Wikipedia:Teahouse

hey guys - does anyone remember the videos called strawberry shortcake sets the school on fire and charlie brown gets a gold card? they've become lost media and i'm trying to hunt them down at this point 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:9982:222D:A1B5:AD5 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP! And welcome to the Teahouse, though your question does not reflect Wikipedia. You could try other sources though! Neko Lexi (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:3C9F:A882:2CE4:B4F1 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Np. Glad I could help Neko Lexi (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#a_question_to_some_people

i got no responses here - any ideas? 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:6C46:BBB:D875:B623 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like anyone has not got to you yet. Be patient and someone will get to you eventually, sometimes it just takes a while because other people are busy and might not respond in a few minutes. I always go do something else while I'm waiting for a response. Maybe try that Neko Lexi (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what other things is there so i can ask? i'll be patient 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:252F:94D5:1624:8FB9 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like someone got to you, check your question Neko Lexi (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait my time is wrong, April 20th is tomarrow Neko Lexi (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• tomorrow* spelling error Neko Lexi (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Lexi, "tomorrow" is a relative concept that depends on which time zone you live in. Wikipedia is a worldwide project. "Today" for you could be "yesterday" or "tomorrow" for other editors in other parts of the world. Wikipedia, as a worldwide project, uses Coordinated Univeral Time or more specifically UTC+00:00, which is the time zone for the United Kingdom, Portugal, and many West African countries. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll check 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:6961:A248:89BD:3C83 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am contributing to an article on Ketotifen, a medication, and listed brand names under which the drug is marketed in section Ketotifen#Brand names. I used source data from [1].

Still, I am not satisfied with how the list looks now at Ketotifen#Brand names - it is a coma-separated list of tens of lines comprising hundreds of names. Is there a better way to present the data in this case? What would you suggest? I saw how brand names are listed for similar articles, but none of them had so many entries, so I couldn't take the same approach.

Please advice how can we present the list at Ketotifen#Brand names to look good. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

". . . coma-separated . . ."? A Freudian slip, perhaps? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: You can use {{Flatlist}} to improve the accessibility of such lists, but per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, that list may not be appropriate for the article. Try adding it to the corresponding item on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I mediated upon your proposals and decided to remove the list of exact brand names and gave their approximate number instead ("more than 200"). I observed that pharmaceutical drugs on wikipedia generally list a dozen or two brands, which is easy to present in any form of list or enumeration. But when there are more than 200, probably not all of them merit mentioning. However, I could not find a reliable source that would have allowed me to select only the most widely used brands. Such information was available for the US only, but I didn't want the article to be US-centric, as pharmaceutical drugs such as ketotifen are used worldwide. Therefore, your advice of thinking about the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rule led me to remove the names and use "more than 200". Thank you! Could you please review Ketotifen#Brand names and let me know if you like it or should I improve it somehow. I will transclude this subsection of the Teahouse to the talk page of the article for visibility. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was excited about a new page I created called Collision at Rainbow Bridge. However, another user redirected the page to Rainbow Bridge. I did not know at the time of creating the article that there had been a prior discussion about leaving this topic as a redirect. That discussion took place a couple weeks after the collision and when information was still changing.

Several months have passed since then, and I think that new developments and additional information have stabilized and that the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. I had put in a lot of time and effort to gather reliable sources and create the page. Could someone please advise on how to initiate a new discussion about this redirect, such as where to do it? Should I open the discussion on the talk page of the redirect, and is there anything special I need to include in the message to ask for input?

I'd also like any thoughts on whether trying to reopen this will succeed and is worth doing.

These are the relevant link:

Link 1: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Collision_at_Rainbow_Bridge&redirect=no

Link 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion

CipherSleuth (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CipherSleuth, as I see it, somebody was driving recklessly at high speed and sadly, the driver and their spouse were killed. That is sad but it happens all the time. The only unusual aspect is that the crash happened close to a border crossing. I fail to see why this incident deserves a freestanding Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. In terms of notability, the incident was initially treated as a terrorist attack. The President of the United States, the Governor of New York, and the Prime Minister of Canada were all briefed on the incident. It led to the closure of every major border crossing in the area, the cancellation of flights at Niagara airport and the suspension of Amtrack Service. It also was not a case of reckless driving. The driver likely lost control due to a mechanical failure that prevented him from breaking. There have been recent news articles about recovery of the black box in the car and attempts to subpoena the car maker for records. So, to my mind, the incident is notable and not the case of a simple car accident - three sentences about it in the article on Rainbow bridge does not seem sufficient to me. Hence my question about opening it up for another discussion. CipherSleuth (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline for an article about a specific event is WP:NEVENT. Have there been published reports or works about the collision since the week it happened? Reconrabbit 12:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Reconrabbit. Thanks for linking to WP:NEVENT, which is helpful. I think there is an argument that the collision meets that the guidelines, given that it was so unusual in terms of its impact on the region. There were also political reactions to it and commentary on misinformation as to the cause.

In terms of sources, I cited 20; most were published the week of the incident, which I acknowledge weakens my case for a standalone article. But I do cite 4 articles, including two within the last couple months, that touch on the cause of the accident and the investigation. For now, I am housing a draft of the article here: Draft:Collision at Rainbow Bridge.

This was a time-consuming lesson not to work on creating an article without realizing that there was already a talk-page discussion about it (which I unfortunately never came across). But maybe at some point I can get it published. CipherSleuth (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to know if it is better for it to be titled Draft:Coffee Talk Episode 2: Hibiscus & Butterfly or just draft:Coffee Talk Episode 2 because although the former is the full name, the latter is more concise and still unambiguous. JuniperChill (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JuniperChill and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games). '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CanonNi how about in normal text because it seems tedious and too much to repeat the full name over and over again. This could be Coffee Talk Episode 2, Episode 2, Hibiscus and Butterfly, etc. I also found that most sources do use the full name so I think that is the case of common name. JuniperChill (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I think a short form of the name is fine in normal text, as long as it is clear that the game is being referred to. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games may have some advice. They've probably run into this situation before.--Tbennert (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that when I am logged in with my account, the site behavior and appearance is different from when not logged in. How can I set it so that when I do log in, the site remains visually the same as when not logged in? I have reset my preferences, but it's still different. 117.222.43.76 (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have no idea how old your account is, but is your default skin set to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector (2022)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean Vector. That I have enabled, of course. What I mean is, there are some features that aren't enabled by default. For example, one of the features: when I reset all visual settings to default, the feature of previewing a page by hovering the mouse gets disabled. I can, of course, enable them one by one, but I would like the visuals and features to stay the same when logged in as they are when logged out, without me having to go into preferences.

My account was made in early 2020. 117.222.43.161 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If resetting all your settings to default makes it incongruent with what it's like when it's logged out, you're going to have to do a lot of trial-and-error with your preferences. For your specific example it should be under Preferences → Appearance → Reading preferences → Enable page previews. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do the opposite: I take pains to make sure the site looks different when I'm *not* logged in, including having the 'Publish' button in a different color. I want to make sure I know when I'm not logged in, by mistake. Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed many batteries (c.100 personnel) have articles but some battalion-sized units, such as 3 Military Intelligence Battalion and 3 Regiment RMP (c. 500 personnel) simply have redirects to larger articles. Is there a policy on which size units should have separate articles, or is it dependent on the notability of the history of units. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PercyPigUK. I'm not aware of any such policy. In nearly all cases, what governs whether a subject merits its own article is 1) its notability, and 2) whether it is independently notable, or a part of something else that is notable. ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. They probably have a guideline you can use.--Tbennert (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PercyPigUK} Since this is a volunteer project, much of the time what articles exist are related to what topics volunteer editors feel like working on, and not primarily on what policies exist about creation of such topics. The main bar to creating an article is the policy of WP:Notability, but if your topic passes that bar, you may create the article. See WP:YFA for tips. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to turn 90 and have been told by several media friends that my Wikipedia page neds to be updated. After all ONE DAY I will pass .... So, I have two paras I'd like to add. Is there someone who might help me? Many thanks. Dick Capen, San Diego SnapperCreek (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dick, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to be cautious about updating Wikipedia's article about you: please read ABOUTYOU for general advice, and in particular, for any specific changes you would like to see, please use the edit request wizard to request the changes, and an uninvolved editor will review them. Please note that all information should be backed up by a published source - your own knowledge or recollection is not sufficient - and preferably by a source wholly unconnected with you. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnapperCreek: You may also find our FAQ for article subjects useful. In particular, we'd like a photo of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Richard G. Capen Jr. Cremastra (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I understand the general guidelines for uploading photos to Wiki Commons (that they have to be your own uncopyrighted pictures), but what I’m wondering is: what is the procedure for uploading official portraits of officeholders? For example, a senator’s photo for the infobox. I recently published an article about a local sheriff and am wondering if I’m allowed to upload her official portrait. If not, I’m wondering how so many officeholders have their official portraits in their infoboxes. Thanks! Schtamangie (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schtamangie: Some official portraits are public domain (such as the US Federal Government and some states) and these can be uploaded to commons. Other countries and states have different rules. RudolfRed (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense! Thank you! Schtamangie (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schtamangie. Being an "official portrait" found on some kind of government website doesn't automatically release a photo from copyright protection; so, it's best to assume the photo is protected copyright from the start and then work from there. If the photo you want to use is not one you took yourself (and if it is, it isn't a photo you've taken of someone else's copyrighted content), then it's copyright has to be owned by someone. So, you're going to need to figure out who that might be and then work from there. Your best bet is to probably ask about this at c:COM:VPC, providing as many details (e.g. link to the source website) as you can about the photo's provenance . With more details, someone might be able to give you a more definitive answer.

In addition, you seem to be misunderstanding some things about Commons and copyright law in general. For reference, Commons does actually host lots of copyrighted content, but the content needs to copy with c:Commons:Licensing. When someone uploads a photo they take to Commons, it doesn't necessarily mean they're waiving or otherwise transferring their copyright ownership to Commons or anyone else; it just means they're making a version of their work available under a type of copyright license that makes it much much easier for others to re-use. They're still the copyright holder of the work and are just only putting in place some basic conditions regarding the re-use of their work. As long as those re-using the work comply with the terms of the license the copyright holder has chosen, they can freely do so; if re-users violate the terms of the license, they are then infringing on the copyright holder's rights. In the latter case, however, it's the copyright holder, not Commons, that needs to seek redress.

Finally, if you want an quick example of the what it means to upload something to Commons, just look at the licensing statement you're agreeing to release your contributions to Wikipedia under every time you click the "Publish changes" button. You're still the copyright holder of the content you add to Wikipedia; you're just agreeing to release it under a license that makes it easier for other to re-use or modify. In other words, you're agreeing in advance to allow others to re-use your work in pretty much anyway they want as long as they comply with the conditions of that license. Commons, for the most part, works the same way when it comes to the files it hosts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth reply! That’s really helpful to understand some of the technicalities of copyright license! In my case, based on what @RudolfRed said, I’m pretty sure the image I was looking to use unfortunately cannot be used. So I think I’d have to personally take a photo of her and upload it. Thanks again! Schtamangie (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schtamangie You could always call/visit the Sheriff's office to see if they would be willing to let you photograph them. Many public officials, especially elected officials, don't mind. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot great idea, thank you! Would it be allowed if I emailed the office and asked them to send an uncopyrighted, unreleased photo that they’d allow me to upload? Or would that violate the Wiki Commons rules? Schtamangie (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean you could ask them if they have a suitable, properly licensed image that is compatible with Wikipedia- yes, that's an option, though harder than taking the photo yourself copyright-wise. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotcha. Thank you! Schtamangie (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How whould you submit an edit request on a talk page that is extra-protected? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blackmamba31248. Do you mean Extended confirmed protected? It is highly unusual for an article talk page to have that level of protection. Please provide the title of the article, and perhaps we can provide you with specific advice. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the Isreal-Hamas war, where i noticed the map needed to be updated. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the talk page is also protected, you can request an edit at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel–Hamas war, I suppose. 126.205.254.12 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmamba31248, you won't be able to make an edit request there, as you don't have the experience yet. You can tell us here what edits you believe need to be made. Valereee (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Map is very outdated and clearly needs to be updated, since Isreal has almost entirely evacuated from Gaza. That’s the only change i think should be made. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are multiple sections discussing this on that talk. Maps are difficult, it requires people who have the skills to make them, and updates that are needed daily and sometimes hourly are a challenge when a particular subject is changing constantly. Valereee (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but í was generally talking about how the map hasn’t been updated since the war started it seems. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a section to the talk asking if the map should simply be deleted. Valereee (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be is a news website. A map can show the situation as it was months earlier. 126.205.254.12 (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to upload a still frame from a movie made in Australia in 1949 what copyright tag could I look at using? Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robbiegibbons. A still from a 1949 movie is almost certainly copyright restricted and cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Please read WP:NFCI for the very stringent standards for use of non-free images on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Robbiegibbons. If there's something in that still that is discussed in the article, it's possible you could upload it locally -- that is, here on Wikipedia, rather than on Wikimedia Commons -- under fair use, but there are pretty strict limitations. Can you tell us what it is you want to upload and why it's useful in the article? Valereee (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not disagreeing, as copyright is far from my expertise (it's such a complicated subject) but if you are not Australian it's worth noting that many things made before 1955 in Australian are public domain. See here. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As that document notes. Notcharizard, It is best to check the copyright for a pre-1969 film using the detailed resources from the Australian Government, Australian Copyright Council or the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee. I agree that copyright is complicated. That is why highly paid lawyers spend their entire careers studying, analyzing and arguing in court about copyrights laws worldwide. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Public domain may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is (maybe) true, but it would have definitely been restored in the US due to URAA. @Robbiegibbons: are you aware if the film was simultaneously published in the US? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft Draft:TheDisInsider that was created a few minutes ago, is it a good idea to publish it as an article or not?? 201.188.130.53 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you can't move it to mainspace (ie, "publish it as an article") yourself unless you create an account and log in. If you want to put it into the queue for review by an AfC reviewer, you will have to press the blue "submit the draft for review" button on the draft. But I don't think it will be accepted in this state. Please have a look at WP:N for details on what makes a subject eligible for an article. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted and Declined. David notMD (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general suggestion for the reference format of all pages. When a reference link (or any link) is clicked on, the current page will redirect to the site of said reference. Readers must click a reference, read it, and return to the main article. Why not change this so that the article will stay open and the reference will open on a separate tab? In current format, the reader cannot easily keep the reference link open while reading said article. Also note that for the page to redirect to and back from the reference is more cumbersome and time-consuming than opening a new tab and then deleting it. 58.239.47.203 (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user - in most software, if you hold control while clicking on a link, it will open in a new tab. - Arjayay (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, right-click on the link, then click 'Open Link in New Tab' on the menu that appears. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the link using the middle mouse button (the scroll wheel) works, too! miranda ^:3 02:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. If you create an account (which is free, and arguably more anonymous than letting Wikipedia display your IP address - at least, if you don't choose to use your real name for your account) then you can go to your User preferences and pick the gadget "Open external links in a new tab or window". ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. I am trying to create a page of Keravnos triathlon club, a club based in Nicosia Cyprus. It was not accepted because not many refferenses. The think is that, in Cyprus triathlon is not very popular, and the only references is that the club is member of Cyprus Triathlon federation, and the club's web page. the draft link is the following:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Keravnos_Triathlon_ClubCan you help me please? Christoschristou (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Christoschristou, welcome to the Teahouse.

If a topic does not have many independent references then it is unfortunately not 'notable' by our standards at this time, and therefore does not merit a Wikipedia article. The specific notability guidelines for sports clubs are at WP:NSPORT. As a review, I would also agree with this decline.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs do not have to be in English. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that sometimes essays are mentioned in policy/ guideline page for more/easy explanation, but do this essays hold any power with regards to their interpretation of what is written in the policy, or at least more importance than other interpretations? For example Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ is mentioned at WP:NPOV. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this concern since I also observed many times essays are valued more by (experienced) users than polices. I doubt Teahouse volunteers would be able do much, unless some well experienced and respected user takes up the issue.

My perception is to note down such experiences one by one on respective policy and essay talk pages and leave it to the posterity that some users will club all such instances and raise issue. Bookku (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my knowledge, some essays do carry much more value than others, like say WP:SO, but what is valued in them is their content. My question is about those essays that are based on interpretation of any policy/ guideline and are considered worth enough to be mentioned in the respective P/G's page. So can that essay's interpretation be enforced with lesser tendency to discuss? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor

'So can that essay's interpretation be enforced with lesser tendency to discuss?' What do you mean by this is not clear enough to me. Can you give couple of more examples, that shall help you put up the issue at next level in better way.

I suggest to take up next to Wikipedia talk:Essays before going to any centralized notice board. My perception is people discuss a lot at centralized notice boards usual results are status quo rather than change, unless you are well prepared with previous discussion at relevant smaller talk page. Bookku (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku:Firstly, a generalized example of this is that I can say 'Per xyz policy guideline' and the make any change and the only reason it could be debated for is that there is any exception to that P/G, but no one can state that they believe the P/G should be ignored here, however essays do not hold such power of their own. For example see this edit, in which an editor tried to remove something citing an essay, which I would have accepted it it was part of some guideline, but it was an 'essay', itself stating that it is just a suggestion, and I started to discuss about it with them and restored the previous version only and only because I was not enforced to follow the essay as with P/G. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am lesser inclined to start this at Wikipedia talk:Essays because Wikipedia:Essays itself is an essay and talk page is for discussing the page, and anything written on that page doesn't matter, or does it? That may be part of question. Also it will attract lot less attention than required to solve this, I think. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not moving anywhere myself now, I would like to first go through all the related articles about essay before proceeding. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:VPP seems ultimate destination, you will be preparing before reaching out there is good idea. All the best. Bookku (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ExclusiveEditor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that WP:VPP is a better place to ask and discuss questions of this kind. ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Thank you. I didn't yet start this at VPP of a doubt that this is a question, and not even a proposal, so should I post it there or if there is any relevant noticeboard for it? If you could clarify, I am moving there. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello ExclusiveEditor, congratulations first off, and welcome back! So... ultimately, the enforceability of anything derives from the strength of the consensus backing it. The default assumption is that policies have the strongest consensus and individual editors almost always should follow policies. Guidelines come next and they should be followed unless you can show that there's a good reason not to follow one in a specific instance. What about the rest of the things? Well, that's why we say experience matters. You can read policies and guidelines all day, but only with experience can you know which pages have the backing of what kind of consensus. Everyone agrees with applying WP:SO to banned editors, and so until someone brings up one day that that's terrible and convinces sizeable portion of the participants in that discussion to their point of view, such that everyone realises it's not actually uncontroversial and also not a policy or a guideline, that's when it becomes just another page. There are many instances where practice differs from even policies and you may find yourself debating with someone about what such and such policy says, and they will respond to you that that policy does not reflect practice and therefore it is the policy that needs to change. Then you start an RFC at a central location to either affirm that the policy needs to change or that the other editor is wrong and the policy still enjoys strong consensus. Now, getting back to your WP:AIRPORTS example, don't revert someone just because they are citing what is just an essay. Have a good reason to revert them first and play the "essay" card only to enforce your independent good reason. As to what is the consensus status of it, that you have to investigate for yourself. Though it is not a PAG, if all editors editing for that Wikiproject adhere to it, and it doesn't contradict existing core policies and guidelines, it deserves some respect, because it has consensus support from people to whom it's relevant. However, some day, someone may look at it, and decide that that's a horrible page. Then they could convince the community that that page should lose its consensus status. That is what happened, for example, with WP:NMILITARY. For the longest time, you could get articles kept at AFD citing NMIL, then editors from outside the project disagreed with it enough to create a stronger consensus against it, and now it does not carry weight in AFDs. Such would be the status of pages that don't have status. Some pages are written by a single editor and almost no one ever cites them, so those pages have no standing. Some essays may have been written by one or two editors but have been cited so many times without significant challenge that they may as well be policies. Information pages attached to policies and guidelines have a stronger status than essays in general. However, again, you need to investigate who wrote it, how often it's cited, whether it's challenged often and by what proportion of participants. Some advice and explanation in information and help pages may have the backing of RFCs. Latest RFCs with overwhelming consensus are what deserve the highest respect. Latest RFCs with rough consensus may have to be adhered to when there's controversy but people may still protest that the consensus isn't that strong. And so on. Please let me know whether I managed to clarify or confuse the issue. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Usedtobecool: Thank you for clarifying many things which I had in back of my mind. I am currently going through PAGs and one purpose my question served was to decide, if to prioritize the essays cited/mentioned in PAG over others, to read. And yes, given that you mentioned lot of ways to tell if a page has backing among users, I am curious to know what are the methods to implement this ways, like how to find how often it's cited, whether it's challenged often. I predict 2 methods as checking what links here and talk page, other methods will be appreciated. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ExclusiveEditor, yes, as someone stumbling into a page for the first time, I would check the history. If multiple people are still actively editing and debating it, it means people care which must mean that it must be of some value. Also, in reading it, if it makes points that are easy to agree with, especially if it cites policies, guidelines and highly-attended RFCs or summarises them. And, as you say, talk page and what links here. Especially, if you can find discussions from what links here and see what the reaction of people usually is when it's brought up, that gives you an idea of what kind of backing the page has. If you just read the page and disagree vehemently with what it says because it's lacking in common sense or it contradicts existing policies and guidelines, and want to efficiently discredit it, that's when you play the "essay" card. Ultimately, the best use of essays is to efficiently share the views that you agree with, without having to write it up anew every time you need to say it. Kinda like templates in that way. Best,[reply]

  As for pages linked from PAGs, the same considerations, plus try and find out when it was added to the PAG and whether it was discussed. If it was added by the same person who wrote the essay and there was never any discussion about it, there is no way to know what the value of that page is. Just like vandalisms and hoaxes can remain in articles for a long time, randomly added essays with no value may as well be there, linked from bona fide PAGs. And their consensus may derive only from WP:SILENCE which is the weakest form of consensus.[reply]

I've been able to edit other semi-protected articles before, but I can't edit Mohammad Reza Zahedi and I can't see the criteria for doing so. It is obviously edited by other editors, so what credentials do they have that I lack? Algotr (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Algotr: If you click the blue lock at the top of the article, it explains it. That article is extended-confirmed protected, which means you needs at least 500 edits and an account at least 30 days old. Your account is old enough, but your edit count is only 460. RudolfRed (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Algotr. That article has stricter protection called Extended confirmed protection, due to disruptive editing. Its talk page is unprotected. You can make Edit requests there. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it permitted to link to Anastasia Kingsnorth 's social media accounts? For instance I am drafting an article on User:JuniperChill/Anastasia Kingsnorth and I need to know if I would be permitted to link to her Youtube, Instagram, Tiktok, etc somewhere. JuniperChill (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill: Please see WP:ELOFFICIAL, both sections, for the policy. At a quick glance I would say you probably shouldn't venture beyond the 3 examples you mentioned - the official website appears to fail, otherwise that would probably suffice on its own. I would suggest that YouTube link could be used on its own, as it links to the others, but it's not completely obvious and some bending of the rules might apply. These links belong in the external links section. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juniperhill, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My advice to you is to concentrate on building the foundation of your draft - the sources establishing notability - before worrying about superficial details like external links, infoboxes, or pictures.

In house-building terms, you are worring about whether you can put up a satellite dish on your house before you have surveyed the plot to see if it is suitable to build on, or checked local building regulations to see if the house you want to puild is permitted.

At present, you have four sources, which are probably reliable (that's good) but which look to me as if they contain mere mentions of her. (Several of them want me to create an account to look at them: that is allowed for sources, but mean I haven't gone in and checked whether my suspicions are correct).

If I am right, then not one of the sources contributes to establishing that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Until you have several sources that do so, you do not know whether your plot is safe to build on (the subject is notable) and all your work will very likely be wasted.

In writing an article, absolutely your first task should be to find some sources, each of which meets all the criteria in the golden rule. Until you have done that, there is no point in doing anything else at all towards your draft. ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not originally create that article, its just that it has been deleted and I undeleted (restored) the page. The original creator added the four sources. My Google Search / Google News (may be different wherever you live. Me and Anastasia are UK based) has a full article on Daily Mail and The Sun about her, but both cannot (generally) be used as sources since WP:RSP tells me it is unreliable/defunct. Also found a couple on heatworld, Popsugar and she even made it onto the government website (gov.uk), none of which are on WP:RSP. Others have also returned news letters focusing on Saffron Barker, her (best) friend and which she has a proper WP page. Oh, and a little more at Reality Titbit. JuniperChill (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made an article in my sand box page and then moved it to the draft section to get approved. I now currently do not have a sand box because it says to redirect me to the article that I sent for approval. If anyone could help that would be greatly appreciated. Here is the link to my sand box and the problem https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User:Pickup_Andropov/sandbox&redirect=no. Pickup Andropov (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pickup Andropov. If you follow that link, you can simply Edit that page, and remove the redirection (which is a line starting #REDIRECT). Just remove it and anything else, and start whatever you want in the sandbox. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I had thought of it but was not sure if it would mess up the draft in anyway.Pickup Andropov (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how you change the title of an article. The organization discussed in the Tribe of Tahquitz has officially changed their name to "Tahquitz Community" the old name, though relevant to the history of the organization, has officially changed. If you look at the official website the URL still says tribe but on the home page it says community. If you can help that would be great.Pickup Andropov (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you don't rename the article, but instead move it – see Wikipedia:Moving a page.

When you do this, the old title becomes a redirect page, so that people who search for the old title will automatically be taken to the new one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That worked like a charm.Pickup Andropov (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it generally considered 'bad form' to edit Wikipedia without creating an account, so that only my IP shows?  Does this annoy some editors who have user names? 2601:18E:C380:1DC0:8062:CC61:BE4E:A1BC (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Wikipedia without an account for around 20 years, for reasons I won't bore you with. It's perfectly permissible (and I know this is stated in Policy somewhere, though I can't remember where offhand).

Some editors will likely choose to advise you of the advantages of having an account (which have never mattered to me, but might to others). Some editors with accounts are a little suspicious of IP editors, but if one's edits are all above board, they have nothing valid to complain about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited as an IP for a long time. But yes, there are a number of advantages to having a registered account. You don't have to. If you don't want to, then that's fine. But if nothing else, you're going to get more scrutiny than a registered user. That's not according to policy, but according to culture. Heck, I had a name change years ago and I got all kinds of crap from people just because they didn't recognize me. GMG^talk 23:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP might be thinking of m:Founding_principles. I'll also provide the obligatory links to Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. There are advantages to an account, and you may need a slighter thicker skin without one, but most users are well used to IPs editing and think nothing of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review talk at the Norse colonization of North America - Wikipedia. A few days ago, I began with-- "Attempting to remove a false statement." and things went back and forth for about a day or so. But then yesterday a change appeared. A green bar with the words, "A long apologia for an outdated source" is there now. If you look at the talk page you will see people were claiming my sources were "...out of date", "...not reliable." etc... But how could someone dismiss Magnus Magnusson - Wikipedia or his co-author Hermann Pálsson - Wikipedia "one of the most distinguished scholars of Icelandic studies of his generation"-- as unreliable or out of date? Their 1964 book "The Vinland Sagas" is still considered to be essential reading in this topic. Someone also claimed that Carl O. Saue, the repected geographer was "...fringe" for proposing that Irish Monks may have crossed the Atlantic before 11th century Icelanders and Greenlanders did it. Sauers proposal was never considered as 'fringe' and professional historian Charles E. Nowell (1904–1984) accepted Sauer's proposal.

I am from New England... someone admitted they had examined my IP number and figured I am from New Bedford. Seems they were not happy about that. Was I dealing with serious UN-Acceptable Wikipedia behavior? 2601:18E:C380:1DC0:8062:CC61:BE4E:A1BC (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Talk:Norse colonization of North America § Attempting to remove a false statement. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be anything to do with you editing as an IP address. It's a debate about an edit. You're proposing something, other people disagree, something was improved. It's a common type of discussion. Disagreements over edits are rarely pretty, but I think this one is well focused and it would be a mistake to think it's related to your account status. I would expect a similar response if I made the same sequence of edits. Sorry that doesn't resolve this dispute for you, but I think it answers the question you asked here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for commenting. Without a doubt, I'm in the newbie category when it comes to editing, even though I first tried it a bit about 15 years ago. I started up again about a week ago. I was surprised to see the opposition form up so quickly. The first 'source' they rejected was the 1964 book by Magnus Magnusson - Wikipedia and Hermann Pálsson - Wikipedia. But that book has been highly regarded by reviewers from the start. It appears in nearly every bibliography of recent books covering this subject. How can I get M&P, Carl O. Sauer - Wikipedia, and J. R. L. Anderson - Wikipedia accepted as credible sources? 2601:18E:C380:1DC0:8062:CC61:BE4E:A1BC (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing without an IP means that with only three mouse clicks, using tools available within Wikipedia, I can tell that the IP user is probably in New Bedford, Massachusetts, United States. Once you have your own User Name, such tracking is much more difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With varying degrees of "probably." Doing the same for my own current (because dynamic) IP, one learns that I am supposedly in Ashton-under-Lyne, which is wrong by more than 150 miles :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studies on the social dynamics here show that IP users are more likely to get reverted than registered users. Users with red-linked talk pages (indicating a newly registered account) are also more likely to get reverted than experienced users. There's no policy against it though. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that those groups of editors do more stuff that reasonably needs reverting. BUT I will admit, if I see IP-edits on my watchlist, I'm probably more likely to check if there's shenanigans afoot. Sometimes there is, but I like to think I don't revert without seeing a need. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I just saw this [2] on my watchlist. I checked it and reverted it. Come to think of it, I think WP:WATCHLIST is also a bonus for registered users. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to contribute to Wikipedia anonymously. While there are benefits to creating an account, such as watchlists, gadgets and the ability to customize the user experience, it is up to you if you want to register or not. Anonymous editing is as easy is clicking "edit" and submitting your changes. CpX41 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPMASKING may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is bad form (and highly illegal) is the way the Board is implementing the change. Denying editors the option to identify by IP is a breach of their human rights. Nowhere does the Board say that publishing IP addresses is illegal (they've had 24 years to make that argument). The scheme involves secretly recording the IPs used by each unregistered editor for twelve months. That also is a breach of their human rights, and nowhere is the unsuspecting editor told what she will be getting herself into. Of course, the editor is not told anything - she is simply told that "a temporary account will be opened" for her. Expect a challenge in the European Court on day one, because this will be done by cookie implantation, and consumers must be given a statement of what the cookies will do and then presented with a dialogue box enabling "a clear and informed choice" to either accept or reject them. 2A00:23C5:E12F:5300:C588:17E2:E52E:6CDD (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation is prepared to document it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A00:23C5:E12F:5300:C588:17E2:E52E:6CDD is apparently a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for a few months now I've been going through the "discography" section for the artist "Aphex Twin". I've noticed that, on the page "Richard D. James Album", the discography section links to "Analogue Bubblebath 3.1". While this is a separate release (even though it's a small one), it links back to Analogue Bubblebath 3, as 3.1 is under a subheading. I understand WHY this happens (technically it's just a re-release with extra tracks), but it's inclusion in the discography page essentially creates an infinite loop, unless the reader manually finds out the next release in the discography. Is there anything I can do / should be done about this? I feel like it should either be removed from the discography header or placed into its own separate article. Beachweak (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beachweak, it is possible to have a link go to a specific section of another article. I did so in that case; you can look at Richard D. James Album and its history to see how I did that. Normally, such rereleases and the like are not notable in their own right, and so should not be separate articles. But that way, someone who clicks on the discography link will be taken straight to information on the 3.1 release. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a college student taking a writing course on digital authorship. For a project, I'm planning to make some edits on Wikipedia regarding a subject that I've researched. Alongside that, I would like to use my User Page to discuss said subject and the edits I plan on making. Would such a use be permitted?

In the case that it matters, my research subject was primarily on Sci-hub and more generally about dissemination of scientific literature. Mistermath314 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistermath314, it's difficult to answer that in general terms without knowing exactly what you're planning. Normally, discussing your activities (or planned activities) on Wikipedia on your user page is fine, but using it for lengthy discussion of subjects unrelated to Wikipedia is generally not. There's some guidance on what should and shouldn't be on user pages here. A brief statement of subjects you're interested in, and if you wish why that is, is also just fine. If you want to draft a potential article, or edits to one, you can use a userspace sandbox for that; you could also use such a sandbox to keep track of references you might like to use, things you need to look up more information on, or the like.

So far as stating that it's a "subject that (you've) researched", do be aware that Wikipedia doesn't allow publication of original research. Facts in Wikipedia articles should be verified by reliable and independent sources, not be the product of your own investigation. If your own research has been published in a reputable publication, see the guidance on citing your own work—it's not forbidden entirely, but it must be kept within reason; doing it excessively will likely be seen as self-promotion or spamming. And of course do be aware that the more information you choose to reveal about yourself, the more likely it is that someone could use that to determine your actual identity, so it's up to you how much of a concern that is. You are never required to reveal your identity or personal details about yourself on Wikipedia, and you should think carefully before you do; there's often no taking that back once it's been done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Seraphim! Seems like it's a general no with regards to the user page. I was aware that previous student from a previous semester had used their user page for a similar purpose, but it seems like they were able to do so because their topic was discussing Wikipedia itself.

Also, I was aware of the rule against publication of original research and have been briefed on that before. I do plan for all of my edits to be entirely factual, and not citing myself or any of my own conclusions. Thank you for the reminder and warning, though! Mistermath314 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk pages of the articles you intend to edit are a better place to state your intent. However, you may not get any replies. Other option is to be bold in editing the article, and go to Talk of you are reverted. David notMD (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert! Censorship on Wikipedia in SpanishThe Spanish Wikipedia faces a disturbing threat: the deletion of new content under unjustified accusations of lack of relevance or self-promotion. Articles on figures like Fernando Oramas, La Movida Literaria, and Fernando Calderón España have disappeared, and this cannot continue!I call on librarians, creators, and the entire Wikipedia family: Let's join forces to investigate and prevent censorship in the Spanish version!Wikipedia is based on the collective construction of knowledge. Deleting content based on subjective or vague criteria undermines this principle. We need transparency in deletion processes and active community participation to assess the relevance of topics.What can we do?Investigate deletion cases: Analyze the reasons given for deleting these articles. Did they meet Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality standards?Promote debate: Participate in deletion discussions and contribute reliable sources that support the importance of these topics.Defend freedom of expression: Wikipedia shouldn't become a space for censorship. Let's defend the right to include relevant information, as long as it's properly supported.We invite everyone interested in preserving free knowledge to join this fight. Together we can ensure that the Spanish Wikipedia remains a reliable and diverse source of information! Charlestompkins222 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you have some question about the use of English-language Wikipedia? (That's what this page is for.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If, Charlestompkins222, you're asking about the disappearance of Draft:Fernando Calderón España (in English-language Wikipedia), to which you contributed, Justlettersandnumbers deleted it as promotional, and rightly so. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlestompkins222, the purpose of the Teahouse is to discuss editing the English Wikipedia, so I am not going to comment on another language version. But I will comment on Draft:Fernando Calderón España. That draft was unreferenced, which violates two policies, namely, Verifiability and Biographies of living persons. The draft was also highly promotional and written like a hagiography, which violates another policy, the Neutral point of view. So, three severe policy violations in a single draft. Deleting such poor quality content is good sense, not censorship in any sense. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: on the Spanish side, the article es:Fernando Calderón España was deleted (log) from Spanish Wikipedia by Virum Mundi (on es-wiki: es:Virum Mundi (talk · contribs)) on 20 April 2024 for "lack of sourcing and promotional". Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to speak to es.wiki's policy on the matter but I can't imagine that they'd take kindly to this attempt at BRIGADING and I can't imagine that it would help your case. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to come across this,

And Ibn Qudamah refuted the conditions of Abu HanTfah, as he said, "And whenever the people

of a country apostatize and their rulings are implemented in it, then they become a Dar of Harb concerning taking their wealth as Ghanlmah and taking their offspring which were born after the apostasy, as slaves. And it is upon the Imam to fight them, as Abu Bakr As-Siddlq, may Allah be pleased with him, fought the people of apostasy with the Jama'ah of the Sahabah. And because Allah, Ta'ala, ordered the fighting of the disbelievers in (many) places in His Book, and those ones are the most deserving of them to be fought. Because leaving them might tempt the likes of them to imitate them and apostatize with them, then the harm will become great through them. And if he fights them, then whoever is captured is killed, those of them who flee are pursued, their injured are finished off, and their wealth is taken as Ghanlmah, and this was the opinion of Ash-Shafi'T. And Abu HanTfah said, 'It does not become a Dar of Harb until three things are joined in it: That it neighbours Dar Al-Harb (and) there is nothing between them both from Dar Al-Islam. The second: That no Muslim or Thimml remains secure in it. The third: That their rulings are implemented in it.'" Ibn Qudamah said, 'And with us, that it is the Dar of kuffar in which there are their rulings, so it is a Dar of Harb." "Al-Mughnl Wash-Sharh Al-Kablr", Vol. 10/95. So Ibn Qudamah made the cause for the ruling upon the Dar to be the type of rulings that

are implemented in it.^[1]

Please help me condense it. Can I add it to the article on Divisions of the world in Islam, the article on Kafir or both?-Haani40 (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also correct the citation error.- Haani40 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it needs attribution, please begin your sentence with, "According to...... "-Haani40 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse is general guidance forum- not final arbitrator of what content is right for a particular article.

Questions on Whether a source is reliable enough generally should go to WP:RSN. Generally prefer academic sources where available. Bookku (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least, someone can condense it right?-Haani40 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some one helps you then welcome. But at some point you will be needed to be on your own isn't it?

I was almost in midst to guide with how to at your talk page, but you have surprised me with some strange bite at my talk page. Let us hope you find some other helpful user. Happy editing anyways. Bookku (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]