Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

Cyprus military ranks

I need help with the NCO ranks, i already made the png files how the ranks look but i dont know how to modify the code so i make it look like the greek one, cypriot army have 2 nco ranks for every rank, one for permanent NCOs that completed military academy and the other for SYP-EPY (in Greece EPOP-EMTh) for contracted NCOs that cannot become Warrant Officers, example bellow.

NCO and other ranks

NCO ranks (excl. OR-9 and conscript ranks) have undergone some changes through the years, the latest being in 2004.^[1]

NATO code	OR-9	OR-8	OR-7	OR-6	OR-4	OR-3	OR-2	OR-1
Hellenic Army^[2] v t e								Arm/corps insignia only
Hellenic Army^[2] v t e	Ανθυπασπιστής^[a] Anthypaspistis	Αρχιλοχίας Archilochias	Επιλοχίας Epilochias	Λοχίας Lochias	Δεκανέας Dekaneas	Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas		Στρατιώτης Stratiotis
Greece (Conscripts)		No equivalent						No insignia
Greece (Conscripts)	Δόκιμος Έφεδρος Αξιωματικός Dokimos Efedros Axiomatikos^[a]	No equivalent		Λοχίας Lochias	Δεκανέας Dekaneas	Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas	Υποψήφιος Έφεδρος Βαθμοφόρος Ypopsifios Efedros Bathmoforos	Στρατιώτης Stratiotis

^ tanea.gr (2004-10-11). "Aλλάζουν το εθνόσημο και οι «σαρδέλες»". ΤΑ ΝΕΑ (in Greek). Retrieved 2024-06-10.
^ "Διακριτικά Φ/Π Στολών Υπαξιωματικών Αποφοίτων ΣΜΥ" [Badges F / P Uniforms of Non-Commissioned Officer Graduates]. army.gr (in Greek). Hellenic Army. Retrieved 26 May 2021.

References

Notes

^ ^a ^b Greece has only one level of Warrant Officer. According to the current issue (2021) of STANAG 2116, the Greek Warrant Officers are included in OR-9, however they are afforded the privileges of an officer. See STANAG 2116 note 29, page D-9

Userpage question

I know I've already asked about my userpage before but I've done a lot of work on it since then. Does my userpage go a bit overboard, especially with the inline links? I joined the welcoming committee and I am expecting at least a few new users to come to my userpage from my signature on my welcome messages so I tried to leave a lot of inline links for them to click on and get a feel for the scope of the encyclopedia. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ApteryxRainWing Compared to User:EEng (takes awhile to load, and I don't recommend it as a role model), or myself, for that matter, I find your page quite respectable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I do the most good by being a warning lesson parents can point out to their children. E Eng 15:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if i learned one thing from you, it's that puns are the scourge of all things good cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, they've got a point. The reason we exist on this world is to get as many rules added to the book as possible. No one ever told me I couldn't add an inline link containing some sarcastic joke for every single word on my userpage, but I'm sure they wouldn't like it if I did so why don't we make it official? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh my that isn't a userpage that's a whole-ass userbook. I guess mine is better than I thought ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

406,519 bytes, that's a lot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put it into context, the largest article on Wikipedia has 975,504 bytes. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we have an article that's almost an entire gigabyte? Does it just have a lot of text or are images, GIFs, code spaghetti, and videos taking up some of that space? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ApteryxRainWing That's not a Gigabyte, only just below a Megabyte. The whole encycopedia can be downloaded at about 24 GB. See WP:SIZEWP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah sorry I forgot the ratios. I'm surprised Wikipedia is only 24 gigs, I thought 6 million articles would be closer to a terabyte ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of February 2013, the XML file containing current pages only, no user or talk pages, was 42,987,293,445 bytes uncompressed (43 GB). The XML file with current pages, including user and talk pages, was 93,754,003,797 bytes uncompressed (94 GB). The full history dumps, all 174 files of them, took 10,005,676,791,734 bytes (10 TB).

As of August 2023, Wikimedia Commons, which includes the images, videos and other media used across all the language-specific Wikipedias contained 96,519,778 files, totalling 470,991,810,222,099 bytes (428.36 TB). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text is very small, especially ASCII characters in UTF-8 (the majority of characters used on the English Wikipedia), which are one byte each. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 19:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, per [1] that article has 2 words. And 1,541 unique references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, especially the storm chaser part. :) E_F⁵ 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what can I say, I just have zero sense of self preservation and I want to see the silly wind cones up close :D ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your userpage. Quite interesting username too. Girlwithgoldenheart (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The "apteryx" in my name is the scientific name of my favorite bird, the kiwi, and "RainWing" is a reference to my favorite tribe from the book series Wings of Fire Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking your time to let me know the real meaning about your username. You're a creative guy. Wishing you good luck. Girlwithgoldenheart (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of recommendations to add links in an article

Hello ! I'd like to know if there are rules or recommendations to add links in an article.

I'm talking about internal links to Wikipedia in English.

As an example. We can choose the article "Bashar Al-Assad".
If there are a section or a sub-section citing "Moscow" (This is an example but I could take another subject mentionned on this article).

If Moscow is linked one time in the article. Can I do it for others sections or sub-sections if this is not the same sub-section or section ?

If you don't understand what I means with words "section" and "sub-section".
You can see the example below.

Suggestions for Monte Zovetto page

Good morning, everyone, My team and I recently finished our Monte Zovetto wiki page (a mountain in northern Italy) for a school project. It was approved, and we received a grade C.

We already made some improvements (also thanks to other editors), but do you have any suggestions on how we can improve it to achieve a grade B? Thank you!

LIUCsmarties (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) LIUCsmarties (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw there are the pronunciation in "British English" indicated in "IPA".

Maybe someone can add it in "Italian" ? It is not a great improvement but it is a good one.

Why not add the pronunciation with IPA transcription in "Venetian language" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our response to your fellow student and to how poorly your instructor has designed the assignment and how that's putting you and your classmates in an unfair position and lots of unneeded stress. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LIUCsmarties, you say "It was approved, and we received a grade C." I "accepted" the draft, promoting it to article status. I didn't give it a "C", and nobody else did either. I don't see anyone calling it "Start", "C", or "B". Do you mean that your teacher approved it and gave it a C, for university rather than Wikipedia purposes? If so, we people here who aren't affiliated with LIUC don't know either how grading is supposed to work in LIUC or what particular criteria your teacher uses in order to grade. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary Actually you did. However, @LIUCsmarties probably doesn't realise that these assessments are somewhat arbitrary and only good articles and featured articles go through a formal process here. I suggest that LIUCsmarties and colleagues relax after doing a good job of creating the article and focus now on the rest of their schoolwork. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mike Turnbull, so I did. Duh. (I plead senility!) Anyone (other than the author or their classmates) who thinks it merits a B is welcome to give it a B. And I have to say that though I'm usually unimpressed by class-assigned article creation, this set does impress me (in a good way). -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary I recently reviewed the Assessments for many articles at WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. I would say this is a pretty complete article, easily meriting a B-class (which I have just given it). With some further careful work on sourcing and on WP:MOS formatting, it could well be put forward for a GA Assessment, though seeking more detailed feedback at WP:PEER REVIEW could be worthwhile. However, these further steps would need the commitment to see this through beyond the unfair deadline set by their tutor (Limelightangel), as discussed in recent threads from their other students. I think @LIUCsmarties and colleagues should be extremely proud of their work. It's impressive. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LIUCsmarties Consider deleting the Legends section, as not clear it is specific to Zovetto (and perhaps adding it to Roana instead). David notMD (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draft an article about myself and get it published on this site?

Hi Everyone,

I am new here and I want to contribute a page of my own life story, but it may not work with the management since they prefer to have someone else to write about it. That's my understanding, but what if a person wants to do what I want with integrity and facts? I am trying to establish just one short page on the topic to start later edits by other editors. Thank you, Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some things about Wikipedia and how it works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To succeed, a draft submitted to AfC for review must have content verified by references to succeed. You are prohibited from creating a draft about yourself based on what you know to be true with the hope that other editors will provide the references (if there are any). David notMD (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David notMD. Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for your suggestion. I've checked the contents you suggested me to look into and I gathered that there would be no chance for anyone to contribute their biography on Wikipedia. The only way apparent to me now is that other people who are willing to cover someone who are noted write a piece about that individual. Am I not misunderstanding now? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition @Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor

I feel there is need for you to understand basic editing, See WP:Editing before creating articles as this can be very difficult for beginners who just joined the project. Tesleemah (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not quite understanding. People who are truly notable can write biographies about themselves and have them published, and some have. But this is hard to do when you have a conflict of interest, as we all do about ourselves.

See WP:Golden Rule. That is what's required, in a nutsheell. Are there published reliable sources that are independent of you, providing significant coverage of you? If there are multiple such sources, then yes, you can write a biography citing them. The biography cannot use any information other than what is published, so you cannot write what you know, you must write what has been covered. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and clarification. I do multiple have published reliable sources in English and Chinese that are independent of myself. I think I will tive i.rLetyme know if you have any more comments. I'd appreciate that. now? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get it. Thank you. Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: As posted above, even though creating an article about yourself isn't expressly prohibited, it can be quite hard and those who try often end up feeling quite frustrated when they start running into problems while trying to do so. My suggestion to you would be to use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to first work on a draft for an article and then submit that draft for review when you think it's ready. If the draft is declined (even multiple times), the reviewer will explain why and otherwise leave feedback on what further is needed for the draft to someday be accepted as an article. There's no real deadline when it comes to drafts, and you can work at your own pace on it. The only thing you need to do is continue working on improving it and avoid submitting the same declined version over and over again; you also need to make sure you don't "abandon" the draft by not making any meaningful edits to it for six months because such drafts are eligible for speedy deletion. You're not required to start a draft per se, but once something gets added to the Wikipedia article namespace, pretty much anything goes and the page can be edited by anyone at anytime; this could mean improvements, but it could just as easily mean being nominated, proposed or tagged for WP:DELETION. Before pressing ahead, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editing (particularly the WP:COISELF and WP:LUC sections), Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because you'll have pretty much zero final editorial control over any article you create about yourself, and all of it's content will be expected to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which in some cases might not be the same as what you want it to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the thorough explanations. I have gained a lot more understanding now. So, it's the best for other people to write about someone else. I get it, but how about people have someone other than themselves write their biography, for example, people who know the topic person well, or hired writers? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to avoid COI editing, especially paid editing. It tends to attract hostile scrutiny.

Depending on who you are, there may be someone who would be interested in writing an article about you. Many editors specialize in certain types of biography: sports figures, academicians, scientists; the bios I write are often about chefs. But that would require you to disclose your identity, which you may not want to do. Valereee (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: Any type of "paid" editing needs to be done in accordance with WP:PAID; it's not expressly prohibited to have an article created by paying someone to do it for you, but basically that's a contract between you and the other party that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's your money and you're free to spend it as you please, but there are lots of WP:SCAMs out there that promise all kinds of things that simply are impossible to deliver; so, if you do decide to take that path, you should make sure to ask lots of questions before giving someone your money because Wikipedia won't help you get it back if things go wrong. Other options to consider might be trying WP:RA (which seems to be more miss than hit) or asking on the talk page of a WikiProject that might be related to whatever you think makes you Wikipedia notable. Whatever you do, you're going to most likely find it hard to remain anonymous because Wikipedia operates in the WP:REALWORLD, and the way it's set up can make it easy for others to connect the dots and figure out who you really are.

Personally, I still find it a bit odd when people seek to either create Wikipedia articles about themselves or try to find/pay someone to create such an article on their behalf. That sort of indicates to me that said person might be mistaking Wikipedia for some type of social media site or other kind of online profile site, which it's most definitely not. The most natural way for someone to have a Wikipedia article created about them is for them to do enough Wikipedia notable things so that reliable sources start covering them to the point that someone completely unconnected to them wants to create such an article. Of course, since this tends to work better for really famous people like movie stars. musicians, pro athletes, etc. than it does for other types of people who tend to be ignored by main stream media sources, I can somewhat understand feeling "I've got to do this myself because nobody is going to do it for me". Still it comes down to someone wanting to have a Wikipedia article written about them despite the fact that they're pretty much going to have zero control over what that article becomes over time. There seem to be much better WP:ALTERNATIVEs these days for someone to establish an online presence that they'll have total editorial control over and be able to use to let the world know about all about themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. Did you mean that the persons (such as celebrities, known politicians) who have a page written by unconnected people is not able to edit that page which is about the very themselves? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can edit it, but anyone else is free to edit, too. Article subjects have no control over the articles about them. Other editors can add stuff you'd prefer not to include and can remove stuff you'd like to include. Valereee (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: The subjects of articles can edit said articles, but they're going to be expected to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines just like any other editor; the subjects of articles don't "own" the articles in the sense that they've got total control over what's written in the article, and they can't stop others from editing the article. When the subject of an article has a problem with what's written about them, Wikipedia has processes in place to try and help them sort things out as explained here; Wikipedia, however, doesn't do what the subject wants just because the subject wants it done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general guidance is that the subject of an article can make minor corrections to grammar, spelling, numers, names, etc, can add citations to reliable independent sources, and can revert obvious vandalism. Anything more substantive than that should be proposed on the article talk page.

That's after the article has been published. While it's still a draft, the subject is free to make any edits to it, and a reviewer would either accept the draft for publicaiton or decline it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request a move on Wikipedia?

WP:RM gives you a guide on requesting a move, but it isn’t clear enough for me to request. How do I request it? 143.179.74.165 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which page do you want moved to which title? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sj-sound to Voiceless palatal-velar fricative. 143.179.74.165 (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, always check for double redirects if the target page already exists. If not, check for broken redirects. 143.179.74.165 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 19 years old, it has been moved before, and its title has been discussed on the talk page, so it should be treated as a potentially controversial move with the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. The talk page is Talk:Sj-sound. Note Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names which may be mentioned by opponents. Is that sufficient help? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird message on my talk page from IP user

an IP (2003:DE:E714:EA46:83D:9568:35AD:7CE8) left a weird string of gibberish on my Talk page. what should I do about it? I'm going to delete it, of course, but should this go to ANI or something? Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ApteryxRainWing Seasons Greetings from the Teahouse! I see you've already removed it, but, no, ANI would not be appropriate. This user made just two random edits - for what reason, we've no idea. Test edit? Error? Vandalism? You've reverted it. Great. That's all you need to do. I always check a user's contributions to see if they're doing it to others. tThis one isnt'. Nor is their IPv6 address doing it on the /64 range, which is always worth checking. So, just walk away and ignore it, unless it happens again. It's never worth feeding the trolls.

But, even then, this would be a case of disruption or vandalism, were the pattern to be repeated elsewhere. So, then you warn the user (Twinkle is a very easy tool for automating that process). Having warned them, check if they continue their behaviour. If they do so, warn them again, but with a higher level template and, if they still continue, report them at WP:AIV, not ANI, as that's the place for vandals to be assessed and blocked if they're continuing to be disruptive. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could it be that the user tried to literally "roar with you"? If you make a clever...(a good word for it escapes me right now)(your signature makes me smile everytime I see it) you must be aware of some unusual repercussions. 176.0.139.10 (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to say, but AGF doesn't apply here. After looking at it, it was most probably an attempt on Tagging (graffiti). 176.0.139.10 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Draft?

Hoping this might be a place where someone might offer a bit of feedback on a draft to see if there are any issues, formatting or content related - or anything else that seems problematic.

If not please advise any alternative. Thanks in advance!

KoKo91361 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To get feedback you need to submit Draft:KarynO for review but I can tell you now that IMDb and Discogs are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this quick note. Will have to eliminate/replace IMDb and Discogs links and citations then. A bit challenging since about 1/2 of our references come from them. Good to know this would be a problem though (in advance!) KoKo91361 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KoKo91361, I am not seeing evidence from the sources you've provided that Karyn meets our criteria for inclusion for musicians, unfortunately. If these are the best sources you have, then it doesn't look like Karyn merits an article on Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A LOT of unreferenced name-dropping that all has to be deleted. For example: "She became a technical consultant and friend to many - including Christopher Cross, Stewart Copeland, Timothy B. Schmidt, Elton John (band), Jon Anderson, Ray Charles, Billy Corgan, Eric Carmen, Butch Vig, Al Schmitt. Bruce Swedien, Oscar Peterson, Stevie Wonder, and countless others." David notMD (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT PAGE UNIVERSITY PROJECT

Hello, i'm actually working on the draft page "Villa Fraccaroli" for a university project, i need the page to be accepted before the 31 of december, i was wondering if you could look at it, and if there's something to improve, i can work on it. Thank you in advance! Micol Liucmicol01 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liucmicol01 We cannot guarantee acceptance before a certain date- we have no deadlines on this volunteer project. and your professor has put you in a difficult position by making you do this. Your professor should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to design lessons that don't depend on review by volunteers. Please show your professor this message. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been reported on the Education Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Teahouse query from Italian university class as a few other class members have posted queries.

@Liucmicol01 please tell your instructor they have set you an unfair task: new drafts are reviewed by volunteers in their own time, and the current wait time is eight weeks or longer. qcne (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qcue's answer is not true. The system is not a queue. Any draft can be reviewed in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Each reviewer decides what they want to review next. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, it has been accepted and is now at Villa Fraccaroli. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously good submissions can be accepted fast, and problem ones can be declined fast. But those in between that are difficult to evaluate may be left for someone else to check. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do with this article

I found this article called Kitakagaya Station and it doesn’t provide any citations and the only references are two Japanese websites that I can’t read. I really need help on whether I should draftify it or leave it be. I know absolutely nothing about Osaka or the train station, so for me I have no idea how to expand it. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...marked as unrefrenced since 2011. @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, any chance you'd be willing to do a google search to see if there are references? If there are, you can add them. If there aren't, or if you just don't feel like doing that work, you could redirect to Osaka Metro. An attempt to fix is always best, but a unsourced article that's been tagged for that long, a redirect is a reasonable choice. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, be sure to study WP:DRAFTIFY thoroughly before moving any articles to draftspace. An article that is older than 90 days should not be moved to draftspace. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valeree, if I were to leave a redirect, where would I redirect it to? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to Yotsubashi Line? That article was also largely unreferenced, too, and both references were dead; I fixed them with the 'fix dead links' in the history.

Just FTR, we don't require references to be in English, and if you open them in your browser, you may be able to see the translation. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preference on editing style

I was wondering if it is prefered if, for consecutive edits/contributions for an article all written in the same edit period, that the edits be merged into a single large edit when publishing or if smaller but multiple edits are prefered. Thought 1915 (talk) on 22:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thought 1915 It very much depends e.g. whether the topic is controversial and whether there are lots of other editors watching the article. We work according to a standard bold, revert, discuss process and if you add one large edit, another editor may dislike just one part (e.g. because it is not sourced) and decide to revert the whole edit. If, instead, you add short sections then another editor will be unlikely to revert all your work and can focus on just the edit(s) they object to. If you are making a new article as a draft or in your sandbox, then large edits would be fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Thought 1915 Welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest making relatively small edits and saving each one with a short, helpful EDIT SUMMARY. At the largest, I would write one paragraph based upon one citation, though usually much smaller. Should you lose power or forget to save your edits, you could lose them. If an article is likely to be edited by other people at the same time, then saving in shorter packets helps you avoid WP:EDIT CONFLICTS. If you describe each 'save' clearly, it also lets you go back through the 'View History' tab to find a particular edit that you had previously made - possibly to revert or review it easily. That also applies when working in your sandbox, where nobody else is going to be editing. Hope this helps and Welcome to Wikipedia! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of variation available. As Mike Turnbull says, ff you're writing an article from scratch, large bulk edits are probably fine, while for controversial topics smaller edits are preferred. However, I'd advise not to go too far in either direction. Many small edits clog the edit history and might obscure significant changes you make in with minor copyediting or the like, which makes it harder for other editors to review and process the changes. For article-writing, I find trying to cram everything into one big edit clogs up my thinking; I prefer to start with a stub and build it up over a few days. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For large existing articles at which I intend to make lots of changes, sometimes as preparing for a Good Article nomination (see Vitamin D) I am always doing multiple edits. At most, I copy a section into my Sandbox, work there, then replace the original with my revised. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct a page William John Swainson

Courtesy link: William John Swainson

This name is incorrect it should be William Swainson. He did not have a middle name of John. I have a copy of his death certificate which clearly has his full name as William Swainson, as does his grave stone and the memorial plaque of his first wife Mary Parkes. I have not sighted any books that he illustrated or wrote that had John as a middle name I have sighted newspaper articles and letters as well as places were he is referenced in the committees, Societies, and groups he was in. I have never seen any of his sketches signed William John Swainson or WJ Swainson or William J Swainson. Remember that there are also sketches done by his sons, including William John Swainson (Willie), and his daughters. Even the sources have him as WIlliam Swainson. Can anyone help me as this is the first time I have tried to do this. Thanks SwainsonTimbo (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The formal place to propose a rename is on Talk:William John Swainson. Present your evidence. Various reliable sources do include the name "John", so you will ahve to counteract them. Also the page William Swainson is already a disambiguation page, so you would have to go to a different name such as William Swainson (botanist). Once a decision is made the page can be "moved" to the appropriate title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked through all the sources cited, but none of the ones I have looked at say "John" anywhere, including the DNB, and the obituary in The Gentleman's Magazine which is titled "William Swainson", despite it being cited as "William John Swainson". ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User "Judge Nutmeg" seems to have introduced the name John in this edit in 2007, with no citation to support it. The article was moved to the present title in August 2008. Which are the sources which support "John" @Graeme Bartlett? (These replies should be on the Talk page, but I haven't the time to create a discussion there now). ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources include [2] [3] [4] [5]. They are just input for a decision of the name and need to be compared with other sources that don't use "John". William Swainson (naturalist) could be a better name for our article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source points to William's son William John. The others point to say William John Swainson then talk about William Swainson. The last source is a newer one and probably got for Wikipedia? Any old source refers to William Swainson. I think that since the name was changed in 2007 - 2008 without any sources the new sources after that date may be invalid. How could I load a picture of his death certificate? I am really new to this so am struggling. I appreciate any help. I agree with the new name for our article SwainsonTimbo (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a birth certificate is more relevant, but it was so long ago, they probably did not exist. There might be a christening record though. Anyway you don't have to prove via a death certificate, just a preponderance of sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Making

I am the grandson of Joseph A. Burgundy and I thought his life was interesting so I tried to make an article on him I don't have any other resources I can find except my father and he died in 2011 so I don't know what to do Doodledoo4 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Doodledoo4:. On Wikipedia, articles are based off information that is already published. So you can search online, books, and newspaper indexes. But if the only information is from relatives, then it is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. So if it is like that then you can choose to do something else instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find newspaper articles about your grandfather (for example, an obituary), then there is no path to your draft being accepted as an article. You can either ask that it be deleted or just abandon it, leaving it to be auto-deleted six months from now. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"&nbsp" tag appearing in some edits I make

I am curious as to why some of my edits lately include adding "&nbsp" tags when I am not intentionally adding them. Examples include [6], [7], and [8]. I corrected them with [9], [10], and [11], respectively. I wonder if pages that are prone to having the "&nbsp" tag appear when I intend to make a different change have some script or formatting issue that I do not know about until I make the edit. If anyone can help identify this issue, I would appreciate it. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Z. Patterson. That is just the code for a Non-breaking space. It prevents an unwanted line break. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Is there any way to use existing articles as template sorta things for the sandbox? Any help is appreciated! Willzdawgh (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Willzdawgh. Yes. you can copy an existing article into your sandbox, but for attribution purposes, you should use an edit summary of something like "Copying (article title) into my sandbox for article development purposes". Wikilink the article in question where I said (article title). Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying Donald Trump into my sandbox for article development purposes

Like that? Willzdawgh (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a massive and highly controversial article, Willzdawgh. Why on earth would you select that article? Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

srry if I did something wrong bro. I'm new and I also forgot to mention that I was wanting to do this merely bc I was bored. I'm sorry if that's a problem. More specifically I wanted to mess around with hypertranslate and replace the article's text with the result on hypertranslate. I'm sorry if I'm unknowingly planning on doing something I'm not allowed to. I'll refrain from doing this if that's the case. Once again, very sorry. Willzdawgh (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. If you're here to experiment, I recommend scouting scouting out stub articles via Special:RandomPage, pasting the wikitext into your sandbox, and messing around with the source there. If you need any help, you can refer to the tutorial at Help:Wikitext, the cheatsheet at Help:Cheatsheet, or an experienced editor (not me.) Thanks for asking, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willzdawgh Applying the Hypertranslate software to the text of an existing article and then replacing the original text would be considered vandalism and would result in your account being indefinitely blocked. If all you are is curious about what repeated Google Translate would do to any Wikipedia text, do that on your own computer and do not bring it back to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to ask for help if it is possible to edit the title of my draft article?

Hello. I would like to ask for help if it is possible to edit the title of my draft article? Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Batoenonghistoryador You would have to WP:Move an article via the toolbar on the right side of the screen to do it, but only confirmed/autoconfirmed users can do it. If you would like, I can move it for you, as long as you can specify the desired title. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you so muchc much appreciated if you can edit the title and make it like "Atty. Howard Calleja et, al. vs. Executive Secretary et, al." Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant to the draft process. If accepted, the draft will be placed at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passive voice in articles

Courtesy link: Sacred Reich (sandbox)

I'm working on a draft for the Sacred Reich article (at my sandbox) for a major edit, and I ran my text through numerous grammar/spellcheckers like EasyBib and Grammarly. The most common—and most confusing—is on the use of passive voice. For context, passive voice is "the ball was kicked by Jeremy", while active voice is "Jeremy kicked the ball". I don't know whether or not I should be using passive voice in my prose (i.e. "Greg Hall was fired from the band and was replaced by drummer Tim Radziwill). I have attempted to use featured articles as examples, but usually doesn't seem to happen because of the abundance of information on the subject (i.e The Beatles or Alice in Chains) compared to a band like Sacred Reich. In my opinion, I'm not sure whether or not to use passive voice because it sounds rough when introducing a new member.

For example, "Greg Hall ... was replaced by Dave McClain ... later that year." vs. "Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall later that year." usually justifies using passive voice, but in context, this his first mention in the article and it disrupts the flow of the prose. In context:

Sacred Reich toured for nearly two years in support of The American Way, headlining major tours with Atrophy, Obituary, and Forced Entry. They also supported Venom in Europe and for Sepultura on their Arise tour in both Europe and North America. In 1991, the band released an EP, titled A Question. Former S.A. Slayer member Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall, who found their extensive touring to be difficult, later that year.

I'm still not sure if it justifies using active voice or not. If it does, please let me know. On a side note, I've noticed an abundance of the phrase "later that year" in my writing, and I don't know how to rewrite it properly because of vague dates in the source material. If anyone can help me with that as well, please let me know so I can get rid of the repetition. Thanks for reading. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clunky because of where you put 'later that year'. It reads much better if you put it first - Later that year former S.A. Slayer member Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall, who found the extensive touring difficult. I don't think you should worry too much about active vs passive voice. Despite what grammar checkers might tell you, there's no one right way to write. Blackballnz (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Blackballnz. I appreciate the advice, it does actually seem more about the word placement than the voice construction, and I'll make sure to refactor the article to read better. Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 06:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, Sparkle & Fade, the active voice is almost always best for writing encyclopedia articles. We favor a direct, clear and concise style of writing. Here is a good explanation from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Wikipedia:Writing better articles also offers a lot of good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

passive voice is best used when you have to avoid to ascribe an action to someone. Example: somebody was fired from the band. The reference uses passive voice, thereby avoiding to say who did it. Now you have a choice. Either search for a reference, that says who was firing or use passive voice too to avoid to say who did the firing. What you can't do is to figure out who could do the firings in general and then ascribe that firing to him in active voice! 176.0.139.10 (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it matters (and you know) who took the action, use the active. When it's not important who was the actor, by all means use the passive. Grammarly and its friends express a prejudice against the passive which appeared in the early 20th C, often by writers who failed to follow their own injunction, and sometimes appeared unable to detect a passive accurately. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003380.html. ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New editor needs some help.

Hi there, I'm new. I wrote 2 drafts: 1 about an Internship Program which I found interested in, 1 is a course in social science field. I submitted 2 drafts and all rejected.

After editing few more things. I still don't know how to make references more reliable, or which content is the promoting material?

Here is my 2 drafts: MIP and Vietnamese writing practice Miyano25 (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyano25 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that "rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Your drafts were "declined", meaning that they may be resubmitted.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as a notable organization. Regarding MIP, you did a great job telling about the structure of the program and its offerings- but that's not what we're looking for(alone, at least). We're looking for a summary of what others say about the program. The same goes for the Vietnamese course. You can't "make references more reliable"- they either are, or they're not. Reliable sources are those which have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- like reputable news outlets(just one example). 331dot (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, thanks for explaining. Is it okay if I can summarize what other people say about the program but don't have a source to back it up, or have a source but it's not reliable to make it as a source? Miyano25 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article not visible on google

i created this article Vanskere 7 months ago, moved it to mainspace but still not showing on google, what could be wrong ?, please reply with either of the two editor Iamtoxima (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamtoxima The article was marked as reviewed on 31 August, so search engines could index thereafter. However, Wikipedia has no control over when they actually do so. There have been no edits to the article since that date. In my experience, if you make even a minor edit now, Google will pick it up very quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! This really helped, and I feel like I understand it much better now. we learn everyday. Iamtoxima (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamtoxima, please note that Wikipedia is not for promotion. The articles you created are written in a promotional tone, and I have tagged them as such. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh thanks for your contribution, i will check through again and fix it. Iamtoxima (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing four words from the short description does not magically make the article neutral. You'll need to rewrite most of the article, which contains promotional terms like significantly influenced, difficult to fit in due to his elaborate style, and more. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, @Iamtoxima, Who says that it "quickly emerged as a leading force"? Evaluative statements like that never belong in any Wikipedia article, unless they are directly cited to a reliable published source, wholly unconnected with the subject of the article. (And that is just one more example of the promotional language). Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. This page happens to be one of my first articles on Wikipedia, which is why I take particular interest in it. I would like to clarify that I am not affiliated with the individual or the company; I am simply contributing to the platform as others do.

The article was initially reviewed and approved. However, I have revisited, re-edited, and thoroughly checked the content based on your feedback. If there is a better approach to further improve it, I would genuinely appreciate your suggestions. After all, the purpose of this community is to collaborate and learn from one another.

I have implemented all the changes you highlighted, yet it seems you remain unsatisfied. I am open to constructive feedback, as learning and growing are integral parts of this journey.

Thank you again for your time and input. Iamtoxima (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

Kindly help me how best I can use this reservation system Dewclawsafaris (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dewclawsafaris could you clarify what you mean by reservation system? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is blocked for name problems. Either stop using this account and start a new one with a name that does

[1] tanea.gr (2004-10-11). "Aλλάζουν το εθνόσημο και οι «σαρδέλες»". ΤΑ ΝΕΑ (in Greek). Retrieved 2024-06-10.

[Greece_ArmyOR-2] "Διακριτικά Φ/Π Στολών Υπαξιωματικών Αποφοίτων ΣΜΥ" [Badges F / P Uniforms of Non-Commissioned Officer Graduates]. army.gr (in Greek). Hellenic Army. Retrieved 26 May 2021.

[Greek_Warrant-3] Greece has only one level of Warrant Officer. According to the current issue (2021) of STANAG 2116, the Greek Warrant Officers are included in OR-9, however they are afforded the privileges of an officer. See STANAG 2116 note 29, page D-9

[1]

[2]

[a]