for me? I dont know what Im Doing Please!!!! JwillWiki454 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I see lil wayne got legacy as a header, can someone include one for jay z nas and kendrick JwillWiki454 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @JwillWiki454. We're all volunteers here. If someone decides to add those sections to the articles they will, but you're demanding volunteers do extra work which isn't very fair :(

Someone may get around to making those additions, you just need to be patient or make the edit request Wikipedia:Edit requests on the article Talk pages yourself. Qcne (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nah dude. We're not here to do it for you. We're here to help you do it. GMG ^talk 11:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I see Tupac Eminem Lil Wayne Biggie Rakim have Legacy as a header. Can Someone add Legacy as a header for Kendrick Jay Z and Nas JwillWiki454 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
no. do you understand? lettherebedarklight 晚安 05:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I just want somebody to do a few and I want ask again no more. JwillWiki454 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
no. lettherebedarklight 晚安 05:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
But I dont know how to edit on here , its a lot of confusion and it seems complex JwillWiki454 (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@JwillWiki454: You're going to want to see Help:Editing. You may wish to enable the Visual Editor by disabling Preferences → Editing → Turn off the visual editor in your preferences to have an easier editing interface. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
How to start off doing this and what I click to get to it to view it. JwillWiki454 (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why cant someone just someone just edit Kendrick Jay Z and Nas page for me? And then that person can show me what he did. Add Legacy For Header for each rapper JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Because we are not your slave. If you want to make sourced additions to the pages, take the time to learn how to use Wikipedia and add it yourself. We are volunteers and we do not appreciate being harassed to make changes. Best, Qcne (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@JwillWiki454 Hi. See WP:DIY, short for "do it yourself." You can learn the function of editing Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to ask questions but try to figure it out first. Cwater1 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your attempt(s) at "do it yourself" have been reverted because you did not add references. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Musical examples?

I want to make musical example images to include with articles such as the ones seen here, but have no idea how to do so. Can anybody show me how to make these or point me to a tutorial? As always, many thanks for your help! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Music and Help:Score. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright question

If content is covered by the MIT License, which mentions "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software", is it copyvio when someone copies content of the software into a page with a url (and others) in the summary? Or is the fact that it's linked, and therefore attributed, enough to not be?

I ask because it happened (<diff>). Obviously it was not a legitimate contribution to the article anyways, and has already been reverted, just wanted to know if it's copyvio.
– 2804:F14:808E:A601:21F6:A6D:DADF:F210 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user. I would say that the massive amount of text pasted in (which inlcudes abstracts of citations) would indeed by a copyright violation. I have 'WP:REVDELED' it. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I hadn't noticed it included abstracts.

As to the welcome, thanks but I have been here before, my IP just automatically changes every time I shut down my PC (or my modem), guess that's one of the reasons people make accounts.

– 2804:F14:808E:A601:21F6:A6D:DADF:F210 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

User keeps reverting all of my edits across my entire profile and claiming I'm citing improperly after deleting important information on an ongoing event

I updated the Wikipedia article for Twitter to reflect the current rate limit changes that are ongoing and cited a Tweet from the official ElonMusk Twitter page, and a user by the name of Apache287 removed it claiming it didn't flow too well with the rest of the article. I readded it and adjusted it, and they reverted the changes because "the citation was dodgy". I changed the citation to be a 3rd party news website and apologized, and encouraged them to instead of removing the entire section, just change the source. They then got incredibly defensive on me saying that they warned me several times (They didn't, they warned me once on my talk page) and said that I'm shifting the blame on them and that I shouldn't even bother editing if "you don't cite properly" and saying that my admission means that I'm a bad editor and I'm going to get banned. I've literally fixed everything they said. They are now going through my profile and deleting a ton of my edits, many of which from months ago which have been accepted and expanded on, and actively removing crucial information from articles such as the Team Fortress 2 article, Reddit article, and other edits. Technogod (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Technogod: Please file a report at WP:ANI about behavioral problems. The Teahouse isn't the venue for that. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry, I didn't know where to go. Should I remove my original post? Technogod (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Technogod: No need. Leave it here for others to learn from. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"usurped/unfit/deviated" on url-status

Can someone explain to me what this means? The explanation given on the template is as follows: "If set to 'live', the title display is adjusted; useful for when the URL is archived preemptively but still live. Set to 'dead' if the original URL is broken. If the original URL is 'live' but no longer supports the article text, set to 'deviated'. Set to 'unfit' or 'usurped' if the original URL is no longer suitable (spam, advertising, etc.) which will make the original link not appear at all."

is there a clearer explanation of what cases I should use this on? In addition, do the archive and the live link have to be the same? A lot of sources I've found on certain topics are very old and the source has changed how it has formatted its urls in the time since, and newer live copies will have broken or removed versions of images that I feel enhance understanding of the topic for people who want to check the source for themselves, but a live version of the link does exist so I feel weird tagging it as dead. Sorry if i'm not being very clear, I am rather new to this - PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Parakanyaa, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me that it is important to distinguish between a resource that has moved and one has been archived, because the question of reliability of sources is fundamental to Wikipedia's policies, and the perceived reliability of the publisher is crucial to that. If a publisher rearranges their website, so that the URL is completely different, but it is recognisably still under the control of the same publisher, then I think the URL should simply be changed to the new address, and the access-date updated to today. If the site has been archived by a recognised archiver (such as archive.org) then that doesn't affect the publisher or the reliability - the original URL should be retained as DEAD or USURPED, and the archive-url added.

The case that is less clear is when the resource appears to still be there, but is now on some random website. In principle, this makes it less reliable, because anybody who copies material from a website could alter it - we no longer have the original publisher's implied statement of responsibility. It is also possible that this is actually a breach of copyright. In practice, I don't know how serious these problems would be - perhaps it would need to be evaluated case by case. ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fairly reasonable. I'm just wondering what distinguishes "usurped/unfit/deviated".

For the other part, I meant alone the lines of this:

There is a news source that has existed online for several years. During these several years they have changed how they formatted their URLs several times. It is still always a site owned by the company. What if I want to link an archived source on one of the old urls (as in this case, an older revision properly shows images that a revision broke) but it's not the exact same url as the current live link? But again, same text content and officially run by the news organization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA:, In the case you describe, I would suggest that you go ahead and make the better version which resides on the archive service the active link. Although there are other ways to achieve that, here I think it is appropriate to make the archive-url the better version, the archive-date for that one, and the url-status be unfit. It might seem the English meaning of deviated would match the situation a little better, but the action of the template system for that would not be as good. It would continue to show a link to the active site, whereas using unfit will suppress that link and use the archive link. This should have the best outcome for your case. If you care to, you can try both versions of the citation, either in preview or in your sandbox, and see the main differences in the presentations. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In my understanding, "Usurped/unfit/deviated" would be for when the URL is still live, but the content has been replaced by something questionable. For example, when the URL on some Maryland (USA) license plates was redirecting to a Philippine gambling website. The registration had been allowed to lapse, and it was usurped, which would have rendered it unfit. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

usurped and unfit produce the same behaviour, where the non-archive link is not displayed in the citation at all. deviated behaves differently, identical to dead, where the link is presented in the citation.

I don't think there's policy-grade guidance on when to use which, but if the URL points to a predatory commercial site unaffiliated with the original publisher, it's best to use usurped or unfit. Folly Mox (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

How to improve my page

User:SpookyZayoNewAcc/sandbox SpookyZayoNewAcc (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@SpookyZayoNewAcc: You improve it by not writing it WP:BACKWARD as you did. Statements in the draft should be cited to reliable sources that are independent of the topic. See WP:Golden Rule. Start by collecting the sources first, and then write the article. If this is not possible, then it is likely the article isn't suitable for Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

oh you're supposed to gather the sources first SpookyZayoNewAcc (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@SpookyZayoNewAcc: That's correct. You don't write a Wikipedia article based on what you know, or based on what someone related to the topic (like a game author) says about it. Wikipedia is interested only in what reliable sources that are independent of the topic have to say about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ive already found some articles documenting the game from a trusted source, but do i have to specifically write on that source? Like if they say the game is a first person shooter i have to somehow say its a fps? SpookyZayoNewAcc (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@SpookyZayoNewAcc: For some non-controversial mundane facts such as what kind of game it is, what genre, what platforms it runs on, what it costs, and so forth, you can refer to primary sources like Steam and Github. A reviewer of your draft must determine if the topic is notable. The only way to do this is to examine the sources. There should be at least two or three that are considered reliable, independent of the game or its creators, and provide significant coverage, such as a review, not just documentation. If your sources prove existence, well, mere existence doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The game must be notable. And notability is determined, according to Wikipedia standards, by the coverage the game receives in independent reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've already gathered some articles about the game, im gonna try my best because it is one of my favorite games and deserves to be known. is this a good list? https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/logic-world-s-3d-circuit-simulations-and-finding-fun-in-complexity and for describing the games Logic Gates, https://steamah.com/logic-world-building-blocks-list-guide/ SpookyZayoNewAcc (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@SpookyZayoNewAcc: Unfortunately, no. The gamedeveloper.com article is an interview with the author, and therefore isn't an independent source, even though it may be reliable. The steamah.com article appears to be a blog post documenting the game, not really coverage. And we generally avoid citing blogs unless they are authored by a bona-fide reviewer or journalist or other expert in the field.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a publicity medium. It should never be used to "spread the word" because something "deserves to be known". Wikipedia isn't for creating exposure, it's for reporting on something that has already had exposure. In other words, you can't have a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming, you must have already arrived. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

oh well that's sad, so i have to get my Sources from very popular articles? SpookyZayoNewAcc (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@SpookyZayoNewAcc, see WP:RS for some guidance on how to identify reliable sources. CodeTalker (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is my watchlist?

I’m trying to find my watchlist but all I find is a list of all recent changes in Wikipedia what happened Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes is not useful. Because there will be dozens of changes on pages I am not involved with Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Immanuelle. If you click on the user icon in the top right, a drop-down will appear that contains the watchlist. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're used to editing/viewing on mobile without "advanced mode", you can also go to Settings, turn advanced mode off, and then the watchlist will be in the left menu. DanCherek (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

personal, factual memories

How do I enter personal, factual memories of a family member who already has a wikepedia page? Ben Berry husband of Carole Berry (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ben Berry, by citing what we call reliable sources (which must be published, and independent of the subject about whom you're writing) in order to back up what you say. As a family member, you'll surely know of material for which you can't find reliable sources. This material may not be added. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

Although this entry will not be as detailed as I would like, I will try to find references that can be cited.

There are several stories about how Carole came up with ideas for books ( Island Girl, Nightmare Point)

Can I possibly build another web page and fill it with details that do not have published references? 198.7.6.198 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You can build another web page off Wikipedia, but any content you add to Wikipedia must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Adding unpublished personal, factual memories would violate the core content policy of No original research. As the husband of the author, you have an obvious conflict of interest. You should confine yourself to making neutral, well-referenced edit requests at Talk:Carole Berry. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ben Berry, the article Carole Berry suggests to me that if somebody took the trouble to look for "reliable sources" (RS) about her, such sources would appear and they'd show that she was what we call notable. In its current state, however, the article fails to demonstrate notability. How have RS received her work? (Currently, we get one short sentence about one opinion about one book.) It would be helpful to summarize (in Talk:Carole Berry) which review or other independent source said what about which book(s). This is not a task for a complete beginner; so before you embark on it, you might practice the needed skills while you do some work improving existing articles about other writers: articles for which there'd be no hint of a conflict of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ben Berry The article was actually nominated for deletion in 2011 (end decision was Keep) because there was so little in the article about her and so few reviews about her books. This led to reviews being listed. Given your COI, you could look at those review refs and see if information about her is verified, and then on the Talk page, propose that information and referencing be added. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

THanks for the heads-up. I will try to follow your instructions. 198.7.6.198 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Always log in to your account (or opt to have that done automatically). Here and at the article you forgot, so you appeared as IP #198.7.6.198. David notMD (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Getting Started

Hello! I am a new user and am looking for resources in general of how to get started and some less controversial articles to help with! I started with some more controversial topics by making suggestions in the Talk Pages and afraid I got WP:BITE I'd really love to find out more about policies, editing, and to edit drama-free! AevumNova (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@AevumNova: Well, if you're inclined to do a lot of reading Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines is a starting point. The main ones for a new editor are probably WP:Reliable sources, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, and WP:Notability. As a general good practice, see also WP:BRD.

If you want to try to write an article, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the direction, but be mindful of WP:BACKWARD and WP:Golden rule.

That should be enough reading for now! ~Anachronist (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I had two follow up questions.

How can I search for meta Wikipedia information? And how can I find out what articles need smaller scale intervention? AevumNova (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make uncontroversial edits, you can check out Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations. No one will WP:BITE you for fixing references! Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much! That's definitely something I can help with! AevumNova (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@AevumNova You may find other types of useful things that may appeal to you at WP:TASKS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help but I feel like I've been harrassed and used by a user who seems to be working with other users to claim ownership over a certain topic.

I can't even talk about my edits in the topic without getting swarmed by trolling and personal attacks.

I don't think I want to be part of Wikipedia anymore. I know that just letting these tactics work is why this can happen to sections of wikipedia but I don't think I'm in a place to sacrifice my mental health for this.

So I appreciate the help but I think it's better I leave because I don't think I'll ever be able to make a difference. AevumNova (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you change your mind, avoiding any articles and Talk pages related to Holodomor is strongly advised. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I talked with some admins and decided to continue and just be more cognizant of certain types of behavior present in such pages :) Most of the people there are productive and nice and I shouldn't let myself get WP:BITE away. Thank you very much! AevumNova (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Basics of Wikipedia Articles' Code?

How do I learn the basics of the code that Wikipedia Articles use for their code? AevumNova (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@AevumNova: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. A very thorough page can be found at H:WIKITEXT. If you're looking for a simplified page with the most commonly used bits of code, consult H:CHEAT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate being given both! AevumNova (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

AevumNova as I do, by copying stuff, other people have done in articles.

I didn't bother with the "create your first article" stuff, which is why I probably wouldn't know, how to move an article out of a draft.

I largely learnt how to create and add things like infoboxes, navboxes, tables, external links, duplicate references, notes etc by copying what other people have done, and simply replacing the text. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)