Wikipedia:Teahouse

This may come off as stupid, but how can I create one? Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cyb3rstarzzz, reading WP:Your First Article should teach you all you need to know to get started. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Users of all experience levels--beginner like you or veteran like me--are encouraged to use the Articles for Creation (AFC) process, which also provides the Article Wizard to start things off. If you need help with sources, talk to someone with WP:Library access (me included) or at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and they'll help you out. Also, what Ca linked to earlier on. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the notable (lots of secondary sources) subject that you wish to write about? 98.248.161.240 (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyb3rstarzzz See Lorem ipsum, a popular "fake latin" text that is quite popularly used in English writing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cyb3rstarzzz! To create an article, you first need to find a title for the article, which none of the existing articles has. There are two ways to do this:

1. Find a red link somewhere on Wikipedia, it might look something like this: Green-footed duck. Then click on it.
2. If you can't find the red link you need, you can come up with an article title that isn't currently used for any articles and type it directly into your browser's address bar like this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<Title of your article>

For example, the address of the current web page is

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

and let's say you want to create an article "Green-footed duck". Then you erase "Wikipedia:Teahouse" and type "Green-footed duck" instead, resulting in

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-footed duck

Then hit the Enter key.

Then, if an article with that title has not yet been created by other users, a message will appear: Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name, and under this message there will be a link: Start the Green-footed duck article. Click on it. During this step, a permission error may occur and the message will appear: This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. This error sometimes appears due to the use of VPN, or open proxies. Therefore, if you are using them, try disabling them and then repeat all the steps from the beginning. Also, if you are not logged in, logging in can sometimes help resolve the issue. Then, if everything goes well, you will be taken to the "Creating Green-footed duck" page. (Note: if you clicked the red link, you may be taken directly to this page). There will be a large empty text area on this page. Type something in this text area, and then click the blue "Publish page" button. That's it! You have just created a new article that is visible to all Wikipedia users. This article will display the text you typed in the text area, but you can also use wiki markup in addition to plain text, for example to add bold text, italics, sections, images and other files, templates, links to other articles and web pages outside of Wikipedia, references and other things. Happy articles creation! Chermundy (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor and I have a disagreement over at Wells College's talk page. There is a section on significant alums. the other editor wants them to have links supporting their significance; whereas I think that simply already having a Wikipedia entry is sufficient. What is the policy? Thanks. Kdammers (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page does not exist. Is there a typo in the link? Bduke (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I left off the S on Wells. I've added it. Kdammers (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wells College. As Category:Wells College people already lists faculty and alumnae, unannotated lists would be pointless. I'd say that yes, each annotated entry should be referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers Please see WP:ALUMNI for the policy. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:ALUMNI is about articles about secondary schools, not tertiary ed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Does it specifically say that? I can only see "school" which also applies to colleges and universities in the US, and some teaching universities or colleges in the UK and elsewhere. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. Take a look at the very first paragraph of that page. (What's written elsewhere about tertiary education may for all I know be the same. Perhaps I should check, but I plead laziness.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thanks. I've heard "alumni" or "alumnae" (here in the UK) applied to universities and colleges (e.g. [1]); the more recent trend for secondary schools or their equivalent to use it is inconsistent and less common. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alumni article is not clear on this point as far as I can understand it. Although it refers to secondary-education institutions, the advice in schools/article advice (note: not directive) includes this: " When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced." so, it seems to me references are not needed for alumnae with Wikipedia articles. I looked at a few schools (Lawrence University, Beloit College, Reed College), and saw that most of the alumni have refs for the first two but none for the third. Kdammers (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently rewriting an article that was originally a machine translation of another language Wikipedia. If I were to rewrite every single bit of text myself, which I feel I may have to because of quality concerns, would the talk page still require the disclaimer? It seems misleading to have that information on the talk page if the content has been removed. I'm also pondering whether WP:TNT would apply here given issues with machine translation and factual accuracy. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, can you link the article you are talking about? Mathglot (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feline hyperthyroidism, admittedly there are far worse machine translations and I don't think deletion would occur. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, by "disclaimer", I assume you are talking about the {{translated page}} notice at Talk:Feline hyperthyroidism. The short answer is: yes, you can remove it if it no longer applies. Wikipedia has requirements for attribution of translated text based on Wikimedia's Terms of use (sec. 7c), but this applies to the edit summary preserved in the page history of the article page, not to the talk page. (This attribution requirement was satisfied in this edit.) The talk page notice is nice to have as an aid, but it is not required by the ToU (nor does it satisfy them). Therefore, if you were to rewrite the entire article, the talk page {{translated page}} notice would no longer be accurate, and therefore should be removed.

Note that if any of the content you add in your rewrite involves translation from German Wikipedia (or any other one) be sure to follow the policy at WP:CWW and apply the proper translation attribution statement in your edit summary. This is required per the Terms of use. I hope this answers your question. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that answers it all, thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to convert a redirect page to a normal page Neutralhappy (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhappy Which page do you want to change and why? Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the redirect page's name is a suitable name for the topic. This is the page I would to get converted to a normal Wikipedia page.   Neutralhappy (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neutralhappy. Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis) is already an article, not a redirect, so I'm not clear what you're asking for. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related pages are not appearing. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine I'm not sure what's going on here but this version was an article until User:Neutralhappy added a redirect template to the top in this latest edit. I'm going to revert that now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the article at Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis) should be listed among those on the DAB page Samastha but I leave that for others to determine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia currently has two articles, Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), about different organisations. Both are Sunni; neither article explains what "AP" means. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhappy wanted to split Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama into two articles because the organization is split into two factions [2] (they don't seem to have actually merged). They created the page Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis) for one faction and tried to change Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama to only discuss the other faction. It is unclear whether the two factions should have separate articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the related pages are not appearing. Will it take time? Neutralhappy (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "related pages appearing". What page links do you want to add to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), and where in the article do you want these links to be? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article, just like any other article that shows three related pages at the bottom part. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpful Raccoon: by "related pages appearing", the user is referring to a standard feature on mobile view where if you scroll to the bottom of any normal long-standing article, there are links to a random set of three related pages that appear, and for some reason on this newly-created article, this feature doesn't appear. Left guide (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it appeared. And thus the problem got solved. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should it made to a redirect page? If so how to create a new page? Neutralhappy (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now its related pages began to appear. Neutralhappy (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the Water Positive Think Tank and have been involved in drafting the Wikipedia page about our Water Positive Initiative. To our surprise an individual made major modifications of the text, changing its page name, deleting sections regarding its history, changing its intended content and defining purpose. The inventors of the Water Positive Initiative were deleted along with their photos and volunteer members on the Water Positive Initiative (Water Positive Think Tank.

I spent all night trying to correct these changes but was surprised this morning to find the site blocked my phone IP address and put the site under vandalism protection. Furthermore, I received a response to my email of a threatening nature.

Please advise on the proper steps to take. It appears that the attempt of the corrector is to try to insert another organization within this initiative who are not the inventors of it. Greentn2 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greentn2 both of you are in the wrong here. I appreciate that you decided to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you are trying to promote an organization (in this case Water Positive Think Tank), then Wikipedia is not really the right platform. Wikipedia is firstly an encyclopedia.

If you are being paid to make these edits, then you are actually required to disclose that you receive compensation for editing.

You should talk with Techlang who reverted your edits. They are being harsh, but the core idea is what I said above, they thought you were just spamming content about Water Positive Think Tank (thinking it was vandalism). We like to call this process Bold Revert Discuss. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Positive Think Tank is a volunteer group. We were not paid for contributing to Wikipedia nor does the organization have commercial interests. The purpose for our contribution was to provide information and accurate description of its history, objectives and goals. We felt that some current information was distorted, and I tried to make the proper corrections, but I am not very familiar with the most efficient way of correcting the document. You may review the history of my input and make a determination which I will respect. I would like to bring to light that the mail sent to me by Techlang ended with a threat which was inappropriate and prompted me to reach out to Wikipedia as opposed to communicating with this individual directly. There are other actions taken by Techlang which you may judge for yourself and hopefully reverse them. Please examine it. If you are unable to see his letter to me, please inform me and I post it for your. Thank you for your comments and advice. Greentn2 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greentn2: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, the article started off focusing on the concept of water positivity and you were the one who added the organisation. As you have a conflict of interest, I would have reverted you as well as some of the language used was promotional or otherwise inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please disclose your relationship, preferably on your user page, and make edit requests on the article's talk page instead of directly adding the text into the article.

That said, there was no reason for Techlang to move the page, as it was fine before and the current title goes against the Manual of Style's guidelines. It would have been preferable for the two of you to have discussed the issue beforehand. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the page-move and left a warning for Techlang about several of their behaviors. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and comments. I am new to linked and though I have read much about it. I am still learning. Greentn2 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Water positive. The dispute, evidenced by additions and subtractions, is how much if any information should be present about the Water Positive Think Tank, if any. At present - 5 July - is is a short section with no references. Other content also lacks references. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maproom removed all mention of WPTT. Reason given. I agree. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. The initial article has been altered to such a degree that the mention of the Water Positive Think Tank in its current form appears out of context with the Water Positive. The previous context started with a chronological review of Water Positive, which did not include the Water Positive Think Tank.

“Water Positive” has been expanded to include the application of Non-conventional water resources, which affords the opportunity to revisit the issues of water safety, sustainability, and security in light of new water sources that can be added to industrial and some forms of domestic water use. This is a novel development ascribed to two individuals removed from the text. I think chronological relevance is essential, as is the mention of the evolution of the concept. I believe the Water Positive Think Tank is essential to that chronology (but should be revisited to ensure that its mention meets Wikipedia standards).

I will not participate in making comments on the document following the instructions of the Platform for “conflict of interest” as suggested.

David, I want to express my sincere gratitude to you and your team for the invaluable help and the much-appreciated clarifications you have provided. Your support is instrumental in ensuring the accuracy and timeliness of the information on the Water Positive page. I leave it to you, your team, and the community to decide the outcome of this page. Thanks again! Greentn2 (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention. Your edits are clear, and we appreciate your input. Please understand my reason for decommercializing the page.

@Greentn2 Thank you for your understanding. Next time, we'll discuss changes beforehand. Techlang (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parimatch company support 43.224.111.114 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about using Wikipedia, please rephrase it more comprehensibly. -- Hoary (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Parimatch does include the fact that the company went defunct in 2023, so support now seems unlikely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would I add my late fathers picture? Kathleen Fitz (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathleen Fitz There are two steps in adding pictures to WIkipedia articles. The first is to upload the image to our sister project Wikimedia Commons and the second is to incorporate it into the article about your father. From a copyright point of view, it is important that you took the picture with your own camera, so you are entitled to license it as required. Follow the "wizard" at commons:Special:UploadWizard and return to this thread for help on the next stage. I assume that your father is Joseph T. Fitzpatrick and strictly speaking you have a conflict of interest in writing about him. I'll explain that on your Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the people at Wikipedia make it so that if there's a film but it hasn't been released yet in a persons reigon, the plot should be hidden for them to avoid any spoilers? Al3xaSp3aker (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Al3xaSp3aker No, our guideline is explained at WP:Spoiler. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My AfC (Draft:Hailey Welch) was declined because Haliey Welch, was already in the mainspace. This prompted me to look into edit history of Haliey Welch, and the edit history shows it was created 15 minutes after my draft was submitted and created. I created the article first and the edit history shows the user who published Haliey Welch, to mainspace did so 15 minutes after I created Draft:Hailey Welch and submitted to AfC.

This morning the page Haliey Welch, still seemed to be a very closely paraphrased version of my article submission, but has now been changed. I spent a lot of time and care on creating the article draft, and am the original author, so I'm asking for some assistance and guidance here

There is an AfD for Haliey Welch, and this situation is a bit frustrating, but I feel my copy was written in a more encyclopedic way than the paraphrased second version the user published in the mainspace. Just looking for justice and credit here.

Hope this makes sense. Thanks to anyone who can provide insight :/ Comintell (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the initial state of your draft compared to the initial state of the article by BullDawg2021, they don't seem particularly similar apart from being about the same subject. It doesn't seem like your draft was closely paraphrased, but rather that you got caught up in a very unfortunate timing situation. Others may have different opinions.

Courtesy link to the AfD. I note this is also at ANI.

Comintell, you must feel very frustrated right now, and I'm sorry about that. I've twice had article sections I massively expanded WP:SPLIT to daughter articles for which another editor got initial authorship credit. For me, it didn't feel like a big deal. There's no glory here.

I don't really have advice, except that you've brought this to enough fora. It's always possible the AfD will close as delete. Best, Folly Mox (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's demotivating to volunteer editors, if they created an article first, and spent time making sure it was well crafted, to disregard their work and allow a draft that was submitted after theirs, on the same subject, by a different editor, to be approved. Does that make sense? Comintell (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, it makes sense to me, and I'm sure I would be disappointed (at least), frustrated, and maybe worse. Those are all human reactions. It would be bad to make a decision based on those emotions, though, especially if anger is in the mix there, somewhere. It's an unfortunate situation, but it sounds like you are here for the right reasons, and I'd hate to lose you as an editor, just because of this one event.

Why not let the emotions of the moment subside for a few days, and either work on something else here, or even just take a short wikibreak, and go out and hit a few tennis balls, or whatever you enjoy doing; then come back when the dust has settled. It's all about improving the encyclopedia, right, so if the other editor did a good job, then in the end that's a good thing, isn't it? If you believe your draft has content that is worthwhile, and is not covered in the article written by the other editor, then feel free to merge or copy your stuff into the existing article (with citations to reliable sources, of course). Normally, if you copy stuff from one article to another, you would have to attribute it in the edit summary, but if you copy stuff you yourself wrote, you don't have to do that.

So, take a break from that draft, and then see how it goes in a few days. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page, if you want more encouragement, or ideas. I really hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, I certainly understand the demotivation and frustration. If we take BullDawg2021 at his word (WP:AGF), he created an article on the same topic as you did at the same time as you did, without awareness that you had been hard at work on a draft of the same thing. The article Haliey Welch was created directly in mainspace, so no one from AFC approved his version to "jump the queue" over yours. AFC is optional for all but the newest editors.

Since it seems that you and BullDawg2021 were unknowingly racing one another to finish this article, one of you was bound for disappointment and work wasted. It's really unfortunate this happened, but no one caused it to happen.

I'm sorry you're feeling demotivated and I hope you'll continue to stick around, even if you feel like you need a bit of a break right now. Folly Mox (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the bible specificly states the James the Just was brother of Jesus/lord. James the less was Zebedees brother. James Zebedee dies long before james the just. Jude is also brother to this James the Just, he wrote te epistle to james in our bible. judas was brother to both james and the lord as stated by those mentioned at the church in mark 1. 2603:7080:BF3F:6BF:9CDC:8BEA:D1E0:68C6 (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you would like to se a change made to a Wikipedia article. Most of our articles (not the more sensitive or controversial ones) CAN be edited by anyone. But all content must be supported by relibale sources. The Bible is not regarded as a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me how to look at the deleted version of down-ball page Rockycape (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can. TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMINs can see the deleted version. I can have a look it for you and possibly email the content to you. (Got a few things to do right now, but back in a few hours.) I might be a bit biased, though: I have fond memories of playing versions of that playground game in two different states. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes please - and thanks, rockycape Rockycape (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to request feedback on my first wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZenSunflower/sandbox1 ZenSunflower (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming multiple pages with the same request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox content was Speedy deleted and User:ZenSunflower indefinitely blocked. And it was not Zen's "first wiki page", as editing history shows several Speedy deletions on other attempts. David notMD (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the reviewing of my draft, can I start a second one if I saw a subject that possess no Wikipedia page? WikiPhil012 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPhil012 you can create as much drafts as you'd like using the article wizard. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Certain restrictions apply). Folly Mox (talk)

You have created and submitted three drafts, all of which have been Declined once and two, twice. I recommend you focus on those before starting another. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been working on the article Downtown One without publishing it, and a few minutes ago I decided to release it. The problem is, the article preview shows a completely different article, which is List of tallest buildings in Albania. When I click on the preview, it still goes to the Downtown One article. I don't know if this is a common thing, but yeah. It's definitely odd. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be something to with Downtown One previously being a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Albania, though the redirect was delated back in Aug 2023. (I have no idea why that might be so - just a guess.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd report it, but the Phabricator login isn't working for some reason. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermmind, I reported it at the Village Pump Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Regarding the award list articles, I need clarification on how the nomination count is calculated. Suppose an actor received 7 nominations, of which 3 are wins. Is the total count of nominations 7 or 4? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anoopspeaks: that would be a total of 7 nominations. A nom is a nom, whether it results in a win or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks and DoubleGrazing: No. Template:Infobox awards list#Parameters says: "nominations | The total number of nominations, not including those won." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: thanks. I knew I should have checked and not just assumed. :)

I'm off back to school! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter,DoubleGrazing Ok, so what about award list articles like this Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu#Multiple nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoopspeaks (talk • contribs)

@Anoopspeaks: That's different. When discussing "most nominations" it should always include wins. Wins are often excluded when both wins and nominations are mentioned in the same place, and nominations are not compared to other nominees. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this considered Public Domain? 98.248.161.240 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chequers Ring 98.248.161.240 (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you click on the photo the licensing information will be displayed. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignoring the matter of "Chequers Ring" and only attending to your first question. Unless the turning-into-a-photograph process is in the public domain (because the photo was first published more than X years ago, is by a photographer who died more than Y years ago, was explicitly donated to the public domain, etc), no. See c:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#When_should_the_PD-Art_tag_not_be_used?. If you have follow-up questions, please ask them not here but instead at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets say someone creates a page about a fisher named "John Smith" and submits it to AfC, and it either gets declined or is un reviewed. Am I allowed to create "John Smith (Fisher)" about the same subject, and submit it through AfC as long as the article content is different? Comintell (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, one thing to know to start out, is that a "decline" is not the end of the road for a Draft; you can improve the draft, and submit it again. And if it hasn't been submitted (or even if it has) you can still keep on improving it; nothing is stopping you from doing so.

Another thing is that Wikipedia is above all a *collaborative* volunteer effort to build an online encyclopedia. One consequence of that, is that nobody owns any page anywhere on Wikipedia (not even your own User page, although by convention you get a lot of latitude to set it up the way you like). So you have the same right to work on the draft as its creator or anybody else.

So, rather than create a second draft on the same topic, which might be considered a WP:POVFORK—something that is frowned upon—why not just improve the existing draft? As a courtesy, if there has been only one editor active at the Draft so far, you could start a new discussion on their Talk page, mentioning that you have some ideas that might revive the Draft and get it approved, and see how they respond. This isn't required, per WP:OWN, but is a nice, collegial gesture showing your respect for their efforts thus far. If you don't hear back within a decent interval (a few days to a week should be plenty), then just go ahead and start improving the draft on your own. Maybe they will come back, and you can both improve it together. How does that sound? Mathglot (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked hypothetically, because this happened to me: Draft:Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the the substantial similarities between my draft and the draft that got accepted thru afc which came after (my draft) possibly suggested that the second article/draft (Haliey Welch) may have copied content from my draft without the editor making significant original contribution or proper attribution. Comintell (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, if that is the case, that would be a violation of our Terms of use. First, assume good faith; then, what I would do in that case, is to let some uninvolved editors look at it by raising a discussion about this at WT:CWW. Give them the links, ask for feedback, and see what they think. It could be that the other editor might have to repair the missing attribution, if it is determined that they essentially copied your content. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this in the thread above, but in case it's missed: Haliey Welch was not approved through AFC. It was created directly in mainspace. Folly Mox (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Comintell Setting aside the discussion about copying, any number of drafts about a topic may be created within our rules. Only one (if any) will be accepted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comintell, I suggest that you stop quibbling in multiple forums about who was the first to write about this dubious WP:BLP1E topic. If you really believe that this topic is notable, then improve the existing article and explain at AfD why it should be kept. You do not get any brownie points or social capital for being the first to write about a sleazy topic of dubious notability. Do the work to show notability instead of complaining so much. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Comintell Having answered the technical question, I have looked at both the draft and the current article. I would have declined the draft and have suggested deletion or draftification of the article at the AfD. I have made a firm suggestion there thsat interested editors work together, collegially.

Reinforcing Cullen328's message, no-one gets brownie points for being first. This is a collaborative project. Please collaborate. This is not a battleground This is an encyclopaedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for the advice. @Cullen328 and Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk Comintell (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I was edited short description of football player Emiliano Martinez of Argentina.But,later I was informed that those information that I added looked unprofessional.

I was die-hart football supporter.I added those information by analysing different journal and from my experiences. I was shocked and upset. Mirajul Hasan (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mirajul Hasan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately your knowledge and experience (like my knowledge and experience) is not relevant to a Wikipedia article, except in finding and selecting appropriate reliable sources to cite. All information in a Wikipedia article - especially one about a living person - must be available in a reliable published source. If you have a source for the information you want to add, cite it (see REFB). If you haven't, and it's your own opinion or experience, then I'm afraid it can't go in.

In particular, no Wikipedia article should ever make a subjective statement like "Regarded as one of the best goalkeepers in the world" in Wikipedia's voice. It can say "Joe Bloggs in XXX magazine described him as one of the best goalkeepers in the world", with a citation to the source; but a Wikipedia article should never make an evaluative claim like that. ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirajul Hasan: Your edit [3] had other problems. You placed your text before the hatnotes ({{for|...}} and {{redirect|...}}). They belong at top. You duplicated the opening sentence. Your edit summary said "Short Description" but that's not what you edited. You used VisualEditor which has a "Short description" box at the top. It's not a heading for the following text. It's a button you can click to change the short description "Argentine footballer (born 1992)". The post at User talk:Mirajul Hasan said "did not appear constructive". I disagree with that. You did some things wrong and it was right to revert the edit but it looked like good faith mistakes by a beginner and not what we normally call unconstructive. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bobbie R. Allen Talk Page contains rude comments, and I would like to either delete them or archive them and not create an uproar by the writer. Can I get some help on this? Wdallen49 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wdallen49 is this about Chris troutman's comments at Talk:Bobbie R. Allen? Per WP:TPO, you are not allowed to remove or alter others' comments, unless it is a personal attack or purely disruptive, which their comments were not. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments seem pretty tame. No comment on the notability of the subject or which sources contribute to establishing that, but the citation style of that article is... I hesitate to use the word incorrect, but I'm off to fix it I guess. Folly Mox (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait hang on how many of these sources are primary materials that have been uploaded to Commons? This is weird. Folly Mox (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wdallen49, are c:File:Natl Aircraft Accident Investigation School Photos, 1963 - 1965.pdf et seq really your Own work? I accept that you're a family member of the subject per your declared COI (thank you), and that you probably have these materials in your possession physically, but that's not how copyright attribution works. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three family photos deleted for claim as "Own work". David notMD (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD@Folly Mox He created his own BLP. Almost all the edits are his. This is not acceptable. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that a lot of rather serious research went into this article, but Wikipedia really isn't the proper venue to publish it. Sources like c:File:Cold Cat Shot Photo Sequence, Bobbie R. Allen, 1953.pdf, c:File:Bobbie R. Allen, Travel - Passports.pdf, File:Cdr Bobbie R. Allen, Commanding Officer, VS-721, Berlin Crisis 1962.pdf, this official letter from the Pentagon hosted at google drive, etc: these are obviously difficult to obtain sources that could really help inform a biography of this subject, but none of them can be used as sources for a Wikipedia article.

Wdallen49, have you considered submitting this for publication somewhere? Alternatively, have you considered Wikibooks? Sources for Wikipedia articles need to have been published somewhere already. The applicable policy is Wikipedia:No original research. Folly Mox (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox, Would you have time and interest in helping to improve this article further? I see you've made quite a few fixes, and I am happy to support if you're interested. Wdallen49 (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of the information was obtained from Mr. Allen's Civil Service Records. All military photos were generated by the U.S. Navy and were in Mr. Allen's possession when he passed. Wdallen49 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox These photos were in my father's possession when he passed away in 1972. I uploaded them to Wikimedia and of the options presented when uploaded, the option of "Own work" seemed to be the most plausible. Wdallen49 (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited. I'm not sure how much of the Commons material is properly licensed, but most of it appears to be {{pd-usgov}}. I am real bad at copyright so that could probably use a double check.

As foretold, I did fix the raw url citations to files uploaded to Commons and to here. Removed citations to entirely unsuitable sources. Added Template:Primary sources, which along with MOS issues is probably the biggest remaining problem. I didn't verify any claims.

This concludes my accountability. Folly Mox (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no just kidding I missed several citations to Wikimedia uploads formatted in cs1 templates 💀 Maybe later, Folly Mox (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow ups are here and here. Folly Mox (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to publish this article about artist Nereida Garcia Ferraz and its been declined for lack of reliable sources.

Whenever available online, I have added notes at the end of the sentence. Sometimes 2 or 3.

I had a huge list of exhibitions but because of the year they took place there is not information online so I removed those. I have added references and cites from online sources other that her own website but they seem not to be sufficient. Can you help me understand what else I can do?

Thanks!

Draft:Nereida Garcia Ferraz Bzbustamante (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online, a hyperlink is useful, but not essential. Paper sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) are perfectly admissible provided that the appropriate bibliographical details are given, since nearly all such sources will be held in libraries or archives somewhere. These can often be obtained by inter-library loans, or in extremis can be consulted by visiting the appropriate archive, etc.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Examples. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wonder if references from online Books reviews when the artist is referenced like this: https://upf.com/book.asp?id=9781683404026 or from Google Books such as this one will be enough?: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Latinx_Photography_in_the_United_States/6a4WEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=nereida+garcia+ferraz&pg=PA109&printsec=frontcover

Thank you in advanced,

Beatriz Bzbustamante (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bzbustamante, your first suggested source is not a book review; it's instead the page about the book by its publisher, the University of Florida Press. It is not disinterested, and can only be used for limited purposes. It does include blurbs written by others. Such blurbs are not usable. Yes, it's possible that a blurb is extracted from a book review; if so, cite the book review. Your second suggested source is a reproduction at Google Books of part -- or conceivably even all (I haven't checked) -- of a book. Cite the book; in the reference, you may also provide the link to the reproduction at Google Books. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the making of my draft, a text has appeared saying: Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox national football team with unknown parameter "Home stadium" while I was making an infobox. A message like this has appeared several times. I don't understand why this is happening. WikiPhil012 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPhil012, parameter names are case sensitive. According to the template documentation, you'll be wanting to use |Home Stadium= rather than |Home stadium= (although someone should probably just alias them in the template code). Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had difficulty guessing myself. WikiPhil012 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to add a topic to a talk page or reply to a message in a talk page, it does not work, so I have to instead use "Edit" and it's really annoying. Can anyone help? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply works on my IPad, but it didn’t work on my computer last night, which was annoying 24.115.255.37 (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted to add that England won the 2024 euros after beating Switzerland, Netherlands and then Spain in the final, but it keeps getting reverted, why is this. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking about what's said in one or more articles. Each article has a "talk page", reached by going to the article and there clicking "Talk". Make your question/request/complaint on the relevant talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and because talk pages are for discussion on how to improve the attached article and not, in this specific example, for speculation on who will win the Euros. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England won the Euros beating Spain in a thriller, Albärt[4]told me. That's not speculation that's a first hand source. He's already been telling multiple people that England already won. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your fantasies interest nobody here. You're at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny because Wikipedia is filled with fantasies, and inept people like yourself. No wonder you can only contribute to obscure photography articles, that seems fitting for a feeble-minded dunce like yourself. Enjoy your stupidity while it lasts.68.189.2.14 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please adjudicate my edit, followed by a revert, to Isoko people. I don't want to get into an editor war. Also, is there a policy prohibiting or allowing redlinks in lists of notable people? Thank you 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Trulyy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are typically not appropriate for lists of notable people, since one common and easy way of verifying that soeone is "notable" is by having an article about them. Sometimes they are allowed if there is is a strong enough reference that supports a claim of presumed notability (that is, someone could easily write a viable article to make it a bluelink) and also that they are actually a member of the group. Wikipedia:Write the article first is indeed a good pointer. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonia Woodson has been hurting her daughter for some time. Trafficking her with her boyfriend Marty. Her daughter is now living with an older man over 21. He is trafficking her due to Marty can you please help us find her 64.127.222.3 (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as if you should explain the matter to a citizens' advice bureau. But you're at the wrong place: this is an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why Columbia is considered as female personification? Does this from the antient Myths and legends？ while I read that "Columbia is usually depicted unaccompanied and as a goddess-like human. ""carrying telegraph lines across the Western frontier to fulfill manifest destiny.", I both think of myself story. There is unhuman creature inside me, it keep on telling lies, and tell me that it will make me to be the goddness-like human, and it persecute me to be lonely,so i read the "unaccompanied""manifest destiny",sensible. 蔡菲 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@蔡菲: the Teahouse is for asking questions related to editing Wikipedia. Try the reference desk for general knowledge questions like this. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find its so many rule in Wikipedia. I publish in "talk", they told me talk is for improvement discuss.and block my account in Chinese wiki. I publish in Teahouse, you tell me its for editing wikipedia.

I think I should not publish anything in Wiki. 蔡菲 (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some confusion here. Talk pages are not forums about articles' subjects and are instead for discussing improvements to articles. You were blocked on zhwiki per WP:NOTHERE and using talk pages as forums, and there's nothing we can do about that here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A week or so ago, China's oldest man Shi Ping has passed away and he was at 112 years 241 days old and surprisingly at the List of the verified oldest people he is not listed there. Can some user add him since I am not an autoconfirmed user? I do however have proof of his death and age right here- https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Shi_Ping TAD1993 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAD1993, Fandom is not taken seriously. If you have more authoritative evidence for this, then present it with your request at the foot of Talk:List of the verified oldest people. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article of Shi Ping already has a reference. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The List of first ladies of the United States isn't sorted by last name, even though I've seen more lists of people be sorted by last name. I was going to sort the list like that, but then I ran into a problem. Some of the people go by nicknames, which is referenced in article like this: Firstname "Nickname" Lastname. Should I sort by the first name, or by the nickname given? CitationsFreak (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical sorting of people is usually by last name in other contexts (MOS:LISTSORT and WP:DEFAULTSORT). In that case, the only time a first-name or nick-name would be relevant is if the last-name is the same. I do not see any such cases involving nick-named people on that list. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is such an issue with "Eliza Johnson" and "Claudia 'Lady Bird' Johnson". CitationsFreak (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'd defer to our WP article itself, which is (presumably) based on various WP guidelines. The page is Lady Bird Johnson, the first sentence is arranged as [first "nick" last], and the defaultsort key is "Johnson, Lady Bird". So in this other context I would write [first "nick" last] an sort by the nick rather than the first. Given that's the only(?) example and it's just two names, worst case is that readers see one pair in an unexpected order but can still easily see them both and find the one they want. DMacks (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll sort by nicknames in these cases, with a note explaining that fact. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found both Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup and Category:Articles needing cleanup. Both are sorted by month. I thought it was possible that the first one contained all pages, and the second one contained only articles, but this does not appear correct as both contain almost entirely articles. Please clarify why these two separate category systems exist. 2601:644:9083:5730:240E:C260:4C41:7F43 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it's likely that there are, at this time, just no other types of pages that have been marked as needing cleanup for the former category. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their histories show that Rich Farmbrough created both. So if you're really interested in their respective purposes, you could ask him. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Please clarify. 2601:644:9083:5730:F555:D1EC:BA1A:3DFF (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some updates on new information at the article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and another British political positions as well as political figures can someone be kind enough to add some new information on these new articles and expand them and update them as quickly as possible? in Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article you have to expand the authority powers and constraints section of the article and needs to add legislative powers executive powers of government policy and term limits. These are the topics that need some updates and new information. Can somebody do this? Altonydean (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

129 KB (14,062 words) - 23:04, 5 July 2024 2600:1016:B04C:17E5:0:29:CFCA:5E01 (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Altonydean (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the IP entry, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has thousands of viewers every day, and hundreds of watchers who look at recent changes. Also, since the election results there have been many, many edits - presumably updates. In general, Teahouse Hosts are generalists - here to advise, but not to address requests for article changes. Either attempt to make changes yourself, or ask on the Talk page of the article(s). David notMD (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience caused by this error. Altonydean (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i request for support on my page. I have more references about the subject Draft:Nicholas Omonuk Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga you asked the same question at the AfC help desk. Please see the responses you recieved there. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined five times and then Rejected as clearly being a non-famous climate activist does not make him Wikipedia-notable. Rejected means do not try again. If you persist, there is a risk that your account will be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can someone help me figure out why parameter alongside5 isn't working on this page James B. Ricaud for infobox officeholder? --Engineerchange (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Engineerchange. alongside5 is only displayed if term_start5 is set. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that. Thanks! --Engineerchange (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:27, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 82.173.160.29[edit]

• 82.173.160.29 (talk · contribs)
  • Landslide at Stenungsund junction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Landslides are a fascinating subject and Wikipedia even has a long list of landslides, but it seems that if there's no English text available, the landslide in question is considered to not have happened, eg. ignored by scientists.

I just spent several hours to translate

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordskredet_vid_Stenungsundsmotet

into

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Landslide_at_Stenungsund_junction&action=history

and I added 15 references, but sure enough, in stead of helping me to turn my draft into something worth publishing, somebody is trying to put my work on fire.

Who can please help to get this translation job finished? Help is not we destroy your work, so you can start all over again or Bring a lawyer to defend your attempt at helping Wikipedia I give up here 82.173.160.29 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor! I don't see anyone trying to "put your work on fire" - one editor did remove a stray weblink, but then promptly reverted themselves. All 15 references seem to still be there. Your draft has been declined for not having suitable references - is that what's upsetting you? If that's not it, could you try explaining to us?

Could I also very strongly suggest you not consider bringing lawyers into the process - we take legal threats very seriously, and you may be blocked if you say that you are intending to consult a lawyer over the matter. Using this page will be a much faster and more effective strategy to get your draft published, if you can find good sources! The sources can be online or offline, and can be in any language, but please keep in mind that English Wikipedia has some of the strictest referencing requirements to prove something is notable. If you are unsure about why your references were not considered suitable, I would be happy to go through them with you. Drmies is a very experienced reviewer, so there will be a reason the draft was declined this time. If you implement their feedback, your draft may well be approved next time. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StartGrammarTime! Please allow me to clarify that "Bring a lawyer" was not to be taken literally. This was rather a sarcastic joke, as to express my frustration that several hours of work are just swiped off the table, for reasons I don't understand. Please read my defense below, written after a short night of sleep.

It is not like quick clay landslides are a minor issue in Norway and Sweden. Such landslides have caused disasters in the past, claiming dozens of lives. Stenungsund had a narrow escape here, with no fatal victims. If the landslide would have pushed a little further, it would have taken down houses with sleeping inhabitants in them. The question about what caused the landslide is halfway being answered, but further research may cause the Stenungsund landslide to be in the Swedish newspapers again, maybe a couple of times.

One should also consider that E6 motorway is the main connection between Norway and Sweden. It's like you cut off I95 on the American east coast. The Swedish king would not have showed up at the reopening of a local village road. To claim that the cutting off of such an important road, with a detour that lasted almost 9 months and caused a great disturbance in local villages, would be just quoting your local village newspaper is a thing that I fail to understand.

Please beware that questions about how long this E6 motorway will last until the next landslide strikes are still open; There seems to be on ongoing minor scandal about missing geological research that should have been performed before even building the E6 motorway. Many sources are in Swedish. It could have been easy to swamp this article with 20 more references, from newspapers that do have serious reputations inside Sweden, but I deliberately chose to quote mostly English language sources, with an exception for Swedish if that source had pictures of video that is very telling for the story.

This landslide may not have been in The Guardian in London, or in The Washington Post, but it was noticed by CNN, also an American news chain with a reputation. If making it into The Guardian in London, or into The Washington Post were to be the criteria for being a notable event, we could delete half of the articles in Wikipedia. I think I have even seen an article in Wikipedia's policy, that we should all work together to avoid that Wikipedia becomes a project with a perspective centered around one single country, as Wikipedia is a worldwide project. This is what I find so valuable about Wikipedia: Here I am, living my life in Europe, but whenever I am curious enough to look something up that is far outside my daily life, Wikipedia is the treasury that has it all, even if many articles seem not very notable to me.

I don't understand what is expected from me. I will definitely not invest more time in an article that gets refused anyway. I still think that I have laid the foundations for an article that needs some editing and has the potential to meet all of Wikipedia's criteria, but I have a life outside of Wikipedia and will not waste any more energy. Wikipedia is said to be a community project, but all that I see happening is people being strongly discouraged to move a finger to contribute, because there will always be some editor, well respected within his or her own small circle, to take down any effort to contribute. If they cannot find valid reasons to do that, they will lure you into an edit war and ban you from Wikipedia, as if that would make me cry. If you feel like it, go ahead and ban my IP for life, in all languages that I have edited in. It would save me tons of time!

Hereby I will put my "baby" in a crib and let the river decide if the baby will float or drown. Anyone feeling tempted to edit my article about the landslide at Stenungsund junction, please go ahead. I don't care if my IP is registered to reflect the time I invested. I would just be delighted if this article would get it's translation from Swedish into English, in any sort of form. You might even argue that an English version could be much shorter than what I had written so far, because some details are not as relevant to the outside world, as they are for people in Sweden. That does not mean that one could convince me that a quick clay landslide that has been a revolving issue in Swedish newspapers over the last 8½ months is not an event notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia in some form. There is a red link in the list of landslides on Wikipedia. I hope somebody will make that link turn blue! 82.173.160.29 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have some somewhat good news for you. Immediately upon searching for some sources, I notice that this article could be expanded. There was an investigation into the causes of it, which found that ...the landslide had been triggered by a nearby construction site where too much excavated material had been piled up, putting excessive strain on the ground below.

This lead to criminal charges against three people. This could definitely expand the article, and can lead to further sources later down the line when the case against them concludes.

To actually get back into the swing of things on Wikipedia and push myself to work on cutting down my to-do list, I'll help you to improve the article. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you/tack så mycke, Commissar Doggo! :-) Your contirbution to my draft article is the sort of help I was hoping for. I was aware about a criminal investigation going on, but my knowledge of Swedish language is rather passive. I do agree that this needs further research. I just wonder whenever this article is ready enough to romove it's draft-status. Am I the only one who can request publishing? I feel that not being logged in triggers a defautl "I don't trust IP users"-like reaction. What should I do next? 82.173.160.29 (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the only one who can request publishing. I could just as easily request it now, however that's not going to happen as it's not quite ready, but with improvements and extended coverage it can definitely turn out alright.

As for IP users, while some people do show animosity towards IP/new users at times, IP users are people too and the large majority of users don't bite the newcomers.

That being said there are numerous benefits to making an account, which can be found here. It's entirely personal choice. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help, CommissarDoggo! To avoid any edit conflicts, let me take a step back and wait and see what your good work can do to improve my draft article. You are definitely heading into the right direction! I wonder what more you are hiding in your sleeve.

You've asked for a citation. Let me admit that I have been a bit lazy in translating the Swedish article, assuming that they had checked their information. Well, assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups, so we may need to double check what the Swedish author has written.

Please take a look at this weblink that refers to an article in Göteborgs Posten, titled Skredet på E6 varade i nästan en minut (https://www.gp.se/1.110855805), which I would translate as Landslide on E6 lasted almost 1 minute (without checking any dictionary)

Now closely watch what happens if we go back to that same article: Göteborgs Posten has updated their article and the claim that the landslide lasted one minute can no longer be covered with the reference in the Swedish article. I would assume that this error was made in good faith.

I have just sent an e-mail to the Swedish National Seismic Network at the University of Uppsala, with a request for access to the seismic data of the Tjörn measuring station for the 23rd of September 2023. I just hope that nobody will claim that I did not try to get my facts straight! ;-)

One last question to CommissarDoggo: Can I assume that you don't read Swedish? Do you know if it's possible to create language links between the original article in Swedish called Jordskredet vid Stenungsundsmotet and the draft article that we are now working on? Or is that too soon? 82.173.160.29 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that request is well received, it'd be good to have a citation. You're correct to assume I don't know a lick of Swedish, and I'm fairly certain that you cannot link two articles until they're both out of the draft stage; if I'm wrong on that, anyone can feel free to correct me. That being said, I have introduced interlanguage links to several pages on the draft.

I'd advise that we move any further communication to the draft talk page. Oh, and feel free to add any improvements you want, I'm going to be putting this down for the time being and will likely return to it either later tonight or tomorrow. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Landslide at Stenungsund junction has been declined once, which is not the end of the world (not even locally). If you intend to abandon the draft, do so. Drafts with no progess being made are deleted at six months. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! While working on a draft I realized that the sources available weren't enough to qualify for the making of it or not notable, therefore, I decided to rename that draft and write about something else on it since not much work has been done. Does anyone know how can I do that? Thanks, xx feni (tellmehi) 13:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The specific title of a draft isn't particularly important. If you submit it for review and it is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title within the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to retitle it nevertheless, you use the "move" function which can be found in the Tools drop down menu(if you are using the default skin it's in the top right corner) 331dot (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, if I may: how does Wikipedia stand on including book jacket images in articles about books, please? Is it acceptable to use the ones on sites like Amazon, which are in the public domain? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ones on Amazon are not public domain, ArthurTheGardener, and their copyright likely belongs to the publisher. Almost everything on the Internet (or offline for that matter)—with few exceptions (copyright expiration due to age, work of a government employee as part of their official duties)—is copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise. Use of all copyrighted material must follow our guidelines for non-free content. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about User:ArthurTheGardener/sandbox, my suggestion is to not even worry about images until you have an article in articlespace, after which you can add the book cover per the non-free content criteria (NFCC). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding so quickly: I appreciate your reply. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Evans has sources from Ancestry.com and Find a grave. I'm wondering why that is OK if those sites are unreliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content

FunFactsFanatic (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunFactsFanatic welcome to Wikipedia :) It seems that the author of the page used Ancestry.com (which, as you say, is generally considered unreliable as it contains user-generated content) to access reliable sources such as the 1880 US census, or the Colorado City Directory. In this case, I would advise against removing those sources or tagging them as unreliable, unless you have a clear reason to do so. The "Find a Grave" source is redundant, as all the information is already in the official burial register index, I therefore removed it. Broc (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Broc Thanks. Are these primary or secondary sources? 1880 US census, Colorado City Directory, Michigan Marriage Records. I was thinking those were primary sources and secondary sources are preferred. Is that correct? FunFactsFanatic (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunFactsFanatic you're correct, it seems those are mostly primary sources. Secondary sources are preferred, but primary sources can be used in some circumstances, which are detailed at WP:PRIMARY. If you have better sources at hand, feel free to add them to the page! Broc (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this page Wikipedia:Wallace Matthews for review over a month ago and have not heard anything. I do understand that there is short staffing of volunteers but am wondering if I did anything wrong.

Thanks in advance,

Gerald Latter Gilatter (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have a review at all. However, why is it under Wikipedia? It should just be Wallace Matthews. Soafy234 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilatter

1. It doesn't look like you ever submitted it for review. To do that, you would need to use Template:AfC submission.
2. However, you are auto-confirmed now, which means you can create new articles directly or move pages to mainspace yourself. It's your choice whether you do that, or submit them for review.
3. When you move a page to mainspace, it should just be "Wallace Matthews", not "Wikipedia:Wallace Matthews". Currently, it is in "project space", which is different from "mainspace".

2601:644:9083:5730:F555:D1EC:BA1A:3DFF (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilatter I moved your article to the draft namespace, and I suggest you submit it for AfC (using the {{AfC submission}} template, which a bot should add automatically) before moving it to the mainspace — which is the "article" mainspace, not the "Wikipedia" namespace — due to the limited number of sources your page has. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, now at Draft:Wallace Matthews, not submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the content is without references. David notMD (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In the visual editor, you can paste in a URL and it will make a citation for you. Is it possible to do this in source editing mode? Wafflewombat (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes by clicking on "Cite" then "Templates". However, regardless if you input the information in either editor mode (visual or source), make sure that all necessary information are there of what was entered and/or automatically generated. Soafy234 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to propose a merger between two articles — the Emirate of Cordoba and the Caliphate of Cordoba — into a new article. I have everything ready, but I'm still unclear on where I'm supposed to post the discussion and the page Wikipedia: Merging didn't clarify that for me. Is it supposed to go under one of the articles talk pages or into a specific page for talking about merging? I don't quite understand. As well, how would I link to the discussion in the merge templetes that go at the top of the respective articles?

-- Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template should go on a discussion on the talk pages of both articles, and the template should automatically do that (I may be wrong though). Use:

{{merge|Emirate of Cordoba|discuss=Talk:Caliphate of Cordoba#Merge proposal|date=July 2024}} (just flip the article names for the respective pages)

Hope this helps. :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear then, the template goes on the discussion post too? Is that what you're saying? As well, I post the discussion on both talk pages? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! You should also put the template at the top of both articles , I forgot to mention that. So it goes on the main article, talk page, and discussion itself.Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this and I believe there's some confusion. WP:MERGEPROP specifies: "If two pages are proposed to be merged at a destination page that does not yet exist (destination does not have a talk page), use (...) on each source page, choosing one of the source talk pages as the discussion location and ensuring the discuss parameter directs to this talk page on both source pages."

It's not clear to new editors, but in other words: for this situation, just pick one talk page to post your proposal, then tag the two articles (not the talk pages) with the template mentioned, and link the single discussion you created in both templates. That way, all the discussion is in one place, whereas splitting the discussion in two locations would be confusing and potentially make it difficult to determine consensus.

Since I have experience with merges, I've just gone ahead and picked one of the talk pages (the one with the most visitors/watchers) and redirected the duplicate discussion there ([5]). I think that should all work out. R Prazeres (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with a previous question regarding creating the article on Saddle tramp and redirecting the current page saddle tramp (disambiguation) to a header link on that page; I am wondering how to go about this correctly. Making the newly creating article the main page and making the formerly disambiguation page a link from the header. I hope I'm explaining it correctly. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maineartists, it's not a straightforward move. What I understand you want to do is move Saddle tramp to Saddle tramp (disambiguation), and your sandbox to Saddle tramp. This can only be performed by page movers as existing redirects need to be deleted. I suggest you post your request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please make sure that the page you want to create (currently in your sandbox) fulfills notability criteria, especially WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Hope this helps. Broc (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Broc. I am confident that it meets notability [6] and is not WP:ND. That being said, just how does one request a move when the page is still in Sandbox format and not a published article? Should I publish under a different title and then request? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists WP:RM/TR can also deal with cross-namespace move requests. I would ask there directly. Broc (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if someone can weigh in on a syntax question. I and a couple others are editing the Plot section of the Spider-Man (2002 film) page, and have been struggling with one segment. In brief: Peter Parker wins a wrestling event, but is cheated out of the prize money by the man running the event. A thief bursts in and robs the event, then flees. Instead of stopping him, Peter allows him to escape out of spite. Peter then finds that his Uncle Ben has been fatally shot by the thief, who also stole Ben's car.

Here is the current segment in question, which I find to have awkward syntax in the bolded portion: "Hoping to buy a car to impress Mary Jane, Peter wins an underground wrestling event, but is cheated out of his earnings. Soon after, Peter's Uncle Ben is killed by a carjacker that Peter let escape after robbing the event." 

I feel that a version I proposed is less awkward: "Hoping to buy a car to impress Mary Jane, Peter wins an underground wrestling event, but is cheated out of his earnings. Soon after, Peter's Uncle Ben is killed by a man who robbed the wrestling event, and who Peter allowed to escape."

Could I get your thoughts? We don't have to use either of these versions, if another better version exists. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one doesn't sound awkward to me. Its problem is that the reader may guess wrongly at the identity of the robber. The second sounds slightly more awkward to me but it's unambiguous and thus preferable. (Incidentally, you can, if you wish, use whom; but of course who is perfectly good here.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think using "whom" in the first clause is not seem correct, according to Who_(pronoun)#Difference between "who" and "whom". It's the subject of that clause (replaceable as "he robbed" not "him robbed"). The second use could be "whom", as it's the object ("allowed him to escape" not "allowed he to escape"). DMacks (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two alternate versions:

1. "Soon after, Peter's Uncle Ben is killed by a carjacker who Peter let escape after he robbed the event." The problem with this, and the previous version of it, is that it could be construed that Peter robbed the event (As Hoary pointed out).

2. "Soon after, Peter's Uncle Ben is killed by a man who robbed the wrestling event, and whom Peter allowed to escape." Could also be "...and whom Peter let escape."

Are we sure "whom" is correct here? It sounds weird. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, the fact that "a man" is the subject of "robbed" in the second of the four versions doesn't mean that it's also the subject of "allowed". (It's understood as the object.) Wafflewombat, the second of your two new versions sounds good to me. Within it, whom is fine. And who would be fine as well, unless perhaps it strikes the reader as old-fashioned. (Rule of thumb: Any time you wonder whether whom would be correct, who is also or perhaps only correct. We are, after all, producing 21st-century English, not a slightly fictionalized 19th-century English.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir/ma’am, I want to know the basics of editing in Wikipedia. If you want to tell me the basics, just create a new post on my talk. Thank you sir/ma’am. hi, my name is Pickleishere. i like Programming, and will be mad if that is taken from me. thanks, check my talk page here -> talk 00:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickleishere, a link on this page is labeled "Learn to edit". Just click on it and read what you see there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Hoary. Will check it. hi, my name is Pickleishere. i like Programming, and will be mad if that is taken from me. thanks, check my talk page here -> talk 01:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pickleishere, we read that you like programming, etc, the first time around. (Incidentally, I don't know what it would mean for programming to be taken away from you.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's their signature.. @Pickleishere I would recommend shortening that a little bit.  miranda :3  03:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all--I need someone to help me with archiving a version of a web site. Please see this edit: I really need this website to be archived, and added to the reference, because I think they are changed regularly. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can archive the website here: https://web.archive.org/. When citing it, make sure you enter the archived URL and date of archival in the citation. Soafy234 (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if I wanted to suggest a change to merging / moving page policies, where would I post my suggestion / proposal for this? Soafy234 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But only after very careful thought. If you've just had what you think is a great new idea, sleep on it. Then write it up on your computer. Then sleep on that. The next day, rewrite it, and post it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The area between "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and the beginning of the lead on articles such as medium Earth orbit include a large space that does not appear on most other articles. Why is this? Indochina2 (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indochina2. A used template had newlines. I have removed them.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get to know whether my article is published or not Cuddapah Sri Paramahamsa Sachidananda Yogeeshwarar (Kadapa Swamy) (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You have written on your user page, which is not article space, but a place for the named person to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user. New accounts cannot directly create articles, and need to submit a draft for review via the Article Wizard. Your text is "published" in that it is visible on your user page, but it is not formally part of the encyclopedia(note that it has "User:" in the title).

I must say that your text is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is completely unsourced, and is written in the form of an essay giving the thoughts of the author(you) on the topic. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Please use the new user tutorial] to learn more about Wikipedia before attempting the difficult task of writing a new article. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder if you confused creating an account with creating an article. You may wish to change your username, see Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do that. If you are writing about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I'm rather a newbie on Wikipedia, and thus wanted to get some feedback on the first few 'larger' edits I have made on here! Those would be my edits on the Page List of national border changes (1914–present). Something I'd like to get feedback on is my usage of sources here and here, since sourcing is rather difficult to figure out and propperly do.

Another thing I wanted to ask is for opinions about my two talk topics of the same page. I'd like to clear them (or at least hear an opinion on them) before continuing to edit the page.

Any help is greatly appreciated, and I wish you all a nice day!

With kind regards, ShadowOfThePit (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is aggregating a medal table over decades of sports events WP:OR? Would such a table be ok although there is no fast way to check the data? (I have read WP:CALC.) IPPON01 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]