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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

Sant Baba Bhag Singh University (''Page'')

This page on Sant Baba Bhag Singh University seems to lack a clear justification for its notability. The university, though occupying a sizable campus (while the page mentions 116 acres, the actual built area is 11.41 acres, is quite small and doesn't appear to have any significant achievements or contributions in academia, industry collaboration, or research, as noted by the NAAC report. The tone of the article also raises concerns, as it uses reverential language ("Sant Baba Dlawar Singh Ji (Brahm Ji)"), which feels out of place for an encyclopedia entry and suggests it may have been authored by someone affiliated with the institution, perhaps even a student or university official.

Anjuli Bhargava’s article, referenced here, is particularly critical of universities like this one, questioning “how and at whose behest” they spring up, acquiring vast lands with “no limit to how much reflective glass and chrome” can be used while academic rigor is suspect. Given these critiques, and the page's heavy promotional language and lack of meaningful citations, a more neutral, fact-verified rewrite (or maybe deletion) would be essential. VeritasVanguard (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VeritasVanguard: The college does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Majority of school and college articles from India fail to meet our notability guidelines, as they were previously presumed notable. However, following updates to guidelines such as WP:NSCHOOL, they no longer meet notability standards. I recommend redirecting these non-notable school, college, and university articles to relevant targets, such as their affiliated institutions. If there is disagreement or a challenge, then an AfD can be initiated. However, if we start bringing all of these to AfD, the backlog could become overwhelming. GrabUp - Talk 05:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp The institution on question is a private university. Laws governing the private universities in India do not allow them to affiliate institutions, such power is only given to State universities. I don't think that redirection is suitable for this non-notable university. I suggest this article be deleted, as no reliable sources exists for this article to be re-written. VeritasVanguard (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VeritasVanguard: Yes, I couldn’t see that this university is affiliated with any notable institution. If no appropriate target is found, then first consider using WP:PROD, and if challenged, proceed with AfD. GrabUp - Talk 05:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Your reply, I have placed Wikipedia:PROD to its page, as no appropriate target was found. VeritasVanguard (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VeritasVanguard: Nice work! Consider placing a notification on the author’s talk page, as shown in the notification you added to the article. You can also use WP:TWINKLE in future nominations, which will automate this process. GrabUp - Talk 07:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp My Wikipedia:PROD Tag was removed by an editor giving no explanation whatsoever, just said 'Recognized'. What should be done VeritasVanguard (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VeritasVanguard: I asked them in the article’s talk page, lets see their reply, or you can start an AfD. GrabUp - Talk 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VeritasVanguard, the bar for removing a PROD is very low, and although you can always ask, they do not have to answer, and you are prohibited from adding te PROD a second time. I would skip asking (what would it gain you?) and just take it to Afd. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Even if the 'bar' is 'too low'. There has to be some kind of reason, why it was removed, article since then was not improved whatsoever. Is the bar too low that anyone can remove it without stating any reason or any commitment to improve, and get away with it? VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp @Mathglot I have added an AfD tag on the Page of this university. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VeritasVanguard: Please consider notifying the author about your nomination; use the help provided at WP:AFDHOW. GrabUp - Talk 03:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp @Mathglot Going through the History Page of the Article, Seems the editor who removed my WP:PROD tag, contributed to this article back in 2016. Most of the article that remains today was created by the Same editor. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VeritasVanguard: Yeah, They are the author, You can just see the author from "Page Information" option. GrabUp - Talk 04:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VeritasVanguard, you asked:

Is the bar too low that anyone can remove it without stating any reason or any commitment to improve, and get away with it?

The answer to your question, is 'Yes, they can remove it without any reason.' That is the nature of PROD. The next step, if you wish to proceed, is for you or someone to nominate the page for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In history, it's essential to avoid imposing our contemporary perceptions onto the past. Instead, we should understand historical events and figures within the context of their own time.

A lebanese identity didn't exist during the time of the saints of this category, and categorising them as Lebanese clearly violates wp:NOR. Calling someone like Saint Barbara Lebanese is like calling Paul the Apostle a Turkish saint just because he was born in what would become the Republic of Turkey almost two thousand years later.

The category for Turkish saints notes that it should be empty, most likely for the same reason I've mentioned above.

Therefore, I think the saints should be removed from the Lebanese category. (Right? Or am I missing something?) Since there don't seem to be reliable academic sources that call them Lebanese. Otherwise, it should be okey to categorise Saint Paul as a Turkish saint.

I'd like to hear what you think Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Turkey didn't exist until 1920 or soon after. Turks arrived there in the 11th century, and Anatolia became known in western Europe as "Turchia" in the 12th century. I agree that it would be wrong to describe St. Paul as "Turkish" or "from Turkey".

The case of Lebanon is different. It didn't become any kind of political entity until 1920. But the region was known as "לְבָנוֹן" before the birth of Christ, and the Old Testament refers to its famous cedar trees. So it seems to me reasonable to describe a Christian saint as "from Lebanon". Maproom (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom Lebanon being mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean there was a lebanese identity nor does it prove that these ancient saints wouldve been identified as Lebanese. A saint from 2nd century Tyre can't have been Lebanese, Tyre, Beirut, Tripoli, Bekaa, etc aren't part of historical Lebanon. 140 years ago no one from those areas would describe themselves as Lebanese. This is my main issue; the sources don't describe any of the saints as Lebanese, describing them as from Lebanon is better but still problematic since they're from what is today Lebanon and not historical Lebanon which is only mount Lebanon. Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsupkarren: histoical Lebanon was not "only mount Lebanon", see for instance this map. Jesus is described as "Nazarene", though Nazareth was never a political entity. Saint Petroc is described as a Cornish saint, without Cornwall being a political entity. I believe that "Lebanon" has designated a region of the world for thousands of years, and it is appropriate to describe a person from that region as "Lebanese"; its relatively recent status as a nation state is irrelevant. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your map dates to the Ottoman period not to the period of the saints in question. Tyre and Beirut were part of a region called Phoenicia by outsiders, most of its inhabitants would be called Phoenicians or Syrians by outsiders (although the term Phoenician and Syrian are also problematic)

"Jesus is described as "Nazarene", we have reliable primary and secondary sources to support this claim.

Do you know of any ancient figure who described, for example, Pamphilus of Caesarea, as Lebanese? Likely no, therefore categorising him as such, I think, obviously violates Wikipedia:No original research. Whatsupkarren (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom Whatsupkarren (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited that map to refute your claim "historical Lebanon ... is only mount Lebanon." I doubt anyone has ever described Pamphilus of Caesarea as Lebanese, as Caesarea was not in the region then and now known as Lebanon. If your "Saint Barbera" is Saint Barbara, there are claims that she was born in Heliopolis, which was then, as now, regarded as being in Lebanon. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom Pamphilus of Caesarea was from Beirut. Saint Barbara's birth place is disputed. But again, is there a primary source that called her "Lebanese"? Highly unlikely. Here's my main issue, that there are reliable primary or secondary sources that call any of those saint Lebanese. Whatsupkarren (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsupkarren, if someone was born and grew up in a region that was then and now known as "Lebanon", I don't see it as original research to describe them as "Lebanese". Maproom (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom So you think every area in present day Lebanon has been Lebanese for almost 2000 years ? Someone from 3rd century Tyre can't be described as Lebanese, he might be described as Phoenician, Greek, or Syrian. Tyrians in the 2nd century weren't called Lebanese, Tyre wasn't part of a region called "Lebanon" are there primary or secondary sources that say Pamphilus of Caesarea was born in Lebanon? one might find sources saying he was from present day Lebanon, in the same way Paul the apostle was from present day Turkey. Whatsupkarren (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that. I thought you posted here looking for advice. I was clearly mistaken. Maproom (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally annoyed a user named @Manifestation, this was not intended to be on purpose since it was about one user's gaffe discussion and now I need ask for forgiveness from him. How do I apologize to him? Please, help. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you didn't say anything that was the end of the world. You already apologized, you don't need to do anything more and it would probably just annoy them if you continue. Don't agonize over it, you did the right thing. win8x (talking | spying) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can tell @Manifestation about this. I have learned my mistakes and vowed to never do it again. I would still take a short break from Wikipedia. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so, but remember that you are always welcome to contribute here. You pinged him, I won't tell him since it's likely he saw our conversation. win8x (talking | spying) 02:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I relate to this so hard, every time I make a mistake on here I have to resist the urge to apologize, I just annoy everyone. Avienby (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avienby: Well, the polar opposite would be psychopathy, so don't feel too bad about yourself. 😉

@50.91.26.176: Apologies accepted.

@everyone else: For the background, see this thread. - Manifestation (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can now move on, I promise to never do this again, deal @Manifestation? This can be a life lesson for everyone: Even if you have online friends on either Fandom, Wikipedia, Reddit, etc. and there is that person who just randomily add stuff (like adding deceased template), don't expect them to know THAT person.

Also, thank you @Manifestation for accepting my apologies. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SantaClaraCitySeal.png

Hi, I believe that this file is PD-CAGov since it's a seal of a city in California that was placed in fair use wrongly. How do I change this?

{{PD-CAGov}}

Itscyp (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one's answered yet, I've notified Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely uncopyrighted, trademarked. - Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itscyp: I've imported it to Commons and added categories for you, see c:File:SantaClaraCitySeal.png. For future reference you can just edit the file page. —Matrix(!) _{ping one} {u - t? - _uselessc} 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this might be helpful UnsungHistory (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I attempt to send a text message with a hyperlink to a wiki article with an ellipses in the title, IOS splits the message at the ellipses, sends a link text to the partial url, and sends the rest of the url in a seperate text. For example, I was trying to send a text with a link to the “That's Not My... (book series)” article. The link was automatically split into these two texts-

1- en.m.wikipedia.org/key/That%27s_Not_My

2- .._(book_series)

and so the hyperlink that is sent (in the first text) obviously just goes to the “article doesn’t exist” page. This happens both in the normal messages app and in WhatsApp . Turning off all the keyboard autocorrect settings does nothing and Googles not being any help either.

Does any one have any work arounds aside from telling the text message receivers to combine split urls?

NymphNymph13 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use email? -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NymphNymph13, welcome to the Teahouse. That's Not My... (book series) has three period characters in the title. You could try encoding each period as %2E: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/That%27s_Not_My%2E%2E%2E_(book_series). Or maybe you only have to encode the middle one: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/That%27s_Not_My.%2E._(book_series). PrimeHunter (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This works easy too! Thanks PrimeHunter 🙌 NymphNymph13 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to use a redirect to that article that doesn't include periods: That's Not My. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NymphNymph13: Use Special:UrlShortener. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact sort of thing what I was looking for. Thanks Andy NymphNymph13 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about these template. In most of articles about an film director/actor/actress, the template "Infobox person" was applied, instead of "Infobox artist". Why editors don't apply template "Infobox artist" in those articles? Is there any rule about applying those template to Biography articles, particularly in topic Actors and Filmmakers? Mintu Martin (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox artist}} are for people who are actual artists, like people who make paintings and art. {{Infobox person}} is used for anyone who is a person that doesn't have a sub-infobox, you can find some sub-infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Templates/Infoboxes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on a page in my sandbox as the tutorial advised, but now I'm not sure what to do with it... MichaelChaosTheory (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the sandbox. However you should probably first review the general notability guideline as your sandbox doesn't indicate the person in question is notable. —Matrix(!) _{ping one} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is now Draft:Brian Nguyen, submitted, awaiting review. My opinion is that he is a lawyer doing lawyer stuff, hence not Wikipedia-notable, but you will get a Reviewer to evaluate. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My recent proposal was a railroad Superintendent biography with a newsworthy death. If a superintendent is not notable, is a railroad president notable? That should depend also on the notability of the railroad itself; eg C&NW vs Albany & Buffalo nobody heard of. Railroad Engineer vs Chief Engineer.? General Supt. vs General Manager.? Politicians -- US senator vs State legislator? MarkWHowe (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MarkWHowe! Wikipedia:Notability doesn't refer to someone's rank or prominence: it refers to the amount that has been independently (of the subject and each other) published about that person in WP:Reliable sources. If there are at least three such sources of substantial length (or two really good ones, even, like lengthy journal articles or books published by reputable publishers who fact-check and edit rather than just reprinting whatever they receive), that should be sufficient basis for an acceptable Wikipedia article and the subject is 'notable' in Wikijargon. (It's a pity that this slightly misleading term was adopted early in Wikipedia's history, and now we're stuck with it.)

Please note, however, that all sources cited in an article to verify all the statements in it must have been published, so that others can in principle access them (using the bibliographical information the citatons are required to contain). I see from your Userpage that you have copious private documents about what I'm guessing is your intended subject. Such unpublished material cannot be used to demonstrate a subject's notability, or to corroborate individual facts in an article.

Creating a Wikipedia article is difficult for the inexperienced (and I speak as a former professional non-fiction editor), and often takes several rounds of draft submissions, declines for improvement, and resubmissions before succeeding. I hope this helps and doesn't discourage you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MarkWHowe, there is a very strong presumption that any elected member of a national, state, or provincial legislature is notable. But an editor who wants to write such a biography is still expected to base their article on referenced to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the person. Please read WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES for details. As for railroad executives, there is no such consensus. The applicable standard is WP:NPERSON. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@94.6.86.81 You stated " I see from your Userpage that you have copious private documents about what I'm guessing is your intended subject. Such unpublished material cannot be used to demonstrate a subject's notability, or to corroborate individual facts in an article."

Published documents referred to here would be printed circulars or broadsides scanned and uploaded and presented as graphics. Letters cited are from or to state governors, presidents and high level officials of noteable railroads, and in many cases governors or other high level political figures were also high level railroad officials. These letters have been published by the Iowa Genweb project but is there consensus in WP that Genweb is not a reliable source? Also obits? The originals of the letters are archived at the C&NW Historical Society, another example of what WP appears to consider unreliable.

Regarding the verity of letters, I say that if they are shown to be authentic then they show what was said regardless of whether or not they espouse truth. History is rife with examples of this. To corroborate facts I would want published research, as you say, and I believe I have done that.

None of this addresses my biography of Watkins. There is no lack of published material to verify the facts if newspapers like the NYT can be trusted, plus the Stennett volumes. Unless WP consensus acknowleges the man and the event as notable I see no reason for resubmission. MarkWHowe (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The three requirements for sources useful for establishing notability are reliability, independence from the topic (Watkins in this case) and significant coverage (of Watkins). Most of the assorted documents you describe seem like primary source material useful to historians or to journalists but of no value to Wikipedia editors. The issue with such archived documents is not that they are unreliable but rather that they are not independent of the topic, and independence is just as important as reliability. Also, they have not yet gone through a professional editorial process. Historians and journalists separate the wheat from the chaff, determine what is of significance and construct an original and coherent narrative under the supervision of a professional editor. The credibility of their work is greatly dependent on the academic reputation of the specific historian or the reputation of the publication. Wikipedia editors who are volunteers and largely anonymous are forbidden by policy from engaging in that type of original research. Instead, we are summarizers of a particular, narrow type of published sources. Significant coverage in the New York Times and similar publication is fine. As for obituaries, there are two kinds. Family submitted paid obituaries are of little value. Obituaries by professional journalists are much better sources. In conclusion, it is your responsibility to limit the sources you cite for the purpose of establishing his notability to reliable published sources entirely independent of Watkins that devote significant coverage to Watkins. That is the key to success, and the quality of the sources is vastly more important than the quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a strong preference for secondary sources, defined as A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's some annoying templates in an article, I don't know how to remove them, so they are just stuck there, how do I remove a template? Riod456 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might, as a newcomer, think them annoying, but they might be there for good reasons. Reply with a link to the article you mean, and tell us which templates, and we can evaluate them and advise you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, just tell me how. Riod456 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riod456 It depends on the kind of template, so you need to tell us the article so we can help you. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just found out. I can hit backspace and the template is removed. Riod456 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riod456 Yes, the Visual Editor treats them kind of like text. You can also cut, copy, or paste them, both within an article and between articles. Good luck, Rjj (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this Wikipedia:Short_description#SDNONE it is not clear to me which exceptions should be made and when? For instance, in the page of Culture of the United States, I think a short description with the same name might still be better than "none". What is the rule in that kind of case? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! In such cases it can be a good idea to check other articles for existing examples:

• Culture of Argentina, Culture of South Africa, and Culture of India all have {{Short description|none}} <!-- "none" is a legitimate description when the title is already adequate; see [[WP:SDNONE]] -->
  • Culture of the United States has a more shouty {{Short description|none}}<!-- This short description is INTENTIONALLY "none" - please see WP:SDNONE before you consider changing it! --> :
• but Culture of Italy has Culture of Italy and the Italian people

Right now WP:SDNONE isn't a guideline or a policy, it's just a part of an information page. So it's up to editors to decide where it would be appropriate to include a longer short description.

I think that United States can be expected to be known to anglophone readers, so we don't need clarifications, like (borrowing from short description of United States): Culture of the United States, a country in North America . —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting. That is confusing at best unfortunately. So maybe I will simply tread carefully with editing short descriptions. I have gotten into "trouble" before for editing things like this too quickly where perhaps a change might not be necessary. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn, when a shortdesc is intentionally set to none, it's typically been done with good reason. The idea of duplicating an article title within a short description is a strong signal that no shortdesc is necessary. They are not mandatory subtitles.

See also related discussions at Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 12 § Redirecting less than useful descriptions to "none" (January 2022), Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 15 § WP:SDNONE (February 2023), Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 16 § WP:SDNONE and "History of" (March 2024), Wikipedia talk:Short description § "National flag" as short description (Summer 2024), Wikipedia talk:Short description § To SD none or not to SD none (August 2024)... there are probably more elsewhere. Folly Mox (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there was a small incident in Foreign relations of Pakistan. I reverted Mister Banker's edits on restoring sources in the list because I believe that the United Nations digital library is enough proof and because it adds too much bytes to the article, but ke kept on undoing my reverts because he wants me to "Cite a policy for my actions or gain concensus". How can I explain to him without edit warring? I'm afraid he won't accept me and I have to quit Wikipedia forever. Underdwarf58 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open a discussion on the article's talk page: Talk:Foreign relations of Pakistan Meters (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The additional references add many fewer bytes to the rendered article than all the unnecessary national flag images do. Folly Mox (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really love the game Factorio, and want its page on Wikipedia to be as good as possible! What can I do to improve it from the current state? CharmanderTheDev (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable secondary sources, then you can add those.

If there is a section that you would like to add that is supported by reliable sources, then it can be added.

One question though are you in anyway connected to the game? The reason for my asking is you have the Dev in your name. If you are related in anyway then you need to disclose that connection on the talk page, should you make any edits. Also if you are paid to edit then please follow what wp:paid says.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 02:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries here, I am not affiliated with Factorio, the dev is just because i like coding :) CharmanderTheDev (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great to hear! Just had to ask. :) User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I will try to improve it more CharmanderTheDev (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was in the First Republic of Venezuela article, and I saw that the flag was changed from the last time. I thought nothing of it so i click on the historical flags of Venezuela and I go too the First Republic of Venezuela flag and it's different, also I went too the Second Republic of Venezuela article. which was changed from the original, and is different in the Flag of Venezuela historical section. please clarify Average USA patriot (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask, or make a request, at the foot of Talk:First Republic of Venezuela. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we propose a certain guideline for descriptors of generals in the American Civil War? I have been suggesting to describe a general who was subjectively more known for service with the Confederacy as a "Confederate" general (like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson for example) rather than "American" which is reserved for mostly Union-aligned generals like Sherman and McDowell. 9mm.trilla (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can propose it. You say that you "have been suggesting" it, from which I infer that have already proposed it somewhere. Please don't propose this kind of thing in more than one place. (And this is not the place.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@9mm.trilla: I don't think boldly changing all the lead sentences of article about Confederate generals is the right way to go about doing this; it's kind of a big change that should be discussed first per WP:CAUTIOUS. I've asked about the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Confederate officer biography lead sentences and you should really be seeking consensus there before changing any more articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@9mm.trilla, You should talk about this on Talk:American Civil War UnsungHistory (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Talk:ACW is for discussing that article, not the subject matter (or other articles). The link provided by Marchjuly looks like a fine place to get information about how to handle rank descriptors. I'll interact there on the merits. You may find there's previous consensus on the subject, or it might be time to measure it afresh. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oakland Athletics are currently on a relocation phase. The team prefers to be called just the "Athletics" or the "A's" but for continuity and organization sake, shall we propose naming the page as "Sacramento Athletics"? Like with the New York Knicks ("officially" the New York Knickerbockers) and certain teams in European football leagues and teams in the French rugby union league Top 14 who go by 'unofficial but popular' names, the Oakland Athletics shouldn't be exempt from these situations, too. 9mm.trilla (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion taking place at Talk:Oakland_Athletics. You are free to join this discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 9mm.trilla. This kind of thing is definitely better off discussed at Talk:Oakland Athletics than here at the Teahouse. There are, in fact, several discussion threads related to this already on the article's talk page, and you're free to participate in them if you want. You already know this though because you started one of them yourself, right? Just to add on to the answer you received in that discussion, Wikipedia is not here for you or other fans of the team to use as a some sort of way to get back at the owner of the A's. Wikipedia's role is to only reflect how reliable sources cover the team after it relocates or during the process of its relocation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Если я являюсь новым пользователем, я должна писать статьи сразу? Какими источниками я могу пользоваться при написании статьи? Prosto Hanna (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prosto Hanna. This is English Wikipedia so it's easier for others to help you if you try to communicate in English. Google translate says you're asking about how to create articles. There's some information on this in Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, but it's geared to English Wikiepdia. If, by chance, you're asking how to create Russian Wikipedia articles, then you should ask about that on Russian Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly,that person is saying "If I am a new user, should i immediatly write an article? Which sources can I use when writing a new article?" UnsungHistory (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally "Статья",the name of this topic means "article" UnsungHistory (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosto Hanna,Marchjuly сказал "Привет Prosto Hanna. Это Английскайа Википедиа так што тебе будет лехче помочь есле ты попытаешься говорит на Английском. Гугл переводчик говорит што ты спрашаваеш поповоду как делат новые статьи. Есть про это информациа в Help:Your first article, и Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, но они по англиски и для англиский википедии. Есле ты спрашываеш как делать новыи Рускийи Статьи на Википедии, тогда лучше спрашевать на Русский Википедии" UnsungHistory (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very dumb question, but yes, are they included? Usernames are not practical (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernames are not practical They are not. Looking at Special:Statistics, there are 61 million pages (including talk pages and other stuff) a lot of which are redirects. win8x (talking | spying) 14:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The count of actual content articles is currently 6 904 994. We are actually at 98.64% to 7 million articles! See Wikipedia:Seven-million pool. Ca 15:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the technical documentation at :mw:Manual:$wgArticleCountMethod § Details, Redirect pages will never be counted as valid content pages (articles) (emphasis in original). Folly Mox (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not logged in and therefore cannot place the {{retired}} tag on my previous user accounts Aarushthakkar153 and Aarushthakkar0909. Can somebody do that for me please? 2607:FEA8:FD04:8183:BC1F:FF73:8E47:AD (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not retired though, you are blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2607:FEA8:FD04:8183:BC1F:FF73:8E47, Done, inserted retired tag into your account,but remember,if you change your mind,you can always come back UnsungHistory (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnsungHistory: The user was blocked for sockpuppetry, so no, they'd have to appeal their block if they wish to use one of those accounts again. There is no need to add {{retired}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, sorry for the oversight UnsungHistory (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having been active on WP for a long time, I remember how simple it used to be to start stubs and/or contribute to the development of articles. Lately, I've mostly contributed bits to well-established articles. I've just recently started a new one and I see I have a choice between submitting it for review or simply publishing it. Please tell me about the advantage that each route may offer. Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to publish directly but run the risk of it being sent to WP:AFD, I suggest you re-write it in a dry neutral tone and submit it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Theroadsolong. So you've read my draft, I take it, and think it would be good to dry it out some. Reviewing, not just on WP, is generally coloured by the subjective viewpoint & feelings of the reviewer(s). Since there's a "risk" there will be a review, do you believe the reviewers would tend to frown upon me publishing first?Joel Russ (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you submit for review you will get feedback on how to improve the content, if you simply publish then you will be at the mercy of new page patrolers. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Richard Raymond (publisher). Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the AFC backlog is less than two months now and less than 1000 pending submissions. I remember when it exceeded four months and 3000 pending submissions. But still, it can take anywhere from within a few hours, to several weeks/months for an article to be subsequently be reviewed, and eventually be indexed on search engines (or immediately if your autopatrolled. The WP:NPP backlog is over 11k unreviewed articles and only 1700 unreviewed redirects. In addition to your article being send to AfD, it could also be sent to draft space, be merged/redirected or even speedy deletion.

AFC is optional if you are autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days) unless you have a conflict of interest with the article your writing about or are being paid to edit that. I tend to no longer write articles via AFD if there's a good chance its notable enough and will likely survive an AfD. JuniperChill (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Russ By my count you have created ten articles but none since 2009. Standards on en:Wikipedia have risen a lot since then, particularly regarding wikinotability and the policy for biographies of living people. For those reasons, I think you would be best to use WP:AfC for your next couple of submissions, although as already advised, that certainly isn't mandatory. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mike, good advice. I've been learning.

Most of my activity in recent years has been adding information, or attempting improvements in wording (etc) with existing articles.Joel Russ (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im her 2A0A:EF40:900:CB01:5C33:89D4:F717:3769 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This pages is for help with using and editing Wikipedia. Do you have a relevant question? Shantavira| 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. If you are asking whether English Wikipedia has an article called Agata Bleizgyte, the answer is No (or that link would appear in blue, not red.

Nor is there an item with that name in Wikidata, so there is probably not an article in any other language Wikipedia either (though I can't be sure there isn't without a more complicated search). ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking for insights on the AfD process regarding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28. I’d like to understand the notability standards it would need to meet to avoid deletion. The topic involves [insert brief description of Keramikou 28 here, e.g., a notable art space or cultural hub], but I’m unsure if there’s sufficient coverage by reliable sources to establish its significance by Wikipedia standards.

Could anyone advise on key factors that might contribute to a stronger case for retention, such as specific types of references or any unique Wikipedia guidelines that might apply? IlEssere (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be notable it need to:

1. Give a least 2-3 strong reliable sources (more is always better) see wp:Notability for more info.
2. It looks like it needs a rewrite see wp:Neutral point of view for more info.

The best thing I can suggest is that just in case it gets deleted, copy the article to your sandbox. It will also let experiment with it.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to copy a article to the sandbox, why wouldn't you ask to userify within the AfD itself? That would at least preserve the page history in compliance with Wikipedia's licenses. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the better option for sure, I did not know about it when I posted. thank you for mentioning it @Rotideypoc41352.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or at the very least, copy the following to the edit summary of your sandbox (WP:COPYWITHIN) because multiple have edited the article:

• Copied content from [[Keramikou 28]]; see that page's history for attribution

JuniperChill (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important link:

1. https://communitism.space/

Starting with Communitism's mission, if wecarefully examine the "About" section on their website, it becomes clear that this initiative originate as a formal organization with a primary goal of preserving culturally significant buildings in Athens. Keramikou 28 was not the first building the helped preserve.

2. https://gold-ailina-51.tiiny.site/

The Greek state recognizes the building as a listed monument due to its cultural, historical, or architectural significance. This recognition includes protection from any alterations or demolition, as well as ensuring its maintenance. The process of recognition typically involves an evaluation by relevant authorities and may include specific regulations regarding its use and management.

3.https://www.oneman.gr/onecity/urban/to-emvlimatiko-ktirio-tis-kerameikou-28-poleitai-kai-to-communitism-psaxnei-neo-spiti/

This link highlights how the building at 28 Kerameikou Street has become a symbol for art, the Athens Gay Pride, and the vibrant drag community in Athens. It reflects a space where diverse events—like performances, parties, and exhibitions and resilience of the local LGBTQ+ scene.

4. https://www.lifo.gr/guide/arts/news/i-kunsthalle-athena-apohaireta-tin-kerameikoy-28

This article in LIFO highlights the significance of the building at Kerameikou 28, emphasizing how Kunsthalle Athena transformed it into an essential cultural venue for Athens. It describes the building’s role as a creative hub that welcomed a diverse array of people—locals, immigrants, artists, and cultural area marked by social challenges and vibrant urban life.

5. https://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/bradley/remap3-athens-art-fest-10-19-11.asp

Artnet, a major art magazine, talks about the building at Keramikou 28 having crucial impact because it exemplifies the event's ethos of transforming neglected urban spaces into vibrant cultural hubs. Situated in Athens' Kerameikos-Metaxourgeio neighborhood, an area known for its rough edges and high vacancy rates, this building symbolized how art can breathe life into a community.

6.https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2021/nov/28/a-locals-guide-to-athens-five-great-things-to-do

The Guardian mentioned the building under Communitsm, describing it as a labyrinthine mansion-cum-workshop that looks like it could fall down at any minute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IlEssere (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A complication, and another.

Given that three of the !votes at the present AfD are "delete and salt", I fear copying the article content to a user sandbox may be a poor decision, perhaps resulting in a deleted sandbox and further problems.

IlEssere, you've made 21 edits to the AfD already, which is rather a large amount. At this point I'd gently suggest allowing the process to run its course. Folly Mox (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, lets see how it goes. IlEssere (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who is fluent in Japanese please help me with this section of the Daihatsu Wikipedia page? I found two external sources and used a translator and wanted to confirm my edits are ok and in line Avienby (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Avienby. Welcome to the Teahouse, and sorry for the long wait for a reply.

If you just pasted in machine translation of a copyright source, there's a very good chance you've breached our strict rules on adding Copyrighted Content to Wikipedia (irrespective of what language it's in). You need to use your own skills with the English language to add content in your own words and not rely on literal translations.

So, simply go back and read through to rewrite it in your own words, and avoid Close Paraphrasing. At the same time you should probably shorten it quite a lot. I'd suggest you've added too much WP:TRIVIA in that section. You could also seek input via a post on the article's own Talk Page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only copied in the Japanese text and direct quotes which is what I was referring to @Nick Moyes Avienby (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avienby: To contact editors for Wikipedias in other languages, you can use WP:Embassy or the equivalent page in the other language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t seem to find a way to get posts to start with the most recent rather than the furthest back, like for instance at my User page. Would much appreciate the necessary steps from on high.

Actually, I’d have thought descending order would be the default… Augnablik (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Wikipedia features appear to be built with ascending order in mind, but if you're looking to just read unread items, you might want to consider installing the Convenient Discussions script. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying but I don’t quite “get” what this script does.

(Do you really speak something like 17 languages, as I noticed at your alternate User page?) Augnablik (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any new comments on a page are going to be highlighted in green; there's more documentation about what the script does at the link posted.

Where do you see me stating I speak 17 languages? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I gather that I’m supposed to follow the green light … okay, will do.

As for languages:

I copied an “Other languages” section associated with the User jack built the house, which seemed to be an alternate user ID you use, that shows a long list of languages with little icons showing what appears to be the degree to which you speak them, planning to paste it here. But I found it wouldn’t paste, so all I could do was describe it.

Before I saw you’d replied to my original Help message, I was about to apologize to you if you do speak all those languages and it looked as if I were calling you out for fibbing. I mean, I know there are a few super polyglots in the world, but it’s pretty rare — and I’d simply been awestruck that we might have one among us Wiki editors.

From your question as to where I saw you’d said you spoke 17 languages, though, now I’m wondering what’s what. “The thot plickens ...” Augnablik (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's two completely different users: the one who built Convenient Discussions (whose Babel boxes at meta:User:Jack who built the house list two languages) and the one recommending it here at the Teahouse (User:Tenryuu lists six languages at varying levels of proficiency). They're not otherwise affiliated. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit listed on this page was reverted twice by someone controlling the page and I don't understand why. Apparently replacing an old link on a page is spam. I'm pretty sure that I can't try to add the edit for a third time without it being considered an 'edit war' or something (not that there is any point since it'll probably get reverted again anyway).

What am I supposed to do in this situation? Do I just have to let this slide or can I force the person blocking my edit to give a better reason for why the edit is not an improvement? HappyWrap (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyWrap: Welcome to the Teahouse. What you should be doing is discussing this on the associated talk page at Talk:List of Johnson solids. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I'll try that. HappyWrap (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user named YuranHigger have vandalized the 2024 Botswana general election, he was telling people to hang themself and hurled a racial slur. He should be blocked right now because he is going to vandalize the articles.

Look at what he doing! User contributions for YuranHigger - Wikipedia 50.91.26.176 (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert his edits because it was vandalism. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a problem. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 04:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! Joyous! have blocked YuranHigger from vandalising again! 50.91.26.176 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse isn't the place to report vandalizers. You should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents next time. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is also an appropriate place to report blatant vandalism like this. (You only need to report at one place, not both.) jlwoodwa (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE: putting citations on items in a long list, where many of the items have the same citations. Should I

(a) put citations on every single item in the list, or

(b) group items together into sub-lists with the same citations, and then give the citations only at the end of each sub-list? In that case, I guess that I should separate items in the same sub-list by commas, but separate different sub-lists by semicolons? Dr.bobbs (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can reuse citations, I would put a citation on each item as it would show that it has something to back it up. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 04:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.bobbs I would do option (a). You can use "named references" to reuse the same citations. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once for the source editor or Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/4 for the visual editor. Hope that helps, Rjj (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Dr.bobbs, the Named reference functionality allows you to re-use a single reference multiple times within an article, without clogging the reference list with duplicates. Once you understand how it works, you will use it all the time. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a further refinement, if you are using almost the same reference - e.g. different pages in the same book - you can differentiate them without repeating everything, as explained at Help:References and page numbers. - Arjayay (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a new wikipedia page Tordaddy (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new Wikipedia article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and we usually recommend that newer users first gain experience, read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. You do have some edits under your belt, so if you have independent reliable sources to summarize in a draft article, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review. It will be good for your first few attempts if you use that process first, so that others see it before it is formally part of the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will receive more scrutiny. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tordaddy You have already tried to create Draft:Medha Servo Drives and Draft:Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) but both attempts are lacking relaible sources, never mind ones that demonstrate these companies are wikinotable. When a new editor arrives and immediately tries to create such articles, experienced editors know that they are almost bound to fail, since the newbie is writing their draft backwards. Also, some may suspect a conflict of interest. Why did you choose these topics? Do you have any connection with these companies? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I am not sure who to ask about this and on which wiki, as this involves the English and Russian wiki. So the English wiki page for Costume Jewelry has no linked translated page on the Russian wiki. But there is an article that is on the Russian Wiki for ru:Бижутерия that seems to be, while not a direct translation, a solid match for the Costume Jewelry article, with even the same image in use. But the English translation linked to that article is Bijou (jewellery) which I would say fits the Russian article much worse than the Costume Jewelry page and the content seems to be referring to something else.

My proposed structure would be to have Costume Jewelry correspond to Бижутерия. I am not sure if there is an article in the Russian wiki that would match Bijou (jewellery). How, or maybe who, would I approach to get this looked at? Is this an issue for the Talk pages of all three articles?

I would be very grateful for any guidance!

EDIT: For that matter, I think the French article fr:Bijou linked to the ru:Бижутерия is not a good match either. The French article is very similar to the English one and I think they both describe something else from the Russian article. Is this an issue I should bring up on the talk page of the Russian article? Or do translations work both ways? Many thanks!

Cryo Cavalry (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cryo Cavalry, adn welcome to the Teahouse. Interlanguage links are mostly done now via Wikidata entries, and can only be 1-1.

What I would suggest is to go to the relevant Wikidata entries d:Q3575260 ("bijou") and d:Q1536680 ("costume jewelry"), and simply edit their links as appropriate. I note that the "bijou" item links to articles in a number of languages whose title is "bijouteri(a)", and I guess that many of them may have the same problem.

If you feel you should discuss the issue first, then I suggest d:Wikidata:Project chat as the best place to do so. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good overview – I just want to note that d:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts is a better (more specific) venue for discussing this kind of issue. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine @Jlwoodwa thank you so much for your advice! This really clears it up :) Cryo Cavalry (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you tell me how can hide the bot edits from my watchlist? Thanks! OrionNimrod (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrionNimrod -assuming you are using the desktop version, on your watchlist page, above the live updates switch are three bars and "Filter changes (use menu or search for filter name)" click on that. The 19th entry in the dropdown list should be "Human (not bot)" tick the box next to that and click back on the watchlist page. Done. If you are using mobile - I have no idea. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjayay! Thanks, that solved the issue! OrionNimrod (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? BombCraft8 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is not enough sources, or maybe no one has gotten around to it. If you what to work on them you can. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BombCraft8: I assume it's got something to do with the creation of the MOS namespace in September 2024. Looking at an archive of the page prior to this change, MOS:FILM and MOS:NOPIPE were not listed. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok BombCraft8 23:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BombCraft8: I have reported the bug at phab:T378953. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thx BombCraft8 12:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did not appear constructive? 🤨 2600:1004:B0B6:C892:452F:8ABE:5102:654F (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. THIS edit of your was not deemed constructive. I suspect you intended it to go somewhere else. But putting it in the 'short description' was not appropriate. Can you appreciate why it was reverted and why you were informed on your talk page? In future, you might like to think about asking the reverting editor directly on their own talk page, rather than asking here. All reverting editors should be willing to give you a reasoned and polite answer to such a question. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to understand how to correctly format calendar dates in Wikipedia. My standard at work is the ISO-8601 (Y-M-D) format, but it appears to have problems in Wikipedia. How do I format "source" and "cite" dates without problems? Henrilebec (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our syntax for citations is, mmh, very picky. You're formatting dates like this: 2024–October–30. That's actually rather unorthodox; YMD is usually formatted 2024-10-30 (and without em-dashes). Use that format, and it should work. Cremastra (u — c) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec: See also MOS:Dates. Style for citations differs between articles; please use whatever format is already present in a given article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, so is there like a instructions or anything? Saarabout (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Saarabout, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, we have lots of help and guidance available for you to read and work through. I've left a welcome message with some really useful links to them on your own Talk Page. Good luck learning how to become a Wikipedian! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you! Saarabout (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a bunch of pages that have the incorrect front picture even though they are the first picture on the article. How can I change this and make it the correct picture? NossonLA (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you tell us what articles specifically have this issue? 331dot (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I vaguely remember this issue. If the first picture is in the infobox, try adding a hidden comment immediately after it: <!-- [[File:Example.jpg]] --> (replacing Example.jpg with the desired picture). jlwoodwa (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully ask for some editing assistance (preferably from someone in NZ) to update my father's wiki page in preparation for his anticipated death from cancer. It is important for our family to have his page available as a resource for any media attention. Thanks in advance. AdrienneFord (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know which article you are referencing. You may use the edit request wizard to propose edits to the article about your father. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Yeo

There are some inaccuracies and I'd like to add some additional info with sources.

Might there be someone I could chat with to assist? Or are you saying I should collate the material and then submit somewhere? Thanks AdrienneFord (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the edit request wizard and will attempt to use that option. Thanks for your help. AdrienneFord (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrienneFord: This must be a very difficult time for you; my sympathies. You may find WP:About you and our FAQ for article subjects useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i need like better sources, i don't know what's wrong with the sources i used but the page i made got rejected because of it. probably am just an unlucky person, i don't know. thought it'd work Dylanowich (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So good sources are:

1. Reliable Courses
2. Not Original Research
3. Not a companies website

Anyways wp:Reliable sources lists everything out in a helpful way.

Also make sure that you are citing your sources correctly. wp:cite lists everything out plainly.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 01:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dylanowich, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While part of what @Sheriff U3 says is useful, their 3 headings are misleading and unhelpful.

The two sources you have may be OK, but usually we need at least three sources. The first one you have cited to "Barrons" (whatever that is) but it's clear that they are just an aggregator (at least for this purpose). You need to track down the source of the report and cite it properly. Articles with no byline are likely to be viewed with some suspicion, and we need to know whether the original publisher is regarded as a reliable source or not.

The second one says that "Lebanese state media" said something, but in your draft it simply says that that something happened, without ascribing it in the text to one of the parties.

Also note that this subject falls under WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict, and you should make yourself familiar with what that means before you do any further work on the draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some pages need to be super detailed and with many references while there are a lot of pages with barely references or content(stubs)? CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy: Wikipedia has existed for over two decades, and its standards for encyclopedic articles have increased over time. Many old articles don't meet those standards; you shouldn't model new articles off them, and they're irrelevant to other discussions. If you come across an article like this, you're encouraged to improve it, or nominate it for deletion if you think it can't be improved. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would like all articles to be as 'super detailed' (though not unnecessarily over-detailed) with as many references as is appropriate, but somebody) has to voluntarily put the research and work in to make them so.

Provided a subject meets the minimal requirements of WP:Notability', a stub that cites the mimimal requirement of WP:Reliable sources is better than no article at all, because it can be expanded and improved: this is usually easier than starting a new article from scratch.

Some types of subject, such as valid species, are automatically presumed to be notable even if there are very few sources for them (at least one, the scientific paper that first describes them, must by definition exist), and very little about them is known: it's assumed that more information will be discovered and published in due course. When it is, some Wiki-volunteer than has to notice and actually add it – this doesn't happen automatically. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy All articles are encouraged to be super detailed with a lot of references. Stubs are simply anomalies that have not had the attention from the community to be improved. Stubs usually are super short for these reasons:

1. Obtaining reliable sources for the subject is extremely difficult or impossible,
2. The article was never fit for Wikipedia in the first place and can be deleted, or
3. More simply, no editor is interested enough to improve it... but you can always change that. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a faster way for articles to be reviewed? I have about a dozen articles on the backlog right now, waiting in the void of the New Pages Feed to be reviewed. 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 04:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBrowniess: There's no reliable way to get your articles reviewed faster. It helps if you make sure they clearly demonstrate the notability of their subjects, since that makes them easier to review. Why do you ask? I don't see how it matters much whether an article is reviewed (except to reviewers, of course). jlwoodwa (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just like seeing them get indexed honestly 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 05:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are not reviewed, they will automatically be indexed after 4 months. Ca 06:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could keep editing and one day become either autopatrolled or join the new page patrol and start trying to clear the void. Cremastra (u — c) 12:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably need to get at least a hundred articles under my belt before I get such a privilege. 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 14:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing recent changes when I happened to come across this draft Draft:Zachs Vlogs. Seems to be mainly written by one person with the intent of promoting his YouTube channel. Could someone provide a second opinion/suggest possible alternatives? VolatileAnomaly (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest just letting it be. Under normal circumstances, drafts are not deleted for lack of notability WP:NDRAFT, and and the editor has not edited for 20 days. Ca 06:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends

My draft Thetrendingpeople where I took help from my mentor @Karnataka was recently declined by @DoubleGrazing, @HitroMilanese with feedback, saying the references do not show notability. They mentioned needing multiple sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent.

I have included several sources that I believe meet these requirements—they are detailed, from reliable publications, and provide independent coverage of the subject.

Could you please take another look? If there are still issues, I’d appreciate any specific advice on what to improve. Thank you for your help Bhashaji (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bhashaji,

Firstly, please don't ping me each time you write a message like this, unless you're talking to me, or otherwise specifically want my attention.

Secondly, your draft was declined. If you want it to be reviewed again, you need to address the decline reasons and resubmit it. Or if you're just disputing the review, then you'll need to give some tangible reasons for this, not just say that you think it's fine.

I would also suggest that the best place to discuss this would be on the (most recent) reviewer's talk page, or alternatively on your own talk page while pinging the reviewer, not here at the Teahouse or an uninvolved editor's talk page.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for the clarification and help. I apologize for the ping and for any misunderstanding about the best place to discuss the draft review.

If possible, could you provide any specific areas where you feel the current references might still fall short? I want to ensure the draft aligns fully with Wikipedia’s standards and am happy to make any changes based on more specific guidance.

Thank you again for your help

Thanks & Regards,-- Bhashaji (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhashaji: primary sources do not establish notability, and that arguably includes the two churnalism pieces cited. Please study the WP:ORG notability guideline to see what sort of sources we need to see. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DoubleGrazing

Thank you for your clarification and help. I understand that primary sources do not establish notability and that secondary sources are essential. I have reviewed the WP:ORG notability guideline as you suggested. Based on this, I am actively searching for more independent, in-depth sources that provide substantial coverage beyond the current citations.

My goal is to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards with appropriate, reliable sources. I appreciate any more pointers you might have regarding suitable source types or further improvements.

Thank you again for your help.

Best regards,

Bhasha Bhashaji (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i edited [redacted] to include [redacted]. however, i am unable to find hard sources for it. Solomoncyj (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with any claim, no matter how familiar you may be with its veracity, if you're unable to find a source for the statement, it shouldn't be included in an article. Folly Mox (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solomoncyj. I have reverted your edits and hidden them in the page history as a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Never give alleged identities of living people without good reliable published sources. It could harm them whether the claim is true or not. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @PrimeHunterdid you also remove my request for citation sources, if so, why? i put it there to see if anyone can find credible sources to back up the claim Solomoncyj (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solomoncyj: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Without published reliable sources, a claimed secret identity of a living person doesn't belong anywhere at wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have found sources:

• https://pdfcoffee.com/keekihime-2-pdf-free.html
• https://somoskudasai.com/noticias/cultura-otaku/popular-cosplayer-es-atacada-en-un-evento/
• https://www.animegeeks.de/angriff-auf-cosplayerin-keekihime-waehrend-comiket-in-japan-sorgt-fuer-aufsehen

and can they be used? Solomoncyj (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solomoncyj: Two of those sources are about an attack by a stalker. If there is a secret identity then maybe it's protection against stalkers. Wikipedia is often the first result in search engines like Google. I would only consider mentioning an alleged identity if it had already been widely reported by very reliable sources. Your links look insufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Would you please help fixing the Link error?

• Source of the page link: Talk:2024 United States presidential election#Article shows signs of democratic bias

Regarding reference #4 subject: Is US economy better or worse now than under Trump?". BBC.com. - it shows the link error {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): Check date values in: |date= (help).}} however, I could not find the reason. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goodtiming8871. Fixed by [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:PrimeHunter you are a real champion, thank you. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the topic below is a concern about political views,

• link 2024 United States presidential election

and has been expressed by several users for more than 11 months or more.

However, the issue has not been resolved yet.

Could you please place it in this article? {{political POV}} Or would it be acceptable for me to place it in this article? I am not much experienced with Wikipedia, so I would appreciate your help. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodtiming8871 It is hardly surprising that this particular article has been subject to non-neutral POV-pushing, since the election itself only takes place tomorrow. Adding a template won't help. Instead, I suggest you post any specific concerns on the Talk Page of the article, after you have read the contents of the big yellow box at its top. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the election is tomorrow, I think it is the duty of Wikipedia users to add a template now,

so that many users are aware that the biased content is being criticized and that this is before it is resolved. In other words, since many users, even left-wing users, are currently saying that the content edited now is severely biased,

we should minimize the interference of biased Wikipedia content in the election.

I could add the relevant template part, but I have been involved in the process of neutrally correcting the biased edits, so I am asking for help from other users. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini

I used a recommended Tuningmeister (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuningmeister That article has over 300 page watchers, most of whom won't be looking at this Teahouse page. Please make your point at Talk:Pāṇini. You could suggest a re-phrasing, for example, based on the sources the article uses. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have 5 questions: 1st what exactly would be consired "formal writing" on Wikipedia? Could someone please show me when I added informal sentences to my draft. 2nd How much you need to write about a subject for it to have "significant coverage"? 3rd If the subject I am trying to add is fairly known (100 millions streams on one song of hers in spotify and 17,6k subscribers on Youtube, 27k the specific song was used in Youtube Shorts) but there isn't so much sites talking about her and interviews, what do I do? 4th Are those sources considered ok?: Pitchfork, The Fader, Serendeepity, stereogum, Tambourhinoceros, Youtube and Youtube Topic. 5th could someone give me an example to what to add my to draft? I have no idea, I thought it was pretty complete.

I further apology for the long reply but my draft has been declined 2 times and if it's declined 3 times I am quitting so I wanna improve as much I could possible could. Sorry x2. CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also an editor said something about putting banner inside the "shell"? Coulld someone explain CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy I'll take just one example. To her surprise, the single turned out to be very famous and acclaimed by the whole internet. That is both informal and, more importantly, uncited. Who said she was surprised and what evidence do we have that the whole internet acclaimed it? I'm afraid you have taken on the difficult task of writing a biography of a living person without understanding and complying with Wikipedia's very strict policy explained at that link. I suspect you have been writing your draft backwards and as that essay explains, this almost never succeeds. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of streams or subscribers doesn't matter. On youtube, see WP:RSPYT. Serendeepity seems to be a webshop, that doesn't help, but the Pitchfork (website) article looks usable. You should remove everything from Draft:Molina (singer) that you can't cite to a WP:BLP-good source. See also WP:ABOUTSELF. That you don't know her husbands name doesn't mean it's unknown, so just remove such bits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CrimsonScarletBurgundyy, every single substantive assertion in your draft must be referenced to a reliable published source, since your draft is a biography of a living person, and the standards for that type of article are stringent. Currently, vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, and, to be frank, that is unacceptable. Those assertions must either be referenced or they must be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Some editors are sabotaging my WP:RSOPINION edit stating "the source is not reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". Note that, the question is not "if it warrants includement into the artice". The question is: Is it WP:RSOPINION or not? Here is the text and then its source:

Buniyatov writes that the descendants of Khwarazmians call themselves Turkmens and they reside in the Musul and Kirkuk, the North of Iraq. Buniyatov further mentions that the descendants of Khwarazmians that call themselves Turkmens are referred to as Khurzumlular in Anatolia and there are 8 villages in Manisa, Turkey where Khurzumlular live as society.

And here is the source I attributed it to: Buniyatov, Z. The State of Khwarazmshah-Anushteginids. 1097—1231 М., 1986. page 159.

They are sabotaging my contribution and not constructive at all. Even threated to delete my COMMENTS, 1 of them threatened to get me blocked.

P.S.1.: As an indicator of contructive intention, I suggested them that they can oppose me under "due credit" (due weight) criteria, and in case they do so, I told them that I will add more sources covering the topic. P.S.2.: Besides the quoted part and source above, My contribution had another part that from an official government website corraborating the quoted part above. but I am not including it here. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Editors are expected to resolve differences by discussion, and if they are unable to reach consensus, to take steps outlined in dispute resolution. In most cases, there is no person in authority who can come in and decide a matter - so appealing here is not likely to be very useful. ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you. I am not appealing here. I just want outsider views/assessments so that they can maybe persuaded. What do you say? Is that WP:RSOPINION? 176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Dispute resolution lays out the steps to take to resolve a dispute. ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to look for a list of drafts I've created, and XTools only shows mainspace articles. Is there a Special: page or somewhere else that shows drafts a user has created? EF 18:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 If you navigate to Special:Contributions/EF5, you can use the drop-down to limit the search to the Draft namespace and also tick the box which says to only show page creations. This gets you to this search result, which is what you want, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've avoided doing too much on here but have recently started reading up on policies & guides etc. Thanks to only having an older phone & a Kindle at my disposal I didn't want to mess up articles too much!

I've written & corrected formal letters and documents at my job for over a decade, so I enjoy correcting typos, grammar & improving overall readability. With this in mind, would it be good for me to start with basic copy-editing? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet: Welcome to the Teahouse. We always welcome copyediting; I hope you have a basic understanding of the monstrosity that is Wikipedia's Manual of Style before you take on such an endeavour. You may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors at some point. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've dipped my toe into the Typo team, is that a better start do you think? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say for certain but I think it's a good start. Just make sure that words really do have a typo as some may be using a variant of English from nations that consider the spelling to be correct. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu Thank you! I'm starting with removing presumptuous language (avoiding quotes etc. as per instruction page) to get used to the MOS :) Blue-Sonnet (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do we have any policies about the use of foreign-language sources? Are they considered equally as appropriate or credible as English-language sources? It can be difficult to establish the credibility, notability, etc. for example of Japanese sources now being used on a site I heavily edit when I don't know any Japanese. Wolfdog (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wolfdog. Yes we do. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. A link at the top of that section is Wikipedia:Translators available. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If I am looking at a Wikipedia article for a person or organization I'm personally familiar with and notice copy editing errors, what is the correct protocol for handling that? In my specific case, I was looking at the article for the school affiliated with my church (of which I am an active member and in conjunction with which I have particiapted directly in events with said school) and noticed a typo. I tried to understand from the WP:COI guideline if it would be acceptable to simply edit in this kind of instance or if I should leave something on the talk page, etc. but I'm not sure—just want to make sure I'm following general guidelines, even if the actual edit is very straightforward in this case. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. As per policy, simple typo corrections are acceptable for an editor with a COI to make themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Missed that on the policy—was exactly what I was looking for. NerdyEpiscopalian (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To feature in extraordinary detail a "List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign" ... being a political news source (among other things), legally you are required to post an equally detailed "List of Democrats who oppose the Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign" article. It truly grieves us that several years ago, the great concept such of Wikipedia turned so blatantly biased, that Wikipedia's info cannot be deemed reliable as truth by roughly 55% of Americans. Please reconsider. 104.13.160.248 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news source, it is an encyclopedia. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss Democrats who oppose the Vice President's campaign as a distinct topic, you are welcome to create such a draft via the Article Wizard.

Wikipedia does not decide what is true, only what can be verified. See WP:TRUTH. Truth is in the eye of the beholder when people who storm the US captiol with a noose in an attempt to execute the Vice President are dismissed as "tourists" who a presidential candidate has pledged to release. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your hyperbole isn't exactly relevant to the issue at hand. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AzseicsoK The OP said "cannot be deemed reliable as truth"; I was simply emphasizing that Wikipedia isn't about the truth as they claim. It's absolutely true that the rioters had a noose and were chanting "hang Mike Pence" but the other side dismisses that. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such legal requirement, and how could it have been equally detailed as List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign when almost no significant Democrats are opposing her campaign? We do have List of Democrats who opposed the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign which was called List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign when he was still running. Democratic opposition to the Kamala Harris campaign seems so little and non-notable that an article is not warranted. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notable figures most often mentioned in this context are Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. Both those people severed their membership in the Democratic Party some time ago. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbard left the Democratic Party 25 months ago and RFK Jr. left the Democratic Party 13 months ago. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best known Democrat who opposes Harris may be Rod Blagojevich, the disgraced former governor of Illinois who had served 8 years of a 14-year prison sentence for corruption when Trump commuted his sentence. Now he supports Trump. Rather different from the numerous high-profile Republicans who oppose Trump, including many from his own administration. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such legal requirement, so it doesn't matter whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a news source, or a food truck that makes buffalo wings and has a website with a bunch of articles as a side gig. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, over the past 10-20 minutes (at the time of this being asked), I've been working a lot on the article Jørgen B. Lysholm. I moved it from Jørgen B Lysholm to Jørgen B. Lysholm, but in the page history, the move was classified as a minor edit? Why was this, and is this normal? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RedactedHumanoid. The move is classified as a minor edit at the new title [2] but not the old title [3]. This is normal. Before 2005 it wasn't even in the page history of the new title (see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Page histories). And moves are only in the page logs of the old title.[4][5] I don't support it but that's how it is. The move is shown at both titles at Special:Contributions/RedactedHumanoid so the move is still visible there if you hide minor edits. If a user was wacthing the old name then it remains in their watchlist and the new name is added so watchlists will also still show the move if you hide minor edits there. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new topic to the article, "Biting", I found some references and got it started fairly well, I thought. Every zoologist knows that these "true bugs" will bite. All of them. Someone kept editing my changes, deleting text and references. I got tired of that today and told him off sarcastically, and deleted the whole topic. I want to apologize to the community, but not to the ignoramus who says that bedbugs etc. don't bite, they "pierce". I will not do an edit war, I ain't got time for that, so I gave up. Wastrel Way (talk)Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wastrel Way,which article are you talking about?it will be easier to assist UnsungHistory (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(note to User:UnsungHistory, he's talking about Hemiptera, according to contrib history)

Hey Wasteral and welcome to Wikipedia! I understand how frustrating it can be to have your contributions undone by someone else, and I'm really proud of you for starting a discussion on the talk page instead of being stuck in an edit war.

You did back up your claims with WP:RELIABLE sources from what I saw, two different papers, so I'm not sure why the other user was reverting your claims and calling them "unreliable" and "ancedotal" on the talk page. These are primary however. - they can still be used but I recommend you check out our guideline on using these WP:PRIMARY (but you did seem to stick within these).

It's totally okay to just not want to be involved in a discussion anymore though, if you need some help finding something else to work on you can visit the Wikipedia:Task Center (or - one of my favourite tasks, add your opinion to some WP:AFD discussions, see a getting started guide here: Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD Engagement/HowTo).

I also see from your edit history that you're a biology PhD student - that's super cool and I'm really glad you are sharing your knowledge on Wikipedia. I recommend you see our notice to WP:EXPERTs on how to contribute and make sure to reference all claims. MolecularPilot 02:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was a zoology Ph.D. student about 50 years ago. I moved on to law and computers, and I am now retired. I like working on wikipedia and I've written a few articles. I thught the topic "Biting" was important enough for the article, but I'm giving up on that because I ain't got time for this. Probably I don't have much time for anything :-) Wastrel Way (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Eric[reply]

@Wastrel Way,you can always challenge people on the talk page,edit warring is discouraged (Wikipedia:Edit warring),i also advise you to see Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, i can see you and those reverting your edits are using different sources UnsungHistory (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wastrel Way Just a tiny 'point of order' from a retired 'Senior Keeper of Natural Sciences': You are incorrect to claim that all taxa within the Hemiptera will bite. Or, as you put it elsewhere: "every fucking single one of them." I presume you are referring to insects biting humans? Yes, as you know from experience, many of the larger taxa can indeed bite (or, rather, pierce) the skin of a human when provoked, and they can be exceedingly painful. But not the smaller species within this family, such as all the aphids. Making a claim that all of the Hemiptera can bite humans by piercing their skin would require some pretty reliable sources, and I simply do not believe they exist. But I'm always happy to learn new stuff if you can prove it to me! Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that correction, and obviously I was a bit overwrought when I wrote that. I was still in the process of adding to the topic with reliable sources. And it's hard to find reliable sources for things that are well-known to zoologists in the field, but have no real scientific notability. "Watch out for that bug, he can give you a bad bite" doesn't make it into the literature. Thanks. Wastrel Way (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Eric[reply]

I attempted to insert a infobox on my userpage but the wikitext did not convert into a infobox,if you look on my userpage now you will see an infobox because i used alternate methods (the insert tool in edit mode),but what kind of glitch is that?I can recall 2 such cases where the wikitext did not convert,the one on my userpage and one time on Joan Enric Vives i Sicília page when i tried to insert a contains outdated information tag and i actually accidentally published it but i reverted it so what is going on?? UnsungHistory (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey User:UnsungHistory. It sounds like you are in Visual Editor mode, if you'd like to use Wikitext instead of using the insert Template dialogue, you'll need to switch to the Wikipedia:Source editor. Hope this helps! MolecularPilot 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got a message "We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer."

How to solve this? kindly suggest Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sandeephbk2024, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know whether you intended to or not, but what you have submitted for review was your user sandbox User:Sandeephbk2024/sandbox, which has no textual content at all, and so absolutely cannot be accepted as an article.

You have also submitted Draft:Trivitron Health Care, which has been declined as its sources do not show significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and so do not establish the company as notable in Wikipedia's sense., ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more reference links and removed few content Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three of the sources still look to me like routine business coverage, @Sandeephbk2024. That's not enough: why is the company notable? ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find any other links. Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After years and years of making mostly (almost exclusively) very mechanical edits to Wikipedia, including major tweaking of tables, I discovered--literally just last night--what is called a "Sticky heading." With those, as a reader is scrolling through a long table, the heading--the row of captions for the columns--stay at the top of the screen. It's marvelous! I wonder why it isn't used more. Is there some downside to them? Or is it that most editors working on tables just aren't aware of it, as I myself wasn't until a few hours ago? Uporządnicki (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, they sticky table headings are very useful (if you have the right browser). Like you, I have that option selected in the Gadgets section of my Special:Preferences settings since I first noticed it. It's often worth browsing through not only the standard Preferences settings, but also the opt-in ones in Beta-features to see if some of them might be relevant to your own viewing and editing activities.

Looking at the sub-section it's in, I suspect that feature is a relatively new one. I note that I didn't include it a couple of year ago in one of my alternative accounts where I listed the difference between my personal preferences and those seen by a brand new user. (I might have to go back and edit it now you've reminded me) You can check out that list at User:NM Demo. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK: List of stars in Crux uses {{Sticky header}} which is from October 2023 and doesn't require the mentioned gadget. Nick Moyes is referring to the gadget Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view, i.e. "sticky" in the "Testing and development" section at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. In spite of the section name, it has been a gadget since 2017.[6] The gadget applies to all tables but works poorly for some of them. Editors presumably test that {{Sticky header}} works well on a table before saving it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Funny you mention it. I put that Sticky header template on the Crux list just this morning. (BTW, I misnamed it in my original post here.) Uporządnicki (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to write an article on Dostrotime, a 2024 album by Squarepusher. However, currently Dostrotime is a redirect that goes back to the artist page. How would I go about turning this redirect either into a draft or a new article? Beachweak (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beachweak Welcome to the Teahouse. All topics on Wikipedia need to meet our Notability criteria. You can read more on music album notability for standalone pages at WP:NALBUMS. Unless the album itself has met those criteria, or been written about in detail and in depth by a number of high quality, independent mainstream sources, a WP:REDIRECT would be the most appropriate things to have to help users find it. You should feel free to create or expand a section within the band's main article, if you wish.

To answer your theoretical direct question about creating a draft article and replacing the Redirect, simply start a draft article (the title isn't too important at this stage) and submit it to WP:AFC (You'll find a Wizard tool at that link to help you). If accepted as a valid stand alone article, a reviewer will rename and move it to replace the existing redirect link.

If you're honestly convinced that a topic is going to meet notability criteria, then you can start a draft or sandbox article and, when finished, replace the text at the redirect page with your article. But I would not advise that route, as others might still disagree with your assessment and revert back to the redirect again. Going through a draft process is the best advice as you'll get feedback along the way if your first submission fails to convince a reviewer.Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Beachweak, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Technically, it is possible to edit the redirect directly into an article (see WP:RTOA) but unless you are confident that you can create in one go an article that is sufficiently well referenced and written to survive a deletion discussion, I don't recommend it.

A better approach is to create a draft, using WP:AFC. When you think your draft is ready for mainspace, you can either submit it for review (in which case the accepting reviewer will handle moving it over the redirect); or, if you are confident it is good enough, you can post a request at WP:RM. ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Chippenham Park

Hi - I have a client who owns Chippenham Park. They have asked me to update the outdated image on Wikipedia (they have copyright), however I don't have permission. Can I get permission? Or can I submit the photo to replace the current one? Thanks for your help! https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Chippenham_Park Blue Check Shirt (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Check Shirt: Copyrighted images are not allowed at Wikimedia Commons, and allowed to a limited extent at Wikipedia. You will definitely need to see Wikipedia:Image use policy and then comply with it. --CiaPan (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan:. Of course copyright images are allowed on Commons, provided the copyright holder has licensed them with an appropriate Creative Commons license. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: THX, I've crossed the mistake out. --CiaPan (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Check Shirt Images are handled on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. There are instructions for how to upload an image on behalf of the copyright holder at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team. Basically, email is used for the photographer, who is the copyright holder in most cases, to confirm they license the image you upload. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Check Shirt Once uploaded and approved for use on Commons, photos would appear alongside the three other existing images there, which you can see at c:Category:Chippenham Hall. You can then select which image to insert - but do avoid using anything that purely promotes the current use as a wedding venue, if there are more informative and encylopaedic images of the property itself. I would venture to suggest that we would welcome multiple images of the property and grounds, including any old architectural drawings or maps that show the estate, providing they are over c70 years old, and thus out of copyright.

Oh, BTW: Should you wish to add any text content, other than insert a new image, you must ensure you declare your connection to the property and the article you want to edit. We have instructions to help you on this at WP:PAID. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is exactly what I needed! Blue Check Shirt (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope you are well. I notice lots of external references to archived antique items, I love these because then I get detailed photos. I tried to add some exactly like those for items that could benefit, but they got deleted. For example this https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Russo-Japanese_War_Medal could benefit greatly from this (which is not for sale and never will be again) https://militaryantiquestoronto.com/product/russo-japanese-war-medal-1904-1905-in-box/

Can anyone assist me in understanding better why many identical links are on the site but that one got deleted so I can better serve the community requirements? Thank you so much! AntiquesCollector (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiquesCollector You added a random link to a marketing website with no explanation, so it was deleted as spam. Thank you for wishing to add images, but to do so you need to carefully follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Images. If you are seeing "identical links" in Wikipedia please link to an example. Shantavira| 12:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely did not "add a random link to a marketing website". That is not true. AntiquesCollector (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To re-ask. We don't own external images so we can't upload them but there are thousands of links on Wikipedia that help us add context to entities we are learning about. Example ima-usa.com/products/british-p-1888-slade-wallace-equipment?variant=26168902341 is linked from Slade–Wallace equipment. My question is why I get deleted when I do the exact same thing.

For each link I added I made sure it was added extensive value through high quality photographs and I added an explanation for each addition. You might be confusing me with someone else? AntiquesCollector (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiquesCollector The example you quote is citation #9 in our article Slade–Wallace equipment. It is there to help readers verify the content of the text in our article. I'm not sure what your intention is when you referred to the 1904-5 medal link. Did you want to add that picture to a Wikipedia article? Or did you want to use the image as a citation verifying some content you proposed to add? I can't see anything in your contribution history to help me understand what you want to do. Please explain further and people here will help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike, that is very helpful and I'm grateful for the help. So for context, I added a link to this (not for sale, will never be for sale) https://militaryantiquestoronto.com/product/ww2-canadian-sten-gun-long-branch-1943-dated-dewat/ as a citation on the Sten Gun page, the reason being because it has such amazing photos and it gives perfect context to the fact that, here in Canada, the Sten design from Long Branch was slightly unique. The citation was removed. But it was identical in purpose to the IMA link, if not superior in terms of the extensively detailed photos. What did I do wrong that IMA did right please? Thank you again, deeply appreciate you taking the time to educate me. AntiquesCollector (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added a about a half-dozen links to that site in various places, which no doubt contributed to the idea that it was being link spammed. Is it your website, or are you associated with it in some way? MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. OK thank you that was very helpful. At least now I understand. No it's not my website. I'm friends with the owner but in the military collecting hobby everyone is friends, we all know each other. You won't find any collector who is not friendly with all the dealers. But I promise you I was not seeking to spam or create anything commercial, nor would I have benefited from that. I would never do that.

If you look at the photos you will agree they are the best to be found, anywhere. And that site is cleanest and easiest military collectible site to view photos on. That's the only reason I posted that particular link. In each case, same thing. It's simply about adding amazing context to historical items. Photos this good are hard to find, but they really do enhance the experience of learning about these items greatly. In the military collecting hobby 95% of the websites are outdated and not easy to surf. AntiquesCollector (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that references are intended to point the reader to a source that supports article content, not to point them in the direction of more general context or nice photos. If we want to illustrate an article, the correct approach is to upload and add the photo to the article so that readers can see it there - but that of course requires the uploader to have the appropriate permission to do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet that's exactly what these do? wikipedia.org/key/Special:LinkSearch?target=ima-usa.com

To be clear I am not arguing and I am grateful for your help Larry. At least I understand your position better now and that was very helpful and I thank you for that.

Anyone who thinks those links were spam never reviewed them in context. Ask any hobbyist. 100% of them will tell you they love those ref links and those photos. I don't own them so I can't upload anything. Literally that is the only clean website in the hobby with super detailed photos you can get through quickly. I guarantee you the users of that page would prefer those links be left instact. It's just a case of hammer nail. Editors looking for reasons to disinclude rather than seeking to provide the best quality information.

Again I deeply appreciate the help. You guys are aweome, it feels good to at least undertsand the unknowns here. Cheers. AntiquesCollector (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that there are similar links used inappropriately as references elsewhere on Wikipedia; if so, they should ideally be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, no, they help us. We love those links. Did you view? Example take a look here https://militaryantiquestoronto.com/product/ww2-us-army-m38-tankers-helmet/

You won't find more detailed, quick-to-surf-then-get-out photos anywhere on the web. We love that. 100% of the users of the page you're talking would upvote all these links. Nothing is purchasable on these pages Larry. They are archives that exist solely for educational value and all users would agree that the value they add is priceless. Some of these items are very rare and to really understand them it helps us deeply to be able to scroll through highly detailed imagery. The links should remain. They are not spam they are education. Again not arguing or disrespecting you in any way and deeply grateful for the feedback, you helped me understand this much better. AntiquesCollector (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are absolutely spam and should be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abolutely not. Please at least look, i.e. https://militaryantiquestoronto.com/product/ww1-canadian-cef-battalion-level-signal-lamp-in-transit-case-with-spares-1914-dated/

That item will never be for sale. Spam requires a commercial vector. There is no commercial vector to that item. It's gone, forever. The value here is only educational. If you were in the hobby you would understand how much value that link adds. Anyhow not here to argue with you sir. But no, they are not spam. There is no commercial vector. Thanks for the explanation nonetheless you've been helpful and I appreciate that. AntiquesCollector (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They might be the best photos available, but they don't fulfil the function of references on Wikipedia, which is explained at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it. I appreciate you taking the time to educate me. Cheers. AntiquesCollector (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AntiquesCollector: I may have missed it, but I don't think that anybody has linked to WP:external links in this discussion. That page explains when and how external links may (and may not) be used in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. Cheers. AntiquesCollector (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it advisable to include a comprehensive list of all the papers published by a renowned scientist, along with links to each one, when creating their profile page? Estermoyb (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estermoyb Absolutely not. You could select a representative set of examples (e.g. those most highly cited or discussed in third-party sources). Many scientists have their full bibliographies at the web of science and various other online sources which you could cite. It would help to know the person you plan to write about before we give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone!

I've just translated the article for Monopol Magazine into English, but unfortunately, Wikipedia isn’t allowing me to complete the translation on my own. Could anyone help review and publish it?

Here’s the draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:Monopol_Magazine IlEssere (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IlEssere I suggest you submit Draft:Monopol Magazine to WP:AFCREVIEW and you'll get advice from the editors who specialise in doing reviews. You might like to check the History section, which at present still has part in German at the end. Also, I'd advise adding more sources to confirm wikinotability and so readers can verify the statements which at present have no sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how to share 2409:40D4:3063:8148:5C23:7B2A:54E6:4968 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. What is it you want to share? If you mean that you want to reuse content from Wikipedia for some other purpose, please see WP:REUSE. Otherwise, you'll need to clarify. ColinFine (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about,give more context please UnsungHistory (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]