Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

I need to know...

If it's possible to create a song using the MIDI format as shown in WP:MIDI. All I need to know is how to convert a note to a whole, half, eighth, tied, etc. And if it's possible to change a note's pitch an octave higher or lower, and to sharpen/flat the note. I wanted to test it out in my sandbox, but I just need to know if any of the things listed are possible. Thanks, 🄼🄾🄳 🄲🅁🄴🄰🅃🄾🅁 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mod creator, and welcome to the Teahouse, I'm not sure what you're asking. The section you link to mentions various pieces of software you can use to create midi files. Are you asking about the score extensions? If so, then it also links to mw:Extension:Score, which should answer your questions. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I find your signature hard to read. ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm asking about the extension itself in question. Also, I deeply apologize about my signature, I thought it'd be creative. I'll eventually fix it when I can. - 🄼🄾🄳 🄲🅁🄴🄰🅃🄾🅁 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, the extension uses Lilypond notation, which is quite flexible and can do all the things you asked about (and much more). I created a quick example in my own sandbox which demonstrates tied notes, octaves, and accidentals. The intent is to use the Lilypond software to generate the right markup, but if you have something relatively simple, you can just enter it by hand as I have done in my sandbox link above. Good luck! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How credible the citation sources are?

Hello Wikipedians,

Please take a look at the draft at User:Sultanularefeen/sandbox - Wikipedia and let me know if the citation sources have enough credibility for the subject mentioned topic in the draft.

Thanks for any help. Sultanularefeen (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Sultanularefeen/sandbox - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen Brief answer: no. The topic is not mentioned at endometriosis, where I would expect it to be if a proven technique. Note that Wikipedia has very strict sourcing requirements for medical-related topics, summarised at WP:MEDRS, which you should read carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Michael D. Turnbull for your suggestions. I shall try the subject mentioned article if the sourcing requirements are fulfilled. May be later on, I shall try to add some information about the topic to Endometriosis Sultanularefeen (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen: Looking at the sources, I think they are not reliable. Our articles on medical topics require a highly credible sources for information, and the ones listed do not meet those requirements. — Wug·a·po·des 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Wugapodes. Would you give me a clue about the type of suitable references for this kind of article? Can published research papers in the relevant fields be accepted as authentic source of reference? Sultanularefeen (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen As the guideline which we linked says, the main distinction is between a WP:PRIMARY source and a WP:SECONDARY one. All Wikipedia articles should mainly be based on the latter type, and for medicine-related articles they should be used almost exclusively. Even primary publications in high-quality journals like The Lancet need to be seen through the eyes of qualified professionals and placed into context, which is what secondary sources do. Medical claims do not always stand up to close scrutiny, especially if there is some conflict-of-interest (e.g. a drug manufacturer or an academic reporting initial trial results). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Michael D. Turnbull. Is 1 appropriate reference from The Lancet enough to support an article? If no, would you tell me about some other authentic medical journals like The Lancet? Sultanularefeen (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen One reference can, of course, support part of any article but the usual guidance is that it takes WP:THREE unrelated ones to merit the creation of a separate article. If you are not familiar with high-quality peer-reviewed medical sources, then perhaps you are not the best person to create a new article and would be better to stick to improving existing ones. There are in fact many medical journals, which on Wikipedia are listed at Category:General medical journals. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am curious on how to approach revisions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a 53yo retired military person and familiar with several writing styles such as official correspondence, educational training courses, standard PowerPoint briefs, instruction manuals, award submissions, and a few other documents. I am currently trying to put up a reference page to account for a musical band. I have reviewed several other Wiki pages for musical acts and feel I have captured the main feel and reference points required, but the article was denied by “ARandomName123” and the suggestion made to utilize the “Teahouse” for assistance to accomplish “needed changes” for the page acceptance. I am requesting assistance from the team here to achieve success. I am unsure if anyone here has the ability to review the Draft:Chaos Warehouse . Thanks in advance for any assistance to help move forward.

Very respectfully, Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lucien, of the two notes the reviewer left on Draft:Chaos Warehouse, the one about sources is the bigger impediment to the draft being accepted for publication. See the notability guideline for bands, which will explain the sources you will need to add for it to be accepted. Some general copy editing and style adjustments (e.g. removing inline external links) would also help, but they're less critical. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lucien, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have taken on an extremely difficult task, for which I suspect little of your writing experience will prepare you. The issue is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

Obviously this is difficult to achieve when the article is about yourself: that is why writing about yourself is so strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Generally, you should not include anything at all in the article that cannot be verified from a reliably published source totally unconnected with you. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The two sources cited in Draft:Chaos_Warehouse are both Wikipedia articles (and therefore not reliable - if WP regarded everything anyone has added to it as reliable it would soon turn into garbage), and neither of them mentions Chaos Warehouse. Therefore neither does anything to establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolucien, I quote: The music has an aggressive punch with melodic interlude and chorus textures, mixed in with some ferocious leads. The blend of progressive and thrash styles can be felt throughout the album and is an explosive introduction [to] the heavy metal scene. In the opinion of which reliable source(es) (NB "reliable" as defined by and for Wikipedia) is the punch aggressive, are the interlude and chorus textures melodic, are the leads ferocious, can these styles be felt throughout the album, and is the introduction explosive? For each claim, either add a reference, or delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I deleted all that. Do not restore unless - per Hoary - that content comes from reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI - Teahouse Hosts are generalists - what their expertise is about is format, style, referencing requirements, etc. There is no requirement that Hosts (or Reviewers) have music career experience to review a draft. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have left the changes you made and applied content to support the Wiki:Notability reqs with WP:Band. The album is currently in worldwide rotation/distribution with Amazon, Apple, Pandora, Spotify for major networks and SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango for minor networks. I did not put external links to the actual album on their sites, but it can be found and verified on each one.

I appreciate all the input and assistance you all have provided, Thank you very much.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, nothing you have posted here or written in the draft seems to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. There are 12 criteria listed - which one(s) are you saying this band meets? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, you need to declare as a paid editor per WP:PAID, since this seems to be your band and your album. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

...

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music and Amazon Music are MAJOR worldwide music listening networks and Chaos Warehouse is on all of them as well as the minor(but also worldwide) platforms SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation, and Jango.

I believe I have edited my USER page with the Paid Editor template, it was a little confusing and hope I have made the correct adjustments.

The band currently does not make money and is only me paying into it right now, the initial submission for the page is just a statement of current facts- A. the band does exist and is named as such. B. It is a completely solo performance for art, music, recording, production and distribution. C. It is an internationally recognized band by the major music platforms and is registered with ASCAP and GS1.

Thank you for the assistance and I look forward to all information that will lead to successful completion.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, those platforms do not count as major networks, since they allow self-publication without editorial oversight. It sounds like your band is not yet notable. My advice would be to focus your efforts on attractive coverage from media outlets. Once that happens, it'll possible to have an article. But without those sources, there is nothing that can be changed at the article that would make it acceptable for Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and Apple all have a curation process and require review and oversight by their curators before they reach a rotation status just like NBC, ABC, or Fox for TV. I did not submit directly to them as all submission to them came from my Publisher (CDBaby - Ref[2] on the page) who also provides oversight and review before THEY do the actual submission to those Networks. The minor networks SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango accepted self-submission without review. I will also look into the media outlet coverage. Revolucien (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, those are music streaming services. I think you'll find that they do not qualify as major radio or music television networks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a definition provided for "Major" ? In the first Quarter of 2023 Pandora had 46.7 Million listeners in the US alone https://www.statista.com/statistics/190989/active-users-of-music-streaming-service-pandora-since-2009/ , and Spotify for the same time period had 210 million worldwide paying listeners https://www.statista.com/statistics/244995/number-of-paying-spotify-subscribers/ These are not just major, they are the new way that people listen to music and have far more reach and listeners than ANY air broadcast network. Revolucien (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, the fundamental point is that we require reliable sources to have taken note of your work in order for it to warrant a page here. There are a million works on Spotify etc. that do not meet that threshold, so we are never going to accept appearance on Spotify as sufficient for an article. Bluntly, see WP:GARAGEBAND. You are not going to shift consensus on this by arguing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue or change consensus, just ask for information- What is the definition of “Major”, so that I may provide facts as to the largest/Major musical platforms.

If it is not facts that decide the decision of what is “Major” and it is a consensus, then I accept that answer as well, but I have provided facts and numbers from an outside source to show major share of listeners on the planet utilize those platforms and only asked for the deciding factors of what constitutes “major” for Wikipedia.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The rules on Wikipedia are decided by consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have to say it feels like more weight is being applied to the WP:GarageBand blurb that WikiPedia "Bluntly: states "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously." and "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." , rather than the data that was provided.

I will say thank you for the assistance provided as it was an education in the operation and standards used, and very much appreciated. I feel I have learned quite a bit in this initial page write and will use that information moving forward.

I will leave you with this as a small return learning piece for the status of the music business and TV regarding streaming vs broadcast and which is is larger.

" When “Drivers License” bowed at No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot 100 — which determines songs’ popularity based on a combination of sales, radio play and digital streams — it drew 8.1 million radio audience impressions, not bad for a song that’s new to the market. But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 76.1 million streams the song clocked in that same week." Variety Magazine https://variety.com/2021/music/news/radio-signal-fading-streaming-1234904387/

and this one from Forbes regarding TV- https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/06/17/nielsen-streaming-video-audience-share-is-higher-than-broadcast-tv/?sh=31133f82c0e3

Thanks to all in the TeaHouse who participated in this conversation.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times a song has been listened to, if it hasn't been written about in reliable, independent sources, then we have no material to base an article on, Revolucien. That's why the notability criteria exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response and refer to the criteria being met under # 11 of the WP:Band requirements for notability. The only question that was left was, “What determines a MAJOR network?”. I feel I have provided the data to show the networks it is played on ARE the MAJOR networks, but in light of data showing where the MAJORity of listeners are, the consensus by the team has decided in opposition to the evidence provided. I did not write the rules for notability in WP:Band, nor was I part of the consensus to apply them, I was just attempting to adhere to them. I have already accepted the decision of the team here and understand that these are the operational standards that will be utilized. I appreciate the response and information provided.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I would however like to recommend to the team that they may possibly want to rewrite the WP:NBAND notability requirements to meet the current consensus point of view and ensure smooth sailing moving forward. A simple change to WP:NBAND, instead of “may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria”, perhaps it should be changed to “they must meet two of the following criteria to satisfy notability requirements”. This may put other pages in jeopardy, but it would satisfy the current views of the editors who have spoken.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

'Major networks' are things like MTV, VH1, iHeartMedia, Cumulus Media. These are traditional broadcasting type arrangements where all listeners are hearing the same thing at the same time. Streaming services are not networks. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie,

MTV and VH1 are TV.

Air broadcast is not what is major for listening anymore, those platforms will try to pitch that because they still want your advertising dollars, but here is some independent research from non-affiliated Edison Research - https://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2020-from-Edison-Research-and-Triton-Digital.pdf

You can start at page 39 for "Audio Brands" and scroll down to see where IHeart Media stacks against Pandora, Spotify, Apple Music and other networks. Listeners do not need to hear the same thing at the same time for a station to have a major audience. I refer to page 48 in particular titled "Audio Brand Used Most Often" .

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

NBAND#11 refers to rotation. Following the link, read the first sentence: In broadcasting, rotation is the repeated airing of a limited playlist of songs on a radio station or satellite radio channel, or music videos on a TV network. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, bluntly, Wikipedia writes about topics that have historical significance. Your band does not have a significant audience that has attracted critical attention (it doesn't even have a single song with more than 1,000 streams, if I read the lack of play counts on Spotify correctly), so it does not come close to meriting an article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the link provided, Rotation describes that it is in a placement of rotation for repeated airings, the amount of "spins" or plays as in measured airplay is not a stipulation, and no quantifiable number of spins is associated in WP:NBAND #11. A quantifiable number of plays may be part of one of the other criteria, but not criteria #11.

You say "Again, bluntly", but nothing is more blunt than the very clear first line of WP:NBAND " Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least ONE of the following criteria." and the criteria #11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." 

I have provided the data and references from independent sources to support that, and I also accept that you choose not publish the page in light of the information provided.  I do not mind continuing conversation regarding the adherence and validity of the guidelines or the supporting data, but again I would recommend making changes to the WP:NBAND requirements for clarification and to meet the current viewpoints of the editors.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest clarification changes to the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with the current writing of the Notability requirements in WP:BAND since the outside sourced data I have provided shows in detail that my page meets the requirements as it is currently stated. My recommendation is to prevent the team here from being contradictory to the current guidelines- when the rule doesn't meet your needs- rewrite the rule to meet the needs of the consensus.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Again as has been said before Streaming services such as spotify etc. ARE NOT major radio or music television networks for WP:NBAND. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

...which seems like an outdated approach. There's nothing special or magical about a radio DJ choosing to play a song, and radio DJing is a dying medium anyway. Streaming is overwhelmingly the "major" means of music dissemination nowadays, radio and "music television networks" are minor players in the space. NBAND's distinction between streaming and radio might have made sense in 2005, but not in 2023. I'm agnostic on whether or not Mr. Levasseur's proposed article merits inclusion, but if the only thing holding is back is that Spotify, Pandora etc. aren't "major" - I'd agree with Mr. Levassuer that this policy should undergo further independent discussion. Pecopteris (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not fond of the modification of WP:NBAND as I believe it supports my current page admission, but a rewrite would clarify and support what seems is a current consensus. I would say that changing the number from "ONE" to "TWO" criteria requirements from WP:NBAND would most likely resolve the present challenge, but it may also negatively impact a significant number of currently approved pages.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The team here has stated on more than one occasion that the data must be outside verifiable from unaffiliated sources.  I have provided that data with links showing that the Streaming sources are indeed "MAJOR" and larger in some cases, and presented by outside verifiable sources.  You and a couple others, have said they are not major, but have not provided anything to show they do not possess a market share, presence or audience that is considered other than major in comparison. Revolucien (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this debate is missing the point. Wikipedia articles have to summarise what independent, published sources have to say about a topic. Do independent sources discuss the article topic, Revolucien? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No, but that's not the question. They do discuss what is a "Major" music platform, which is the current item of contention.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, but if there are no sources that discuss Chaos Warehouse then there can be no article. Hopefully you understand that now, Revolucien. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Notability requirements in WP:NBAND state the eligibility of the Chaos Warehouse page. The only point of contention was the definition of "Major" in Criteria #11 of WP:NBAND. I have provided the data from outside sources to show the current networks meet the definition of major.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes but as WP:NBAND states "no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed". You could have the wording of the criterion changed, but if there still aren't sources to base an article on, there still can't be an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No exemption is being requested, the reliable sources ASCAP, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and other sources listed are all searchable and will be found holding the data showing Chaos Warehouse.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What "data" will you get from those sources to base the article on? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just looked up Chaos Warehouse on Spotify and it says the band has three monthly listeners. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That Chaos Warehouse is curated and in their catalog.

There is no requirement for number of listeners, but I believe if you look at the Spotify process monthly listeners are people who have actually created a station based off that band, this does not constitute any claims I have made for the inclusion of the page. What the page does claim-

1. The band Chaos Warehouse does exist.  (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

2. It is a truly solo project. (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

3. It is available on major music platforms. (Verifiable on Spotify, Pandora, Apple, Amazon and meets WP:NBAND criteria-without exception)

4. It is registered with ASCAP and GS1. (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

None of this helps satisfy WP:GNG, I'm afraid. As I've tried to explain, articles have to be based on in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, things like newspaper articles about the band and album reviews are the sorts of things you need. Without those, you're wasting your time. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imdb self verified

does the section of * self verified in imdb was verified by the actors themselves or its something we still cannot use in articles? Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Still can't use it. It has moved from nonWP:RS to non-WP:IS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

ah so it would be a primary source so I would need a source that take that information into a reliable source as I understand? Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You can use primary sources for simple information like birth date or location of residence. However, secondary sources are always better. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

can I use the primary source for these: Athletics *

Boxing | Cycling | Equestrian | Fencing | Martial Arts | Skateboarding | Surfing | Tennis | Yoga

Accents *

British | French

• self-verified

There is no secondary sources that refers to these Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Without more context, it is hard to know for sure. However, details about accents seems trivial. It probably should not be included unless an independent source reports on it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I see, maybe with time there will be an independent article that will talk about it. Im trying to reach out to medias but have no luck yet :( Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:To Dream

would it be better if I'd remove the entire section of production as from primary sources and not from secondary ones for better way of getting it approved ? Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox, so here's my process:

1. find an instance of significant coverage of my subject in a reliable, independent secondary source
2. write a draft that includes only information from those sources, citing them each time I make an assertion
3. find a second instance of significant coverage, and then a third, ditto

Once you've proven notability, you can add detail from other sources. But the primary hurdle is to show the subject is notable, and for that we ideally would like to see an article written from three instances of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. And giving us a couple dozen sources to assess makes it harder for us. Which THREE are the ones that show notability? Valereee (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say that avclub, apple tv and rotten tomatoes has more informations Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

None of those three seem to provide significant coverage; read the link for more information. They're all just listings. They prove the film exists, but they don't prove it's notable (info at the link), which is the minimum standard for having an article.

We need to see someone discussing the film at length. Ideally three someones in three different sources, and interviews don't count. For films, lengthy reviews are the kind of thing we generally see, but the reviews this one has had look to be blogs, which we generally don't use (an exception might be if it was the blog of a notable film expert). The awards...unless an award is generally considered important (in which case it is highly likely to be notable and therefore have its own article), it's unlikely any number of such nominations or even wins will get the film over the hump. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There isnt any for now,but hopefully when the film get more recognised that articles will wrote significant coverage of it so i could add the infos Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I found the film threat review on the news section on the draft help thing where we can find reliable sources, so why if i found it there it isnt counsidered reliable? If it wasnt i believe it wouldnt show in the source section? Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I found the film threat review on the news thing there so why would findit there if i cant use tjis one?: Veganpurplefox (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Editor resources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL Veganpurplefox (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's just a google search. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what a "film threat review" is, but I think you're saying you found it by clicking on "news" in the editor resources? That's just a search tool, not something that returns guaranteed reliable sources. You said If it wasnt i believe it wouldnt show in the source section?, that's not correct. It's just a link to search engines. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Lost access to account

This is @PunishedRottweilerAppreciator, I'm posting from a new account. I've lost access to my Wikipedia account. My computer had to be formatted and it was the only place where my Wikipedia password was saved. I didn't enter an email address when creating my account and now cannot recover my account. Can someone help me out? Matarisvan (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If you didn't associate an email address with your old account then it cannot be recovered. Simply switch to your new account. If you wish you can leave a note on your new and old user pages to explain this. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Excuse me for posting this again.) I've heard there is an option to merge the edit history of your old account with your new account. How can this be done? I believe if Wikipedia admins can verify that I did create the first account then they do allow the merge. In that case, I've on my computer the original PDF drafts of all the articles I created, which no one but the user who created them has access to. Matarisvan (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

afaik it used to be possible, but the developers stopped supporting that feature due to server load. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that's sad. Thanks @Shantavira & @Ca, but I was really hoping to get my edit history merged. Thank you anyways. Matarisvan (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What Shantavira said. If you like, I think you can also tweak your signature to appear as "Matarisvan (formerly PunishedRottweilerAppreciator)". Or you could register the account "PunishedRottweilerAppreciator2" and use that instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I've heard there is an option to merge the edit history of your old account with your new account. How can this be done? I believe if Wikipedia admins can verify that I did create the first account then they do allow the merge. In that case, I've with me the original PDF drafts of all the articles I created, which no one but the user who created them has access to. Matarisvan (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no such option. We can merge edit histories of articles and their talkpages, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:HM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång & @Michael D. Turnbull, but I was really hoping to get my edit history merged. Thank you anyways. Matarisvan (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Matarisvan, at User:Matarisvan you can create a section 'Articles I created under a former username'. That will let people know about your previous creation work. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was really hoping to get my edit history merged. Thank you anyways. Matarisvan (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

3 month unreviewed math articles

Hello,

Some of my mathematics articles are since 3 months not reviewed such as Goldston-Pintz-Yıldırım sieve, is this normal? I understand that articles from other area have a longer reviewing procedure since one has to check notability, copyright, policy etc. but math articles? I don't think the reviewer will check whether the math is correct unless it's a mathematician that knows about the subject, but that is mostlikely not the case. So I assume the reviewer can only check few things such as sources that are used or if the name appears in a journal/book.--Tensorproduct (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

From looking at your Talk page, most of the drafts you created have been accepted as articles (including GPY sieve). What do you mean by not reviewed? New Pages Patrol? If an accepted article is not reviewed by NPP within 90 days it is automatically processed so that it will be visible via search such as Google. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the new pages patrol. The thing with the GPY sieve was, that it was reviewed but then someone put the article again into the unreviewed category because the reviewer did not review correctly other articles (or something like that) and the user's reviewing right was taken. Now it still says unreview in Special:NewPagesFeed and it is not visible on Google even though the article is older than 90 days.--Tensorproduct (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Strange, now I can see the article on Google. When I wrote my initial comment I could not.--Tensorproduct (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Tensorproduct. You're not the only one experiencing this right now. The new page patrol backlog has ballooned to 10,600 articles and 14,140 redirects (and growing rapidly), which is certainly the highest I've ever seen it. In addition, a lot of reviewers often do not review subjects they're not comfortable with and thus may not often check articles on mathematics. I just reviewed your article, as it does look good, and the prominent mathematicians who've used and modified it do lend enough credibility to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Thank you for being so patient. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, all the best to you too.--Tensorproduct (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tensorproduct, have you requested WP:autopatrolled? With 32 articles you should be good. Valereee (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will request it (globally I wrote more than 200 math articles). Tensorproduct (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content unacceptably by other editors

I have just restored some previous edits to Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool by an anonymous user who had added a lot of valuable information over the past few days. I found that the user was a mobile user and the user said that he couldn’t cite the sources he took the information from. So I was able to restore them and cite them for him and for that page. But some of the restored edits were being reversed by SamX for copyvio. I don’t understand. Why do you remove content when it is cited and the sources are cited. If this continues, I might leave Wikipedia for good. Because how unfair it is to claim that it is completely copyright when clearly the sources were cited and referenced accordingly to Wikipedia policy. DavidDunnymede (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Material from sources must be paraphrased and not copied verbatum. RudolfRed (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What is paraphrasing? Can you give an example? DavidDunnymede (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDunnymede, there is a lot of information and some examples at WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you DavidDunnymede (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It's surprising that somebody whose user page describes him as a senior lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire is unacquainted with paraphrasing. 119.245.86.251 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDunnymede The top of the article has the relevant copyright-infringing details. They will be removed from the article and redacted from its history. See WP:COPYVIO for general considerations. As RudolfRed (nearly) wrote, verbatim copying is not permitted unless specifically marked as a quotation in circumstances where quotations are appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. CodeTalker (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Uploading image

I have a logo that is free to use from a public press kit, how can I upload it? Because I have to tick a box that states I own this image.

What to do? BassieMonz (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, BassieMonz. What license is the image under? 'Free to use' is quite ambiguous here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BassieMonz, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's actually unlikely that the logo is actually licensed in a way that allows for the free use of the logo. However, non-free content can be used in limited scenarios such as what you are describing here. Assuming you want to upload a corporate logo, you can use the file upload wizard and select "Upload a non-free file", choose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." in step 3, then indicate that the image is a logo. If you need any further help or clarification, please feel free to ask. Tollens (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jhbHPy2l7-VGEYxGW-Ec4DXFm35wM2IJ

Here is a link to the Injective Brand Assets.. This was shared by the team members when I asked for logo to use BassieMonz (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless they offer the images to everyone under a free content license (which doesn't appear to be the case), they still aren't technically free, regardless of whether you follow their brand guidelines or not, but as mentioned above, that isn't really an issue. However, if as Mike Turnbull has mentioned you intend to use the images in a draft, you will have to wait until it is published before you upload the image. Tollens (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if they were to tell you in writing that the logo could be used on Wikipedia, Wikipedia's policies state that unless the material is free to use by anyone, in any medium, for any purpose, even commercially, it is considered non-free for our purposes. Tollens (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The only other edits you have made are to Draft:Injective. The presence or otherwise of a logo will not contribute to notability of the subject and WP:NONFREE logos are not in any case allowed in drafts. See WP:LOGO for more guidance. If you can provide the URL of the logo in question we can give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jhbHPy2l7-VGEYxGW-Ec4DXFm35wM2IJ

Here is a link to the Injective Brand Assets.. This should useable if you comply with the 'Brand Guidelines' that are accompanied in the link, right? Thank you BassieMonz (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@BassieMonz My previous comment will apply: your first task is to get your draft accepted. At present, it has been declined and there is a long way to go to establish notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Getting direct link

[1], from here I want direct link of Salempur MP Ravindra Kushwaha. His Profile is opening but since I am using mobile, I am not able to copy direct link to his profile to cite as source. Users are able to get direct link from this website. As for example see Upendra Nath Verma, External link section. Admantine123 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Admantine123, I have the same problem that you have, even though I'm using a computer showing Wikipedia in what I think is called "desktop" mode (and anyway isn't "mobile"). The page that Upendra Nath Verma links to has a completely different URL. -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

MPGuy2824, can you help us here. I want the detail Bioprofile of member of Indian Parliament. Want to cite them as source, as is done on many pages. But, I am not able to copy the link to direct profile of MPs. Even I am not getting this type of profile for MPs [2] -Admantine123 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Had to do some stuff with browser dev tools, but I got [3]. Get archive.org to archive the current state, as we can't be sure how long the parliment website will keep this URL structure. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yupp, i am archiving the links which i already have. You are right, i accessed some of the MP profiles for the first lok sabha and i found that they were missing on original website as well. They don't keep it permanently. I will be asking few more bio of the MPs, whose Wikipedia article, I am going to expand after sometime.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

history

'some words are very specific and i cant understand the meaning like , 182.178.77.227 (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear what words you're asking about. If the word is Wikipedia-specific jargon, you may be able to find it at Wikipedia:Glossary, or you can list the word or words you are confused about here and we'll do our best to help. Tollens (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines on using foreign language sources

I've tried searching for the policy guidelines on the use of non-English language sources to no avail. Could someone point me in the right direction? Barry Wom (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Barry Wom: see WP:NONENG. TL;DNR = sources don't need to be in English, as long as they are otherwise up to the required standards (or reliability etc.). Other things being equal, and if there is a choice, English-language sources are obviously preferred, given that's the common language of the readers of the English-language Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barry Wom, just adding on that many pages have been translated from other language versions and therefore contain many non-English sources. For example, this page will show articles that are currently using a certain type of reference template from fr-Wikipedia, so those citations are, of course, in French: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Num%C3%A9ro&limit=500&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1

And sometimes topics of regional importance require non-English sources. I recently worked on a Good Article nomination for a subject where nearly all quality sources were in Swedish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84ngelholm_UFO_memorial#References Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 03:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And I'd like to highlight the good practice that Rjjiii's article follows, which is to include the original non-English text in the citation. I was once involved in a content discussion where a claim was sourced to a Finnish language source, and my Finnish dictionary had a slightly different English definition for a key term than another editor's Finnish dictionary. Providing the original language text brings transparency and makes it easier for readers to evaluate the translation themselves, which is a good way to build trust as an encyclopedia. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

How?

Can someone explain to me that how's this Sangram Singh Patan article eligible for wikipedia WP:BLP Rajmama (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Rajmama and welcome to the teahouse. Personally, I think this article does not satisfy BLP. It has promotional wording such as tremendous social work, massive impact, and crushed all his opponents. It is also unreferenced.

You are welcome to improve the article by yourself, or you can nominate its deletion through Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I need to mention that, to determine whether you wish to delete this article, you should determine the WP:Notability of the subject. Reading WP:POLITICIAN would be surely helpful. TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rajmama, it looks pretty iffy unless being "the member of Zila Parishad from Patan(west) of Palamu district of Jharkhand state" confers notability. Unfortunately I have no idea what exact level of government a member of Zila Parishad is, but our article at District council (India) doesn't seem to indicate it's more than local? Valereee (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also found more articles like this on Wikipedia which is not eligible for WP:BLP but I don't know how to add deletion Tag? Or I don't know I'm eligible or not eligible for that so please help me for this for my better contributions. Rajmama (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rajmama, anyone can add a tag. WP:Twinkle makes it very easy to do so. Valereee (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the puffery and unsourced, and it turns out everything is unsourced, including the fact he actually holds that office. Someone familiar with sources in Hindi might be able to find something? Valereee (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, Zila Parishad is upper tier of rural local government in India. Above it lies Member of Legislative Assembly. The membership of Zila Parishad is also an elected office and I think it fulfills WP:NPOL-Admantine123 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Admantine123! My ignorance of Indian politics is showing. If you believe this person is automatically notable, please argue that at the AfD and I won't dispute it. Valereee (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Outdated statements

If I understand correctly, the statements "as of <year>" or "since <year>" may not be true in the future. Therefore I have been updating them according to MOS:SINCE using the {{as of}} template. A lot of my edits have been reverted but cannot see the mistake I made. Any help would be appreciated! Lightbloom (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The "as of" template is intended to be used where information is expected to become outdated, and so marks it for regular review. It is not intended to be applied in every case the words "as of" or "since" are present. In many of your edits, swapping "since" for "as of" breaks the flow of the sentence. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I see, so it's preferred to remove these relative time references. And if one can't, one should keep the language the same when using the template? Lightbloom (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No, as specified in MOS:SINCE, "since" and "as of" are fine, since they are relative to a fixed time, so they mean the same thing when you read them now, tomorrow, or a dozen years from now. What it says to avoid is time statements that are relative to the now, such as "today" or "recently", because the meaning of those statements changes depending on when you read them. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

So if the information won't change, but perhaps the time range will, then it's fine to use "as of" and "since" and we shouldn't use the template to indicate a change. But if the information is changing with time, such as population at the time of a census, then we should indicate that with the template (and keep the language the same). However MOS:SINCE also states "Relative-time expressions are acceptable for very long periods" so if we are using "since" and "as of" without a template then we should preferably replace them with absolute time expressions except in very long periods. Is that correct? Lightbloom (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

To give you some examples, Lightbloom, your addition of the template to "As of 2021, the population of Eindhoven consisted of 235,691 people" here was good, because Eindhoven's population will have inevitably have changed since 2021 even if we don't have a more recent, reliable estimate, whereas replacing the "since" in "Apple has had a presence in Cupertino since 1977", as you did here wasn't, as the date that Apple established a presence in Cupertino is a historical fact that won't change. "As of" and "since" are not grammatically interchangeable. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I see, so the template should only be used if the information is subject to change, but not if the date might change. If the date might change one should instead update it to remove relative time references. And if the template is used, keep the language the same. Lightbloom (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightbloom, idiomatic English counts very much. Here's an example.

Here's what the uncopyedited change did.

From:

While the complexity, size, construction and general form of CPUs have changed enormously since 1950, the basic design

to:

While the complexity, size, construction and general form of CPUs have changed enormously as of 1950, the basic design

"have changed...as of 1950" isn't idiomatic, and it's less precise. I'm not sure what it means...did all the changes occur in 1950 in one fell swoop? Or have there been evolving changes since then? The original, "have changed...since" is idiomatic and more precise. It tells me there have been changes happening over time. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I understand why the language shouldn't change now. So it shouldn't be tagged with the template, but preferably the relative time expressions should be changed to absolute since we're not talking about very long time periods (as per MOS:SINCE). Is that correct? Lightbloom (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

LB, I'd have to see an example. I might go into an article and see:

In recent years, X has happened.

And I look at the source, which is from 2015, and I see I can change the text to:

As of 2015, X had been happening.

Which is something that won't go out of date. But it's all very idiosyncratic to the situation. We can't just say "So it shouldn't be tagged with the template, but preferably the relative time expressions should be changed to absolute since we're not talking about very long time periods (as per MOS:SINCE)." We have to look at each situation individually. The template is just a tool to make it easier in certain situations. We could literally need 1000 templates. For me, it's better if I just recast the language so that it won't go out of date. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Article: Only Up!

Would I have a conflict of interest if:
1. I was one of the developers of that game
2. I made an advertisement of that game
3. I wrote an article reviewing the game
Thanks, Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Those are all absolutely conflicts of interest with regards to "the game". This does not mean that you are absolutely forbidden from contributing about it, though you may wish to consider carefully if you are the best person to do so. Please read the conflict of interest policy.

Furthermore, if you were paid for any of this work, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the case 3 is different from the other 2. You would only have a conflict of interest in case 3 if you were citing your own review. If other people have reviewed the game, and your edits were based solely on those other reviews, then I don't think that would be a COI. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Civil Air Patrol Squadron

I am trying to publish an article on the Albany Composite Squadron. If any CAP members are reading please look at it and tell me what information thaat I needed other than the info I already have. Reese82R (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Reese82R: You'd have an easier time finding CAP members to help by posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Civil Air Patrol. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

oh my bad thanks Reese82R (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

An English-language article in FR Wikipedia without an EN counterpart

The article [4] is written entirely in English, but does not have a counterpart in the English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps, it can be transferred to the EN Wikipedia, but someone needs to write a French version. Or maybe there are other solutions (?) B030510 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The article appears in French to me. Do you have automatic translation turned on in your browser? As for whether or not there should be an equivalent English article, the best place to start would be to see if the subject meets our general notability guideline, which may be different from French Wikipedia notability standards. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa Looking more carefully, I see that the article first flashes in French, and then changes to English. And yes, my browser does that to other FR articles too. Thanks B030510 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Then yes, your browser is automatically translating. Depending on the browser you are using, there will be a way to turn that off for just the article you are viewing (for example, in Chrome and Edge, there will be an icon in the address bar to turn it off) and/or to turn it off altogether; you should consult your browser's help material to figure that out. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Thx. B030510 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit war question

Hello. I'm having a bit of an edit war situation on page Jan Frans van Bloemen. A while ago, I did a reference clean-up of the article, created an infobox, and moved some images to a newly created gallery. My thinking was to avoid MOS:SANDWICH with the previous layout of alternating images in the text, especially with the move to fixed width pages. Editor Imaganinary reverted the layout to alternating images, I reverted it and so on. He even reverted an unrelated edit correcting a reference. I've never been in an edit war, so not sure how to handle it. Post on his talk page or the article page? Curiocurio (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Either way works, whatever allows you to open a conversation. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. However, it's obvious he's not going to stop, as he has just reverted another editor's reversion. Curiocurio (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on Superpowers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpower In this arcticle users keep removing Brazil as a potential superpower, while Brazil is a potential superpower Morisfoint (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism is a serious charge, Morisfoint. Don't accuse people of vandalism unless you can back it up with diffs. I see no vandalism (though I haven't looked carefully). I see attempts on Talk:Potential superpower to show that Brazil is a "potential superpower". Good: that's where attempts should be. But the attempts haven't been convincing. If reliable, disinterested sources say Brazil is a "potential superpower", then cite those sources. If you can't, you've lost the argument. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

they have sources about Brazil is a potentional superpower, the other users vandalized the page and they removed Brazil. Morisfoint (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism is described in WP:Vandalism, Morisfoint. Read that page. Alternatively, don't bother to read it, and also stop your accusations of vandalism. Accusations of vandalism aside, on Talk:Potential superpower, list the best three to five sources that describe Brazil as a potential superpower. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Morisfoint, welcome to the teahouse. However, requesting for sysops' help against other users should be made on related noticeboard, such as WP:AIV for vandalism, WP:ANI for complicated case and WP:EWN for edit warrings. -Lemonaka‎ 06:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(service) Lemonaka‎ probbably meant WP:ANI rather than the nonexistant WP:ANM. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

OP now blocked as a sock. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Refs reliability

Are these sources reliable to write about Vladimir Furdik?

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Thank you in advance. ColinSchm (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem at Vladimir Furdik is that it is under-referenced because an editor recently removed the above listed four of the five refs. Consider contacting User:Hipal to ask why. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I think posting WP:RSN is better for reliability questions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@ColinSchm Just looking at the URL, 2 of these are wikis, which are inherently unreliable as WP:USERGENERATED. And "ladbible.com" doesn't sound very hopeful, either! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I did read all the pages to be an admin now where is the application?

(Redacted) and I have read all the pages about admin ship I even have autism and I do work at company's I have a LinkedIn account so see it and then reply and tell me about the admin-ship (redacted) Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I can definitively say that you currently lack the skills and knowledge needed for the community to grant you the administrator toolset. It isn't a job- it's a toolset, and you need to show that you need the tools and have the experience and knowledge to use them wisely. You must read WP:YOUNG. Please read it with a parent or guardian. Do not post personal information about yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Where can I test the admin tools? Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no ability to test the admin tools. The chances of the community granting you the admin tools are zero right now. That's not forever, but you will need to spend time- years- building up an edit history that demonstrates a good understanding of Wikipedia policies as well as a need for the tools. Keep in mind that you can do probably 95% of tasks here without being an administrator- and you currently don't have a single edit to the encyclopedia. Just concentrate on being a good editor and not specifically on being an administrator, and over time, should you show that giving you the tools is a good idea and would benefit Wikipedia, someone will eventually nominate you for a community discussion. I again ask you to read WP:YOUNG with your parent or guardian. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I did read it + I really want to be quizzed to see if I can get every admin question right (Just want to be quizzed to see if I can pass If I still pass I still don't get admin tools). Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

no. ltbdl (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I also can hack Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

being an administrator on wikipedia does not mean anything important: it only allows easier access to certain tools.

i'll say it again: being an administrator on wikipedia does not mean anything. ltbdl (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't an admin application with predetermined questions to fill out, there isn't a test. Do you intend to make any edits to the encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

yes Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you describe one edit that you are interested in making? 331dot (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy coding a bot in python, unity and c# Mac and cheese king (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have decided to block for WP:CIR issues. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

To summarize what is above, applying for an Administration position is based on years of editing and thousands of edits. There is no test. You are now blocked because nothing you did suggested that you intended to be a contributing editor to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. You can petition to be unblocked, but that would require a statement that you will abandon any and all interest in Administration status, and instead will commit to improving existing articles. All of this was explained on your Talk page, which you have chosen to blank (all edits, even if blanked, can be seen via View history). David notMD (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You wrote that you need Wikipedia for a school assignment. Being blocked does not block your access to articles; it only blocks your ability to edit articles. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Roman Gujarati Numerals considered as numeral

Dear friends,

As such I started editing wikipedia (en, gu, hi) in 2009. But due to the scarcity of time, I took a long pause and recently, I started it again. So, in a way I am a new. A difficulty I am facing is the numeral used in template 586.7 kilometres (365 mi) that converts km to mile. But I want input and output to use ૧૨૩૪૫૬૭૮૯૦ this gujarati numerals. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@dineshjk: that is very unlikely to be considered. most editors will not know what gujarati numerals are, and will be confused when they see them. ltbdl (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl Note that en.wikipedia is not the only version. While en.wikipedia readers may not be familiar with these numerals, readers of other Wikimedia projects may be. Dr. Karia is active at several non-English Wikimedia sites, including Gujarati Wikitionary. Possibly, they came here to the en.wiki Teahouse because they felt their question would be seen by more people than on some obscure Gujarati Wikitionary talk page.

Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to Dr. Karia's question - I just wanted to point out that it is a relevant question that should not be dismissed. Pecopteris (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl Thanks for seconding my idea. Yes I mean that for gu.wikipedia.org. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@dineshjk, do you need the output in these specific numerals for use on the other wikiprojects you mentioned? The {{convert}} template is available in many projects, so the output (numerals) would adapt, I think. Or is my answer way off? Then I apologize! --Maresa63 ^Talk 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Maresa63 No Sir, your answer is very much on the line of my point. Thaks for your anser. Yes, I want the change in the local version of convert on gu.wikipedia.org. My question did not intend to ask for a change in the en.wikipedia at all. Since, I do not know how to make those changes, I asked the question her to bring it to the notice of more experts. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 19:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dineshjk, that's a she/her you're calling sir. Valereee (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee and @Maresa63 Extremely sorry for being gender specific and that to quite opposite to what she is. I beg pardon. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to see why this is relevant to English Wikipedia. Templates (such as {{convert}}) are local to a particular Wikipedia: altering the template in en-wiki will have no effect on a similar template in gu-wiki and vice versa.

If you seriously want to argue the case for a template in en-wiki generating Gujerati numerals, the place to argue it is the talk page of that template, eg Template talk:convert. ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear @ColinFine I am sorry for not being clear to you in my original question. Let me be clear that I asked this question here because I wanted to reach more expert with my question. I do not intend to propose any change in the template convert in en.wikipedia but I want to make changes in the corresponding local version on gu.wikipedia. Unaware of how to make change, I asked it here. I hope I am clear. Thanks for your time and bringing clarity to my question. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dineshjk: To request a change to gu-wiki, you'll have to ask there. You could start a talk page for gu:ઢાંચો:Convert, or ask at whatever their equivalent is for a Teahouse or Help desk. GoingBatty (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding template within ref tags in VE

Hi. Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice is usually placed within <ref> tags. Is there a way to put a template inside ref tags in Visual Editor? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Coming here after a long time. Recently at Wikimania, I captured this interesting image that relates to VisualEditor. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Citation best practices for text available before copyright year

What is the best practice in a citation for the date of a text available before its copyright year?

I will incorporate some sourcing from a text which is available now, but states 2024 on the copyright page.

My assumption is 2023 better as I expect it will otherwise be too confusing and generate edits by others to "fix."

Any better way to address this? JArthur1984 (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: Assuming this is a web source, it might be possible to find other dates somewhere else - I might be able to help if you provide a link? Alternatively, if you're certain that this source was published this year, 2023 would be correct, but I'd recommend leaving a note in your edit summary and/or as an HTML comment to clarify. Tollens (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s a physical academic text as seen here.

Indeed, the copyright date both on the physical copy and in the publisher’s catalog are “2024.”

But obviously it’s available for order now and I’m holding it here in fall 2023. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

On further examination I see that in addition to a 2024 copyright date, an august 2023 publication is listed online. I suppose I had never considered that copyright might run differently than publication date JArthur1984 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just typing a reply saying the same thing - copyright is sometimes a bit different on books if they are published late enough in the year, especially textbooks. Tollens (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please highlight issues in this filing so that I can learn and where else should I report of this kind of abuse(user using an IP)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whole summary can be found here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas

Clerk is saying that this doesn't qualify for a filing. Then what does? Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article should be deleted?

There are only 2 villages with name "Ghodasgaon" and they are differentiated with their district name : Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon and Ghodasgaon, Dhule. I think their is no need of Ghodasgaon article. Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon article should be named as "Ghodasgaon" because it have many sources, the village have more population then Ghodasgaon, Dhule, the latter also don't any Citation. Tesla car owner (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Named population centers, even small ones, qualify for articles. If you disagree, you can use the AfD process to nominate it for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD: I think they mean the disambiguation page Ghodasgaon, not either of the two articles. Tollens (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the proposal is to do away with the Ghodasgaon, Dhule and thus the needs for the disambiguation page. Tesla car owner already tried to Speedy delete the G-D article, reverted because Speedy deletion was inappropriate for an article that has been in existance for a long time. David notMD (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh - missed that, sorry. I also would oppose the deletion of either article. Tollens (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

everything I update is getting deleted..

I am trying to update a page that a special interest group has taken over. Under Administration, I added that this is the first all female team of leadership- that was removed. Even if I update the number of staff, (there are 38 scientists, not 400 as listed) that is taken down. No matter what I write it is removed. Is there any help out there? 47.149.160.178 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. A lot of those rollbacks were by me. It's possible one or two of them were overzealous, that I rolled-back large chunks of edits without looking closely enough; if so, I apologise. Updating staff numbers is of course fine, for example. But the chief concern is that you removed well-sourced content, without explanation, and added commentary-like content. Please don't do that. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

For the curious, this is about Washington National Primate Research Center. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Keeping track of topics

I have opened a number of unresolved topics which I am tracking on my user page. Does Wikipedia provide a way to search for my unresolved topics, e.g. those which contain a given template? I have to keep updating my list so it would be nice to have one that updates automatically. I don't want a blanket list of all my open or subscribed topics but only want to track those which I consider unresolved. Lightbloom (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a user script called W-ping that you can set to remind you to circle back, if that helps. You can find it at User:SD0001/W-Ping. Valereee (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What about using tags on commits? Would that be possible? E.g. like the 'reverted' tag Lightbloom (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not possible to change the tags on an edit. Tollens (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check out pings then. I suppose firing and forgetting until later is a better way to operate anyway. Lightbloom (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightbloom - Have you tried adding those unsolved articles to your Watchlist? keyboard shortcut (alt-shift-w). Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What's Roll Back

What is "roll back" on Wikipedia? Just wondering. Cwater1 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A special kind of editing tool granted to some users to more quickly roll back vandalism and other unconstructive edits. The term may also colloquially be used to refer to third party tools which accomplish the same thing. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, makes sense. I just read through about Wikipedia:Rollback. I see rollback used a lot. Cwater1 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Earlier, I tried it but typed as two words and so therefore, I went to the wrong thing. After this, I realized it is now one word. Cwater1 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Census enumeration districts not notable, if I remember correctly?

I'm convinced that there is a policy that declares census enumeration districts to be not notable but I can't seem to find it. (a) can anyone remind me, please? (b) is there a mechanism somewhere to facilitate searches of wp: space so I don't have to waste your time on RTFM questions? Thanks. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@JMF: WP:NPLACE indicates Census tracts [...] are not presumed to be notable. Yes, you can search any namespace - enter your search term in the search bar, choose "search for pages containing <search term>", then expand the "Search in" dropdown, where you can remove the article namespace and add the Wikipedia namespace instead. Tollens (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

TYVM. I'll add that to my list of obscure but useful links. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

falsefully removed edit

i made a edit of there is no game wrong dimension since im a fan of the game and it uses the wilhelm scream and i added it and someone says this is not useful and removed it the wilhelm scream was used in the game and i have further proof Goofyboofyhahaha3 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Then, Goofyboofyhahaha3, explain this, lucidly, at the foot of Talk:Wilhelm scream, of course providing reliable sources for what you assert. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia article

I have spent hours trying to understand what I actually need to do to submit an article about an important folk music artist. Why can't I just submit a Word document, a PDF or some other human-readable essay with a couple of tables for reference information? Ynnurb (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Per the Biographies of living persons policy, every substantive fact about a person must be sourced. If what you have written is as I describe, you can likely submit the text via the Article Wizard, though you will need to properly format and place the references, please see Referencing for beginners. Please ask if you have more questions. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sturpeedurk

Hello everyone. I would like to introduce myself. I am new on Wikipedia and I would like to write articles and become an valued member of the community. Dentsan (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Some guideleines left on your Talk page. Standard advice is put in months learning how to improve existing articles before attempting to create articles. David notMD (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have started a draft that I will be working on before I submit it Dentsan (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dentsan, you are creating your draft backwards. In Wikipedia the use of references is vital; doubly so when you are making claims which, in view of American lion, are controversial. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Saving my work

How do I save what I have done and get back to it ... I thought I did that yesterday but what I finished up with was sending a page of work to "publication". Ngeralite (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save changes". It does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your content is at Draft:Briann Kearney (producer). David notMD (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Listing physical quantities missing infobox

Greetings. Does anyone know how to extract a list of articles in Category:Physical quantities (and its subcats) which do not transclude Template:Infobox physical quantity, please? Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about awards

So, I wanted to ask, if I wanted to award a barnstar to a user, am I allowed to go ahead? Do they need to have certain amounts of edits, conflicts resolved, bytes added, time on Wikipedia, etc... For me to be able to award it? Or awarding barnstars limited to certain users like Eco. I am asking this because at least in the wikiproject I am in (WP Japan) has barely any barnstar/barnsensu awarded and no new ones has appeared for years. (Yes, I DID read barnstars page, please do not redirect me to that page.) (AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC))

Hello, AlphaBetaGammsh, and welcome to the Teahouse! Go right ahead, anyone can give anyone else a barnstar - there are no specific criteria besides having done (in your personal opinion) something needing special recognition. Tollens (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction to a page

I noticed in this page (The Calhoun Shot), the last sentence says the basketball was autographed by Calhoun. However, the ball was signed by Michael Jordan. The article that references the statement also confirms Jordan autographed the ball. Can someone correct the information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calhoun_Shot 2601:444:7E:830:B033:E7A1:E6F3:20BA (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Go for it - no need to ask! Tollens (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To just say that the basketball was autographed by Jordan would fail to make the point about the significance of getting Jordan's signature nor the challenge involved in getting this signature. It also makes it sound like Jordan was the only one who signed it. Fabrickator (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I agree - not sure where it was implied otherwise. Tollens (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding national flower to Nigeria

I observed that the national flower of Nigeria is an information that should be on the info box of the Nation's wiki page, but I can't seem to edit nd add that information. Any help? ReoMartins (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@ReoMartins Hi, I can't find a parameter on the infobox country called national flower or something of that like. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The info box is intended to summarize basic key information about the country. Its national flower is of comparatively little consequence. It isn't even mentioned in our list of national flowers. If you can cite a reliable source you could add it somewhere else in the Nigeria article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Page not showing up on google.

I everyone, there's a not-for-profit organisation based out of Pakistan that I created the wikipedia page for. It's called Balochistan Youth Action Committee. However, when I google I can't see the wikipedia page come up. Anything I have missed here? Appreciate the help. The organisation is working in some of the most challenging terrains of Pakistan's south western Balochistan Province. Tribal Explorer (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s too new, so Google hasn’t indexed it yet. nothing anyone can do about it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)