Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Does Wikipedia have a left-leaning bias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism vs. Disruptive Editing

What is the difference between vandalism and disruptive editing? to me, it seems that they are the same thing, because many disruptive edits are listed as "vandalism" even if they may not be. 142.114.1.184 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Vandalism is disruptive editing but not all disruptive editing is vandalism. It is possible to act in good faith and still be disruptive(like someone constantly, unintentionally misspelling a word requiring others to clean up after them). Vandalism is acting in bad faith. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is disruptive editing that's intentionally disruptive.

But some disruptive editing can be unintentional, and thus not vandalism. For example an editor might be unfamiliar with policies, like using reliable sources, and display little willingness to learn; or they might have poor English skills; or they might just lack competence (see WP:COMPETENCE). Sometimes an editor is making a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia, but for one reason or another their contributions are disruptive—but they're not vandalism, even though penalties do exist for consistent disruptive editing even when it's in good faith. GhostOfNoMan 19:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, GhostOfNoMan. Please don't refer to "penalties". Blocks (in particular) are not penalties, they are a mechanism for preventing further damage to Wikipedia. See WP:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Valid point – they're not meant to be punitive. I would have opted for "sanctions" instead, the language preferred by various policy pages (like WP:NOTPUNISHMENT), but the simple English definition of "to sanction" is still just the imposition of a penalty. Rephrasing to avoid these common English terms can feel like an exercise in prolixity, but I appreciate it's an important point to clarify for new and unfamiliar editors. GhostOfNoMan 20:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is the destruction of Wikipedia's purpose (which is to provide encyclopedic content). Examples of vandalism include adding nonsense, inappropriate external links, promotional content, unexplained content removal, BLP violations and repeated addition of copyrighted material. Disruptive editing is the disruption of improving an article. Not all disruptive editing is vandalism, but all vandalism is disruptive. An example of disruptive editing is adding copyrighted content (one time only). But that's like the only example of disruptive editing that I can think of. See WP:Vandalism and WP:Disruptive editing for more information. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As said above, while all vandalism is disruptive editing, not all disruptive editing is vandalism. The difference comes from a few factors, with the most important ones being:

• Was the editor genuinely trying to improve the article?
• Do they co-operate and engage with people to discuss their edits and why they may be considered disruptive?
• Do they continue to make the same type of edits without any change in behaviour?

Let's use one of the most well-known spelling debates on the planet as an example. Say that an American user decides to visit the aluminium article to look something up. After skimming the article, they think to themselves "the spelling's all wrong!", so they change every mention of the metal to be spelt aluminum instead because that's what they've grown up with and they find that extra "i" confusing. This would certainly be disruptive editing, but because the editor was trying to "fix" the article and made their edit with good intentions, it isn't vandalism.

However, if that same user rejects all community advice and warnings and continues to revert the spelling back because "that's how it should be!!", then it becomes vandalism. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is when they try to improve an article but failed. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Electrou: That is not always the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Most disruptive editing made by IP users are most likely on purpose, and disruptive editing by registered newcomers are almost if not always accidental. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Chatting with other Wikipedians

I’m looking for a place on Wikipedia where I can chat with other Wikipedians about things that are not related to Wikipedia. Some websites have places where community members have a chatroom for things not specific to what the community is about, but wasn’t sure if something like this exists on or off Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe any such place exists on Wikipedia itself (WP:NOTFORUM), but if you're comfortable with IRC there are social channels like #Wikipedia-coffeehouse and #Wikipedia-offtopic (and many, many more). Alternatively, Discord. GhostOfNoMan 19:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, please read WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. A little bit of chit-chat is permitted on user talk pages among editors who already know each other. There is no chatroom on Wikipedia itself. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish someone talked to me 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: You can find groups of Wikipedians chatting on most social forums - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Mastodon, etc. There are also real-world meetups which often mix editing and technical support with social activities. You may find details on the talk page of the WikiProject about the country or place where you live; such as WT:WikiProject New York. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. I will definitely check it out. Interstellarity (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

possible copyright violation or maybe content copied from WP

A random Task Center task led me to try to improve an article about a notable statistician, Kanti Mardia, with an inactive talk page. Here's a 2023 version from before I started working on it (a few other editors have made changes in between, but only ref work). I found a possible citation for some of the unsourced claims on Mardia's WP page -- a somewhat hagiographic NRI Today article that says "last updated Jun 30, 2024" -- and I used it a couple of times as a citation for WP claims that had been unsourced. But then I realized that a lot of the contents of the NRI Today article and the preexisting version of Mardia's WP page were similar, with some identical text.

The relative dates on the two made me think that the NRI Today article was based on and partially copied from Mardia's WP page; that meant that the NRI Today article wasn't a reliable source, so I removed it as a citation.

However, "last updated" suggests that there could have been an earlier version of the NRI Today article, and if so, parts of the WP article might have been copied from that. I did a date-limited internet search and checked the Internet Archive, but neither confirmed that there had ever been an earlier version of the NRI Today article.

Since I'm raising copyright issues, I'll also note that a couple of times, as I've tried to improve articles, I've been convinced that (part of) a sentence was copied from a copyrighted source. Both times, I altered the WP text so there was no longer a copyright violation, but didn't do anything beyond that.

My questions:

• Is it sufficient to have made my best guess that NRI Today copied from WP rather than vice versa, or do I need to report it for more official assessment?
• If I'm correct that NRI Today did the copying, should I note that somewhere (e.g., on the talk page)?
• When I encounter a copyright violation for a small amount of text (e.g., a sentence or part of a sentence), is it sufficient to rewrite the WP text, or do I also need to report it?

Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the copyvio report, most of the shared phrases (e.g. directional statistics, multivariate analysis, geostatistics, statistical bioinformatics and statistical shape analysis, inserted in Special:Diff/208492553) were developed on Wikipedia a long time ago and in an "organic" way (i.e. gradually and at different times). This makes me pretty confident that it was developed on Wikipedia first, and NRI Today is a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. This should indeed be noted on the talk page, using the {{backwards copy}} template. It could also be listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks § How to list new mirrors. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa, thank you for all of that info. I wasn't familiar with that copyvio tool, which is useful, though I was also looking at close paraphrasing, which may take a human to judge. I was also thinking about the extent to which the overall contents of the two pages was similar, and trying to assess whether that NRI Today article was a RS (had it been a RS, it would have been very helpful as a citation for unsourced contents on the WP page). It hadn't occurred to me to use the revision history to check how the contents of the WP page evolved over time, and I now realize that's obviously something I should have done. I will note the backwards copy on the talk page. Thanks again, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Overreach of rollback tools when reverting good faith edits?

Hello, Teahouse hosts.
I've been back on the anti-vandalism battlefield but have noticed a lot of well-intended good faith edits across multiple editors, but need reverting because they do not contribute to the article or they do not know the stylistic elements of Wikipedia. However, when I revert the edits, I use the rollback summary tool to revert these edits—as I have been inactive for quite some time and have lost my knowledge of policy, I would like to ask you, the hosts: am I overreaching/abusing my rollback powers through reverting good faith edits, or is reverting through rollback perfectly reasonable in cases like this? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 05:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi 3PPYB6, if I remember correctly rollback is strictly allowed to be used in clear cases of vandalism. However, it can also used to to revert "widespread good faith edits" which need to be undone, provided you supply and explanation on a relevant talk page. To revert good-faith edits on a case-by-case basis while patrolling recent changes, tools such as WP:UV or Twinkle are recommended to use. --Ratekreel (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratekreel – OK. I had been assuming that since the tool allowed me to explain my rationale on a case-by-case basis then I had free license to use whatever reversion tool I wanted under the condition I explain it in a generated edit summary; perhaps I should tone down the usage of rollback summary in future cases then. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@3PPYB6: Some people, like myself, get really annoyed when vandalism tools are used to revert my good-faith non-vandal edits. I recommend using WP:UNDO for all good-faith non-vandal edits. Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus – thanks for letting me know. I'd also definitely feel disheartened if someone else just straight-up rolled back my edit without providing a summary—with regards to if they rolled back my edit with a summary I'd be more understanding but it's nice to get other experienced editors' perspectives on this. Thanks for letting me know; I will tone down the usage/applications of rollback to obvious vandalism/problematic edits only. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Why can't I upload non-free files to drafts?

Just asking, THIS is the draft. Lucasfergui1024 (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable question. Unfortunately I'm not quite certain of the answer. While you're waiting for a worthwhile response, a tip: Get some sources that are independent of WiiLink. (Also, perhaps explain "revival server".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a legal reason, but a practical reason is that the inclusion of images in a draft does not contribute towards notability or affect the likelihood of a draft being approved, so adding any images is a waste of time while the article is still a draft. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's because a person using another person's work that is not freely licensed does not fall under "fair use", because you are using it to enhance your own work without the permission of the non-free file copyright holder. In any event, Shantavira is quite correct that images (free or otherwise) are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lucasfergui1024, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why the policy is stricter than the general principle of Fair use is explained at the beginning of the WP:Non-free Content Criteria. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Fair use" is at the bottom of it. Wikipedia's fair-use of non-free material is almost always based on the concept that we're advancing knowledge. Article pages in main space advance knowledge. Drafts do not, because they're not yet in a form that we expect readers to read. Therefore non-free material (usually images) must be omitted from the draft until it is moved into main-space to fulfil its educational and informative destiny! Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lucasfergui1024 – The straight-up answer is that Rule 7 of the non-free content criteria stipulates that any non-free file needs to be used in "at least one article", that article being in the mainspace as opposed to draftspace. Otherwise, the source is classified as an orphaned non-free file, which is eligible for speedy deletion under CSD F5 after seven days of not being used in any article in the mainspace (think about it this way: we need a reason to use it. If it's orphaned and it has no use, copyright pirates could steal that and the costs would far outweigh the benefits in such a case, which would be none). Since your article is still a draft, such a file would not count for the "at least one article" criteria per Rule 7, so therefore the image would still be technically orphaned and would be eligible for F5 speedy deletion unless you get that article accepted into the mainspace. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 03:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, with regards to your logo—I found this logo online and it looks like it is not original enough for copyright in itself—it is a mere irregular pentagon with text inside that is in a common enough font that I could recreate that in 5 minutes. As such, it may qualify for the public domain by virtue of it being too simple for copyright, but you may want to err on the side of caution and take my advice with a grain of salt... — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 04:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to correction to be made.

Its about this page: Adiabatic flame temperature

It seems to me that in the table: Adiabatic flame temperature (constant pressure) of common fuels

the values for "butane" are incorrect.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.0.126.72 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Do you have a reliable source which gives different values? -- D'n'B-t -- 11:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am noticing some sources give 1,970°C but with different starting variables. Was that the value you were expecting it to be? The source that's currently being used is also used to give a value for the adiabatic flame temp of Naphtha, so if we are to belive that source to be unreliable, then it'd help to also have an alternative for that as well. -- D'n'B-t -- 12:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

References

That sciencedirect citation link is to a "topic" article, which is a deprecated source. See the WP:RSPS table about sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I just picked that as an example - I'm not particuarly suggesting using that one in the article. The point is that so far, the question asker has neither suggested a preffered source nor what they think the correct figure should be. My feeling is that the article should probably be left as is for the time being. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

First Article Declined

Hi everyone, my name is Olalekan and my first attempt to get an article published has just been declined. I have read through the reasons given but not quite clear about those reasons, especially ones that relate to reliable sources. All the sources I used in referencing the content of the article are reputable institutions like VON, Punch Newspapers, among others. Please enlighten me. Olalekanbabx (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Hilary Damissah. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Olalekanbabx You must not only find reliable sources but cite them inline to the text. We have a strict policy for biograpies of living people which you should read. At present, for example, the career section has no references at all, making it impossible for readers to verify the information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you a bunch, will work on that... cheers! Olalekanbabx (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Maximum resolution for album covers and game box art

Hi! I’ve got a straightforward question: What are the maximum dimensions for album covers and game box art? Most covers I’ve seen tend to be around 300px, but I’ve also heard that the maximum is 500px. LordRapture (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images should generally have at most 0.1 megapixels. For square images, this gives a maximum resolution of 316×316. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Image resolution. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is where you got "500 pixels" from: This allows, for example, images with a 4:3 aspect ratio to be shown at 320 × 240 pixels (common for screenshots from TV, films, and video games), while allowing common cover art to be shown at 250 × 400 pixels. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi

If we change our name, do we have to reapply for our rights? For example, I had AFC reviewer rights, but they are no longer working after the name change. Thank you Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to reapply, but WP:AFC/P will need to be updated. Just comment under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants § Rename (Oct) and an admin will handle it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Cabayi already handled it. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Jlwoodwa. :) Jannatulbaqi (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Rescuing sources Lopez v. Seccombe

I came across Lopez v. Seccombe through the community portal task page for copy editing and I would love to do more with it, but sources that are cited repetedly through out the article go to broken links or (I'm assuming) somewhere unintended based on what it's supposted to be a citation for. Reference 1 and 5 are the two causing me the most trouble. I tried to follow the steps for rescuing resources but I'm so confused and still new at this. I'm happy to work on this article further, but in order to really fix the tone, I need to be able to access the links. Can anyone give me a hand with this? S1mply.dogmom (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@S1mply.Dogmom There is a link to WP:LINKROT in the box at the top of the article. That's where the advice for dealing with this is given. Ref #1 works for me (in the UK) to see a simple dictionary definition but might not for you if you are elsewhere. Ref #5 fails but that's a bit odd since doi are supposed to be updated long-term. I'll try to fix that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

.... I've added a Google books link to ref #5, with search term "mexican". You may be able to search for other relevant items at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@S1mply.Dogmom, based on the page content that's referenced to ref #1, it looks like the reference given (to an OED definition) is a mistake, and it was supposed to be a link to this dissertation named Sol y Sombra. Dissertations aren't necessarily the most reliable sources (see this discussion). For ref #5, it looks like the publisher's website has changed, this is the current page for that book. But I'm not sure if WP should link to that page, since it allows sales of the book. A more experienced editor than I am will need to address that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This diff confirms that ref #1 is supposed to be a dissertation titled Sol y Sombra, written by Mark Ocegueda. For some unknown reason, that editor added a link to the OED definition of "sol y sombra," and then later, another editor removed the original citation to Ocegueda's dissertation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing problems aside, this article is bizarre. My first guess (without looking at the history) is that at least one person had the requisite skills to create a lucid article, and used these; and that later somebody quite different (perhaps an earnest but unskilled child) added sentences with the honorable aim of ease of understanding but with ghastly results. How about just deleting anything that both (i) is unsourced and (ii) doesn't seem to contribute to an otherwise cohesive paragraph, and also considering the deletion of anything that's either (i) or (ii)? But before doing so, look through the history and find if there's a better version to which the article can be reverted. ¶ As for dead links, start with the Wayback Machine; though you may have to wait some time while it fends off vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Following the page history, it was created by two BYU students as part of a course requirement and doesn't seem to have changed a great deal since they stopped working on it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I don't want to embarrass either of them, so shan't look. S1mply.dogmom, I've commented on a sample section here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Jeebus, this thing is bad. IANAL, but wouldn't Lopez v. Seccombe be a decision, or a case, or both? I looked within the article for a decision or case, and found it mentioned in the last section, titled "Aftermath" -- suggesting to me that Lopez v. Seccombe fell within the aftermath of itself. (Uh, what?₁) And in the very lead of the article: "despite the cities restricted limits". (Uh, what?₂) -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

IFrame related question

I wondered can I iframe Wikipedia pages without any permission, or do I need someone to allow me to? I researched online but i am not into legal stuff so I am kinda confused. Under iframing Wikipedia, i mean have a part of my software have iframes of Wikipedia pages. SuperMakerRaptor (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@SuperMakerRaptor I also have a very weak grasp of anything legal, but the gist is you can directly copy Wikipedia so long as you attribute it (i.e., "I got this stuff from a Wikipedia article, here's a link:") That's because Wikipedia is published under a free license, not copyrighted. I see no reason why iframes should be an exception to this rule. So the answer is "yes, I think so". Don't sue me if I'm wrong, though :) Cremastra (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To be precise, Wikipedia is copyrighted, but it's published under a free license (one that allows reproduction subject to a few conditions). Copying a Wikipedia article without attribution is a copyright violation, and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks § Non-compliance process describes how to deal with such violations. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So that would mean "Yes" as long as I say "I took this and this from Wikipedia"?

I was thinking of doing this nonetheless but just to confirm. SuperMakerRaptor (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@SuperMakerRaptor That's a "yes". See WP:REUSE for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have with this question, SuperMakerRaptor, is that you are assuming that Teahouse hosts will understand what you mean by "IFrame" when IFrame is a disambiguation page with four possible meanings. So, how are Teahouse hosts (or anyone else) able to figure out which meaning you are referring to? Please be specific and precise. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: In this case the only interpretation that makes any sense is HTML_element#Frames. Polygnotus (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, Polygnotus, but why should Teahouse hosts unfamiliar with the connotations be forced to guess? Especially when the link you provided does not use the term "IFrame". I am not an expert in the computer science concept of "frames" and neither are 99.9% of our readers. Editors need to explain concepts in simple terms readily accessible to general readers, not just experts. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the link provided lists 4 types of frames, and iframes are the 4th (An inline frame places another HTML document in a frame.). On the one hand you are correct, on the other hand sometimes when you use jargon all day every day it can be difficult to switch it off when talking to people who are (perhaps) not used to it. As someone who has to explain nerdy stuff to non-nerdy people a lot I know how difficult it is to pick what words to use and which to avoid, and how to explain concepts. Sometimes I am perceived to be condescending because I explain something someone already knows, or avoid a term someone already knows, and sometimes I am not understood or misunderstood because I assume someone knows something they don't. Communicating effectively is incredibly difficult. Polygnotus (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I learned the basic principles of COBOL and FORTRAN programming using Hollerith punch card data entry in the 1970s. It took me several days to get feedback, not microseconds. I did not become a computer industry professional but instead used many generations of software to assist my career in construction management. I have always insisted on jargon free explanations in my work life and expect the same on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I can easily write 10 jargon-filled sentences that would take a decent-sized novel to fully explain without using any jargon. Therefore I believe that jargon can be a useful tool, or a hindrance, depending on context. I try to make the barrier to communicate with me as low as possible and I try to avoid making demands that have not been communicated and agreed to beforehand. When I am not sure that I understand a question I sometimes ignore it and hope someone else answers it, and sometimes I ask for clarification. Polygnotus (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

To give another perspective on this, when I read this, I knew what OP was asking about: <iframe>Wikipedia url here (I think)</iframe> . No way professionally involved in IT, but the late 1990s and early 2000s I did pleasantly waste time making GeoCities pages for fun. At work there's "legacy" something that requires accessing an iframe link to print as a .pdf file. When I say, "well, you have to view the HTML source code...", I must admit I'm quite surprised when a number of my colleagues in their twenties just look at me and say, "the what?" Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How to remove 3 issues with my first Wikipedia entry

I posted my first wiki article at Chief AI officer and got it accepted with 3 issues that I tried to address in my notes. Can you help walk me through the process to address outstanding issues and see if I'm missing somthing? I don't know who to ask to remove it and don't know if, as author, I'm allowed to given a conflict of interest. Thanks - Jon J2000ai (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@J2000ai You declared a conflict of interest regarding a biography you wrote but not specifically for Chief AI officer, which I guess is a much more generic topic. Please read the COI guidance I have linked and decide how much any COI might affect your further editing (e.g. because you want to use sources you wrote). Authors are normally free, indeed encouraged, to improve articles in mainspace but if you are in any doubt about your COI you can instead suggest improvements via the article's Talk Page. There is an edit request wizard to help draw your suggestions to the attention of others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. None of the 3 issues tagged to my "Chief AI Officer" article are related to conflict of interest (COI). Nonetheless, I updated my bio page so my position as an interdisciplinary AI researcher hopefully allays this concern in the future. For the CAIO article I have no conflict of interest in writing this general article on the emerging CAIO executive position per Wikipedia's COI guidance. There are no citations to sources I or anyone I know wrote. The sources are nearly universally esteemed and well-recognized (CIO mag, IBM, McKinsey, Harvard, etc.). It was just an important topic that I know about and thought should have a wiki article.

However, to speak to the original issue of the 3 issues tagged on the CAIO article, do you know how long it will take for someone to review my changes to address each of them? Is there something more I can do to accelerate the process?

Thanks, J J2000ai (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@J2000ai Your choices are either to be bold and remove any tags that you believe no longer apply or to WP:PING to the Talk Page the editor(s) who applied the tags, which you'll find in the history tab of the article, asking them if their concerns are now addressed. As you are a relative newcomer here, I'd advise the latter approach but if you get no response after about a week, go ahead anyway based on WP:SILENCE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing web sources where URL doesn't point to specific page?

So I'm editing Kalipada Biswas page right now (adding info and removing some less-than-neutral POV), and there is information on the Indian National Academy of Science website, which I found from the first external link on page. However, when you travel to the are a of the website that includes information about him, it still only lists the generic URL of the search page: [1] Even if you search for the name "Kali Pada Biswas" and click on his name that comes up. What's the best way to cite this? Cyanochic (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, every page on the internet has a unique URI that distinguishes it from all others. When you say, "it still only lists the generic URL of the search page", what is "it"? I assure you the page that has the info you want has a unique address; have you tried to pull it from the browser address bar? Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the text in my browser address bar is what's not changing. If I go to the link I put above and paste it in the browser address bar, the text is: https://insaindia.res.in/deceased-fellow/ (which is a search page). If I then search "Biswas" and click on the "link" that says "Biswas Kali Pada" (or click on "B" and then click on "K Biswas"), it shows entirely new information that I could not scroll to on the previous page, BUT the address in the address bar is still exactly the same: https://insaindia.res.in/deceased-fellow/. I can also use the back button and it does go back to the "search" page instead of showing the information about the person.

Is it possible it has a unique URI and not URL? Cyanochic (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking some more, the main page uses HTML frames, meaning it is embedding another URI into the main page, and that is causing what you are seeing. If you open that frame as its own page and execute the search, you can see that the result is at URI https://insaindia.res.in/07062023_no.php?id=N50-0105, which when you do it from the main page is in the embedded frame, so you don't see the URI in the browser. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

ah you responded while I was replying. Thank you for the help! Cyanochic (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic: Mathglot found a direct link here but some websites don't have any url to show the result from entering a form. Then you can use at at Template:Cite web#In-source locations to briefly say what you have to do, e.g. |at=Search on Kali Pada. That's the only search I could find which only gives him. Don't add obvious details like "Click on his name". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Great to know this template exists, thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

Can any user (like me) welcome new users, or is there a specific group of people who are the only ones allowed to welcome new users? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

RedactedHumanoid, Any user may welcome new users. See Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for more details, and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates for some templates you can use. Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

General practice is to not post a Welcome template on the Talk page of an IP address or on the Talk page of a new account until after that person has begun to edit articles. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually do not adhere to that practice, if indeed it is one. I follow my own sense of whether a welcome message is appropriate case-by-case. Often, I feel it is, for example when I see a thoughtful comment or sincere question on an article Talk page. This could make an interesting discussion, and if interested in carrying this further, we should probably change venues, to WT:WC. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot If you simply remove the very last word of David notMD’s response, I think you won’t disagree with it. Because so many user accounts are automatically created, or never ever edit, it’s a waste of time welcoming hundreds of users who haven’t made a single edit anywhere at all, and never will. I certainly feel happy to ‘welcome’ a new user who has made just the one edit here, or on some other non-article page. Common sense applies. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, taking away the last word is a very different sort of statement. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:Twinkle, which is useful tool for both welcoming people and, when required, leaving warning messages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would add a personal plea - please be sure the edit you are welcoming them for is not vandalism. I have often had to warn an editor for vandalism, or other problems, immediately after the welcome template, which dilutes the importance of the subsequent warning. - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User page

Hello, I've been creating an article in my sandbox (User:Blackballnz/sandbox), and have found that the two versions that I see when I click on 'edit source' are different. It appears that some of the paragraphs I've written are not appearing on the user page. I haven't seen this before, and am unsure what to do about it. thanks Blackballnz (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz:, what two versions? They all seem there to me. Give me an example of a paragraph in the wikicode (the 'edit source' version) that you do not see in the sandbox page, by quoting the first five or so words of the paragraph below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

In the section 'vampire legend', the second paragraph in the wikicode starts 'According to dramatist Racso Miro Quesada: “Her husband J.P. Roberts travelled the world trying to find a place to bury his wife...'

But I can't see this paragraph in the right side. Ditto with the next paragraph 'In one version, John Roberts travelled around Europe...' Blackballnz (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I see the problem – you've got some unclosed <ref> tags. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it was a problem with the references. I made this edit and now when you edit that section you see what you expect to see. See WP:REPEATCITE and WP:NAMEDREFS. Polygnotus (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Kennedy

Resolved

I am surprised that no mention is made of Patrick Kennedy’s health history in which he had a leg partially amputated due to cancer when he was young. This may mitigate his issues with drug addictions. I only remember this from public news services at the time. 2601:603:703:FA50:EC28:BEF3:B81D:D820 (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Edward M. Kennedy Jr. Blackballnz (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

As I am neither American nor Irish I'm not sure which Patrick Kennedy you are talking about, but the best place to discuss this is the talk page of the relevant article (once you have found it on that list). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The guy whose leg was partially amputated is Edward M. Kennedy Jr.

Patrick J. Kennedy had a drug problem and a non-cancerous tumor near his spine. Two different people. Polygnotus (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

New rights

I was searching on various wikiprojects such as new pages patrol, articles for creation etc on how to get these user rights, and one of the criteria they mentioned was having "prior experience with its processes for handling articles" and "a demonstrated understanding of the policies and guidelines".

How do I show/get this experience in order to get these rights?

Thank you, TNM101 (chat) 05:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TNM101. You are a new user with 322 edits and your attempts at new content creation to date do not show a good understanding of Wikipedia's Core content policies. You demonstrate those competencies by editing in ways that show that you are fully conversant with those essential policy areas. For an obvious example, when you comment on anything related to Articles for Creation, your comment should demonstate a deep understanding of Notability, the Reliability of sources and the nuances of the Neutral point of view. An administrator considering granting advanced permissions will expect you to demonstrate those competencies over and over and over again, not just once or twice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have another question. Is it allowed for new users to participate in discussions relating to afc, afd, itn or is it reserved for administrators? TNM101 (chat) 07:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it is allowed, but it is wise to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines first. I would recommend lurking first. Polygnotus (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and according to what you mentioned, I have been observing ITN discussions for a long time as I find it quite interesting. Nevertheless, I will go through the policies again and make sure I have full knowledge of them. TNM101 (chat) 07:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:USERRIGHTS are not a goal to strive towards, they are something you get when you need them and have demonstrated that you can use them correctly. Polygnotus (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Participating in AfD discussions does not require any special rights. The key issue is often notability. for this, an understanding of the criteria for notability, the nature of the article (corporate, biography of living person, musician, etc.) and quality of references are useful. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it an error?

"not take responsibility by providing support for the child. In the past, the solution to such problems was often a shotgun wedding, a forced marriage"

In the above text, in the Wikipedia page titled "Statutory Rape", the above text should say "by not providing support for the child". But right now it says "by providing support". Do you agree that the word "not" is missing? Writing is easy (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree. The phrase is already negated at 'not take responsibility' adding a second 'not' would be a double negative. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, I do agree with MrOllie, but I also see where your question comes from. In my view, it is the preposition by which is at fault here, because the prep. phrase with by can be read as an appositive, thereby appearing to describe "providing support" as an equivalent of "not taking responsibility". If instead you change the prep. to of, then you would have from males who might... not take [the] responsibility of providing support for the child, where the prep. phrase becomes the object of the negated participial noun phrase, and is much less likely to be read in the wrong way, or ambiguously. I would say if you wanted to change anything, change the preposition, not the negative particle. Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mathglot: I thank you. I've never met anyone who knows and comprehends the intricacies of grammar as well as you do. Thank you. So now that we've found the error. Can I trouble you to please fix it for everyone. You can fix it in one move, and you're move will be correct. I would flounder and founder there. (I'm attempting to use those two words which are kind of new for me. I immigrated here at age 7 from Ecuador. Thanks! Writing is easy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article

Do good article nominations happen whenever or at a precise time of the year? WikiPhil012 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012, there is no specific time. An article can be nominated at any time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012 Just to add that, if you’re thinking about nominating an article for WP:GA status, you are expected to put have put in the work already to ensure it meets that status and/or to be prepared to fix any identified issues. It not a ‘flag it and run away’ process. It’s a commitment you should be prepared to make, and have the necessary editing experience to resolve the issues others have highlighted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPhil012 Any time of year. Details are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Get the article as close the criteria as you can before nomination, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a misnomer page.

The "Department of Corrections" is misnamed. It oversees all the jails. It should be officially renamed the Department of Punishment by Confinement or the Department of Punishing Confinement, or the Department of Punishment, or the Department of Confinement, or the Department of Convict Seclusion or the Department of Preventive Seclusion or the Department of Convict Extrication From Society. Writing is easy (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, Wikipedia uses the terminology in articles that reliable sources use. We do not use terminology made up by individual Wikipedia editors. 17:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Writing is easy, this isn't the place to right great wrongs; if you feel your Department of Corrections is misnamed, then you need to go to your relevant legislative body and request that it be changed. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so very very much. Excellent how Wikipedia explains its purposes. You showed me how to find that. I am smiling and feel most grateful to you. Writing is easy (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:COMMONNAME 🙂 I did find some of your suggestions amusing however ! CareerDoofus (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Descripton of remigration

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

---

Edit that the first descripton of remigration should not be "Far-right". In the same way that globalism, mass-immigration or multiculturalism isn't described as "far-left" in wikipedia.

"Hello, I'm Gaismagorm. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Remigration seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]"

Me: "Hello Gaismagorm. I think there is an error in the page. remigration defintion: The meaning of REMIGRATION is the act of migrating again; especially : the act of returning to one's original or previous home after a migration. To conclude that this concept is in all aspects "far-right" is the same as saying that globalism or multiculturalism is "far-left". Neither of these are correct or helpful, or factual. Thank you a lot, I will proceed further with this matter in case it is not revised or seriously looked at. If this is not removed, then it seems only natural that globalism and multiculturalism be revised as far-left, which I will also follow up on. Best regards," DK2828 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

DK2828, the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk: Remigration. Please be aware that making a significant change to article B and C because you do not like what article A says is a form of disruptive editing. Refrain from doing that. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Assessing reliability of an online news source

I read WP:NEWSORG and it mentions "less-established sources." Is there a page that explains how exactly to assess whether a news organization is established?

I found a source yesterday I wanted to add as a reference in a software article. I looked into the source and it's an online news website that's pretty new (from 2022) and the writers are mostly freelancers and lots of the articles don't name the writer. It seemed good quality writing. I'm not asking about this specific source though, but for general advice for the future.

In these circumstances how am I meant to decide if it's "well-established"? I can think of common sense answers like appearing high on Google, getting mentioned on other reputable news organizations, having many articles that are well-written, and stuff like that. Is there any guidelines about this? I've seen editors say "so and so isn't reliable because it isn't an established reliable source" but I can't tell what criteria they are using or if they're just deciding themselves based on some factors. It's the "established" part that I'm not clear with.

I'm basically new to doing editing that isn't just cleaning up typos so I'm trying to familiarize myself with rules and policies before I make changes. My first language as well isn't English (or my second) so I apologize if I've put anything unclear. Thank you. CareerDoofus (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus, You may be interested in WP:RSP and WP:RSN. Most well-established news sources should appear at RSP. If you give me links to pages, I can make more thorough assessments based on your exact situation. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit other users' comments?

Is it ok to correct typos or format problems in other users' replies on talk pages? Is that frowned upon/unacceptable? If generally it's not allowed, what if it's to fix layout for example when their edit, to add their reply, somehow breaks something in the page? CareerDoofus (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus: Welcome to the Teahouse. You will want to read WP:TPO for guidelines in editing other people's comments for what is and isn't considered appropriate. In my experience other people's typos or other errors are left as is, and correcting them may be seen as annoying and in the worst case, disruptive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@CareerDoofus I agree with Tenryuu. It might be OK to fix an error affecting layout within a thread that you're actually currently involved in. But we don't need grammar police retrospectively fixing old errors that we made on talk pages long ago.

Occasionally I've seen a whole talk page upset by the insertion of a malformed template, or by someone else's poorly-formed bespoke signature. If it looks like the user doesn't know how to resolve the issue - and it's gone uncorrected for some time and is liable to affect other users trying to communicate on that page - then it might then be OK to step in to fix it. But leave a polite edit summary explaining what you've done and inviting a revert if they're not happy.

Occasionally I've had very bad faith edits (vandalism or abuse) left on my talk page which another user watching my TP has reverted. Personally, I've no issue with this, though others might object.

Tread carefully, and don't make a 'thing' of it. Had you left a diff to an example you'd like to alter, we might have been able to give more specific feedback. Oh, and never ever edit errors in archived talk pages. Just leave them be.

As Hosts here, we do very occasionally fix one another's mistakes if it is liable to cause confusion to a new user. But I still tread very carefully if I do that. Often it's best to alert the editor to an issue and let them correct it for themselves, or add in a corrective reply to clarify an issue. Regards, Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article Editor

Hi.

I am currently editing an article that’s a Good Article nominee. The reviewing editor has a style of leaving comments that’s very confusing and they do not like how I’m responding to the feedback. I have worked on a GA nominee before and succeeded in getting it the status and this was not an issue back then and was wondering if I can get another editor to look at this article?

thanks Lisha2037 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1 · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

As of this comment, the GAN is still open. In that case, Wikipedia:Good article frequently asked questions#Review process gives you two options: one is to try asking [the reviewer] to ask for a second opinion. The second is to allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer).

Only you can decide what is worth more to you: a GAN that passes on the first try or the effort that it takes to try to understand and accommodate a fellow editor's style. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Lisha2037. Crossing out resolved issues is pretty common. It helps to make clear what's left to be done. Do you know what the reviewer is talking about with regards to indented replies? Some editors will respond to each bullet point with "done" or an explanation. Regardless, if you get a new reviewer, you'll still have to address any issues with WP:OR/WP:V. The reviewer's concerns about citation format aren't part of the GA criteria, but are decent advice. Also, the reviewer on Talk:Ritu Khullar/GA1 was very experienced; different reviewers will take different approaches. Feel free to ask additional questions, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi.

I have no issue with the bullet points. When I first did a review for Ritu Khullar, the edits were made chronologically and I would reply to his comments as they progressed. Since this editor uses markups and crosses out things and creates new lines and Colors, it’s super messy and confusing for me. I just think our editing styles clash and would be better if someone like the first editor looked at it. I don’t have issues with most of the things they suggested to edit, especially the ones that follow protocol. But when the edits are not in order I get confused and my work will reflect that. They left a comment about leaving the review so I’m not sure if they are even reviewing after that. Might just have to wait it out and renominate which kinda sucks as I put in a lot of work in that’s article. Hours and hours. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lisha2037 Then yeah, pick one of Rotideypoc41352's options above and seek a new reviewer. Like Thebiguglyalien says below, you can post to WT:DYK as well. Sorry it's a bummer, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time around the GA process, and I don't think I've ever seen such an intense review for such a short article. Rotideypoc41352 is correct in that you basically have two options here if you don't want to continue as it is: you can either request a second opinion, or you can withdraw the nomination. There's a formal "second opinion" setting that the review can be set to for more in depth evaluations, but it's also become common to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations where a few people will usually take a quick look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok do i did set it to that status. If you or @rotideypoc41352 is willing to look at it that would be swell. Since you have a lot of GA experience, that would be awesome. Lisha2037 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352 - user:thebiguglyalien - user:Rjjiii Lisha2037 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would countenance - much less voluntarily participate in - a process where one editor tells another (to give one example) " Subscription required for WSJ, suggest adding |url-access=subscription to the citation template; found it archived at ProQuest, suggest adding |id={{ProQuest|399089034}} to the citation template." rather than simply - and collaboratively - making such edits themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I just changed the template to 2nd opinion for that one but the reviewer changed it back to hold saying the reviewer can only do that. Don’t know how else I’m getting someone to look at it unless one they fail it. Can someone help? Lisha2037 (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer is User:Reidgreg. You should notify them if you open a discussion about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Other issues not withstanding, please sign your comments on Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I did sign all of my posts under the General discussion part of the review. I find that having hundreds of signatures throughout the review would cause a lot of clutter, greatly add to the page size (visually and in html), and be unnecessary since (generally) there are only two editors involved in a GA review. I understand that without a signature there isn't a pretty little [reply] generated at each line. Also, suggesting is not telling. Seriously. I don't care to say anything else, at least not in this forum. I'll save it for the GAN talk pages if it's headed that way. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I did not ask you to "sign all of your posts under the General discussion part of the review"; I asked you to "sign your comments". All of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@PigsonthewingHello. The reviewer does not what the 2nd opinion template on the GA page. Is there another way I can get someone involved. I’m also ok with failing the article if that’s what it takes. Lisha2037 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Best practices for bigger edits or on developing topics

I am new to editing, but I signed up because I saw that certain LLMs were being listed as "Open Source" on the Open-source artificial intelligence page when they aren't. I have proposed a general idea for a restructure of this page and creation of an additional one to resolve this issue without removing any information, on the talk page, but this is a rather big edit for someone who has only done one smaller one beforehand, and it is also on a somewhat contentious topic.

Any thoughts on how best to proceed or best practices when it comes to these kinds of edits? JacobHaimes (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

JacobHaimes: Welcome to Wikipedia! There are a few approaches to implementing major changes to an existing article (some of it comes down to personal preference). What I find useful is to copy the text of the article or section to a user sandbox or off-wiki text editor and work on revisions there. Using a sandbox on-wiki would be preferred for changes that need to be discussed with other editors. Then, when you have a version that's ready to go, I'd recommend doing this in small sections, and tagging the article with {{In use}} (when you are actively implementing the changes) or {{Under construction}} (when changes are being planned). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Medical article creation for students - Topic selection and audience level

Hello, I'm an instructor guiding students in creating Wikipedia articles on medical topics. We use the list of requested articles for medicine as a starting point. I am now planning the semester 2 syllabus and would like to establish best practice around 2  areas:

We've encountered issues with articles being declined for "already existing" under different names, despite being on the requested list. How can we better guide students in topic selection from this list? Should we advise against drafting articles that seem to exist under different names, or proceed assuming the request is valid?

Regarding medical content best practices, should writers of specialist medical topics still primarily target a lay audience? Our current advice acknowledges some articles may be more technical, but editor feedback often suggests content is "too specialist." How should we advise students on this balance? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable provides some guidance. Often, readers do not get past the Lead, so that section should be targeted down and not be jargon. David notMD (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:MEDRS for references. And that having a PMID number for a sci journal article, https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi can be used to generate references. David notMD (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that the list is not actively maintained. It can be helpful for ideas, but there's no guarantee that the items there meet Wikipedia's notability requirements or that they aren't already covered in another article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is very helpful, thank you. The 2 sets of students we get to create articles are biomedical science students and pharmacy students. There is a requested article list covering specifically pharmacy topics. Just wondering if the stubs are organised per field or eos the list comprise all areas within medicine? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThomI don't know how helpful this is (given that a lot of medical stubs remain stubs because they're hard to expand) but we have 12090 medicine-related stubs and 22929 medicine-related start class articles. These should all be notable, some of them will be badly in need of expansion, but they're often neglected. I know it's not the same as article creation, but expanding these articles could potentially serve a similar purpose. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This response was meant for you: This is very helpful, thank you. The 2 sets of students we get to create articles are biomedical science students and pharmacy students. There is a requested article list covering specifically pharmacy topics. Just wondering if the stubs are organised per field or eos the list comprise all areas within medicine? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the very helpful answers to my first 2 questions. I have another one which may not have a straightforward answer but am putting it out there anyway. I'd like to improve our processes to avoid other issues we've encountered before. Here's our current process:

·      Our groups are made up of 20 students.

·      Students work in pairs on a single article they have selected from the requested article list.

·      Each student creates their own Wikipedia account.

·      All students join the education dashboard.

·      Only one account per pair is used for the draft that will move to the main space (total of around 10 articles by the end of the semester).

·      We encourage all students to practise editing in their own sandboxes.

We've implemented this structure because we want all students to learn Wikipedia processes. However, we've had a couple of incidents where students were accused of sock puppetry due to similar content appearing in multiple places.

Given a class of about 20 students working in pairs, how can we best organise this activity to:

·      Ensure all students learn Wikipedia editing processes

·      Avoid sock puppetry accusations

·      Maintain clarity in which account is responsible for the main draft

·      Use the education dashboard effectively

Should we modify our current approach? Are there best practices for managing student pairs in Wikipedia education projects that we should adopt? G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

One more question about GenAI. Are there any written guidelines or a written policy regarding use of GenAI for article creation? I read recently there is a task force trying to clean up articles. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You should not do this. Please please stop. Do not do this.

Writing medical articles that fall under WP:MEDRS is one of the hardest things you can do on Wikipedia.

Creating a decent article takes a lot of time and effort, you need to know quite a bit of the literature to be able to give a decent overview of a topic.

Students will produce low-quality stuff, and our volunteers will have to waste their precious time cleaning the mess up, when they'd rather write them from scratch. Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop what? We have our own very clear university policy regarding use of GenAI. I would like to guide students to a written statement or link if there is one pointing out the harms to Wikipedia etc. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The project as a whole. Do not collaborate with the Wiki Education Foundation. Do not let students write articles about WP:MEDRS topics. It is a very bad idea. See WP:AICLEAN for AI-related information. WikiEdu is infamous for dumping a load of terrible articles on Wikipedia which require a lot of work to clean up. A lot of WikiEdu students are set up for failure because they don't get the guidance required and not enough time to write a decent article (which will always take way more time than predicted) and the result is that Wikipedians have to completely rewrite those articles or get them deleted which wastes volunteer time. If you do not listen to my advice, at least find an experienced Wikipedian who can determine which topics are or are not suitable. Last time you ended up with a bunch of declined AfC submissions; why was nothing done with those? Please read your talkpage: User talk:G.J.ThomThom. Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but telling us to abandon our project is not helpful at all. I value the Wikipedia community and am here to learn how to contribute more effectively. Our goal is to teach students about Wikipedia's standards and processes while contributing meaningful content. A lot of the issues we face come from a misunderstanding and I am trying to address the most common areas of misunderstanding. We're actively working to address any issues and improve the quality of our students' contributions and we're seeking constructive feedback on how to enhance our approach. Many of our students have successfully contributed valuable articles that have been accepted by the community. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

When someone is about to repeat a mistake, the most helpful thing one can do is yell "stop!". The people who accept or decline draft at the Article for Creation process just use a very simple flowchart, going through AfC does not mean that an article is valuable. It would not be wise to start a new course without learning from the mistakes from the past. Why was nothing done with the declined drafts from last time? Polygnotus (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing you are saying is helpful. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after someone who started a WikiEdu course who knew little about Wikipedia and was completely unwilling to listen to advice. Polygnotus (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

G.J.ThomThom, your concentration on creating new articles is misguided. Look at the history of any good Wikipedia article, and observe how much work went into creating it, and how much into subsequently improving it. I support what GreenLipstickLesbian wrote above. If you can get your students to concentrate on improving existing articles rather than creating new ones, that will be better for everyone. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a programme that has been established for some time. I am new to it all and am keen to update it and implement better processes. Thanks for your suggestion. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

G.J.ThomThom: The education program, and your course, may have been around for some time, but that does not mean that experienced Wikipedia volunteer editors are enthusiastic about it. Ultimately, contributions to Wikipedia should support the goals of Wikipedia and follow its core policies, which may not necessarily align with the goals and policies of an education program. I would hope that you are already aware of the guidelines on student assignments; WP:ASSIGN#GUIDANCE summarises the main issues that can lead to frustration on the part of veteran editors. I echo GreenLipstickLesbian and Maproom's suggestions – I think it's valuable for all new editors (not only students) to learn how Wikipedia works by improving existing articles rather than trying to create new ones from scratch. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThom As someone who has went through the entirety of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Missing diseases about 40% of the entries were redirects (meaning the articles already existed under a different name) and the remaining red links are mostly isolated case reports of diseases only diagnosed once or twice. If your students are interesting in writing about medical diseases then I can personally give you a list of which red links are notable as I have a running list somewhere on my computer. However I would like to instead suggest that you instead focus your attention to Category:Medicine stubs as most (not all) of these articles are notable enough for an article and they just require some dedication to bring them up to standards. Category:Pharmacology stubs may be of particular interest to your students. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes please do pass on a list of red links which are notable G.J.ThomThom (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A simple note - you wrote "...for the draft that will move to the main space." As part of the process, please, please have all drafts submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) rather than being moved to mainspace. AfC usually has a backlog of thousands of drafts. Because the system is not a queue this means that drafts can be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. If the submissions are declined the students will get reasons why from an experienced reviewer. This is vastly preferrable to drafts forwarded to mainspace that are so flawed that they are worthy of deletion. Bad information in articles is always a problem, but in medical/health articles, may actually potentially harm readers who act on the information. I personally have deleted content and references from hundreds of medical/health articles that was misleading or just plain wrong. Inform the students that per WP:MEDRS, journal articles about individual clinical trials are not acceptable references. Ditto animal studies. And please, no AI. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Listed: at WP:ENB, WT:MEDRS. Mathglot (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw one of Mathglot's notes. @G.J.ThomThom, may I invite you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine? That's the page where you can find editors who like working on Wikipedia's medical content. We've got a grad student class that comes through every year and does some great work. We've also had experiences with first-year students with no medical background whose contributions were ...more mixed.

While I'm here, I think that there are two things you could consider as entry points for your classes:

• Learn how to identify and add a good source to existing content. For example: The data in the table at Disease#Burdens of disease is 20 years old. Could they find an awesome source with current numbers? (This is something you could do as a whole-class exercise, but statistics are frequently out of date, so you could easily find 20 articles that need a similar change made.) For another example, they could pick a medical article (popular ones listed here) and look for a sentence that is probably correct, but the source is 10+ years old/otherwise not a great source, and replace the old/weak source with a great source. (See, e.g., at least 20% of the sources in Autism.)
• Fix that outdated list. The huge number of synonyms is a fact of life, so this is a good learning experience. They can learn how to create WP:REDIRECTS. For example, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine#Pharmacology lists Drugs and gestation, which should presumably redirect to the existing article about Drugs in pregnancy. They can also edit the list to provide more information and/or links to sources, to help the next person who looks at it. Even a note that says "might be same subject as Drugs in pregnancy?" is helpful.

But overall, I think your best bet is to stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and introduce yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd love to see a list of the articles your previous students have already created. It looks like the list includes Stomach reduction surgery, Cardiovascular agents, Amorphinism, Gout suppressants, Antipsychotics abuse, Drug antagonism, Subtalar arthroereisis, and more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write these great suggestions! G.J.ThomThom (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThom: So, the WP:CONSENSUS is that you shouldn't let them write articles from scratch. Will you respect the consensus? And have you considered the suggestion of reflecting on what went wrong in the past, and how to avoid repeating those mistakes? Polygnotus (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that any discussion here reached a consensus. If the students intend to understand guidelines first, then their drafts are more likely to be Declined versus Rejected or Speedy deleted. Your responsibility is to view their drafts first, so that they are not just wasting a Reviewer's time. In the end, perhaps most of them will fail to get a draft approved, which is itself a learning experience. David notMD (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If 4 people express the same opinion, and none disagree, that is a small consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree that there is any consensus against these students writing articles. @Polygnotus, how many of the articles from GJ's previous class did you personally clean up? Can you give me a list? Looking at the ones I linked above, you touched none of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See above, and that is a straw man argument. But I did spend a lot of time desperately trying to clean up behind someone who did a WikiEdu course and ignored feedback from a bunch of experienced Wikipedians. And it sucked. MEDRS articles are among the most difficult things to write on Wikipedia. I felt bad for the students, who were doomed to fail and the teacher who seemed to have been dropped in the deep end. Learning to make meaningful contributions to existing articles is already a very difficult task, and Wikipedia articles are not like a normal essay. Polygnotus (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

List article with a single source. But source is the authoritative and most reliable

I created a list article: List of architecture schools in India, because pages such as List of architecture schools, Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture included incomplete list of architecture schools in India. The inclusion/exclusion of schools on these pages were arbitrary, and the bulleted list was not organised (such as alphabetical, chronological, etc). I was concerned about academic boosterism. Therefore, intended purpose of the List of architecture schools in India was to provide a comprehensive list. The inclusion/exclusion criteria was simple and straightforward: Is the school approved by Council of Architecture to award UG degree?

The Wikipedia is not a directory, therefore, I tried to provide more contextual information, such as which of these schools are also approved by Council of Architecture to provide PG degree? What are these PG programmes? How did these schools rank in the latest National Institutional Ranking Framework's Architecture and Planning category?

When the One Source Template was added to the page, I did some further reading on Wikipedia policy but I am unclear on the following points:

• Do we need more sources, when the Council of Architecture is most authoritative and reliable source on the matter? Yes, it is primary source. But, when considering aspects such as accreditation of higher education institution, isn't it better to rely on the concerned board?

• Wikipedia's Common selection criteria says, If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.. As of now, the Council of Architecture's approved school number stands at 381. Should the number of entries be reduced? If yes, how do it without causing academic boosterism?

• Should this list article be deleted? And, the partial list of schools under each of the List of architecture schools, Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture should be restored, but with some restructuring? If this list article should be retained, how can it be improved to comply with Wikipedia Standards and Policy?

SivanTroye (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Disjointed comments for SivanTroye:

1. The article is "List of architecture schools in India". It starts "This is a list of Architecture Schools in India recognised by the Council of Architecture for providing architectural education [...]". Are there, or have there recently been, architecture schools in India not recognised by the Council of Architecture?
2. The article is very heavily dependent on the say-so of the Council of Architecture. This is briefly described in the article "List of architecture schools in India". But the reader is told "Main article: Council of Architecture". And the article Council of Architecture is sourced to ... the Council of Architecture. Something's wrong here.
3. Can you find no comments from outside Japan India on either the Council of Architecture's standards or on how well institutions adhere to these (in reality, not just in theory)? A strange brainfart of mine! Corrected Hoary (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
4. There's no mention of doctorates. This puzzles me. Do residents of India (if sufficiently affluent or in receipt of large grants) do their doctorates outside India?

-- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Hoary for your repones.

1. Probably there has been architecture schools in India not recognised by the the Council of Architecture. But, the graduates from these schools are not eligible to practice architecture in India (As per the Architects Act of 1972).

2. I have included two sources: The Architects Act of 1972 which outlines the roles and responsibility of Council of Architecture, as well as basic profile on the Council of Architecture by Indian Ministry of Education. However, I agree with you that main article, Council of Architecture, needs significant clean up.

3. I failed to think about sources outside India. Just found that Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) has published a directory of architecture schools which is a bit out-of-date compared to Council of Architecture. For instance, Da Vinci School of Design and Architecture lost its approval in Council of Architecture. But it is listed in the CAA's directory. Also, note that in the same document, Appendix II (Directory of National Regulators) enlists only Council of Architecture for India, whereas, Canada for instance has multiple regulators.

4. About doctoral programme, Council of Architecture only comments on PhD as an eligibility requirement for holding teaching positions in Indian Architecture School. To my personal knowledge, I think its because PhD falls under purview of University Grant Commission, and not Council of Architecture.

Can you please advise me on how to proceed further? SivanTroye (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

SivanTroye, perhaps it would be better if the article were retitled "List of recognised architecture schools in India". (NB this is not a suggestion; it's merely me thinking out loud.) I'm disappointed that nobody else has yet responded to you here. If nobody does so in the next couple of days, then I suggest that you repeat more or less the same question, but this time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education. It's been quite some time since I last asked a question there; but whenever I did ask, I was impressed by the informedness and clarity of the responses. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

HEC Paris contributions

Dear all. I hope you are doing well. Please what do you think about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HEC_Paris&diff=1249231390&oldid=1244886612 on HEC Paris ; It looks like an article destroyed. Please do not hesitate to modify the article directly. I am not sure what to do. Thanks a lot in advance. Kind Regards. 110.232.86.40 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like someone cleaned up the article. And that someone is @S0091: Polygnotus (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks to you like an article destroyed; it looks to me (first impression) like an article stripped of unreferenced material (and with a number of other, minor improvements). I haven't looked at it closely, however: my impression could be mistaken. Could you point to one instance within it removal of clearly worthwhile material (which of course is reliably and independently sourced)? -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You think so? Including removing sections correctly sourced (Financial Times or others)? --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I give you one example. The MOOC section with the source : https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/les-news/actu/detail/article/hec-paris-premiere-business-school-francaise-a-se-lancer-dans-les-mooc-3010/ has been removed. Please have a look closely. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The MOOC section does indeed look pretty good. I suggest that you change what's between "<ref>" and "</ref>" to {{Cite newspaper | title=HEC, première business school française à se lancer dans les MOOC | work=Le Figaro | first=Lucile | last=Quillet | date=4 October 2013 | access-date= |language=fr}}, in order to show that it's a signed piece and in a respected newspaper. (Add your access date.) Also, replace or gloss "Currently" (e.g. "As of 2024"). In Talk:HEC Paris, suggest reinstating the section (with these minor improvements. If you get a yes, go ahead. If there's no response within one week, go ahead. If there's a negative response ... well, consider what to do according to the rationale expressed in the rejection. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback. You have more sections which are ok. @S0091: has to do it, he is the one who deleted everything. Or at least an experienced user. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Deleting unsourced material is an improvement to the article. If you (or someone else) disagrees with the deletion, you (or they) can put the content back again, but if it is unsourced it will likely be removed again. Just fyi: if you are coming from French Wikipedia, they are much more tolerant of unsourced material, which explains why articles here at English Wikipedia which are good-faith translations of a French Wikipedia article, are not infrequently gutted, or even deleted entirely. I recently reduced a fully translated draft of contraventions from a fully translated French article, down to a single sentence, for which I had to add citations to make it compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I later built it back up again from scratch, but there was no imperative for me to do so, and it could have languished as a one-sentence Draft stub until it got deleted.

I haven't looked at the history of our HEC Paris article, but it would not surprise me at all if it was either translated from French Wikipedia, or worked on here by French editors, more familiar with French Wikipedia P&G than the P&G here, which are stricter, and applied more diligently. Mathglot (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Need someone to talk to

Hi. I know Wikipedia is a weird place to ask this, but i need someone to talk to. I was bullied and harassed by trolls on reddit and got suspended for simply posting about monster tamer video games and characters i loved. Now im traumatized and lonely, and dealing with the aftermath. I’m not vandalizing or disrupting anything. I just want someone to talk to, that’s it. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better to talk to people in real life? Many, if not most, of us are incredibly old and boring, and we are trying to write an encyclopedia. Polygnotus (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have crippling social anxiety. I hate most people my age. The only other people i talk to are my family, and online is my only safe outlet 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Stardew Valley is 50% off on Steam rn. Polygnotus (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And? I’m not playing a game with any romance or relationships in it. Not sure how this is even relevant 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor. I have sympathy but you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia is not therapy and not a social network. We're here to build an encyclopedia and communication not related to these goals is frowned upon.

Better you look elsewhere. There are lots of friendly communities out there on Discord, forums and other places. But trying to chat or get reassurance here on Wikipedia is likely to result in frustration and a lack of real communication. I wish you the best! MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

everyone on those places are either self-absorbed and talk about triggering things, act like a 12 year old and gatekeep everything or straight up bully me 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

i feel like wikipedia is a place without all those upsetting people even if there is a a lot of debate 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Try calling or texting 988(if you are in the US). I guarantee you will find someone to talk to. If you are having suicidal thoughts, call 911 immediately. Narfhead4444, Gamer Ordinare 20:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

they are useless, the only thing they do is send me a generic “list of resources” and shoo me off 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:4CE1:A1D1:65E5:1128 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest therapy. If you have anxiety, feel isolated and the only place you seem to belong is the internet, then it's probably best to talk to someone who specializes in mental health. If it's the cost that deters you, there are always free/reduced cost methods such as speaking to a school counselor or (if your a bit older) going to a community mental health centre. نوح^{فث   Let's Chat!} 04:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and no more than that. It is not therapy. Please look elsewhere for mental health support. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not looking for mental health support. Just people to talk to. That’s it. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Be that as it may, IP editor, Wikipedia is not a social network. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Question on the notability of Wolfgang Mückenheim

Good morning!

I have a question about the notability of Wolfgang Mückenheim who is my teacher and advisor.

I have written a draft which was rejected although I mentioned his solution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and his theory of extended probabilities having more than 200 quotes and his 4 published books, one with 7 editions, another one with 4 editions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wolfgang_M%C3%BCckenheim

I could incorporate the following points but will do so only if it is promising. Therefore I would like to know the opinion of experienced Wikipedians.

One of his books has even become a bestseller. https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/Bestseller%202012H%20+.pdf

In German Wikipedia his page is clicked twice a day on average. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=de.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Wolfgang_M%C3%BCckenheim

His correspondence with Maurice Bartlett, mainly on his theory is kept by the Royal Socienty. https://catalogues.royalsociety.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=MSB%2f2%2f91

Even the famous John Maddox, the former editor of Nature, has published a full article on Mückenheim's theory https://www.nature.com/articles/320481a0

which has stirred up readers' letters. https://www.nature.com/articles/324307b0 Praetor71 (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't he retire in 2014? The German Wikipedia article says Seit 2014 ist er im Ruhestand. and the source is his own CV.

I think the relevant pages are WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I don't have a definitive answer one way or the other. Polygnotus (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Wolfgang Mückenheim was Declined (with reasons given), which is less severe than Rejected. Carry on! David notMD (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes he is retired but he continues to give lectures (always in winter semester) on history of mathematics and the infinite and supervises Studienarbeiten. Praetor71 (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

For a living person, all facts need to be verified by references. The draft has content without references. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Does German Wikipedia serve as reference? Praetor71 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

never! 176.0.148.153 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You mention the full article about him published in Nature. That is your starting point, as that is what is called significant coverage at Wikipedia, which is the linchpin of WP:Notability, which is the core policy requirement (there are others) for a Draft to become an article . As DavidnotMD said, keep going. Mathglot (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Praetor71 I have just looked at our article on negative probability and nothing by Mückenheim is mentioned there. That might be a place to include some details of his work. For a biography, you need sources which are about him, not so much about his theories or academic contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles (any language) cannot be used as references in English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page for this Archiving script that the script worked for archiving, but I can't retrieve the archive.

Should I ping Elli, or is there another way to ask this? User talk:Elli/OneClickArchiver Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The archive is over at User talk:Allthemilescombined1/Archive 1. Polygnotus (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1: I placed template {{Archives}} at the top of your talkpage. That way it is easy to find. Polygnotus (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Steps to resolve conflicts about neutrality on controversial topic

I initiated a discussion about violating WP:NPOV in the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine article. However, the conversation has become a repetitive exchange of "yes, it is" vs. "no, it isn’t."

Could anyone provide advice on how to navigate and resolve such issues? I’m particularly interested in more effective argumentation strategies, examples of successful resolutions, or procedures for escalation when discussions become deadlocked. Are there any common pitfalls I might be falling into with my approach? Or should I consider focusing on less controversial topics if this issue proves too difficult to resolve? Отец Никифор (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

should I consider focusing on less controversial topics Yup. These incredibly controversial subjects are no fun. There are millions of articles that are in need of improving, and most are not controversial at all. See the Wikipedia:Task Center. New editors who start with the difficult stuff (gender, Israel/Palestina et cetera), or to right great wrongs, usually get blocked or burnt out. Polygnotus (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Отец Никифор, Welcome to the Teahouse. My advice, for those not familiar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and how they affect how we edit and present information, is to stay clear.

I would suggest putting some of the contentious topic articles on your watchlist, even if it is a subject you're not really interested in, to watch how disagreements progress. It's a great way to learn about contentious subjects and how they are handled. It's also a good way to learn about how policy is put into practice.

For now, I would say stear clear. Knitsey (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Отец Никифор, the main policy you missed in your discussion at SEGM is WP:DUEWEIGHT, but you are still a new editor, and it takes a while to become familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have added some additional tips for you at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

copyright violation?

• Potential copyright violation log b 03:04  CopyPatrolBot talk contribs marked revision 1250881966 on Draft:Ellinor Peerschke as a potential copyright violation ‎ Tag: PageTriage

I can't tell what section this refers to? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The particular revision is this one so there was very little original content. Since most of the content consisted of the titles of articles published by that person, it makes sense that it would match other lists of articles by that person. Nothing to worry about. Polygnotus (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Do I need to change it? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You can safely ignore it, it is a false positive. Polygnotus (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How to cite?

How would I cite this using visual editor? As a journal, website, what and how?

[2]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/62603/20180904160323136_Petitioners%20Opening%20Merits%20Brief_17-1091_TO%20FILE.pdf Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, I suggest that you use Template:Cite court. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are ignored

Hello to everybody!

I opened a move request for Macedonian denar and proposed to move it to Denar of North Macedonia (like in the case of Category:Nationality_law where North Macedonia follows a different format) or to North Macedonian denar which is the most common name backed-up with reliable sources -- 70%. The move request was closed today as "not moved" and the closer told me to write here.

It would be nice if experienced users can help me how to apply the existing policies.

1. Wikipedia tells us what Consensus means:

Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

(therefore votes do not count if they aren't backed-up by valid argument) and Wikipedia tells us how consensus is formed:

editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.

2. North Macedonia's policies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia tell us what name to be used:

However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.

In my humble opinion, the general wikipedia's policies about consensus, and the specific North Macedonia's policies about naming make clear that the users have reached an agreement for North Macedonian denar (or perhaps Denar of North Macedonia because of the last clause).

3. On the top of the already clear consensus and naming policies, the talk page of Macedonian denar hides an old move request that is backed-up by a long list of reliable sources that was collected by users who agreed and opposed, and I quote here the summary of their study:

List of Reliable Sources (North Macedonian denar: 135 findings, North Macedonia denar: 57 findings, Macedonian denar: 89 findings)

Therefore, North Macedonian denar is WP:COMMONNAME and this is backed-up with reliable sources that show: 70% of reliable webpages include "North" (48% is North Macedonian denar) and only 30% use "Macedonian denar".

4. WP:COMMONNAME tells us what common name means:

Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.

North Macedonian denar is the most common name in reliable sources (70%), precisely identifies the currency of North Macedonia, it is as short as the name of the country, it is the natural adjective in the english language, it is the best distinguishable and recognizable option, and it resembles titles for similar articles, and the most important criterion is that "North Macedonian" was agreed for State-associated and other public entities in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia.

5. Last, similar discussions have been made for years under the talk pages of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election, 2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election, and there the wikipedia policies for North Macedonia naming were used, because there were experienced editors who protected the pages. In the case of Macedonian denar, the lack of experienced editors involved in the discussion for the move request leads to a messy situation where the already agreed policies are ignored.

Could you please explain me if my understanding of the above policies is correct? Cheers! Thank you for your comments! Open Free Eye (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure, but it may be a good idea to move this to something like WP:NPOVN. A lot of stuff related to (North) Macedonia is incredibly sensitive because of Macedonia naming dispute and various related disputes. Polygnotus (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Open Free Eye Yeah, this isn't the place to seek support for your position, or to seek resolution of your dispute. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Open Free Eye, you can initiate a move review too if you are not satisfied with the outcome. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge battle of Mount longdon and mount longdon

I'm interested in providing geographic and geological information about the hill, (among others found in the Falklands), (of which sources do exist) rather than the military history found in the battle of longdon article. I think however, that both articles would probably benefit from a merge, but I don't know because I'm new, what do you think? AlaskanGrass (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you think the merge might be controversial, you can place a {{mergefrom|other article name}} tag at the top of the article to which information will be added, and {{mergeto|primary topic article name}} at the top of the article that would disappear and become a redirect.

Otherwise, you just be bold and add all the relevant material to the article that is to become the primary topic, and when you're done, replace the content of the no-longer-needed article with one line:
#REDIRECT [[New article name here]]

Reply here or my talk page if you need help. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

AlaskanGrass, Wikipedia has separate articles for Tewkesbury and Battle of Tewkesbury. I think the idea of merging them would be absurd. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

So in effect, we do not merge for the purposes of lengthening the article or increasing the amount of sources it has? Even if this does increase the article quality from say a stub class to a start or even C-Class? These are the kinds of benefits I would assume would come from merging these two articles, based on a sort of, pragmatism about the availablity of sources between them, so I am curious how this comes across as absurd. Are all battles for a given hill and the hill itself typically isolated into seperate articles by convention at wikipedia or is this judged on a case by case, best judgement by the user? AlaskanGrass (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, the third item under WP:NOTMERGE says, Merging should be avoided if: [...] The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short (emphasis original). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources to use for edits.

Is there any good sources to use for editing and reviewing article information? Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Helpo, Gooners Fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. That question is really too general to be able to answer in any useful way. I'm not even sure what you mean by "sources to use for edits". Are you asking about sources that tell you to edit? If so, Help:Introduction is probably a good start.

But I'm guessing that that is not what you mean; so unless you can narrow down your question a bit, I'm just going to point you to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:REFB. Please come back if you have some more specific questions. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User Category Tags

Is there a general list of all tags one can put on their User Page?

If so, where is it/what is its name? Narfhead4444, Gamer Ordinare 20:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean userboxes? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Page dedicated to individual US state elections policies and laws

Hi, I am a new student editor and I am looking to start a page on individual US State Elections policies and laws. Looking for people interested in contributing and or starting up a project dedicated to this. Forgive me if this page exists, I was not able to locate one. Lightworker8 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lightworker8, I'm unaware of any page that is devoted to an individual state's voting policies/laws, but there are pages and sections of pages that address specific types of election laws, discussing the variations state-by-state, and sometimes there's a US map that attempts to capture similar info. For example, the page on US Voter ID Laws has this state-by-state table and this map, and the page on Voter Registration has several relevant tables and maps. If you do a text search on these pages, you'll find that there are places where another editor has noted that a citation is needed or an update is needed, and given your interests, those would be great tasks to work on. If you read those pages, you may also find statements that could use a citation or an update, even though there's no [citation needed] or [update needed] next to it.

I'm only a moderately experienced editor and have never created a new page from scratch, and the experienced editors here regularly comment that creating an article is one of the hardest things to take on; they generally advise against it for new editors, instead suggesting that you spend time editing existing pages in order to learn more about Wikipedia's editing policies/guidelines/tools. But if you're going to go ahead with creating a new article, here's some guidance. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Lightworker8, can you give an example of what you plan to write about? Here for example, is the article Elections in North Carolina. Does this article cover what you wish to cover in some part of it? If not, I would suggest you start there, create a new section covering the gist of the topic, making sure it is well sourced with citations. Once you are done with that, if you feel there is a great deal more that needs to be said than will fit there in that section, the next step would be to split off the section into a new article. But this would be the place to start; when you finish that, come back here and ask about how to do the split.

If you meant one page covering all states, what would you call that article? If it is meant to be a comparative summary of election laws, like, early voting yes-or-no, first date, last date, and so on, maybe in a great big sortable table, you could create List of major state election policies in the United States, after verifying that something like that doesn't exist, but that is a larger undertaking. If you are a new editor, that might be a bit daunting of a task to start out with.

Finally, please read Help:Your first article which has lots of useful tips if you do decide to create a new article. Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Film MOS

When articles are being written about films, I notice there’s never a citation for things like the genre or plot, editors just write from their own personal viewing of the film. Is there any specific etiquette governing this practice that one should be aware of? Say, if one editor calls a movie a drama but I say it’s also a black comedy, what happens in this scenario? Snokalok (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Snokalok. WP:WikiProject Film points to (among other places) MOS:Film. If that doesn't answer your questions, then I would think discussion somewhere in the WikiProject would be best. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:GENREWARRIOR and WP:DR and WP:3O. Polygnotus (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Then it's time to look for a reference. 176.0.148.153 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Things in a film definitively happen/are shown/are said, and the film itself serves as the source for noting these in its article's Plot section, just as a textbook's actual text serves as the source for facts it states. The same goes for other facts like the members of the cast list, which are shown in the credits (as well as being published elsewhere).

Whether or not the film is a drama, or a black comedy, etc., are value judgements on the part of yourself or another viewer that are not actually stated in the film. All judgements about the film need to be cited to a Reliable source such as a professional film critic, or statements by the Director, etc. So you can say "most of the scenes take place at night" (if that's true), but not, from that observation alone "the film is noir" (for example). Even if the Director has said "the film is a noir thriller", the article cannot state that "the film is a noir thriller"; rather it must say "the Director states that the film is a noir thriller" and cite that statement. Does this help? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved my article from sandbox to mainspace without getting it reviewed.

how do I know my article has been approved and when will it appear on google search. this will be my first ever article. thanks Izmaiqbalmemon (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your article Ghulam Muhammad Memon has many flaws. New articles that bypass Articles for Creation review are supposed to be evaluated by New Pages Patrol. It is possible that your article be reverted to draft, nominated for deletion or even Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Start by removing ALL BOLDING except the first appearance of his name. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Creating infobox

Hello everyone,

I have trouble creating a infobox for a scholar. The one I created seems not to have all the features and design that those of the other pages. Thank you very much for your help. The Götzen Dämmerung (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Götzen Dämmerung, in the future, please add a link to all your questions. I presume you are talking about the article Willemien Otten? It seems to have one already. You could just copy the Infobox from a similar article, and alter the fields appropriately. See also Help:Infobox, and the documernation at Template:Infobox art historian. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I did not got that. Yes, I was asking about the article Willemien Otten, but also in general. Thank you for your help, this is helpful. The Götzen Dämmerung (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I know if my article is relevant?

How do I know if my article is relevant? Because I want to create a article on someone but I do not know if it's relevant. Crate.arg (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean notability? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevant to what? Anyway, do you have three or more sources on the subject that are that are substantive, reliable, and independent of the subject and each other? -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you need reliable, in-depth sources so that you can cite them in your article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Crate.arg, have a look at Help:Your first article. It has the answer to your questions. Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"Curriculum Articles" What to do?

Hello, I encountered sometimes articles of academics that looks more like Curriculum than Wikipedia articles. A recent example is Moran Dermot. The page has barely no sources. Moreover, it seems to be simply a copy-paste from a very long curriculum. What is the process when one encounters such pages? I put some warnings and opened a discussion but I wonder if it was the right thing to do. Is there a general process for that? Thank you in advance for your help. The Götzen Dämmerung (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm only a moderately experienced editor, but here's my take on it: it does indeed look like a CV, and it looks like most of the contents of the page came from two single-purpose accounts (here and here) that may have had conflicts of interest. The first question is whether the subject meets the notability standards for an academic. I poked around a bit, and I'd say that Moran meets one or more of the criteria; for example, he was awarded the Royal Irish Academy's Gold Star, which strikes me as a sufficiently notable award. In my experience, one problem with notable academics is that it can be hard to find acceptable sources for info about them. Often, the sources are not independent of the subject and/or are self-published, which is only sometimes acceptable. Since WP isn't a hosting service for someone's CV, I'd say that most of that article should be deleted (e.g., the entire sections on articles, book chapters, book reviews, and most of the awards, as they're not notable by WP standards). And as you noted, most of the contents is unsourced, so there's also a decision about whether to add a bunch of "citation needed" templates or to delete the unsourced content. Depending on your interests, you could try to improve the article by finding acceptable sources for some of the contents. Hopefully a more experienced editor will chime in. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a multi-stage process, The Götzen Dämmerung. I've carried out the first stage. Using WorldCat or whatever, look up a handful among the books and check that they are what they're claimed to be. (They probably are.) If so, then you can assume that the rest are OK too (unless you have a particular reason to be suspicious). The existence of each book requires no reference. (WorldCat's description of a copy of a book acts as a reference for the book's existence.) Everything else must be referenced. Just remove whatever isn't referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary, a lot of the remaining books are hyperlinked to Amazon. Am I correct in assuming that those are not appropriate and the links should be removed? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, FactOrOpinion. The ISBN for a book (or more specifically the edition of a book) that has it; if it hasn't one, then the number of what seems to be a carefully composed OCLC record. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I can write scripts

Does Wikipedia need any assistance with writing or improving scripts? I’d be happy to help with that. Отец Никифор (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Notification feature: alerts for needed research in articles

A few days ago, gray boxes started to be inserted into the Wikipedia articles that I had requested. The boxes originated from Wikipedia, and they offered to notify me of any research that was needed in any article that I was viewing. The boxes appeared for several days. I didn't respond to them immediately because I've been very busy lately. However, today things calmed down and I decided to try that new feature ... but the gray boxes have ceased to appear on my Wikipedia pages.

Is there any way to restore those gray boxes? ... or to sign up for those notifications? VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)