Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, a Teahouse host

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

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

Does Wikipedia have a left-leaning bias?

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I'm interested in knowing whether Wikipedia inadvertently has a particular bias. I know that everything has to be written in a neutral point of view and is not supposed to take sides on anything. I found the article on this topic here, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but I found the article too confusing. I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias which may contribute to its bias since almost all of Wikipedia's info comes from mainstream media. I am hoping that I can get a quick summary on whether Wikipedia has a bias or not or if it leans a certain way. I hope to hear from you soon. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that theme has come up. Search for "bias" in the archive. 176.0.164.84 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an article on this topic which relates academic and public commentary. See Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey, you perhaps didn't notice that @Interstellarity has already cited that article. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, bear in mind that political "left/centre/right" are subjective perceptions, unless everyone agrees to use a particular scheme that has measurable parameters. They are also culturally specific, and their meanings in one country rarely exactly correspond to their meanings in another: this makes assessing the 'lean' in a global encyclopaedia rather problematic. "Centres" also shift over time – see Overton window and Left–right political spectrum.

For example, as I am British and you are (I will presume) American, my perceived political "centre" will probably be a good deal leftward of your "centre". I would consider my position in a British context to be mildly left of centre on some (more social and environmental) issues and mildly right on other (more economic) issues: you would probably consider me fairly left-wing from your point of view, and I would probably (given your query) consider you fairly right wing. How then can we agree on "bias in Wikipedia"?

It may well be that the Left-right political spectrum model is oversimplified, outdated and inadequate. Others are available, see Political spectrum. Two axes models are generally more insightful, and I suspect one with three axes would be even better. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will confirm that I am an American. There doesn't appear to be any way to ping you, but I'm sure you watch this page a lot. I've been trying to educate myself on this issue and I read your comments. It appears that determining any type of bias on Wikipedia is difficult since the political systems in each country are different from one another. I was reading Donald Trump's article on Wikipedia and I thought to myself that the article is biased against him just by reading the article, but I have learned that Wikipedia gets its facts from the sources which is usually mainstream media that is critical of him. That's probably why I thought Wikipedia had a left-leaning bias. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"American" is not actually the same thing as "Citizen of the U.S.A.," by the way.

There are 35 states in America;

Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Suriname, Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Belize, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, USA, Canada, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominca, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica

Anyone from any of these states is an American.

Anyone who reads and writes in English , around the entire world, can create a wikipedia account.

In most of these countries, "left" and "right" don't mean anything. Even in Europe, they have different meanings than they do in the USA. Guylaen (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I like your answer a lot sir. If I may add: If you leave the Western world, other country's parties and "left/right" can be totally different. For example, in America, a "liberal/leftist" may be very pro-immigration etc., whereas in Turkiye the "liberal/leftist" parties are vehemently anti-immigration and very pro-"Turkish" and desire to see "Turkish" language and culture supersede all others in the country. Whereas the Islamists and "conservatives" AKA muhafaza parties are actually pro-immigration, pro-diversity, and pro-multicultural and multi-lingual (actually this is a typical norm among Islamists in many countries, because Islam itself denounces racism and promotes multiculturalism in its sources and from the sirah nabawiyah). So on that note, I find the English Wikipedia to be quite lacking in diversity of thought! It needs more Islamic views. DivineReality (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't wanna be that guy. But Wikipedia calls national socialism "far right" to make right-wingers look bad, or at least that's what I think. Flying disc 1 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be expected to exclude relevant factual information on þe basis þat it makes certain people or groups "look bad". Þat would be an egregious example of bias. GenderBiohazard (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

National Socialism is, objectively, a far-right movement. No bias there. Drdr150 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

National Socialism/Nazism is, objectively, a far-right movement. There's no ulterior motive behind calling a spade a spade, or in this case, the far-right far-right. Beedlejoos (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh bugger, almost identical to the comment above. Beedlejoos (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fdZu2vb_I&pp=ygUkd2VyZSB0aGUgbmF6aXMgZmFyIHJpZ2h0IG9yIGZhciBsZWZ0 Guylaen (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is used for informative purposes. As users come to edit, they may change the facts and alter the article. Various factors may be included in their changes. Bias may be shown in their changes, highlighting different facts inside their edits. There possibly could be some excessively biased articles that show changes of users. Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good observation I saw a church rewriting a wiki post to be more in line with the tone of wikipedia and less biased and they blocked them and deleted the edits. It’s not even in the log, luckily I have copied it to show openminded people like you. IamNeutrality (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:COI. GenderBiohazard (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it not possible that The conservative people work while the left poor masses on welfare have lots of free time to spend on drugs, editing articles etc? Let’s gather the facts and see who is the majority of people with liberal free time for editing!

I don’t know yet only a guess! IamNeutrality (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First, a church should not be editing Wikipedia as accounts represent individuals and plus, it was your sockpuppet account and it got blocked so I can see why it might upset you. I don't see how you can justify the edit it made though. But since you are blocked as well for being NOTHERE, I won't expect a response. By the way, I think I know a lot of editors on this platform after 11 years and they are neither on welfare or on drugs. Random assumption on your point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out before me Fact's have a left leaning bias, it's like the comic that's gone around of the rich guy with a mountain of cookies making two other guys fight over the 1 between them, right wing policies favour the few and as such require lies so right-wing politics are just less factual. Galdrack (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you're here, and allowed to ask this question, means that it doesn't have any bias other than to the truth.

When you are confronted with an article that presents information that is contrary to your worldview, please take a moment to wonder if your worldview is incorrect. In writing my series of articles on Cuba, as a citizen of the U.S.A., I have had to confront my worldview almost daily.

What I've formulated going forward is the notion that history and reality are neither conservative, nor liberal, neither right, nor left - but COMPLICATED. This is a complex ball of wax. Facts are stubborn things. Guylaen (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In the united states, facts have a liberal bias because conservative media will push any lie they want to get more money. We recently got two back-to-back hurricanes and a certain politician said that all the emergency aid is going to immigrants, and that caused a literal armed militia in tennessee to confront FEMA workers (Associated Press link, no paywall) because conservative media (especially alternative or low quality sources) picked up on the story and spread it. Unfortunately the U.S. has no standards for bias and accuracy in journalism and it shows given that MSNBC and FOX are some of the top "news" sources in the country. Politicians and influencers sow distrust and hatred towards "the other side" and easily manipulated and unintelligent people fall for it. I say that facts have a liberal bias because if you tally up all the lies sources from both sides of the aisle say, an overwhelming amount of them will be from conservative outlets. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias

Most mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias, broadly construed, somewhat closer to the classical, non-USAian sense of the term, not a leftist bias per se. As for Wikipedia policy, sources with an illiberal bias are typically regarded as generally unreliable, deprecated, or blacklisted, whether they have socialist (e.g. WP:TELESUR), communist (WP:GLOBALTIMES), reactionary/extreme traditionalist (WP:BREITBART, WP:QUILLETTE) standpoints, or simply have views favorable to states regarded as illiberal by the reliable sources (WP:ADLPIA, WP:DAILYSABAH, WP:GLOBALTIMES, WP:OCB, WP:PRESSTV, WP:RT.COM). This understanding of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and innate ideological biases is much more parsimonious and has greater predictive and explanatory power than assuming it is biased towards liberalism and against conservativism in the narrow, largely modern, largely American sense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Krugman has observed, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias." Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not leftist. I'm a neoliberal and do just fine here. But to fill in the details, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This wasn't the first time the observation was made: Stephen Colbert notably said reality has a liberal bias at the at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse thread notification bot is back

Hello. I received approval for the bot's task. In short: due to some technical difficulties I was unable to use Muninnbot's account. So I had to use my own KiranBOT account. I have sent out the notifications of the recent archival, here is an example diff. Kindly let me know if something should be changed, like the edit summary, or the main message, or some other thing. courtesy ping @Rotideypoc41352: —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding a star for the people below! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks good to me! We'll see how it goes. Thank you:

• Usernamekiran, for all your hard work
• Sdkb, who started the original Bot inoperable thread that led to resumption of these notifs
• and everyone else who helped at that thread.

Also, I tried to update the Munninbot userpage. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention: similar to Muninnbot, KiranBOT will not send notification in case the thread/section title is updated after creation. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have a rudimentary logic to resolve this issue. But given the upcoming Diwali festival, I will be busy in office as well as personal life. I will work on the issue as soon as I get free time, which might be after 10 November. In case anyone wants to stay updated, I recommend watchlisting User:KiranBOT/Teabot, where I will post the documentation once the issue is taken care of. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding iNaturalist image

Hello there!

I was wondering what the protocol is for adding images from iNaturalist specifically in regards to the copyright? I've reached out to the creator of the specific image I wanted to use, but wanted to check in and make sure that I am able to do so without it being copyright infringement (while following the tutorial from wikiedu on how to add images properly).

Page being edited: Midvalley fairy shrimp

Photo in question: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/147506541 Erinkmarkham (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There's an admirably clear link from that page to this one, which essentially says that yes you may use it, as long as this satisfies various requirements. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Erinkmarkham Just adding to what @Hoary has said... yes, you can upload a photo from a site like Flickr that has been released for commercial re-use, as this one clearly has.

You don't need to reach out to the original photographer to seek their permission, but I think it really helps if you reach out afterwards and thank them for releasing the image under the right licence, and linking to the article you've added it to. People like to see and know that their images are proving useful and being appreciated by others. And it encourages them to continue doing so, I believe.

There's an interesting page about the relationship between iNaturalist and Wikip0edia here. It's really useful to send people to ask them to reconsider the licencing they've given to a particular image, and includes a link to a 'how to' video for changing attribution in iNaturalist. https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/76329-using-inaturalist-images-on-wikipedia

Just remember to ensure when you upload it to Commons that you don't accidentally claim the image as your own, and include a link back to the image on the photosite so our volunteer response team can check the licencing if necessary.

I have found people are mostly happy to change licencing for individual photos (or even upload an alternative lower res image under the right licence) that they've put on Flickr if you explain the use that you would like to put it to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Erinkmarkham: There is more info, and links to useful tools, at c:Com:INaturalist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Erinkmarkham @Hoary I think you're misinterpreting the copyright notices -- the image is clearly listed as "all rights reserved" but the observation is listed as "CCBY4.0". That means the author does not give permission for people to use the image, as far as I can tell, but does give permission to use the metadata/information associated with it. See this help page -- if the symbol on the bottom of the photo is "C" and not "CC" (as here) that means that the image has not been released under CCBY4.0. The default license is actually Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial license, which Wikipedia can't use. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Erinkmarkham (and Nick Moyes and Andy Mabbett): Mrfoogles is right and I was wrong. I apologize. As displayed on that page, the image is marked "©". Click on that, and we read "©ivanparr, all rights reserved". This very clearly conflicts with reproduction at Wikimedia Commons (or Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Subpages

So I have seen that some other uses have their own subpages. How do I make my own subpage(s)? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid Have a look at Wikipedia:User pages § Creating a subpage. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RedactedHumanoid. You start by typing "User:RedactedHumanoid/" into the search box, being sure to add the slash. After the slash, you type in something that you can remember. Let's say you are working on developing a new paragraph to add to Saturn. You would type in "User:RedactedHumanoid/Saturn", and then search for it. You will get a message saying that page does not exist, and then a link that says "Start the User:RedactedHumanoid/Saturn page". Click that link and start writing about Saturn (or whatever), and when you publish your changes, that page will be created. You can have as many subpages as you want, as long as you are using them to improve the encyclopedia. You cannot host content unrelated to Wikipedia, or that otherwise violates policies. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to create subpages for showing my userboxes, listing what articles I have created, etc? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

RedactedHumanoid: Yes indeed, a lot of users do this, especially when they accumulate a lot of userboxes or awards. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Permission to add something to the 2018 United States–Canada tornado outbreak page?

I noticed this, but both the Dunrobin-Gatineau and The Arlington Woods tornadoes were probably significant enough to get the "see section on this tornado" for this page: 2018 United States–Canada tornado outbreak. just wondering if i have permission to add it. SillyNerdo (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how to add the link part lol since I'm basically a newcomer. SillyNerdo (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@SillyNerdo The "Cite" or "Add reference" button in Wikipedia's VisualEditor appears as a small icon resembling quotation marks. Here’s a description

• It is located in the editing toolbar at the top of the page when editing an article.
• The icon typically shows a quotation mark symbol and may be labeled as "Cite" or "Citations."
• Clicking it opens a drop-down menu with options for adding references, including manually or using templates like "Cite web," "Cite book," or automatic citation generation using a URL. Please ensure that any links you add come from reliable sources. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources eg WP:RS and WP:IS

Afro 📢Talk! 16:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need permission from anyone to edit (unless a page is protected or other special circumstances apply), and in fact you're encouraged to be bold. I'm not sure I can from your description judge whether you should make this edit, but worst thing that can happen is someone undoes it and you discuss how best to improve the article. As for how to add links, see either Help:Wikitext or Help:VisualEditor, depending on which editor you use. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you! SillyNerdo (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by everyone so feel free to positively @SillyNerdo.you can follow guide highlighted above. Tesleemah (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I found out how to add links to headers, just saying! SillyNerdo (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

strange e-mail

If this is the wrong place for my question please redirect me.

I received an email from user "Izmirrexha1992" with a straight forward question. The issue is that I can not find this user (on enwiki AND meta). They provided a link to WP that was dead. Could well be that I searched "wrong", but it leaves me puzzled. Does this user exist somewhere? And if not; What is or could be going on here? I.E. Why would somebody claim to be a user when they are not? Dutchy45 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a user with that name who has made one edit and the account was created in September. [1]. Hard to say more without knowing the context of the email. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your link has me confused as to why I couldn't find it. He asked me to start an article about a city in a small-language wiki. I only have a few edits on that wiki, and I don't even speak that language. Now I'm wondering if he mass e-mailed everyone who has ever made an edit there. Thoughts? Dutchy45 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dutchy45, it would be helpful if you told us more about the contents of the email. Did the email come through the Wikipedia email facility? If so, I recommend not responding to the email as that discloses your email address to someone who may be up to no good. This may be a variation of WP:SCAM. Be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dutchy45, the editor has contributed to five other language versions of Wikipedia and seems to be interested in Albania. Another possibility is that they are confused. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, It did come through the WP email. I've had a few mails from other editors in the past. My email adress is disclosed somewhere in my settings. I'm not worried about scamming. Thanks for the warning though. I saw his global edits already (the 5 other languages). He asked if I wanted to start an article about Tirana (Albania's capital) in Surinamese (a former Dutch colony). So, confused? Maybe. But what puzzles me is; why mail me? Dutchy45 (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Presumably because you have contributed to the Dutch and Afrikaans Wikipedia? Don't know.

By the way: your email is not disclosed unless you have chosen to do so. Other editors can email you, but they do not see your email unless you reply to them. ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: Maybe you searched for a user page and saw a message saying there is no page. It's optional for users to make a user page. Special:CentralAuth/Izmirrexha1992 shows their acounts. Wikipedia mail is sent via Wikipedia's servers without revealing the address of the recipient to the sender. If you reply, whether directly or by Wikipedia mail, then they get your email address. I suggest you don't do that. If you post to their talk page then your mail address remains hidden from them. We don't have access to the email activity of users so I don't know how many mails the user has sent. We have 48 million registered users. There is no "Surinamese" at meta:List of Wikipedias and Surinamese language can apparently refer to several things but I guess you mean Sranan Tongo at srn: where you have four edits. srn:Special:Statistics says they only have 12 active editors (Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days). Izmirrexha1992 is one of them and two of them are not people. The only edit by Izmirrexha1992 is to srn:User talk:Artekimus which sounds similar to the mail you got. Special:CentralAuth/Izmirrexha1992 shows very few edits and several of them are similar requests to other languages to create an article about Tirana or Albania. Maybe they want their home to move up on Special:MostInterwikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I have taken your advice and replied on his talkpage. Partly because of what you said but mainly because if he mailed others, they are now able to see that. Maybe I'm wrong but to me it just feels off. Why go through the trouble of sending an email when a talkpage message is much easier?! Unless you don't want a record of it on WP is my guess/thinking. Thanks for taking the time for a lengthy and informative reply. Dutchy45 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: It is an odd approach but with 48 million accounts here at the English Wikipedia and millions more at other languages, some oddities will happen. If they made a lot of unsolicited talk page posts at the same language then they might be blocked. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I just read your reply. Then checked his talkpage for a possible respons and saw somebody else already with a similar thing! see here Dutchy45 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestion or help with a false claim made by another editor

I find it frustrating that a random editor, @Gheus, repeatedly claims that my edits resemble those of a paid editor. This accusation is not only false but also disruptive, as they frequently move the pages I created to draft space at their discretion. Is this how Wikipedia operates? Am I expected to constantly move pages back and forth? I want to clarify that I have never accepted payment for my contributions, nor do I have any connections to the subjects in question. Yafetabera (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I left a note on both of your talk pages. Both of you have been disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: On Yafetabera's talk page, you wrote "In spite of your claims to the contrary, the promotional language you used in the article does give the impression that you have some sort of association with iFly Pro. You really need to disclose how you're associated with it." after Yafetabera said "I do not have any conflict of interest in my Wikipedia edits". What evidence do you have to assert that such an association exists? The note you left on Gheus's talk page makes no mention of the accusations, also made without evidence, to which Yafetabera refers above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be clearer than what you quoted. Promotional editing suggests an association. That's a simple fact. I have encountered many instances in the past where someone insists they have no conflict of interest due to not being paid, but later admit to an association. I want the editor to clarify exactly the situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Promotional or biased editing isn't always a conflict of interest. However. you can still warn/remind users for making promotional edits without a conflict of interest. نوح^{فث   Let's Chat!} 22:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

In this case the waters were muddied by the context of paid editing. That's why I wanted clarification. I've seen all too often in the past, cases where an editor insists there's no conflict of interest because there's no compensation, but turns out there's an association after all. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I thought my content is alright and never thought it is promotional, I just tried to put facts as I found from the major news sites by paraphrasing them and have no any intention to promote the site at all. And as I said earlier I do not have any association with the subject except using the app frequently for my personal use. Yafetabera (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. And yes, you used promotional language. See Wikipedia:Words to watch. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I still dont have MOVE section to make my article live after 4 days and over 10 edits

Im not sure what is going on here. I have verified my email as well! help! CognitiveOP (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As you are new to creating articles it's highly recommended to use the submission process. Ive added the appropriate information to allow you ro submit it. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi CognitiveOP. As I write this, your account is still 46 minutes away from being 4×24 hours old.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't move your sandbox to article space yet, if I were you. It would soon get put back to draft. It needs some significant cleanup. As 331dot said, it's best you submit it for review once you think it's ready, because a thorough review would lead to improvements. You are in no hurry, there is no deadline. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks so much for such a speedy reply! It received a good score and I now have the ability to submit it for review (that option wasnt there before I read this comment). I may simply take your advice, will they assist with these improvements? What areas do you personally see for improvement? CognitiveOP (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"Assist" in the sense of telling you what you need to fix, probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct, we don't get (much) involved in co-editing at AfC, we either accept a draft, or highlight the reasons why it cannot be accepted. The author can obviously then engage in discussion with the reviewer directly or at the AfC help desk, to learn more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CognitiveOP: I had a quick look at your sandbox draft, and the first thing that jumps at me are the sources. User-generated ones (Twitter/X, YouTube, Scribd, Medium) are generally not considered reliable. And Amazon is just a retailer; if you're citing a book, don't cite it via Amazon, cite it directly and with sufficient bibliographical detail, using the {{cite book}} template. As it stands, approx ¼ of the sources get flagged up as unreliable, which looks bad.

I will slightly qualify my point about YouTube: a reliable broadcaster, such as BBC or CNN, streaming their own content on their own official channel is okay. I didn't look at what your sources are, only saw that they're hosted on YouTube. They may or may not be fine to use. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks so much for your reply!! The youtube sources are academic presentations from top NATO generals and leading academics in the field at either NATO conferences or prestigious military academies. None of the sources which are from youtube are random opinions; is this still unreliable? and I will absolutely change those book sources, thanks so much for the input! CognitiveOP (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@CognitiveOP: Those sources are most likely primary sources, which can be used in articles, but are limited in use and do not establish wikinotability unlike secondary sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and have some comments. The first sentence has a singular subject and a plural verb "Cognitive Warfare (CW) are ...". I'm unclear what the article is meant to be about - is CW a technique used in actual wars between countries, or is it another term for fake news? When a statement is followed by 14 references, it gives the impression that the writer is up to something dodgy. Maproom (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect request not autoaccepted (as autoconfirmed)

It says that my redirect requests will be automatically accepted for autoconfirmed users, and I am an autoconfirmed user. Why is my redirect request not auto-accepted?

Thanks Dyssent (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dyssent, welcome to the Teahouse. I think you misunderstood something. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects has had problems with disruptive editing so edits to that page must be reviewed before being displayed on the page, unless the editor is autoconfirmed. It doesn't mean the redirect requests are auto-accepted for autoconfirmed users. It merely means the posting of the request is auto-accepted. I admit the wording is confusing for that page but the "auto-accept" message is the same for all pages with this type of protection, and almost none of those pages are for requests which have to be accepted or declined. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh alright thank you Dyssent (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note that autoconfirmed users can directly create redirects, without having to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Confusing redirects

B/W redirects to a disambiguation page, but B/w redirects to A-side and B-side. Seems like an issue but maybe it doesn't matter? If it is, I'm not sure how to fix it. Seananony (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seananony. That does look confusing. Maybe B/w should also redirect to B&W but it has 86 incoming links (written as b/w) from articles. They would all have to be retargeted if the redirect no longer goes to A-side and B-side#B/W. That's too much work for me when users can still reach B&W with the hatnote at A-side and B-side#B/W. There are probably few users who encounter both redirects and get confused by their difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It could be an issue, but it might just be WP:DIFFCAPS. I notice that very few of the entries at B&W could be properly written in lowercase. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Wikidata link moved to the bottom?

Hello fellow editors, I suppose many Wikipedians frequently use the "Wikidata item" hyperlink, which has been on the right side near the top for a long while. I was disappointed today to see that has been moved, almost hidden away, closer to the bottom of the side bar. Now I have to scroll to see if there is an associated Wikidata item to an article. This is an essential tool for multilingual editing of Wikipedia. Is it possible to get it back near the top? Sauer202 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

A related question: The "contributions" button is super-useful, but has also been hidden away in a sub-menu at the top of the page for a long time now. I miss it. However, the "user" page sits there big and shining, easy to click. I almost never visit my user page, but the contributions page however is super-useful for editors to be able to continue our work on refining articles, which I guess is why most of us are here. My hypothesis is that these two changes have made Wikipedia less productive. Is there any thought that goes into the placement of these buttons? Surely, looking at some usage metrics before moving buttons would be helpful to make the user interface more useful? Sauer202 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Because appearances are so customizable, you may need to post a screenshot of what you're seeing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe I run the stock thing and have not not customized anything. Anyway, I think the interface should be optimal for as many people as possible. The problem as I see it now is that the two most important buttons have been pushed far away in the stock menus: "My contributions", and "Wikidata item". Sauer202 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,@Sauer202, and welcome to the Teahouse. Most editors, (and in particular, most editors who frequent the Teahouse) have nothing to do with designing, implementing, or changing the user interface. I recommend posting this sort of question at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I’m not new to Wikipedia, but I have a question. Currently, I’m the only active editor for the Myanmar project, as Myanmar has banned all versions of Wikipedia. I’ve created many articles without issues since I fully understand the notability guidelines. However, problems arose when I submitted one of my articles to the DYK process. An editor tagged {{Religious text primary}} on Pabhāvatī, even though there are secondary sources. The editor didn’t explain what they needed or try to resolve the issue with me, and they ignored the references I provided.

As a native, if someone clarified the reason for the tag, I could easily address it. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in explaining or resolving the issue; they only seem to be causing problems. Wikipedia is a community where things can be resolved collaboratively. What is the community’s stance on such inappropriate behavior? Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hteiktinhein: the tag was added by AirshipJungleman29. If anyone can explain why he added the tag, he can. Maproom (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hteiktinhein I now see that you sent this helpful message at WT:DYK; however, please note that adding pings without a signature, as you did there, does not work. You have said that the sources provide significant coverage and an explanation of the epic: if you could include the explanation in the article, rather than the narrative description currently found there, then the tag can be removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hteiktinhein. Your article says in Wikipedia's voice that Pabhāvatī possessed unparalleled beauty in the world, with rays of light as if from the risen sun, so profound that it could illuminate seven chambers without the need for any lamp light without qualifications. You are discussing a mythical or legendary person as if she actually existed, which is ludicrous. Also, she seems to be a character in in a religious work called the Kusa Jātaka that has no English Wikipedia article. It is as if you wrote an article about a character in a novel without writing the article about the novel first. The entire article is written from a Fictional universe perspective, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. WP:INUNIVERSE is the section of the Manual of Style that gives guidance for how to write about such topics. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That link is broken – I think you meant {{religious text primary}}. (I'm using the handy {{template link}} to link to it.) jlwoodwa (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Any tips how to update a page without sounding like promotional purpose

Hi, I am trying to update a page and keep getting rejected. Any tips how to update a page without sounding like promotional purpose, and how to change the information that more accurately up to today. Dan H Barouch (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You asked this at the Help Desk, please only use one forum at a time to avoid duplicating effort. Please also see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As explained on your Talk page, the article appears to be about you. You 'broke' the article by removing all references and adding a list of your publications. Wikipedia articles may have a section titled Select publications, with 5-10, but never everything. This is not a CV. Hence, reverted. Both of your efforts broke the neutral point of view rule. Given this is about you, per the guidance on your Talk page, you need to declare your COI on your User page, and then are limited to requesting article changes on the article Talk page. A non-connected editor will then evaluate your proposed changes. David notMD (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I added some of the content you wanted added to the Lead, as it was already in the body of the text - with references. And added NAM to the Societies, as the Wikilink to the list of members has your name for 2020. David notMD (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Verifying my content

Hi folks -- I just entered a whole page of information about my low-power FM radio station. I entered all the valid information about it and published it. But, it was immediately removed and switched "back" to the original information that was there - a simple redirect to our content provider organization. This doesn't really tell the story of the station, which, of course I know the most about since I helped start the station six years ago. So, how do I get the information that I'm entered validated so that it can take the place of the non-information "redirect" that is there now? 68.84.134.180 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the link or title of the page? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WSJF-LP DannyGallagherJr (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please read conflict of interest. It would be best if you used the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Then, if accepted, the reviewer will replace the redirect with it. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I spent about two hours entering the details about the station and used a template to enter all the FCC details also. All of that is GONE. Is there anywhere that my entry is "saved" off in Wiki or do I have to re-enter all of that information? DannyGallagherJr (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's stored in the edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WSJF-LP&action=history

Note that Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something, and is not a place for organizations to tell about themselves. A Wikipedia article about your station must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. It should also be written with a neutral point of view, and matter of factly(i.e. not telling how its "story" began). Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, but you may submit a draft if you have independent sources to summarize. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

OK! I had the wrong idea about Wikipedia!! But, I'm trying to figure out how other radio stations got their Wiki pages. For instance, take a look at "WBMD" (another radio station in Baltimore, Maryland) -- who started that page? It must have been someone who had an interest in providing the information so searchers for it would find something. That's what I was trying to do. Anyway, I'll take your suggestion and try the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft and maybe it will be accepted. Thanks again for the help! DannyGallagherJr (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I read the "Conflict of Interest" pages - I did not realize that the only person that would have the basic information about the station and its history would have a conflict of interest in the authorship. But, I agree that I certainly do! The reason I started to write up this information is because I saw another page about another radio station in Baltimore and was intrigued that we should have one also for reference by anyone looking for information about our station. Thanks for pointing me to that information. DannyGallagherJr (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

DannyGallagherJr So if you are "the only person" with information about your station, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. An article will need to summarize what others unaffiliated with your station say about it. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of things that exist; an article is typically written when an independent editor takes note of a topic in independent sources and chooses to write about it, summarizing those sources. No sources, no article.

It's possible that this other article you saw is not appropriate either, and just has not beem dealt with yet; see other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

OK! I think I get it! Of course, there are a few other people who would be able to write up the information, but they are all members of the volunteer team that support the radio station. Since we're the only parish-based radio station in the Archdiocese of Baltimore maybe that's a way to get the station information on Wikipedia. I'll think about what you said about "sources" and see if there is a reason to have the information about the station on Wiki, other than to just have the information available to Wiki users. Again, thanks very much for the information and help! I understand a lot better now. DG DannyGallagherJr (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is a simple overview of what we require for sources: Wikipedia:Golden Rule. If you cannot find multiple sources that meet each of those three criteria, then the subject cannot have a Wikipedia article. Merely existing and being unique isn't sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Formatting ok?

I recently made an edit on the Nick News article to include the recently created TikTok account and was wondering if my formatting was ok in this regard? Avienby (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the addition threw up an error message ("last= has generic name"), Avienby, it's safe to assume that no it wasn't OK. "News" and "Nickelodeon" aren't respectively the last and first names of any one person. (See this.) Just omit them. (Additionally, "www.instagram.com" isn't the name of a website; "Instagram" is.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby can fix (|last= has generic name) example: Instagram. Thanks. (please  mention me on reply) TyphoonAmpil (💬 • 📝 • 🌀) 01:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

La Chaux-de-Fonds

Why is the Swiss town La Chaux-de-Fonds so-called? 2A02:1210:7200:1800:D6B:5E92:7A21:1BA2 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Presumably you've read La Chaux-de-Fonds#History, which gives earlier versions of the name dating back to 1350? We now need to figure out what "la Chaz de Fonz" meant back then. There is of course an article in French Wikipedia, whose section Toponymie reads:

"La signification et l'origine du nom de la ville ne font pas l'unanimité. Le mot « Chaux » vient de la racine pré-indo-européenne calmis dont le sens est « plateau aride, maigre pâturage ». Le mot « fonds » semble inspiré du mot latin fons, fontem signifiant « source, fontaine ». L'explication la plus probable établit un rapport avec Fontaines (Val de Ruz). À l'origine, La « Chaux de Fonds » aurait donc été un pâturage d'été utilisé par les habitants de Fontaines¹².

Vers 1350, le lieu-dit s'appelle la Chaz de Fonz (Chaz qui désigne en patois vaudois les pâturages où le calcaire jurassique affleure et qui sont impropres à la culture, puis vers 1378 Chault de Font¹³. Vers 1420 Chauz de fonds et vers 1438 Chaud de Fond.

On trouve également l'orthographe La Chaux de Fons (sans tiret et sans la lettre d)¹⁴.

La commune est familièrement désignée sous le nom de La Tchaux¹⁵.

Son ancien nom allemand est Schalu¹⁵."

Google Translate renders this as:

The meaning and origin of the city's name are not unanimous. The word “Lime” comes from the pre-Indo-European root calmis, the meaning of which is “arid plateau, meager pasture”. The word “fonds” seems inspired by the Latin word fons, fontem meaning “source, fountain”. The most probable explanation establishes a connection with Fontaines (Val de Ruz). Originally, “Chaux de Fonds” would have been a summer pasture used by the inhabitants of Fontaines.

Around 1350, the locality was called Chaz de Fonz (Chaz which designates in Vaudois dialect the pastures where the Jurassic limestone outcrops and which are unsuitable for cultivation, then around 1378 Chault de Font. Around 1420 Chauz de fond and around 1438 Hot Bottom.

We also find the spelling La Chaux de Fons (without a hyphen and without the letter d).

The commune is colloquially referred to as La Tchaux.

Its old German name is Schalu."

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Do index articles require citations

So I came across this page just now, and saw that it had no citations. I also saw, however, that it is an "index article". Do index articles (or whatever they are called) require citations? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid No. Neither List articles or Index articles require citations, so long as the raison d’etre for them being listed there can be quickly discerned in the target pages (in this case: that they’re all called’Yews’. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought I made a simple edit but it seems there were other changes made as well

Here is the edit where it seems to have happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AlphaFold&diff=prev&oldid=1253214672

I added in a comma where I thought I comma was needed, and then I hit publish on the edit. However, when I checked the edit history, I saw that the edit I made removed 7 bytes from the article. I was confused when I saw that, since adding a comma should in theory always add one byte and not subtract anything.

So I looked at the difference between the two revisions, and I saw that a bunch of spaces were also removed. 8 spaces seemed to have been removed in total, which explains why the edit removed 7 bytes rather than adding 1 byte. At a quick glance, those spaces seem to me as redundant and unnecessary spaces, but I did not actually remove any of those spaces.

Could something like this happen automatically? Or could there be a different reason why it could have happened? If you notice something like that happening, is it better to do something about it or just let it be? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you were using the visual editor, it might have automatically compressed unnecessary spaces within tags. Even with the source editor, I've noticed it automatically truncating extra blank lines at the end of the section, if there were extra blank lines there to begin with.

Just let it be. Nothing to be concerned about. It looks like a "feature" to remove unnecessary bytes. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What changes do I need to make to this edit to push it as a live update?

I made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivar_Jacobson&oldid=1249133658 to the Ivar Jacobson Wikipedia page, but was told by Jay8g that it was "filled with promotional content". Aside from the summary section, all of my other changes were to update factually incorrect information. Please could someone let me know what changes need to be made to my edit in order to push this to the page? Many thanks 82.41.180.4 (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

At Ivar Jacobson you added a Summary subsection within Work, with flawed references. I recommend you repeat the other changes to the article, but not the Summary content. You also removed notifications that citations were needed. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

On your Talk page, you were asked what, if any, connection you have to Jacobson. Please reply there. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That link is broken – I think you meant this edit. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

adding references

I've already succeeded adding 3 using Visual Editor. Since then, when I try to add more and click on 'publish' they keep disappearing. I've looked on 2-3 different help pages, and they all say do a 'save changes' - but I cannot see anything on the edit page which says 'save'. I also tried CTRL+S but unsuccessfully

Any advice? Hidegkuti6 (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You made an edit to Ottó Komoly where you added references, then you made another edit where you wrote in the edit summary that you added references, but it actually removed your prior edit- I assume this was done inadvertently. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

the removal was accidental - I only tried to create more references. The original 3 remained, only the new citations disappeared entirely after clicking on 'publish' Hidegkuti6 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What 331dot said, does [3] help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Broken interlanguage link?

Hi. I just accessed Europe and I noticed that the languages are missing. I tried adding the interlanguage links and it returned the message that it is already linked on this page, which seems really weird to me: Turai

Is it the same for everyone? Wikiminds34 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It was an erroneous edit in Wikidata, which I have undone. (I don't think it was vandalism, but I'm investigating) ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! (hopefully it won't happen again :) - I just noticed it when I was translating an article to another language) Wikiminds34 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What seems to have happened is that "Turai" is both the Hausa for Europe and a Nigerian personal name. An editor partly hijacked the article ha:Turai so that it is now about the name instead of the continent (though they left the infobox alone).

Having done that, they linked it to the English article Turai, which edited the Wikidata item on Europe d:Q46 to point to that article instead of Europe, and Europe became unattached.

I've undone the change in Wikidata, and explained on the user's Wikidata User Talk and on d:WD:Interwiki Conflicts; but if I read the Hausa help page ha:Wikipedia:Kofan al'umma correctly, that Wikipedia has just been made read-only, so it may not be possible to correct or even report the original error. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's read-only – that message was for September 25, not October 25. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just realised that. I will attempt to notify the user on their User talk page in hawiki. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

UCLA Summer Econ Programs Draft Declined

Hi everyone,

First time creator of a wiki so please bear with me I am working on this page and would liek to get it up to wiki standards. Id appreciate any input thank youb in advance: Draft:University of California Los Angeles - Economics Summer Programs RJG11 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@RJG11 You have already had feedback on your draft when it was declined. I'm not a reviewer but the thing that immediately strikes me is that the draft says almost nothing about the topic of the title but instead focuses on the individuals (all of whom have Wikipedia biographies) who present the course. What little sourcing you have that meets the golden rules and is on-topic could easily be incorporated into a subsection at UCLA College of Letters and Science. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Accepted references

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1253351222&oldid=1253348994&title=BAAD Ilitazoulay (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ilitazoulay: I recommend submitting a new article through Articles for Creation rather than overwriting an existing redirect, as you did to BAAD. The latter borders on hijacking, and will likely be reverted unless your version clearly meets Wikipedia's standards for articles. On the other hand, an insufficient draft won't be reverted – it'll remain in draftspace where you can gradually improve it to meet those standards. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

I posted a notice about this previously, but would like more participation. I'd like to hear from people who know little about Korea or the romanization of Korean if possible. Thanks. seefooddiet (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sfn error

I had blissfully forgotten how to use the Sfn and Harvnb systems and then I had to update an article that uses them. Could anyone please help me troubleshoot ref 118 in Sustainable energy? It is producing "Harv error: link from CITEREFIPCC2022 doesn't point to any citation." Many thanks in advance. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on whether pages on a given name should feature lists of people with that name

Is there any existing policy, consensus, or guidance on whether Wikipedia pages for a name (e.g Robert) should feature a list of all people (and fictional characters, etc.) with that name, indiscriminately? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it an indiscriminate list or is it a directory of bluelinks to articles? The latter is an example of content typically found on a disambiguation page. But a DAB page would not have substantial content other than that directory (see MOS:DABPEOPLE). I think if there is content to be written about the name itself, that would be its own page, apart from a DAB of people with that name. But that leaves no place for non-bluelinked people of that name (but that also hints maybe they either shouldn't be listed or their articles should be written). DMacks (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is looking like a disembiguiation page which has been been analysed already above. Tesleemah (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about pinging

Hi, quick question, does linking to an user's talk page (not userpage) in discussions ping that user? Thanks. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 00:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

According to Help:Notifications#Mentions, it doesn't:

To mention another editor and trigger this notification for them, you need to:

• Create a new comment; modifying an earlier comment does not work.
• Link to their username
  • either directly as in [[User:Username]]
  • or using templates that link a user's name like {{u}} if they exist on your wiki (many use the {{ping}} or {{reply to}} templates).
• Sign your comment with ~~~ or ~~~~. Notifications will not be sent if your signature is embedded in a template, or has no link to your user page or user talk page.
• Not alter any text outside your own comment.
• Not exceed 50 mentions.

So only an userpage link works, or a template that links the userpage. – 2804:F1...DE:554A (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the answer! Best, — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 06:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Add photo from Arabic Wiki

Hi. Can someone help me add this photo to this page, as I noted in this talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wahbah_al-Zuhayli#Photo The Arabic version has a profile photo, but the English one does not. That is all, thanks! DivineReality (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I replied on that talk page. Without the proper licensing, the answer is no. The source for that image is https://islamicsham.org/nashrah/3712 and as such we need to assume it isn't releasable under an acceptable free license and isn't in public domain. In fact, there is a copyright notice at the bottom of that page. It shouldn't be on the Arabic Wikipedia either. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Edits to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Page

Hello Wikipedia Editors,

I recently made several updates to the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) Wikipedia page to reflect current information and improve clarity. I aimed to ensure that all changes are supported by reliable sources and adhere to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and verifiability.

Would an editor be available to review these edits for accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? I’d appreciate any feedback or recommendations for further improvement. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Thanks, Smonie12345 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Smonie12345: I had to think how to reply to your request, which is a bit unusual, as we don't normally conduct ongoing review of each other's edits.

In a way, reviewing is left to the community at large: someone who comes across the article(s) you refer to will read the text, and if they feel like they can improve on it, they may edit it, including editing your earlier edits. If they really object to something you wrote, they may even revert your edits. At that point, you can then discuss this on the article talk page.

That said, we do also have a formal(ish) peer review process, and if you wish, you may request a review by going to Peer review.

Finally, if you have a specific question about a particular aspect of your edit, you can of course ask that here at the Teahouse. 'Small' questions tend to be easier to answer, and are likely to elicit swifter replies (than the few hours that you had to wait for this).

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Smonie12345, I have reverted your edits which are largely unreferenced, highly promotional and are indicative of a possible undisclosed paid editing relationship. Compliance with WP:PAID is mandatory, as is compliance with the three core content policies, Verifiability, the Neutral point of view and No original research. You should be summarizing published reliable sources that are independent of this organization, rather than parroting their own self-descriptions or winging it on your own. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

how to create page for this website IAC News

I have crited the page many times but it has been removed this Website Name IAC News URL https://iacnews.com Samiul2.0 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That does not have any of the hallmarks of a reliable source, rather it mostly just seems to be non-expert summaries of press release content. I'm wouldn't say it's definitely LLM generated, but it's certainly not written by a skilled writer. Interestly, the 'about us' page claims that it includes 'local news' but doesn't say local to where.

Seperately to that, I can't see any indication of why it might be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article in it's own right. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

(OP blocked as a sock.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

deletion

Hello, I spent a lot of time on a page Billy Cowie with lots (over thirty) references to books and websites. It was initially rejected and I worked on it some more and now it has simply been deleted without any discussion. why? Dancematters (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dancematters. It looks like the draft your talking about was deleted as promotional of an unnotable subject and possible created by an editor with a conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, it is in advisable to create the article yourself, and if you do create it, it has to be disclosed with the proper template listed here. I see you have already asked for a WP:REFUND here, but if you do get it, understand that articles here have to be neutral and sourced with reliable sources. cyberdog958^Talk 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to increase the woeful lack of choreographers on wikipedia and had planned a whole series on major figures who are not represented. the page in its second form was completely neutral and only relied on third party sources (over thirty) including five published books and 25 reputable websites. the subject is one of the most notable dance artists with performances spanning forty years in over thirty countires. my suspicion is that wikipedia editors have no experience of dance and its importance. I would be grateful if you could request to see the page and give a second opinion. Dancematters (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors do NOT have to have any experience of dance in order to review and decline a draft article on the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I was the editor who declined (not rejected) the original article and have already proffered advice to the editor on my talk page both in regard to their next steps as well as being WP:HOSTILE and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. I see from the editor's talk page that I did note it was promotional in my declination reasoning, but I am not sure who originally tagged it for deletion. Given WP:REFUND often does not return {{g11}}ed drafts, I have advised the editor on the best way to write an article in the future. With that said, no I am not an expert in dance or it's importance but I like to think I have a good grasp on WP:N and WP:NOT. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

it would seem that they can delete an article on a whim without a shred of evidence that it is not notable or promotional. it would be one thing to decline the article but allow further work on it but to delete it out of hand is pure arrogance. Dancematters (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We can't prove a negative, it's up to you to prove they are notable. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

And please be aware, Dancematters, that "notable" does not mean *important": in the context of Wikipedia, WP:Notable only means "has been written about at some length in several different pieces published by Reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You may have included sources that met all these criteria (only an admin can see them now), but the deletion suggests not, and the deleter has over 20 years' experience on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

well I suggest you ask to take a look. "has been written about at some length in several different pieces published by Reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is exactly what I included!!!! why is the evidence hidden away even from you??? Dancematters (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I did prove notable. Does discussion of the work in five major published academic books not sound notable. What about hundreds of performances in over thirty countries with extensive documented reviews and involving major dance performers (although you wouldn't know that if you don't need any knowledge of the subject matter). Also I wasn't even started on the references but I can't add those to a deleted page can I??? Dancematters (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dancematters: please don't ask the same question in multiple fora (here and at the AfC help desk), it replicates the efforts and creates unnecessary discussion forks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

best place for sharing data on wiki

I have several EndNote (and potentially, Zotero) libraries on different topics (one is about Wikipedia itself and it has everything, that has been published about Wikipedia in peer-reviewed journals). I only included in these libraries full-texts, which have their copyright expired in the USA or are open-access-licensed under appropriate terms. I would like to share these libraries with other Wikipedians, but I cannot figure out what the proper mechanism for such sharing is. Any ideas? Walter Tau (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

can't this be misused by individual ideology and further mislead other allegedly

I do not understand the whole point of this make me understand something 103.186.199.91 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, not understanding what you're asking. Are you asking whether Wikipedia could be misused? Valereee (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)