Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193

Archive 1190

Archive 1191

Archive 1192

Archive 1193

Archive 1194

Archive 1195

→

Archive 1200

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;">&#x0302;</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:

1. How to put the article to the WP:PR to discuss how to improve the article or rating?
2. 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)

How can I automatically inform users of an undo?

I am looking for a tool that will automatically notify users when I undo their edits. I have tried Twinkle, which I think opens a new tab to leave a message on a user's talk page. I'd rather have a tool that directly informs the user automatically, preferably with the edit summary I've given on the undo. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The only tool I am aware of which does something like this is Huggle, which requires rollback perms afaik. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I get a notification in my alerts if someone reverts me...not sure whether that's something I've enabled, though. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I get a notification for undo/revert too. It's controlled in Preferences -> Notifications -> Edit revert and you can choose Web/Email/Apps, or disable entirely. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's probably good that that's an opt-in. Probably avoids a lot of edit-warring. @Dawkin Verbier, if an editor both hasn't opted-in for alerts and isn't keeping track of that article, maybe you can just assume they weren't wedded to that edit? Valereee (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. I understand the rollback perms are only given to editors who notify others when they undo edits? Would that mean I'll have to do it manually until I've "earned" that right? Apologies if I'm mistaken. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dawkin Verbier: No. Rollback is granted by administrators who feel that the ability will not be abused. I just granted you rollback. In many cases it is appropriate to notify someone when you reverted them. In the cases where I use it, it's usually for drive-by unconstructive edits and the person I reverted likely isn't going to return anyway. I use "undo" with an edit summary more often than I use rollback. Also, I don't use automated tools. If I notify someone, I do it manually, and have been doing so for my 17 years here. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I think it's great that you're a manual editor too. I'm having a hard time getting my head around all the various automated tools. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

knowing

Shojib is this page suitable for main space? EngrShakamal (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@engrshakamal: be patient, and wait for a reviewer to check your draft. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

EngrShakamal, I can make some suggestions that would make the draft look more like an acceptable article.

1. The Discography and Awards sections are each longer than the actual text of the article. So shorten them both (and maybe add more referenced text).
2. Some of the items in the discography are unreferenced. Delete them.
3. The final item in the Awards section has five references. When you use five references for an uncontroversial-looking statement, it gives the impression that something is fishy. So delete the item; or delete four of those references. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom: Okay thank you, I will do it. EngrShakamal (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about the copyright status of the MediaWiki logo

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright on Wikimedia Commons

• 
  Logo
• 
  Horizontal logo
• 
  Large icon
• 
  Icon
• 
  Small icon

• 
  Logo (white)
• 
  Horizontal logo (white)
• 
  Large icon (white
• 
  Icon (white)

• 
  Logo (black)
• 
  Horizontal logo (black)
• 
  Large icon (black)
• 
  Icon (black)

Hello, fellow Wikipedians.

I have a question regarding the current MediaWiki logo: Does it meet the threshold of originality in the US?

The files mentioned above are labeled with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, but I believe that they are consist mainly of geometric shapes and text, and thus do not meet the threshold of originality.

Considering this, I believe that they may be in the public domain (specifically {{PD-textlogo}}). I seek input from all of you to reach a consensus on this matter.

Thanks in advance, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if this is the wrong venue, feel free to move this discussion if you feel that this is not the correct place for this discussion. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

QuickQuokka, you have a question about the applicability of copyright to certain images. Why don't you move it to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright? -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

An article about a living person was not notable 15 years ago but may be notable now

I discovered an article I was wanting to make was actually deleted 15 years ago for not being notable. Here is the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toromi

She was primarily known as a voice actress then and didn't have many notable roles.

Since then she has gone on to in my eyes have a much more notable career as a religious leader at Ryōhō-ji temple, a very famous Japanese temple. Japanese wikipedia has an article on her https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%A8%E3%82%8D%E7%BE%8E

What should I do in response to this? Requests for undeletion for it as a draft article? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 09:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle: I would recommend simply creating a new draft, basing it on the better sources which I assume are now available. Maproom (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would echo Maproom's reply. If the original article was deleted then either the content was hopelessly promotional, or the sources didn't exist. In the latter case the article must have been written BACKWARD. Either way, the text of the original article is going to be of little value. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, Japanese-language Wikipedia has an article about her if you call a collection of lists an article. This is a stereotypically crappy ja:WP "article". But we are told that her shoe size is 22.5. Without a reference, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

'Original research' and how to overcome it?

A while back I submitted some pages on a piece of software I wrote over 10 years ago, following my PhD, called Enguage. This has been available as free, open source, software and has been an Android app since 2013. It demonstrates how speech is Turing Complete: we can say that speech is information bearing medium - which is an appeal to common sense - but this software demonstrates how this is the case. I have written many academic papers on this over the years; it won the British Computer Society's Machine Intelligence competition in 2016; and, I just want to share this knowledge. However these pages were rejected because it is 'original research'.

I don't disagree that 'original research' should not be included in Wikipedia - I could just make something up and submit a page, which would pollute Wikipedia. And this is particularly important in a post-truth world: we need objectivity! As a scientist, my work is repeatable and supported by demonstrable software. My (academic) papers have been subjected to a peer review process, so these should be a 'reliable source'? Certainly, my software exists and is there for everyone to repeat my findings. However, my reviewers (in doing their job diligently!) just pointed this out that the pages are not acceptable.

However, there are plenty of other pages on other software, such as Alexa and ChatGPT, which have pages describing them (the new kids on the block, IMHO!), surely is should be possible to produce some pages on my work - just not written by me?

Is this how this restriction be overcome?

Is it simply that as the original author I can't write anything about it? So Isaac Newton simply couldn't write a page about Gravity? We'd be floating about, waiting for someone else to write their interpretation of his work, before things settle down? Surely, it can't be that pages can only be written about non-obscure things, I'll agree that my software is not as well known as ChatGPT or Alexa!

Is there anyone who can help? I just want to share my knowledge :) MartinWheatman (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Martinwheatman: We publish articles on topics that have been covered in depth in reliable sources that are independent of those topics. Alexa and ChatGPT meet that criterion for inclusion. If your software has been written about in depth in reliable sources that are independent of you, then your software could possibly have an article also. Your academic papers are not independent of you, regardless of peer review. If you feel the software meets the notability criteria for inclusion, then go to WP:AFC and follow the instructions to submit a draft for review. Because you have a conflict of interest concerning your own software, you should not attempt to publish an article in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(Update) @Martinwheatman: I just noticed that you already have a draft that was deleted due to inactivity: Draft:Enguage. If you want me to restore it for you to work on it further, drop me a note and I'm happy to do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Martinwheatman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to review the conflict of interest policy. It isn't forbidden for someone to contribute about a topic with which they have a conflict of interest, but they must do so in accordance with that policy. It would be better if independent editors wrote about your work, but you aren't prohibited from doing so indirectly.

If you just want to tell the world about the existence of your software, that's what a personal website, social media, or other wiki type website with less stringent requirements are all for. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others have to say about your software and what makes it notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your own academic papers can't support an article about your software, even if peer reviewed. If others independent of you write about your software in an academic paper, that might be okay. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Martinwheatman. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. A topic which has received such coverage is considered notable as defined by Wikipedia and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Clearly, this excludes anything that a software developer has written about their own software. Any such article needs to be based on what has been published in completely independent sources. This is a matter of policy. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist @Cullen328 @331dot Thanks for the quick replies, everyone. The inactivity was simply due to the reaction I got then, and that I'm getting now, that /I'm/ not welcome at Wikipedia. I could edit these pages all I like, it would still be me writing. If I need to be popular on social media, or on my own website, first, well it would be my own hand (again!). Self aggrandisement is the last thing in the world I want. Don't worry, I get it!

No, what I'm really asking, above, is if someone else wrote these pages - might this be the key to overcoming the self-interest/first-hand account? Could they explain what it does, why it is significant by referring to the original papers. Or do pages need to be third-hand: someone writing a page about what someone has said about my work. Otherwise, all I can write a page which lists the fact that Enguage won the 2016 BCS MI Competition, but not the reason why. As I said above, I'm not disagreeing with any of the policies - it is just how to work with them.

If there might be a way forward, it would be great to have the pages restored, but I'm getting the feeling I'll just get 'original research' thrown at me again, rather than help in editing pages. For example, could it be left as a stub with requests for help - is that a way forward?

As for conflict of interest, my software is free and open source, this should separate me somewhat from 'interest'; however, and more importantly, I'm completely open about the fact that I'm the author of this software (i.e disclosure).

Sorry, if this sounds a little negative on my part, I'm just trying to find a way forward.

Just as an aside, as a natural language engine, Enguage also reads Wikipedia pages to serve as an information processing system as an option for people with difficulties with screens and keyboards (it caches them to throttle access to your servers!) I suppose I could also put in reference to the cease-and-desist letter I'll be getting from your lawyers? ;-) MartinWheatman (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean profiting from something. It just means that you have a connection to the topic(as the creator) and presumably you have an interest in telling the world about it(and it could be for a selfless reason, and not personal gain).

We welcome everyone who is willing to participate here. It just needs to be done the right way. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm willing to participate, but I think the 'right way' is that I don't share my ideas here, at best I share what others think of them :-/ MartinWheatman (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly right. Think of it like a police procedural. It's not what you know, it's what you can cite. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources cited by your draft aren't independent of the article's subject (because they were written by you). That is the main problem. The conflict of interest caused by you writing the Wikipedia article is a concern, but it isn't the main concern - we would need sources that cover your software in depth that were written and published without any involvement or association with you. You mention Alexa above - there are many books and articles written about Alexa that are completely independent of Amazon - that is why we have an article on Alexa, but not one on your software. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I asked my original question. If I wrote a book on my software, it wouldn't be independent of me. MartinWheatman (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Martinwheatman I'd suggest you read WP:N to understand Wikipedia's definition of notability, and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources an article needs. As your article stands right now, there are 16 references, but 12 of them were written by you, so are not independent sources. Of the remaining 4, as far as I can see, none of them even mention Enguage or your name, so obviously they don't count as "significant" coverage. Your next step should be to locate several reliable sources that are independent and contain significant, in-depth coverage of Enguage. And remember that everything in the article should come from those sources, not from your own personal knowledge or memory. CodeTalker (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to my article so I can't comment, but yes you're right, I did quote my papers - they can be edited out, rather than writing an empty stub and hoping someone puts something in. The lack of third party sources is my stumbling block. But I do read Wikipedia pages every day which have issues with them - I don't want to have issues with mine. I can't make someone else write about my work (or can I?) but I'm guessing nobody is going to do that. It is the failure of popularity in life which is being judged, not my work which is repeatable and demonstrable which I feel should be the important point. MartinWheatman (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Martinwheatman, you are absolutely welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no workaround regarding the three core content policies, and No original research is one of those three policies. Creating a stub that violates policy is not an option. Every article must comply with core content policies, or it is subject to deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Martinwheatman: First, you are welcome here. Just because you chose to write about a topic that may not qualify for inclusion doesn't mean you aren't welcome.

The problem is that you don't understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and we are trying to explain this to you. You also don't seem to understand conflict of interest, which has nothing to do with financial gain. On Wikipedia, "conflict of interest" means you have an association with a topic. Everyone has a conflict of interest about themselves and their work.

It doesn't matter if someone else writes the article. The only difference is that someone else wouldn't have the same conflict of interest you do. However, in the end, the author of an article is irrelevant. Bottom line, if there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, then the topic cannot have an article on Wikipedia. That is the basic underlying policy that allows any article on Wikipedia to exist. See WP:Golden Rule to understand what kind of sources are required.

You went about writing this article WP:BACKWARD, starting with what you know instead of what independent sources say about the topic. That's a common mistake made by many new editors trying to write their first article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is now commenting about my previous draft, but I don't seem to have access to it and, anyway, I'm not defending it! The offer to restore the draft is clearly not a way forward as the original issues with the page still stand. And yes as a newbie, I will make mistakes, I certainly made them! I'll say again, I'm not disagreeing with the policies (especially the conflict of interest, which I didn't say it was all about financial gain - it's about any perceived gain and the obfuscation of it!) And, from abandoning my draft, I do already know that I can't simply create my own page - but this wasn't my original question, above. And, I already have a personal webpages in my source code repo on bitbucket and github.

My original question was about how much help, and to what degree of independence, do I need to a page being written? Much of this is answered in the COI page, thanks. I think @331dot mentioned "independent editors", but unless someone spontaneously writes an page on Enguage there'll always be a perceived COI. I don't think a Enguage will ever exist on Wikipedia pages (it'll still read them for people!) The evidence for this is in the software, not someone's opinion of it. Sometimes I do wonder if I'm down a "rabbit hole", but one of my own making, when people ignore my work? But when people do look at it, they seem to be impressed with it.

Sorry, I'm not now looking for 'a way forward' :) So, even if one of you guys downloaded and ran my software and thought it was cool, or whatever, that wouldn't be 'notable'. I do realise you're trying to help by pointing me at the policies and guidelines, and I thank you for your time and effort(!), but I'm not the one writing this page, right?

I think I'll leave it there (again!) And, thanks! MartinWheatman (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Typically articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it, summarizing those sources that describe what makes the topic notable. So yes, most articles are written spontaneously. As I said above, you are not absolutely forbidden from writing an article(the preferred term, not the broader "page") about something for which you have a COI, but your main problem is that there is little to no independent coverage of your software to summarize. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

For anyone reading this discussion, I have restored the draft in question: Draft:Enguage. Martinwheatman may continue improving it. For the draft to be accepted as an article on Wikipedia, it needs multiple citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this @Anachronist I'll have another go, but I really don't think there are that many references to Enguage. I've created a body of work in, and following, my PhD which can understand speech, in a pragmatic sense, so this is a prototypical Robbie-the-Robot, or C3P0 (choose you own SciFi era!) But after a decade of publishing papers, and public demonstrations, and attending conferences, I still can't get the funding nor the publicity which would inspire third-party references, despite all the positive feedback from the technical community. And then, the world takes up on ChatGPT and everyone's fears is that it represents the end of humanity, etc., etc. Perhaps if Enguage didn't work, but rather threatened humanity, I might get external reference? Perhaps, I need to be a better publicist? Thanks for the work you do, your welcome, and putting up with my unsightly frustrations the other night. :-) MartinWheatman (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'way forward' I'm seeking might be to create a profile of myself, which would contain references to the work I have done -- which is of public record -- whereas the content of the work remains original research? No, not a gripping read I'm sure(!) but it might be more aligned with the policies? MartinWheatman (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Martinwheatman, in writing an article on yourself (which I assume is what you meant by profile), you're going to run into the same problem - sources. Have you received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources? This is going to exclude interviews and anything published by you or folks affiliated with you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Table color

How do I change the table color to red in a box? Thanks, Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC).

@TrademarkedTarantula There is detailed help on tables, with specifics for colors, at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

lost my article in the depths of Wiki

Hello - I think I have lost my first article. It was created in my Sandbox (SangitaAdatia) and as I could not rename it (Move) it I submitted to the COMMON as is, Now I do not know where it is or how to find it :-(

SangitaAdatia (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, SangitaAdatia and welcome to the Teahouse. See the message on your talk page, User talk:SangitaAdatia. It's been speedily deleted. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As a complete aside, now I'm finding myself humming the tune to this! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you get the news? Disco is dead! ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm hearing Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb". Sometimes we could do with a page-top banner advising that "You have new messages." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Archiving references?

Hi there! I'm working on cleaning up references on this article and creating inline citations. What is the best approach if a reference is no longer available or leads to a 404 error, like this one? Gracias! Haylsyeahh (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Haylsyeahh, this is a complex area, and I note you have not been editing here for long, so forgive me for starting with the basics - I would start by reading all of Wikipedia:Link rot especially the sections on Automatic archiving (note the "Fix dead links" option under "External Tools" which many people do not know about) and Keeping dead links - too many editors think they are helping by deleting dead-links rather than tagging them - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Making a userbox bigger

How do I make a userbox bigger Chemification (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, Chemification! Unfortunately, there's no way to resize userboxes themselves, but there is a way to resize the image and text. By default, the image's size is a 14, and the text is a size 8.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 21:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok cuz I've been wondering how the big userboxes were made Chemification (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I just remembered a funny incident. So, I was trying to make a userbox signifying that the user is a Baba is You, when I forgot to resize the picture, which lead to the userbox stretching kinda like this.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 21:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I made 2 userboxes about chemistry and put them both on my user page, and the same thing happened. You can find them both here and here. Chemification (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Chemification, You can actually do it, but it's a bit tedious, If you're willing to try coding a bit, you could invoke template {{Userbox}} directly, and alter parameters like |id-w= to make it bigger. That would quickly make your user page unreadable (and error-prone) if you do the coding there, so I'd recommend creating a subpage like User:Chemification/User chemist, say, copy the content of Template:User Chemistry there, then increase the param value of |id-w= (and any others you wish, like |id-s= for font-size), adding any other params from {{Userbox}} as needed, and when that page is working, then change your user page to use your userbox instead of the standard one by prefixing a slash, like this: {{/User chemist}}. Let me know if you run into problems with it. That would only change that one box, and if you wanted to do all of them, that could add up to a lot of work, although after the first one, it would get faster. (P.S., I changed your section title above; feel free to change it back.) Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility of maps/coordinates in Infobox

Hello,

On this page, Glover-Archbold Park, I noticed the map with a red dot signifying coordinates on a map is quite hard to see. The background has a lot of lines, etc., that make it hard to identify where on the map the red dot is at a glance. Are there more accessible ways to portray this within infobox? Namely, a red dot on a green line seems like a colorblindness nightmare. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Creation for a Political Candidate

I am attempting to create an article about Pervez Agwan, a renewable energy expert who is running for Congress in Texas' 7th Congressional District. This is my first time creating an article and I am not a coder. How can I go about creating this article? Gyongyospata5 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Gyongyospata5. Unelected political candidates are rarely considered notable on that basis alone, and instead are usually mentioned in an article about the race. Please read the Notability guideline for politicians. An exception is when the person is very well known for other things, as when a celebrity runs for office. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

difficulty

what are the easiest things to write an article about and what are the hardest things to write an article about and also the inbetweeners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.159.190 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 115.188.159.190. Those are all personal opinion, so I can't really tell you what articles are the easiest to write, hardest articles to write, and the in-betweeners are.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting question! For me, the easiest things to write about are topics that 100% meet our notability criteria.

The hardest things to write about are those that fail to meet them, as you won't be able to find any reliable sources to show their significance. There are thousands of animals and plants which, as yet, do not have even the briefest article about them. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES tells us that these are all notable. That said, you'd need to understand a bit about nomenclature, taxonomy and synonymy to do them justice. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello 115.188.159.190. Since writing an acceptable Wikipedia article is hard work I would never try creating one about a subject I don’t have a strong interest in. I notice something that interests me doesn’t have an article, then I search for numerous good references so that every piece of information will have a reliable citation. If I can find enough referenced data, I usually read a few Wikipedia articles on similar subjects to get an idea on what my new article should cover, and then I start writing. For me the hardest thing to write an article on would be anything that I personally find boring and unimportant. If a notable subject is important to you, that would be the easiest thing to write about. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Let me start by answering a slightly different, but related question, because it's easier to answer: "What are the easiest tasks to perform at Wikipedia?" This is also subjective, to some extent, but if you go to the Wikipedia:Task Center, you will find a list of lots of different kinds of things that need doing at Wikipedia, which have been rated for difficulty level. I hope that helps, at least a little bit.

Back to your original question: creating a brand new article is a relatively difficult task, and fixing typos is a relatively easy one. As far as subject matter, topics which require a great deal of domain knowledge are difficult to write about; if you don't know what differential geometry is, you're going to find it pretty impossible to write about, no matter how much time you spend with reliable sources. On the other hand, articles about history are much easier to write, because historians (usually!) write in plain language, because they want to be understood, and get their point across. So, you should be able to understand most sources written by historians, and summarize what they say in your own words. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Pantheon Macroeconomics Afd or not

Considering recommending Pantheon Macroeconomics for AfD, altough mentioned in some well know publications, is still fails WP:CORP + WP:CORPDEPTH, the article reads like PR. Any other opinions would be welcomed. Regards Devokewater 16:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would try to fix it up and tag it up. It looks like it has enough citations independent citations though if it is not deeply mentioned in them then I would nominate it. Remember, that if you incorrectly tagged it for deletion, worse that would happen is that the consensus would be to keep. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the decent citations don't look like they are used well if they are anything.

Doing a deeper dive into the citations, WSJ and Forbes do not link to the article, only authors that I guess work for PE. I cannot access NYT or The Telegraph without a subscription. Business Insider only uses one graph from Pantheon Economics. CBS looks like it could maybe be used, but it never says why PE is important, only quoting the chief economist. Bloomberg is much the same story as CBS. So out of ten citations, I only would consider two as being anything of substance which would not pass notability requirements. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

✶Mitch199811 thanks for this, erring on the side of AfD. Regards --Devokewater 19:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

how do I add a link to my personal page?

i named the town I live in and I'm wondering how I put it in my personal page

here is the link that mentions my name. I just want to put the link u see here on my page...im new to this stuff. thanks

Heron Bay, New Brunswick Cliffdimerandy (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Through userboxes on your userpage, like what's shown on the right. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

{{User in region|image=Flag of New Brunswick.svg|region=Heron Bay, New Brunswick}} →

This user lives in Heron Bay, New Brunswick.

Die Zeitsbahn

Just a time-waster; patent nonsense, meaningless in the original German.

Hallo, wo ist die Zeitbahn mit Arbeitswaffen für den Abbau der Smoothie-Tragödie aus Spritzgesicht? Jurgensteinberger (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Hallo, dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Bitte schreiben Sie hier nur auf Englisch. Danke schön. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Hier ist die deutsche Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite AevumNova (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) That is not even a remotely meaningful sentence. Did you use some kind of auto translator? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Obvious gobbledygook and patent nonsense in the original; no reason to keep this here or respond to it. Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a COI edit request

Hi all,

I wondering how I request a COI edit request. I was recently brought to attention that the page John Doheny has serveral issues. I also noticed after reviewing edit logs that a large portion were edited by Doheny himself and by people associated with him. Unfortunately I have several connections with Doheny and would like for someone else to edit this page.

Thank you! Izlhyl 20:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Izlhyl, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being transparent about your COI. The recommended procedure is to use the Edit Request Wizard to put an edit request on the talk page Talk:John Doheny. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Cannot upload image onto the edit page of my article, please can you help

Tree of Life

Hi I have an image which I have tried ( unsuccessfully ) to upload onto both the talk page of my article and the actual article itself ( in desperation) but although it says it has uploaded it will not allow me to see the image, either on the talk page or on the article itself. The file is not corrupted and so I don't know why this seems impossible to do. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reed_(sculptor) what am I doing wrong?

Please can you help, Many thanks for your help,

Hannah Hannahlucy100 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hannahlucy100 - what is / where is the image you are trying to upload? - Arjayay (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Hannahlucy. I'm not sure what problem you are having. You have successfully uploaded the image File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg, and added it to Talk:Mark Reed (sculptor).

Two minor points: when an image is freely licensed, it is better to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, so that any Wikimedia project may use it. Normally upload only non-free material directly to Wikipedia. Secondly, you can link to an image without displaying it by an initial colon, so [[:File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg]] displays as File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg. Usually in asking for an image to be added, you would link to it in that way on the talk page rather than displaying the image on the talk page. But neither of these points should affect your request. ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hannahlucy100 has already uploaded three versions to Commons: commons:Special:ListFiles/Hannahlucy100. Please don't upload more versions. See Help:Pictures for how to display images. Here I added this to the top of the section: [[File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg|thumb|''Tree of Life'']]. If you have problems then save your code so we can see what is wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hannahlucy100: What makes you think that the file is OK to upload under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license? Generally, when it comes to photos such as this, there are two things that need to be considered: (1) the copyright of the photographed work and (2) the copyright of the photograph itself. This means that a separate copyright license is typically required for both. So, I'm just curious as to why you think both the work in the photo you uploaded as well as the photo itself are OK to license as "cc-by-sa-4.0". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what country the photo was taken in. This is not an issue in America (we have "freedom of panorama") but I don't know the UK law. Also, unless I'm missing something, the file page doesn't describe who took the photo, where, and when, and who uploaded it and when, which is pretty much required. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hannahlucy100 @Herostratus. The UK has freedom-of-panorama rules simlilar to the US. The file on Commons should be tagged with the template {{FoP-UK}} to indicate this because, in general, one otherwise cannot upload an image of modern sculptures which are derivative works and hence copyrighted. I assume that the image was taken personally by Hannahlucy100 using their own camera, which allows them to license it as CC BY SA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Freedom of panorama" (FOP) can be truly rather complicated to sort out which is why I asked the uploader simply to state their reasons for choosing the file's licensing without mentioning that in my question. Once the uploader answered, it would've been easier to give them better and more specific advice than to simply try summarize the complexities of FOP to them from the get go. The latter approach runs the risk of over simplification and possibly making a mistake. (For example, the US doesn't have unrestrictive FOP for all things, and US and UK rules are not so similar when it comes to FOP for works of art.) Basically, it comes down to who took the photo of the "Tree of Life" sculpture and whether the work is installed in a publicly accessible place per c:COM:FOP UK. If the photo was taken by the uploader and the work is installed in a publicly accessible place, the file should be OK (with some minor tweaking) for Commons as explained above by Michael D. Turnbull. If, however, the photo wasn't taken by the uploader, then there are more complicated issues that are going to need to be resolved for Commons to keep the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

What is WorldCat used for again? And where does AllMovie/AllMusic supposedly get its information from?

While searching for possible duplicate profiles for someone on IMDB (I've found 1 for certain, and possibly 2 more), I noticed the duplicate profile had a credit for a British TV series which is massively incomplete:

• It contained just 11 episodes, only 2 of which had release dates (only one of which had a specific release date).
• All the episode numbers for those 11 episodes are also incorrect, as shown by their release dates.
• It doesn't have that many cast or crew members added, and the majority of the ones which have been added aren't linked to any specific episodes.

I've started to add the release dates, add links, and remove the incorrect episode numbers on IMDB...

Then I came here to see if it had a Wikipedia article for some reason. I've forgotten why I came here already, no doubt because I got distracted by the Wikipedia article for the TV series. The Wikipedia article, which was created and largely written 10 years ago, is just as bad, if not worse than the IMDB page. The Wikipedia article claims:

• That it has 65 episodes - Yet only 46 episodes are listed in the source I have.
• That it was broadcast between 1983 and 1986 - Both are 100% false.
• The full name of the production company, is part of the acronym for the production company - Even though they're both the same thing.
• It uses words like Britain and Seasons - When it should be using United Kingdom and Series.

And the only references it uses are:

• WorldCat
• IMDb
• AllMovie

IMDB, as I've already pointed out is a complete mess, which will be getting cleaned up a bit by me.

AllMovie, just like its sister sites, isn't reliable imo. I'm 99% sure that it gets all its information from Wikipedia, as the wording is usually identical, and are usually created after the Wikipedia articles have been created. The link is dead anyway. I can't understand how RhythmOne (the owner of AllMovie/AllMusic/AllGame) has not been completely Blacklisted.

WorldCat, is used for 2 references. 1 with a few details for a VHS of the show. 1 with a few details about a DVD of the show.

Can someone add WorldCat to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and give examples of when and where it should be used? Danstarr69 (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr. iMDB is not a reliable source because it is user generated, period. You're welcome to improve an entry in iMDB, and that might give you sources for working on a Wikipedia article, but nothing you do to iMDB will make it usable as a source for Wikipedia.

WorldCat is a catalog(ue). I believe it is reliable, but the kind of information that it gives you is rarely of much use for a Wikipedia article - if a work has not been discussed in independent sources, why does it belong in a Wikipedia article at all? - and in any case it cannot contribute to notabililty.

AllMovie I don't know about. I see that in this discussion in 2010 a particular editor said Allmovie is generally regarded as a reliable source because it employs full-time professional researchers, so on that basis it probably should be given the benefit of the doubt as a reliable source, and nobody argued that point. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69, WorldCat is a fantastic resource, when used for the right goal. It's useless for establishing either WP:Notability, or for WP:Verifiability of content (except to establish existence, i.e., that something is not WP:HOAX content). I use WorldCat mostly to extract metadata for the various {{citation}} templates, as WorldCat will often have publisher/editor/series and other info that Google Books does not. Anlso, I use WorldCat to get the param value for |oclc= in the citation templates. WorldCat maintains a unique identifier, the OCLC id, which can be used to track any book, journal article, sometimes chapters, and other documents before the advent of ISBN, so is a very useful way to improve the verifiability of a citation by just including the oclc number, especially (but not exclusively) when no ISBN is available. Finally, WorldCat has a worldwide database of libraries, and if you log in with a (free) account and search for a book, it will tell you the ten (or more) closest libraries that have it. Often, it's within walking distance; sometimes, the "closest" one is 10,000 km away, but even that tells me something. So I'd definitely recommend getting a free account; all the sources you need for your article might be around the corner from you, and you never knew it. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

2021 Tampa Bay Rays season fix

Hello. Go to 2021 Tampa Bay Rays season, short scroll down to Rays team leaders on right, pitching stats;

• ERA and WHIP leader:Ryan Yarbrough (5.11) and (1.226) respectively in same box
• Wins:Shane McLanahan and Josh Fleming (10) in same box.
• Strikeouts:Shane McLanahan (141) by itself.

Than you for your time. Appreciate your help and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Are these suggestions for corrections, Theairportman33531? If so, you can probably make them yourself, directly in "2021 Tampa Bay Rays season"; but if you'd prefer not to, then make the suggestion on the article's talk page ("Talk:2021 Tampa Bay Rays season"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Am having problems fixing. Why I asked for help. Can you just even out the columns to just two in the pitching section of above request? Could fill in the rest. Need help here. Thanks.Theairportman33531 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Forget it. Sorry to bother you. I fixed the problem. Have a good evening.Theairportman33531 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this game notable enough?

I want to write an article about a video game (it's in my sandbox) but i'm not sure if the game is notable enough, what makes a video game notable enough for WP? OGWFP (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, OGWFP, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to "What makes X notable" is almost always the same, irrespective of what kind of thing X is: that there are multiple reliable sources, unconnected with the subject, which devote significant coverage to it (see the Golden rule). The specific pages about notability for different kinds of subjects nearly all say "if your X meets one of these conditions, then it is probably notable, but you will still need to find the sources".

Since you cite no sources at all in your draft, I cannot tell whether or not it is notable. But this suggests that you have written the draft BACKWARD, which is like building a house without surveying the ground to check that it is stable enough to build on. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability? Your question is probably answered there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Is a single edit really so "trivial"?

I've been kind of confused in recent weeks about something I've noticed—some people seem to talk about edits as if they're like, really fast and easy to make, in a way that I find kind of hard to wrap my head around. Like, I've seen people tell new editors anxious to make it to 500 or 1000 edits that they'll get there in a month or two without even trying, or that passing those thresholds is hardly a sign of anything, etc. I made my account 4 years ago and I still have less than 300 edits; granted I haven't always been editing at the same rate, but even when I've spent all day on Wikipedia I've never managed to reach a rate that would take me to 500 in a month, and of course I can't spend every day on Wikipedia. I've also noticed that some editors seem to have millions of edits; I assume that has something to do with some sort of bot use because it's hard for me to imagine how someone could reach that by hand, but maybe it is possible somehow. Because of all this I worry a little that my perspective on editing is sort of abnormal, maybe even "against the grain" in some sense—I'm pretty sure it's not literally wrong per se but I worry a bit that I'm going against some kind of unwritten rule or something, or at the very least that I'm some kind of weirdo. :P

It often takes me a few hours of work, sometimes split over a couple days, to make one edit, even one that's pretty small—not every time but frequently. That's true for my talk page posts and my edits to articles. Usually they require a certain amount of research, and also a certain amount of careful thought about phrasing (writing is hard etc.). When I'm working on an article, I try to break my edits up into chunks analagous to Git commits—that is, I try to structure them so that if someone wanted to revert one they wouldn't have to deal with any miscellany. Even determining what might be "miscellany" takes me a certain amount of hard thinking though. Is there something "off-kilter" about this whole style? :P I admit that I'm kind of forlorn about being a long way off from using TWL, but more than anything else I'm just curious where these sorts of "500/1000 edits are nothing much"-type sentiments are coming from, since it would never occur to me to say something like that. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 07:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my editing style is similar to yours. I don't edit often, but when I do, I'm careful about it and put a lot of thought into which edits to make, not because I'm scared of being bold, but because I want them to be good enough. Basically I go through the BRD cycle a few times by myself in my head to make sure the edit is even worth making, then how to make it properly. I've got a list of articles I've been wanting to edit for a while, but the first stage of that for me is to let the changes percolate mentally for weeks or months. HerrWaus (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one! 😁 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp bot makers/users are everywhere. If I knew how to make bots, I'd do the same.

On IMDB I edit at least 5 days a week, although I usually edit on all 7.

On Wikipedia, I edit every now and again, usually things related to whatever I've added/corrected on IMDB.

On IMDB I'm a Top 100 Contributor (normally), and if I did 5,000 edits in a month, I'd consider very very good month of editing.

Yet there's people on there, basically the entire Top 20, who make between 10,000 and 1,000,000 edits a month each, and get praised for it, when they're clearly using bots.

What are they using bots for? I have no idea, but whatever it is, I'd say it's adding mostly incorrect information.

What would I want a bot for? A quicker way to add episodes, by clicking multiple dates on a calendar for example, as they only let you add one episode at a time.

I've dropped out of the Top 100 in June because I spent a lot of time here instead.

I don't bother adding things like introductions/descriptions/plots/summaries/synopsis on IMDB or Wikipedia, as I never know what to say, or how to make it thorough, especially as I haven't seen most of the things I update. I just add simple facts ie "This is a TV series which was presented by Mr X. It was broadcast on Channel X, between the years 1990 and 2000"

What do I spend most of my time doing when updating IMDB and Wikipedia?

• Searching for websites which mention the people/productions I'm looking for.
• Searching for the correct profiles.
• Merging duplicate profiles.
• Adding identifying details like birth/death details, nicknames/aliases, and social media profiles/websites.
• Archiving every page, of every website I add.
• Comparing details on different websites, to make sure I have the most common ones.

If there wasn't a risk of websites/webpages/profiles/videos disappearing in future, and if other people researched properly to make sure all the details are correct before they added them, just like I do, then I could get a lot more editing done.

Just now for example on IMDB, I've found an editor credit from a 2020 American short film, which has been added to the profile of a British cinematographer/cameraman who died in 2012. I've corrected it, and it's been accepted in minutes, as I've noticed that since I became a Top 100 Contributor, the large majority of my edits go through straight away without delay or even proof. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp and HerrWaus, let me offer my perspective. I have been editing for 14 years and am approaching 100,000 edits, all manual and without any automation. Some of my edits require vastly more thought than others. Heck, a lot of my edits are correcting my own glaringly obvious typographical errors or reverting obvious vandalism. Other times, I need to do a few minutes of research to verify whether or not an edit is vandalism before reverting. Yesterday,I spent about three hours reading about and summarizing and referencing an important legal decision, and adding customized descriptions to six related articles. I often develop new content in sandbox pages, making dozens of behind-the-scenes edits, and then adding the thoroughly checked and referenced content in a single edit. In conclusion, the thought required to make a legitimate edit can range from a fraction of a second to many minutes or even hours. That's just how it works, and every thoughtful, policy compliant edit improves the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 I skipped the whole intro, and started editing from scratch, so I've never even used my/the sandbox.

However if I know I'm going to be spending hours/days creating/editing a Wikipedia article, I save my progress privately on Blogger every so often, just in case my browser decides to crash, or in case it gets removed in future by someone who regularly removes referenced information or thinks "there aren't enough references."

I've got 6 private blogs (all of which I want to post one day), all for different subjects, yet none of them are in any order, as they're all full of random stuff, like lists I've created, large comments I post a lot on social media, and Wikipedia articles I've updated. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I do know how to write bots but I'm not sure what I would use one for on here. :P I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable things to do with them, I'm just not quite sure what they are. At some point I'll probably look into it more deeply—it seems kind of intimidating just because I imagine you could cause a lot of problems with one in theory. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp I'd make bots to create entire articles, where you fill in the gaps, if that's possible.

I do a lot of film and TV edits, so I'm make bots to automatically create film articles, TV film articles, TV series articles, actor articles, TV presenter articles etc with everything already added.

For example for an actor article:

• The description & date stuff at the top.
• The infobox.
• The early life and education section.
• The career section.
• The personal life section.
• The filmography table.
• The awards section.
• The references section.
• The external links section, with BFI and IMDB there already.
• The categories.

I know there's templates for things like infoboxes, but are there any templates/bots for entire articles?

One day, I'll probably make some empty articles on the above topics, and save them on my private Blogger, ready to copy and paste, whenever I want to create a new article, rather than going back and forth getting stuff, or reminding myself of stuff I've forgotten. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp as a person with over 30,000 edits in under 2 years I think edits really vary. I don't always make really small edits, but I could easily imagine making almost the same contributions and having a thousand or so edits. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 09:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! Do you feel like it's just how you break them up? I do feel like it's not uncommon that I spend a few hours on just a few sentences, though, I guess…Even the edit I'm working on in the next tab over has turned out that way. A lot of it is just me poring over the source(s) and trying to figure out what would really make sense to say from them. I can't tell if I just have a tendency to overthink things (highly possible ;^^) or if it's more like other people are engaged in really different activities or something. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Mesocarp, it's mostly the "different activities". Creating content – the most important bit – takes the longest. I've certainly spent over a full day putting together a single content edit, in a separate app locally, before previewing, correcting, and publishing it. On the other hand, doing small repetitive edits, like adding a single template or category to a hundred similar pages, can be accomplished in a matter of minutes. Don't be intimidated by or envious of anyone's edit count. It's not a particularly useful metric. Folly Mox (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox Thanks, that's interesting to know! I'm starting to understand the kinds of "bot-friendly" things people do here. I guess, to some extent though, maybe it's just not that I'm not very interested in those kinds of repetitive or easily-automated activities on a site like this—it's probably good that other people do them here but I don't know that it's really my wheelhouse. I think a lot of the fun of working on Wikipedia for me is the way I learn new things while I'm doing it, or if I'm working with other editors, feeling like we're keeping up an understanding of each other and can function in harmony. Thanks for your kind words—I'll try not to fret about it. :P 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(@Immanuelle sorry forgot to do that part) 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp I've been a Wikipedia editor for 16 years, have made less than 3,000 edits, plus created a couple dozen new articles. This is a volunteer project for me, I'm not in competition with anyone, and I only take on projects that interest me enough to do the work.

Life is full of stressors, so I don't stress over Wikipedia. I don't go out searching for articles to improve; if I read an article for information and notice it needs improving I'll decide whether I consider it important enough to me to find accurate information from good references, and then plunge into the job of rewriting sections of the article. When I make edits I do them to the best of my ability in order to help others who'll be reading the article later on. I get satisfaction out of my Wikipedia work, but I do my volunteer work within my own comfort zone. I hope my thoughts are of help to you. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess I often behave the same way—like, I just browse Wikipedia as I please and sometimes happen upon articles that seem to need work. Sometimes I do feel in the mood to work on an article and then I usually press the random button until I find a page like that. Recently I've also been giving third opinions and have realized that I find it rewarding to help people settle their disputes and make peace. All of these things seem to take a lot of care to me though and aren't things I would want to rush. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I don't think I'm worried about it as a competition or anything (it would be nice to use TWL but aside from that I don't see how edit count really matters); it's more just that I'm curious where other people are coming from. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Really, it depends on what you're doing. Miniscule, repetitive tasks can take a matter of a handful of seconds, with or without semi-automated tools. I often review requested moves and redirects and categories for creation, and with those, even if making just the equivalent of one edit, it can multiply by a factor of three or more (moving articles moves the talk page and leaves redirects behind, which is a minimum of 4 edits; if swapping articles that both have page history, that number can be higher, all from really one quick reading of a discussion and scanning to make sure it makes sense, and then a couple button clicks; using the helper script to create redirects at AFC/R creates both the redirect, its talk page, and updates the main page, which is a minimum of 3 edits, and then add 2 more for each additional redirect you accept). Meanwhile, I'll spend half an hour or more on a talk page message or a content edit sometimes, or even fixing a template (or miserably failing to do so...). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skarmory Oh, that's interesting, I have yet to really do anything in those areas although I've looked at them periodically. It does help me understand why someone who spends a lot of time on those kinds of tasks might not feel like an individual edit was a very big thing. Eventually I would like to help out with the AfC backlog once I reach 500 article edits (someday :P), although I think I would be more likely to focus on draft articles than categories+redirects—I think maybe I just tend to gravitate to the slow and thorny side of things. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 02:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Graphic novel lists - Show/Hide

Can show/hide be used with a Graphic novel list template? eg this code <role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> Ozflashman (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about how far can editing go to want to decide

When it comes to editing Wikipedia, is there ever really a way to even go far as to want to decide to use do more like? Basically I’m wondering if there is ever a question of whether to do as far as deciding to use even to want to go more even. McBoogaloo (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a curious word salad, McBoogaloo. Perhaps some other website would be better suited to your idiosyncratic style of writing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a really, really old copypasta from over a decade ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@McBoogaloo: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Question about CSS

Resolved

 – QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I recently changed my global.css to include the following:

.extiw{
	color: #ff0080;
}

.extiw:visited{
	color: #ff69b4;
}

with extiw being the class for interwiki links.

However, I still see interwiki links as blue instead of the hot pink that I expected them to be. I cleared my browser cache, but it still isn't showing up correctly. Custom CSS for Redirects does seem to be working however.

Thanks in advance, --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it! Needed to add !important --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Article

My article has been declined as the article heading was common to other article but th3e content is going to be different from the already present one but I want to add few external links to it with reference. Guide me to write a new and prefect article. Tejal98 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Tejal98, it wasn't declined because "the article heading was common to other article". It was deleted, for multiple reasons. One of these was copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Tejal98, Hoary is correct and Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Do not violate copyright again. In addition, we already have an article about Saguna Baug, as you know since you have edited it. The Articles for Creation process is for new topics and content should never be submitted there when an article already exists. Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Citing an offline source, inserting a digital version of a newspaper.

Hi! Could you tell me how to include offline sources in a Wikipedia article draft? I have digital newspaper articles, can I include them as images in the article or in the bibliography section? Thank you! Franca47 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Franca47 Do not upload copies of the articles unless they are very old - 75 to 100 years depending on the country of origin. Doing so would most probably violate the newspaper's copyright. You can use {{cite news}} to provide the necessary reference details; newspaper title, article title, date, author, page number, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Franca47. I'm afraid it would not be OK to insert any image of a newspaper article into Wikipedia pages, as the content would be copyright. The only exceptions might be a) if it was an image of a very old newspaper which had gone out of its copyright period (often around 70 years - I'd have to check) or b) if you were using an image of a newspaper front page to illustrate an article about that particular newspaper. Then it would need to be inserted directly into the Wikipedia article, and not placed on Wikimedia Commons, as it would need a WP:FAIRUSE rationale to justify inclusion of a copyrighted content into a Wikipedia article (and not a draft). I hope this has answered your question? Please be more specific if you need further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Franca47, and welcome to the Teahouse. The bit that neither Dodger nor Nick has explicitly said is that sources do not need to be online. As long as they are available somewhere (eg in large libraries) and the citation gives enough information for a reader to find them, that is enough. In most cases, a URL is a convenience for the reader not a critical part of the citation. ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, if you have a link to the digital article, add it in the url= section of the template (or in the box under URL in the visual template editor, depending on what you're using). An article I primarily wrote that was promoted to GA recently, Hurricane Heather, has a fair amount of these links if you want a reference point. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they would have asked the question if they had a link to the digital article. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Cruft

I wanted to nominate Jordan Maron to GA. However, I'm unsure how to tell if there is too much cruft on the page. A previous article about a YouTuber I nominated was quickfailed. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrive a page that had been deleted

Hi, I'm Aayushma Sharma, and I would like to request the undeletion of the Draft:Wibool Piyawattanametha deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. It was deleted by user Liz before. Thank you. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma Hello and welcome. Please make your request at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma, 331dot said pretty much what I had been about to say until five minutes ago, when I realized that there was already an article, Wibool Piyawattanametha, about the same person. (You should know about this, as you created it.) You might work to improve the existing article. Or if you still want access to the draft in order to help you improve the article, be sure to make this clear when you ask for the "refund". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

hey, i am the owner of the page you have mentioned. i recently completed the draft the wanted to submit for review. however, while i was trying to submit it pops up this screen with the message "

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

• 18:29, 7 August 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Wibool Piyawattanametha (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) Tag: Twinkle (thank)"

Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

and when i tried to publish it, idk what happened but the link redirects onto the talk page instead. i want to redirect to article. please provide me some suggestions. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Just for your information, pages do not have owners, even the writer. Pages belong to the community as a whole. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to say I created that page instead. Sorry for the misplacement of words. 161.246.149.110 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma, if you work for KMITL, you're going to need to make the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Linking to a foreign language Wikisource page

Is there a way to link to a foreign language Wikisource page using Template:Wikisource-inline? I want to include this page as an external link here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fikaia, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me from reading the documentation, that you ought to be able to use links=[[:el:s:Φαρμακεύτριαι]], but I haven't tried it. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Wikisourcelang-inline}}. Folly Mox (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

why my article got rejected

why my article got rejected Anjana anna (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You submitted a blank sandbox User:Anjana anna/sandbox there is no content so nothing to review and accept. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that you had created content about India, but forgot to click on Publish - which acts as Save - before submitting a blank Sandbox? David notMD (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with citation errors

Hello there! I am currently translating a draft, and I have encountered several errors on 2 citations in particular: Citation 7 and Citation 10.

I know it's because of some invisible characters, but I can't for the life of me find them or remove them. Any help would be much appreciated! --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Welcome to the Teahouse. When I view your citation using WP:Source Editor, I see a myriad of red characters used as spaces in the quotes. If you can't see them, I suggest you work through all the quoted text and manually replace them with a normal space character. That should fix it. Although it may not show here, this text contains those red characters which, evidently, the reference creation process doesn't like

(sample: text

Раз­би­ра се, всич­ко то­ва вър­ви пон­яко­га под опа­ков­ка­та, че те ува­жа­ва­т граж­дан­ска­та иде­нтич­нос­) Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I do not see red characters in the source editor (I have syntax highlighting enabled), and I did replace all the spaces, but that did nothing. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka OK. Let me do it for you. There's over 100 of them. Might take me a few minutes. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Right - that was interesting. I gave up doing it manually. So first I tried copying the source code into MS Notepad, but that didn't work. So I repeated by pasting the source code into MS Wordpad. I then copied one of (what I was seeing as) the red characters, and did a Find/Raplce in Wordpad. That did identify them and replace them with plain old hard spaces. I then replaced the text of your draft with the cleaned up text and saved that edit. The warning messages have now gone.

I can't explain why I was seeing them, and you were not if, as you say, you had "Syntax Highlighting" enabled in the editing tool. The purple reference text and red dots turn back to being black text and clear spaces when I turn off syntax highlighting in desktop view in Chrome, and reappear again when I hit the sloping grey pencil icon to turn syntax highlighting on again. To be frank: I never edit in source code with it off. Hope this has helped. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Been a long time user. I was wondering ( and I've searched for a bir before coming to the Teahouse) if it's possible to filter out certain pages from the "Random" function. Imagine, for example, I have no interest in Sports. What I'd like to be able to do is to set a filter as to not get any results for "Sports" when I click to generate a Random article. I know this would require all articles to be classified acording to subject, but that probably already takes place. So, I believe you catch my gist. Thanks for any reply, thanks for making Wikipedia great! :) 93.63.145.35 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's not something I'd ever thought about, so I visited WP:RANDOM. Although it can't do what you asked about, it did point me to WP:Enhanced Random Article. There I saw that one can change certain settings to exclude some types of article. Then, a visit to its Talk page showed that someone had asked about that very same question (albeit no reply). I suggest you might liek to add your voice to get that suggestion highlighted. Of course, there might be other scripts that do similar, so the list of scripts could be worth checking out, too. If that doesn't yield anything, you could repeat the question at WP:VPT, lest someone is aware of any alternative solution.

I must admit that the complete randomness is one of the things that puts me off using it; it would be nice to have a random article offered within a somewhat narrower category of topic. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The option to produce random articles within a certain set of categories you specify is offered by the template {{Random page in category}}. It uses a toolforge call which you may find easier to use directly at this URL where there is additional documentation. I don't think it can be used to give "anything EXCEPT sports". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also a page in the Special namespace with similar functionality: Special:RandomInCategory. Unfortunately it does make you pick a single category to include, rather than one or more to exclude. Folly Mox (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Visual editor

Hi, why I don't have a visual editor? It suggests only edit source. I can't attach an e-mail here. Actually the interface is very confusing :( Grigory M (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grigory M You have to set it up in your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I have preferences like these

https://ibb.co/L5XYQQG Grigory M (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grigory M That seems to show you have chosen "remember my last editor". You need to choose one of the other options! Note that the VE doesn't work on Talk Pages, it's mainly useful in article space. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

thanks, that helped Grigory M (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I wish to add information about Prof Ram Takwale, How can I do it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_G._Takwale Usp.uday (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Usp.uday Your changes to Ram G. Takwale were reverted because what you did was capitalize words that should not be capitalized. You are permitted to add new information, but it must be referenced. Separately, I have concerns that you were also editing the article as User:USP Panchpor and User:Usp pn. This is forbidden. Use only one account. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not release this. I will delete one of the account and maintain only one account. Can you help in understanding the method of referencing the new information Usp.uday (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Usp.uday. Accounts cannot be deleted, but you can simply stop using two of the accounts and stick to one of them.

For referencing, see WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. NmWTfs85lXusaybq reverted your edit, and several by Usp pn and USP Panchpor, with the comment "Vandalism". While that comment does not seem right, and I would caution NmWTfs85lXusaybq to read carefully what Wikipedia means by vandalism, much of what they reverted was unsourced information.

The proper thing for all of you to do now is to discuss the matter on Talk:Ram G. Takwale and attempt to reach consensus. I have pinged all the editors involved here, so you will see this item; but please continue any discussion on the talk page, not here. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I commented their edits by "Vandalism" because they placed external links (may be spamming) in the template link, inappropriately capitalized words and added unsourced material with an obvious sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usp pn. I'm not sure if Usp pn or Usp.uday is their sockmaster. Usp pn is inferred to be the sockmaster from their edit history. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Besides that, the potential of their WP:COI with Ram G. Takwale should be concerned because of their sockpuppetry. USP Panchpor and Usp.uday are obvious SPAs for Ram G. Takwale while they use Usp.uday to comment here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for your understanding. I am slowly learning the process. Usp.uday (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "I am slowly learning the process." but if one of your accounts is Usp pn, that has existed since 2008, and was editing Ram G Takwale back in 2012. All three accounts may be indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. If you are left with one, I strongly recommend abandoning any efforst to edit the article in question, and instead turn to other articles that need improvement. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Professor Takwale was mentor and so I wish to edit the information. I have worked with him for more than 15 years USP Panchpor (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@USP Panchpor: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1193. If you have worked with him for more than 15 years, I would exercise caution about directly editing the article as you have a conflict of interest. I strongly suggest you use an edit request to make suggestions instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I cannot seem to correctly write the classification list.

I cannot write the classification list for Eaukaryotes. Nephellium (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Nephellium, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear, but I'm guessing that this is about Draft:Nephelium aculeatum, and that you are referring to the Taxobox. Please see Template:Taxobox for how to use this. (It may be worth viewing, or even copying, the relevant part of the source of an article on a similar organism, and then making changes as necessary).

For how to do references, please see WP:REFB. A generalised reference to a resource, rather than to a specific page or entry, is not usually regarded as very useful.

I always advise new editors to spend some time making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before trying the very challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Nephellium (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

An article I submitted abut a playwright needs more reliable secondary sources to be accepted. Can you please help me with what does and doesn't qualify? I realize this is a multi-part question, so thanks in advance for your help.

Are the following acceptable sources:

- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)

- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.

- IMDB

- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works

- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights

Anything else that would be helpful to know?

Thanks again. ArtsAdventurer (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi ArtsAdventurer let's take a look at your list:

- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)

• Yes, these are mainstream press sources and are usually acceptable.

- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.

• No, publishers have a direct interest in selling the works.

- IMDB

• No, the content of IMDB is user-generated with little or no editorial oversight

- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works

• No, unless it gets published in a recognised journal after peer review. Run-of-the-mill student works are not rigorously reviewed or generally published in journals or similar outlets. However, occasionally a Ph.D. thesis does attract the attention of subject experts who might comment on it, such commentary and critique may be useful.

- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights

• No, interviews are primary sources.

Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! That's very helpful, and I definitely appreciate it. A few last questions, if that's ok...

- Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet, so finding online sources is more difficult. The same is true with some awards. How is it best to handle those? If something doesn’t have a specific citation, do I cut it?

- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?

- An article briefly mentions the author, but it is mostly about the subject of a musical they wrote and gives historical context. Is that helpful to include?

- The university that the author graduated is briefly mentioned in an article but not discussed. Do I still include it?

Thanks again! Happy 4th! ArtsAdventurer (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable references that minimally discuss the subject can be added but will not contribute to notablility. And I would mention the university as long as the source doesn't come from him or the university. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch. ArtsAdventurer (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ArtsAdventurer, you wrote Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet. There is no requirement that article sources be available online. When citing offline sources, the most important factor is to provide complete bibliographic information about the source. Please read Wikipedia:Offline sources for the details. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ArtsAdventurer BFI Collections https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web is better than the standard BFI website, plus it's where they're adding/moving most of their stuff today.

It includes short summaries most of the time (and occasionally long synopsis') which the standard site doesn't contain.

However it's wording for credits rarely match what's written on screen ie "written by" (on-screen) vs "script" (BFI), plus it's not always correct with the type of credits, for example today on some 60+ year old TV episodes I've noticed that:

• One person was listed as a presenter by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.
• One person was listed as a narrator by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.

I'm not sure who is correct (as the BBC Programme Index lists people as unknown a lot of the time, plus they contain a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes), but as it's a BBC show, I added them as the BBC Programme Index said. However the second person was definitely a voice credit going off the episode description on both, as he reported/narrated on something happening in a country he wasn't in.

I've now just remembered that the BFI said that a producer was both the director and the producer on an episode. However the BBC said that someone else was the director. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 I think you have the wrong thread. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Mitch199811 I have the right thread, I just tagged the wrong person.

"- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?" Danstarr69 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, for the confusion. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Display, Reader or Download?

When you want to add a reference for a document from somewhere like CORE, which link for the document would you use?

• The Display version - Which is just a summary of what's in the article.
• The Reader version - Which can be read online, without the need to download.
• The Download version - Which can also be read online, without the need to download.

Danstarr69 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to differentiate between the second two versions you've presented, but in general for cases like this, where a publishing service has an info page from which you can access the full text of the publication, we tend to link to the info page. This is where a DOI will usually point, allows the site to change how it stores and presents publications without causing link rot, and is usually in front of any paywall, rather than behind. Linking to webpages instead of (e.g.) PDFs also increases accessibility. Hope that helps. Folly Mox (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox Sometimes PDF links (and links for other files) automatically download when I click on them. However the download link on CORE doesn't automatically download.

I'm not entirely sure what your answer is, but as I've finished what I was doing, here's some specific examples:

• Here's the Display version, with the summary https://core.ac.uk/display/4898275
• Here's the Reader version, with no options to download https://core.ac.uk/reader/4898275
• Here's the Download version, with an option to download/print https://core.ac.uk/download/4898275.pdf

Danstarr69 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you for demonstrating the difference between versions. It's probably best to point your url to the Display version. That's what we typically do if there's a summary page, and you can see the DOI is visible on that page. I apologise if my answer was unclear. Is there a specific bit I can try to explain better? Sometimes I don't express myself well. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox I suspected you meant the display page, but I wanted to make sure.

With things like Google Books, where sometimes all of a book is available to read, and sometimes just some of a book is available to read, I usually use the link where you can read the book/page itself, rather than the description/front cover page...

...As a recent example I came across on Google Books (I can't remember what book), didn't seem have a link to the readable bits of the book on the description/front cover page. Unless there's simple way to get the pages of the book from the description/front cover page which I don't entirely understand, as I usually stumble across these readable Google Books links from the Google Search itself.

However with websites like CORE it seems to have everything, as both the Readable version and the Download version are displayed on the Display version, unlike Google Books, therefore any of the links seem decent. Danstarr69 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's very true that any of the three links would be good to put in your citation template. Google books is a very different beast than CORE. Google books is mostly non-open content, although you can often get results on pages that cannot be previewed in full by using the "search within this book" functionality. Links to the overall Google book entry also allow you to cite multiple pages within the book without needing to provide a different URL for each separate page number, which causes a lot of reference bloat and information duplication.

It seems like CORE is mostly open content, so linking to the Display page has a number of benefits: readers can choose whether they want to download the PDF or read the full text in the publisher's reader thingy; the publisher can choose to restructure the URLs for the full text versions without breaking the link; the publisher can choose to paywall the full text and we would still have access to the abstract and publication information; and any citation created from the DOI will point to the Display page.

Not linking directly to the full text does require readers to perform a second navigation task, but it's my opinion that the benefits of linking the Display page outweigh that, and it's also our most common practice here. Folly Mox (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Would this be worth an RFC?

See this edit request. I've never added the RFC template before, and would rather not get socially annihilated if I invoked it for some bad reason. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE might give some guidance in this matter, and also consider notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and/or WP:THIRD. Just bear in mind that the article is a contentious topic. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Deauthorized, I think all you need to do is verify a citation, and see whether the current version or suggested version is accurate. You don't need an RfC for that, just an editor who can read Hebrew. It looks like the text is old and public domain, so accessibility shouldn't be an issue. Posting a question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism is probably all that's needed, unless you have trouble attracting any editor to the task. Folly Mox (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll probably ask there sometime later then. Appreciated. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and factual detail

I'll phrase this as a hypothetical because it's a bit hard to explain:

After a widely covered public divorce, an artist, who is a multi-talented dancer, puts out a statement on their marriage while break-dancing. The statement is also widely covered with the breakdancing specifically included in many RS headlines and present in the text of all of them?

The question: Is it undue to specify that the genre of dance was breakdancing when describing the artist's statement as it could be argued the reaction would be the same if it were another form of dance? Like, "Artist gave a statement while dancing..." vs. "Artist gave a statement while break-dancing.."?

I've been watching a disagreement on a talk page/edit history record where Undue and Noteworthy are being used by some experienced editors, and I'm a bit confused as to what the issue about including the "break-dancing" is! I'm not really interested in that particular disagreement, but I am perplexed so I thought I'd come here for clarity on the issue, as the sections related to noteworthiness/undue/balance mainly address the status of viewpoints, not reported details! Thanks for everyone's help! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with hypotheticals is that sometimes the person posing the hypothetical doesn't distill all the elements of the actual example correctly, and inadvertently leaves out details that may be pertinent or even crucial to answering the question. The fact that whatever the actual issue is perplexes you may indicate there's subtleties in the disagreement that you're not seeing. We always need links to the actual discussions or articles so we have all the information before we're able to answer questions to any degree of confidence. Folly Mox (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense! The actual disagreement has been occurring in the edit history of the Colleen Ballinger article, and in a few threads on the talk page. It seems like multiple editors keep trying to include the fact she is playing the ukulele in a widely covered response video, while a few editors have been reverting the change each time it's added. The rationale for the undue/noteworthy remarks seems to be that if it were any other instrument and the reaction would have been the same, therefore it's not encyclopedic to include. My confusion is the same as described in the first post! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Goodlucklemonpig, I suppose I can see both sides of that argument. The BBC source even mentions the ukelele in the title of their article. I believe the argument the people against inclusion of the particular instrument relies on the idea that in the whole scheme of accusation, apology, and reaction to the apology, the ukelele is not significant. If there were an article specifically about the apology song video, the ukelele would definitely be encyclopaedic to include, but since it doesn't seem to play a role in the larger events of the paragraph, it's not necessary to mention. Having said that, it is an interesting detail, and I wouldn't personally remove it from the article if it were in there. I hope that helps explain things a little bit. I don't feel like I've done a much better job than the editors on the talk page. Folly Mox (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors citing WP:DUE are probably relying on this part of the guideline: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail... (emphasis added). Folly Mox (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You definitely cleared things up a bit, especially the direct "depth of detail" citation and contextualizing the paragraph vs. a hypothetical article! I'm partial to including the aforementioned ukulele (as a fairly unique instrument in a fairly unique video), but the reasons given make a lot more sense now! Anyways, from the number of reverts I've seen, it seems like a sore subject not worth getting involved in. Thank you for the well-put explanation :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)