Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Climate Change article editing

Hello, Teahouse. I would please request your permission to edit the main "Climate Change" article. I have background in meteorology and graduate level climatology. My focus is on "Droughts in California" which I have begun to edit due to incorrect or inapplicable information about the climate of California and causes of drought. I need to direct this page to the main pages on "Climate of California" and "Climate Change" for background that is not specific to California, possibly to other relevant pages. I will need to delete much of the content of the Climate Change section of the "Droughts in California" page since the content does not relate to California and comes across biased for that reason. I have just edited the disambiguation for global warming to clarify that global warming is one type of climate change (the terms are not interchangeable) and would like to add this detail to the "Climate Change" article; and further specify two types of climate change as natural and anthropogenic (man-made) since climate change occurred before greenhouse gasses were released by human industry. I will provide examples of natural climate change. I have also seen there is a call for climate experts, and I do see by my perusal the need on Gpedia to improve the content surrounding climate. I am beginning my endeavors with the "Droughts in California" page. I may possibly be able to involve other academics in Gpedia articles once I have entered material on level for review. FinancialCents (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @FinancialCents and welcome to the Teahouse. You do not need anyone's permission to edit. Technical articles are alway in need of expert input, but please read Gpedia:Expert editors first. This is quite different from writing technical papers. As an encyclopedia, our articles summarize published reliable sources (usually secondary), do not include original research, and do not draw conclusions that are not in the sources. Your examples will need to be provided using already published sources. We are happy to have you here. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FinancialCents: Hi there! The Climate change article is semi-protected. Once your account is at least four days old and you have made at least ten edits to Gpedia, your account will become autoconfirmed and you will be able to edit the article. Thank you for your work to improve Gpedia! GoingBatty (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I see now that I am autoconfirmed. The notes and warnings led me to believe otherwise. My edits were not accepted by other editors, so I have moved to the Talk page of the Climate Change article. I am going by university course teachings by PhD researchers and also with core texts Meteorology Today (Ahrens, Hansen) and Climatology (Rohli, Vega). My input is not politicized. FinancialCents (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt that university course teachings can be used as references. David notMD (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David notMD Presumably you mean that unrecorded, oral presentations in teaching courses are iffy, because they are not verifiable. However, recorded presentations, or slides of teaching materials, or textbooks certainly are acceptable, and used in a lot of articles. See for instance the first six references of the article Electric field.
Of course, recent research in reputable scholarly journals trumps such sources, but in the absence of a disagreement between sources, teaching material is fine. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sit corrected. I would have replied "I stand corrected," but first, I am sitting, and second, I am puzzled as to why "I stand corrected" is correct, even though I just found out that its origin is a play from the 1600s. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely "stand" (and n. "stance") is here used in a metaphorical sense to refer to one's mental 'position' on a philosophical, ideological or intellectual matter. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen signs in a sidewalk, in cities, that say "Bus stop - no standing". Apparently "standing" covers a lot of positions. (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only warning I'd give, FinancialCents, is the same warning I'd give to anyone else wanting to jump headfirst into a topic under discretionary sanctions - Be very conservative with your words, do not blindly revert, and disengage if you feel things are getting out of control. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When writing an edit summary, is there a way to stop the enter key generating a "Publish"?

On my laptop, the backspace key is just above the enter key. Too often, mid-way through writing an edit summary, I make a typo. Intending to backspace and correct, instead I've just hit the enter key mid-sentence and published an incoherent explanation. Of course it only happens when the topic is controversial. Face-smile.svg Or so it seems.

I can't see anything in Preferences that would change this default. Have I missed it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John Maynard Friedman. I am not aware of a technical fix, but you can always make a dummy edit with the correct edit summary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've been doing that but it looks so incompetent that I had hoped for a Cunning Plan. Too bad, I didn't really expect an easy solution. Thanks for looking anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman, when I know a long or complex edit summary is about to be required, my solution a la Baldrick is to type it out elsewhere (e.g. in a text editor) and then copy+paste. Maybe you can try something similar. (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman, you could try to ask at WP:VPT (where the people with programming skills hang out) whether this could be addressed by a script or gadget or browser extension. —Kusma (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, my default editor behavior is to not publish unless I hit ctrl+enter or cmd+return, depending on what OS I'm using. Not sure how that was set up on my end, I was under the impression this was the default setting for everyone. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi John Maynard Friedman! If you want this behavior, and are willing to try adjusting your common.js, I just tested adding some JS to my common.js (go to Special:Mypage/common.js and create it if it doesn't exist; make sure to heed the warning about copying and paste things in there, since it runs on every page.) and enter (feel free to edit/remove the line with the alert if you want it to be silent):
/* Disallow hitting "enter" in the edit summary box to actually submit. */
(function() {
	var submit_box = document.getElementById('wpSummary');
	if (submit_box) {
		submit_box.onkeypress = function(e) {
			if (e.charCode === 13) {
    			alert('Customized behavior; "enter" to publish turned off. Use "Publish" button to publish.');
Skynxnex (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My gratitude for all the generous replies. I will try tomorrow. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skynxnex:, that is just what the doctor ordered. A major barnstar for you. Thank you very much. Applause! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Skynxnex: More applause! plus thanks for directions on making it silent.Peter Brown (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman awesome, glad it helped! One nice thing about this, I realized I wanted to add, was that you can still stay only on the keyboard by hitting Tab and then Enter to publish (for me at least, since the "minor edit" checkbox is part of the form but not the edit summary so it isn't stopped. If you want to toggle it to be minor, then Tab, Space, Enter will publish that.) Skynxnex (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you're observing is actually standard behavior for any web form: hitting 'enter' in a text field is the same as submitting the form. Every browser I have ever used over the past 25 years works this way. I am so accustomed to this that I rely on it, and am annoyed when I have to reach over to the mouse to submit the form. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist:, I don't believe that I ever suggested that it is a bug but only that on cramped laptop keyboards it is an accessibility issue. And btw, ↵ Enter functions as a (carriage) return key or an enter ("commit") key according to context. In body text, it is usually the former. In one of a series of dialogue boxes, it can even function as a tab key (this box complete, go to next box). So the behaviour is a design choice. Yes, most often it is as you say, for a single dialogue box like the Edit summary and that behaviour is so common that most users expect it. But it is not a cast-iron rule, irrespective of circumstances. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: It may be a design choice here, but IIRC for basic HTML web forms, this behavior (Enter=Submit) is the default, and has been since the earliest days of the World Wide Web when Mosaic and Netscape were the only browsers around. Suppressing this default behavior is the design choice. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the Berklee Page as an Independent Reference/source for Roman Catholic Church Accompanist

Hello @User:Cullen328

Actually it was intended for the Roman Catholic Church. (Draft:Roman_Catholic_Church_Accompanist)

As you can see in this external link of Berklee (Church Musician (also called Accompanist/Organist):

you can find the description and image of the cross with Jesus Christ on it (a clear symbol of the Catholic Church with Jesus on the cross). It's intended for describing what a church accompanist/musician is.

I think it can be used as an independent reference for this draft. At other non-catholic churches, you cannot find Jesus on the cross.

Please double check the reference link Church Musician above. Your help would be much appreciated.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Please let me know.

Nativefreelancer (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nativefreelancer, this is unacceptable for several reasons. First of all, images used to illustrate an article on a music college's website are in no way, shape or form reliable sources for any content on Gpedia. Secondly, when I click that link, I do not see a crucifix. Third, even if I did, our article Crucifix correctly states that crucifixes are also used in the Eastern Orthodox Church, most Oriental Orthodox Churches (except the Armenian & Syriac Church), and the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as by the Lutheran, Moravian and Anglican Churches, so your assertion that the crucifix is exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church is simply not accurate. Just search for "greek orthodox crucifix" on Google Images and see what you find. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your concerns. Yet, it looks like the Berklee College of Music has a Catholic presence for its students.
"We are also the Catholic presence for Berklee College of Music, and we welcome all Students, Faculty and Staff..."
Here's a page FYI: Nativefreelancer (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, that is the website of a Catholic student organisation which happens to have a presence at Berklee. The "We" in the snippet of text you quote is the Newman Ministry, not Berklee College. Berklee has no specific religious affiliation, but like many other educational institutions, they have various student groups for students who belong to different religions and denominations. And the stock photo of a choir used on the info page about Berklee's church musician programme is completely unrelated to that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @Cullen 328
Do you think a book found on Amazon may help? It can be an independent reference for this draft.
This book also contains a very practical approach with inside tips on what to expect when playing a wedding, funeral, Catholic Mass, traditional or contemporary church service.
Here's the page FYI:
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks. Nativefreelancer (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Amazon link cannot be used in an article. What specific information would you use the book as a reference for? --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the accompanist will be a perfect reference for the universal church accompanist.
Accompanists from the universal church do similar things due to Universal church.
Thank you for helping me to improve the draft. Nativefreelancer (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Cullen 328,
I found a great book written by the Catholic Organist/Pianist accompanist:
Some description can be found in the ABOUT THIS BOOK section FYI:
It's very details. It should work. What do you think? It can be an independent reference for the draft.
I will rewrite the draft for more specific details soon. Nativefreelancer (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About how to improve this draft/article

Hello @Duck

Thank you for helping me improving this draft: (Draft:Roman_Catholic_Church_Accompanist)

Do you think it makes sense now? I've added some description in the External Links: Church Musician and See Also sections for the Berklee page: Accompanist ("Accompanist". Berklee College of Music. Retrieved September 17, 2022) as an independent reference for this draft.

Please let me know how to improve this draft if any.

Thank you.

Nativefreelancer (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Nativefreelancer: I do not think the issues raised above about sourcing have been solved. For instance, you namedrop Mozart as one of the most notable Accompanists of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the history of church music, but that assertion is referenced to a Spotify playlist of Mozart works. First of all, a composer need not be a performer, even if we accept for the sake of the argument that a Spotify playlist was a source for the fact that Mozart composed sacred music. Second, while it is well attested that Mozart did play the piano very well, I am not aware that he played the piano in the context of accompanying sacred music performances. Third, even if you had a source showing that he performed in such a context, that would not be enough for the assertion he is noted as an accompanist of RC church music - such an assertion would probably need sourcing from prominent music historians.
In addition to those problems, your draft seems to put in WP:WIKIVOICE things that are Catholic doctrine. The most egregious example is "reference" #10 (actually, a footnote rather than a reference), which states the mission of laity in Wikivoice rather than as a quote. The extensive quotes in the lead are probably not needed either.
Finally, the scope of the article is questionable. The role of piano or organ accompanist exists across quite a few Christian churches with little variation, so there is no real reason the article should be specifically about Catholic ones. Other articles on Christian topics (for instance, Eucharist) usually cover the whole Christian perspective before diving into differences. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @Tigraan
Yes, Mozart was employed as the musician to the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg.
You can click on the link to the Gpedia page:
Or check the latest reference from an independent reference for the Universal church on the draft here: Draft:Roman Catholic Church Accompanist now. Nativefreelancer (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nativefreelancer: You added a reference to that page. First of all, that page should not be used as reference for anything per WP:CIRCULAR, because large parts of it are copied from the Gpedia article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Furthermore, even if it was a reliable source, it does not support the assertion that [Mozart is] one of the most notable Accompanists of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the history of church music, which is what your draft says. (If it does, please point to the exact sentence that says this. Being employed as an organist is not the same as being one of the most notable accompanists throughout history.)
As that is not the only instance of mismatch between the source and the assertion, I encourage you to read carefully WP:V, a core Gpedia guideline. The basic standard is that a dumb but persistent reader should be able to verify themselves everything that is written in an article. That fictional reader is extremely patient and has access to many libraries, but they do not make any sort of intelligent reasoning, so everything has to be spelled out for them. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Nativefreelancer: Looks like User:User-duck just fixed some issues with the reference templates. I have added a longish comment on the draft page. Regarding the Berklee college link, all it verifies is that a church musician can also be called "accompanist" – that's simply a dictionary definition, and the RC church is not mentioned. --bonadea contributions talk 09:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello, @Bonadea
    Yes, you're right. I think it can be an independent reference.
    When they write church musician=accompanist, they refer to the universal church. The universal church can be the Roman Catholic Church.
    Here's a wikipedia page FYI: Universal church
    Universal church or Universal Church may refer to:
    They are all the same. The church musician/accompanist do similar things in a universal church. Nativefreelancer (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My feeling, looking at this article, is that it's too narrow, which will make it very difficult to prove notability, because it will be difficult to find sources that refer in depth to the role of a Roman Catholic Accompanist. I cannot think off-hand of any Christian denomination that does not use music, and has no one who could qualify as the dictionary definition of accompanist. And I can think of many Roman Catholic churches who have musicians, a director of music, an organist, or someone otherwise not referred to as an accompanist but doing the job of accompanying church music. There are many sources about church music, of course, and whole books on how to be a good church accompanist, or a good church organist, or a combination of both, but unless there are a lot of sources that define this in especially Roman Catholic terms, and draw a distinction between Roman Catholic church musicians and every other church musician, then we don't need a specific article for Roman Catholic examples of the species. We have an article on Church music but I can't see any general article on Church musicians, which might be easier to source, and more generally relevant. Elemimele (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello @Elemimele
    Do you think it would be a good idea to create a new draft: universal church accompanist or church accompanist?
    As we all know that the universal church can be any churches.
    What do you think? Would it be a better idea to change the title of the draft? Nativefreelancer (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As we all know that the universal church can be any churches. As our article universal church (a disambiguation page) shows, that term has many meanings. Even so, I didn’t know the meaning of "any Christian church", despite having grown in a Catholic environment.
Keep in mind that Gpedia is written with a worldwide perspective. Most Indians probably don’t know that meaning of "universal church" either (I would guess less than half of the world population can explain the difference between "Catholic" and "Christian").
Alternatively: do you know who Tripitaka and Sun Wukong are? Probably not. I would estimate that at least one billion humans know the rough outline of the story they appear in. Do you know who Abu Bakr was? Probably not. He is a central figure in the most significant schism of Islam. etc.
Many things that you don’t know are considered absolutely basic stuff in other cultures. If you don’t want to explain basic stuff, Gpedia is probably not the place for you. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello@Elemimele
    What about this one? Please check the About The Book section:
    "Organ music for the Catholic Mass has a much different function than music played in Protestant churches. In Protestant services, the organ is often played as a solo instrument during the service. People sit, listen, and enjoy hearing the organ as a part of worship. In the Catholic church, the organist (=accompanist) plays during processions and the music must be suitable – essentially, the music must not be the center of attention. The organ must sustain the mood for the various processions supporting their place and function within the Mass." Nativefreelancer (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a self published book, which means it most likely should not be used on Gpedia. It also isn't particularly accurate - in addition to the orthodox churches already mentioned here, plenty of protestant denominations (the Lutherans, for example), employ the organ in a similar manner. I don't believe that sufficient sourcing really exists for you to write a policy-compliant Gpedia article on this. Your time may be better spent elsewhere. MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am certain that many Church of England sources would say much the same thing too. I was going to make the point that the existence of a book entitled Botany for Ladies doesn't justify an article on Botany for Ladies separate to Botany because the book in question is merely about botany, and the information in it is not different for gentlemen. To support an article Botany for Ladies you need a secondary author writing about the role of Botany in a woman's education and life (where the secondary author might in turn cite Mrs Loudon, the author of the wonderful "Botany for Ladies"). But there's something more helpful here: have you had a look at Liturgical_music? This has a large section on Catholic music, and a very short section on Anglican because someone has written a separate article on Anglican church music. Rather than writing a new article on Catholic accompanists, it might be better to add any relevant information to the Liturgical music article, and if the section on Catholic liturgical music gets out of hand, separate it out into an article Catholic church music analogous to the Anglican version. Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've checked the WorldCat and found a secondary independent source of publishing book from a catholic church accompanist.
    I found a secondary independent source on WorldCat here:
    I've added it to the first footnote on the draft: Draft:Roman Catholic Church Accompanist
    You can also view the reliable source in archive FYI: Nativefreelancer (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here's a PDF file for downloads FYI:
    The accompanist Gerald Moore, was engaged as organist at the universal church. Nativefreelancer (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does this article warrant the amount of time we are spending on it here? Just asking. (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure it's a notable source
Here's a PDF file for downloads FYI:
We have the accompanist, notable collaborative pianist Gerald Moore, who was engaged as organist at the universal church, wrote his first book about the accompanist, and was attracted to the Anglo-Catholicism at his early age. There's no rush to write a draft/article. Nativefreelancer (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nativefreelancer (and @Elemimele), this conversation would probably be better off continuing at the talk page of the draft, rather than at the Teahouse. (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making a Gpedia entry easier to read

I use List of 500 companies at Gpedia to find stocks. I The entries are all there and legible, but would be easier to read if (1) the trading symbol(such as MSFT)were printed in black instead of light blue, and (2) your symbol that looks like a capital L with an arrow thru it were spaced farther from the trading symbol itself. This concerns ease of reading, not content itself. ... Willard Felsen, who is also a financial contributor to Gpedia and regular user for all sorts of things (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe they're light blue because they're links. And the "L with an arrow thru it" is because they're external links (i.e., lead to pages outside of Gpedia). Uporządnicki (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor: Welcome to the Teahouse. As AzseicsoK says, this is because they are external links. This is essentially hard-coded into the software, so there's not much chance that this will change unless someone decides to remove the links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, I assume that you are referring to List of S&P 500 companies. You can propose changes to that list article at Talk:List of S&P 500 companies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, if you create an account, you can suppress the display of that arrow icon by editing your common.css file and including this line:
.mw-parser-output a.external { background-image: none; }
That suppresses the icon everywhere on Gpedia. If you want to suppress them on just that page, the line would be:
.page_List_of_S_P_500_companies .mw-parser-output a.external { background-image: none; }
But you cannot do this as an anonymous IP address. You need an account. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are other, and arguably better, places on the 'net to find the components of the S&P 500. (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close gaps in article

Hi all- I placed an image collage for the years "2012" and "2013", but I notice that the spacing between the header "Deaths" and "January" becomes huge. Is there a way to close this gap without deleting the photo collage I worked on? Is it just a matter of rearranging things in the article? I also did the photo collage for "2015" but this article seemed to not have this problem. Thanks. The ganymedian (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is for the desktop browser. The phone version still looks fine. The ganymedian (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The ganymedian: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not seeing any irregular spacing in 2012 or 2013 in the areas you mentioned via desktop. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can confirm the experience of @The ganymedian. This can be true even without the addition of the photo collage. For a sufficiently wide window (or sufficiently small typeface), the gap gets large. In extreme cases, the "Deaths" heading ends before the beginning of the "2013 in various calendars" infobox; the "January" heading begins after the end of that infobox. Sorry, but I don't know if there's a solution. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The gap is caused by {{Clear}} at the end of {{Births and deaths TOC}} which forces the browser to skip until after all floating boxes. It is also because {{C21 year in topic}} is an extremely long infobox (actually several). Removing the clear template should help, but might cause other problems. Collapsing some portions of the topic infoboxes to reduce it's length might also help. MKFI (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass replacement of "Communist Party of China" TO "Chinese Communist Party"

Hi everyone, I noticed that Amigao has largely replaced the Communist Party of China (CPC) with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the English wikipedia and wikidata pages.

I have checked his talk page and found that a lot of people have put forward different opinions on his long-term mass replacement behavior, but he doesn't seem to agree with or care about these views, and continues to carry out this mass replacement behavior.

He thinks WP:COMMONNAME is the core policy, but shouldn't WP:OFFICIAL be more applicable to the Community Party of China, which has long announced and used its official name? What is your opinion on this?

Now I hope these pages can be restored, do you have any better way, thank you!—— Zzhtju (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The names most commonly used in Reliable sources are usually preferred to official names; see this quote from WP:COMMONNAME:

Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used.

dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So as an encyclopedia, we have to let these systematic misuses or the "most commonly used" you say ignore their long-term claims and use of the official name, is it possible that the "most commonly used" itself is intentional and wrong? I think It's a systemic prejudice and discrimination that you don't have the right to decide what you are called, what we westerners call you is supremely correct, we have always called you that way and will always call you that way, you can't change it even after you've claimed it many times.
I can only think that such an encyclopedia is obedient to Western centrism and chauvinism, embodies long-standing arrogance, and completely loses its meaning as an encyclopedia.—— Zzhtju (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, is there any problem with this batch replacement behavior, is it in line with wiki policy?—— Zzhtju (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zzhtju, this does not seem to be against any policies. If you want to change or discuss policy, you can start by posting at the Village pump. (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL are in agreement: the common name should be preferred. Maproom (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Pinging Amigao.) Maproom (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


AfD seems like an advanced wikipedian manoeuver. I have been reading WP:AFD, WP:GD, WP:DP, WP:CSD, WP:N, WP:PERMA, etc.

Is this an example of an AfD edge case? This dude's almost absolutely a no-one in history with a permastub. He was once an elected politician. I've seen AfDs get approved with more sources, and more RSPs.

What is a good example of an edgecase AfD? Modern Methuselah (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you may have gotten WP:AFD confused with WP:AFC. WP:AFD is the "Articles for Deletion" page while WP:AFC is the "Articles for Creation" page. Polar opposites and yet they work hand in hand. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I am very confused as to how you thought I was talking about AfC?
What lead you to believe I was talking about afc? Modern Methuselah (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said that you've seen AFDs get approved with more sources and more RSPs which doesn't really make sense considering AFD is for deleting articles. Did you mean that they're closed as keep? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I meant approved as in, they got deleted.
What is a better way I can refer to the AfD process so that I don't confuse anyone else? Modern Methuselah (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Could you possibly give me an example where an article was deleted after there were more sources and RSPs presented? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will look for an example and send it to you. Thank you. Modern Methuselah (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Modern Methuselah. Let's talk about Fenton M. Slaughter. According to WP:STUB, A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. That article is not a stub and so I upgraded it to start grade. The article has nine sentences of prose describing this man's life. He was an elected member of the California State Assembly, and there is strong consensus that state and provincial legislators are presumed to be notable. In addition, a property he owned is on the National Register of Historic Places, and I know from experience that the paperwork associated with such a listing will almost certainly have extensive biographical information that can be used to expand the article, which is available for download as a PDF from the NRHP website. Calling him "absolutely a no-one in history" is not a good attitude for an encyclopedia editor. If nominated for AfD, I am certain that the article would be kept, and this is not an edge case. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern Methuselah, here is a link to a public domain biographical sketch of Slaughter published in 1890 that contains lots of additional information about his life. It only took me a few minutes to find it. Before concluding that a person is a no-one. you need to have the skills and the willingless to do a competent search for sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The substance of your citation is almost exactly the same as one of the working citations I read that are a part of Fenton's current page. So yes I did see that. I didn't say he was a no-one to everyone, or that there aren't maybe people alive today who really appreaciate that he was around and did things propbably decendants.
Also one of the citations on Fenton's page is dead. How does one fix dead links like that? Modern Methuselah (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Modern Methuselah, the best way to fix dead links is to check the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive to see if there's an archived version. If there is, it can be added to the citation. If not, you can flag it as a {{Dead link}} and maybe someone else will be able to find an archive. (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Cullen328
Thank you for your comment.
I called the article a stub because at the bottom of the page it had:
This article about a member of the California State Assembly is a stub. You can help Gpedia by expanding it.
I misread WP:NPOL and did not think state (American state) level politicans were notable, especially ones who are part of multi-person legislative bodies and/or ones with short term limits. Would members of the Lok Sabha all qualify for presumed significance? That's national and huge. Would members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives all qualify for presumed significance? That's at the American state level.
Thank you for the information about the National Register of Historic Places as it relates to subjects and notability.
I said "almost absolutely a no-one in history" and did not mean it with derision. I think the likelyhood is quite high that you, me, and almost everyone we know are "almost absolutely a no-one in history" or "absolutely a no-one in history." How can I phrase this in a way that is less confusing about my tone? Modern Methuselah (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modern Methuselah, yes, members of the Lok Sabha, past and present, are presumed notable and properly referenced biographies of them will be kept. As can be seen at Category:Members of the Lok Sabha, we already have several thousand such biographies. The same applies to the New Hampshire House of Representatives (even though that is an unusually large body) if the article is properly referenced. Just because an article was tagged as a stub does not mean that it still is a stub. Articles frequently get expanded and the editor forgets to upgrade. I upgrade articles all the time that are incorrectly tagged as stubs. As for your tone, strive for neutrality in your writing. Perhaps you did not intend it, but I perceived your tone as derisive toward the article subject. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your clarification on these things!
What is more neutral for referring to a person with "limited notabitlity"? Modern Methuselah (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Limited notability" is in the eye of the beholder. Within English Gpedia, it appears that valid topics are state politicians, species, towns and villages, and (I think) secondary schools but not elementary or middle schools. Gpedia:Notability touches on criteria, especially at Subject-specific notability guidelines. David notMD (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secondary schools are not presumed notable by default and haven't been for over five years. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I add a vague time reference tag?

On the North Korea - Gpedia page, in Foreign Relations, one sentence is "The relations were strained in the last few years". How do I add a tag referring to סשסGrimmchild 19:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grimmchild There is a template {{when}} but if you could reword to use a citation as to the exact date that would be much better. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much. סשסGrimmchild 08:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amhara people page

Hi, a month ago my iP Adress was 2A00:A040:194:C4AF:14AF:E794:171E:E381 (I didn’t had an account) and all the sources that I edit on the page of the Amhara people got deleted. What can i do? Those were well accurate sources and they were deleted by the user Yonas Jh for no reason. Dsudil7379 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dsudil7379. The editor gave explanations in their edit summaries. You can discuss the matter at Talk:Amhara people or at User talk:YonasJH. Amhara people is an article that has been the subject of a lot of disruptive editing, and the entire Horn of Africa topic area is subject to Discretionary sanctions, so be cautious. I will leave some information about that on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dsudil7379 You said the edits were accurate. Did you include references to reliably published sources? (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OP has been blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading list

How to view my Gpedia mobile app saved reading list in Gpedia website Hirenfchotaliya (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hirenfchotaliya, please see the responses you received here. (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Submission : Indu Prabha Award

Indu Prabha Award is a new award instituted, by a charitable trust registered in Mumbai, it is an independent small effort to promote habit of writing, reading and generating interest in Hindi language. It is a currently at a nano level and no support from any govt or any body. Hence currently there are no independent reference. It is an effort without any paid reviews or media coverage. Its information available on wikipedia should not be based on coverage in other sources. Is it not better to have a pure information to reach out to more people? Healjoy (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Healjoy: Is it not better to have a pure information to reach out to more people? No.
Gpedia is not for promotion. This includes both basic advertisement ("buy product X now! (paid for by company Y)"), but also more noble / disinterested / NGO-type work.
Gpedia has somewhat objective criteria of WP:GNG for determining which topics have enough useful sourcing to write something about them. If those criteria were relaxed to substitute the judgement of editors about which causes are worthy of promotion, all hell would break loose. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Healjoy, and welcome to the Teahouse. Gpedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Gpedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you cite chart listings?

Is there a specific template, or...? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vortex3427, do you mean for music? There are Template:Single chart and Template:Album chart for that. Unless I misunderstand your question. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 12:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ixtal: Yes, thanks! — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 13:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to be of help Vortex3427 :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 14:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resubmission of Article

Hello Wikipedians!

I drafted an article - Draft:Tanya Abraham which has been declined twice. At this point, I've added as many references as I can. I wanted your opinion on whether the article has potential or should I just give up on it?

Full disclosure- I am a volunteer at the NGO she runs and am not paid for this. Rainbownautinspace (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rainbownautinspace, your draft wasn't declined because it needed more references, but because it needed better references, ones which help to establish that the subject is notable by being to reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of her. Which three of the references you've supplied, in your opinion, best do this? Maproom (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For all - Rainbow has declared COI on USer page. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Rainbow - Maproom is asking for you to identify the three 'best' references here, so that Teahouse hosts can give an opinion as to whether those are sufficient to substantiate an article. This should be useful before you revise and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD @Maproom
I think these reliable sources mention the subject well-
Also I thank you all your guidance! I really want to be a good wiki editor, all your feedback is deeply appreciated. Rainbownautinspace (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Default to visual editor

How do I change it so editing opens in the visual editor rather than the source editor? סשס Grimmchild 08:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, under Editing mode, select Always give me the visual editor if possible. Madeline (part of me) 10:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, and nice username סשס Grimmchild 10:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much appreciated! Madeline (part of me) 16:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External peer review

Are there any new WP:EPR? I for some reason enjoyed looking through them, though there weren't many and none of them are from the last decade. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to my knowledge. EPR appears to have not been updated in a long time. Perhaps you could look online for a few EPRs not yet listed? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declined on notability grounds

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft: Leon Lynch - (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I drafted a potential Gpedia article based on one that is already permanently published. I followed the structure and writing style plus the content of the permanent one. I used sources like independent newspapers and magazines. Feedback was on notability. Are firsts for African Americans simply discounted even when they are documented? That is what I have heard about Gpedia. (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the draft still exists (if not speedy deleted for a valid reason), identify it. David notMD (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It's hard to reply effectively when you haven't told us which draft, but I'll do so as far as I can.
Writing a Gpedia article is much more difficult than it looks; but this is not because of the visible part, the format and so on, which can be copied from elsewhere. It is because of the research that lies underneath it. Gpedia demands that the subject of an article meets its criteria for notability, which does not depend directly on what the subject is, or has said or done, but on what has been written about the subject. You say that you used sources like independent newspapers and magazines. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us enough to evaluate them. To establish notability, each source individually must satisfy all three of the following criteria: first, it must be reliable - most (but not all) major newspapers meet this, but smaller papers often do not. See WP:RSNP. Secondly, it must be independent. An article can be published in a top newspaper, but if all it is telling is is the subject's own words (in an interview, or a press release), then Gpedia isn't interested. Thirdly, it must contain significant coverage of the subject. A mere mention, a routine business announcement, a line-up at an event, don't do it. ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to be about Draft: Leon Lynch. (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In addition to the above, the OP asked Are firsts for African Americans simply discounted even when they are documented?, which I will try to answer.
Notability is a somewhat objective standard of "there are high-quality sources about that stuff". If someone was the first African American to do something, that can generate enough sourcing to justify an article. However, the mere fact that someone was the first African American to do something does not justify an article; only the sourcing does.
Now, while the standard is kind-of objective, it is well-known that the choice of coverage by newspapers and the like leads to systemic bias. If the first white man to do X got headlines around the world, and the first black woman to do Y got nothing, which is more common than the reverse, then we will cover the first one and not the second one. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that Leon Lynch is probably notable, but the draft as currently structured does not show it. The major structural problem is that the references and external links should be at the very end of the draft, after the body, and that the references should be reformatted as inline references. Please read Referencing for beginners. As a subscriber, I was able to read the New York Times reference. That article is a profile of defeated steelworker's union president David J. McDonald, and says only that he thought the appointment of Lynch as union vice president was a bad idea. That is what is called a "passing mention" and does not contribute to notability. Judging only by their titles, it seems likely that several other newspapers devote significant coverage to Lynch. Are any of those articles available online? That would be helpful. The lead section is inadequate. It should mention that he was vice president of the United Steelworkers for 30 years, that he was president of the Workers' Defense League, that he was an elected member of the AFL-CIO executive council, and a member of the Democratic National Committee. These are strong claims of notability that should be included in the lead section. I recommend that you register a Gpedia account to facilitate communication with other editors, and I will assist you in further developing the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to ping STTLynch, since they created the draft and might appreciate the offer of help above. (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafting an Article

Hello people.

I would like to begin writing an article about the book God is my Co-Pilot by GEN Robert L Scott, Jr.. Would the book count as a reputable source in itself, or would I need additional sources, such as reviews from when the book was published (1943)?

Thanks, A1139530 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A1139530: Hello A11! The book would not count as its own reputable source as it would be considered a primary source. You would need to find additional source in order to actually prove the book's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if the original source material is considered a primary source, what would be? I ask because the book was written in 1943 and was a bestseller, which inspired the film of the same name, but as its 1943 original material and reviews and other sources may be harder to find. Thanks- A1139530 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530, you're correct that they may be hard to find, but those reviews are what you'll probably need to prove notability. See WP:NBOOK. (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530: You might find it helpful to read Gpedia:Notability (books) and Help:Your first article. Note that the sources you use (such as reviews) do not have to be online. GoingBatty (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) @A1139530: According to WP:BOOKCRIT, a book is presumed to be notable if it "has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture ...", so the book is probably notable; but that doesn't obviate the need for secondary sources. Reviews from the time may be rather difficult to find, but finding them shouldn't be impossible. If you track down published reviews or other sources about the book but don't have access to them, the folks at WP:REX may be able to help you. Deor (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530 This source [4] may be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, A1139530. The New York Times reviewed the book on July 25, 1943. The title is "A Fighting Georgian; GOD IS MY CO-PILOT. By Col. Robert L. Scott Jr. Illustrated by photographs. 277 pp. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. $2.50." The author was Frank S. Adams. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A1139530 I did a search at Google Books, and was able to look at numerous page of a book that may be useful to you. Go to: And click on "Next" at the top of the page to see sections of Double Ace: The Life of Robert Lee Scott, Jr., Pilot, Hero, and Teller ofTall Tales, Saint Martin’s Publishing Group, 2016 (Use the page numbers that are useful to you for giving information on the book.) I hope this helps. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I’m new here any tips on editing

Many thanks, David DavidTDC3377 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Gpedia. I suggest you take a look at WP:TIPS ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DavidTDC3377 Also check out Help:Introduction Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 02:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much DavidTDC3377 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Account creation

Hello, am i able to create an account if my brother's account is blocked as a sockpuppet? I'm following him since a year. After reading wiki norms I came to know more about sockpuppet. I'm i eligible for account creation? (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. You are allowed to do it, but you may run into some problems, especially if you try using an IP which your brother has used and which has been blocked. You can request an account using the process linked to these words if you're currently blocked from creating one; once you do have one, it might be wise to place {{User shared IP address}} on your user page, and to be on your best behavior. Also take a look at WP:IPBE, which you may need. (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting troubles

On this page I am trying to add the names of songs that appear in each episode under the aux3 column (labelled as "Song(s)"), but I just cannot get the formatting right. I'm essentially trying to make it look like it did in this edit with some corrections.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. - Toast for Teddy (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Toast for Teddy. Perhaps it would be best for you to self revert all of your edits and then work on them in your user sandbox. Once you get the formatting sorted out, you can then try and re-add them back to the article. Trying to fix a formatting issue like this often means going back to the last stable version of the article per WP:STATUSQUO and then working from there. A template like {{Episode table}} may only work a certain way and often it's best to work on any changes first in your user sandbox to work out all of the kinks. Moreover, the edit summary you left here isn't really "common practice" per relevant Gpedia policies and guidelines. While it's true that Gpedia encourages use to be WP:BOLD, others can revert the changes we make if they feel they're not an improvement. At that point, the WP:ONUS generally falls on the person wanting to make a change to establish a talk page consensus in favor of doing so. Episode tables in articles about TV might have an established format that all of them are expected to follow as much as possible per MOS:TV, and deviating from that format might be something that should be proposed on the article's talk page first. The members of WT:TV are a pretty active group and most like one of them should be able to help you with this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toast for Teddy: I changed aux3 to Aux3.[5] {{Episode table}} allows both but {{Episode list}} requires Aux3. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Thank you. - Toast for Teddy (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toast for Teddy: As I touched on in my reply above, there is sometimes a WikiProject consensus regarding how such things like Template:Episode table should be used in articles, and it appears that might be the case here per WT:TV#Discussion at WP:THQ § Formatting troubles. I still think it would be best for you to self-revert and initiate a discussion about this on the article's talk page to see if there's a consensus to make it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Since my last post, another editor did revert the changes you (=Toast for Teddy) made, which means you now should be discussing them on the article's talk page and see if you can establish a consensus for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An honest question about the internet

I'm here from a coursera lesson about the internet...

For some reason the term "vector" is used and i'm just there a wiki on how tf the internet (Specifically routing and "distance-vectoring") and the movement of MASS by a certain number of NEWTONS have to do in common...

is the internet pushing information with a unit of FORCE??

my dude...i need the answers. DuhFuqGoinOn420 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DuhFuqGoinOn420, welcome to the Teahouse. English words often have many related or unrelated meanings. Distance-vector routing protocol and Force vector are unrelated apart from some etymology in the word "vector". See Vector and wiktionary:vector for many other meanings. The Teahouse is a place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Gpedia. You can ask general knowledge questions at Gpedia:Reference desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if there was a list of everything

like, every article that'd be cool (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and every single thing that exists or every other wiki also i don't know how to use htmls so how would you make an artivcle (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:NOTDATABASE.Sungodtemple (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are looking for a list of all Gpedia articles, see Special:AllPages. You can also use the Gpedia API to get a list of all articles. Sungodtemple (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am trying to make an article about veri peri but i am having issues

i am trying to make an article about veri peri the colour but i have 2 problems 1. i cant make an correct infobox with a colour box and 2.i am kind of having trouble finding ompletely reputable sources (other than pantone) and integrating them Abdullah raji (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very Peri
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet#6667AB
sRGBB (r, g, b)(102, 103, 171)
HSV (h, s, v)(239°, 40%, 67%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)(46, 56, 265°)
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:VERI PERI | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library

hi @Abdullah raji and welcome to the teahouse! funny, I just added the very peri theme into my microsoft edge a few whiles ago! it's a good color anyway, perhaps check out the news articles by clicking in Find sources above to get sources? I'm just gonna note however, that as far as I know, apart from the more common colors and ones more known as minerals (Cerulean, Turquoise, Emerald, and Rose Quartz), no CotY has gotten a separate article yet, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, it'll just be hard. for the infobox, the code would be the following:
{{Infobox color
| title = Very Peri
| hex = 6667AB
| source = [[Pantone]]}}
...which would produce the infobox to the right. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thenk you veri much *veri peri joke inserted Abdullah raji (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ive done those steps but how do i add the color on the top Abdullah raji (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abdullah raji: your template had the hash in the web code, which didn't allow the color to be added, which I've fixed. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks Abdullah raji (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing a lot of text

Hi there. I'm working on doing a peer review here: Gpedia:Peer review/Logic/archive2

As part of the review I did a gentle re-write of the lead section; I want to share this with the requesting editor, but without altering the article yet. I'm going to block quote it, but it's a lot of text - does this belong in the review itself, or in the article's talk page, or does it not matter? Thank you! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and put it into the review, guessing it can be moved if that's wrong. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 10:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GuineaPigC77 You could ask @Phlsph7 directly but it is usually best to keep everything in one place, so in this case presumably on the Peer review page. You could always use the template {{collapse}} to place large blocks of text in with the option not to have them always on view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, glad to know, and thank you for the template! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) 10:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move to Article space

I would like to move my article Draft:Nier: Automata (TV series) but the name was taken as a redirect. How can i overwrite the empty redirect? WillsEdtior777 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, WillsEdtior, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some people advocate a copy and paste (see copying within Gpedia for how to handle the attribution). I think it is prefereble to ask an admin to move the draft: see WP:RM. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't it possible to remove the redirect? As i renamed the redirect and it caused this issue in the first place. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WillsEdtior777: Please don't move it to mainspace at this point. The draft doesn't show that the TV series is notable, and at least three of the four sources are non-independent and primary. Have a look at the general notability guideline to see what is required. Moving a draft that doesn't meet that guideline will very likely result in its being nominated for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add to the article soon. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xtools page for each editor

I've just discovered this page and been amazed at all the data Gpedia collects on us editors. One thing I don't understand, however: are we being graded on our contributions? Some of the pages I've edited are marked "Starting," others have the letter B, and still others have the letter C.

I wish there'd been an explanation of what this means, perhaps just as a link taking us somewhere for a fuller explanation.

Augnablik (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Augnablik, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you are referring to the article quality grading, which can be found at WP:Content assessment. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yesllo, Augnablik. No, we are not "graded" on our contributions. As Jolly says, articles are generally graded, but the majority of articles have been worked on by multiple editors, so it would make no sense to ascribe the grading of an article to its editors. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, even when you are the only contributor, it has no bearing on your standing in the community. Tons of editors only create start- or C-class articles, and they're as important to our content-creation ecosystem as the ones who create good or featured articles. Often, the first group gets the ball rolling for the second group. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copypaste Issues


I tagged Tweed Valley Hospital for copypaste but found the other copyright instructions confusing. Other than adding the tag with the link is there anything else I was supposed to do?

Carver1889 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think {{db-copyvio}} should do the trick. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just marked as WP:G11. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble with Cluebot III

I added Cluebot III to my talk page to archive discussions, but I did something wrong and it's archived discussions into a "January 2022" subpage (which includes May 2021 to Jan 2022 messages) and a "1" subpage. It's been like this for a while now and I haven't got round to asking about it. Is anyone able to tell me what I've done wrong, and if I can retrospectively fix (re-name) sub-pages? Or am I doomed to forever have a slightly annoyingly-incoherent archive list? Many thanks! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 14:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Unexpectedlydian, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want numbered archives then you fixed the archive instructions in [6]. You are free to move your archives around. If you use cut-and-paste then note the attribution requirement at Gpedia:Copying within Gpedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Name

I was a professional musician back in the 1970's and 80's - My stage name was Catfish Roy Mann. I performed at Gerdes Folk City in NYC. I was trying to add my name to the list of performers at Gerdes. I added my name but when I tried to create a profile page here on Gpedia, they suggested not using my real name. So instead I created a profile page as "Catfish Roy". But when I click on my name on Gerdes List no page is referenced. How can I fix this? Catfish Roy (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Catfish Roy. I'm afraid you missed the fact Gpedia is not means of promotion in general, and specifically it's not a place for self-promotion. --CiaPan (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm....look at Gerdes Folk City page - there is a list of about 100 musicians listed who played there. Catfish Roy (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usernames are not tied to article names in the sence that having a username which matches an article name doesn't grant oneself any sort of extra previleges or control of that article. Also, creating a user account here does not automatically create an article with the same name. Having a username that is the same as one's real name is discouraged as that means everybody can view what you are doing. This reasoning is also futher expanded in WP:REALWORLD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Catfish Roy: If you believe you meet any of the inclusion criteria described in WP:MUSICBIO, you can try your hand at writing an article, provided you write it as a draft and submit it for review. See Gpedia:Articles for creation for guidance. The list to which you tried to add your name is not an indiscriminate list; it is a list of links to other Gpedia articles (and not links to user account pages). ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Catfish Roy (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this relationship be mentioned?

Hi, could I have some help assessing if mentioning a relationship is notable enough to include? I've edited the page of louise verneuil , including adding sources that reference her relationship with Alex turner. This section has been deleted by an IP editor. Looking back on the pages edit history I can see that editors have gone back and forth quite a lot on mentioning the relationship. I'd appreciate if a more experienced editor could chip in. Thanks Dontgiveupthedayjob (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dontgiveupthedayjob - I'm sure the regular volunteers here will advise on edit-warring and taking it to the article Talk page, but I wanted to shew how you got it wrong in the last edit, using your own interpretation of the article: "She has been in a relationship with the musician Alex Turner since 2018.". The article 'says' nothing of the sort, only that when written in December 2018 they'd had dates. It's very important in any Gpedia article, but particularly a biography of a living person, to only write what's supported by the published source.--Rocknrollmancer (talk)
Hi Rocknrollmancer Thanks for your reply and help. I hadn't written that part of the article, but had added those two sources as it was previously unsourced. I can see how those sources don't properly support what was written though now. Would it be appropriate to write anything about the relationship if most available sources are discussing them dating rather than explicitly discussing a relationship? Thank you! Dontgiveupthedayjob (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Dontgiveupthedayjob - my bad for not trawling though the changes. I had guessed that aspect was why the Scandinavian IP removed it. If it's been reported upon then that should be adequate, providing it's termed sympathetically. Gpedia is not censored.--Rocknrollmancer (talk)

Translation contributions for Wikimedia Foundation

I just came across a banner for the Wikimedia Foundation which read "We usually invite the world to create the sum of all human knowledge. Now we're inviting the world to create the sound of all human knowledge" while I was reading a Gpedia article on Zager and Evans, and it provided a link for translation contributions. I guess this is for the recent "Sound of All Human Knowledge" contest. I am fluent in Dutch and am willing to contribute (I have already translated the above quote into Dutch) but was not sure how to contribute. When I clicked on the 'help to translate' link, the page it took me to wouldn't actually allow me to submit my translation.

I'll go ahead and provide my translation here:

Normaal gesproken nodigen we de hele wereld uit om de som van alle kennis die de mensheid bezit te creëren. Nu is de hele wereld uitgenodigd om het geluid dat komt uit alle kennis die de mensheid bezit te creëren. (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@173: You can submit a translation here. You'll need an account, although I'm pretty sure the wording you describe only shows up on the banner for logged-in users, so I assume you have one already. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been so long since I logged in here that I don't remember my username or password. (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case you are welcome to create a new account. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replace a redirect with an article

I'd like to at some point replace current redirect Specialty Coffee Association with Draft:Specialty Coffee Association - how do I go about doing that? JackDunnCodes (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JackDunnCodes and welcome to the Teahouse.
The move on top of the redirect will be performed by the reviewer when your draft is accepted.
It looks like your draft has not done enough work to establish notability for the organization. Please read through the notability criteria that apply to organizations to see what you need to do. Once you think you've done all you can, it will be time to submit your draft for review. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a WIKIPEDIA page about me, and there is some inaccurate information, I want to change it. Specially where my picture is. I did not create it.How do I change the information Krislichri (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to be about Kristina Lilley. On the one hand, you should not edit the article directly. On the other hand, children should not be named, so that was valid. The article can mention the name of your ex-husband as long as that information is referenced. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krislichri: I have partially reverted your edit, because you blanked out information that was cited to a source and left information that is cited to no sources at all, in violation of the the policy Gpedia:Biographies of living persons. Gpedia only reports information found published in public sources. If the information reported in the cited source is incorrect, you need to contact the source to get them to correct it.
Because you have a conflict of interest about yoruself, you must refrain from making any substantive changes to the article except to correct spelling and grammar, remove obvious vandalism, and add citations to additional sources that are independent of you. Anything more substantive you should propose on Talk:Kristina Lilley.
The picture of you is being shown because that is what we have available. We cannot publish copyrighted images unless the copyright holder has released it to the Wikimedia Foundation under an acceptable free license. If you have a picture you want to upload, the photograppher (who owns the copyright) may upload it to while at the same time following the directions at WP:CONSENT. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The information is not accurate, and they mentioned the name of my children, plus the information under the picture is outdated. So , it is a biography about a living person ( which is me), and some information is not accurate. Is there a way to write to you privately, and I can explain??? Krislichri (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krislichri: Unfortunately, Gpedia's accuracy depends on the sources' accuracy. If they're reporting inaccurate things about you that's something you have to take up with them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complete Wiki profile

Hi team,

Pease help me to complete a profile of wiki.

Thanks & Regards, Susheel Sharma 2405:201:401A:9098:801:3F99:F32B:1F3E (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gpedia does not have "profiles". It has encyclopedia articles about notable topics. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural note, Cullen328 probbably meant to link to WP:GNG. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Corrected. Cullen328 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...additionally, if you're going to write a profile (biography) about yourself, don't. Please check out Autobiography for why not, as well as reasons why you may not want one here in the first place. happy reading & editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dachau Liberation reprisals

hiya, there are a few depictions of when U.S. soldiers shot concentration camp guards after liberating Dachau in various forms of media, for example in the film Shutter Island. i noticed there was no section for this on the events page, which i assumed was missing due to the subject matter itself or that no one had made a list yet. would it be appropriate for me to add this? Omsk346 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Omsk346. IN my opinion, it would not be appropriate to add such instances unless they had been discussed in secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omsk346, we already have an article on this topic. See Dachau liberation reprisals. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but lists of depictions of a person or event in popular culture are common on wikipedia. its also alluded to in band of brothers. Omsk346 (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omsk346, such lists should only include items which have been discussed in secondary sources (ideally with citations to those discussions), as mentioned above - see WP:POPCULTURE. Many folks come along and include items which do not qualify; feel free to remove them when you see them (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Teahouse,

Please how do I create a category? Thank you so much. Afternoon Daydream (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Afternoon Daydream. Please read Gpedia: Categorization#Creating category pages. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Afternoon Daydream (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whimsical wikis

TO whoever this might concern, I am a Nonwikipedian and I heard the Wikipedians created pages on a whim that exist only for their own sake. These pages interest me, is there a category specifically for them? Thank you. Sincerely, a curious netizen. (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi ip user and welcome to the teahouse! the closest we have to joke pages are stuff archived in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, the April Fools deletion discussions, and other stuff at Category:Gpedia humor, although none of these are formal articles. there is also Unusual articles, a list of weird formal articles although ones that do exist (not just made on a whim). happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP user, also note that for new users creating pages there is a review process called Articles for creation. For all new articles, (created by both new users who passed the AfC process as well as more experienced users creating articles) there is another group of reviewers called the New pages patrol. Whew, that's big mouthful :) Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might enjoy reading about the Zhemao hoaxes. Shantavira|feed me 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HM Late Queen Edit

Please give suggestion whether this picture can be used instead the old one. File:Elizabeth II opens Welsh Parliament in 2021 (cropped 2).jpg Him9 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @Him9 and welcome to the teahouse! if I recall correctly, the image in Elizabeth II is set to an older formal photo that shows her during her younger years as queen, which would highlight her better than a photo where she is older. there's a lengthy discussion at the talk page, and while it's archived, the talk page isn't really accepting more requests to change the image again since this RfC is huge and recent. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a Tarantino version of encyclopedia

The simple English wikipedia has a page about it, but this one only has a redirect page about it. Is that normal?

Keeping it to professional stuff...

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:6C18:F1D7:8800:5D5A (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "A Tarantino version of encyclopedia", but yes, it is normal for different editions of Gpedia not to contain articles on the same subjects (and if they do, for the articles to be very different): each edition is entirely independent from the others, and may have different policies, as well as different editors.
Having said that, editors are encouraged to translate articles from one edition to another, provided the subject meets the criteria set by the target edition, and the attributions required by the licensing are met. See WP:Translation. ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the page that the IP is referring to is Tarantino Gpedia. The article on this Gpedia is currently a redirect to List of Wikipedias. To the IP user: As what ColinFine has said, it is normal for a subject to have an article on one Gpedia, but not on the other. Jolly1253 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have Tarantino dialect, though. Cullen328 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Simple English Gpedia has 219,000 articles and the English Gpedia has 6,555,000 so the opposite is much more common but they are free to create their own articles and they may have other notability rules or practices. I don't know statistics but I had to click "Show any page" 18 times at simple: to find one without English listed under "In other languages". It was simple:Margaret Hutton and we do have a Margaret Hutton but it's another woman. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what simple:Tarantino Gpedia is written in, but it doesn't seem to be in English, simple or otherwise. Looks like a very bad machine translation. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article publishing

Hello, I prepared a new article called Bruno Samper, but it was rejected. Who can help me to update the article that it could be published for wikipedia. JaninaBZ (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JaninaBZ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Bruno Samper was declined, not rejected, which means that you are free to work on improving it and resubmit it.
Gpedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Gpedia is only 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.
Please specify at least three of your 36 references which are each all three of 1) Reliably published (which excludes iMDB and probably FWA), 2) independent of Samper (which excludes anything based on an interview or a press release, as well as publications by insitutions or conferences he attended), and 3) containing Significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing question

How to put sources into the editing, as I have to update the current events of my client. I dont want wikipedia to remove my edits for the future how I can improve my work here. Lakshaykk (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lakshaykk Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, if you are editing for a client, the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, please see WP:PAID for instructions. Please also read conflict of interest; you should avoid directly editing about your client, but you may make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page.331dot (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Team, thanks for reaching out. Would you help me out how exactly I can disclose the who is my employer or client who is paying me, where Do i have to mention all of these things Lakshaykk (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Lakshaykk. It is all explained in the link WP:PAID that 331dot gave you. I have tagged Antara Nandy for several problems. Please read your first article carefully to understand what these are about. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct format for including unrendered wikitext in talk page posts?

Hi, I've been wondering what the "correct" way to include wikitext that isn't supposed in talk page posts is, perhaps for an edit request or similar.

Is <pre> and HTML escaping fine?

Responses appreciated! --Holzklöppel (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're asking what I think you are, you can wrap anything in <nowiki> ... </nowiki> (as it appears here, not the way I coded it to make it appear!). I usually like to wrap it in <code> ... as well, to make it obvious that it's code. ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Holzklöppel (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is problem alireza jadidi Gpedia Javan81 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Javan81: i'm not sure what your question is. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight They are probably asking about Draft:Alireza Jadidi. The draft was declined for a total of six times, with the recent submission declined due to lack of inline citations. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question concerning a pattern of behavior of another editor


I don't know that I would describe myself as a Gpedia newbie, but I'm also no expert — that's why I'm here at the Teahouse.

Anyhow, I was reading an article and noticed that the tone sounded a bit off, so I used WikiBlame to search one of the more suspect phrases. When I found the editor who was responsible for the insertion, I noticed that they had edited a lot of articles on the topic, and that they were (at least in my opinion) of poor quality — either violating WP:CRYSTAL or WP:WORDS, flattening nuance, as well as just straight up removing information with no explanation, even at the repeated objection of various other editors.

I would reach out to this editor to have a one-on-one discussion on their talk page, but I've read their talk page activity elsewhere, and have found that (a) a lot of these issues have been discussed at length, more than once, with said editor, and (b) they don't seem to be receptive to feedback, if not being a bit acidic.

I would love some guidance as to the best way to proceed. I care about these articles (like we all do) and the scale of this editor's contributions is really wide — I don't feel confident in addressing them just by myself.

If any further information is needed on this page, just holler. LocalWonk (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.