Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1077

María de las Mercedes Adam de Aróstegui
María de las Mercedes Adam de Aróstegui
	María de las Mercedes Adam de Aróstegui
Born	September 24, 1873; Camagüey, Cuba
Died	October 20, 1957; Madrid, Spain
	Musical career
Occupation(s)	Musician, Composer
Instrument(s)	Piano

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1070

←

Are song lyrics Copyvios?

Do song lyrics meet the criteria for WP:Copyvio? And if they do, should I just do the usual copyvio process (remove, template, notify editors etc.)? Thanks in advance. Opalzukor (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Opalzukor. Yes, most lyrics will be copyright, unless very old songs (over 70 years), or placed in the public domain by the artist with an appropriate licence. See Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry for more guidance, remembering that this is an encyclopaedia. Quoting small parts of a song, if relevant to the encyclopedic nature of the article might be appropriate in certain circumstances of interpretation, based on what reliable sources say about them. But just putting in lyrics for lyrics sake is not OK here, and those edits probably ought to be revdelled, too Thanks for your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In that case, what should I put as the url? Just "song lyrics", or a link to a song lyric providing service, or something else? Opalzukor (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Opalzukor: Sorry, I missed your reply as you didn't 'ping' me, so I've only just seen it. I advise you to leave out all links to lyric sites. Let an editor go look for lyrics by themselves. We can't stop other people posting copyrighted content that they do not own, but we mustn't be linking to sites which contains such content, as it you would be going against our policy of supporting free content. Just leave out any such links, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:I seem to have messed up. Another editor stated that they had replaced my copyvio report with a more fitting one, however, while my version was up, I had linked to a lyric providing site. Should I get it oversighted, or is all ok? Again, thanks. Opalzukor (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Opalzukor: Goodness, it's not that serious that an edit with a simple link in it needs to be either oversighted or even plain old r≠evdelled. That's really overkill. Just a simple edit to remove the external link is all that's necessary. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

On using templates...

Hey there, I'm trying to write a biography article draft that's currently on a work-in-progress page. I'd love to utilize the "biography of a living person" template, but it's not allowing me to edit it when I import it in. Any pointers for a newbie? Whcohen (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Whcohen (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Whcohen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect that you are misunderstanding what a template is. The template {{biography of a living person}} is simply a box that may be added to the top of an article to warn the reader that it is a BLP and subject to the more stringent referencing rules: it has no parameters, and there is no reason for you to edit. I'm guessing that you are thinking that the template gives you an outline for the structure of a biography article: that is not how we work. You can find information about that at MOS:BIO; but we don't have a template in that sense. (In my personal view, it is right that we don't provide an easy way to handle the superficial details of creating an article, because the structure and appearance of an article is far less important than the much harder task of finding appropriate independent sources, or the next hardest task of writing an article based almost exclusively on those sources, and not on personal knowledge, or on what the subject has said, done, or published. My experience is that editors who plunge into creating articles before they've learnt about all that typically have a frustrating and disappointing time, so I don't want us to encourage that). --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

{{subst:Biography}} does exist; I'm just not so sure how helpful you would find it. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Judoka wird nicht angezeigt in der vorschau

Hallo, ich bin neu hier, ich habe versuch einen Artikel über einen Judoka zu erstellen und habe dafür die Judoka Infobox verwendet aber in der Vorschau wird mir jemand die Box nicht angezeigt, kann mir sagen welche Fehler ich gemacht habe. SportMASSIV (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

SportMASSIV, wir haben kein {{Infobox Judoka}} am English Wikipedia, bitte nutzen {{Infobox sportsperson}} stattdessen. Merken auch dass diese seite für das englische Projekt ist: Artikeln müsssen auf Englisch geschrieben sein. Wenn sie lieber auf Deutsch kontribuieren würden, können sie Deutsche Wikipedia hier finden. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How to create a Vietnamese page for the same concept to the English page?

I would like to know how can I create a Vietnamese page for the same concept to English page. Thanks. Timothymateo (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Timothymateo: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to expand it. See the guidance at WP:TRANSLATE. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Create a page

Can someone please help me I am trying to create a page bit it keeps saying error Alisha rains (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Alisha rains and welcome to the Teahouse. You have successfully created the pages TikTok dance (although that was later redirected to TikTok#Features and trends), and User:Alisha rains, and Draft:D.R.E.A.M. Can you give the name of the page you were trying to create, and as much as possible of the exact error message that you received, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi the page name is called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unathi_Nkayi&action=edit&redlink=1 if you want to find it you can go to idols south Africa to find it Alisha rains (talk) 6:45 17 september 2020 (UTC)

It appears you want to create a page about Unathi Nkayi, who also goes by Unathi Msengana (her married name?) who is/was a judge on the TV music talent show Idols South Africa However, I cannot find your contribution to a draft. Are you using WP:YFA? David notMD (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No have not created it yet because it keeps saying that there is a error Alisha rains (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Alisha rains, it would help if you said what exactly the error message says, verbatim if possible. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok I am going to try again it's starting to work now let me try again thank you so much for helping me Alisha rains (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding the new EP of the show in the cast mention of the bio.

Hello! I tried editing our show's show twice and the edit was denied. Second edit I was told to stop vandalizing the page. The page in question - The Bobby Bones Show: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bobby_Bones_Show&action=edit

Here is what I was trying to fix:

Bobby Bones is accompanied by co-hosts Lunchbox (Dan Chappell) and Amy (Moffett-Brown), along with sidekicks Eddie (Garcia), Raymundo (Raymond Slater), Mike D. (Deestro), Morgan #2 (Huelsman), “Utility” Hillary (Borden), and Scuba Steve (Executive Producer).

I wanted to add me to the show bio in the body of the wiki post. I've been added by someone into the box on the right as a producer. I was looking to update the bio as well.

Also, if possible...can my name in the box on the right be hyperlinked to my google search - similar to Raymundo on the main page within google:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS874US874&biw=1280&bih=642&sxsrf=ALeKk028Figz8I1ImAlum8r9zklAwlYPiw%3A1600366534052&ei=xqdjX9DkAoWr5wL6iZjoAw&q=scuba+steve+bobby+bones&oq=scuba+steve+bobby+bones&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoHCAAQFBCHAjoECAAQQzoCCC46CAguEMcBEK8BOgYIABAWEB46CAgAEBYQChAeUJQhWJkqYKoraABwAngAgAFciAHQB5IBAjEymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesgBCMABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjQ35b25fDrAhWF1VkKHfoEBj0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

Thank you for your time and help!

-Steve ScubaSteveRadio (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: The Bobby Bones Show. You added your name and that you are Executive Producer. The ref identifies you as in the cast, but not as EP. Hence your edit reversed. In the info box (right), the only person with a name in blue is Bobby Bones, because there is a Wikipedia article about him. David notMD (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi David,

That is also incorrect. I am the executive producer, can that also please be changed? I recently left On Air With Ryan Seacrest. Please feel free to check out my Twitter & IG: @ScubaSteveRadio or email me for credentials -

I used to work with On Air With Ryan Seacrest and was listed as an EP there - can we please edit our page to add that tab with my name?

Link to their page for the example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Air_with_Ryan_Seacrest

Here is my verified twitter for confirmation: https://twitter.com/scubasteveradio

And here is an article posted on our show page with my title: https://bobbybones.iheart.com/featured/bobby-bones/content/2019-11-20-meet-our-new-executive-producer-scuba-steve/

Thank you for your time and help!

-Steve ScubaSteveRadio (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ScubaSteveRadio I added you as EP, since the supplied source supports this. Note that giving us a twitter connecvtioin is of no value in future, as that is not considered a reliable source, even if verified. The PR is not independent, but is an acceptable source for this kind of info.

Also, in future, please do not followup by starting a new thread. Instead just edit the existing thread to add your new post at the bottom of it. Also, please do not start a line with a space as if to create a paragraph indent. The wiki software interprets this as the start of a code block, and formats the paragraph in a monospaced font, with a grey background. This does not look well for normal text. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to permanently remove notifications?

I marked all of my notifications as read, but I can still see all of them in my notifications bell. I received a few notifications from a user who I believe has been acting hypocritically towards me, and removed the message from my talk page, but I still can't get rid of the notification in my notifications bell. Is there a way to delete specific notifications so that I am unable to see it, or is it stuck there forever? I have already muted future notifications from them. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: I don't think there's a way to completely remove them. They will go away eventually when you've got newer notifications that pushes the old ones to the bottom, but they'll still be visible at Special:Notifications. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Can wikipedia be edited without Javascript?

Can I? How will disabling Javascript affect my experience? What features would I be missing out on? IveGonePostal (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@IveGonePostal: Wikipedia itself doesn't rely on having JavaScript to edit, as you just need an understanding of Wikitext to write any article on this site. However, JavaScript is used by some of the useful tools on this site, like VisualEditor, many of these gadgets, and user scripts. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

h

Is there a way that i can search image categories on commons? - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wikimeedian, welcome back. If you go to the search page, immediately below the search box you can deselect several namespaces leaving only 'Category' selected. From there you can search for a category name, click on the category and browse the images. Zindor (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Wikimeedian, were you asking if you could search within the categories themselves? Zindor (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

oh, yes - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 19:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The commons category search function (deepcat) doesn't seem to be working for me. Hopefully someone else here has an answer for you. I'd suggest in the meantime asking a question at over at the Commons Help desk. While we do possess some knowledge of our sister project, we primarily deal with English Wikipedia issues here. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: Please use a descriptive title for your questions not "h". RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't Understand Why Page Was Deleted

My page, "Movement-specialist" for my company Stick Mobility was deleted for disruptive editing and I am wondering why? The account that deleted it said there was promotional text on my page; however, after re-reading it countless times I do not see any promotional text. What can I do to have my page re-published?

The link for my page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Movement-specialist

Thank you in advance! Movement-specialist (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI to other hosts, this user is blocked now. RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Movement-specialist

There were several problems with the page. But first and foremost, it was wholly, 100% promotion. It read like a company brochure or promotional flyer, or a company web site. I am notoriously more tolerant of marginal promotion than most expoeriened editors here, and i would have deleted this withotu a second tho9guht. Phrases such as The system combines joint mobilization, strength training, and deep fascial stretching to increase athletic performance, reduce risk of injury, and accelerate recovery., The company’s primary customer focus is on helping coaches, athletes, and medical practitioners, and The neuromuscular drive benefits from Stick Mobility come as one's body is better able to coordinate their muscles as one unified mechanism to produce movement. are all blatant adspeak. If you don't see anything promotional about those statements, than i think you have been leaving in a world of advertising for much too long. Note that "promotion" here does not mean just "Buy X" it emans anythign intended to convey the idea that "X is good." rather than neutrally describing X.

Secondly, the page was sourced entirely to the company's own website. There were no independent sources at all.

Thirdly, the page was incorrectly positioned. It was on your man user page. Your user page should be about you as a wikipedia editor. It can contain information about your interests and skills, so people know what you might be able to edit well. It can contain lists of editing accomplishments, and plans for future editing tasks. it can contain some brief biographical info, but nothing that looks like an attempt at an article about yourself, your company, or your projects. see Wikipedia:User pages for more details.

If you want to \write about some other topic, please read Your First Article and then use the article wizard to create a draft under the [[WP:AFC|arti8cles for Creation[[ project. But if you want to write about yourself, your business, your organization, or anything that you are closely connected to, you have a conflict of interest and should read that policy page before starting or you may well waste a lot of time. The best advice on how to write such an article is: don't. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Unclear

TAHIR TALIB JOYIA CITY FORT ABBAS DISTRICT BAHAWALNAGAR PUNJAB PAKISTAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAHIR Talib joyia 277 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

TAHIR Talib joyia 277 did you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia? If so, please state more clearly what your question is. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Paid Contributor Template?

I have been trying to post an article on behalf of a client and I was told because I am posting on their behalf, I need to use the Paid Contributor template.

However, I am not able to find this template. When I go to my sandbox and post the content in, it says I should be using the Paid Contributor template, but there is not a link to the template. Please help. SRSchreiber (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You can find them on Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Appears you have properly placed it on your User page. David notMD (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing Issue

When I go to edit an article, it brings me to the edit page of and old version of the article, leading to many errors. Is there something I'm not doing right? Le Panini (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: please provide an example. What article is this, and what page do you start at to edit it? If you are already looking at an older version, then the edit button will start editing on that version. RudolfRed (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Le Panini. I think you must be doing something very wrong indeed! All I can think is that in desktop view, instead of clicking the 'edit' or 'edit source' tab for that article, you're going first into the 'View History' tab and then clicking one of older date-stamped versions of an article. But you would see a warning notice at the top of the page to highlight that you're about to edit something other than the current version.

The only other causes might be that somehow your device is displaying an older, cached version of a page from a previous visit, rather than reloading the page afresh, as normally happens (in which case, hit F5 to refresh the page, OR that your edit has coincided with that of another user, and you're getting an 'Edit Conflict' situation and a possible warning message. That kind of thing happens a lot at the Teahouse (because it is so often edited, but it rarely happens on infrequently visited pages. Do any of these sound likely? If not, next time it happens, could you copy the url you're seeing in your browser and supply that to us with further details of what happened? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete account

Can you delete my account? I don’t use Wikipedia anymore Josh paul sites (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Josh paul sites. Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted as explained in Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. If you no longer wish to edit, you can simply just stop using your account and stop editing. You may also WP:RETIRE if you want or request a courtesy vanishing as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

h

I though only edits to mainspace should be added in an account's contributions history. Where do I take this idea? - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 20:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wikimeedian. Your best bet is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Regards, Zindor (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikimeedian. I honestly don't think that suggestion would be welcomed by anyone here at all, as it would effectively hide all edits other than those to mainspace. I really wouldn't waste your time suggesting it. It's a definite non-starter. Unless I have misunderstood your idea, doing that would allow you to abuse other editors, add nonsense to talk pages, vandalise WikiProjects and damage templates with nobody knowing you'd done it. What, might I enquire, is your rationale for thinking that would be a good idea?

If your wish is not to have another editor's full list of contributions bloated out with all their trivial edits to their user page, or whatever, you can simply select which namespace edits you want to see. Look for the Search for contributions dropdown menu at the top of the Special:Contributions page - it is easily missed. Thus, here are all your edits, and here are just your edits to mainspace. And is a different view of your 71 edits, thus far. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC) (@Wikimeedian: fixing my duff ping, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)) P

@Nick Moyes: Sorry that was a poor description what I meant by that statement was not to completely remove the edits that are not in mainspace, but to have it so that accounts only display mainspace contribution(s) and more broadly only have them "Count as" real edits, which would also solve a variety of different problems such as mistaken AutoConfirm-ation and edit display badges. - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 22:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Also like you said there are some exceptions such as Maintenance Categories) - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 22:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: That won't solve the scenario you are trying to prevent. My edit count is lower than it could be because I try to make all my edits to an article all at once, and don't use bots. If someone's goal was to get a high mainspace edit cont, they'd simply break their contributions into smaller chunks, and use a bot, and voila - high edit count! Bring on the badges! But seriously, you can go to [[1]] and see edit counts. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Sorry I didn't quite understand your oppose, why does this not solve these problems? - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: Ah, OK. I can partly appreciate where you're going with that. We still need 'Special:Contributions' to show all types of edit, but in my view I'd quite like to see only mainspace edits counting towards certain contribution-based rights - but that probably isn't the view of many of the editors who are active 'behind the scenes'. The problem I think Tim is trying to highlight is that it can be so easily gamed, that changing the rules would have little effect. For example, I once saw one editor make 204 mainspace edits in quick succession, but, in doing so, they only added 15 words to one article in that time (diff)! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Oh thank you for explaining that, I didn't realise how easily that could be exploited... - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think most editors do. But those who do (and want to) will. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for that benign comment as this was obviously discontinued, anyway it is 7:20 where I live so (when I posted this obviously) I'm going to bed in a few hours so I'm not going to respond to any replies. - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 23:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's just some further wisdom for you. You're actually quite fortunate that Nick Moyes took it upon himself to understand and discuss the merits (or lack of) in your idea. The editors at the central venue i directed you to might have been far less friendly! Zindor (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: (ec) I can't imagine what that is in response to, but we already have plenty of tools (like xTools) that can give you all the statistics you want. Special:Contributions can be filtered by namespace and set to display 500 edits per page. The thing is, it's an "extremely silly subject" in the view of most seasoned editors, some of the reasons for which are mentioned above. We, as a community, are here to build an encyclopedia, not to collect hats. Any sort of gaming of edit counts just to get to auto-confirmed or extended-confirmed almost always results in the person doing something against the will of the community. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, @Wikimeedian:, @Timtempleton:, @AlanM1:, After reading the above, I am feeling rather embarrassed. I have edited, on an irregular basis for 4.5 years. Recently, it dawned on me that my edit count "entitled me to a badge", and not long after I posted the first one, my count crossed the line (8000 edits) for the next higher level, which I posted on my user page. Most of my edits are WikiGnome edits, and even when I edit text, I do it in small sectional increments, because of the small editing pane of my Ipad. I also compose a great deal, in my Sandbox, etc., for final transfer to other places. So, compared to an article writer, I don't deserve an Editor Badge, and I don't wish to create a false impression of grandeur and achievement. As of today, only 63.8% of my edits have been Mainspace, and nearly 20% to User. I have removed the Veteran Editor badge. Thanks for discussing this topic. Per AlanM1, the true joy of editing, is doing good work for the community. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Gnomes are people too! Othurwe ize wed HAVE Just Another piel ofwebjunk. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: I agree - don't be so hard on yourself. Anyone who contributes regularly, and in whatever way or ways that may be, is helping to maintain and enhance this amazing project. Yes, in ine sense we are all unsung heroes whose work other people benefit from. That information sharing and improvement is really a reward in itself, but sometimes it is nice to have a bit of recognition. It's nice when it comes from other people, but there's nothing to be ashamed about for you taking pride in your edits, wherever they may have been made. So long as you're learning, enjoying, and not harming the Project, then you're a helpful editor, and should be proud of that fact. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nick Moyes:, for your kind words. AFAIK, I have been helpful and done no harm. I have reconsidered, and I am pleased to claim the rank of "WP:Tutnum", which seems like a lovely title for a WikiGnome. Much better than "Veteran Editor". Such fun, and humor! The pleasure of doing "good deeds", and helping others, is a yet another marvelous incentive to work on WP. Yes, we have many people, playing their parts, both large and small, and doing good work. Best wishes from a (now) Proud Tutnam Gnome, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Who may reject or approve a new article?

Dear Teahouse - thank you for your help and feedback. Yesterday, I submitted the page for a Brooklyn-based indie-rock band that I've worked on for a long time, and read and learned a lot to do things "right". Draft:Girl_Skin Upon learning that new submissions would take 2 months and longer, I braced myself to wait for 8 weeks and more. Looking at it only one day later again, I saw that it already got rejected! The reasons given are disputable but what makes me really wonder is: the page has been rejected by someone who is a Wikipedia editor for less than 2 months. I always thought, and long time Wikipedia editors confirmed this, that one would need to be more experienced in order to approve or reject a new submission. (editing the draft, I will point out the notability better because bands with even less notability do have a Wikipedia entry.) Thank you very much. Elkenyc (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Elkenyc Hello. Please note that it is usually a poor argument to cite other articles as a reason for yours to exist; see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. This is why each article is judged on its own merits. If there are bands with articles that do not meet the definition of a notable band, feel free to point those out so they can be addressed, we could use the help.

The user who declined your draft has been a user since 2015, so I'm not sure where you got the two months figure. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

. . . but since you ask, the qualifications needed to be a reviewer are listed here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Welcome to the Teahouse, Elkenyc. The editor (CNMall41) who rejected the current version of your draft on the grounds of a lack of suitable references demonstrating notability has actually been editing since 2014, and has over 27,000 edits to their credit (see here). I think you not unreasonably misinterpreted something on their userpage, which confused me a bit, too. But some editors can and do gain experience here very quickly, and it's the level of their activity and proven competence and judgement which is really important in whether they're allowed to review new articles and give feedback, not how many months or years they've been editing for. You might like to read WP:NBAND for our guidelines on notability for groups (as well as WP:GNG) plus WP:COI for how to declare any Conflict of Interest if you are connected with the band in any way. The feedback on your page indicated that sources showing more in-depth coverage, rather than mere mentions, is what you need to find. It could, of course, simply be WP:TOOSOON. I accept there are many old articles here which are probably not notable by our modern standards, and when we spot them they do tend to get put up for a Deletion Discussion. Feel free to list any such groups you feel are not notable, and we can look at them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Elkenyc. Others have already addresses the reviewer qualifications. But I want to mention that your draft was not "rejected" it was "declined" which really means "not accepted yet". A "Rejet5" notice says "This will never be an article, stop wasting your time and ours". A "decline notice" says "This isn't ready yet, please improve it and try again." Most drafts that are submitted to AfC and eventually approved go through more than one decline/improve cycle, in my experience.

Also, about the wait time: drafts submitted for review are reviewed in no particular order. Each editor sho chooses to do reviews does them in whatever order s/he pleases, so a draft may be reviewed minutes after it is submitted, or not for months. The estimates at the top of the notice are fo0r a near worst-case situation. There are many drafts waiting for attention, and not so many reviewers.

Feel free to ask further specific questions here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Elkenyc, reviewers take on the articles they feel comfortable reviewing. For example, I'm both a new page patroler and an AfC reviewer. My main field here is sociopolitical geography and when I am purposely out to patrol, that's all I look at. Music groups are a popular subject so I'd guess your wait shouldn't be too long. Not offering any opinions on the decline as I haven't read your draft. However it's been my experience that notability is one of the harder concepts for a new user to grasp. Almost every draft gets declined at least once, most more than that. If asked, I always advise new editors to spend at least 6 months doing general editing, and reading up on notability (the best way to do that is read, without participation. WP:AFD discussions. The process of removing poor articles is probably the best place to gain understanding of notability). John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I believe everyone already addressed my qualifications so I won't mention them again. I will say that the draft itself lacked a few things that would point out notability. First, the references used are not considered reliable (WP:RS) or simply mention music or appearances, not something that goes into detail about the band so they would not qualify under WP:GNG. The second is that there is no mention (and I could not locate in a WP:BEFORE search) of any charting or anything else under WP:NBAND that shows why they are notable. Finally, the critical reception and editorial sections make the draft look more like a fan website than an encyclopedic article. I will reiterate what was said above in that the article is not "rejected," only "declined" for the moment. You are more than welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the draft and submit for review once you feel the issues are addressed. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding an image to Allan H. MacDonald article

Link: Allan H. MacDonald
@Janeannp: Note: Moved to new plain-text section heading. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I need to know how to upload the image for Allan MacDonald. It seems the process is rather convoluted, and I've been getting different answers, to no avail. Please help! Jane Ann Parker (redacted). Thank you! Janeannp (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Janeannp: I have to agree that image is a rather complicated. Lets start with two simple questions: Is the image licensed under a free license such as CC-BY-SA? Are you the copyright holder of the image (most likely in this case the photographer)? If you can respond to one of the questions with yes please upload the image using the the Upload Wizard over at Wikimedia Commons. Uploading images to commons has the adventage that they can be used on any Wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, not yust Wikipedia. The Wizard will assist you in getting things right, and afaik at the end present you the syntax to include the image. If you must answer no to both questions, I recommend going to WP:Files for Upload. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been given permission by Dr. MacDonald to publish his photo, and I have already uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons. What I don't understand is how to get that image onto his Wikipedia page. It seems like a nearly impossible task, I don't know how others do it! Thanks for your help. Jane Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeannp (talk • contribs)

@Janeannp:, it looks like you figured it out. Please feel free to ask if there's anything else. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox

There is a previous article in my Sandbox that has been published.

How do I start on a new article when the old article is in the Sandbox?

   --Gabby 10:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vedlagt:

Note that User:Vedlagt/sanbox is still empty, so you could also create an article there. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That is empty, but if you include the "d", User:Vedlagt/sandbox isn't empty. In the top left-hand corner it say "(Redirected from User:Vedlagt/sandbox)". Clicking on the link there gets you to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vedlagt/sandbox&redirect=no which can be cleared, or replaced by new content. The OP does have a draft which had been mistakenly moved to a non-existent user's user page, but it's now at User:Vedlagt/Reverend Johannes Arondeus. The OP has confused the issue by splitting their questions between the Help Desk and here. David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I delete an article that is still in my sandbox to make room for a new one? The article there has been accepted and published. Will it effect the article on Wikipedia?

Gabby 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vedlagt Gabby 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Try reading the answer to your question immediately above. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:VedlagtStill have a problem clearing my Sandbox.

Gabby 11:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Gabby 11:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop creating new sections when you are following up on an existing discussion. If you don't tell us what you're problem is, we can't help you. What stopped you clearing or editing the page when you went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vedlagt/sandbox&redirect=no ? And please don't start a new line with a space, because that screws up the formatting of the text, and please sort out your signature, as you were advised on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Vedlagt the draft you were previously working on is now at User:Vedlagt/Reverend Johannes Arondeus. Only editing that page will change its content, editing your sandbox won't affect it. So, you can delete everything in your sandbox and start writing a new article there. The reverend J Arondeus draft is not an article yet. It has only moved to a new location in your own userspace. You can hit the submit button that is at the bottom of the banner at the top of the draft when you feel it is ready, and someone will review it and move it to the article space if it indeed is. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished Article That's Gotten Lost

I believe that I have contributed an article that should have been published. It was my first real attempt and when I first published it I got some criticism that I took to heart. I've improved the article (I think substantially) but now no one is looking at it. Is there anyone who would be willing to take a look and publish it, or tell me what I should do to improve it? Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Texas_Administrative_Judicial_Regions

Thanks so much in advance. RedBeardBandit (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@RedBeardBandit:It is right there at the link. What do you mean that it is lost? Reviews can take a long time, just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess I don't mean lost lost but lost in the shuffle. I thought I had fixed the issues but didn't think anyone was looking at it anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBeardBandit (talk • contribs)

Hello RedBeardBandit, the drafts go to a pile which the volunteers sift through looking for topics they are familiar with and comfortable making a decision about. It may have already been looked at by multiple reviewers. If it were a quick fail, it might have been declined. So, this is probably a good sign, that the draft will likely be accepted but it needs a reviewer who knows Texas to see it. You could try posting at WT:WikiProject United States and/or WT:WikiProject Texas where editors who feel more comfortable with evaluating Texas related content may see it. Otherwise, yes, please be patient. Eventually one of more experienced reviewers will come across it and decide on it. I know, as a new editor, it's more comfortable to see one job through before you start a new one. But the nature of Wikipedia is such that any progress in one particular article may take days to weeks, and there is usually no choice but to move on to other articles while you wait for progress on one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to How do I publish a draft?

Follow up question on Michael K. Hole wiki page

Hi there, I'm sorry it took me a minute to reply on my last thread. It was archived so I'm copying and pasting an important note here. Am I good to submit this article for review? I am not being paid to do this Wiki but I do know Michael. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_K._Hole Thank you!:

Hello Victoria7yu. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Victoria7yu. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Victoria7yu|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with this. I am not being paid to do this. I know Mike and wanted to try my hand at Wiki. Please let me know next steps or anything I need to do on my end. Thanks so much.Victoria7yu (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
— Original discussion from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1074#How_do_I_publish_a_draft?

Victoria7yu (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Victoria7yu. If you are not being paid or doing it as part of your job, then you should not use the {{paid}} disclosure, and it is not mandatory for you to make any disclosure. But to avoid further hassle, I recommend that on your User page User:Victoria7yu (which does not yet exist) you explain that you know him, so you may have a conflict of interest; but that you are not a paid editor. I would say to do it on the talk page of the Draft as well, but another editor has already explained it there. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria7yu (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A blue, submit your draft button is in the template above the draft. Once submitted, it takes days to months before a reviewer either accepts, declines or rejects. There is a backlog of thousands of drafts, and it is not a queue. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria7yu (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Formatting to clarify quoted material and signatures added by —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia say about representing castes on articles of living persons

Hello, I am a less experienced user on Wikipedia and I need help.

One user Fylindfotberserk insists on placing castes on the Early Life article of Neil Nitin Mukesh. The source for the castes he has listed is a YouTube video where his father is seen mentioning the castes of his grandfather and grandmother. Is this necessary to be put in the article?

The user has now had his page fully locked to prevent me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4004:395f:cfca:977e:6652:cb28 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the article's talk page. Talk:Neil_Nitin_Mukesh#Recent_removal. The consensus is to include the caste. You may participate in that discussion if you wish. RudolfRed (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, different editor put in the block (which expires today) so that a discussion could take place at Talk, and another editor who for the moment removed the caste-related sentence entirely. IP 2409 blocked for personal attacks in edit summaries and on other editor's Talk page. Everyone, chill. David notMD (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you join a WikiProject?

Hello! I was wondering how do you join a WikiProject? VolgaDnper1488 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse VolgaDnper1488. You can learn more about them at Wikipedia:WikiProject, but there is no formal joining up process. Wiki-projects are simply groups of editors who have coalesced around projects with specific themes to improve articles in that area. Whilst you can add your name to their participants list if they have one, there is no real need. Active projects may steer editors towards certain activities, so monitor their talk pages as well as the main project page. Most have an article assessment chart which shows you how many articles are relevant to that project, their quality and their importance, as identified by that Project. Clicking one of the numbers in that chart gives you a list of articles - often a great way to find articles of a quality or priority that matches your editing interests (High importance stub articles are those crying out the most for improvement) Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@VolgaDnper1488: Every WikiProject is different. The main project page will normally tell you where to add your name to the list of participants, but it's not required. You usually just edit the page and add your name to the list below the last entry. If it's not obvious, you can ask at the project's talk page (click the Talk tab while looking at the main project page and add a new section). Note the dates on the other posts on the talk page – some projects are inactive/abandoned. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Signatures (With Colour and fonts)

This may not be a very important question, but I just joined wikipedia over a month ago, and I have seen many good, many bad edits. Some edits in talk pages and user pages have colourful signatures and different fonts. I have been getting the hang of the functions in the editing window, but there is only one function I do not know about. I usually sign my posts with tildes, but to make my edits unique and recognisable, I want to know how this function works. Thanks! EpicRice (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC) EpicRice (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello EpicRice, when you go to Special:Preferences, and scroll through it, you should see an option to change your personal signature. If you can write wiki markup or html code well, you can do it yourself. You could also copy some other user's signature that you happen to like and just change the username in it to yours. Please see WP:SIG, especially the WP:CUSTOMSIG section. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@EpicRice: It's a good idea to test the code in your sandbox before saving it in your preferences. After saving it in your preferences, you should also try it in your sandbox (i.e., by typing the four tildes and previewing it) to make sure it does what you expect, and that you have at least one working link back to your user or talk page (per WP:SIG). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

can't find advice on how to put a query in an entry

Is there any way to put a query into an entry? How? For example, I'm looking at an article that talks about someone working for "a Philadelphia tool company" in the late c19th. Well, if you know that, then which company? I'm almost certain that this must be the Philadelphia, later Philadelphia/Plumb / Plumb tool company, about which not much historical record exists (but the brand-stamped tools still do). I looked but I can't see how to place a query inside an article. Surely no article can't be totally definitive in everything it says, and surely there must be areas of reasoned speculation and so forth................

I'm sure my question isn't new--in fact it must be really common--but I can't find the answer after some looking.

Thank you, ww 68.146.192.74 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 68.146.192.74. I'd suggest using Template:Which here. If you click that link, there are instructions on how to use the template in articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, IP editor, but Wikipedia is not the place for reasoned speculation by its editors. Try to see Wikipedia as a simple collation of what other experts and reliable sources have written about a subject, with a lovely list of references at the bottom of the page to help you verify what has been collated here. If we were to stray into the realms of encouraging speculation and reasoned interpretation, we open the floodgates to all sorts of unsubstantiated opinion and bias. No - we actively ban Original Research. But, as Cordless Larry points out, when you encounter vague statements that need further explanation, you have the option of checking the citation and removing the content if the citation fails to support it, or marking the statement with various ways, such as:

confusing worded statement...^{[clarification needed]}
unspecified time period...^[when?]
some people stated things...^[who?]
it might have been this; it might have been something else...^[which?]
unsourced statement what need a source for verification...^{[citation needed]}
On rare occasions it might be appropriate to include a Hidden Comment, visible only when editing. But this would normally be done, not to add speculation, but to avoid speculation being added. Here's an example: In this sentence I mention that John Doe worked for an unspecified Philadelphia tool company. That previous sentence included hidden text which you only see when you attempt to edit the sentence.

Hoping this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

$1 per edited article

I'm sorry if this is a tired query. I've been asked to edit articles for $1 per article with a loaned login/pwd. I assume this is very common, but is it something the wikipedia community warmly and eagerly embraces? ww 68.146.192.74 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not permitted to share an account; each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual. You should create your own account, not use a "loaned" account. Paid editing is not against the rules, but you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to declare any paid editing relationship that you have, see WP:PAID. You must declare who is paying you and who the edits are for(if different than who is paying you). 331dot (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors with a COI (as paid editors clearly have) should not even edit the article directly, instead posting an {{Edit request}} on the article's talk page. Edits that are likely to be requested by such a paid-for scheme are likely to be denied, as they are usually promotional or the subterfuge would not be necessary. $1 for an edit ends up being a ridiculously small amount if you look at what professional copy-editors typically charge; or even in comparison to the minimum wage at your IP's geolocation in Canada. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Crikey. Most editors here contribute for love, not for money. At $1 per article, this IP looks like they could be doing it for neither! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What to do with a rude comment on a Talk page?

Hi there to Teahouse helpers! I found a rude comment on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jayne_Wrightsman

The comment is anonymous and 8 years old. What's the best way to handle that: Archive it, or just remove it by editing it out? If I should archive that Talk page, how do I do that? How do I easily archive a Talk page, like I have seen some Talk pages with links to their archives? Is there a script to do this? Nickgray (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are some excellent questions, Nickgray! First off, just delete the edit with an edit summary like "deleting old, insulting comment", and simply leave it at that. It's shameful that remark has languished there for so long - especially now that she is recently deceased, but some talk pages rarely get visited, and this looks like one such. Never archive a talk page purely to hide old comments, or only to show the recent ones unless the talk page itself is extremely active and becoming bloated with new threads. I say that because it is very helpful to quickly see at a glance that a talk page is genuinely inactive, rather than have to click from an almost empty talk page to go to an archive link, only to find there's just one old and trivial post within it. I'm happy seeing just one edit to a talk page made pre 2005 as it instantly tells me this is a page with little activity - and that's fine. For that reason I won't go into how to archive a talk page unless it's a necessity elsewhere. Come back if you ever really need that advice. Hope you find this reply helpful, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Nick Moyes! I removed the comment and will leave it at that. Now I know what to do for the future, too. Have a Happy Friday Nickgray (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Help for overhauling a scientific field page

Hi everyone,

I'm writing on behalf of a group of senior researchers in the field of Environmental Psychology. Our field's wiki page is considerably out of date, and represents the research in the field which more closely aligns with the goals of the field 30-40 years ago, rather than contemporary issues in the field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_psychology). Namely, if you look at the content of articles in our field's flagship scientific journals (like https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-environmental-psychology/ or https://journals.sagepub.com/home/eab), it is clear that the focus of the field has shifted considerably toward issues like sustainability, coping with and adaptation to environmental hazard risks, and intersections with health and wellbeing.

From an content perspective, we are in the process of gathering volunteers in our field to help organize and generate the content that would go on an updated, more accurate wikipedia summary.

But, my question to you is: how do we start? The page basically needs a complete overhaul and this is not our expertise. Any input you have for how to completely re-organize and re-write a scientific wikipedia entry would be greatly appreciated! STJZ816 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start by describing your proposals on the article's talk page. Then you'll be able to assess how other concerned editors regard them. Maproom (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That's good advice from Maproom. Other little tips might be

a) ensure if there's a group of you that you each edit from separate accounts;

b) you might wish (but there's no obligation) to mention your subject specialisms on your userpages

c) On the article talk page, cite some examples of bad content, and give an example of the text you're suggesting replacing it with.

d) to help get consensus for a re-work, you could lay out a summary of proposed article content or headings;

e) If possible, rework one subsection at a time, giving time for others to review(and possibly revert you) if they feel it's not an improvement.

f) waiting between edits avoids suddenly finding someone has reverted lots of work, just because they didn't like one bit. g) make changes in small edits, giving a clear WP:EDIT SUMMARY for each one. That helps both you and other edits see what was don, when and where.

g) don't write in academic-speak (aim at high-school/new undergraduate level at the very most, if you can).

h) avoid using WP:PRIMARY SOURCES, citing instead what others have written about that original research work (rather the opposite of how one writes in academic circle.

i) enjoy the satisfaction of working with others and of doing a great job.

Having taking a quick look at the Environmental Psychology page, I tend to agree with you that it needs a revamp. It ought to be a good springboard to many other articles here, and less of a listing of universities offering courses on the topic, which seem quite unnecessary to the article. I would finally just point out that Wikipedia has quite a poor record of covering discrete environmental or psychological issues, often consensus being sadly to rush to merge topics together with a WP:REDIRECT than expanding into discrete articles. (A sad and stark contrast to how it approaches trivia like TV programme and video game characters). Thus, the discrete article on Eco-anxiety recently went through this discussion which decided to merge it into Effects of climate change on human health#Mental health (though the content merging has still to be undertaken, and has thus far just been removed). Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Environmental psychology: The entire University courses section should be deleted - Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. Likewise Other contributors - this is not a Hall of Fame, even if those people are subjects of Wikipedia articles. The history section has no references. The list under Bibliography should either become references or else deleted. The See also list needs trimming. Good luck with your endeavors. This will become a better article for your efforts. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I make an article

How can I make my own article? What steps do I take to do so? Emojiidays63 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Emojiidays63, you can have a read of Help:Your_first_article for a guide to writing your first article. When choosing a topic to write an article on bear in mind that the subject needs to be adequately notable for inclusion in Wikipeida and there must be independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the topic. As I see you are quite new to Wikipedia, you might also find it useful to play Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure which is a good way to learn about editing Wikipedia more generally Pi (Talk to me!) 15:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Emojiidays63 That's a good answer from Pi, but I've just had to reject your request to be added to our list of Teahouse Hosts, as you clearly haven't yet got enough experience of the basics of how Wikipedia works. Whilst that isn't a problem in itself (everyone has to start somewhere!), please don't waste people's time seeking permissions or involvement in things until you have gone through the initial learning curve of basic editing. That said, anyone is free to answer another person's question at any time here (so long as they give helpful and welcoming answers), but the Teahouse is a good place to watch, listen and learn from others. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article about Dax (self-driving robot)

Hey all! I've used Wikipedia for years, and just recently I created an account to become an editor. I want to write a stub article about a self-driving robot (Dax) that's been doing deliveries in the small town of Philomath Oregon during the pandemic, but the company that makes the robot is a research and development company, and Dax isn't the only thing they've made. I have a few links to some recent news articles about Dax, one of which I'll include: https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2020/meet-dax-philomaths-delivery-robot/

I also have a pretty big conflict of interest, (I live in Philomath and work for Nova Dynamics), so I guess my questions are:

(1) What would the best ways be for me to go about writing this article considering my conflict of interest?

(2) What should I title the article? I was thinking of titling it "Daxbot (Robot)", because if I title it "Nova Dynamics" then it seems roundabout to write the article about Dax. Lizzythetech (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzythetech: Please review WP:PAID first, because unless you want to claim that you came on the idea entirely yourself and do that entirely at home (i.e. not during working hours), you gonna have a hard time here. After that, please review WP:NPRODUCT. If the subject doesnt meets WP:NPRODUCT, you are wasting your time. Then I would suggest that you use the article wizard to create a draft version. Once you finished that, you can submit it for review. If you need help during any of these steps, please ask again. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks! I just did that, and I'll look through it again before I write the article. I'm want to make sure that I abide by all of the Wikipedia bi-laws and guidelines, and stay very transparent about my conflict of interest. Thanks for the offer of help! I might take you up on that if I get stuck.

Drafting an article while another one is pending review

Hello, I have just submitted a draft article, however since I do not have enough time to wait (about 2 months it mentioned), I want to draft another article (on the same topic) in the meantime. Is there an option for me to do so, as my sandbox now provides a redirect to my draft article? DogeChungus (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DogeChungus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, certainly. You can have as many sandboxes as you like, called for example User:DogeChungus/Another subject; or you can create your draft in Draft space, with names such as Draft:My other topic. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying, have a nice day! DogeChungus (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking further, I see that your sandbox has already been moved to 1999 Indian general election in Kerala: congratulations. So as well as my other suggestions, you can reuse your sandbox by going there, and then following the link at the top that says " (Redirected from User:DogeChungus/sandbox)" to the actual sandbox; then edit it to remove the "#REDIRECT". But why would you want to create another draft on the same topic? --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Images

Hi, How can I request the deletion of images that were being tested & inadvertently uploaded ? ApplePieMom (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@ApplePieMom: try tagging them with {{g7}} Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Does this my articles meet stub standards?

I have made a stub article that I want to publish, but I am not sure if it will meet stub standards. Does it, and are there any other changes you would make to the article (you can modify it yourself if you want)? Thanks in advance. Rzed786 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Rzed786, Hello there!

Firstly, I agree that this is a topic that we need to build on. I would recommend that you work on doing a round of edits (including revisiting / revising the lede) on the article to bring out the true functionality / features of a CEK machine. E.g. what does "targets functional interpreters" mean? For reference / guidance you could take a look at the SECD machine article to see how the concept is framed and presented there. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Loads of sources for a statement

Hi, so now I want to know why in articles some sentences have several citations. Is one not enough to refer to? What is the benefit of citing many sources? Thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 314WPlay. Welcome to the Teahouse. Sometimes sentences contain several separate facts, with one source not being able to verify all of them. That's why multiple sources are cited. It's important that we don't rely on multiple sources to imply something that neither of the sources does; this is what we call synthesis. You might find occasionally in articles on contentious subjects that several sources are used to support the same fact; this is editors trying to prove that the information contains due weight. It's rarely if ever a necessary thing to do, as talk page discussion can handle this. Zindor (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay Zindor summed it up very well, but for more info you can read this essay - Wikipedia:Citation overkill. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Especially in the sciences, I sometimes see a primary source that first introduced an idea (often the main topic of the article or a major subtopic) paired with a seconary/tertiary one that is a review of the topic (especially of its history). That way we give direct credit for the originator and as a key ref to trace citatations for research purposes but also meet WP:RS that it actually is the authoritative or original publication. But I agree that these can often be split into separate sentences or separate locations in a sentence. "The Smith theorem was proposed by Smithy Smith in 1894.[ref to Smith's 1894 work][ref to major review of the field that identifies this as the original pub and eponymous nature]" DMacks (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor, Timtempleton, DMacks and anyone else: Thank you for creating a welcoming environment and your answers. Would you mind working through an example with me? Take the article defining Expatriate and the sentence "This has caused controversy, with many asserting that the traditional use of the word has had racist connotations." Why six sources there? 314WPlay (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay, "many" is a WP:WEASEL word. I read two of the sources and neither said "many ...". So, the best guess is, they are used for WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't verify the claim but if you question it, the author may challenge, doesn't each source convince you that at least one person thinks it is racist? And isn't six "many" enough for you? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: But then does that mean that the sources are being used to imply something that none of them say? 314WPlay (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay, please read the six sources and see if any one of them says the thing that they are being cited for. If any of them does, just leave those for verification and remove the rest. If none of them do, then we'll know the answer to your question, won't we? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I think that this is probably quite a contentious issue and given that the article says "many", it is right that several sources are given there. Having now read the sources, I am convinced it has racist connotations (or at least is considered by many to have such) and I don't think I will be using the word. Thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

my contributions were reverted by a bot

I added information to a stub article at https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crooked_knife

I've been doing research on this Native American tool called a "crooked knife" or mocotaugan. Wikipedia has only a stub on the subject, so I had resources to add. I was careful to follow wikipedia guidelines and policies:

I provided info about an existing external link that no longer works as intended. I added external links to a couple of articles that provide more info. I added an external link to a Maine Historical Society page with a museum photo. I provided an inline link to a video by Canada National Films Office (ONF channel on youtube) illustrating usage of the tool, with explanation of what parts of the film show various uses of the tool. After spending a good portion of my day on this, a bot reverted all my contributions. I believe the bot reverted valuable contributions in error. What should I do now? Thanks for your help! Dave b quick (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dave b quick: There is a bot that automatically reverts the addition of Youtube links by new users. (I disagree with this in principle, but my position has not prevailed.) I'll look into this and help you out. I'm not sure that the video is being used a completely appropriate (in terms of Wikipedia policy) manner, though. Will think about it a bit more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the article and made the video a reference to a more specific statement: "The 1971 documentary César et son canot d'écorce (César's Bark Canoe) illustrates the use of a crooked knife in the construction of a birch-bark canoe." The statement you previously added may be true, but it wasn't supported by any source. An alternate approach would be to add the video to the external links section. I agree that it is a valuable, useful video. But Wikipedia does not use in-line external links -- so it either needs to go in the bottom section or as a reference. Thanks for your contributions. I may tweak the article further... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! You are the best! You did it much better than I could. And thanks for the Wikipedia education.

Gen 8 Pokemon

Are there any pages for specific Galar Pokemon yet? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: We have the article List of generation VIII Pokémon. I'm not sure what a Galar Pokemon is. Generally, we don't have articles for specific Pokemons like we used to. See WP:POKEMON and Wikipedia:Poképrosal for some more info about why not... I'm sure there's plenty of discussion elsewhere though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well there are Plenty of Pokemon that have theier own specific page on Wikipedia, e.g. Bulbasaur. Galarian Pokemon are Pokemon that have been introduced in the 8th generation of the Pokemon franchise. I was just wondering If their will be any or planned on creating any pages on Pokemon from the Galar Region? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: There are some, but not that many -- see Category:Pokémon species. Whether particular Galarian Pokemon species articles will be created depends mostly on external factors -- that is, are there independent reliable sources that write about the Pokemon species in an out-of-universe way (how they were developed, how they were promoted, how they were received). If such sources end up getting created, then they would qualify for an article. Of course, there has to be someone interested in writing the article as well, but there is no apparent shortage of people who want to write about Pokemon species on Wikipedia. Hope this answers your question! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It does! Thank you! UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Help identifying promotional content in updates to nonprofit page (new editor)

Hello,

I don't know if this is the appropriate use of the space, but I'm a new editor updating my organization's page. I got the "promotional content etc" flag and am having a hard time identifying whether the flag is from a link(s), or wording, etc. Is there anyone that can help edit a new editor?

Thanks! Amy Rawe, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Alliance_for_Clean_Energy Amyrawe (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amyrawe: First, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and make the appropriate declarations on your user page. The wording of the article is very bad ("nsure clean, safe, and healthy communities", "is dedicated to changing the way energy is produced and consumed in the Southeast in order to lower carbon emissions and positively impact human health " -- this is obviously an ad). But to be honest, it's not clear to me that your organization even qualifies for an article - see WP:NCORP. Task #1 for you should be to collect reliable, independent, in-depth sources about your organization and post those sources on the talk page of the article. These would likely be newspaper/magazine articles specifically about your organization. Once you have done that, I recommend posting here for further guidance. Maybe others have different thoughts and can chime in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem with bad AWB edits

Dear Teahouse host. I have been here before and have each time been helped by efficiently solving my problem or by showing me in a friendly, convincing way that I was wrong. Thank you so much! My problem today concerns interaction with an AWB user, who made wrong edits and ignores me when I ask him to revert. I have about 100 articles on my watchlist that I try to improve, mainly by adding new citations. In these citations I like to quote from the source to improve verifiability. These quotations often contain dates in old-fashioned formats that do not comply with MOS:DATE. About once a month AWB users "correct" such dates. I then write a note on their talk page and they, seeing their error, revert their edits. One of them even told me he reported this as a bug in AWB (I do not remember who). However, recently such a user ignores my requests. I am ready to just repair the damage but feel that it might not be the right thing to do. Please advise me. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Johannes Schade. I'm sorry to hear of your issues. I used to do a lot of spell-checking during my lunch breaks at work (with Lupin's spellchecker) and I often found myself either making - or about to make - edits I shouldn't have. When I got aleerted to my error (often by a 'revert notification), what I did was go back to the article and add the correctly quoted (but badly-spelled) text within a {{notatypo}} template or sic template, as seems most appropriate, so that it should either be ignored by the software, or ignored by the user doing rapid spell-checks. If they then fail to notice it and still endeavour to change it to a modern 'correct' spelling which doesn't conform with the quoted text, you have a perfect case to argue that they need to take more care. Equally, you can simply revert their edit with a 'not a typo' edit summary. If you need further advice, would you mind including some DIFFS to show us the type of problem you're encountering. We can take some more persuasive against any editor with a gung-ho attitude once they've been advised to take a little more care, but fail so to do, and I'd be happy to drop them a note to ask them to do that. (But you're both editing in good faith, so it would be a gentle request). Funnily enough, I've not used AWB for a couple of years and had thought the spell-checking element had recently been removed from it - someone else might be able to update me on that. Does that help you? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Nick Moyes. Thanks for your comments. I do not believe that a {{notatypo}} or sic would be appropriate. The URL for the DIFF is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Hamilton_%28soldier%29&type=revision&diff=973202938&oldid=969767487. This concerns the article "Frederick Hamilton (soldier)". The revision is the current one, dated 15 August 2020. The user made 4 edits. The first 2 are valid corrections, the latter 2 are the ones that I try to make him revert. The 1st edit concerns a superscript. The 2nd edit rightly corrects "in" to "on". The 3rd edit changes the quotation "The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July, 1642." to "The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July 1642." (removing the comma between the month and the year). Similarly the 4th edit changes the quotation "Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March, 1625" to "Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March 1625" (again removing the comma between the month and the year). These edits were made on 15 August 2020. On 16 August I wrote a note on the user's talk page under the heading "Frederick Hamilton (soldier)" asking him to revert. Again on the 20 August and finally on 12 September. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: I've altered and reverted the two edits to direct quotations that you pointed out, so that they now match the cited sources. AWB users are supposed to take care that edits made with its aid are appropriate, but unfortunately there are lapses. Deor (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Deor, dear Nick Moyes. User:Deor, thank you for the fixes. Yes, unfortunate lapses. I feel I have wasted your time if this is all. I am a registered AWB user. My AWB's version is 6.1.0.1, which is current. This version includes a "General fixes" option that is checked by default. I always uncheck it when I make edits with AWB, which I seldom do. The "General fixes" include the fixing of the date according to MOS:DATE. When I run it on Fredrick Hamilton (soldier), it accepts the comma at the first place ("The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July 1642.") but reports it as a defect in the second place ("Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March, 1625"), probably because it does not detect the quotes correctly in presence of the square brackets. It looks as if the user that I complain about has an older version that removes both. I feel that this is still a bug in AWB that should be (again?) reported. I have made searches in Phabricator but could not find a mention of "date format". Perhaps I should do some more testing and ask the user who caused the damage for the version number of his AWB. Perhaps he will tell us. There are probably other checks that should be made before reporting the bug. I wonder whether I am the right person to do this. Perhaps an experienced user with some links to AWB development would be better but I am ready to try. What do you think? Johannes Schade (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Deor and Nick Moyes: Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

obscenity

My Undoing

Why does it appear to me that all of my edits are being undone? John D. Maher (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: Your edits to the obscenity article were reverted by a bot. Probably because you are a new user and used the word "fuck" repeatedly. Most people who fit that profile are vandalizing, even though you obviously weren't. Another editor has already reverted the bot and restored your edits. Hope this answers your question! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

John D. Maher, many of your edits have introduced false information, irrelevancies and original research. Your edits must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What is the false/irrelevant/OR info he has introduced? I quickly skimmed and did not see it; most of what he inserted looked likely correct to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1. He changed the name of a Supreme Sparfe v. United States case from the proper spelling to an incorrect spelling. He added his own birth to the demographics of his home town, with an anecdote referenced to his own mother. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the bit about his mother. Obviously that was bad. I'll have to look at the misspelling. The other information he added looked accurate to me, though... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is Jury nullification in the United States and the Supreme Court case is Sparf v. United States. He added an e to the end of Sparf, breaking the wikilink. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think this was likely a mistake (?). The rest of the edit is correct and written like someone who knows something about how to read a case... Though his requested edit at Talk:Fuck (adding citations to parallel reporters) is a little puzzling. I have no familiarity with the White Book; the Blue Book is the authoritative guide to legal citation in the US. And under Blue Book rules you don't add parallel reporters. There does appear to be some sort of UK White Book but it's not clear to me that it has to do with legal citation. (It could conceivably recommend the use of parallel reporters?) I'm not sure what to make of John D. Maher, but I think WP:AGF still applies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: Please have a look at MOS:LAW. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I am not assuming bad faith, rather simply pointing out reasons for some reverts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit button does not work

here

Good morning, Hoary (talk). I am slowly fixing the vague and unverifiable sources you advised I do to make my draft acceptable. I was trying to modify the first section of my draft to substitute unpublished (unverifiable) references with published (verifiable) ones , but my edit tab does not seem to work. I will still have to wait some time to access Ecuadorian newspaper sources to put newspaper titles and dates to the newspaper clippings I have used in my references which you have rightly described as "vague." They say they cannot access their archives because of the pandemic. This is what they wrote:

"Dadas las condiciones actuales de trasmisión del COVID – 19, tanto en el país como a nivel mundial, la Biblioteca de las Artes tiene restringido el acceso y los servicios que ofrece a sus usuarios, como medida de prevención. Por el momento, no se puede acceder al Archivo El Telégrafo. Por lo mencionado, lamentamos no poder ayudarla con su requerimiento en las próximas semanas. ¿Hasta cuándo necesita esta información?"

Given the actual conditions of COVID-19 transmision in the country as well as world wide, the Biblioteca de las Artes has restricted access and services if offers its patrons, as a precautionary measure. For the moment, the archives to Telégrafo cannot be accessed. For the above reasons we are sorry not to be able to help you in your request in the following weeks. When do you need the information?"

Reviewer Marchjuly (talk) recently wrote: "Since you're still working on only a draft, other editors are pretty much going to leave you be and might only edit the draft if there's a serious policy or guideline violation that they feel needs attention." It was my understanding that I had six months to address these issues before I resubmit the draft. Thank you both for the attention you are giving to my Wikipedia draft and for answering my question.Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oscar Waldoosty. Criterion WP:G13 says "Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months" (my emphasis). So it's not a deadline for resubmitting, it is simply whether you appear to have abandoned the draft. If you are still working on it, there should be no problem. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine (talk). I believe I have found the problem. Somehow my editing function has switched to a new format. I will explore it and see how I can edit my draft under this new format. The old format was similar to the one I'm using now to write to you and I had become (ahem) quite proficient at it.Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Oscar Waldoosty, it sounds like you've switched to a visual editor and got stuck with it for some reason. When you open your draft, look for a button/option that says "Edit source" which will open your draft in an opening window that works the same way as talk pages like this one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you so much, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC).Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Referencing styles

The inline parenthetical citation style, or something to that effect, was recently deprecated in a WP:CD discussion. What exactly is this? Also, what are the different citation styles? Warm regards to anyone who can clarify this. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HalfdanRagnarsson. I'll kick off with a partial answer (as I'm about to be called away). You can read more on Parenthetical referencing here but, in essence, it's when we cite published works inline within a sentence, using the author's name and year hyperlinked to the citation list (e.g. Moyes, 2015), rather than having a superscript number which links to a References section lower down.

'Deprecated', I'm sure you know, simply means we've now agreed not to do something we used to happily think was OK). Parenthetical referencing is mostly used in printed works, academic journals and legal cases where hyperlinks don't function. But online, we mostly use Inline Citations with their nice, tidy superscript numbers in square brackets. To see the difference that the recent discussion has had on one exemplar article, look at the lead paragraphs of the article on "Actuary" as it was prior to the recent change of referencing style (see here), and then compare it to the current layout at Actuary (just in case it should get changed, here's a permalink).

Personally, I'm please it has been deprecated, though I use it myself in my printed publications, and accept that for a few types of articles involving mathematical symbols or equations, using superscript numbering (instead of author date in brackets) is not appropriate. There is not expected to be a mass change overnight, or rejection of articles based on citation style. The summary of the closure rationale can be read here. Forgive me for not expanding on the full range of referencing methods (which I believe we should generally reduce into one main acceptable style). Basically, my brain freezes over unless it's an inline citation (see WP:REFBEGIN for an easy Wikipedia guide, or WP:ERB for one of my own). I will ping DESiegel who I know is a whizz at understanding all our citation styles, and might well be delighted to expand further. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I for one am surprised by the consensus to deprecate, HalfdanRagnarsson. I had opposed the deprecation, Nick Moyes. But it is important to understand what this consensus is, and is not. First of all, it only applies to what I might call "plain text" parenthetical referencing, wqhwre what appears inline is something like (Smith, 1983) with no wiki-link to a bibliography. It very specifically does not apply to referncing using {{sfn}} (known as "shortened footnotes") where a reference number appears in the text, which links to (Smith, 1983) (or better (Smith, 1983, p57)) in the reference list, and that in turn links to an entry in a bibliography. Nor does it apply to the somewhat similar system using {{harvnb}}. It does not mean that all articles using the now-deprecated system will be converted promptly. It does not mean that any automated bot to convert articles is authorized -- any such authorization would require a separate consensus. It does not mean that drafts at AfC may be rejected or declined for using the deprecated style. It does mean that editors are urged not to use the now-deprecated style. It also means that any editor who wants to convert the deprecated style to a non-deprecated style may do so without first establishing a consensus for that article, and on the other hand that converting to the deprecated style, or reverting a co9nversion from it, will require a local consensus, with specific reasons why that is better for that specific article.

I am not going to try to explain all the acceptable citation styles here. Besides, there is no list of approved styles. Any style which fulfills the purpose of referencing, and provides the needed information, and is consistent within a single article, may be used. The basic purpose of a reference citation is to allow the reader to find a reliable source that supports a statement or statements in an article. This inclkudes a direct link oif the source is online, and suffici8ent bibliographic information to find it in a library or to purchase the work if it is offline. It also means enough information to find another copy (if one exists) if a link to an online source goes dead. Secondarily, a citation should provide enough information to allow a reader to make a quick judgement of the reliability and value of the source without following a link or finding the physical source. To this end, the title of the source, and name of the containing publication are essential. The name(s) of the author(s), date of publication of the source, name of the publisher, and the location of publication are all highly desirable when they are known. Identifiers such as an ISBN or OCLC id (for books) or DOI (for online documents (or others such as the PMID for medical papers) are highly useful and should be supplied whenever they are known - they allow citation templates to automatically generate useful links.

The most commoin style her eon wikipedia is the CS1/CS2 styke, which is generated by the varius Cite Xxx tempaltes, such as {{cite book}}, {{cite Journal}}, {{cite web}}, and m,any other listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Thes templates were originally quite separtate, but now use a commo0n code base, with only minor differences to accommodate the special aspects of each type of source. CS1/CS2 is a home-grown style of citation. It is largely based on the methods spelled out in the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS or "Chicago") but borrows from several other establish style guidea and some parts were jsut invented here. Other styles such as Bluebook (for legal topics, mostly) AP, APA, MLA and others are used in some articles. All of these are acceptable, and none has been deprecated. If we ever do mandate a single style, my bet would be on CS1, but I don't seriously expect that to ever happen. But I could be wrong there.

I hope this has been helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How to address broken links?

What is the best way to fix broken links if the original content no longer exists? Is it preferable to link to the internet archive version of the page if it exists or to find similar content on a different site? 71.215.10.121 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a very sensible question; I think the answer is 'both', and which is best depends on what you can find! Sometimes a new source gives a better verification of a statement than an old document, but at other times it is worse. I do find a lot of people mark references as 'dead links' without even bothering to Google search the citation title and spot that there's simply been a reorganisation of the source website and urls have changed. Any effort you can commit to fixing broken links is much appreciated. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing no editor should so is simply remove a dead link without replacing it. The original dead link URL is often essential to finding an archived copy, or finding the new location of the original document. It is not a bad idea to find an archive of the original while the original is still live, and the archive can be checked to be the same as the original, and supply it in the |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters to a templated citation. Doing this in advance means that a dead link will usually cause no problem at all. One can both find an archived copy, and also a second source that supports the content (to be in a separate citation), particularly if the second source is not as good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Link rot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How to revert to older version of a page?

I tried to update our page and have been flagged so I'd like to revert to the previously approved version before I started editing. I can see the previous versions in the history, but don't understand how to republish or revert to an older version. Thanks! Amy Rawe (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Amyrawe, firstly, your organization cannot "approve" or "disapprove" articles or edits, and does not own the articles about it. Secondly, as an employee of the company, you are engaging in paid editing. You have disclosed that fact, so you are permitted to do so, but will need to follow the conflict of interest guidelines. Specifically, you must not edit the article directly, but would suggest edits on the talk page instead. Once you have done so, you may place the following: {{request edit}} on the talk page to request that it be reviewed by an editor without a COI. Edit warring with other editors will certainly not be accepted, so please ensure not to revert. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amyrawe. As a paid editor, you should not be making any edits to Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, except to revert obvious vandalism. Instead, you should make edit requests at Talk:Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. You need to comply fully with the mandatory paid editing disclosure, and you need to comply scrupulously with our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. When you refer to "our page", that is incorrect. It is not a page; it is an encyclopedia article. It does not belong to you or your organization and does not exist for your benefit. It ought to summarize what reliable sources independent of your group say about your group. Please also read about the neutral point of view, because that is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding New References

Hello, They are saying I am making disruptive editing by adding links. I can show you thousands links like I was adding. That situation is Incompatible with Wikipedia. Iwontgo (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Iwontgo: The other users were correct to revert your link additions. Edits are judged against Wikipedia's policies, not against other articles that may or may not comply with our policies. If you can show us thousands of other spammy links, please call them to our attention so we can remove those too. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: So, You are saying There is no links coming from blogs? They are not spammy links according to me like I was adding. But I am saying where were you when those links were added?

Also, please note that this is a single-purpose COI spammer abusing multiple accounts.—J. M. (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@J. M.:You are still accusing. How many users are there on Wikipedia? Someone can work on the same subject. You think you know everything, but you're using Wikipedia to your advantage.

E.A. Wickham

Is E.A. Wickham of Council Bluffs related to the brothers Owen (The O.P. Wickham House) and James Wickham, also of Council Bluffs? I'm asking because I believe E.A. Wickham deserves an entry.

From your Wikipage: The page "E.A. Wickham council bluffs" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

Bennett Building (Council Bluffs, Iowa) McDonald and McDonald served as the supervising architects. E. A. Wickham and Company of Council Bluffs was the contractor. The building rises 86 feet (26 m) 3 KB (278 words) - 10:44, 28 January 2019

O.P. Wickham House The O.P. Wickham House is a historic building located in Council Bluffs, Iowa, United States. Brothers Owen and James Wickham were born in Ireland, and 2 KB (163 words) - 20:40, 7 May 2018

Citation: https://www.nytimes.com/1925/03/12/archives/missing-contractor-a-suicide-in-home-ea-wickham-found-in-council.html 70.59.161.208 (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't know if he is related. He may or may not qualify for an article -- I searched some news archives for him, and found mostly coverage of his suicide. If you want to write an article about him, I'd recommend collecting the 3-10 best sources about him and asking here for further guidance about drafting. Volunteers here can help assess whether he qualifies for an article once you find good sources. I found a few, as follows:

"Wickham Found to Have Taken Life in Cellar". Beatrice Daily Sun. 1925-03-13. p. 6. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
"Financier Is Sought in Iowa". The Des Moines Register. 1925-03-10. p. 1. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
"Suicide Left $500,000". Sioux City Journal. 1925-05-21. p. 2. Retrieved 2020-09-18.

None of these is that good, though. Mostly just brief notices re: his death. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

hi

potato Fdddrrt44 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a question about editing Wikipedia, let us know... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving Cai Lun

Hi, I've inserted Lowercase Sigma Bot III to the talk page of Cai Lun but I'm not sure how to set it to archive the existing (very) old messages. Or perhaps an automatic archive is unnecessary for this page and I should stick to a manual one? (Not sure how to do that either) Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: I don't know the answer offhand. Does User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo answer your question? Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Porygon Article

I have tried to create an article Draft:Porygon a while back and have heard nothing from it since. Has it been reviewed? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Click on the link for the draft. You'll see that it was deleted as an abandoned draft on August 25 (and previously in January). See WP:REFUND/G13 if you wish to work on it again. Meters (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: I can see that you've been in discussions about this before [[2]], and have been advised that your efforts will not be successful unless you can find better sourcing. Has anything changed? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well other than some cool facts, if we can manage to merge the denno senshi porygon page with the article I think we might have something. What do you think? UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: The issue from before isnt that there arent "cool facts", but rather that there arent enough reliable sources to back up your facts. There's nothing stopping you from requesting a refund or to start over from scratch again, but be advised that without sources, its unlikely that your draft will get approved. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well James the bond did help me submit it, but I never heard back. I might need help doing that though as I'm not that good at wikicode. Can someone help me? UB Blacephalon (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page

Can anyone help create my organization page. Gargar17 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: User:Gargar17/sandbox.

This appears to be a copyright violation from https://idad-lr.org/about-us/ David notMD (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gargar17: Multiple problems here:

First of all, since its your organisation, you must comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. The first one it also a Terms of Use requirement.
Secondly, that page was aparently copied & pasted from the organisations website. Please never do that. Even when we could get the legal stuff resolved, 99% of the texts not writen directly written for Wikipedia do not comply with the Neutral point of view policy.
The current page does not cite any sources. As such, it currently also fails to establish Notability (in Wikipedia's sence of the word). Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Move refused on technical reasons

The Belvoir Castle of the Knights Hospitaller is quite famous under this name. There is another Belvoir Castle in England, with far fewer Google hits, but that one was registered under this name, forcing the other one to register as Belvoir Fortress, which is by far less common and even less accurate as a term, for several good reasons. I have easily moved Belvoir Castle to Belvoir Castle (England), but was blocked from moving Belvoir Fortress to Belvoir Castle (Israel) for unexplained technical reasons. I guess it crossed ways with some older redirects or who knows what regarding the English castle. I have now tried Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests, but have no idea if I did hit the right spot - is mine officially a "Technical request", and more specifically: an "Uncontroversial technical request"? Too much Wiki-lingo, not transparent enough or user-friendly wizards for editors who know about their topic, but can't or wouldn't sit & study Wiki code forever. Thank you for your advice! Arminden (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: To be honest, I don't know offhand whether it falls into that category, but I've gone ahead and done the move for you. I do see a fair number of reliable sources that call it "Belvoir Fortress" but Belvoir Castle does win in terms of hits on webpages (can't easily assess re books). Since the person who originally moved it from Castle to Fortress didn't provide an explanation, I went ahead and moved it back. If someone disagrees with this move, there should be a discussion about it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! If interested, here (at the bottom of my talk-page) are the arguments I've put together for the "cause". Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that the Belvoir Castle in Israel is better known that the one in England. When I did a Google search for "Belvoir Castle", the first 30 hits were all for the one in England. Ok – that's a consequence of the Google "bubble", I live in England. So I tried again, using another search engine that I'd never used before: of its top 30 hits, 28 were for the one in England, one for one in Dhaka, and one for the one in Israel. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cropping of image?

I want to know about how to crop an image?Not only that but also tell in details how to crop out one particular person from an image from an image of 2 persons? Riya Iyer S Menon (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: You're better off asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Teahouse is a site for questions about editing Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: Alternatively, I think c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop can do it for you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to use a cropped region of an image in a Wikipedia article, there's no need to actually crop it (and so no need of help from the workshop). You can instead use CSS to specify the region to display, as shown with examples at User:Maproom/cropping. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

this Pakastan from Italy

so cocky, why he hate on one woman and he,cheater and all you think the Italian Pakistan in right place. Come on ; needs a immediate reply 107.242.125.13 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It's not clear what you are asking about. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Undone

I am an attorney. I am a member of Phi Kappa Phi and Omicron Delta Kappa. I have written a brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court and I argued the case before the Court. I think I have something to contribute to Wikipedia, but so far it seem like a childish place. John D. Maher (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi John D. Maher. I hope that you can become a valued member of the Wikipedia community. I'm not sure of your exact concern here. Your edit to Obscenity is currently live in the article. Your proposed edit to Fuck is not live, but that is because we follow Bluebook citation rules (see MOS:LAW), which disfavor parallel citations for Supreme Court cases. Your edit to Brooklyn, Conecuh County, Alabama is not appropriate under our policies; we don't generally mention people in locality articles unless they qualify for Wikipedia articles themselves (and you do not, though I don't either! and I'm an attorney too) and have such an article already. The only remaining edits at issue are the ones you made to Jury nullification in the United States. You introduced a spelling error in the Supreme Court case name, which I think made others doubt your contribution. I'd recommend discussing that edit at Talk:Jury nullification in the United States. Some of your additions are likely correct, but need to be cited to reliable sources (a treatise would be a good citation for the general statements about the "common practice" and what happens "[i]n some states"). Please ask again here if you have more specific questions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: If you didn't already, please see the comments to your earlier post above at #obscenity. When addressing the same issue, it's best to edit the same section again, adding new comments at the bottom (with WP:INDENT please), in the same way that we're replying to you here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

FNG.

The last two letters of the title represent "new guy." For fear of offending a bot that has undone me, I will not explicate the first initial. Being a FNG, I have made mistakes and I will endeavor to improve my edits. This is to say thanks to both those who have been nice and to those like Collen328 who gave me some good old tough love. John D. Maher (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: again, please do not start new sections unless you change the topic – this is directly connected to your previous questions here. I would have simply removed the heading except that you had used it as part of your post. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Many of us have been around so long that we have forgotten how steep the learning curve was back when we began. Another observation: Teahouse hosts can be patient with new editors, but may slap back any new editor who denigrates Wikipedia ("childish place"). Lastly, content stands of reliable source referencing, not the credentials of the person who made the edits. You may find Wikipedia:Expert editors a useful read. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

Hello,

An admin reviewed my draft and considered it written in a non neutral tone/format. Can you please help?

Thanks in advance MehdiKass (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You should rewrite the draft in neutral tone. By the way user:TheAafi is not an admin. Ruslik_Zero 10:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved stuff around, and deleted some content that while true and referenced (early childhood), not typical for an encyclopedia article. You should consider removing the quote you have by her, as what subjects of articles themselves say or write rarely adds to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Again,

Thank you for your help! I will try to refine the article in the tone side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehdiKass (talk • contribs) 12:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Dead links

Hi, is there some kind of tool or magic way to fix external links in references that don’t go to the page they are supposed to? For example in 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, click on any of the links that say “Report” under the scoreline. If I can, I want to help improve this article by replacing the link with wherever that moved to. Otherwise it is not very good as a reference. Any help? 314WPlay (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@314WPlay: I recommend starting with the methods described at Wikipedia:Link_rot#Repairing_a_dead_link. Maybe FIFA changed their method for the URL naming of these reports, so there is a systematic fix that could be applied. If you figure this out, you may want to post at WT:SOCCER in case there are more affected articles, so Wikipedians can fix them all in one fell swoop rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Good luck, and let us know if you have further questions! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Thank you for your helpfulness. I was beginning to think it may be a bad question. That how-to guide seems interesting to look into. I would never have thought of posting at the football WikiProject talk page. It is very disappointing when I see “Report” under the scoreline and think “Oh I’d love to read the report on this match”...only to be confronted by error 404. Anyway thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a page and put files on it?

How do I create a page and put files on it? Holly2017 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Holly2017: I assume you mean "How do I create an article?" Please be advised that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia. WP:YFA should tell you the basic stuff. If you wish, you can also use the article wizard. Files must be upoloaded to the english Wikipedia or our sister project Wikimedia Commons. They must not infringre' someones copyright. An upload wizard is avalable here for the english Wikipedia or here for Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia about muzaffarpur

you written fake Wikipedia about Muzaffarpur the not Khan that name is syed muzaffar shah and I have a proof beacause my great grand father is son of Syed muzaffar shah that why I have a proof the delete all fake Wikipedia about muzaffarpur other wise I am file the case all of you understand Osama siraj (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor now blocked for making legal threats. But also barging in and adding rambling content and narrative to the lead paragraph of an article is wholly disruptive, and is certainly not the way to make a coherent point. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

my page has not been published

(Moved up to the section "why does wikipedia does not publish my page?" ~~above~~ below, since it's about the same thing. Please don't start multiple sections for one question.) Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC).)

Question was moved.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Help With FirstLight Fiber page.

Hi All,

I am working to make changes to Draft:FirstLight_Fiber and have it approved for publishing. I have made updates on the cited sources, as requested. However, it is difficult to cite the Services section without all of the sources being directly from the FirstLight page, which would be unacceptable, correct? Also, are all the added citations and neutral language changes likely to have this approved? Sajsaj8989 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sajsaj8989. If independent, reliable sources with no connection to the company do not discuss their services, then you must remove that section. At least two of your references are PR Newswire press releases. All content supported by company press releases must be removed. What is your connection, if any, with this company? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

HELLSEED: Chapter 1 draft

Why my article HELLSEED: Chapter 1 draft has been REFUSED AND DELETED?

You said you refused my article becuase it contains copyrighted work, what is the copyrighted work I used into the article? I have now to re-write all the article again spending other time.

Can you please let me have back the deleted article so I can modify it to be approved? Bugbuster77 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Bugbuster77, I have looked at the deleted article, and confirmed that it is essentially an exact copy of the material located here: [3]. That page is marked "Copyright(C) 2020 PROFENIX STUDIO SRLS, all rights reserved.", so it is not under a license compatible with Wikipedia. We cannot accept material copied from copyrighted and nonfree sources; you may see more about that at our policy on copyright. As a copyright violation the article cannot be restored, but if you plan to begin it again, I would encourage you to first take a look at our general notability guideline to see if the subject meets it. Also please note that promotional material, including any form of "teaser" or talking up, as well as links to purchase the game, will not be permitted. (Even if that material were not a copyright infringement, it would be unacceptably promotional.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I completely rewrote the article taking care not to infringe any copyright. Please give it a look and let me know. Thanks.

Certainly better, and I do not see any infringing material this time. You might consider finding some sources for the first two sections, or if you cannot consider removing them. Article content should never be an editor's interpretation of something, such as a game's genre (and shouldn't include weasel words such as "basically"), they should be from what reliable sources say about it. If the sources say nothing about it, the article shouldn't say anything about it either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a page from scratch and place an image in the article?

Snakebatty (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Snakebatty, Hello and welcome, although perceived by many as one of the most daunting tasks it isn’t necessarily the case. Reading Your first article is a wonderful place to commence from. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Snakebatty. Your question is "How can I build a house somewhere and hang a picture on the wall". When you have built the house so that it meets building regulations and will not fall down, then is the time to think about decorating it (which is what putting a picture in an article is). --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Re writing an entire entry

I need to completely rewrite the page on Clan Hunter. Is it best to start from scratch using the sandbox and then delete the old page and replace with the new or will I have to progressively edit the existing page please? The entire entry will be changed with new copy and pictures. CharlesDennisHunter (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello CharlesDennisHunter. Please explain why you "need" to completely change Clan Hunter? Are you aware that 76 editors have been working on that page for 14 years? Are you aware that the editor who has done the most work on that article is still an active editor? Don't you think that it would be disrespectful for a brand new editor to wipe out all their work? I see that you tried to add a bunch of unreferenced content to the article on September 9 and were reverted. Please don't try anything like that again. Verifiability is a core content policy, and you must summarize what the full range of reliable, published sources say about the topic, without adding your own personal knowledge or family lore. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing anything drastic. Edits that do not comply will be reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition to adding unreferenced content, everything you deleted was referenced. I strongly advise you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, describing your intentions and providing references. Allow time for others to express opinions. I advise you then start slowly: copy an existing section into your Sandbox, amend it, and then paste back into the article. If you are deleting references in that section, first check if those references are used in other sections. You may have to do ref repair. David notMD (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How to correctly cite a 18th century Czech cookbook and other cleanup

I got randomly directed to this page, and want to use it as a place to improve my editting skills

Magdalena Dobromila Rettigová

It references an 1826 czech cookbook

Czech -> "Domácí kuchařka aneb Pojednání o masitých a postních pokrmech pro dcerky české a moravské"

German -> "Die Haus-Köchin oder eine leichtfassliche und bewährte Anweisung."

English --> A Household Cookery Book or A Treatise on Meat and Fasting Dishes for Bohemian and Moravian Lasses

I've been able to track down some of the details online, but want help checking my citation as I clean up the page and remove external references

Mmcdougall (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Mmcdougall (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mmcdougall: For things like this, I recommend starting at WorldCat. I put the title into their search and got a few hits, one of which is from 1826 (bingo!). Then you can use the WorldCat URL for the 1826 book to automatically generate a suitable citation using the "cite" button in Visual Editor. I would add the English translation in the trans-title field after you insert the citation. Do you want to try this, and report back with any issues? (Not sure if this is the sort of suggestion you were seeking... let us know if not.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mmcdougall: I'm thinking I may not have answered your actual question, and I have a couple of other thoughts. If your question was: Is this a good citation? Yes, it is a good citation. I think it could be improved with the WorldCat method I describe, though -- WorldCat has some additional bibliographic details etc. Also, now that I look at this, this is not actually the best sort of reference for the statement you're citing. It would be better to cite a secondary source, particularly given that the article describes the cookbook as "legendary". We'd want a secondary source describing the publication of the book and calling it "legendary" (or similar). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yay! The pointer to WorldCat was definitely helpful. Also, I didn't know there was a visual editor for citations -- I've been hand-coding all my citations. I welcome any other tools for generating good citations, and will continue to try and improve the article in question with a reference from there. I'd love a sanity check on my edits - I mostly wanted to do enough research to leave the article better than I found it. I went into the edit session thinking I could just turn the references into citations, but none of the refs were usable. Mmcdougall (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, do we just delete this section of the teahouse after you're done helping me, or what? In any case, thanks for the tips. Mmcdougall (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not delete or change stuff at Teahouse. It gets archived. Your own Talk page under different rules - mostly you can delete if you wish. David notMD (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

Link: Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

Hello, The first review of my draft considered that I need to adjust the tone only. Another admin reviewed my second submission and left a comment stating that the sources don't show significant coverage while there are more than 10 references from reliable, centered and secondary sources (TV channels and high quality medias in Morocco). I asked her about the reason but didn't give any help and talked in a non-kind manner. I edited and resubmitted. The same admin declined it while there is no reason. It's really frustrating how we treat new editors. It's just because we are admins here that we can accept and reject pages as we want (not all admins). Sorry but it's a bad experience beginning. I hope not to experience something like this in the future. Notice: I have no connection with subjects I write about. I just decided to contribute in the development of Wikipedia pages about Moroccan personalities and organizations. MehdiKass (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Between the second review and the third review by the same reviewer you did very little useful work to improve the article. Specifically, you added seven references to support one fact and nothing to improve the rest of the article. I agree with the reviewer's opinion that her accomplishments do not add up to notability. Lastly, you added an image and claimed it as your own work, which is being reviewed at W Commons. David notMD (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tell me please why there is no notability. more than 3 biography articles are there! For the file upload at Wikimedia Commons, it was an error and I will rectify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehdiKass (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@MehdiKass, coupled with what my colleague David notMD told you I’d like to add that, I’m not an admin and secondly I urge you to go through WP:COI & declare it if it applies. A thorough review of WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:SIGN would also be a good idea. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, another disappointment. I already said that I read those guidelines but still can't see where my draft fails. All criteria are here and respected. Also, I will not declare something that doesn't apply. Why are you asking this?

how to recover a deleted draft

I was supposed to ping my editor but not sure how to do that.

I'm trying to recover a draft article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Risk.manager/Pleasure_boat_international_travel_formalites&action=edit&redlink=1

Trying not to reproduce the research. Any ideas appreciated.

Thanks Risk.manager (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Risk.manager: The draft was moved a few times and I am not sure where it finally ended up but all the moved-to links are also to deleted pages. You can ask at WP:REFUND to get your draft back if you are ready to start working on it again. (many drafts get deleted if not worked on for 6+months) RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cute

Crash 202.134.10.129 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Pi (Talk to me!) 01:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Please evaluate my edits

I've been told that my 2+ month edit in Ionization energy may ALL BE REMOVED if I don't address my minor faux pas such as something about using pronouns, and "original research" (yet i merely make assumptions from a table, at least to the best of my understanding). As all people know when they worked arduously all for a trifle edit which will eventually be removed, I shall not only be exasperated at my own idiocy, in fact knowing myself, i shall be involved in another flippant war/debate. Nonetheless, i came here to ask for more experienced, and veteran editors opinion on my edits. I didn't go to WP:WC because I want to get a consensus from all people. And, if you indeed found something erroneous, please address me about it. Thanks y'all and have a nice day! Ice bear johny (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Ice bear johny (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

making assumptions from a table to the best of your understanding is the very definition of original research. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No no assumptions. Assumptions are merely [educated] guesses. My inferences come with references. Furthermore, I strive to find backing sources to prove my inferences. So far the only parts of which i am actually clueless is for Lead's ionization energy, and that I could say i made an assumption for that part. But for the sake of the articles wholeness, I made a compromise only once. Nonetheless, i fixed some of my grammar/pronouns in the page, albeit the references i did not fix for i deem them paramount (only as further reading) to the study. Thanks! Ice bear johny (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ice bear johny Are you using references to support your inferences (you keep writing "my), or are the inferences themselves published content? The former is still original research, hence forbidden. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I take from sources first (except the lead thingy because i did that for two days yet no source still). The "my" pronoun, i use because I'm not used to an omniscient view when writing. Anyways thanks! Ice bear johny (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

CAUSE OF DEATH FALSE/ NOT CONFIRMED OF LATE ACTOR, SSR

Hi, this is regarding the article on the late Star 'Sushant Singh Rajput'. His death has been ruled as a mysterious death which is now being investigated by 3 entire different investigation teams. All proofs that are being released to the media support the fact that the death to have initially been believed as a suicide is now infact confirming to be death caused by 'strangulation'. This means he has been murdered brutally, however the media of India are not allowing this news to be officially confirmed. CBI and NCB investigation bureaus are in support of this now since there is no absolute proof that the actor committed suicide, so it is absolutely unfair that the death has been stated as something else on Wikipedia. This has to be changed because this is not fair!!! The world now knows he has been murdered!!! PLEASE CHANGE THIS!!! Roshan Sajjad (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Roshan Sajjad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If they report the death of this man as a suicide, that's what we say. If they report it as a murder, that's what we say. We don't go by what government mouthpieces do or do not say, unless reported in independent reliable sources. In any event, if the news is reporting new information, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Since the talk page came off semiprotection we've had a flood of users making edit requests, formal and otherwise, demanding edits along these lines. None of them have been sourced. There is a conspiracy theory that says SSR was murdered, and one of the potential "targets" for this conspiracy theory is in the midst of a sickening trial by media that has been condemned by local authorities. (Also, though this is more minor, the CBI has explicitly stated that they are not sharing any information while the investigation is ongoing, and anything credited to it is bogus.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the relevant Wikipedia articles about this person who recently died will summarize what the best reliable sources report about his cause of death. Wikipedia editors will ignore pressure campaigns, threats and the rantings of conspiracy theorists on social media. If major reliable newspapers in India, or the relevant government agencies, conclude something different, then Wikipedia will summarize the new information. Any editor who engages in disruption regarding this death will be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Rare Diamond Find article rejected

I am a new editor and just learning. I had just my first article rejected about an important discovery of rare purple florescent diamonds by a small private company in Australia (India Bore Diamond Holdings). The article was rejected despite adding recent credible news articles see below.

Appreciate any advice as to why.

Should the article perhaps only talk about the company and not its important discovery? Its just a small company so maybe thats why it was rejected? Or should the discovery just be mentioned alone ?

https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/india-bore-discovers-rare-purple-diamonds-at-ellendale/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-08-20/ellendale-diamond-discovery-hope-as-argyle-closure-looms/12576094 Ellendale2020 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

To establish that a subject (a company, a discovery, or whatever) warrants a Wikipedia article, you will need to find several reliable independent sources that discuss it: see notability. The two sources you list above are both based on statements (and maybe press releases) from a spokesman for the company that has discovered the diamonds, and so don't qualify as independent. Once reliable independent sources start writing about these diamonds, you may be able to establish "purple fluorescence in yellow diamonds" as a notable topic. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:India Bore Diamond Holdings was Declined, not Rejected (the latter more harsh). I suggest that neither the company nor the purple-fluorescing diamonds warrant a new article, but rather consider an addition of content to Diamond (gemstone), in the Fluorescence section. An image could be added if an owner of such diamonds takes and submits the image directly, but downloading the website images is forbidden as a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate issue: The diamonds are from the Ellendale field and your User name is Ellendale2020. You submitted the image in the draft as your own work. Are you an employee or otherwise compensated by the India Bore company? If so, you must declare paid on your User page (see WP:PAID). Also state if you personally photographed the diamonds, or not. David notMD (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

why does wikipedia does not publish my page?

i created an ENGLISH wikipedia page few days ago, but it has not publish yet. what can i do in order to publish it? thank you Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tamar Shalev1 shows no edits to the English Wikipedia. If you are thinking of edits which you made at the Hebrew Wikipedia, you need to ask there, as each language's Wikipedia is independent. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tamar Shalev1: please don't edit your own post after somebody has responded as you did here, since that can make the discussion confusing. As David Biddulph mentioned, there are no edits from your account at English Wikipedia, except for the (currently) two edits here at the Teahouse. Did you use a different account to create the page, or did you create it while logged out? What was the title of the page in question? --bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(Moved from below by Bishonen | tålk.) The title for the page was "Multi-aperture". I have only one account, and this is the one that I use. thank you Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1 Your contribution history shows no contributions, deleted or active, to any page by that name. If you know the title of the page, you could check it to see if you perhaps contributed to it while logged out of your account- or if you wrote it on the Hebrew Wikipedia(in English). 331dot (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tamar Shalev1, Are you sure you used this account to create the article? @Bonadea Even the article in question seems to be non-existent. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am positive that i wrote the page with this username, because i have only one username.. please show me the english wikepdia,thanks Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1, hello, as a matter of fact, you surely did not use this account to create the aforementioned page. Did you create any page prior registering this account? This is the English Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1, here is the complete history of your edits here on the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tamar_Shalev1 —valereee (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a page in hebrew and in english for the same value. this is the first time i write in the english wikepedia. i used this account, the only one i have, that i opened last week.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:Tamar_Shalev1/multi_aperture here it is

Tamar Shalev1, you created this article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. If you would like to create this page at the English Wikipedia, you need to submit it at WP:AFC. Please add reliable sources to support your article, or it will be quickly declined. (Note: Your account is not yet old enough for you to create articles directly in the encyclopedia.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is already a draft with the same title here Draft:Multi aperture created by User:Renanel Ben Or. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, I’m not so sure but something about this unsolicited disclosure and the discovery of this draft by Theroadislong created by a different account makes me believe OP may be erroneously or intentionally using multiple accounts to edit & are just plain confused at the moment and are clearly oblivious as to how things work in this collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 and Calliopejen1: Now we have WP:Help desk#time till publish a draft as well. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Four Award for a "list" article?

Scenario: Let's say a list of episodes is less than 7 days old, has 1,500+ characters in the lede, is nominated/accepted for DYK, and is nominated/accepted as a Featured List (not Featured Article as stated in the criteria). From my understanding, a list cannot be nominated for Good Article status (because it's a list). Therefore, the list could only meet 2 of 4 criteria needed.

Is this accurate? Could a "list" article even receive a Four Award? CYAce01 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@CYAce01: WT:FOUR might be a more focused audience for the question. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I'll post this there, too. Thnx! CYAce01 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with a table

I have a table here. I need to increase the space (is it called padding?) between the table and the text next to it. I would also like to change the colour of the table header from gray to cornsilk. What do I do? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I take it this is the table with the caption "Comparison between breast augmentation and foot binding" in Cleavage (breasts)#Cultural distribution, is that correct, Aditya Kabir? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yes, very much.

BTW, I was using the quotebox as a sidebar. Is that a problem? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: {{Cquote}} is not floating (I followed the documentation, but it is not working). {{Rquote}} is not showing the quote marks, and showing really large types (I followed the documentation and it still is not working). I hope they are not all broken. If they are not then they should behave like the examples, which they are not doing at the moment. {{Quote frame}} doesn't float anyways. I went back to {{quote box}} for now. Still looking for an alternative that serves a similar purpose (if not the same). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Update 2: I have found the answers to my problems with the table. Solved. Yayy. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes the use of {{quote box}} is a problem. It shou;ld never be used in aricles, it leads to undue weight being attacvhed nto a particualkrt quotation. So does Rquote, or anyhtign that displays a quote with large quote marks, or in a diferent colotred background or in a box. use {{quote}} or plain <blockquote>...</blockquote>. MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. See [[Template talk:Cquote# Proposed changes re {cquote}]] and particularly Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 219#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template for the early 2020 RfC on this issue, that changed Cquote to call Quote in mainspace. Links there can be followed to earlier discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Aditya Kabir DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. So, I dumped the other quote template that was used to replace the quotebox, because it was badly overemphasizing a side story by putting it in the middle of the text. It was also positoned after the wrong paragraph and removed the name of the book. I have integrated the quote into the text, no quote template.

What was a side story is now part of the main story (though that's quite okay here). I have no clue how that understates the content, but since there are discussions and consensus to show for the decision, I can only be compliant, until I (or someone) is ready to start a new discussion on the matter.

But, since I have removed all quote templates, I believe, we can raise a cup of hot tea to a congenial agreement and more collaboration in the coming days.

Cheers.

P.S. Is my table solution alright? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice to improve draft: neutral point of view

I joined Wikipedia recently and my first page for author Ganggang Hu Guidice was declined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ganggang_Hu_Guidice I've been making changes based on the general advice but would really appreciate any suggestion from you to improve it. Thank you very much! Koala829 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Koala829, reads more like a CV than an encyclopaedic article. There are also a lack of sources in certain sections. The arguably most important section, "Biography" contains 5 references, 3 of which are in the last paragraph. The sources are also of questionable reliability, I suggest reading WP:R. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely:, Thanks a lot! I added some internal links and more references. Initially I was thinking about making a simple version, and I took these authors' page as examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaowen_Zeng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hao_Jingfang

But should I simplify the publication section and add more information in the biography section in my own draft? Koala829 (talk)16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Koala829: I think you need to take a couple steps back here. Why is she notable in the first place? See WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. Most of her awards don't seem that important, and most of her listed works are just essay-type pieces in newspapers. Are any of the references listed in the draft articles about Ganggang Hu Guidice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yes most awards are prestigious in Taiwan and Hong Kong. One award, the Sino literature award in United States is the only literature award in North America for the writers whose native language is Chinese. And all references are about Ganggang Hu Guidice, except a few winner announcement news including other winners' names. This author has a Wikipedia page in traditional Chinese. So I'm thinking about creating an English page too. But if language is a limitation (like most of her publication is not English, and most interviews, news reports are not English either), I will stop working on it. Or is there an easier way to make an existing non-English page to an English version? Do you have any suggestion? Thank you! Koala829 (talk)21:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I received a notice that my draft is approved! Thank you all for your help! Koala829 (talk)12:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Understanding notability requirements in the past

I have come across many mainspace articles which do not seem to meet WP:GNG or any subject specific notability guidelines. Also a number of experienced editors have commented at various places that the notability criteria over the years has gotten stricter. for eg DGG's comment here [4].

The issue though is that conducting a through WP:BEFORE takes considerable time especially when the subject has a good number of passing mentions in various sources. Hence I would appreciate if someone could guide me briefly on when specific notability criteria got tighter in policy and in application, so one can use that as a rough guide on deciding on which older articles to focus on for conducting WP:BEFORE. Roller26 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roller26:, I'm not sure how well that will work for you. One is that rules didn't just spring into their modern, severe, forms. If you take a look through NCORP, for example, it has numerous major alterations. Another is that it's not just the rules have changed, it's the enforcement has got tighter. Before modern NPP, for example, it was vastly easier for content to sneak through. There's also lots of old articles and fairly few editors, so if you pick any reasonably old year (say, 2007) and work forwards, that will work as well as having a hyper-nuanced approach. I would generally suggest using the no-source category as probably a more useful method. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Roller26. I've been editing regularly for over 11 years and an administrator for over three years. Yes, notability standards have been gradually tightened over the years but they were pretty strict in 2009. If you want to nominate articles for deletion, then it is incumbent on you to develop your search skills to do a fairly quick BEFORE search and add keywords as needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Here's an example: I was looking for information about a 1910 silent movie the other day. The title consisted of three common words and a standard Google search produced a flood of irrelevant links. But when I added quotation marks to the title and added the word film, and searched Google Books, I was able to find two reviews from back in 1910. I got additional relevant hits by adding the director's name. If you nominate poorly researched articles for AfD, you will end up with harsh criticism from inclusionist editors. It is always better to save an article by improving it, as opposed to deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that today's stricter standards apply to every article, whether it was first written in 2003 or yesterday. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, Cullen Thanks, that helps. Roller26 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Should this undo have been done?

I have added a redirect to an article called KRC but the edit was reversed with the summary "Undid revision 978157401 by Rzed786 incorrect hatnote, KFC does NOT redirect here". I would think that somebody could easily get mixed up between KRC and K&R C, so should this reverse been done? Thank you in advance. Rzed786 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the undo should have been done, but there was a typo in the edit summary. What should have been said was that KRC does not redirect to Kent Recursive Calculator, so the hatnote which you added was incorrect. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi Rzed786. KRC doesn’t redirect to Kent Recursive Calculator; in fact, it’s not a WP:REDIRECT to any article, but rather a WP:DAB page. Technically, your edit didn’t create a redirect; you only added a WP:HATNOTE stating the KRC redirected to Kent Recursive Calculator. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I need help with images and references

Hello,

I am making a page on someone who doesn't have much of online presence as she is an old personality. There are a few images from the newspaper to support my claims, but I don't know how to reference them, what should I do? Can I upload the images? Also, she has letters/memo from government officials like Presidents, Senates, and Mayors, how do I reference these? Helpthemisguided (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Helpthemisguided. Newspaper articles do not have to be online, but you will need to know the publication name and date. Page number is optional, but nice to have. If you can find an arvchived version online, you could give a url to it, too, but that's not essential. See WP:REFBEGIN for how to add a reference using the 'Cite' button in whichever editing tool you're using. Unfortunately, we cannot accept any references to non-published letters, certificates, memos etc, even from former Presidents. What we add as references needs to be verifiable by someone on the other side of the world, using standard library resources. For that reason, documents in an individual's possession are excluded from this, sorry. This highlights one of Wikipedia's problems of notability - that it is far easier to prove some minor tinpot here-today-gone-tomorrow celebrity has been 'noticed' by the world in the last 20 years than it is for someone who has had a far more significant impact on the world 50 or 100+ years ago, at a time when publication was not easy, or when the achievements of women or minority groups were not so commonly recognised and less frequently reported upon than the achievements of men. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Helpthemisguided, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. There is no requirement that sources be online, just that they have been reliably published. You cite a source by giving enough bibliographic detail for a reader to find it, eg through a library: Author, title, date, title of work, page number etc. If there is a copy online, you can give the link as a convenience, but it is not an essential part of the citation. Wikipedia allows several different citation styles (though the same style should be used throughout a particular article) and there are a number of templates and tools to help create citations. See Referencing for beginners.

The requirement of reliable publication means that those letters cannot be cited in an article, and information in them may not be used unless it is also found in reliably published sources. See Original research.

On a more general note, creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for inexperienced Wikipedia editors, and editors who attempt it before spending time mproving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works often have a very frustrating experience. Please read Your first article if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk)

Hello ColinFine Nick Moyes, so I can add the images next to the paragraphs? I have copied templates from popular pages like Bill Gates, Ellen Degenres, etc. so my page is set already, but I don't know how will I reference it. About the letters, some of them are statements available to the public, will those work? And they are also available on the subject's official blog/site along with the newspapers, can one site be used for referencing majorly?

Thanks!

Hello again, Helpthemisguided. I don't understand your question about images. If you are still talking about scans of newspaper cuttings, then the answer is No. I can't think of any circumstances in which this would be a good thing to do. If you mean photos, then (provided the photos meet Wikimedia Commons' criteria for copyright), you can upload them, and include them in the article. But photos are rarely capable of acting as a source to verify a statement.

When you say "some of them are statements available to the public", how do you mean? If you mean that they have been published in a reliable (reputably edited and published) source (and, unless the information is uncontroversial factual information such as dates and places, the source is wholly unconnected with the subject of the article), then you can cite that source. Otherwise you cannot include the information. --ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

can someone please tell me what is wiki love or something like that because it is popping up on my device what is it for ~~(talk) 11:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha rains (talk • contribs) 09:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Alisha rains. Please see WP:WikiLove. (General tip: to find out about some concept in editing and participating in Wikipedia, searching for the word with "WP:" on the front often gives useful results). --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again ColinFine I will check ~~(talk) 12:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha rains (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Alisha rains, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is an essay you can read called WP:WikiLove which might tell you more. But, in essence, it's meant to be a simple and fun way of saying hello and appreciating another editor's work by clicking on the 'heart' icon at the top of any userpage in desktop view. (I'm not actually sure how it looks in mobile view.) I think it's mostly used with new editors, though I don't use it myself, having turned off the ability to use it by deselecting the tickbox option in Special Preferences>Editing. When I do really want to say 'well done' for something exceptional, I leave the editor a WP:BARNSTAR on their userpage, with a short message to explain why. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: You seem to have created a custom signature, but it does not display your username and does not link to your user or talk page, as you can see above, where it says: (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC) (the talk link is to the Wikipedia disambiguation page talk instead of your user talk page. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal, delete the contents of the Signature box, uncheck the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox, and click Save at the bottom of the page. If you need to use a custom signature, I suggest you test the wiki markup in your sandbox to make sure it looks as you want it to, shows your username, and has the required link to your user or user talk page. Then, install it in the preferences page and check it again in the sandbox with four tildes to make sure it works. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, it seems that you manually adjusted the timestamps to incorrect values as well. Please don't do that – it's very confusing to people and bots. I've struck out the incorrect values and added standard templates with correct names and times. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: Actually, upon closer inspection, it looks like your signature worked fine to begin with; The removal of the correct linking (and corruption of the timestamp) was done manually. I've struck the instruction about fixing it above. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry I am in South Africa so my time will be different from other time and I also don't know how to reply if someone sends a message on Wikipedia so I always edit because it never says reply and what happens when someone (unsigned) your message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha rains (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: It does not matter which time zone you are in – that's the point of using the automatic signature, which will show the same time no matter where the user is. Simply type ~~~~ (that's four tilde symbols) after your posts on talk pages, and your name will be added together with a time, converted to the Coordinated Universal Time (also known as UTC). If you don't do that, someone else will have to add a manual template ("unsigned") and calculate what the correct time in UTC is based on our local time when you post. For people like you and me whose local time is just two hours away from UTC that's not too difficult, but please remember to type the four tildes on talk pages, to help your fellow editors out. --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question on reverted changes

Moved from another user's (unrelated) section. Giraffer ^munch 16:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I tried contributing to a WIKI page of a player since he had his name wrongly typed. The change was reverted by Rqndom and I wanted to know if we can change it back.

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_John_(footballer) Oto instead of Otto. 185.67.177.26 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. From a quick look at the sources, it's clear his name has been spelled both Otto and Oto quite a bit, as well as John Oto. Rather than come here, I think you should engage with the reverting editor on the article Talk Page and come to a consensus amongst those interested in the subject. See WP:COMMONNAME to appreciate that we title articles based upon how reliable sources have named that person. I note that his current team list him as 'Oto John', so I'm assuming they can spell their own team member! Looks like you have a good case to make. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question on hurricanes

Moved from another user's (unrelated) section. Giraffer ^munch 16:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am a new user in Wikipedia. I have some info about Hurricane Dorian: Hurricane dorian caused $1.5 billion to $3 billion of damage to the Caribbean. I would like to have someone add this piece of info into the carribean section of Hurricane Dorian 2019 article. -- Hurricane Kevin 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Kevin: the best way to get that done is to go to the talk page of the article on Hurricane Dorian (or possibly Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean and post your request there, along with a link to a Reliable Source that allows people to verify the statement for themselves and then to add it if they deem it both relevant, up-to-date, and not already included in the article(s). Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

uploading a picture: how to do it

Sir,

I want to upload a better picture than the one posted at this link Jacques Coghen

I tried several times without result. Can you please guide me through the uploading?

Thanks Jamaco20 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Jamaco20 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To upload images you must be autoconfirmed- meaning that your account must be at least four days old and have 10 edits or more; you currently meet neither of those criteria. However, you may visit Files for Upload for steps that you can do right now, or you may just wait until you are autoconfirmed, and follow the instructions at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jamaco20. Before uploading a picture, you need to understand our core content policy Verifiability. You have been adding large amounts of content to Jacques Coghen without providing references to reliable published sources. I will remove what you added, and you must provide references in order to add it back. As for the picture, there are two pictures of him on Wikimedia Commons. Since he died in the 19th century, pictures published back then are in the public domain. You can upload a third picture to Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

politics

Titans titanium (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Titans titanium, do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Pi (Talk to me!) 20:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Insert a PDF file or article

Hello - Two questions: How do you add a photo to a page? How do you add a PDF file (e.g., old newspaper, or article to a citation). Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Maryphillips1952, and welcome to the teahouse. Sorry for the belated reply. You can only add photos that are not copyright. i.e. one you've taken yourself, or one already releases with an appropriate licence, such as any image on Wikimedia Commons. You cannot simply take an image found on the internet and upload that. There are more links about the various aspects of uploading and inserting images into pages at this shortcut link: WP:IMAGES.

Regarding adding an online PDF, you do not upload the PDF itself, but simply find its url and add that to the URL field in the reference template you're using. If you have a particular article in mind, and a particular PDF, feel free to give us the links and we can help or check what you've done is OK. I find it simpler to add references using the 'Cite' button in Source editor than using the 'Cite' button in Visual Editor. The latter is normally well-suited to beginners wanting to do simple tasks, but I find it is overly complicated when it comes to references. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maryphillips1952, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First question: First, what is the copyright status of the photo? Unless you took it yourself, or you can demonstrate that it is in the public domain (most photos on the internet aren't) or its copyright owner has licensed it appropriately, the answer is probably that you can't use it. If the copyright status is suitable, you upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons, and can then insert it into an article. Please see Help:Upload.

Second question: in most cases, you don't. A source does not have to be online in order to be cited: it just has to have been reliably published. A link is a convenience for readers and reviewers, but is not required. Uploading a scan of an article will often be a copyright infringement. If the item is free of copyright (eg is in the public domain by reason of its age), then the process is exactly the same as for photos. --ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Racism and Classical Music

Hello Racism and Classical Music is a topic of interest to me. I don't think am not seeing a page or article devoted to this topic. My question: How does one ask to create a page? Does one have to have an article written with references to create a page or simply creating a page is sufficient? Thank you.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to ask anyone's permission to create a new article; if you have a topic that receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, there can be an article about it on Wikipedia. It is challenging to successfully write a new article- I would suggest first reviewing Your First Article and using the new user tutorial to learn more about the process. You may then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor.

I would note that Wikipedia is not for posting original research, such as a research paper that draws conclusions- we just summarize what sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It may be useful to take a look at Racism in the wine industry and notice how many sentences have a source. I'd highly recommend that on controversial articles, like those about systemic racism, you source every sentence. —valereee (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

significant occurrences on a 9/11 through time

Please add ground breaking for the building of the Pentagon 9/11/1941. 50.103.103.204 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You could suggest adding this by posting at Talk:September 11 (or could edit the article September 11 yourself). I do note that most of the event entries on that page seem significantly more important than the one you're suggesting, so I'm not sure whether your proposal will be successful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a Paid Editor. What are the guidelines for uploading images to paid pages?

Hello Teahouse!

I am a paid editor for Julie L. Green. The Talk page is suggesting an image be added to the article. As a paid editor, can I upload an image that follows the wiki copyright laws?

Also, what about adding images of the artist's work? See Roger Shimomura for an example.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely, KaitlynCK (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello KaitlynCK, and welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, thanks and well done for disclosing your paid contributions - not a lot of people do that easily. Regarding your question, yes, you can upload an image that follows all the relevant policies and laws. For uploading images of the artists work - see this policy page and this one. Hope this helps! Regards, Giraffer ^munch 17:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer ^munch Thank you so much! I've saved these links. Please feel free to remove my post as it is now resolved. Unless anyone would like to help me with new proposed edits to Julie L. Green :) Sincerely, KaitlynCK (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Welcome to Wikipedia. We don't delete answered questions, in case someone else can be helped by the answer, too. In a few days it will roll off into the archives. RudolfRed (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed, I saw this before and wasn't intending to delete it. :P Giraffer ^munch 19:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I think RudolfRed intended his comment for KaitlynCK. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry for the wrong ping! RudolfRed (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about draft

Question moved from another section to its own. Giraffer ^munch 19:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:BrazyXay (entertainer) Hi, how are you doing? I just created my first article and I'm not sure why it hasn't been reviewed yet. May you check it out to see if it has even been submitted for review? I don't even know how to check the status. Also, can you tell me how to speed up the approval process for the articles I make? Thanks! GeorgeWright1 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI for other hosts, this has been reviewed now. RudolfRed (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Look for information on a performer

Hello! I am looking for someone to assist in finding and writing about Amanda Carolina Rodriguez the wrestler. She is mentioned plenty of times on Wikipedia with no page dedicated to her and her work.

Thank you! Manageittoday (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Manageittoday: you could ask at WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling, but they would need to meet our Notability criteria. Depending on the type of wrestling, this may be found at WP:NSPORTS or WP:ENTERTAINER. Do you know or represent this person? If so, you would need to dclare your Conflct of Interest, plus any WP:PAID employment. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to help with writing an article, but the first thing you'd need to do is find some independent, reliable sources that show that she is notable. If you can find some of these sources I'd be happy to give assistance with writing the article. You can talk to me at my talkpage Pi (Talk to me!) 23:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Keeping Drafts

My draft has been declined from being a webpage and I am unsure how to find the articles necessary to change that. Unless anyone else is interested in it how I am, nothing will change within the 3 month timeframe. Instead of deleting the draft, would it be possible to keep it in a draft status? If that is not possible, should I just transfer this to a word document and keep it for myself? I apologize if this is unnecessary to ask, but I like the work I did, but am not familiar with the editing process to change that. Someoneelsesomethingelse (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Someoneelsesomethingelse. Your completely unreferenced draft is nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia. Please read and study Your first article. If you conclude that you have a prospect of improving the draft to the point that it can be accepted, then keep working on it. If not, save it elsewhere and let it be deleted from Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello?!,

Is that photo for Cutthroat trout (see below) the same painting (photo thing) that I saw in The Scouting Guid to Basic Fishing by Wade Bourne? The photos look (to my human eye) the exact same thing. If they indeed are, I am genuinely concerned, for in the copyright of the book The Scouting Guid to Basic Fishing, it says quote

"All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles."

I looked, and found no context allowing usage. Cheers, User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC) User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Shadowblade08. That image was created by Timothy Knepp of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of his official duties as an employee of the U.S. federal government. Accordingly, it is in the public domain and can be used by the Scouts, Wikipedia, your local seafood restaurant or anyone else for any purpose without asking for permission. That copyright notice applies only to original content in the book, not to any public domain content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at this category on Wikimedia Commons. There are 24 fish images by Timothy Knepp. It seems that he is a professional fish painter working for the federal government. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Cullen328, I just saw it and wondered. Thanks! User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was this article deleted, and should it be recreated?

This page does not seem to exist anymore.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140924223546/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Against_Crooked_Lawyers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Against_Crooked_Lawyers

I have been unable to find any record of the deletion of the page being discussed except here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_Society_of_Scotland

Where it appears to be the subject of dispute by an apparently interested party.

The archived article does appear to contain significant coverage from independent reliable sources in accordance to general notability guidelines, it also does not appear to contain anything libelous.

Granted it's a small and obscure organisation but is this really right? PaperJake (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PaperJake, the deletion discussion says "Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving roughly 1% of the votes and barely any notable coverage before or after general election. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe." In order to prove notability, you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources. Generally that would mean at least three articles going into significant detail, rather than simple mentions. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Could you tell me where I could find the deletion disussion?, Just so I know in future. PaperJake (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PaperJake, it's actually just a wp:prod closing, which I don't believe you can see -- you have to have certain permissions to see deleted articles, and this closing statement I believe is included in that. I'm sorry I misspoke -- if it had been a full AfD (discussion of an Article for Deletion), I would be able to give you a link to that. The prod (proposed deletion) closing was expired (that is, a prod tag was put on the article, and after a certain amount of time, if no one objects, it gets closed. I'm sorry Wikipedia is so impenetrable!) You can, if you like, ask to have the article restored into your user space so you can work on it there with no time pressure. Instructions are at wp:refund. Come back here and open a new request if you need any help, you don't need to ask for me specifically, anyone here can help you through it if that's what you decide you want to do! —valereee (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion logs are not restricted. PaperJake, you can see the deletion log for that article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&page=Scotland+Against+Crooked+Lawyers where you will find the who, when, how and why of the deletion action. I would also like to clarify that the page qualifies for direct reinstatement as an active article. Be warned though that an article which has been recently successfully proposed for deletion may get nominated for deletion via WP:AFD if it gets reinstated and is left without improvements (that address the reason for the deletion). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I add some images in an article?

Hi everyone. Just need some little help. I was wondering how I can insert images in an article. I've been reading some copyright rules so I became hesitant. Thanks. Apollogone (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Apollogone, are you thinking of any particular images? If you are, where are they at present? Maproom (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom: Nothing in particular, I just wanted to ask for future references. But if for example I wanted to add an image of a company or person in the article, and search through Google, how do I know if the image is valid for use? Apollogone (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

If the page where you find it has a note saying that the image is in the public domain, then you can use it in Wikipedia. If it says that it's protected by copyright, then you can't. If it doesn't say, then you should assume that it's protected by copyright, unless you have good reason to know otherwise. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

how to use wikipedia

Fyuko (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fyuko: Please see your talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I add a new page for community purposes?

Zaharia Idamate (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zaharia Idamate, I'm not quite sure what you mean there, do you mean a page for the Wikipedia community like a WikiProject? Or do you mean an encyclopedia article about a community? Pi (Talk to me!) 04:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

New pages here are for Wikipedia:Purposes. Does your proposal further the aims of Wikipedia?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Why bots undo my edits

— Preceding unsigned comment added by That random man (talk • contribs) 08:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@That random man: I see a message on your talk page from the human editor GorillaWarfare, who reverted the inappropriate question you added to Civil Administration Area of Luxembourg, for the reason stated in ~~his~~ her message; the article is not the place to put questions – use the article's talk page (Talk:Civil Administration Area of Luxembourg) to discuss the article with other editors. FWIW, I believe the flag is correct for the article, as it refers to Germany-occupied Luxembourg, but I could easily be wrong as it's not my field. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC) [corrected] —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, you can view a complete log of all changes, their editors, and the reasons behind them (so-called edit summaries), by clicking "View history" in the header tabs for each page. GermanJoe (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to How can I add my name to a list of American Art Dealers?

Why is it almost impossible to find a simple way to ask a question? Wikipedia appears to be an intellectual endeavor but is a defacto closed shop with editors who may no very little about the nature of wikipedia itself. I was told I could not add information because there is NO advertising. The answer this: Isn't almost EVERYTHING on it an Ad, especially about living people. If one is not allowed to write about themselves then isn't possible or easy to get a friend or partner to write what they want and put it up for them. There would be no way for your Ed. board to know for sure. If I have someone write about my life in the field, but I have no copies of my articles that I can show because they are not on the www since most were written in the late 80s. I do have a PDF of a recent article 2012 can I use that? If I was a founding member of a well known organization when it was formed, but I am no longer a member what can I do? Another question albeit a horrible one: What if someone on wikipedia was a serial killer and only one person knew about it??? What could they do to comment about. I know it would mean a lot of work, but what about a simple Email address divided into subjects and or cities, people by alphabet to make it eaiser? Geoffrey D. Forrest (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey D. Forrest, What Wikipedia needs to see is significant coverage in non-affiliated reliable sources. For instance, if a (non-local) newspaper or magazine did a story about you, that would be significant coverage in a reliable source. We need to see about three such articles. Sources don't need to be online. I'm sorry, I don't understand the serial killer and email questions. —valereee (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Tell me about the stories about you -- how long are they, how much of them are actually about you (rather than simply mentioning or quoting you briefly), and what were the publications? —valereee (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it can't be cited. You just need to provide the sources and it is up to someone to verify them - but this is where you shouldn't write about yourself. Koncorde (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey D. Forrest, if you have evidence someone is a serial killer, you should contact the authorities, whether the person has a Wikipedia article or not. It's their job to sort out the loony tune crackpots from people with valid information, not ours. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
John from Idegon, I think maybe what he's asking is how do we know we can trust one another to be editing in good faith because we're all ostensibly "anonymous"? GDF, we all have edit histories anyone can check -- mine is at Special:Contributions/Valereee, yours is at Special:Contributions/Geoffrey D. Forrest -- and over time we see whether a person is consistently making good edits. When someone new comes in, other editors tend to check their edits for a while until we can see they're making constructive edits. When we come across someone who is making unconstructive edits, and they don't seem to be trying to improve, we block them from editing. —valereee (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

To address some of the issues raised - it is surprisingly easy to tell when someone is related to the topic they are writing about. It's only natural for them to ever so slightly violate our neutral point of view policy, among various other things. On a different note, not everything here is an ad. I don't think that Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is an ad for him, let alone the fact that it has gotten 240 thousand pageviews this month alone. If you're interested, this may be an interesting read. Giraffer ^munch 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, ideally NOTHING here is an ad. If you see something that looks like an ad, you should fix it, or if you aren't sure how, tag it as wp:promotional. —valereee (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point, valereee. I've had my fun with G11 tagging... :) Giraffer ^munch 20:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

To get back to the original set of questions from Geoffrey D. Forrest, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that lives (and dies) by its requirements for verification of facts. Hence published and referenced. The refs do not need to be accessible on line. People are advised to not try to create articles about themselves, but not forbidden. See WP:AUTO Friends/family also allowed, but advised for sake of transparency to declare the nature of their conflict of interest. See WP:COI. For the 2012 article you mention, you cannot use the PDF (copyright infringement), but you can create a reference is you have the name of the publication, date, etc. Wikipedia trusts information submitted by editors. If the organization you helped start has an online history that mentions your role, that can be a reference. As for lists, you cannot be on a list unless there is already an article about you. David notMD (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Help Needed to Globally Deselect the Left-Panel Page Languages Summary gizmo feature and return to the Old Ways of the One List to Rule Them All and on the Page Bind Them!

Globally Deselect the Left-Panel Page Languages Summary gizmo feature and return to the Old Ways of the One List to Rule Them All and on the Page Bind Them!

Hello all!

In the left panel for each page is a list of the Languages each article may be found in. This list now only shows a few "popular" languages, then tidies the rest away in a summary that says "All languages (initial selection of common choices by you and others)".

Is there any way to turn this summarising off in my Global Preferences settings?

I read wikipedia articles in all sorts of languages depending upon the regions I am researching, even for languages such as Catalan which is often far more informative about their locales than the broader Spanish wikipedia. I will also look at things like the Magyar wikipedia for articles about their former territories in Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Moldavia and the like. It is probably useful for people who love to stroke their iddy-biddy phones, but for us people with nice big screens and a love of wikis in all the languages of this fine Earth it is a pain in the arse rather than a great new feature.

Thanks.

Nobbo69 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Nobbo69 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Nobbo69, welcome to the ~~Prancing Pony~~ Teahouse. Are you using a custom skin? I'm using vector and i just click on the button below the popular languages and a search box pops up to find the language i'm after. Zindor (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nobbo69. If you go to your Preferences, and pick "Appearance", then right down the bottom you'll find "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you." --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor - thanks - it is exactly that I am trying to remove! I like to see all the language options quickly when I am researching things. I research a lot of medieval and ancient topics all over the world and they often do not fit into the modern language / nation-state boundaries we have now, so I will check wikis in several languages to get the best info as quickly as I can and check the smaller wikis like the Hungarian Magyar wiki all the time.

@ColinFine - thanks, that's exactly the button I wanted to unpress! It is very hard to do general searches for things about the inner mechanics of Wikipedia on Google when you do not know the specific name for something - like Compact Language List in this case - as it tends to just throw up normal articles. Someone needs to do a nice clear Wikipedia For Idiots Wiki... Thanks again! Nobbo69 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Nobbo69: glad that helped. I had no idea what it was called either; I just guessed that there might be a user preference for it, and went looking in Preferences. --ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"new page here about my company"

Hi there , im new here , i was trying to make a new page here about my company but it was declined, can you guys help me out form this horrible satiation, thanks in advance. Kamerockint (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Kamerockint. You are abusing Wikipedia and all its volunteer editors if you believe you can use it to promote your company without taking the time or trouble to learn how Wikipedia actually operates, and what it's for. So, yes, you have got yourself into a horrible situation. First off, you are obligated to declare your connection to Kamerock Films Productions, per instructions at WP:PAID. You may not have a promotional username (so you might get 'soft-blocked' for that) and have to choose another one (see WP:USERNAME). Your company, as wonderful as it may be, probably doesn't meet our notability criteria for businesses, where we require at least three independent sources which show your company has been written about in detail and in depth. See WP:NCORP for how we judge whether you are wasting your time or not in this attempt. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your business or employer (see WP:PROMOTION), and you would be better to leave the creation of an article to editors without a Conflict of Interest. Please ceased any editing until you have at least formally declared who is paying you and, should you wish to persist (based on gathering only non-promotional references), ensure you go through our Articles for Creation process. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kamerockint: I have trouble understanding why this is a "horrible satiation [situation?]" unless you and your company have a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. If your employer is requiring you to break our fundamental rules as part of your job, please see WP:NOTPROMO and show it to them, along with the other sections of that page. There should be nothing "horrible" about whether an article exists or does not exist in this encyclopedia, any more than if it were to exist or not in Encyclopædia Britannica or any other academic reference work. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Trouble with a user.

Hello guys,

There's this user "Angelatripp" who is solely using Wikipedia for about 9 years for just a single page. He keeps undoing several revisions (same topic) in the name of "preventing vandalism." There's multiple references to back-up my claim as Jonathan Seigel one of the founders of the subjected page, but he keeps undoing it. I am going to edit the page again, but please someone prevent him from real vandalism!

Thanks! Kingoftheyuno (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Kingoftheyuno, I believe your suspicions have merit and it could be a case of undisclosed paid editing, although the editor in question has not edited since 21 March 2019. The first venue to raise these concerns is the article's talk page (Talk:RightScale), and failing that, the conflict of interest noticeboard. I will leave some notices on the user's talk page; a review of the article content would also be in order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent Changes

How do you like navigate Special:RecentChanges, there are sooo many edits, even if I try to use filters to limit it. Humiebees (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Humiebees, what exactly do you need to patrol recent changes for? There are numerous (IMO better) alternatives for a number of different purposes. Giraffer ^munch 15:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Vivo (technology company) (2 questions)

I had just recently come across the aforementioned article and I have two issues:

Half the page length is a table listing all the smartphones made by this company. Many smartphone entries are unsourced in the list. Should every single smartphone be listed or only the ones for which existence can be verified or only the ones which have their own article?
I edited the article to do the following:
- Remove unsourced information about the company name that was present in the article for more than a year
- Remove other unsourced information which I couldn't verify
- Rephrase a sentence

I promptly got a Level 3 warning from one Seemplez, which I think is either assuming bad faith or being too strict. Is my edit really bad?

- 45.251.33.71 (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP user, I believe that your edit is correct. As per WP:VERIFY, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed", which is exactly what you did. I have reverted the revert (i.e. gone back to edits you made). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302 and thanks for explaining that my edit was okay. As for the first question, do you know what can be done? (My IP is different as I am on a dynamic IP range) 45.251.33.17 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello dynamic IP 45.251.33.xx! I think selectively removing entries that are not verified could be misleading as readers are likely to assume that the listed are the most important ones. The best thing, IMO, would be to get rid of the tables and add prose about the company's history of products, which should automatically include all the verifiable and important bits about the various models it's launched. But since editors there have gone with the table, I don't see a problem with listing all of them as long as the size remains manageable. And I don't think it would be too hard to source. So, I would either look for sources for the unsourced ones, or just add a {{refimprove section}} tag. I don't usually remove mundane details on non-controversial topics that are unlikely to have been fabricated just because they are unsourced. Do note though, I am only giving you my opinion because no one else did, and I hardly ever edit technology articles, so it's perhaps best you bring the issue up at the article's talk page. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

how do make article

um yeah

Chonker chonkingtin (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

83.49.205.237 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Help:Your first article -- Fyrael (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Camden Monarchs Afc is declined

I am not able to get some specific comment to understand the reason of decline this page (Draft:Camden Monarchs).

I have used reference which are already used in reference of other wiki pages. Requesting to either fix or help me to fix if any issue exist.

In between I have added another reference link and done minor edits. Please review and help me. Vsp.manu (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Vsp.manu I believe your draft currently does not passes specific notability requirements. See notability (clubs) to learn more. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear ~ Amkgp 💬, Thank you for your guidance. I have gone through your suggested link to learn more. And I feel References give are supporting the notability. Also few American Basketball Association (2000–present) teams(like San Diego Guardians, Jersey Express, Dallas Impact etc) have their published wiki page having more or less similar information given on their wiki page.

Also this team Draft:Camden Monarchs is listed on wiki page of ABA as well. So please guide what more to explore and include or which part I should exclude to accept this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 06:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC); edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Vsp.manu, would you explain which notability criteria you think the topic meets? Or, if it is the generaly notability guidelines, ie. that the topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, would you please list WP:THREE of the best sources you have? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Usedtobecool ☎️, Thank you so much for your response. I think it comes under the generaly notability guidelines, ie. that the topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Please find following three sources :
https://abaliveaction.com/2019/05/31/camden-monarchs-added-to-aba-expansion/
https://whyy.org/articles/monarchs-bring-hoops-and-hope-to-camden/
https://6weekstofitness.com/interview-with-giovonni-thompson-ceo-of-camden-monarchs/

I feel following sources can also be considered as reliable and notable reference as well.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/inside-rysheed-jordans-fight-for-basketball-redemption-after-prison/
https://www.nationalblackguide.com/youngest-african-american-female-owner-brings-professional-basketball-team-to-camden-new-jersey/
Also, hope you are considering the ABA team's wiki page which are already published and almost similar reference sources are used in that. Please suggest, if anything I can improve in Draft:Camden Monarchs to get this approved. With Regards!Vsp.manu (talk)

Draft:Camden Monarchs Afc is declined ..

I am not able to get some specific comment to understand the reason of decline this page (Draft:Camden Monarchs).

I have used reference which are already used in reference of other wiki pages. Requesting to either fix or help me to fix if any issue exist.

I have gone through suggested link to learn more notability. And I feel that references given are supporting the notability. Also few American Basketball Association (2000–present) teams(like San Diego Guardians, Jersey Express, Dallas Impact etc) have their published wiki page having more or less similar information given on their wiki page.

Also this team Draft:Camden Monarchs is listed on wiki page of ABA as well. So please guide what more to explore and include or which part I should exclude to accept this.

Dear User:Timtrent, please guide me in fixing and accepting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC); [edited] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vsp.manu: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) 'Pinging' another editor like Timtrent only works if you mention their name and correctly sign your post in one and the same edit. Not only that, but it ensures we can tell who it is who is actually asking a question here! Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Nick Moyes.

@Vsp.manu: I tend to avoid sporting drafts, leaving them for a more specialist reviewer to review, but thank you for thinking of me Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have pinged a few more editors at the first discussion which is towards the top of this page. Any further discussion should be held there. Someone may merge it there if they'd like. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern

I would like to seek assistance from the house. Two of my articles on two notable Ghanaian musicians were recently moved to draft space for COI and notability. The truth here is, the article Draft:Sherry Boss is a nominee of Ghana's biggest music festival, the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and also notable for his rap music. On the other hand, Draft:Flyboy Geesus (musician) is the other half of Ghana's popular music duo Phootprintz. The other half has an article as Mista Shaw. I need to know why the articles do not meet the requirements. Ajpoundz (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ajpoundz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia uses its own notion of notability, which is not the same as the usual meaning. You need to show that the musicians meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. --ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thanks and per WP:MUSICBIO, the article is notable for been a nominated for Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and also known for Boss Nation, see https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Lilwin-threatened-to-end-my-career-after-stealing-my-brand-Sherry-Boss-584438 Ajpoundz (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Is your argument that the VGMA are "major" enough to qualify per WP:MUSICBIO #8? It seems a bit dubious to me. Regardless, special notability guidelines are intended to be a proxy for the likelihood of the existence of good sources - meaning that we do not really care if they were nominated to award X, but being nominated to award X usually brings a lot of press coverage, so we assume notability is met. If you searched for a long time and found no sources satisfying WP:GNG, it would indicate that they are not notable, even with those nominations. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Tigraan ! My argument is not solely based on the fact that he was nominated for a notable award. There is alot of press via GNews to affirm notability, see: https://www.google.com/search?q=Sherry+Boss&rlz=1C1CHWL_enGH822GH822&oq=sherr&aqs=chrome.2.69i59l3j69i57j46j69i60j69i61j69i60.2670j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Ajpoundz (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajpoundz, no one is going to look at search results from google. You'll have to take the usable ones and add them to the draft. When you've done that, you may list the WP:THREE best at the draft's talk page and direct reviewers to check them. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

21st century telemarketing and digital marketing for cleaning businesses

Hello everyone!

I am reaching out to know if Wikipedia will enable me to post information about my business that incorporates telemarketing with digital; 21st-century marketing combination allowing commercial cleaning companies to connect with offices, hospitals, commercial centers, and even private residences.

Although may seem promotional yet our process could act as a safety measure during these tough times. Workplace sanitation is crucial today for flattening the curve.

Admins and moderators of Wikipedia, please advise.

Best regards,

Nadia M. Janitorial Leads Pro Janitorial Leads Pro (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Janitorial Leads Pro blocked for business-associated User name and intent to promote a business. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Janitorial Leads Pro, the answer is no. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Help posting

I'd need to hire someone to post my article on the Wikipedia site concerning "Treasure in Search of the Golden Horse" I'm not a computer geek and I don't have the time to learn all the coding to do it myself, Please Help Thank You 2601:340:4201:AF00:5C40:5745:5381:6309 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. We already have an article with that title here Treasure: In Search of the Golden Horse you are free to add reliably sourced content to that. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I downloaded 6 items . A message is that approval. I don't know from whom.

Thomas75Russell (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thomas75Russell, welcome to the Teahouse. Can i ask what you downloaded, and from where? Thanks, Zindor (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Thomas75Russell, consider doing this. I played it, and it helped me a lot to learn how to use Wikipedia. I wish you the very best of luck, and if you want to ask me a question, consider talking to me here. Cheers! User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I am new here. Looking around. Started yesterday.

Thomas75Russell (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, again, Thomas75Russell, This is Shadowblade08. Do you need help on using Wikipedia? Again, I would recommend playing the Wikipedia Adventure. Cheers, User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Did I find an Error?

In the Rapala Article,

When it talks about the Rapala Giant 6ft lure, why was it listed under the "tools"? Quote,

"...and various fishing tools as well as the Rapala Giant 6 foot Lure."

Cheers,

User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shadowblade08: If you have an idea to improve an article, you can be WP:BOLD and do it or start a discussion on that article's talk page. I would consider a lure a type of fishing tool, so it seems OK to me, but I am not a fisher. RudolfRed (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowblade08 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Honestly, the long list of lures, with no detail about any, is not really encyclopedic and should provably be removed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the info on that. I didn't want to just cut it out, before asking and making sure that it was OK. Thanks! User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I cut it. Turns out it really is 6 feet long, but it is art intended to be hung on a wall, so neither lure nor tool. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, David notMD, that makes sense. Thanks. Also, RudolfRed, I added a new section on the Rapala Talk page, however the last people to say anything on the talk page was years ago, and I think it would be fair to consider the Rapala's talk page inactive. (minus me, of course) Cheers, all, User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How many bags can checkin free of charge

2605:E000:1527:C30B:30E0:7341:A3AC:15C (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please refer to the website for the airline you are traveling on for the answer to your question. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about a speedy deletion

Hello. So about 30 hours ago, a speedy deletion request was put on Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine. I am the creator of the page and contested the speedy deletion. No one has responded/commented about it and per the speedy deletion rules, I cannot remove it. Would an editor please remove it as it seems there is no one "fighting to delete it". {Also this article went through an afd process a month ago and wasn't deleted}. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy deletion because the previous AfD had a result of "draftify" and not a result of "delete". However, i think it likely that this article will be nominated for deletion again. Please do ping me if it is. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I can't see any evidence of a previous deletion, ~~so I have removed the (incorrectly placed) tag~~ DESiegel beat me to it, but please stop trying to force the article. You nominated it for ITN, which was SNOW closed, and then a subsequent AfD discussion resulted in consensus to draftify, which you did, but soon moved it back to mainspace after not much improvement or time (both important factors given the WP:NOTNEWS concerns at the AfD). Please slow down. Regards, Giraffer ^munch 19:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I think the above advice by Giraffer is sound. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would add, Elijahandskip, that once a speedy deletion tag is placed, it does not matter if anyone is "fighting to delete it". If the tag is valid, the page/article should be deleted, and if it sin't the tag should be removed. The tagger need not, and normally will not, do anything beyond placing the tag. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This is now being dfiscussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine, Elijahandskip. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving an article from Drafts

Hello, I was inquiring to see the status of an article I drafted. see attached link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hamage_Records. I have one and cited sources, even updated the reference list. How long will it take before my draft no longer has the word draft attached to it?

Thanks in advance Musicnewgen3ration (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a Question, did you mean to put your "sources, even updated the reference list. How long will it take before my draft no longer has the word draft attached to it?" in a preformatted text? It (as I learned) can bug some of the editors. Would you like to change it to normal text? Thanks,

User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shadowblade08: I suspect that someone with less than twenty edits has absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Surely, we don't expect them to say "yes, I intended to F up, and bug editors!" I am sure that new editors who unknowingly make mistakes (what is "preformatted text", to a newbie?) would have been most pleased not to have made them in the first place. At least, here at the Teahouse, let us try to give them a break! Be kind! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I figured that he was new, and had no idea that you would take it like that. My intention was to be kind, because I know that when I accidentally put words in preformatted text, they kinda overreacted. Sorry, just trying to fix an mistake, and lets just let it go, cause its fixed now. Cheers, User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shadowblade08: I regret my comments, which were very "snarky". I did not WP:AGF towards you. Please accept my apology. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

^{Let's Purrfect!}, I absolutely forgive you... I know that i've done it before, and while there may be something wrong with it, (I don't want to say "no problem" cause as you said, it is a problem) it is easily forgettable, and in the end, Hey! at least the conflict is over with! Thanks for catching that, and I really appreciate it. Cheers, User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Musicnewgen3ration, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I made that change. I believe the questioner had an unintended line return and space before the second part of the sentence. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The page Draft:Hamage Records has not been submitted for review by the Articles for Creation project. If you want to submit it, please add {{subst:submit}} tpo the top of the draft page. It would then be reviewed whenever an AfC reviewer got to it. That might possibly happen in a day or two, but might easily take up to two months or more. There are currently over 3,000 drafts waiting for review. Reviewers take drafts in whatever order they please, and not on a first-in, first-out basis. Drafts may be edited and improved while waiting for review.

If this draft were submitted for review as i8t now stands, I confidently predict it would be declined. None of the four sources currently cited is independent. Two do not even mention Hamage. There normally need to be multiple (at least three) independent published reliable sources, each of which has Significant coverage of the topic. There are currently none.

If the draft is not submitted for review, no one will automatically move it to the article mainspace, although any autoconfirmed user could in theory do so. If it were moved to the main space in its current state, it might well be nominated for deletion and deleted, for lack of notability Please read our guideline on the notability of corporations.

In short this draft is nowhere near ready to be an article.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, I was never able to complete the Wikipedia adventure, (the reason? I answered that in the feedback for TWA) And was wondering if you could fix it. Thanks, Shadowblade08 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

List of British artists

I wish to add two artists to the above lists. I am a newbie, do I need permission to add to the lists? Dmunge (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As long as those artists already have a Wikipedia article about them, there should be no problem. Please see WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dmunge:, they can also be added if there are reliable sources WP:RS added as references, to prove their notability. See WP:ARTIST, for guidelines. They still must meet WP notability guidelines, but perhaps an article has not yet been written. Hope this helps! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I change a redirection?

Just now I was looking for the New York Convention Center, a now-defunct convention center that was active until the 1990's. When I typed New York Convention Center into the search box, I was taken to the Javits Center, the center that replaced it. After more searching, I just learned that I had the name wrong - it was actually named the New York Coliseum, so I found it. My question is, can I change whatever it is that is redirecting people to Javits Center when they type in New York Convention Center? I think that would make more sense, since the New York Coliseum was New York's main convention center for decades, and it actually has New York in the title. Da Bronx Bronzer (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

~~Sir Lancelot of the Lake (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)~~ Took the liberty of striking a stray sig. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sir Lancelot of the Lake, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It may well be that more people who type in "New York Convention Center" are looking for a currently operating convention center in NYC, which would indeed be the Javits. It might be at a Disambiguation page would be appropriate. This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, whose header says: If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.. Thank you for wantign to improve Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you are responding to the wrong person. Sir Lancelot of the Lake (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Da Bronx Bronzer: While we can change the redirect target, this situation calls for more caution: we don't know who's searching for the NY Coli and who the convention center active after 2000. You're welcome to open a discussion at Redirects for discussion as DESiegel mentioned above~~Talk:New York Convention Center and notify the relevant WikiProjects~~, but a more straightforward solution is to put a hatnote on Javits Center using {{Redirect}}, which I've done. (Note to Teahouse hosts: should we have kept the {{About}} hatnote that was there? I dislike multiple hatnote templates, but would having separate ones in this case be clearer?) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC) and edited 21:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That note you added to the top of the Javits page would have saved me a few minutes of searching. That looks like an impressive solution! Thank you for doing that. Da Bronx Bronzer (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How to prevent a page an image is used on from appearing in the “file usage” or “what links here” section on the file page

I’d like to start learning how to create templates and user boxes, and I’m wondering if there is a way to keep a link to whatever userbox or template I create from showing up as something that links to an image I use in that template. Thanks for your help! Raven^(Zing) 18:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenzing: Not as far as I know. Wikipedia is by design as transparent as possible. I'm not clear on why you want to hide the usage of the image. Perhaps you can elaborate and we might find a way to do what you're trying to accomplish. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Article titles and possessives

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
It's been a long time since I've been to the Teahouse, hope you're doing well! I just have one question about titling a Wikipedia article. Is there a rule about whether we should title an article in the form X's Y or Y of X? For example, I came across the articles Albert Einstein's brain and California's 12th congressional district and also these articles History of China and Moons of Jupiter. My understanding is that we should title the articles based on usage in English-language reliable sources. Is there a page on Wikipedia that explains how to title possessives? Interstellarity (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Interstellarity

PleaSE SEE Wikipedia:Article titles md particularly WP:COMMONNAME. As far as I know, there is no general convention favoring either X's Y or Y of X. Specific topic ares have specific conventions. For example, articel about monarchs usually use the "of" form (for example Anne of Cleves or Henry VI of England. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I'm guessing that articles on royalty, it is titled like that because it is proper English. It is the form recommended at WP:NCROY. I just have one question, could part of the reason be that it is proper English? Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Indirectly, yes, Interstellarity or so I would suppose. It is the recommended form here because it is often used in reliable sources, and they use it because it is good English. In any case my point is that individual naming conventions, like WP:NCROY, should be consulted in any actual case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Finance

Behavioral Finance is an independent study of the behavioral aspects of investors in particular and how it has an impact on the markets. Behavioral Finance and Behavioral Economics both stem from the same stream of thoughts, the subject of Psychology but have different application. I request that my article which has been declined, kindly help me improvise it so that it can be established as an independent article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sakamridhi/sandbox&redirect=no - is the link to the article on Behavioral Finance. Sakamridhi (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sakamridhi. This appears to be the same topic as Behavioral economics, or a tiny variation. Wikipedia will not have two articles on the same topic, so I suggest that you work to improve Behavioral economics instead, unless you can make a compelling case that these are two discrete and distinct topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Sakamridhi - What User:Cullen328 has said is the same as what I said when I declined the draft and tagged it to be merged into Behavioral economics. Draft:Behavioral Finance appears to be about the same topic as Behavioral economics, or almost the same. If they are almost the same, they can still be covered in one article. If they really are separate topics, then please explain in AFC comments or on the talk page how they are separate topics, and rewrite your draft to make it clear that they are different. However, it appears that they are either two names for the same topic or two related topics that can be covered in one article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

On the 2020 United States Senate election in Delaware, an IP address user continues to remove sourced content where the Republican nominee is described as a Trump supporter. Sources include CBS News, Chicago Tribune and The Daily Beast. I have already warned this user. Can this page be locked, so the vandalism ends? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Pennsylvania2. I suggest you post on the article's talk page and discuss this issue with the I.P. Should the need arise, the venue for filing protection requests is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Zindor (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Pennsylvania2 - This does not appear to be vandalism, but a content dispute. Not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Semi-protection can still be used if an unregistered editor edits stubbornly and does not discuss. Not every edit that you dislike is vandalism. Not even every disruptive non-neutral edit is vandalism. Political editing can get unpleasant. Please do not make it unnecessarily unpleasant by yelling vandalism when it is an unpleasant political content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Is my page up on Terry Williams (sociology) complete ?

Is my page up on Terry Williams (Sociologist) complete ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Williams_(Sociologist) Pcdevitt (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pcdevitt and welcome to the Teahouse.

No, Terry Williams (Sociologist) is not complete. It currently reads like a resume or CV, not like an encyclopedia article. It has a list of Williams's publications, and of the positions he has held, but nothing summarizing what others have written about him. It says that he has been covered in various publications, but does not cite any of them, so there is no way for a reader to verify this. In fact it does not actually cite any sources at all, which is not acceptable for a biography article about a living person (see WP:BLP and WP:BIO). It does not establish Williams's notability. See Our guideline to the notability of academics. If not improved, this might well be deleted shortly. Please read Your First Article, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, and Referencing for Beginners, as well as the other pages I have linked above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pcdevitt: Note: Article has been moved to draft space at Draft:Terry Williams (Sociologist). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Second note: Draft has been deleted for copyright violations. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A copy-and-paste was made to another page which eventually wound up at Draft:Terry Williams (sociologist). That page has been cleaned and the copyright issues revision-deleted away. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do categories for people by century go by birth year?

I'm new to categorizing articles and came across Category:Nigerian medical doctors, which has subcategories Category:20th-century Nigerian medical doctors and Category:21st-century Nigerian medical doctors. My assumption is that each person should be placed in just one of these according to birth year (which would mean all the articles in the 21-century category are misplaced), but I guess it's possible that we include people in any category during which they were alive and/or were active in the field (in which case a whole lot of those in the 20th-century category should be also added to 21st). Can someone please confirm which case is correct? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I found my answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories/Archive_6#Which_century_to_use_when_breaking_down_by_century. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fyrael: I'd say based on all the years they were "active" as doctors (generally med school through death?). Ameyo Adadevoh is appropriately in both 20th and 21st categories. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the conclusion I came to based on the archived discussion. Seems like a whole lot of those in 20th century should be added to 21st then. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Archive 1074: "Images in infobox showing death / suffering"

Referring to: Teahouse Archive 1074: "Images in infobox showing death / suffering" <-- need help to link this properly, sorry.

Just came across this discussion/question User:Konkorde started then. And I hope this is the right place to discuss it further. If not, please refer me to it. While I agree, that WP should not be self-censored: I would draw the line where the moment of death is involved. (Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, some words escape me.) Maresa63 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Maresa63, if you'd like to have a discussion about what Wikipedia policy should be about this, I'd recommend starting at WP:VPP. Or if this concerns a specific article, I'd recommend starting a discussion at that article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Killing of George Floyd, but I believe this has been discussed there repeatedly). The Teahouse isn't the best place to have discussions about what policy should be. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Calliopejen1. I'll look for discussions there, if not for chiming in, then at least for readind. --Maresa63 (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing the "introduce improved citations" message at the top of the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Wilson The information is all correct and I don't want the question box at the top of the page. 83.150.248.44 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The box at the top of the page was there for a good reason. The only statement in the article supported by a reference was the subject's date of birth. An article that lacks references to establish that its subject is notable and to verify its content is liable to be deleted. I have reverted the article to its state before you deleted all its referenced content, thereby removing the box and averting the risk of deletion. Maproom (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom: Another concern here are .44's edit summaries: "changed in accordance to named person's wishes." and "As per author's instruction". I think that this may be a problem, (in addition to the wholesale removal of sources.) What do you think? If the article was "about me", I wouldn't want the sources removed! Confused...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, I agree. All of the IP's contributions to Wikipedia have been to Des Wilson, or to make the request above. They have been made at Wilson's request, and in contravention of various Wikipedia policies – though in good faith. 83.150.248.44, if you're reading this: you ought not, as an agent of Wilson, be editing the article at all. The proper way for you to proceed is to specify the changes the subject would like on the article's talk page, where they can be considered by editors familiar with Wikipedia's rules. One relevant rule is that new material should not be added without being referenced to sources; another is that referenced content should not be removed without a very good reason. Maproom (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Strange evaluation of a article draft

The draft Draft:Vladimír Daněk was declined by the User:Nightenbelle and here is his reason: "Most sources are primary, subject has not placed better than 2nd in regional tournaments and has received almost no coverage by independent secondary sources outside of his niche."

The note: "subject has not placed better than 2nd in regional tournaments" clearly shows that User:Nightenbelle did not read the draft at all. As the subject won regional (national) championship more than 10times and placed 2nd at the 1997 European Championships. I have to assume that he evaluates draft that is out of his scope. Is this procedure standard for wiki editors? To1al (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I do believe that Nightenbelle (who is a "she") should have declined the draft rather than rejected it; the former leaves the possibility to review and resubmit. She might want to comment here now that she was pinged.

This being said, the crux of the matter is that current sources do not demonstrate notability, i.e. that there are multiple sources (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, (3) writing/talking about the subject at length. I could not find anything more than pseudo-interviews where VD is interviewed ex officio to give an expert comment on Go matters. Note that search results are polluted by a Slovak chemist homonym.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Go#Notability_of_Professional_Go-players gives a criterion that may or may not be accurate to assume players above "professional 4-dan" can be assumed notable. If that criterion is correct, and I read correctly the Elo-rank conversion table at Go_ranks_and_ratings#Elo_ratings_as_used_in_Go, then VD's highest rating of 2635 falls well short of that criterion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

the reason I rejected rather than decline was because I had to do some research to learn a bit about the game and subject before I could review the article.... in doing so I found no more sources on the subject.... so I didn’t see how it could possibly have been resubmitted and have a chance at success. I probably should have just declined anyway but... the sad fact is- some people can be absolutely amazing at what they do- and still not qualify for an article. Especially in a niche area. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your oppinion. For the norability matter: there are some almanacs weher is VD citeted, but they are focused on go only. Probably still will be considerd as insufficient. But what about the point where one of the reason was "subject has not placed better than 2nd in regional tournaments" which is definitely not true. To1al (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@To1al: The placement reason was wrong, but it also was irrelevant, which is why I did not mention it.

Re almanacs, there are two points: whether the source is reliable and independent and whether it describes the subject at length. Being a Go-centric publication is not a problem in itself, although there might be problems of independence (e.g. if a friend of the editor is the subject of the article). The real problem is rather the second criterion - in my understanding of the term, "almanachs" mean basic reports of tournament results, player ratings etc. which would fail the "describe at length" test.

Take as an example Europe Échecs. That is a chess magazine; I assume no non-chess player reads it, and it probably has a much lower circulation than obscure regional newspapers; but it is generally considered fairly good for reporting on chess topics. A detailed article about the career evolution of player X would probably be a solid source supporting the notability of that player. However, a tournament report that X placed at such-and-such place against such-and-such opponents would not, because it does not "describe the subject at length", it only is a WP:ROUTINE announcement of things that the magazine would have covered regardless of which player got which results. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you for the explanation. Based on this argumentation, all players outside of Asia would not satisfy above criteria. That means, there should not exist any article describing European players as well as European pros List of Go players. Which is not true or the pages should not be on wikipedia. Am I correct? To1al (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@To1al: Not necessarily. Articles are evaluated on an individual basis. For example, Antti_Törmänen_(Go_player) (the first page I clicked) has two sources that meet GNG criteria to my eyes (interviews such as this do not count much because the content of the interview is obviously not independent of the person. If you find another article lacking sources, try to find some and if you do not, nominate it for deletion (or bring it up here and we will do the nomination for you). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Can books be sources? I am having some trouble with Brendon Tuuta (rugby league). I want to add information from the highly-respected Rothmans Rugby League Yearbooks. Is this acceptable? Do I need to add page numbers? Garyslater61 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

2409:4064:4E8C:6699:75AE:B4CB:4BD3:6B7D (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Garyslater61: yes, books and other written texts like newspaper articles are acceptable sources, as long as they are published and can in theory be accessed by the interested reader. And YES, you need page numbers. The persons that want to check verification status are not going to read 1000 pages yust to confirm something. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

G5?

Hello! I have a question. If a blocked user created a few pages, will all of them be deleted as per CSD G5?Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Corrosive liquid) 13:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Corrosive liquid) 13:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Acid Of Carbon, only those created during the time that they were blocked. The pages that they created before being blocked, between their blocks or after their last block do not qualify. In addition, such pages should not have significant contributions from other editors who were not blocked or banned at the time that they contributed to them. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

confusion challenge ... where is my post my article

Nazarasvitlo (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nazarasvitlo: Are you talking about Draft:Nazar Pankiv? If yes, that draft was deleted over one year ago because it was not worked on for 6 months. It was not a live article. You can generally request the draft to be restored, but unless you can demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NPERSON, you are probbbably wasting your time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving Articles from Draft to Mainspace

I used Articles of Creation to make an article about a subject I had a conflict of interest on, and then submitted it for review. To have an article reviewed more quickly Wikipedia told me to add tags, but when I tried to add tags it said the article couldn't be found, so I figured that this was because it was a draft and moved it to the mainspace. Now it says that the article has been reviewed, and I'm a little afraid that I did that, and this means that I shouldn't have moved it. It seems unlikely that someone already reviewed it, and that's making me think that maybe I was supposed to leave it in drafts and I accidentally sidestepped the process? It's my first article, so I haven't done this before.

Should I move it back to drafts? The article is entitled "Daxbot (Robot)" Lizzythetech (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The text is now at Draft:Daxbot (Robot), Lizzythetech. As a paid editor you should not move it to mainspace yourself, but wait for a reviewer to approve it and do so. It has now had one AfC review, with a result of "decline" which means "not ready yet, improve this and try again".

I am not clear what sort of tags you tried to add, or exactly what message you got. If you want help with that, please provide more detail. Quite a few different things can be referred to as "tags" here. (Think of it like a bug report from a user. Exact detail matters.)

Please fill out the references more. In particular indicate who is responsible for a source. When it is on a company website, this must be indicated clearly. In addition, please supply the publication date and the author, when these are known. When the publisher adds useful context, please suppl;y that too. See referencing for Beginners, please. When a source is online, please give the date retrieved. This helps find the proper archive version, should a link go dead later.

On the merits of the draft itself, it is not ready for the main article space yet, in my view. There are not yet enough independent published reliable sources that give significant coverage. Three of the 6 current sources are not independent. One is purely local coverage. One is about an award of debatable significance. One is at least partly an interview, which reduces its value, and I'm not sure of the reliability of Freight Waves. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I can't say how much I appreciate the help. I updated the article (someone commented that it sounded like an advertisement, and I saw what they meant), and added a few secondary sources. I'd love any more feedback on whether it's ready before I re-submit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzythetech (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft approved, Lizzythetech. Oh in future please indent replies with one more colon at the start of each paragraph then the previous msg in the thread had. (use {{od}} if indents get excessive.) And please in future remember to sign your discussion and talk-page posts (but never articles) with four tildes (~~~~). I hope you continue to edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yay!! Thank you for the tip! I'll be sure and do that. Lizzythetech (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User Page

I have only been here for around five days, so I'm new. I don't have a user page, though from what I understand, I should have one. I made one, but on the wrong place. I accidentally made it on Wikipedia's article sandbox, where you make normal articles. I submitted because I thought that I was submitting it for a user page, but found out it was on the wrong place when I saw a button at the bottom saying "this is probably on the wrong place. Move this to a User page here." or something along the lines of that. I don't quite remember. I tried to move the page, but my account wasn't yet four days old, so I couldn't move it. It is now five days old, and I was going to move it, only to find out it had already been reviewed and rejected. This all caused some questions. Do I still need the User Page? How do I move it to where it's supposed to be? Where is it supposed to be? How do I submit it for being a User Page? SquirrelB8 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello SquirrelB8. You do not need to "submit" your user page anywhere. Just click on your red linked signature, start the page, write something about yourself and hit "Publish changes". That's it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@SquirrelB8: Note that you don't have to have a user page – many users don't. It's not like a social media profile. It's just a place to briefly introduce yourself, collect useful links and lists for your work here, etc. You can see your contributions at Special:Contributions/SquirrelB8. The page you've been working on is User:SquirrelB8/sandbox/User:SquirrelB8 instead of User:SquirrelB8. The easiest thing to do in this case, since it is all your own work, is to open the sandbox link, copy the contents from the edit window, click on User:SquirrelB8, paste the contents in the edit window, and save it. You can ask that the old page be deleted by adding {{db-u1}} at the top of the text and an admin will come along and delete it at some point. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

missing information

Hello, everyone! I have a question. I can't understand what else information is missing from my article. I think I've found enough reviews and articles about this person, but looks like that's not enough, I don't understand what I should do; can you tell me how to improve it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anton_Adasinsky. Its written that "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject "???? MakhinaDzhu (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MakhinaDzhu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that the draft has not been reviewed since it was restored after G13 deletion. Improvements done since then have not yet been checked. I am looking at the draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I go about developing an article on a Nigerian Politician

I would like to begin developing an article on a politician. How do I go about this? JanussunaJAI (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JanussunaJAI, and welcoem to the Teahouse.

Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, perhaps the hardest an inexperienced user is likely to face. I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.

Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.

The following steps, if followed carefully, often lead to success.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Janussuna, and welcome to the Teahouse! The best way to create an article is through this page. Have a read of it and follow the instructions. It's a great way to learn how we create articles, and what makes a successful one, as well as good way to get familiar with our Articles for Creation process, the way in which most articles are published. Hope this helps. Giraffer ^munch 16:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Google docs as a reliable source

The article Leah Penniman cites a google doc that Penniman wrote herself describing pronoun usage. Is this a reliable source? I couldn't find anything about it specifically in WP:RELIABILITY but maybe it counts as a self-published source. Thanks 9H48F (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

9H48F, good grief, that section of the article is ridiculous. We can use a self-published source for such information, but in this case I'd limit it to something in a 'Personal life' section like "Penniman identifies as genderqueer." Everything else...no. —valereee (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Valereee thank you! 9H48F (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the "Nevada" page was vandalized.

I went to the "Nevada" page here in Wikipedia, then I saw it vandalized. Can someone please go to the "Nevada" page, and fix it, and put a warning inside the "edit"? MannyPC (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like that editor has been busy but his work is already being reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Update All of those edits have been reverted and the editor has been notified. For what its worth, I would not consider this vandalism but rather a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia by an editor who did not realize those edits would be controversial. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

new user

Hello. I created a page on a public office holder but when it is searched on google etc., I can't see a thumbnail for the photo, an overview or a short description under the name, as it appears for other similar wikipedia articles of politicians? How can I add these features to my article? Thank you! Khabarnama (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Khabarnama, welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you are experiencing that problem because Google's crawlers haven't indexed the page yet. It's just a case of waiting. Regards, Zindor (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles are only indexed when they are atleast 90 days old, see WP:INDEXING --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 17:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Nintendofan885 that isn't quite correct. Articles are indexed after 90 days, or after a member of the New Page Patreol reviews the article, whichever coems first. After that time the article can be indexed by search engines, but they do not always do so at once, and Wikipedia has no control over that. @Khabarnama and Zindor: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@DSSiegel: Oh right, I didn't see the NPP bit when I read the page when I read the page the first time --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 17:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Syed Sajjad Bokhari, which i assumed was the article in question, the draft was moved by an editor with the autopatrolled flag; which had the same effect an NPP review would. It is possible to manually add a url into Google's indexing queue but that's typically a waste of time given how fast indexing can happen nowadays. On rarer occasions Google ignores metadata completely and indexes unreviewed pages. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do all pages lead to philosophy? Why or why not?

An xkcd comic claims that if you click the first link not in parentheses in any wikipedia page, and keep doing that, you would eventually reach to the page philosophy. Is there a proof for this? If so, what is it? Are there any counterexamples? What would make a page a counterexample? 18:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

haha. I just tried 6 random articles and did indeed end up there. To prove it or disprove it generally, I think you would need a database WP:DUMP and then crawl through all the links to see where they lead. RudolfRed (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy which discusses this. Its talk page shows counterexamples. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See ALL WIKIPEDIA ROADS LEAD TO PHILOSOPHY, BUT SOME OF THEM GO THROUGH SOUTHEAST EUROPE FIRST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WIkipedia

So i have a question i have been getting reports that people are editing dumb stuff is this true Thegoat999 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thegoat99, anyone can edit, so naturally there are going to be a few unhelpful edits. Some are made in good faith, others are vandalism and should be undone. I am what we call a counter-vandal, in that my primary work here is reverting vandalism. Take a look through my contributions to see what vandalism reversion is like. Regards, Giraffer ^munch 19:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

When editing how can I add colour

Waivarosa (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Waivarosa, could you be a little more specific? (i.e. what you want to change the color of?) Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Stupid question but how do you add replies to others' talk page threads?

I see it all the time with them indented, do you just tab or is it something else? Mossypiglet (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mossypiglet, hello! Indenting is done by adding colons (:), See WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mossypiglet, it is a colon. Giraffer ^munch 20:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You

can

indent

text

quite

a

lot

by

just

adding

more

colons!

Take a look at the wikitext for this section to see how they are used. Giraffer ^munch 20:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossypiglet (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Article concerns

Hi, I wrote an article about Smart Computing and I wanted to know how to change the title of the article and if it will be published in a permanent link ? Hamadanouri (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:Hamadanouri/sandbox ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hamadanouri: The usual way is to click on the "submit your draft for review" and someone will move it to Draft:Smart Computing and later on someone will review it. HOWEVER, I read it and my first questions I would ask if reviewing this is "Why is it capitalized? Is it a trademark or other commercial term? If it is, who 'owns' the term - an industry standards body, a school or other institution, or a for-profit entity? Would anyone benefit financially from having this page created? Does the primary author of the page have a conflict of interest that should be declared? Is a paid editing disclosure required?" If it is not a trademarked or other "proper noun" term, I would also have questions like "is this content better placed in existing articles, such as smart object, distributed computing, and edge computing?" If you do submit it, I recommend you move the page to Draft:Smart Computing yourself, create the Draft talk:Smart Computing talk page, preemptively answer these questions, THEN submit it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Now exists as Draft:Smart computing (platform) and has been Declined (meaning see if you can make it better, per the reviewer's comments). David notMD (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Choosing a "country of origin" for a TV show

I was going through the Wikipedia rules today but couldn't find any part of the rules or guidance which talk about a country of origin for a TV show or other media production (like an animated series). I'm interested in this because I'd like to cite a part of the rules on the Roswell Conspiracies: Aliens, Myths and Legends talk page. Anyway, I'd like to know, is there are specific part of the Wikipedia rules / guidance which talks about this? I'd imagine there is, but I just didn't know where to look. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Historyday01 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Historyday01: If no one here replies promptly, I'd recommend asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television where you will probably find the people most experienced in this issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if anyone will respond to that there next. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Inserting Team Win-Loss Records as a Column Corresponding to a Players Statistics Row per Season on Player Statistics Tables

I suggest that adding a Column showing Win and Loss Record per player season should be incorporated into every Player's Statistics Table for all athletes. 2605:E000:9ACB:FC00:D062:48F2:C6F6:C4E4 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what it is that you're proposing, but I'd recommend you post your proposal at WT:SPORT rather than here; editors here can answer your questions but can't really determine the policies about what content articles should contain. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Contractions in articles

Is it grammatically correct to use contractions like don't and won't etc. in articles? I've seen it go both ways and I don't know which is correct. Meetertound (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Meetertound (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Meetertound, could you give an example? I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but the answer to your question probably lies somewhere here. Giraffer ^munch 20:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Meetertound, hello! See MOS:CONTRACTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That helped. Thanks! Yeah, I meant shortened alternatives for full verbs (e.g. don't, would've, she'll). Meetertound (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Meetertound, generally when I use those, someone comes along behind me and corrects them to do not, would have, she will. I believe I am the one in the wrong, here, but I have a difficult time training myself to do this as it does not come naturally to me. :D —valereee (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

How can we get help/ guidance for a wiki- hackathon?

We have a group of people interested in updating an article on Wikipedia. We plan to host a session to update and add information to this section as it is related to a field of work we are involved in. We would love to invite a current editor to help guide and participate so we are doing this well.[[5]] (cross posting from Talk page) MassCollaboration (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC) MassCollaboration (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MassCollaboration: Just so I understand this correctly, you're intending to have a group of editors collaboratively improve the article Entrepreneurship ecosystem? And can you let us know whether you have any commercial interest (see WP:COI) relating to the subject of the article? With this information, we'll be able to help you better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I am a community activator for a foundation that focuses on entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial ecosystem building is one of our focus areas. There is a community of practitioners we have been convening for some time and one of our goal projects is to update the wiki entry. We have an event coming up next week and we would like to host a mini- hackathon. There is no plan to monetize any of the information and I am happy to share the event, backstory and answer any questions you may have. It's a unique opportunity wherein a large number of people who identify as entrepreneurial ecosystem builders would work in collaboration to add to the article.MassCollaboration (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MassCollaboration: Hmm. I would recommend declaring your conflict of interest on your userpage and reading WP:PAID (I don't know offhand whether you qualify here, but read the policy and comply with whatever it requires). Step one to improving the article is identifying reliable sources about the topic -- books, journal articles, newspaper/magazine articles probably to a lesser extent. Step two is reading those sources and incorporating the information from them into the article. You could do step one before the event and distribute sources to your attendees. Or you could have attendees identify sources during the event and work from them. What you want to AVOID is people writing the article from their own personal knowledge, which violates Wikipedia policies and will likely end up being quickly removed. Please emphasize the need to work from the sources. I'm not sure if there is an easy way to advertise for someone to help you with your event. You could also try posting at WP:VPM. I'd advise you to read Wikipedia:Expert editors to understand some of the pitfalls you may encounter. And PLEASE do not introduce promotional content into the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful resources. I'll share this information with the other facilitators and participants. Is there a way I can DM you or others to fully explain the event and who the attendees are? MassCollaboration (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@MassCollaboration: To be honest, I have next to no interest in this subject area, so I'm not inclined to get further involved (we're all volunteers here!). You could post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business to see if anyone there is interested? You might also want to post at the relevant geographic location Wikiproject to see if any local editors want to help you, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts. Or you could look at the contacts at WP:GLAM. You're not exactly in the GLAM space but maybe someone there could point you in the right direction... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! MassCollaboration (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to link nationailities in articles?

Sometimes in articles, I see stuff like American or British as adjective for the subject's origins linked, but I'm not sure if this is needed? People can usually understand these everyday words. Meetertound (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Meetertound (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Meetertound, MOS:OVERLINK agrees with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Permission to edit article "Fuck."

How do I get permission to edit the article "Fuck"? My edit would add an example of the use of the word in the section titled F-bomb. The edit would appear at the end of the section. "Another example of use of the word occurred when Heisman Trophy winner and future first round draft pick of the Tampa Bay Bucs stood on a table in the Florida State University Student Union and shouted,, "Fuck her right in the Pussy." Pierre, Natalie "Florida State Suspends Jameis Winston for Clemson Game" Tallahassee Democrat. Sept. 20, 2014). John D. Maher (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello John D. Maher! Per WP:SEMI, you should be able to edit it now. However, IMO an edit like that will probably be reverted, with a motivation like "per WP:PROPORTION, who cares?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: Forgive me for making this observation, but, because you are a complete newcomer to Wikipedia with a lot to learn about our ways and methods, and despite being a mature professional person, I can't help thinking your skills and efforts would be far better directed towards editing articles which are simpler and easier to improve than this one. I have reverted your edit for the reason explained in my edit summary. We have over 6,000,000+ articles here, many crying out for major improvements which any competent English writer such as yourself could enhance with ease. You might wish to read WP:REFBEGIN to learn how to add good citations to some of these articles. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mistake on Conflict of Interest, Can I remove it from my page?

Hi! I am requesting help regarding conflict of interest in my own personal page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zmlutz15. I misunderstood the requirements for a conflict of interest. For some background info, I became interested in becoming an active Wikipedia user during the quarantine. When setting up my account, I wanted to use it to update specific areas of interest/importance to me as I worked through my graduate studies in business sustainability. Particularly, I wanted to add in new information while I read through my newer textbooks. When asked if I had any conflicts of interest when setting up my account I added the author of my textbook because he is also a professor at the same school. However, I am merely just one student in a large classroom of grad students and the professor, Dr. Sroufe, is unaware of my personal hobby in Wikipedia and my interest in adding some research from his books to certain pages. Per my understanding, this is not a conflict of interest defined by Wikipedia. Therefore I would like to remove my conflict of interest from my page because I have attempted to publish numerous edits about sustainability, but they are always taken down by other users that cite my conflict of interest. I really want to keep editing on Wikipedia and don't want my newfound interest to be ended because of a simple mistake. Can someone help provide me with the steps to remove this conflict of interest from my page?

Thanks! Zmlutz15 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Zmlutz15, I would remove the template, but leave a sentence saying that you are editing about sustainability as a hobby, but that you do have ties to the person you mentioned, and that it might be helpful for others to know. The template is generally used more by people who have a formal COI (i.e. being hired or directly asked to edit about a person) as opposed to an informal COI (merely knowing the person). I would also try to use other sources when possible, to avoid giving the impression that his sources are your focus. While not disallowed, removing all traces of a past COI will seem a little strange in some editor's eyes.

N.B. I am not an expert on COIs so anyone can feel free to correct me if I have gotten something wrong. Regards, Giraffer ^munch 20:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zmlutz15: If you will not be taking any classes from him and he will not have any effect on your academic career or be providing you with any other benefit, then you are probably okay, assuming you don't have any other "close connection" to him. If it's more than remotely possible that you will take a class he teaches, that you will ask him for a letter of recommendation, or that you will work under his supervision in the next few years, then you should consider yourself as having a "conflict of interest" until that is no longer the case. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps avoid using as references any work written by Dr. Sroufe. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you attempted to create an article about Dr. Sroufe, which was Speedy deleted as promotional, and that the only editing you have been doing since June is adding Sroufe as a Reference or Further reading to various articles. That is considered spamming. Find another avenue for your desire to be a contributing editor. David notMD (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Why does Mass killings under communist regimes preview text say "a bunch of bourgeois nonsense" when linked outside of Wikipedia? How can I fix this?

Rusentaja (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Because somebody had vandalised the Wikidata entity d:Q2235125. Thank you for pointing this out, Rusentaja: I have reverted it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

My edits are not being retained. It seems to be available for few hours and after that reverts back to original

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahith_Theegala

I am adding another section called Low Scores in between Professional Career and Amateur Wins. My edits are not being retained. It seems to be available for few hours and after that reverts back to original Ssmywiki (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You edited the article one time and it was reverted by an editor who described it as trivia. The proper place to take this up is the Talk page of the article, or else the Talk page of that editor. Personally, I agree that a low score in any tournament is not useful information, unless perhaps setting a course record at a notable course. David notMD (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

How to repeat the same number for inline citations?

Hello, if I want to cite the same source twice or more in an article, how do I get it to display [1] multiple times instead of [1],[2],[3] for the same source Mossypiglet (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:NAMEDREFS. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding an infobox

Hello- How do I create and insert an information box in an article? Thank you in advance. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Maryphillips1952 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maryphillips1952 and welcome to the Teahouse. Such boxes are normally called "infoboxes" here. Usually there is no need to create a new infobox -- there will be an existing box that mcan be used. Infoboxes are implemented as templates, and are inserted by placing the name in double braces followed by any parameters. Example: {{Name here |parm1=value |parm2=value}}

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, Help:Infobox, Wikipedia:List of infoboxes, and Category:Infobox templates.. See also Help:Template.

Different infoboxes support different parameters. Only the supported parameters can be used -- any others will simply be ignored.

I can't advise which infobox would work best without knowing what article you have in mind. Not all articles need or would benefit from an infobox, and one is never required. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel, I have a question along the same lines. Is it possible to insert a Infobox on your User page? (Please note that i'm not trying to interrupt your conversation, and will gladly move my question elsewhere.) Cheers, Shadowblade08 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It is technically possible, Shadowblade08 but very strongly discouraged. It makes the user page look like an attempt at an artivcel, whoich may be enough to get the entire page deleted under WP:CSD#U5 (use of wikipedia as a web host). Your user page should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. Brief biographical info is OK, but there should not be enough that an infobox would make sense. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thank you all for the links and help. I created and inserted my first infobox (Cecilia Arizti) following the template of another musician's infobox.I have a question about placement on the page and how to place further up on the page. Thank you for your feedback. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maryphillips1952: At Cecilia Arizti, the infobox is correctly placed at the top of the page and renders correctly, AFAICT. What do you see wrong? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if it should be further upon the page,but not sure. I appreciate your prompt feedback. Thank you!Maryphillips1952 (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In this edit I moved the info box from below the lead section to the very top. As the lead is short the difference is small, but visible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot to look at the history to see if I was looking at the same version as Mary. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks great! Thank you!Maryphillips1952 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

   I added two successful infoboxes following the template.  However, I am having problems inserting the following infobox in María de las Mercedes Adam de Aróstegui.

Thank you in advance...Another question... finding photo images to use. How do you know if there is photo available in Wikicommons? Can I upload a photo in the public domain when I perform a Google search - public domain? Thank you!Maryphillips1952 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maryphillips1952: You had missed a closing ] on the birth_place parameter and didnt actually closed the outer infobox. I have added it. I have also deleted two duplicate params. Regarding images, plase do NOT upload images found using a google search to Wikimedia Commons. 99% of the images found on the internet are copyrighted, and the fact that they are freely available doesnt change that. If you want to know if there is a photo already on Wikimedia Commons, I sugegst using the search function with the namespaces set to "File" and a resonably keyword. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt mobil, some photos found on the web are public domain and can be uploaded to commons. Maryphillips1952 is asking about finding those by searching google for images that are categorized that way. MP1952, you can upload such photos to Wikimedia Commons, but be careful to fill out every box you possibly can very thoroughly when you are filling out the licensing portions. :) —valereee (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952 If you can find public domain images via Google search, or in any other way, you may upload them to Wikimedia commons. But you must be confident that the image is in fact in the public domain. Images (and other works_ first published before 1925 are in the public domain under US law (which commons uses). Images never published, but created before 1900, or whose creators died before 1950, are also PD. There are other ways for an image or other work to become PD, see this famous chart for details. But it is not sufficient that a google search for PD works returned a particular image. (We don't know how Google makes such determinations in a given case, but it can well be incorrect.) You must specifically confirm that the particular image qualifies, and in the upload explain why the image is PD. In that regard Valereee is quite correct above. If you can find an image already on commons that fits the article, that saves any concern over the matter. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

   Thank you, everyone. I really appreciate all your help.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

infobox template query

How to add links/citations in an infobox template Allin96 (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Allin96. You add links and citations to infoboxes pretty much the same way that you add links and citations to any Wikipedia article. There some minor variations that should be explained in the template documentation. Looking at the wikicode behind a successful implementation of a specific template can be enlightening. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

deletion discussion

Where I how do I post my comments in a deletion discussion? Lausapwow (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Below the other editors. Please be advised that XfD's are not a vote. See also WP:AFDFORMAT. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says "X" so you are wrong.

I have a concern that needs some other editor's perspective.

I make good faith edits and get reverted or edited over with the justification that "The Manual of Style" says so and so.

It seems that some parts of the MoS is good policy and reflects a necessary "rule" to follow.

It seems that some part of the MoS is good guidance.

It seems that some editors strongly believe that every word of the MoS is Wikipedia dogma and must be followed without question.

In the Squaw Valley Ski Resort article, editor @Jtbobwaysf was adamant that the led must have only 4 paragraphs rather than 5. The edit was justified with the "excessive paragraphs in the Lead Paragraph". The edit to make the 5 paragraphs into 4 paragraphs just deleted a line feed so it added the "fifth" paragraph to the end of the preceding paragraph without consideration of the importance of the paragraph.

Jamming two paragraphs together is not supportive of information presentation. With the "forbidden fifth paragraph" obscured, a reader could easily miss something that might be the key to continue reading the article.

In this case, the offending paragraph was about Squaw hosting 1960 Olympics, which was without a doubt, is the seminal event in the history of Squaw Valley. Here is the "dif" for that edit:

Dogmatic following of the MoS potentially diminishes the quality of content and content presentation.

Reasons for doing unnecessary edits because "The Manual of Style says "X" so you are wrong" is not necessarily good Wikipedianship.

What is a reasonable approach with regard to some of the more benign "violations" of the MoS?

Osomite ^hablemos 21:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Osomite: MOS:LEADLENGTH already says that it is not an absolute rule. Discuss on the article's talk page to get consensus on what would be the best fit for the opening section of the article. If you can't get consensus, then follow the guidelines at WP:DR to resolve the dispute. RudolfRed (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed is quite correct. It appears that this has been discussed (and i hope settled) at Talk:Squaw Valley Ski Resort, which is the correct place. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The OP was trying to add a single sentence that Squaw Valley was the host of the olympics, and admitted that was insufficient weight. I disagreed with the single sentence approach and moved the sentence up into the first paragraph. Hard to believe this is now here being discussed again. Seems to be PR edits, or at least an editor really stuck on the importance or reputation of Squaw Valley. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How I create a page for bussiness

Azhar ameen (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If the business is one you are affiliated with in any way, the answer is "It's best if you don't, but if you insist, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid editing disclosure first." Before any editor creates any article, they should read or at least skim over all of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. It also is very helpful to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Five pillars, although the last pillar, "Wikipedia has no firm rules," is a bit outdated, the paid disclosure-requirement is an example of a firm rule that is not negotiable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Azhar ameen. Please remember that Wikipedia articles are not for the benefit of the subject of the article. If the subject gets some benefit from it, that is good fortune for them, but that is not Wikipedia's purpose. --ColinFine (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Links to categories

how to add links to categories for a draft article. The category page already exists but when i try to link it using Insert link on my draft article, it says that category page doesn't exist. Here is the link for my draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laborate_Pharmaceuticals_India_Limited Unable to link the categories,want them to get linked and blue'd xD Allin96 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Allin96: I have fixed it for you. <nowiki> Prevents anything from being interpreted by the parser, therefore, links dont work. The categories are still wrapped in {{Draft categories}} to prevent the draft from showing up in article space categories (which is not allowed). Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review draft article

Hello admin, an article have in my draft space. And i have improved the article. So can anyone please review the article. And if the article is eligible thn please move it on to the article space ?? Waiting bror your reply. Thanks Myslfsbhijit (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Myslfsbhijit You have submitted it and it is pending review. As noted in your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,571 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello,331dot thanks for your reply. Can you please check once ??? Link - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pathikrit_Basu

Myslfsbhijit As I've said, you will need to be patient. Do you have some sort of urgent need to get it moved into article space? 331dot (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I predict Draft:Pathikrit Basu will be Declined again. You have done little after the first Declined. The references confirm he is a director of movies, but the ones I can read (English) are not about him, only mentioning his name in the process of describing the movies. There is no information in the text about his early life, education, career before becoming a director, being a director = all of which would require references. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello , 331dot thanks for your reply. I don't have any urgency. Got your answer. Thanks

Hello David notMD thanks for you review .

notation of birthplace

Some guy, calling himself "helper", not registered here, is changing the birthplace to "West-Germany" instead of Germany, claiming that at the time of birth, Germany was divided... i undid his change twice - but i fear, he will go on with it... so do i really have to change all the birthplaces in my articles to West or East-Germany if they were before the reunitation??? Sounds absurd to me, but i bow my head to your opinions... *grumpf* :-) --Gyanda (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There is a VERY LONG discussion on country of birth at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth, which sadly does not discuss West/East Germany as an example, but it appears that from Wikipedia articles West Germany and East Germany these were recognized officially as separate countries from 1949-1990. David notMD (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gyanda The "clearest" guidance on this I know is Template:Infobox person, "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth" and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Place_names. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. Personally i don't find this helping to divide the birthplace in east and west, for me this only adds to a distinction, which we as a country try to overcome for years, but as it is the convention, I'll of course accept it. Thanks again, --Gyanda (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair Use Image & Deletion Request

Hi, Would greatly appreciate some assistance to correctly use or delete an image on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Litman.

I wanted to add a low res image of a logo which was kindly provided, after my request, by the owner for use under FAIR USE guidelines. The image cannot be stolen & used for any significant benefit or damage. It is included only to educate & inform about a podcast. It is no different than an album cover or cover of a book. I have uploaded three versions, in response to BOT messages & trying to properly follow Wikipedia rules & process, but to no avail. I am besieged by bots & threats of deletion. Sadly, I am at the point of needing deletion of all three art files.

Can anyone help me either keep one image or to request that all three images be deleted? I really have no clue how to do either of these things.

Many thanks in advance, ApplePieMom ApplePieMom (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

ApplePieMom, please disclose any wp:coi you have with the article subject. We can work with you on that, but hiding it often ends with blocks from being able to edit. —valereee (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Message text. ApplePieMom (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi :Valeree, Thanks for responding. I have no Conflict of Interest wp:coi with the subject: I have no ties with the subject. I do not work for nor have I ever met the subject. As a listener of podcast I am familiar with subject’s work. Edits I have made are in the public domain ie print, online, tv. I contacted the subject for artwork. I wanted to learn about Wikipedia editing so I chose a simple subject to begin, something which lacked current info & which would allow me to work with artwork or a photo. The edits I made with links benefit users of Wikipedia. But, beyond simple text editing I am utterly lost. Your help would be greatly appreciated. —ApplePieMom

ApplePieMom, we allow fair-use images in very limited ways. This image is the logo for a podcast. A low-res version would totally be fair-use for the main image in an article about that podcast, but the only reason we could use it in Litman's article would be if something about the logo itself was being discussed. Like maybe someone had found it offensive or clever, and had written about that somewhere, and we'd reported what they wrote in the article about Litman in the section about the podcast. We could justify the fair use of that copyrighted image then, because it would be illustrating something we were discussing in the text. The reason behind all this is that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. The owner of an image can upload it themselves, but they'd be uploading it under a free-use license, which of course means anyone can use it for anything they want to use it for. When you sign your posts, use four tildes -- that puts not only your username but the time and date stamp. If you only use three, it leaves off the date. Not a big deal, but it helps other editors follow the conversation. :) —valereee (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry -- and you don't need to worry about the deleting, it'll happen automatically. I know it can be alarming to suddenly have all those warnings on your talk page, but you can delete them. They're really just notifications. :) We have a tutorial you can take, I've left a link to it on your talk. —valereee (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Thanks so much for reply & explanation. I totally understand. Can you assist me in deleting the visible logo image along with the 2 additional that I unintentionally uploaded? With much appreciation. ApplePieMom (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)ApplePieMom

ApplePieMom sorry, edit conflict. See above -- we were both responding at the same time. —valereee (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi :Valeree, Again thanks so very much for the Tutorial & info about how deletions work. ApplePieMom (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)ApplePieMom

Hi :Valeree, I just looked at the Harry Litman page and was astonished by edits that now included new spelling & grammatical errors & removal of factual information by people who fashion themselves as arbiters & editors. My interest in Wikipedia is as a professional editor & journalist and I am taken aback by today’s notations & errors. It’s one thing to ding me for making technical errors. It’s something else to editorialize. As a matter of principle & factual necessity I have made corrections, added factual information & citations. Your notation that it reads like a resume is concerning. Don’t the wikipedia bios of most accomplished govt officials read like resumes? As a former journalist I think the statement is biased, has a negative connotation and should be removed in the message. I also see discussion about the subject’s wife by another editor. From news, videos & published rankings she is in fact an accomplished jiu jitsu athlete & champion. As for the subject’s children their names appear in recent news articles. Again, as a trained journalist I sense bias and a disregard for unvarnished factual information. Very disappointing for a platform that has a lot of potential. ApplePieMom (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)ApplePieMom

ApplePieMom, Okay, in order: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. That means inaccuracies get inserted; we generally get it right in the end, but it can take a while. Removals of content by experienced editors are generally because the content wasn't cited to a reliable source or it was a copyvio. We try never to editorialize; if you see that, ping the editor to the talk page (use {{u|username}} and sign your post with four tildes to make sure the ping works). No bio should read like a resume; when we find one that doe, we suspect there's been COI editing and we mark it as such. We actively want that COI tag to have a negative connotation, as a way to discourage COI editors from editing directly instead of making edit requests at the talk page. We try to protect (possibly minor) children by not mentioning their names, even if they've been mentioned in press reports. Sorry you're disappointed, but honestly you're sounding more and more like a COI editor with literally every sentence you write. I strongly advise you to simply disclose it; we can help you if you do that, and we'll forgive you for doing it; we've seen it many times, and we understand the impulse. We can't help you if you have one and don't disclose it. —valereee (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, your pings are failing because you're using Valeree instead of Valereee, yeah, I know, it was a bad decision. —valereee (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi :Valereee, Thanks for your message. I think we’re just crossing wires. Most of the stuff you’re editing / removing has absolutely nothing to do with what I have contributed. Hardly a COI. The points I am making have to do with principle not the subject and my developing my understanding of Wikipedia editing. The same issues & questions are applicable to any article. I totally agree with you about not including children. But, as another editor noted, some info such as this is out in news stories, as I discovered in an online search was the case here. Also a connected person, like a spouse: shouldn’t their accomplishments be cited? In this case I did not know specifics, rankings, etc until I looked them up today. So I was citing facts: results, rankings. Again, my learning process: where was the issue? Lastly, I understand you have concern about COI as a Wikipedia Admin, something I fully agree with, but casting aspersions & making accusations is inappropriate and counterproductive, especially when someone notices several errors & fixes or flags them. As I said before my editing has been no more than a blip in this article. I would think that an editor who does research on a subject & contributes only facts & appropriate citations - not opinion or false material - would be welcomed at Wikipedia. Instead I was greeted with assumptions & accusations. Lesson learned. ApplePieMom (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)ApplePieMom

Hey, ApplePieMom, no aspersions intended. A spouse who doesn't have an article often isn't mentioned by name, but in this case since she has a reasonable claim to notability, I redlinked her. How did you know she was a three-times winner? Did I miss that in the source? —valereee (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW :Valereee, I agree with you that the whole article was generally a mess. As a new editor I think one overlooks the forest - the whole. After I saw your editing I understand what you have done. I see your focus. ApplePieMom (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)ApplePieMom

In truth, Valereee, both aspersions and false accusations came my way the more I asked questions and pointed out errors. I am in no way a major contributor to this article. But, I now have a pretty good picture as to what Wikipedia is all about. You ask how I know something, that the spouse is a 3 time champion. Where does anyone find info about rankings related to sporting events & athletes? Also, look at the citations that were in the original Wikipedia article that someone else put in. I wanted to learn about Wikipedia & editing & to do it correctly & with FACTS. Yet, attention to detail & facts obviously doesn’t sit well with Wikipedia experts. A person who is precise is harangued with COI & other nonsense. Or, maybe I have COI because I can spell perfectly while editing. I don’t know what redlink is, but I assume it is the red highlighted name, which from the article I first saw here is the mother, not the spouse. Btw: The spouse’s name also appears in media reports differently from what is on Wikipedia now. Why would a Wikipedia admin change someone’s name? Facts are facts. Or do they not matter on Wikipedia? Good luck to you Valereee. I now know for sure not to trust anything on Wikipedia. ApplePieMom (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)ApplePieMom

ApplePieMom I want you to learn about Wikipedia editing and to do it correctly, too. It's your statement that you do not know this person, and I will assume good faith and take you at your word. I think we can probably stop discussing here since there's now discussion happening at article talk, with multiple contributors. This will be very helpful for you, as it'll give you a chance to see how Wikipedia articles get improved and to work collaboratively to improve one. —valereee (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How long should it take for a new page to be published?

Hello

I have two questions, if I may:

How do I amend the title of a draft piece and how long should it take to get reviewed/published? The article is "Draft:Marshal Bailey OBE" but it should read Marshall Bailey OBE with two ls. I can't see how to amend this.

Thanks for your help in advance.

WriterWriting (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

WriterWriting, I have made some minor edits to your draft and submitted it for review; this may take several months. Another editor had already corrected the spelling of its title. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerns

Dear Sirs,

I read through your write up on C. W. Thamotharampillai (which is usually spelled in English as "Damodaran Pillai").

Please let me know who is the person/volunteer who wrote this write up for there is a factual historical error in this write up as it states that both U.V. Saminatha Iyer (a Tamil speaking brahmana) and C.W. Thamotharampillai published the Tolkappiyam! From my reading of the history surrounding the publishing of the Tolkappiyam, this is wholly incorrect as it was C.W. Thamotharampillai alone who single-handedly published the Tolkappiyam!

Please therefore correct this factual error as soon as possible. AndI would be interested to know whether the person/volunteer who wrote this write up with its factual historical error is himself a brahmana!

From: Mr. Sundara-M, Krishnan, Hong Kong/Singapore 202.85.38.153 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like many people have contributed to that article on C. W. Thamotharampillai over the years, details of which you can see here by clicking the 'View History' tab. It looks like the main contributor has been User:Kanags, and I am sure they would welcome your concerns and suggestions for change. But, rather than have a conversation about it here at the Teahouse, might I respectfully invite you to repost your concerns on the actual article's own talk page, where everyone interested in the subject will be able to see it and respond to it? You can find it at Talk:C. W. Thamotharampillai. When you do so, please remember to include full details of any reference work you are referring to, as we do not make changes based on personal opinion, but we do welcome citing published scholarly works which have written about that subject. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're here at the Teahouse you are presumably a Wikipedia editor yourself, so what is to stop you correcting the error yourself? The relevant page doesn't seem to have been edited since November 2018. If you go through the history you can probably work who introduced the error that you want corrected. Athel cb (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Help on Draft

Hello, does anyone know how I could confirm and publish a draft page I am working on? Draft:ICEY_ARTS I have more material to add but I would like to do it afterwards, in case that the draft page is not verified by Wikipedia. PAndreas 10 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added a template marking your draft as part of the Articles for Creation project. This includes a blue "Submit" button. When you think the draft is ready, you can click the submit button, and it will be added to a group waiting for review. In time a reviewer will look at the draft, and either approve it, and move it to the article main space, or decline it, giving reasons why it is not yet ready, and which will guide you to improve and try again. Unfortunately, there are over 3,000 drafts awaiting review. Reviewers pick whichever they please, so a draft may be reviewed in a few days, or may wait for two months or more for a review. It is OK to continue to work o a draft while it is waiting, or to start another. Or to edit existing articles, which is often a good idea.

I see that your draft is about an organization. Any organization, to have an article about it on Wikipedia, must be notable and must normally pass our guideline for the notability of organizations. Please read those pages, and Your First Article, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, and Referencing for Beginners.

I can tell you that this draft would not be approved if it were submitted in its current state. Of the four cited sources, none are independent. An article, to demonstrate the notability of its topic, must include several citations to independent published reliable sources, each of which includes significant coverage of the topic. An organization's own web site is never independent of that organization, neither is its social media such as linkedin or facebook, neither are the sites of affiliated organizations. Online fora, discussion groups, open wikis, or other sources of user-generated content are generally not considered reliable. Neither are personal web sites, fan sites, or the like. Please read the various pages I have linked to in this message.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with tables

Tables are scary, they demand a lot of wikicodes and stuff.

But tables on South Asia has quite some redudancies that needs cleaning up. Is there someone who can help with tables (like shifting demographic data from multiple existing tables to one existing table or GDP data from multiple existing tables to one existing table? At the end of the cleanup, the number tables would remain the same, but the same data will not be repeated over many tables on the same article.

Anyone there who can volunteer? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I agree with you - tables can be scary, and that article certainly has a shed load of them. You might have some success if you were to identify the issues on the talk page of the article itself, or even at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia. Should you decide to try to sort it out yourself, I would recommend copying the relevant source code to your sandbox and experimenting with them there, rather than messing up the live articles. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I love the sandbox idea. Did not raise it on the article talk because most of the table makers who worked on the article seem to be inactive these days. But I certainly can give it a try.Already trembling in fear at the prospect... brrr. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: You might also want to use the visual editor to edit tables. Like many, I find the visual editor obnoxious and prefer the wikicode text editor, but I believe it is clearly superior in that one aspect (editing tables). One method (possibly not the simplest) to use it temporarily is to modify the URL by hand to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo&veaction=edit (note the veaction parameter). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Yes, I do agree with Tigraan - it's one of the few times that our not very pleasant Visual Editor does actually make it easier to edit tables than Source Editor. I would point out that there are over 400 editors currently watching that page, with over 3,000 views per day. I still advise posting a note on the talk page, explaining your concerns and what you would hope to do. That way, you might find there are good reasons not to merge them (so that might save you a job!), but you might also find other willing helpers with table experience 'come out of the woodwork' to help, or do all the work for you! You would be operating within acceptable procedure if you were to temporarily copy one or more sections - or the entire article to your sandbox - to work on the tables there. But do please leave an edit summary saying something like 'Temporarily copying contents from South Asia page to work on tables - acknowledging the authors, listed in that page's View History' Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:@Tigraan: Let me just quickly check if I got it right:

Write my intentions on the article talk and wait.
If no objection, then start working on the sandbox.
Copy table elements to sandbox for the work (though I think edit summaries will not be needed, as copying would not entail an edit to the article)
Do this in the Visual Editor.

Did I miss something? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: That sounds about right. You don't have to wait for feedback - you could start straight away, but waiting seems sensible (depending what exactly it is you plan to merge, or if you're seeking help from others). No, you really should use an edit summary when pasting a lot of text from an article to your sandbox, purely so there's attribution given to the editors who created that content in the first place. Whilst someone like me is unlikely to be bothered, that's the right thing to do, as explained at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I'd also suggest making lots of smaller edits, rather than one big one, when working on tables. That way, if you go wrong, you can revert to an earlier, functioning version with less loss of effort on your part. If you do mess up in your sandbox, you could always pop back here to ask for further help with specific problems. (I'm guessing that few of us here are likely to want to work on the entire reworking of the tables for you, but can help and guide you if you garble something up.) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Errr... I really did hope to find someone to lend a hand, like how people volunteer to copy edit and stuff.

But, of course, guidance and counsel may get the work done too. Thanks for the guidance... and the encouragement. Also thanks for explaining the edit summary. For some reason I thought it was about ES at the article, not at the sandbox. Now I get it. Allow me to work along the advise, and report back when needed. Hopefully I can get this done.

Tea anyone?I make better tea than Wikitables, I promise. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

In the past few months I've had many users calling for pages I made to have a speedy deletion just because they dont like a specific person or people.

Only one user actually discussed with me about the page he wanted to delete because of the" fame" rule and he was very polite in his discussion. Also that page wasnt part of the hatred I'm discussing. But that is telling.

However one of the pages I made kept getting deleted over and over without anyone replying why. And it's because some of them dont like the group of people.

I'm not sure what I can and what I cant create just because some of the members have some kind of hatred towards the subject.

Also when it comes to several pages I've added they've been erased. Again for the same reasons.

So is the deletion of the pages because of bias or not?

Also can the users be able to talk to the creator before they call for a deletion?

I did reply to some who had with no response.

This community needs to be better built.

Also specifically today with Team 10. User falsely claims I made the page to promote them when I just saw The Vlog Squad. had one so I made one for them too. What is with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropetroop29 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You have a practice of creating articles direct to mainspace rather than submitting to Articles for creation. And you have a track record of those articles either being flipped to draft status or else nominated for Speedy deletion if a new articles reviewer considered the content not worth trying to save. You put Team 10 Youtube in mainspace with only one blog as a reference and two hyperlinks in the body of the very skimpy article, so no surprise it was SD'd, and then draftified to Draft:Team 10 Youtube. Short answer: It's not the other editors, it's you. David notMD (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tropetroop29: Please re-read Wikipedia:Notability and the specific notability guidelines that might apply to the topics you want to write about. Then re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Independent sources, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Finally, re-read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion especially the parts that match the reasons given by editors who put a "speedy deletion" template on the pages you create. Most of your questions should be answered in those documents. Come back here to ask whatever questions you have left.

You might also consider creating pages in "Draft"-space or as a "userspace draft" and submitting them for review through the "Articles for Creation" process. See Wikipedia:Drafts, Wikipedia:Userspace draft, and Wikipedia:Articles for creation for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

First off quit the disrespect. When I make the articles I immediately press create. I'm not sure how to do the administration process especially with the device I use to make the pages in the 1st place.

Now since you want to act like an egghead all of a sudden let me explain something to you.

They are supposed to respond when I talk to them. Period.

Learn to get to the point. Dont talk to me like this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropetroop29 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The point: You will continue to have a high failure rate until you understand the guidelines. If you don't want the type of advice davidwr offered, don't post here. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Failure rate? Your life depending on Wiki is sad. Also this is supposed to be a friendly place so I'm going to tell you this nicely. I will talk wherever I want to.

You mean nothing to me after the way you talked to me just now. Dont know your problems or issues but I suggest you get it together.

Also a member has already helped me. So instead of me leaving you shut up and leave. Good riddance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropetroop29 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tropetroop29. You have come here accusing other editors of bad faith, and then arguing with the people who have tried to help you, and asserting that Wikipedia works according to your rules rather than Wikipedia's. I get that you are annoyed, but it doesn't help anybody to vent that here. I suggest that you stop a moment to take a breath, and then read Civility, and Assume good faith. We welcome anybody to help us improve Wikipedia, but iIf you carry on the way you are going, you are likely to get blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User has been formally warned to Assume Good Faith and to be less aggressive and over-assertive when collaborating with other volunteers. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Colin Faith and other guy. No they earn good faith period. You dont talk to me then this ain't no community. I have no choice but to assume that and on plus the responses they gave me was crap. So if you're mad please block me. I dont know you nor do I care. End of story. And that goes for anyone. So go right on ahead and leave. Also Civility needs to be worked on from you. Good Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropetroop29 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

changing out a picture : I wish to change out my father's picture: James B Donovan/ current one is unflattering

please tell me how to change out my father's picture. James.B Donovan - the current one is quite unflattering! I am struggling with this- and want to do asap.- daughter: Mary Ellen Donovan Fuller Brooklyn blonde (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: James B. Donovan

Hello, Brooklyn blonde and welcome to the Teahouse. File:James B. Donovan.jpg is currently used under fair use as a "unique historic image" which makes it a bit harder to justify a replacement. Would your suggested replacement be under a free license? What would the source be?

In any case, the first step would be to upload the suggested replacement. Use the commons upload wizard if the image is freely licensed or is in the public domain. Note that you must indicate who is the copyright holder and show that the holder has licensed it under a compatible free license, or if the image is PD indicate why it is, as most images from the 1940s or 1950s will not be PD. Once the image is uploaded, i advise posting at Talk:James B. Donovan and suggesting the replacement, as well as why the new image is better. Note that the value to the readers will matter more than whether the image is flattering or not -- we really don't care if an accurate image is unflattering. The question is, will a new image better help readers understand who Donovan was and what he looked like? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Brooklyn blonde. Because your father was a U.S. military officer and a high ranking U.S. government official, it is very likely that many photos of him were taken by federal government photographers as part of their employment. Any such photo is in the public domain and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used in his biography. You will need evidence of the origin of the photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Permission to edit "Fuck"

I think the following would be useful, particularly to US readers as a section to the article.

Use in Collegiate and Professional Athletics:

Frequently, college and professional athletes can be observed in person and on television using the work as an expiative after a bad turn of events such as an error by themselves, a teammate or simply an unfortunate turn of events in a game. Although rarely heard, the athlete can be seen in-person or on television clearly mouthing the word. E.g., during Sunday's (September 20, 2020) game against the New Orleans Saints, future Hall of Fame quarterback Tom Brady now playing for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, can be seen on national television sitting on the bench after fumbling a handoff to his running back resulting in a recovery of the ball by the Saints mouthing a single word, "FUCK!". [cite]

Heisman Trophy winner and first overall pick in the [year] NFL draft by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers . . . [cite]

Hall of fame catcher . . , as noted, is attributed the creation of the word "F-bomb." [cite] John D. Maher (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

John D. Maher Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to make this suggestion is on the article talk page, Talk:Fuck. You can make it as a formal edit request(click for instructions), but I'm sure it will be seen even if you don't. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Although this is a worldwide Wikipedia, for all English-language speaking people, not just the US. Very specific, US-centric examples are unlikely to be supported, whereas general examples that people throughout the world would understand are preferred. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You've already said exactly the same thing in another post just above, and you've now made your proposal at Talk:Fuck. And I have placed my reasons there why I think it is a bad proposal, and others are free to comment in order to gain a consensus one way or the other. Perhaps then it will be time to DROPTHESTICK (Remember, if you want to cite a source to support any proposal, you do actually need to cite a source.) Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Corrected section title (also, question was archived).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for review of bio of a living person

Hello! I wrote my fourth bio of a living person, Ben Collins-Sussman, and I wondered if I could get some feedback from currently active editors:

User:Catavar/sandbox/Ben_Collins-Sussman

Here is the first paragraph so you can decide if you're interested:

"Ben Collins-Sussman is an American software engineer, composer, and author.[1] He is the co-creator of the Subversion version control system, co-composer of the critically acclaimed musicals Eastland,[2] and Winesburg, Ohio,[3] and co-author of two books on software and management.[4][5] He co-created two award-winning interactive fiction games, Rover's Day Out and Hoosegow.[6] Collins-Sussman lives and works in Chicago, Illinois.[7]"

I really appreciate anyone who has a few minutes! Thank you, Teahouse. Catavar (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Catavar: I see a lot of puffery in the intro (critically acclaimed, award-winning). I also am very skeptical that he qualifies for a Wikipedia article; see WP:NBIO. I did not look at the references in detail, but just because someone creates a notable work (and, btw, it's not clear to me that any of his works is notable either) does not mean they themselves are notable. I would expect a few reasonably in-depth pieces about him in newspapers/magazines as a rule of thumb to qualify for an article. Only reference 1 is specifically about him, and it's not that substantial. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I appreciate the review! It's a tough line to walk; my understanding is that winning awards and receiving positive critical reviews in major newspapers are important information for deciding notability. But I agree that the phrase "award-winning" will cause suspicion even if followed by a citation to the awards won. I removed those phrases and similar summaries of awards and critical reviews for the avoidance of resemblance to puffery, while leaving the information they summarized intact. On the topic of articles solely about the subject, most of his significant work has been done as a collaboration with at least one other person, resulting in most of the independent third-party sources being about him and at least one collaborator. Thanks again and I am open to more ideas for improving the article! Catavar (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I help?

How can I help? Hi, is there any way for me to help this project? I am not an expert in anything, and I am not really interested in any one topic. Thanks Sir Lancelot of the Lake (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sir Lancelot of the Lake! There are many ways you can help on the project. If you look at WP:TASKS, there are things such as Anti-Vandalism where you can revert edits that damage the encyclopedia and categorizing pages so they are easier to find. Hopefully you find something that interests you. Interstellarity (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Lancelot of the Lake (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir Lancelot of the Lake, I have compiled a small list of things that new users can do easily here, if that helps. Regards, Giraffer ^munch 16:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Sir Lancelot of the Lake (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandra Day O'Connor citation

Sandra Day O'Connor citation still shows her living 24.90.80.53 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Sandra Day O'Connor is retired, not dead. RudolfRed (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct. She is retired from public life due to an Alzheimer's diagnosis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Andrew Show

Why did you decline The Andrew Show? 96.227.71.101 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 96.227.71.101. If you look at the top of Draft:The Andrew Show, you'll see that the AfC reviewer who declined the draft has explained why. Basically, the draft is completely unsourced; so, there's no way to verify whether any of the content contained therein is correct or whether the subject is considered Wikipedia notable. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming, Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for some more general information, but bascially you're going to need to establish that reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) have given the show significant coverage in order for the draft to ultimately be accepted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Overcategorization

What exactly is the limit for categorizing films and TV? If something is a plot element in a film but not exactly the central theme, would a related category still be appropriate? For example, let's say a movie features two LGBT characters as one of the supporting roles (e.g. main antagonist) but the movie itself isn't centered around LGBT - would an LGBT-related category be considered overcategorizing the page? Meetertound (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Meetertound. I don't think there's any limit to the number of categories that an article can be added to; in fact, many editors might generally feel more is better when it comes to categories. Categories, however, should make some sense and not just be randomly added; so, if you feel that something is miscategorized, you can be WP:BOLD and remove it; just leave an edit summary explaining why. Before being BOLD though, it might be a good idea to check the article's talk page (including any archives) to see whether its categorization has been discussed before. It might be the case that a WP:CONSENSUS was reached to categorize the article a certain way, and removing the category might require that a new consensus be established. If you do boldly remove a category and someone re-adds it, then don't edit war over it because you will lose not only the battle but most likely also the war (i.e. you might end up blocked); instead, start a discussion about the category on the article's talk page and see what others think.

If you want to ask specific questions about a specific category, then often the best place to do so would be at WikiProjects whose scope the relevant article (and its associated categories) are likely to fall under. So, if you're question is about movies featuring LBGT themes or characters, then perhaps a good place to ask would be at WT:FILM or WT:LGBT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle

What is Twinkle? Can I use it on my mobile? I use Wikipedia on my Android browser. I tried to use Twinkle on my phone, but failed. Userths (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Userths. While I don't personally use Twinkle, many editors do and find it quite helpful. You can find out more details about it at WP:TWINKLE? Be advised, however, that using something like Twinkle doesn't mean you'll no longer be considered responsible for any edits you make with it. Like everything, if you use it incorrectly or when it's not warranted, you might end up creating more problems than you solve. So, you need to be careful if you do decide to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Userths: I use WP:TWINKLE, and do a lot of editing/ reverting/warning and welcoming with it on my tiny iPhone. However I use it in desktop view on the mobile. Assuming you've already enabled Twinkle in your Preference settings, you'll need to find the tiny link at the very bottom right side of any page to switch view. I suggest you regard mobile view as mostly a 'reading' tool, whereas for proper editing, you need to have your phone in desktop view for all its functionality, including Twinkle. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing the US Constitution?

How should this be done? None of the citation templates on WP:Citing sources seem to fit. mossypiglet (talk) "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" — George Santayana 02:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi welcome to the Teahouse! May I ask, in what context? You could use quotations, but to answer your question: Use {{cite book}} as seen here. HeartGlow ^(talk) 02:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mossypiglet: It's not ideal, but "cite web" with a stable, authoritative web site that is hosting a copy of it would work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This can also work. Such as maybe using the national archives. HeartGlow ^(talk) 02:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Mossypiglet. What are you citing the US Constitution as a source for? I'd image it would be treated as a WP:PRIMARY source in most cases and wouldn't be very helpful in citing anything other than a non-interpretative statement like Article xx of the US Constitution states yyyy." Morover, many of the Articles and Ammendments to the Constitution seem to have their own respective stand-alone articles which you could probably WP:WIKILINK to instead of actually citing.

Finally, I think you probably should reconsider your choice of a signature since it's rather confusing and adding "George Santayana" before the time stamp makes it seem as if your user name is "George Santayana". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: @Marchjuly: @Davidwr: First, thanks for the advice, everyone. I'm citing it for the assertion that the US president is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section Two), which is very explicit in the Constitution--not like individual right to bear arms or anything contentious like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossypiglet (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of using {{cite book}}, maybe something along these lines, but with a different quote and |at=:

{{tq|In the original Constitution of the United States, "Indians not taxed" were not counted for purposes of Congressional representation.<ref>{{cite book|at=Article II, section 1|title=Constitution of the United States of America|year=1787|quote=Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.|publisher=Constitutional Convention|location=Philadephia|url=https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript|accessdate=2020-09-22}}</ref>}}

{{reflist-talk}}

renders as

In the original Constitution of the United States, "Indians not taxed" were not counted for purposes of Congressional representation.^[1]

References

^ Constitution of the United States of America. Philadephia: Constitutional Convention. 1787. Article II, section 1. Retrieved 2020-09-22. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I like this too and I will probably use it because I don't think having too much citation info is a problem, but another thing to consider if you're interested is that if I remember correctly from high school in MLA and APA a lot of information is left out because the Constitution is considered so well-known it doesn't need to be identified in detail. mossypiglet (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The citation stylebooks have probably changed since I was in high school. Use whatever citation style and level of detail is appropriate for your purposes. If it's for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, Wikipedia:Citing sources is your best guide. If it's for a debate on a talk page, "The Constitution says" is good enough - as you said, it's so well-known you don't even have to reference it in many situations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Mossypiglet, the U.S. Constitution is a 230 year old primary source that should not be used as a reference on Wikipedia, since there exists an abundance of extremely high quality published contemporary academic secondary sources available that explain the provisions of the Constitution. Wikipedia prioritizes citing the best of the secondary sources instead of the primary source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need to cite Article II, Section Two for something like this, when you can just add a Wikilink to Article II, Section 2. I don't think the actual text of the section can really be disputed though you might come across differing opinions on how it should be interpreted. It's interpretations of the Constitution that are going to require the secondary sources referred to above by Cullen328, not the actual wording of the document. To me this seems to be almost like a case of WP:BLUESKY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yes, the Constitution is primary and very old, but you're talking about it like it's a peasant's diary. It is still active as the supreme law of the US and it was written by very educated people for the time. You're right that I could cite a secondary source and this is absolutely necessary for much of the document but some things are so clearly stated (e.g. Congress makes laws), why not just cite the Constitution?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossypiglet (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mossypiglet: Notification templates like {{reply to}} only work when you WP:SIGN your post. They won't work if you forget to sign your post, even if you come back later to add the missing signature. So, I'll ping Cullen328 for you just in case he didn't notice your reply. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I had noticed the post but did not respond at that time because I thought that Mossypiglet's comment implying that I was talking about the Constitution as if it was a "peasant's diary" was so ludicrous that I had no interest in continuing the conversation. I have no appetite for a confrontation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris Tompkins edits being deleted

The article that I'm asking a question about is Chris Tompkins. I am wondering why my edits were deleted and how I can recover them. I did not include an edit summary, so I also need to figure out how to rectify that. Thanks! 64.139.83.109 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the teahouse! Why did you remove these sentences and references on Chris Tompkins to begin with? HeartGlow ^(talk) 18:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I edited his profile because I work for his family and his wife wanted to change some information to be more accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.83.109 (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles which summarise what reliably-published independent sources say about a subject. It has little interest in what the subject, or their associates want the article to say.

What you need to do is:

Read about paid editing, and make the mandatory declaration described there.
Read about ownership of articles.
Any changes that you or your employers would like made to the article, you should submit as an edit request on the talk page of the article. Be as specific as you can (eg 'Add xxxx at the end of the paragraph yyyy', or 'Remove sentence zzz'), and cite a reliably published sources - preferably one wholly independent of Tompkins - for any information you wish to add.

An uninvolved editor will consider your suggestion as decide whether and how it is appropriate to apply it. --ColinFine (talk)

Hi IP 64.139.83.109. I'm just going to add that it's important for you, Chris Tompkins and his family to understand that Wikipedia articles are written about subjects; they're not written for or on behalf of subjects. This means that the subjects of articles have no real editorial control over what's written in the article (i.e. they don't "own" the article so to speak) and are going to be expected (just like every other editor) to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean that persons who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles are completely helpless; it just means they are going to be expected to follow the guidance given in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and seek assistance from others (except in certain specific cases) when they have concerns about what's written about them on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

HOW DO I RESPOND?? BRAND BRAND NEW NEW HERE

Got a message - "Welcome - I'll help you get started. Respond on my talk page."

Sounds great. What do I do?????

 Could I BE any newer at this?

LarryLarry Westenberg (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Larry Westenberg (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Larry Westenberg: hello Larry, and Welcome to Wikipedia. I cannot exactly infer if this refers to Djwal Khul or Lucis Trust. Howewer, please be informed that as a neutral encyclopedia, we deal with what can be verfied instead of what somebody considers the truth. (And please dont write in all capital letters. Its considered shouting and will not help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Victor - thank you. No caps - understood. Neutral. Understood. I am HAPPY to, HONORED to learn and follow the guidelines strictly. I haven't the faintest clue how to communicate in this forum of if anybody can see what I am writing. I am THAT new. Does this work to type where I am typing? Larry Westenberg (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Here is how LOW LEVEL what I am asking really is: 1.) This is the Tea Bar. I've read the purpose and description. I've read a lot of information. I need a "stick in the ground" for the communications system and process. 2.) This message shows text displayed as a "Subject" as in an email - where I posted in all caps. However, it says, "Edit Summary." This message is not regarding a specific post. It is me diving in and going, "What the heck?" 3.) Please bear with me as I wander around if I have walked into the wrong department with my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Westenberg (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are Teahouse hosts who answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. You are always welcome here. Do remember to 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. In addition to Teahouse, articles and editors have their own Talk pages. Especially when editing articles, good practice is to add a brief description of what you added or subtracted at the Edit summary space. David notMD (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You found the right place for questions, and you posted one successfully. Good job! If you haven't seen it already, you might want to go to Help:Introduction for an intro to how to edit Wikipedia.

Whenever you edit a page, you should fill in the "Edit summary" field with some kind of description of what you did. Sometimes that can be very simple: my edit summary for this post is just your subject line plus the word "reply". Many editors look at recent changes to pages in a view that shows only the summary line, so having a summary for every post helps lots of people quickly see what is happening.

When you click the "new section" button to create a new conversation on a talk page, the software just prompts you to enter a subject or headline. It then uses that both for a heading at the top of your post and for the "edit summary". In general, though, these are two separate things. --Srleffler (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Notifications

I've made a couple of sections and replied to a couple sections on the talk pages of Wikipedia sites but I only get a notification of a reply if they mention my username. Is there a way to get a notification if someone replies on the section I made/replies to the reply I made? It would be more convenient and I wouldn't have to check every now and then. YouGottaChill (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@YouGottaChill: you'll only be alerted if you are tagged, or if the edit is on your talk page. You could add the talk pages to your watch list and check then from time to time. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@YouGottaChill: At the top of each article/talkpage or user/talkpage, there is a little star icon. Press it, and it turns blue. This adds them to your Watchlist. From then on, whenever you log onto WP, you can press "Watchlist" at the top of your screen, and see if any pages you are watching have new edits. See WP:W, for more info. Hope this helps. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@YouGottaChill, Timtempleton, and Tribe of Tiger: There is a solution being worked on that will let you watchlist sections of a page, but it's still in mid-development, and may not be suitable for a non-technical user: Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Potentially useful script: section-watchlist. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: This seems like a good feature for editors with large watchlists. And I can imagine that this would be quite useful for a number of "regular" editors, esp. with following Teahouse and various Noticeboards! Thanks, as always, for your very helpful comments. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you make a wiki page

The title is self explanitory I would like to know how to make a Wikipedia page, (a new one not just an already made one) about Tony Lopez because if Charli D'Amelio gets one, I think its fare that Tony gets one! Zuzi Patoosie (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Read Help:Your first article for assistance! Make sure your article has Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS! WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Zuzi Patoosie. Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living people are very strict, and it best to get some experience editing existing articles before trying to write a new one. Start by reading and discussing Your first article, and work on assembling a list of reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Tony Lopez. That fact that another article exists which may or may not have problems should have no impact on whether a new article should be written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected article

Hello admin, how to protect an article from news editor. Actually someone is editing article without knowing anything and misusing infobox parameter and many other mistakes. So how to protect article from new editors ??? Waiting for your valuable reply. Thanks Bijoyonline30 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bijoyonline30. We have a noticeboard dedicated to that, called Requests for page protection. Please file a report there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Cullen328 thanks for your reply.

Reliable sources

Hello admin , which news sources is reliable for Bangladesh ?? Myslfsbhijit (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Myslfsbhijit: We don't have a list of allowed sources, as we trust editors to make this judgment call on their own, based on the reliable sources guideline. Take a look at WP:NEWSORG, which outlines how we determine the reliability of news sources. In short, look for major outlets with a track record of reliability, and avoid stating information from op-eds as fact. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Myslfsbhijit: Good day, you could check out the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey , Ganbaruby Cassiopeia thanks for the help.

Need input

I hired a company to write and submit my professional wrestling character's profile. I was told that I have enough that is verifiable that it would withstand any of the notability criteria. I am now being asked to have additional articles or press releases written in order

As we coordinate with Wiki Mods for your pages to ensure that your personal page passes all the guidelines and they approve your official test entry, so the requirement is advised by them and currently there are no articles with significance, noteworthy and unique news about yourself. Whereas, according to Wiki Mods your page additionally needs 15-20 of these articles on Top-Tier websites and 4 to 5 major publications.

I need input/direction on if I can simply submit my pro wrestling character profile as is without going through this step. Thoughts? Schmackdaddy22 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Short answer: Unless the person in question has been extensively written about in a non-promotional way by the mainstream press, it is unlikely that a Wikipedia page written about him will survive very long. Trying to "force" Wikipedia to accept an article about such a person will likely be a waste of time and, if you are paying money for it, money.

Wikipedia is NOT for self-promotion nor is it an advertising or marketing medium. Athletes who are not at or near the "top level" of competition in their country may not get the "independent" press coverage needed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Press releases and "warmed over press releases" generally do not count when it comes to assessing "notability." Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also read Wikipedia:Paid editing disclosure, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Independent sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Schmackdaddy22: If you could tell us the name on the draft article we can certainly take a look for you and offer you some thoughts. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Schmackdaddy22. Please understand that if Wikipedia at some time has an article about you, it will not belong to you, you will have no control over its contents, and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say. Your company are correct that we need sources about you, but they are utterly utterly wrong about the details. I don't know where they got that "15-20" from: it is not the number but the quality that matters. But part of that quality is that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything about you that comes from you or your agents, employers or associates, whether on their own websites, or in interviews or press releases. You sending out a million press releases won't make any difference, at least not directly. What Wikipedia relies on is places where people who have no connection whatever with you, and have not been prompted or fed information by you or your associates, have chosen to write significant coverage about you, and been published in reliable sources. And yes, I'm afraid that this does mean that there is very little that you or your associates can do to make it happen: this is because we are an encyclopaedia, not a publicity machine. You might also like to look at An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have created my draft of a biography of a living person, what is the next step?

Hello -- I have submitted my draft of a biography of a living person. May I please understand the process this needs to go through for publication? Betahatdelta (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Betahatdelta Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To formally submit your draft, you need to click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top. Once you do that and your draft is formally submitted, it could take around 2 months for it to be reviewed, since drafts are reviewed in no particular order and there are thousands of drafts awaiting review, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Before you submit your draft for review you need to sort out the referencing. See Help:Footnotes. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The formation of Sunderland AFC

Why is it not possible to correct the date of when Sunderland AFC were formed to 1880 and not 1879 and for which there is no primary source? In comparison there are reports in the local newspaper - the Sunderland Echo - dated 27 September 1880 stating the local teachers had FORMED a football club. There is no evidence short of a badly article writtenin 1887 and later repeated in 1929 that the club was formed in October. The current administration are claiming it was actually 17 October 1879 but can provide no evidence. MarkMetcalf (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarkMetcalf: This is apparently about our article Sunderland A.F.C.. The issue has been discussed a couple of times on the talk page at Talk:Sunderland A.F.C.. I suggest adding a new section there to open discussion again. The article does contain some mention of the controversy, though it's not consistent. It should probably avoid mentioning the founding date in several places and address it just three times: in the lead, the body, and the infobox. Specify those changes and see what others knowledgeable about and interested in the subject have to say.

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits on DAX (rapper) article

One of your users undid edits that I did on the DAX (rapper) article. The edits were meant to correct false information, as well as fix typos and add details. Meandeminem (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Meandeminem (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Meandeminem (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Meandeminem: Your edit was undone because it did not explain why it blanked sourced information. You should go to the talk page and begin a discussion about the removal of the content, if it is in fact incorrect. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You shortened the article by more than half. How was that false information? David notMD (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Help on Draft Article

Anyone wanna help me finishing this draft article? Draft:List of Broadway productions by year. The source I use is [6]. HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, I made a few small tweaks. It looks like you're using uppercase a little too much "Limited Run" should be "limited run" in most cases, I think. Also, given how much there is just from the 2010s, the final list may be huge, in which case it might be better to split it into multiple pages. The column widths should be tweaked a bit so that the date never runs onto two lines.

If you haven't already come across it, List of Broadway theaters is currently undergoing a WP:Featured List Candidate review. Some of the editors active on that page might be interested in joining you, and the page itself might offer some inspiration. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Thank you so much! I will look into it! HeartGlow ^(talk) 14:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

[1] Constitution of the United States of America. Philadephia: Constitutional Convention. 1787. Article II, section 1. Retrieved 2020-09-22. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

[1]