From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Revised Edition book having same ISBN, but different page numbers[edit]

I'm trying to edit the Type 38 Arisaka page, but I realized that the book "The Type 38 Arisaka" and "The Type 38 Arisaka Revised Edition" has the same ISBN, but greatly different page numbers, with the revised edition being about 2/3rds the length due to the removal of many serial number charts. If I want to cite the revised edition, with the article still having citing from the original edition, what would I do to differentiate them? Rebel1945 (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per ISBN,org the revised edition should not have the same ISBN. See Meters (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rebel1945, for those two books to share a single ISBN is something that should never happen. However, such things (and worse) do happen. There are various approaches; what I'd do is:
  • Put the bibliography of Type 38 rifle into alphabetical-by-author order, not only because doing so is the conventional thing, but also to reduce the risk that the hurried reader will notice only one of the pair.
  • Where the article now has for example "Allan and Macy. p.4-5", change this to "Allan and Macy (year), pp. 4–5" in which year is whichever is appropriate of 2007 and 2021.
  • Attach a note such as {{efn-lr|name=isbn_confusion|The 2007 and 2021 editions of this book have different content and different pagination; however, they share a single ISBN.}} to the end of either one of the two relevant bibliography entries.
  • Attach {{efn-lr|name=isbn_confusion}} to the end of the other relevant bibliography entry.
  • Immediately before the "References" section; add another header, "Notes"; and under this header, add {{notelist-lr}}
-- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC) typos fixed Hoary (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By all indications, the authors appear to be self-publishing the revised edition. Maybe that's why the ISBN has not changed. User:Rebel1945, I see you've already added edition=Revised to the cite book template. You could create a separate reference for each version, and leave the old page numbers attached to the old version while adding new info with the pages in your version. For the sfn and harv families of shortened footnote templates, you can differentiate between the two editions using the ref= parameter in the citation templates. Definitely an unusual situation. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble Uploading Non-Free Files for New Articles[edit]

In order to upload a non-free image to wikimedia it needs to be linked to a published page, but my unpublished page for this artist is still a draft until I can add images to it. How can I solve this paradox? I have 6 images including a self portrait and several examples of the artist's work, which I have permission to add but they are non-free. Gigapede (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gigapede: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy only allows non-free content to only be used in the aritcle namespace and only when all ten of these criteria are met. As explained also explained here, non-free content should be uploaded and added after a draft has been approved as an article. Finally, the fact that you want to upload six non-free image as an example of an artists work is not necessary prohibitted, but it could be considered exessive non-free use per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion and WP:NFC#Meeting the minimal usage criterion, and even possibly meeting the WP:NFC#Meeting the no free equivalent criterion. If the artist you're trying to create an article about is still living, then a non-free image of them isn't going to be allowed for primary identification purposes, even if it's a self-portrait. A non-free self-portrait could be allowed as a representative example of the artist's particular style, if they're particularly notable for their portraits and the self-portrait has been the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. Similarly, other examples of the artist's work might be OK if they're considered representative works or otherwise the subject of sourced critical commentary themselves, but six representative works might be pushing it a bit, particularly if they are all the same style, technique or genre. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where can I request for long standing Wikipedia guidelines on birthplaces to be changed?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The OP has been advised that changes to current Wikipedia policy can be made at WP:VPR; they can also make a proposal at WT:MOSBIO since that the talk page corresponding to WP:BIRTHPLACE. There's nothing really more to discuss here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia drives me mad, which is why I stay away from it. IMDB may contain a lot of mistakes, be massively incomplete (even with feature films), and have loads of false information, but at least facts like birth details are a lot harder to remove, plus they use current locations, not historic locations.


1 - Because of people constantly removing mentions and references of City of Bradford, from people, places and things from City of Bradford. Largely those people are from towns and villages in Bradford itself, who like to pretend they're not from Bradford, and still refer to West Yorkshire, as the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Bradford (the 6th biggest city in the UK) is 3 times bigger than Manchester and Liverpool, twice the size of Birmingham, 17 times bigger than Westminster, and 141 times bigger than the tiny City of London, but because of these stupid guidelines, you'd think it was the other way around.

2 - Because Wikipedia, like most of the world, refuses to accept the fact that Greater London is not a city, and never has been.

It's a county and region which contain 2 tiny cities.

3 - Because of Wikipedia believing that all left wing sources in the UK are accurate, while all right wing sources in the UK are inaccurate, yet I constantly see mistakes in left wing sources like The Guardian and the Independent, every single time I read a story from them. It doesn't matter what the reference is being used to prove, or whether the source is listed as generally unreliable, deprecated or blacklisted, as soon as they're used, they're removed by liberals automatically, regardless of the explanations. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say you stay away from here, but here you are.
You may discuss changing a policy on its associated talk page, or at the Village Pump.
A source being "right wing" or "left wing" is not relevant as to its being considered a reliable source. What matters is its reputation for fact checking and editorial control. If they make stuff up out of whole cloth, they won't be considered reliable. If a source is making errors in its reporting, you need to take that up with the source, not us. If a media outlet has so many errors that it should be considered unreliable, that is a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea that Wikipedia considers left-wing sources as accurate while right-wing ones are considered inaccurate should be disabused by a brief look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Danstarr69. E.g. The Canary is listed as generally unreliable whereas the Telegraph is listed as generally reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Danstarr. Wikipedia, like most of the world is exactly the point. If you want a careful disquisition on the legal status and governance of Greater London or of City of Bradford MDC, you'll find it in those articles. But Wikipedia generally is not very interested in using official names, but refers to things (and people) using their WP:COMMONNAME, the name used in the majority of relevant sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Bradford ... is 3 times bigger than Manchester and Liverpool, twice the size of Birmingham". Bradford has a population of 366,000, Manchester 551,000, Liverpool 500,000, and Birmingham 1,144.000. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be interested in reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. XAM2175 (T) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maproom with a name like that, you might be interested in...
1 - Facts from the Office for National Statistics aka the only official source for UK statistics, by simply have a quick look at online census which even you should be able to do [1] & [2], without the need to download complicated XLS files.
2 - Looking the Subdivisions of England map or simply have a quick look at this zoomed in map I made earlier [3] to see that the propaganda you've been hearing for the last 20+ years is completely false.
Bradford - 141.3 square miles - 7th biggest city in England
Birmingham - 103.4 square miles - 15th biggest city in England
Manchester - 44.7 square miles - 19th biggest city in England
Liverpool - 43.2 square miles - 21st biggest city in England
Westminster - 8.1 square miles - 48th biggest city in England
London - 1.15 square miles - 55th biggest city in England
Birmingham population 2011 Census - 1,073,045
Bradford population 2011 Census - 522,452
Manchester population 2011 Census - 503,127
Liverpool population 2011 Census - 466,415
Westminster population 2011 Census - 219,396
City of London population 2011 Census - 7,375
Birmingham population 2020 Actual - 1,140,525
Manchester population 2020 Actual - 555,741
Bradford population 2020 Actual - 542,128
Liverpool population 2020 Actual- 500,474
Westminster population 2020 Actual - 269,848
City of London population 2020 Actual - 10,938
Birmingham population 2021 Census - 1,144,900
Manchester population 2021 Census - 552,000
Bradford population 2021 Census - 546,400
Liverpool population 2021 Census - 486,100
Westminster population 2021 Census - 204,300
City of London population 2021 Census - 8,600 Danstarr69 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry, we're not interested in your fringe beliefs. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lettherebedarklight Everything I've said is fact.
Who reads The Canary, as it's not a mainstream newspaper like the others.
Every single right wing mainstream paper has restrictions, or are all blocked entirely in most Wikipedians eyes.
Whereas every single left wing mainstream paper is fine.
Bradford has always been bigger than Manchester in every sense until 2015, when it's population leapfrogged Bradford.
As you can clearly see from any UK map with city/town/borough borders,Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, and many more towns and cities are bigger than Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc by area.
London is not a city, never has been a city, and never will be a city, as it would be impossible to make it a city, unless the king forcibly removed the city status' of the City of Westminster and the City of London. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yeah, that's about the same words right-wingers and flat earthers use. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just remembered though according to a survey conducted by an independent news source, left wingers outnumber right wingers on Wikipedia 2:1. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Location of Draft Space[edit]

Hi. I can't find my draft space (or is it "draftspace")? Can someone please post the path to it? Thanks so much. Lord Milner (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Milner, it's User:Lord Milner/sandbox, User:Lord Milner/another sandbox, User:Lord Milner/yet another sandbox or for that matter User:Lord Milner/anything you like coming after your user page and a slash. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Lord Milner. You haven't got a "draft space": the "Draft" namespace is common to everybody, and you can search for a particular draft by searching for the name including the Draft: on the front; or more generally in the draft space by using "Advanced search" and specifying the "Draft" namespace.
What I suspect you mean is your user space. Are you looking for User:Lord Milner/sandbox/Who United the Western Front During World War I, which I found by looking at your contributions?
If you want to see all subpages of your user space, go to your contributions Special:Contributions/Lord Milner, and pick "Subpages" from the bottom. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All my contributions have come straight from "hell", and I have been told that i'm not using Wikipedia correctly. Is a draft page something I must create before listing new topics? (hell=sandbox). If so, that is the procedure I need. Thanks for your generosity. Lord Milner (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lord Milner: You have something of a history of creating articles and drafts that are quickly deleted, as your deleted contributions show. I'd recommend that you follow the AfC procedure in the future so that someone can review your drafts for suitability as mainspace articles. Deor (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your advice. It looks like all new drafts are started at the AfC page, here: Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts
Does Draft namespace have real advantages over a personal sandbox? I get set in my ways. Lord Milner (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again. There's not a lot to choose between them, and you can certainly carry on using personal sandboxes. Draft namespace was created specifically for the purpose, and AFC automatically puts drafts there and gives them an appropriate header; but you can add a corresponding header to a sandbox with {{user sandbox}}. Many people call their sandbox "sandbox" or "sandbox2" etc, which doesn't give a clue to the contents; but I see you use a named subpage of your sandbox anyway. People normally won't edit another editor's sandbox without being asked to, whereas a draft in draft space may be seen as already out in the community. One possibly negative point about drafts is that they are liable to be deleted if unchanged for six months, whereas pages in userspace only get deleted if they contravene a WP policy. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I report a sockpuppet?[edit]

I noticed User:Youhavetodobetter seems to have responded when I asked User:Nothappycamping a question, like they forgot to change accounts or something here Talk:X-gender. Both are editing the exact same pages, seemingly trying to push an agenda against nonbinary people Special:Contributions/Youhavetodobetter Special:Contributions/Nothappycamping and Nothappycamping has received numerous warnings on their talk page User talk:Nothappycamping. How do I report them for sockpuppeting so administrators can check? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm gonna assume good faith here and assume there's a story about a forgotten password here. But what do I know, I'm not a CU. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LilianaUwU what's a CU? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A checkuser. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: You can file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. Instructions are on that page. RudolfRed (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RudolfRed I just did and apparently I'm not the first to file, a report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nothappycamping Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle Huh, seems like my theory of forgotten passwords wasn't too far off. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i just wanted to ask that i login the twitter account but their was a grey colur @and then my name was written . i want to hide it. i don't want that my name to be displayed on twitter . so i try to edit it also . but i don't know how to do it . so can anybody help me in hiding my name and make me Anonymous .

as i feel safe if am hidden . 21f2001128 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, 21f2001128 and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is for answering questions about Wikipedia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's how to change your @username and/or display name at Twitter: See this article. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Friendly welcome to possible sockpuppeter[edit]

I have stumbled across what appears to be a very new user apparently sockpuppeting (two brand new accounts editing the same four pages in succession). Just pointing them to WP:SOCKPUPPET does not seem very welcoming; does anyone know a friendlier template or policy page that I could use, please? I couldn't find anything suitable at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. Or should I go straight to starting a sockpuppet investigation? Matt's talk 08:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, M.R.Forrester, it would be best to name the accounts here so experienced editors can examine the situation and give you situational advice. If you don't want them notified of this discussion, then use Template:Noping. Alternatively, there is this usertalk template that can be used: Template:Multiple account query. --Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Softlavender, the relevant user seems to be 陳元棟. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And who is or are the suspected sockpuppet(s), Melecie? Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to refer to some odd behaviour from User:香謝賢林欣彤. Shantavira|feed me 11:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, those are the accounts concerned, Softlavender. FYI 陳元棟 is a conventional (probably but not certainly male) Chinese personal name and 香謝賢林欣 is a punny expression of support for the Cantopop singer Mag Lam, so there's nothing objectionable about the usernames. Matt's talk 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.R.Forrester are any of the two accounts' edits constructive? If not, I would report them to an administrator or noticeboard as WP:NOTHERE, WP:DE, and obvious sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft creation[edit]

I need help in my draft creation. I want to know that what points i needed to remove or change. I need some help in finalizing my draft. Draft Name:- Kuldeep Kumaar. Rajkumarsingh1988 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Kuldeep Kumaar Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rajkumarsingh1988: The draft needs published sources that provide significant coverage of Kumaar, not just passing mentions. The "Theatre" section has no references at all. Titles of films and plays should be italicized. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank You. Rajkumarsingh1988 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing the page[edit]

Hi I'm new to wikipedia. I want to remove some content that I believe is not required in The Concourse, Chatswood - Wikipedia. Should I discuss about it on the article's talk page? TNM101 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, TNM101 and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you've only made eight edits, it's maybe better that you discuss the changes on the talk page, unless they're trivial, and especially if the text you want to remove is backed-up by sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thanks a lot. The text I want to remove does not have any citations TNM101 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that there's a bunch of unsourced content in that article, there's never been a talkpage discussion, there hasn't been an article edit in 2023 and the last content edit was this addition of unsourced text in February 2019, I don't think there's likely to be much engagement on the talkpage; I would suggest TNM101 would be better off being bold and making the change. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already added a topic on the talkpage. Should I delete it now? TNM101 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did the edit. Thank you for helping me TNM101 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't delete what you wrote on the Talk page, but you could give a reply to yourself, stating that you went ahead and made changes. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you TNM101 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete or disused terms in historical articles[edit]

Do you have any kind of guideline, perhaps somewhere in your style manual, around the use of a now obsolete term in an article covering the period when it was in common use? What this comes down to is whether your article about the period should include the term then in use or whether that term should be overwritten by a modern equivalent that did not exist, within context, at the time.

This concerns a technical term but I'm not giving you specifics as yet until I first see if you have any stated policy or guideline on disused terminology. Overwriting a term that was valid at the time, because one of your "experts" does not like it, amounts to rewriting history. Don't worry, it's not about using the N-word or something so offensive. Thanks in anticipation. (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should perhaps add that a note about the change of terminology would be entirely appropriate. (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In most situations a simple explanatory footnote can be used to explain. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not aware of any policy, so it would all depend on context, e.g. if the term is linked to an explanation (or a footnote) then it should be fine. Do the reliable sources use that word? "Obsolete" is a relative concept; a word that is unfamiliar to you might still be be the correct one in that context. Also beware of introducing anachronisms. Shantavira|feed me 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you expect the average reader of the article to be familiar with the term (if it's not explanatory)? That might help. Dege31 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd second the notes above about using a footnote. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary suggests that in some cases the word switch should be avoided. Without more information I can't really tell whether your case would be covered though. Tollens (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Wikipedia has an article on the obsolete term (e.g. mangonel, thirlage), I'd recommending using it, and wikilinking to its article. Maproom (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for not replying sooner but thank you, all, for five very helpful suggestions. This would not be a contested vocabulary and, although there isn't an actual article on the term, I think it should be used with a footnote that explains the recent change of terminology. I'll consider it further but, again, thank you very much for your interest. All the best. (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fleet Walker Image with Toledo Blue Stockings[edit]

In your entry for FLEET WALKER, the first African-American to play a full season of baseball for a Major League team (1884), you have an image of him with his team, the Toledo Blue Stockings. My Question: Is that image in the public domain? Do you need to cite a source for your images? (It is published in the Zang biography of Fleet Walker, and there is attributed to an individual, who is acknowledged.) (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i assume this is about File:1882 University of Michigan baseball team.jpg. yes, the file is in the public domain, as works created before 1928 fall under public domain under united states law. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lettherebedarklight is correct that it is in the public domain. In regards to your question about citing a source, I assume you are talking about citing the image in Wikipedia? Files uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons force you to provide a source (when you click that image it will bring up those details), so there's no need for an additional reference in the article. If you are talking about citing your sources in another place than Wikipedia, it largely depends on what you are doing. Because there is no copyright, no attribution is required for use in other works, but if you are writing an academic paper or something else that always requires citations, you will need to provide attribution in that case. Tollens (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of all Wikipedia pages I've added references to?[edit]

Is there a way to get a list of Wikipedia pages I've added references to? I plan to do upkeep for all the sources I use for my Wikipedia contributions. Like sometimes there's better quality scans that become available for gaming magazines that I cite which I want to update the Wikipedia articles with in a straightforward way. Esoptr0n (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can search your contributions' edit summaries via This relies on you being systematic in your edit summaries though, but it's worth a try to start. Umimmak (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you. Esoptr0n (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theakston Brewery[edit]

Can some one have a look at the following link on Theakston Brewery "Brewer goes back to its roots". I just can not get it to work. Regards Devokewater 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Devokewater it works for me. Maybe you have a browser setting to only allow https (secure connections) and this link only works as http? There is a sort of https version this but it does not render exactly the same and has some page issues. KylieTastic (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to be able to access the webpage, if that's what you're wondering. Are you looking for help creating references? Tollens (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes help is required in creating the reference. Regards -- Devokewater 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks KylieTastic it working now. Regards -- Devokewater 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks KylieTastic could you fix this one too "Brewer Theakston's expands plant". BBC News. 10 September 2003. Retrieved 8 December, 2004. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Regards -- Devokewater 18:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be fixed now. Tollens (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change the name of article[edit]


I'm editing this Wikipedia article: Stuart Pimm and would like to change the name of the article to Stuart L. Pimm. I haven't been able to find a place where to change the name of the article. Can you please help me? I'm working with Visual Editor.

Naturesolutionary Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Naturesolutionary: You can do this by moving the article if you are autoconfirmed, but I can do it for you if appropriate. Before I do, please note that article titles should use the most common name used to refer to the subject. This doesn't seem based on my quick scan to be the case here - is this correct, or is their middle initial commonly used (not just in citations)? Tollens (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Naturesolutionary. The procedure is called "moving" but new accounts such as yours do not have that power. You can ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 Thank you for your reply! Naturesolutionary (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be grateful if you moved the article for me. Thank you. I looked at different websites and I think that the Stuart L. Pimm is more common and appropriate. (ResearchGate, Britannica, various articles). Naturesolutionary (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ResearchGate and Britannica will likely use the full name of a person regardless - what articles in particular are you referencing? When I look through the list of sources in the article which are not academic (which always use a middle initial), I see this CV, that only uses the middle initial in the title, this article that only uses the middle initial in the title and first sentence, this article that does not include a middle initial, this article with no initial, this article with no initial, and this article with no initial. Is there something I'm misunderstanding, or were you primarily considering the academic sources? Tollens (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tollens Okay. Thanks for the explanation. No problem. We can keep the name the same. Naturesolutionary (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this notable enough?[edit]

Hello! I've been doing research on my great-grandfather. He was a radio operator in World War 2 and his plane was shot down during Operation Market Garden over the Netherlands. He was held in a prisoner of war camp and participated in a death march to a concentration camp where he was eventually liberated by US forces. I've done extensive research on him, the other people involved in the crash, and the events of his life and surrounding the mission. I could write articles about each of those topics, however I am not sure if the people involved are notable enough? Jacobpie09 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check reliable, verifiable, independent Regards -- Devokewater 18:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notability guideline for people outlines a couple criteria you can use to gauge notability - it really comes down to the amount of coverage they received in reliable sources. For the most relevant parts of the policy, you'll probably want to read WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO (both part of the larger guideline I linked above). Keep in mind that people notable only for their connection with a single event are often excluded - that policy is available at WP:SINGLEEVENT. Tollens (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Jacobpie09. For what it's worth, my uncle was a crew member on a U.S. bomber shot down over Italy in 1943. My wife's uncle spent 2-1/2 years in a Japanese POW camp in the Philippines. Neither survived. In this case, it depends on whether your great-grandfather is the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent published sources. Your unpublished research cannot be used. See No original research, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to the fine suggestions before this, I recommend WP:YFA, WP:42, and WP:BACKWARD. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the concentration camp was Berga concentration camp there is that article about it, but note that it does not connect to articles about any of the prisoners. David notMD (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to change the way a dead link is presented[edit]

I recently made a dumb error when trying to access an internet link that had been transferred to - I clicked the words "the original", thinking this would lead to the original document from which the quote was taken, and then when it failed got the impression that the link was not working. I think it is misleading that a dead link is presented in the same format as a working one. For the benefit of users who are not fluent in the Wikipedia presentation, could the structure that implements these links be modified to use words such as "the original link" or "the old link", to lessen the chances of misunderstanding? Or could the text be in red rather than blue, as for other dead links? The particular link that confused me is the James Randi link 11 in section "Criticism" of the article "Skinwalker Ranch". (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP editor,
You may want to check out the Village Pump. We cannot do much to help here. ✶Mitch199811 19:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality and advertisment-like information[edit]

Hello. I am quite new and I mainly copy-edit articles and sections with a neutral point of view issue. How could a neutral point of view could be reached, if there is a lack of consensus between editors? For example, in this article Lister Mills there were some issues with neutrality, but my edit has been reverted by another editor. My question is not about this article per se, but I would like to know how consensus is typically reached to remove advertisment-like information and improve neutrality. Chiserc (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You simply discuss the matter with the relevant editor(s), typically on the talk page of the affected article. You can notify the involved editors that you'd like their input using the {{ping}} template (as an example, if you wanted to notify me you would write {{ping|Tollens}}, which renders as @Tollens:). Try looking at a few random talk pages for examples of content discussions. Other editors don't typically mind discussing content with you if you'd like. In this particular case, feel free to create a new section on Talk:Lister Mills and describe your concern, pinging the relevant editor. Tollens (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you very much! Chiserc (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do we know our total number of contributions?[edit]

How do we know our total number of contributions?

Is there an automated counter? 1IceCloudStation (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a counter available at - the link (titled 'Edit count') is located at the very bottom of your contributions page. Tollens (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1IceCloudStation: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can also see your total number of edits at Special:Preferences. GoingBatty (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I do not if a lot of us know of this.
I just want to suggest that a message about this when we start on Wikipedia or something could help a lot of people. 1IceCloudStation (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doing that might result in people being more concerned about their number of edits instead of the quality of their edits. There's a lot of information that is higher on the priority list for people to know, IMO. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is okay to continue on this topic:
I don't know if exists, but some sort of award or recognition for quality edits could help in terms of that issue. For example, editing the mathematics articles can be challenging and the edit help a lot of readers of Wikipedia articles. Starlighsky (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After I wrote this, I just noticed the grading system. Starlighsky (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starlighsky: Some editors give other editors barnstars or other sorts of wikilove for quality work. GoingBatty (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, thanks. Starlighsky (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People (for example, me) can put on their User page indicators for articles they have raised to Good or Featured. David notMD (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@1IceCloudStation personally what I'm most proud of is the systemic bias barnstar I received. I've made a lot of edits, some controversial, but that one is my fave accomplishment. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations on the badge!
The Systemic Bias Barnstar
For continual high quality editing on neglected Chinese and Japanese topics and pages Starlighsky (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:WBE is useful. GrahamHardy (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just want to add that it turned out that there are two societies with the same name giving an award. The more prestigious one, which was in the article, was actually the most difficult to confirm with an internet search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talkcontribs) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think a really important question: Can we delete items that are false according to the reference?[edit]

I have found some items that are false on the pages. It may have been misunderstood when it was written. Where I see this almost consistently is for awards or prizes. Sometimes, it was a misunderstanding:

The person worked at a company and the company received an award.

All in all, it seems logical to delete things that are clearly false, but wanted to make sure.

Starlighsky (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can absolutely delete anything that is blatantly false - just make sure to explain in your edit summary what you're doing and why, so that other editors can verify that the removal was appropriate - unexplained deletions are often reverted. Tollens (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starlighsky: There are several things you could do, including boldly deleting the erroneous information, tagging the reference with {{failed verification}}, or starting a conversation on the article's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which pages have the most page watchers?[edit]

Hi everyone. Is there a place I can find a list of the pages that have the most page watchers? Thanks Trawle (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,Trawle. Please see Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages by namespace. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Cullen, I notice that one is dated 2017 though. Surely things have changed in the last 6 years? Trawle (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup 2601:480:4104:A550:29FD:CB22:BBFD:FCC (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trawle, there are instructions at the top about how to request an update. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Cullen, I’m afraid I don’t see any instructions. Is there a link I might be missing? Trawle (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trawle, at the top of that page, it says If you would like a historical database report be run again, see the main database reports talk page. Here is the link: Wikipedia talk:Database reports. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolving a conflict[edit]

The article is Michael Lockshin (film director)

There is an editor who for unexplained reasons keeps removing content with citations and replacing it with uncited information, without an explanation. This is growing into an annoyance for me because this has happened multiple times over the course of several weeks (but not often enough to complain about an edit war). The editor was also told on their talk page to stop making that specific edit (at least, without an explanation) by another editor, but seems to have ignored it and continues to make the same edit over and over. I would like any advice for a resolution. Thanks, Jaguarnik (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stronger warning left on that editor's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again. Thank you for your action. However, there is something new. There is a "new" editor who has made the exact same edits as the previous editor and focuses on the same two pages the previous editor did. I do not know if that's grounds for an accusation of sockpuppeting but it seems very odd to me. Thank you. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who do I contact about needed edits in locked articles?[edit]

For example, I noticed that the article on Donald Trump, which can only be edited by those with over 500 edits and so on, had what seemed like an inappropriate reference to those who declare large financial losses and so on. I am not the level to edit. How do I let those who can edit know about the issue?

Starlighsky (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Starlighsky. Discuss your concern at Talk: Donald Trump. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexander Ovechkin page[edit]

I noticed on the Alexander Ovechkin Wikipedia page, the first site says he shoots 'Left Wing' which is not the proper should just be shoots 'Left'. But you go to the second page and its says he shoots 'right'. I was actually going there to find out which way he shoots so now Im confused. Is there a way to get it edited to be proper on both pages or who should I contact?

- A very concerned about Alexander Ovechkins stick fan ;) Vegabond81 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexander Ovechkin is a hockey player. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not that knowledgeable about hockey terminology but this reminds me of the controversy over whether Andrew Tate was Orthodox or Muslim when Orthodox was a term referring to his kickboxing form not religion Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see Winger (ice hockey). "Left winger" and "right winger" in hockey have nothing to do with politics. These terms refer to the player's usual position on the ice. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His position is left winger. He shoots right-handed. The two things are unrelated and can both be true at the same time. WPscatter t/c 21:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Vegabond81, welcome to the Teahopuse. The infobox in Alexander Ovechkin correctly says "Position Left wing" and "Shoots Right". Blue text is links. Click it to see more. The article does not use the mixed and incorrect terminology "shoots 'Left Wing'". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to point out...[edit]

As I was looking across Wikipedia, I realised that the "post-20th century Space Race" or "modern space race" isn't a thing on here! The modern space race between the U.S., China, and Russia has been referenced more and more frequently across the Web (more so through Euronews, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the Guardian, WIRED, and the Washington Past). There are a lot more if you look, so I was wondering whether it was time to create a separate article for this "modern space race" - or is it just WP:TOOSOON?. I do understand there is a "billionaire space race", but surely you can see there is not really a 'superb' relation. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 00:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @WellThisIsTheReaper:, and welcome to the Teahouse! This topic in my opinion is notable and you have reliable sources so I would recommend writing a draft and submitting it to Afc (just to make sure the article is notable enough).This subject appears to be written about by many independent sources, so I think you are good to go. As time goes by other editors can add more sources and information as more news articles, reports ect. appear. Happy Editing!Face-smile.svg The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to copy an existing page?[edit]

If advisable, how can one copy an existing page (article) to the sandbox? I want to write a new article about a chemical compound that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. I think it's easiest to copy an existing article (such as the one on Allyl_isothiocyanate) and then modify it in the sandbox with data for the new compound. I don't want to replace the existing article. How can I copy an existing page? Is there a better way to create a new page using the template of an existing one? Mitality (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mitality. Yes, you can copy an article into your personal sandbox for the purpose you describe. Copy and paste the Wikicode using the source editor. Mention the source article in your edit summary. Do not use the main sandbox because it gets cleared out regularly. Be sure that you eliminate all traces of the original topic as you edit. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links subject bar[edit]

Hi, I hope you are doing good. I have a question related to the subject bar that is present on some of the articles as here: Priyanka Chopra#External links. I just wanted to know the merit of adding this to the biography articles. Can I proceed with that? 456legend(talk) 02:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@456legend: You're referring to the template {{Priyanka Chopra}} that happens to be under the "external links" heading but isn't actually part of that section. That template includes several article titles and it can be included at the bottom of those articles if appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist No sorry, I am referring to the subject bar that contains the commons category, wiki data item and subject related portals. 456legend(talk) 02:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@456legend: Oh, you're referring to Template:Subject bar. There is no harm adding it to other articles (with appropriately different parameters, of course). Be sure to read the documentation. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist Thank you very much for the input. 456legend(talk) 03:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article rejection[edit]

Hi, today i submitted an article about my self. i cleared each is everything i used secure internal link add citations, and reference also then i got lose my page. Larrybuckley12 (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Larrybuckley12/sandbox Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have been given good advice on your talk page. Is there anything there that is unclear? Shantavira|feed me 09:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
basically, i tried to write an article about my self. Larrybuckley12 (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could not get any article from your draft. Larrybuckley12 (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sandbox draft was speedily deleted. See your talk page for details. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Larrybuckley12 Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you and what makes you important- what we term "notability". It's usually very difficult for people to tell us what others say about them in a neutral point of view, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Larrybuckley12, you call what you wrote an article. But it didn't look at all like an article. No, it was instead cliché-filled promotional junk. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

asking for reviewing wiki page draft[edit]

Draft:San Francisco Unicorns,  this is link to my draft, could you please review it as it is showing 'review in progress' for past 30 hours. Cric editor (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging Rusalkii, the reviewer who placed the draft in review. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was waiting for the redirect to be deleted, going to check on that now. Rusalkii (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And done, thank you for the reminder. Rusalkii (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is my new Draft is being rejected?[edit]


Please tell me what is wrong there? Abhidev06 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Abhidev06, and welcome to the Teahouse. A quick glance at your article shows that the article does not meet notability guidelines, and relies heavily on the channel's page on YouTube, considered a self-published source or even a user-generated source. Please replace these with reliable sources that back up the article/group's notability, if possible.
Also, please do not submit an draft for review straight after it has been declined; look at the reviewer's feedback and improve the article first, before resubmitting. ContributeToTheWiki (talkcontribs) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what is the issue with this article Achrbp (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Achrbp and welcome to the Teahouse. Well, one thing is that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used as references. Take those away and there's virtually nothing left to show WP:NOTABILITY. And external links shouldn't be used in the body of an article. Non-Wikipedia external links could perhaps be converted to citations and used in the article body. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you've been advised, please read Help:Referencing for beginners, WP:GOLDENRULE, and also Help:Link. And begin by finding reliable sources, then write text that reflects what those sources actually say, not the other way round (finding sources to support what you want to say). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can some help help with my draft James Tucker page[edit]

could someone please help with my draft James Tucker page. I messed up the formatting. thanks !! Qstor2 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:James Tucker (animator) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Qstor2, I tried adding a "}" to close the table, but that didn't help. Then I noticed that the table had no useful content, so I removed it. Maproom (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I messed it up. Qstor2 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not approved[edit]

hello sir my name nadeem ansari. im owen celerhoding compan before create profiles not approved why? help me please Decafion (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decafion, Wikipedia does not accept profiles. It accepts well-referenced articles on notable subjects; but creating one is difficult. Maproom (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Decafion, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may be referring to User:Decafion/sandbox, which had an article submission rejection today. Your article had no references; please have a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for advice on how to add citations to this article. Also, per WP:AUTO, you have a conflict-of-interest with this draft, and autobiographies are generally discouraged. ContributeToTheWiki (talkcontribs) 14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of Article Removal[edit]

Hello. When I joined Wikipedia, I disclosed a conflict of interest as an employee of QOR360 on my user page: User: Sunshine1287. I then created a page about QOR360, which I submitted for review at the Articles for Creation queue. On the Talk page of the draft, I also disclosed my conflict of interest. It was accepted and published by the editor User: Cabrils. This was several months ago. On May 24, 2023, User:Smartse moved the published page to Draft, then somehow managed to delete the Draft the same day. I do not think Smartse used any of the deletion methods discussed at WP: Articles for Deletion since it was moved to draft and deleted the same day. What Smartse did do was accuse me of being an alternative account of an editor they believe to be an undisclosed paid editor. It seems like this is the only reason for the deletion of the page I created.

When I noticed a discussion, I invited editors to contact me to confirm my identity – I am the co-founder of this company. I can be emailed at my company email or called. I did not try to hide that I have a conflict of interest. I followed all the steps at listed on the Conflict of Interest policy page.

A page approved by an independent editor seems to me should not be deleted without a discussion. I worked to assure the page met the standards of Notability for companies, including only reliable press coverage about the company and product. I also tried to follow the policies on Verification, Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View.

I do not think the page was properly deleted and I would like to request that it be restored. Can someone please help? Sunshine1287 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunshine1287 The proper forum to request review of the deletion is Deletion Review. That said, I don't think you should bring this matter there. If the deleting admin believed that you were a sockpuppet of a blocked user, the draft would qualify for speedy deletion as edits by blocked users are not allowed to stand. Speedy Deletion means that the article or other page nominated for it meets at least one of the speedy deletion criteria, and as such may be deleted without delay or discussion.
Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, their products, and what they do. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose on their own to say about it and what makes it important/significant/influential in some way, showing how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. It is usually very, very difficult for company representatives such as yourself to write as Wikipedia requires, because you must set aside everything you know about the company and all materials it puts out, and only write based on what others say about the company. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sunshine1287 I'm fairly certain that you did not write the article yourself (I'm afraid I can't explain in public) but it is based on information both on and off Wikipedia. Unfortunately you have employed a company to write the article who has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. That they evidently found a way that they think means that they can just give you the article to submit and that will be fine, but WP:PROXYING clearly defines this as illegitimate and your edits should be treated as if you were working for the company. SmartSE (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smartse I did not hire the company "WikiGenie" - this is simply false. I don't know what's making you think I hired "WikiGenie", and I have already offered to have Wikipedia contact me privately about this matter. I made this submission on my own behalf and I disclosed this every way I could. I am not acting as a "proxy" for a banned editor. I familiarized myself with the Wikipedia policy on notability for companies and provided plenty of "reliable" press coverage about the company and its products. I gathered all of the press coverage that Wikipedia says is allowable. The article tries to imitate other Wikipedia pages that are about businesses like my company. I had a bunch of people read the draft, but every final decision about the draft was mine alone. To be sure the article was OK, I submitted it where Wikipedia said I should since I have a conflict of interest -- the Articles for Creation noticeboard. And it was approved. I have no idea who the editor is who approved it and published it, but they, at least, must have agreed it qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine1287 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You posted this in the wrong thread, @Sunshine1287. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we use Wikipedia articles are a reliable source for references?[edit]

I just had a reference deleted with the comment that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If that type of revert is allowed, are there generally accepted ideas on what articles in Wikipedia are reliable sources? I want to add that the article was in mathematics. Starlighsky (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Starlighsky and welcome to the Teahouse. Indeed, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@starlighsky: none whatsoever. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old Sources[edit]

Hi Guys,

I have a question regarding old sources. So I found an ancient news paper article, a print. However, I tried looking for it on its publisher's website, but the article does not appear, my best guess is due to how old the article is. I was wondering if I could still use this article as a source? I could send a picture to confirm its authenticity, however I just want to know if I can use sources such as these old prints as my sources?

Hope to hear from y'all soon,


-MMM MedicalMrMoose (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MedicalMrMoose Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you provide a source, enough information needs to be given so that someone could find it and verify the information for themselves. That will usually mean things like title, author, publisher, publication date, page numbers, and if necessary where you found it(like a library archive). As long as someone could locate the source themselves, it can probably be used. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! The source you mention, assuming it is archived somewhere (which presumably it is since you managed to find it) and meets other requirements for reliability, is absolutely fine. From the guideline: "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." WPscatter t/c 16:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! MedicalMrMoose (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Article Approval[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to know how long it takes for a published article to be reviewed and approved on wikipedia. Myloking (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Myloking Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't yet submitted your sandbox for review, most likely because you lack the information needed to do so(this is provided if you use the article wizard to create and submit a draft). I'll shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it. There is no set timeframe for a review- there is a backlog of thousands of drafts and a limited number of reviewers, who conduct reviews in no particular order. Patience will be required. You increase the chances of a speedy review by making sure that your article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about this musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician.
If you are associated with this musician, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it okay to give your social media on your user page or talk page?[edit]

I have a YouTube channel someone asked about on my talk page. Am I allowed to link it to them? Am I also allowed to link it somewhere on my user page as well? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Immanuelle Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Per WP:UP#PROMO, "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia" is not permitted on userpages. If you want to share your YouTube with another Wikipedian, the best way would be via the "Email this user" function if the other user has enabled it. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll note that extensive is a subjective term. If it's in reply on your talk page, it's a single instance, and your talk page is regularly archived, I would not deem this extensive. If you were creating a seciton on your user page that you intend to stay up indefinitely. I would deem that as extensive. The dividing line is somewhere between. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: Also, if your user page is predominantly about your activity on Wikipedia, and you happen to mention your youtube channel somewhere in there, I don't see a problem. For example, I mention my own blog on my page, but I don't emphasize it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anadyr (town)[edit]

Anadyr (town) can some one show me how to fix reference note 6. Regards Devokewater 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Devokewater: I think it is because you have not used the pop_latest set of parameters, so the template is attempting to look up the data and provide a reference, failing on the reference. If you fill in the latest, I think this will get resolved. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UtherSRG: Thanks -- Devokewater 19:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to make a wiki page for your business[edit]

I bet this has been asked 1000 times before but every time I google how to make a Wikipedia page I get 3rd party websites looking to sell their services. I am the marketing head of a group of restaurants in the valley. I would love to make one or multiple Wikipedia pages about our restaurants’ history and role in Phoenix. What would be the first few steps if this is possible? Thank you for your help! MirellaIordano (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not an advertising space. In order to have a Wikipedia article created about your business, there must be several reliable secondary sources that establish that your business is notable. In addition, you would be strongly discouraged from creating or editing this article yourself due to your conflict of interest.
Only if you have read through the guidelines I linked above and believe your business meets the criteria for an article, you may request that it be created, but there is no guarantee that it will be created (or created in a reasonable time frame). WPscatter t/c 18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MirellaIordano: First, see WP:PAID and provide the appropriate paid editing disclosure on your user page. You entered into a legally binding obligation to do this when you created your account.
Next, see WP:BACKWARD. You need to find reliable sources that provide significant independent coverage of the business, and you need to find these sources first, before you even start writing the article.
Third, see Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of the kind of sources required.
Fourth, if you have done all of the above and you believe there is enough independent significant coverage of the business, only then can you start writing the article.
Finally, see WP:AFC for instructions on how to get started writing. But don't do this first, do the other steps I listed first. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MirellaIordano: See also WP:SCAM. GoingBatty (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you a cite a source when you are the firsthand source[edit]

I made an edit to musician Allen Stone's bio and how he arrived in Seattle. I thought my name and verified account would be enough to validate my contribution, but apparently not. I am the one who brought Allen to Seattle at the age of 17 and wanted to tell the story of how his earliest days in music came to be. The existing wikipedia page just said "Not long after, Stone moved to Seattle to pursue his musical career." I added more detail to follow that sentence. Any tips? DerekHoiem (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DerekHoiem: Wikipedia does not publish personal knowledge or original thought. We need to cite verifiable published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, DerekHoiem. I am sorry but you cannot add your personal knowledge to Wikipedia. The relevant core content policy is No original research. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Derek, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm the editor that reverted your addition to the article. As the other replies mentioned, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that includes first-hand experiences like this one. May I suggest reaching out to a news outlet who might be interested. If an article detailing your account is published in a reliable secondary source, which tend to have editorial fact-checking and the like, we can use that to add the content to the article. WPscatter t/c 19:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For an over-the-top example of that, DerekHoiem, see that article. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It worked. But I say again, at the time her twitter would have worked too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing article about me[edit]

Hi there, returning after 4 months - India, Covid - to the issue of improving my page O.R. Melling which is thin and sad. Having looked at the pages of fellow fantasy writers Michael Scott, Holly Black, Kate Thompson (the YA writer one) I've material written backed with citations that are not my own website. My understanding is that I CANNOT edit my own page but can post the material somewhere for an editor to hopefully consider and insert? When I first enquired about this everyone did agree the page needs updating. It was set up years ago by godknowswho. Please advise and thanks! PS one of the editors who responded to me was Orange Mike? (The name & the "not on Saint Patrick's Day" made me laugh) Could I send the material to him as he's also a fantasy/sci fi writer/fan? Val aka OR Val Decraney (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: O.R. Melling WPscatter t/c 21:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Val Decraney (ec) Hello and welcome. You may propose edits on the associated article talk page, Talk:O. R. Melling. See edit request for how to make one. Perhaps you can offer independent reliable sources for the article, which is its major problem. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh thanks a million! Tbh, I think what's offered isn't much to write home about either, never mind the lack of sources backing it up. The authors I've mentioned literally have essays written about them with separate titled sections and what not. I'll be providing material similar to similar to the way they've presented themselves or whoever did their pages for them. Have first tranche ready with citations. Will head over and pop it in and see how much of it is acceptable. Wish me luck and again, thanks for the advice! Wiki is brilliant, isn't it? Val Decraney (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help removing a birthday from multiple versions (countries) of Wikipedia at once[edit]

Can someone help me remove a piece of personal data (birthdate) from multiple languages of wikipedia at the same time please? The goal is to remove that date so that other sites don't pick it up and share it online. (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe there is any way to do that in one swoop, as each language version is separate. I think you have to go to each version and request it there. If this birthdate is publicly known, it may be hard to keep it out. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's definitely hard to keep it out. But I'm giving it my best effort to help with this. It's an uphill battle but needs to be done anyway. (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy for suppressing content is found at WP:OSPOL and you can request suppression at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. However you cannot suppress information that is already public, like 331dot said - Apmh 21:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not true in this case. From WP:DOB: "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, ... err on the side of caution and simply list the year". (Assuming that the impetus for this Teahouse topic is by subject request, of course - otherwise I'm not sure why they would want it to be removed in the first place.) WPscatter t/c 21:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Age has been used against the person I want to help when it comes to employment. (Ageism). She's also had identity theft and it is best that her birthdate is not listed. (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Do you think erring on the side of caution could include the entire bday? It was fully removed in the English version but since I'm not a regular user, I'm concerned about doing it correctly in the foreign language versions. (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get that you may not want to specify the article involved here(which is fine and understandable, I'm not asking you to) but if this individual is a well known public figure you may be fighting a losing battle; it will likely require constant vigilance depending on how well known they are. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This language wiki is quite good about removing birthdays when it's not well publicised or well sourced. Here's some advice: every language wiki will have some version of WP:V and WP:BLP. Find what they say, understand what constitutes a 'crap source', then quote the policies as if they're the gospel truth. Be insistent about the policies, but not to the extent of being too annoying. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good advice. Thank you very much. (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wpscatter: Going to be honest, "err on the side of caution and simply list the year" sounds like a weird middle ground, and a weird rule overall. It's common Wikipedia knowledge that in general information is present no matter one's feelings (Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing#No ownership of articles) Apmh 21:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it is a weird middle ground, but it is policy. Wikipedia certainly doesn't exist to store all information, so it stands to reason that there could be some information that we don't keep in an article for one reason or another. WPscatter t/c 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T-Mobile ISP[edit]

Why are Wikipedia users blocked from editing or creating an account for simply having T-Mobile as their Internet provider? Onion1981 (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onion1981: See Wikipedia:Advice_to_T-Mobile_IPv6_users for an explanation and advice. If you have an account, you should not be hit by the block. RudolfRed (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the position of a Table[edit]

Hello, I am translating a Wikipedia biography from English into French. The English version is on the left side of the page; the French version on the right. The English version includes the author's list of books in a Table Format. An identical Table was automatically placed by Wikipedia? in the French column (right column) of the translation, adjacent to the English version (in the right column) . I am able to modify the information when necessary but I am not able to move the entire table up where it should appear. It is stuck in that spot. There is a large blank space above it where it should be placed, and I would like to be able to move it up. Thank you, in advance for suggesting a solution. Kind regards, Keudal39 Keudal39 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Keudal39: Welcome to the Teahouse! What is the name of the article or draft you're working on? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Keudal39: I guess this is about use of Special:ContentTranslation. I don't know whether you can move around text during the use of that tool. You may have to save the translation first and edit the saved page. Translations in progress with Special:ContentTranslation are not visible to other users so we cannot see what you are currently doing. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found two spanish wikipedia articles that I think should be merged.[edit]

I found two spanish wikipedia articles I think should be merged

I'm not entirely sure if they need to be merged but the same articles were merged on English wikipedia and I believe various other wikipedias. What can I do here? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow the guide at es:Wikipedia:Fusiones. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 06:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Immanuelle. The various language Wikipedia projects have their own various policies and guidelines as well as their own respective communities. There might be quite a bit of overlapping or similarities between English Wikipedia and other projects, but they're still different projects. So, you probably should discuss your concerns over on Spanish Wikipedia and see what the Spanish Wikipedia community says. There's no "rule" that says all the Wikipedias have to be identical in each and every way. It's possible that those two articles should be merged, but it's also just as possible that they shouldn't. That's something that needs to be discussed on Spanish Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create a new Article[edit]

How can I create a new Article WorldPR (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@worldpr: see our guidance on creating your first article. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, both WP:42 and WP:BACKWARD provide very helpful information on being successful in writing articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can i edit Article successfully?[edit]

why wikipedia is not accepet my editor articale? kindly guide me they easy way to become editor on wikipedia... Shahidashoaib (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Shahidashoaib. You are engaging in self-promotional activity on Wikipedia. Self-promotion is not permitted here. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have also copied material word for word from a website which claims the copyright. Infringement of copyright is strictly forbidden here. Haploidavey (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The easy way is to first familiarize yourself with our policies at Help:Introduction. Shantavira|feed me 08:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you forgot to put the actual link in your reply. Carpimaps talk to me! 15:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, How do I add a image as a new statement on Wikidata item page. I don't find a option to edit in the Source mode. Any help is appreciated. 456legend(talk) 12:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to the bottom of the Statements list. Click "add statement". In the Property field, enter "image". In the next field to the right (value, but it's not labeled) enter "Canela cansada.jpg" (or other Commons image file name). Click "publish". --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GRuban Thank you very much for the help. I am now able to insert the images. 456legend(talk) 15:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfair Wikipedia Staff[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Further discussion is absolutely unneccessary at this time. Apmh 13:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am trying to add an example to the page “word play”, but it keeps getting removed by Wikipedia staff who say I am vandalising, even though there is nothing rude or vandalising about my example! This is unacceptable, I work for a National, you cannot do this to me. Let me put my example back in, otherwise you are going to get in trouble and lose a lot of advertising revenues!

THANK YOU KINDLY BroBro Guy (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, Wikipedia does not have a staff or advertising revenue. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This cannot be true, staffs deleted my example, look on the “word play” article.
also, I know you have advertising revenues, I work for a National and we advertise on Wikipedia, you know you could lose a lot of advertising revenues if I can’t keep my example. BroBro Guy (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what "a National" is, or where it advertises, but they don't do it here. Wikipedia has no advertising whatsoever. Wikipedia does not have a paid staff, it has volunteer editors. The Wikimedia Foundation has a staff, but they are not involved in matters like this. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We advertise here. I know because I am in responsibility of that account at my company and I know Wikipedia well. I talk to your executive Harry Spoonfridge on WhatsApp, this is how important we are. I will tell him about this. BroBro Guy (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please post an image of or link to where your advertisment is located on Wikipedia; I would be very curious to see it as in my many years here I have never seen a single advertisement of any kind and many claims that no advertising is permitted here. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a banner ad for example on main page: Main Page BroBro Guy (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no advertisements on the Main Page. Do you have a browser extension to add advertisements to any page that you view? 331dot (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BroBro Guy: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was reverted because it appeared as non-constructive, and I'm sure that Hadal assumed good faith. Unfortunately, instead of discussing it with the administrator, you reverted their revert. The other editor who reverted you is an anti-vandalism bot. Apmh 13:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per my above comment, that is not acceptable for Wikipedia staffs to do this to my constructive example which the article needed, I work for a National, and this will make Wikipedia lose a lot of advertising revenue. Would it not be simpler to let me have my example? BroBro Guy (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ProPro Guy Repeating an addition (or a subtraction) after being reverted is defined as WP:Edit warring. If you persist, it will lead to your account being temporarily blocked, and if you continued to persist, indefinitely blocked. P.S. Threats such as yours also lead to being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @BroBro Guy: Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you were acting in good faith when you added an example to the Word play article, which was reverted by another editor (not "staff"). Content disputes like this are a common occurrence. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, your next step could be to post on the article's talk page - Talk:Word play - with an explanation on why you think your particular example would be a valuable addition to the article. Threats will not get you anywhere. See also WP:RFAQ#ADS. GoingBatty (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know all this, I talk to your executive Harry Spoonfridge on WhatsApp, and I work for a National. We might have to pull our ads. Your staffs cannot do this to me, it is unacceptable. I will copy this discussion to that page though, thank you. The staffs there will see and I am sure they will put my edit back. BroBro Guy (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BroBro Guy: I'm not sure if Harry Spoonfridge is a real person, and I'm also not sure if we even have an executive. You may be mistaking this website for another. Apmh 13:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not mistaking, we are a National, he contacts us on WhatsApp and we agreed to buy advertising on Wikipedia. BroBro Guy (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may have been conned. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lastly, your attempted add: “What bird do you shoot arrows out of? A brow!” is not wordplay. David notMD (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean? It literally is. Brow = Bow+Crow, it is an easy but professional joke. BroBro Guy (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotta say I don't really see it, but you would need independent reliable sources that document that. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:DNFT McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am adding the example back myself, as staffs will not do it for me. This is terrible service, staffs should make the changes we request or what is the point of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BroBro Guy (talkcontribs)

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

Looking for an expert[edit]

Can anybody look into this case? Astounded by the fact that a small edit from me triggering such response. Had I have access, I would have used Wikiproject talk page. 2409:4088:9D4A:511F:0:0:E40A:9A14 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article you're talking about isn't in your contribution history, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
You should always have access to article talk pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: They are affected by a rangeblock that prevents access to all talk pages. Tollens (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article I'm speaking of is Jasprit Bumrah 2409:4088:9D4A:511F:0:0:E40A:9A14 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume you are referring to these edits? [4], [5], [6], [7]? Tollens (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course 2409:4088:9D4A:511F:0:0:E40A:9A14 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - your IP address changes periodically so it's somewhat difficult to identify edits made by you - just wanted to check. Tollens (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the refs had a load of garbage in them or were using the wrong fields. - X201 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks 2409:4088:9D4A:511F:0:0:E40A:9A14 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book pages[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but does anyone have suggestions for what to do when citing a book, but you don't know the exact book pages? The reason is that some of the books are in e-book format and they don't always show page numbers Fanatizka (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fanatizka: Welcome, and thanks for citing your sources. You don't need to include the page numbers if you don't have them. {{Cite_book}} shows lots of examples of citations that don't include the page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect article has name about article i want to write about[edit]

So i have a little bit of a problem, there's this redirect article (Vacation Simulator) that takes you to Owlchemy Labs. However i want to create an article about Vacation Simulator since its a popular VR Game, But i dont understand what's the best course of action here, do i create a Special/Myuserpage article? do i create a draft? do i edit the redirect article? I don't understand, any explanation would help. Thanks! LucianMaganBall (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LucianMaganBall create a draft. If it is accepted the reviewer will sort out the redirect stuff. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 17:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! LucianMaganBall (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wondering If Decline Is Due To Name of Brand[edit]

Hi Community,

I've been working on a book about bourbon and realized the man and brand that had great influence on the spread of the name "bourbon" in relation to whisky did not have a profile on Wikipedia. I discovered the brand while at the Oscar Getz Whisky Museum in Bardstown. It's name "Chicken Cock" with a rooster on the bottle grabbed my attention. As I released its founder James A. Miller, I realized his distillery in 1856 was called "The Bourbon Distillery" because it was one of just a couple in Bourbon County.

I wrote an incredibly through history of the man and the bourbon using much of the research for my book. There are 50 citations in the article from the most unimpeachable sources I can find.

It was almost instantly declined for lack of secondary sources. But I'm wondering if it has more to do with the name of the brand "Chicken Cock?"

I've reached out to the modern brand who brought it back and asked them to review my notes and asked them if they would consider doing a rewrite of their history so I could use them as a stronger source. They are currently rebuilding their website and will include it.

But still, this was a lot of work for a whisky brand with a legacy older than Old Forester, Jack Daniels, Four Roses, Wild Turkey, and most others. It's contemporary would be Old Crow, which does have an article. It can't be because the brand is too little known - E. G. Booz has a Wikipedia entry (that only had one secondary source that was actually incorrect on its history). Again, all I can think is this is being declined because of the name or because I am too new to the editing and writing business. But my mission is to get whisky history right. Too much of it is based on oral tradition that has been rehashed, misleading people on the true history of these spirits.

Any help would be appreciated. Here is the draft:

Draft:Chicken Cock Whiskey

With respect,

Drew Whiskeylore (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging BuySomeApples, the reviewer of the article, so that they can comment. Tollens (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Whiskeylore (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say that draft should be approved. Sources don't become primary just because they're old. A newspaper, especially one that still prints, doesn't become not-a-newspaper. GMGtalk 17:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Whiskeylore: There is nothing wrong with the brand name, especially because Wikipedia is not censored. Your draft was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice and the comments. There is a lot of information in there that appears to be uncited (and I just removed one instance of speculation from the draft). Anything based on your personal knowledge should be removed. You can cite a source multiple times if needed, see WP:NAMEDREF for guidance on how to do this without duplicating the citations in the reference list.
I also suggest minor reformatting. Punctuation goes before the citation, not after. We also don't use title case in headings unless it's a proper noun (and I just fixed these for you). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that. I did try my best to stay with cited facts, but that is why I hire an editor when I write books, a second set of eyes can make a huge difference. And thanks for the fixes on punctuation. I will keep that in mind. Whiskeylore (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]