Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1121

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 1115

←

Archive 1119

→

{{use dmy dates}} and {{use british english}}by default update for all articles to uk

we can update {{use dmy dates}} on articles (persons living of dead) related to uk. is my assumption correct? {{use british english}} can be only updated articles to uk or have predominantly british english. or can it be updated for all articles (persons living of dead) related to uk? 28july21 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@28july21: Welcome to the Teahouse! Those templates are OK for articles related to the UK, unless the established consensus for the article is to use a different date format (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Formats "Strong national ties to a topic" vs "Retaining existing format") or different style of English (see {{Use Oxford spelling}}). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do templates count?

In the list of Wikipedians by article count, do templates and stubs created count? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: I'm not certain, but the specification of "article creations" (my emphasis) in the first sentence of that page presumably means that creations in the Template namespace are not counted. Stub articles in mainspace, on the other hand, are presumably counted. Deor (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count#FAQ #5 confirms that it uses the list of articles, which would include article stubs but not templates. GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Mission Statements

Hello Wikipedia!

I'm a new editor and had a general question about mission statements WP:MISSION. I've come across some articles that quote their companies' mission statements. In general, should these be deleted? Or are small blurbs ok? Just curious before I edit. Apologies if this is a dumb question...again, I am learning :) Spacebarz (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spacebarz: Unless the mission statement gets a lot of press, like Google's "Do no evil", it's best to skip. Otherwise you'll get an article flagged for being too promotional. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Spacebarz, please point to a problematic example. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick responses!@Timtempleton @Hoary
This is what sparked my curiosity: Netherlands Economic Medal Cabinet Spacebarz (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Spacebarz, the "mission statement" is summarized; it's short, non-promotional, and actually informative. It's fine. (This is not a defence of the article, which has serious problems. But the mission statement isn't one of them.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary Great explanation. Many thanks!
Spacebarz (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission in review limbo

Hi guys and girls, my submission has been pending review for about 24 hrs now, and I see no option to resubmit. How can I get it done? Fogetu2 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please employ patience. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Fogetu2, I assume this is about Draft:Kirk Lee. When a reviewer considers it, their main concern will be "does this article establish that its subject is notable, by citing several reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject?". Your draft cites 75 sources, almost all of them (I haven't checked them all) failing on at least of those criteria. So a reviewer is likely to give up in despair and move on to a more productive use of their time. If you want a speedy review, I recommend deleting almost all of those references (and almost all of the videography section), while retaining the good references, assuming there are any in there. If your draft gets accepted, you can then add all that stuff back in. Maproom (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of those references are for Lee's contributions to this or that, and are Youtube videos. If it isn't absolutely clear that the video was uploaded to Youtube by the copyright holder, delete the reference. If it isn't absolutely clear from the video, or from the text accompanying the video, that Lee's contribution was as your draft claims, delete the reference. (Many new editors add "references" that don't back up what has just been said but instead are appendages, as if saying "Look, this is what I'm talking about." These aren't genuine references and mustn't be presented as if they were.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

HoaryThanks, So your basically saying leave the ones where I put my name on it when I was making the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogetu2 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fogetu2: Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with this draft. Your goal should be putting aside everything you know about Lee, finding independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Lee, and summarizing what they say. If the YouTube links don't make Lee's involvement clear, they should not be included. I added more comments on the draft. Happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

World's Largest Fire Hydrant

Okey dokey fellow Wikipedians, I have an article idea. What if I wrote an article about the world's largest fire hydrant? Or made a list of the, say, top 10? Or wrote an article about the world's largest working fire hydrant? Are any of these already a thing?

I'd like to know what a couple other editors think and what some suggested news sources would be (e.g. Just NYT style or local CBS or ABC affiliate channels too? Could I use something like this?).

I look forward to the responses! WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiIsKnowledge, first, you can look for existing articles related to fire hydrants as easily as I can. (Tip: via categories.) And secondly, if you're saying "I have an amusing idea; I don't know anything about it and I don't know how I'd find out anything about it", you're barking up the wrong tree. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, it's not an "amusing" idea. I used to live near the world's largest working hydrant and I've been researching others. I wanted to see if it was an acceptable article topic and which sources were acceptable for Wikipedia. I already looked it up, but I'll try using categories. Thanks, WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiIsKnowledge: this is more suited with a brief mention in the fire hydrant article, but not as its own article - IMHO. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton Good idea. I'll do that. Thanks. WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I can hardly imagine either that reliable sources are available for constructing a list of the ten largest fire hydrands or that people would be interested in such a list if constructed. OTOH many people's tastes are utter mysteries to me: I could be wrong; you could be right. Are there articles that list "Largest...."? Yes there are: see Special:PrefixIndex for "Largest" (though note that the huge majority are shown in italics and are therefore mere redirects). Ditto for "Tallest" and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiIsKnowledge: You would have to find reliable sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there an automatic translator and can it be turned off?

On the Talk page for William Weaver, I posted, "In the list of translations, each book has the title in English and then, if you look at "Edit source," the title in Italian. In the article, however, the title in Italian is automatically translated to English, sometimes differently from the first title in English, and sometimes without proper spacing. I don't know how to turn off the automatic translator.Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC) The same problem occurs after The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana in Biography.Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there in fact an automatic translator? If not, what is creating the problem I identified? Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: Replied at Talk:William Weaver#List of translations. GoingBatty (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:William Weaver#List of translations Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Collapsible tables

I'm unsure whether it's appropriate to use WP:COLLAPSE tables for long podcast episode lists because MOS:COLLAPSE appears to have deprecated collapsible tables. Would extremely long episode tables be a possible exception? Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting#Lists_of_Episodes (These might also provide more context: Talk:The_Adam_Buxton_Podcast and Talk:Up_and_Vanished) TipsyElephant (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

who d dumfuk is ZimZalaBim

2601:140:8500:870:DCB1:DDFA:8FAF:3AE5 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, IP editor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia than anyone can edit at least once. Avoid using the term "virtuistic" and please read WP:How to edit a page.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim is the experienced editor who reverted your edit because you deleted content that was supported by a reference. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Help getting a page approved

Our submission for this Wikipedia page keeps being denied for "lack of significant coverage" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Private_Academic_Library_Network_of_Indiana

Would love some advice on how to add that. We are very similar to, for example, this group, whose page appears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbis_Cascade_Alliance or the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_consortium 2603:7080:E506:3AC8:E003:2B88:6E32:60EC (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Before comparing your draft to short Wikipedia articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GoingBatty (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@2603:7080:E506:3AC8:E003:2B88:6E32:60EC, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, coupled with what GoingBatty correctly said above, i note you use the plural “our”?as opposed to the singular “I” in this collaborative project multiple users optimizing one account or an editor using more than one account is prohibited except for reasons covered under WP:LEGITSOCK. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Building on that, if "Our" and "We" indicate that you have some connection to the Private Academic Library Network of Indiana, then each editor needs to disclose their conflict of interest on their userpage, and understand that they will not be allowed to edit the page if accepted as an article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Also please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Apart from uncontroversial factual information like places and dates, nothing belongs in the article unless a source wholly unconnected with the network has talked about it. Given that your "we" indicates that you are associated with the organisation, your task is even more difficult than it would be for a random editor, because you need to forget every single thing you know about the organisation and write based only on what these independent sources say. I assume you are Meganmckwest? If so, thank you for attempting to declare your COI, but you made two mistakes. The minor one was that you copied the template with <nowiki> and </nowiki> round it, which prevent it from actually being interpreted as a template. The more serious one is that if you are Communications Director at PALNI, then you are not just editing with a COI, but are a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration of this fact. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. This is super helpful. This was Megan's project but she is leaving her job and asked me as another employee to look at this.2603:7080:E506:3AC8:3C8D:86CB:6AEF:A62B (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you create an account and then on the User page, declare your paid connection, as Megan had done. Only then, strive to improve Draft:Private Academic Library Network of Indiana David notMD (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Messages to other editors

How do I send a message to another editor? The person's user name appears in the history of an article. I have received messages from other people. Roryjohnston (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Roryjohnston: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can go to a user's talk page (their signatures have a link to it, or you can click on the talk link next to their name in the history page) and edit it to leave them a message. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Roryjohnston: Welcome to the Teahouse! The preferred way to send a message is by posting on the user's talk page. You can also go to the user's page (or talk page) and click the "Email this user" link of the left toolbar - see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

correction in Date Of Birth

There are actors and other personalities whose date of birth mentioned on their Wikipedia article is incorrect. I am saying it on the basis of their interviews, youtube videos and social media, where they have mentioned their correct DOB or age. I had tried changing a few DOB earlier but wasn't able to due to lack of reliable sources. Now, even after trying and researching, I can't find a reliable source to support the fact; and to make the respective correction I'll indeed need a source or something. Are there any suggestions regarding it on how to correct date of birth regardless of having an accurate or reliable source. ManaliJain (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of actors and other "personalities" like to impress their audiences with their relative youth. (It's unusual for a "personality" to object to being described as younger than [they claim] they really are.) Well, find a source that's more authoritative than the source that the article currently cites, and bring this matter up on the article's talk page. If you can't do that, there's not much that you can do. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@ManaliJain Per WP:DOB, when in doubt, exclude. If a WP-bio lacks a DOB, that's perfectly fine. You may find Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48 helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@ManaliJain: If no sources explicitly mention the date of birth, or the year of birth; the best is to remove such dates from Wikipedia articles. If a reliable source says "someone was x-years in the year "x", we may use that to count the possible year of birth. This too is okay. If they've stated their date of birth on their "verified personal sources" as so and so, it is okay to use such sources and add the correct DOB accordingly. Best ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 09:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Stanford Prison Experiment - revisions need checking (urgently?)

I've been working with a small team of editors, most of us novices still, to improve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment before it is listed this Friday in the "On This Day" section of the en.wikipedia front page.

We are certain it is in much better shape than it was last week, but would be very grateful to have anyone here look at how it could be better. Thank you very much for all the work you do here. Grateful to be able to help too. DrZasm (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi DrZasm. Unfortunately there's a big problem with the copyright licenses of pretty much all of the images that are being used in the article. Whomever uploaded them to Commons probably didn't realize that Commons doesn't accept any kind of content that is not 100% free or 100% in the public domain. I'm not sure why the uploader of the files chose to license them under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license because not the case according to the source provided for the image. The source website states that "This page contains a gallery of images that can be viewed and downloaded without charge by journalists, educators, and others who wish to use the images for non-commercial purposes." and it's that last "for non-commercial purposes" which is the problem. Neither Wikipedia nor Commons accepts any kind of files which are licensed as "non-commercial use only", "educational use only", "Wikipedia use only", etc. as explained in c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files, which means the licensing of these files is going to need verification to avoid them being deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Stanford prison experiment images. Moreover, there's no way any article with images of questionable copyright status is going to appear on the main Wikipedia page. So, unless you can resolve the copyright licensing issue by Friday, my suggestion to you is to remove the files from the article (even for only the time being) until you're able to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to edit protected article

2021 Taliban offensive I made a request [1] to an edit protected article but how can I get someone to add it to the article. Nobody has bothered to respond even after 10hours 2405:204:5025:8F13:E1E5:5C7E:3E37:2E9C (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You just have to wait; there is a no obligation for anyone to respond to your edit request. ― Qwerfjkl talk 12:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Text gets removed

I've submitted a piece a text as an addition to the outsourcing page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsourcing). From the permissions email address I received permission for the text and the volunteer has made the necessary modifications to the talk page of the article. However, up to date my original text hasn't appeared on the outsourcing page again. And when I submit it once again, it gets removed again. What should I do to get this text published and not removed?

BTW: I'm a first time Wikipedia contributor, so am still learning. Ebroersma1984 (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ebroersma1984, that article has had problems with editors trying to put in links to commercial companies. The wording is fine, the problem is the reference. Since outstaffing is a recognized process find a source for this information in an article about the topic rather than a particular company website. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ebroersma1984, the content you added was partly written in the second person, as if addressed to a customer; and contained a spammy link. Neither is acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It also was a direct copy-paste from the website. Ebroersma, are you employed by the company? —valereee (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a "please don't bite the newbies" policy, but if a new editor appears who is editing only one article (or trying to create an article about a person or business), it is standard practice to ask if the editor has a personal (see WP:COI) or employed (see WP:PAID) connection to the topic in question. Doubly true if there has been a copyright problem. David notMD (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I found nany website articles that compared outsourcing to outstaffing (the latter appears to be your interest here), but like the ref you provided that led to your content being reverted, most of those are from companies offering both services. Try to find an outstaffing reference that is not a company promotion/link. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Liakat Ali

You may create the page "Liakat Ali (Artist)", You may create the page "Liakat Ali (Artist)", Dear, When I creat my page in this subject- Liakat Ali (Artist), it show the page but after some hour it does not show, and the guide you do as like the subject I am Asking you , What is the wrong? You do guide some time , but difficult to understand what you want? would you say shor and any guide that can help.

Music in color for Liakat Ali (Artist)

Music in color (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Presumably you haven't read your user talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Glitches

How do I report glitches on Wikipedia? WinnipegMA (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@WinnipegMA: It depends, because it may not be a glitch, but if it is, WP:TVP works. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to know a little bit more about the glitch, because village pump technical is the ideal place for certain types of glitches, but other things which might be described as glitches would be better reported elsewhere. For example, someone might see some vandalism and think of it as a glitch but that should not be reported to village pump technical.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick someone might see some vandalism and think of it as a glitch but that should be reported to village pump technical I presume you meant "but that should not be reported to village pump technical"? ― Qwerfjkl talk 08:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, Oops yes, thanks S Philbrick (Talk) 13:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I now publish this template?

Not so long ago, I had asked if I should publish a navbox template I made in my sandbox which had, back then, a lot of red links (Original question here). Later I worked on it, it is still very red, but better (when I had orignally asked, there were 7 or 8 blue links, now 30 (but out of 101 total links)). Can I now publish the template because after the creation of all 101 articles, I cannot individually add this template to each one of them, and if I start from now, I can add at least to the 30 articles + the rest of them I will eventually be making? And reading the original question's answers, you may still doubt their (the article links') notability as they are all stubs, made in the same layout/format. Excellenc1 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Excellenc1. It looks OK to me. I suggest adding | below = [[List of presidents of departmental councils (France)|List of presidents]]. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:

I don't know where and how to add the presidents section.
Most departmental council presidents' articles are red links, like the council itself. And I assume notability is not hereditary, so the presidents may not be notable like the council itself. Excellenc1 (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Named parameters can be added in any order. below is displayed at the end so it's usually added at the end. I have added it [2] but you are free to remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: How do I then add the list of presidents (the content) to the template? Excellenc1 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: I only suggested to add a link to the list and have already done it. There is nothing more to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this okay to delete something that you know is not true even if you don't have proof?

Over a year ago I saw a sentence in the "Staniszów" article: "After World War II the region was placed under Polish administration and ethnically cleansed according to the post-war Potsdam Agreement." My understanding is that "ethnic cleansing" means something entirely different, and there is no evidence that there was "ethnic cleansing" in Staniszów in 1945, so I removed it. I just saw that the same phrase was re-added to the article. Should I remove it again? I do not have a source that says "there was no ethnic cleansing in Staniszów" but it's very difficult to disprove a negative. What should I do here? Hattie Cape (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

In such a context, I would post on the article's talk page to discuss this with the editor with whom you're having a disagreement. Concepts like "ethnic cleansing" are very, very bitterly disputed. Also, remember: nomenclature is arbitrary. Something happened in Staniszów. DS (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the History of the article. The editor who re-added the "ethnic cleansing" sentence is 87.189.199.156. I will post on the article talk page but I will also remove the sentence again, because just because "something" happened, doesn't mean it was "ethnic cleansing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattie Cape (talk • contribs)

Just don't keep changing it back and forth. That will be seen as edit-warring and won't look good. You may struggle to get any communication with an editor who's working from an IP address, but you have to try. If they are putting the statement in with no reference to back it up, you can always insert {{cn}} to point out that this is a statement that requires a citation ("citation needed"). If the tag remains there for a significant length of time without anyone inserting the citation, it strengthens your case for removing the statement! If you can't get any agreement with the IP editor and an edit-war is looking inevitable, you can make a request for comment [3], to try to involve more editors; hopefully they will bring alternative viewpoints, and some consensus will emerge. Elemimele (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Elemimele. I understand this. I read the Request for Comments page and also a lot of other pages with guidelines. While I was reading the page titled "Wikipedia:Content removal" I saw this paragraph: "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." So I think this phrase about "ethnically cleansed" qualifies as one of those statements? After all, many of those small villages near the borders did have a mix of German-speaking and Polish-speaking residents before 1945, so it seems that using highly-charged language like "ethnically cleansed" should have a source if it is to remain. Hattie Cape (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This has become quite a reasonable content-discussion, so I've replied at Talk:Staniszów. But German/Polish relationships following WWII are not my area of knowledge, so take everything I write with a hefty pinch of salt. Elemimele (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article or the talk page and I don't have expertise on the specific topic, Hattie Cape, but if something is being described as ethnic cleansing without a source that supports that interpretation, the burden is on the editor who added that description to provide a source - and it should be removed if one can't be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry. I felt the same way. I removed the same phrase from other articles that had that same exact stuff (I guess it was copy-pasted) without any source. Hattie Cape (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

help in saving account from deletion

can someone please help in improving the article Juliana000 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This is most likely about Anjali Phougat. @Juliana000: - let the deletion discussion run its course. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

can you please guide how to improve the article? really appreciate your help and quick reply @Timtempleton: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana000 (talk • contribs)

Juliana000, large quantities of this are completely unreferenced. Add reliable references. Remove anything that can't be reliably referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Juliana000: I suggest you remove the "Articles" section, and use some of those links as references for the other sections. GoingBatty (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

thank you Hoary User:GoingBatty how many days we have to get these issues fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana000 (talk • contribs)

Normally the "AfD" process lasts seven days, but in order to make much of an influence on it you'd better take drastic action much more quickly than that. Incidentally, please sign any comment by hitting "~" four times in a row. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary thanks you can you or someone please help to fix the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana000 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Juliana000 I'm wondering if you have a particular interest in this article or its subject? 331dot (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Juliana000: I tweaked the existing references and deleted lots of unreferenced information. However, it's up to you to find additional reliable sources to prevent the article from being deleted. If you have any conflict of interest, please declare it on your user page before proceeding. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help, new to wikipedia

Hey! I hope you read my previous answer on Cars 3 (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) So I'm here creating pages, correcting soundtrack details etc and so i noticed an EP was missing here so i created a page for it (work in progress) I wanted to ask for some help but before that i just went there to fix it myself but what do i see it just redirected me and what do i see

somebody vandalized it, although i undo the changes he made but can you help me like protect the page or something like only authenticated users can edit it! The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_My_Messy_Mind Please see history as when i created it and just a few hours ago somebody came and vandalized it, do help! Thank you! HimuEdits (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I just checked history and it looks like that user had done rediricitng again with my article which i fixed later without noticing the change. and this time he just erased my article although i undo it, Could you please tell me how to protect it?

HimuEdits Not vandalism. The editor in question disagreed with a need for a separate article Draft:Oh My Messy Mind, so changed it to a redirect to James Bay discography. You changed it back. Proper next step is to reach out to the editor on that person's Talk page and ask why. Be aware that Onel5969 has been editing since 2013, and has created scores of articles. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay first so you don't get confused it's me I got my username got changed, Now listen, I get it he edits or does whatever but wait, Every EP and studio album has their own page see for exmaple James Bay Chaos and the Calm, Ed Sheeran album Divide or Ed Sheeran's EP Songs I wrote with Amy.

Now please be with me, There was no page regarding the EP Oh My Messy Mind, So I created one and added a link everywhere like on peer pressure song like it's from EP oh my messy mind so i just added link. I don't understand if we think like that, Then ed sheeran divide album and all other albums too be removed and instead be redirected to their discorography, fair point? Just checked and yes the page it redirects to is okay but wait that page itself has links to Chaos and the Calm, Electric Light, so why can't it be for the page I created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HimuTheEditor (talk • contribs) 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, HimuTheEditor. Whether a subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability has little to do with the subject or its qualities, and everything to do with whether independent people have chosen to write at length about it. It is therefore entirely possible for one track, one EP, one album, one book, one company, one school, or indeed one brother to be notable (so an article about it is possible) and the next not currently be notable. I haven't looked at the articles you're talking about, but it's quite likely that they are a mix of 1) satisfactory articles about EPs that are notable; 2) unsatisfactory articles about EPs that are notable (eg because they don't cite the sources that establish notability): these should be fixed, moved to draft, or at a minimum tagged with {{more sources needed}}; 3) Articles about EPs that are not notable: these should be deleted or redirected.

You are essentially arguing that Oh My Messy Mind meets the criteria for notability: it is up to you to establish this as the consensus, by discussing it with the other editors involved. The existence of other articles is, I'm afraid, irrelevant. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. I'm sorry I didn't knew that.

I may do as you said and add more sources needed to it. Thank you! Again, as I said before I'm new to the wikipedia and I don't know much although I corrected articles but I didn't had knowledge in creating a new one. Thank you for helping! Good day & stay safe! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HimuTheEditor (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Help

How Can I add References on my posts Emmy Rey (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I recommend taking a look at Help:Referencing for beginners, it explains everything you need to know about referencing on Wikipedia! Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop asking the same question in multiple places. You got replies on the Talk pages of Rubbish computer and David notMD. David notMD (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request on BBC Natural History Unit

Hello, on the 6th of August we asked for a number of changes to be made on Talk:BBC Natural History Unit, we've not yet had any responses to our requests. What is the timeframe in which we should expect to receive some feedback? At present the page is factually incorrect and we would like to collaborate with the Wikipedia community to get it updated.

Thank you for your help. BBC Studios Comms (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@BBC Studios Comms: There seem to be a stack of requests pending, which may be putting off the volunteer editors who might want to follow up your requests. You could make their task much easier if you converted the references you provided (currently bare URLs) into proper citations as per Template:cite web. We like, for example, to give credit to the authors of the articles cited, as you will appreciate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I note that an experienced editor has now declined to make some of the changes, which were clear breaches of Wikipedia's policy about promotion (see WP:promotion). Other requests may be OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Talk:BBC Studios Natural History Unit ― Qwerfjkl talk 15:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The "stack of requests" was never tagged properly with {{request edit}} so the requests never appeared on the category page. I have tagged the remaining open request. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The original poster has now been blocked as a clear-cut violation of the username policy (no accounts for organizations). They may or may not come back under a different username. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to flag we have changed the username to adhere to Wikipedia policy. We are looking to request a few more factual changes and will endeavour to present them in the required format. Georgie - BBC Studios Comms (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Syed Taha Bukhari

hii, can you help me in creating this article Draft:Syed Taha Bukhari please... and i can't understand, how can i improve it? Ttttt321 (talk). 16:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for trying to contribute to Wikipedia and we hope you stay. Your draft is not written in an encyclopedic way. It's written like you're telling a story, or like a blog post. And the subject may not be notable enough for inclusion. You should aim for complete neutrality when drafting your article. Please take a look at this section to get a more detailed idea of how you could improve it. Feel free to come back and ask specific questions along the way. Happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Archive Bots

I added an archive bot to my talk page. Is there a good way to display links to the various archives at the top of the page? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The template {{Archives}} may help, or {{Talk header}}. ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move the Table of Content Box outside the Article

I did a search to see if this topic has been addressed in the Teahouse in the past but couldn't find a discussion on it. I very much like the general layout of Wikipedia pages, but suggest that the Table of Contents be moved to the left sidebar area, and constructed so that the table remains visible while the user scrolls through the article contents. This would provide a way for the user to rapidly jump from one part of the article to others quickly, without having to manually scroll back to the top for the table. The general Wikipedia links currently resident on the left side would need to be shifted to the bottom of the sidebar. 66.223.250.246 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This might help (although I'm not sure if it's available for IP addresses). ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Fake information on a person's page

Hey, I just want to let you know that the page about Tony Lien, is entirely fake, there's no sources, tried crosschecking and there's no results for him at his linked "achievements" whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Lien

How has this page been edited so many times and "confirmed" even though there's no way to confirm it since it's all false. Please please please remove all the "info" on this page. If I do it, it'll for some reason just be reverted even though it's all a lie... 81.167.61.224 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged the article for ~~speedy~~ deletion. Thanks for bringing this here. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur after searching for sources. If it is contested then we can go to AfD. The article clearly does not provide sources that prove their notability. I searched for their awards as well. I'm having difficulty finding anything. --ARose Wolf 19:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Puzzling that this was created in February 2018 by User:Datasnoken with no record of edits before that, or since. David notMD (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

They made 12 edits prior to that, all to Draft:Tony Lien. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Pyrrho the Skeptic. You've not tagged it for speedy deletion but rather proposed it for deletion, which takes seven days. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, you are correct. I have modified my comment. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I've nominated the article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax now. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Google returns precisely zero hits for the "Tony Lien" kickboxing query. --CiaPan (talk)

I deleted the hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen.

--ARose Wolf 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki-Rickroll?

What are the possible consequences of rickrolling someone on Teahouse? (Note: I haven't done so; just out of curiosity. I acknowledge that Teahouse is a forum of serious discussions and queries.) Excellenc1 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

One consequence is that people will think you're a pillock. And as you've chosen a particularly conspicuous signature, they'll remember it was you. Maproom (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Just don't do it. It's against WP:RICKROLL. Consequences could for example be a warning for disruptive editing, and lowering the threshold for future blocks. On the milder end, some users could ignore future posts from you instead of helping. Even if it's a reply to a specific user, we have many helpers and readers, and you wouldn't just be rickrolling "someone". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see what I'm supposed to look at at WP:RICKROLL Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you know Rickrolling? It's about unexpected links to a certain YouTube video. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I do. I've been rickrolled myself many times. However, WP:RICKROLL appears to be unrelated to Rickrolling and isntead just about general easter eggs Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the other consequences, we're never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you Chuntuk (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Activities in Wikipedia

how can I edit story books for kids in Wikipedia Amossimphiwe1 (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You can't. This website is an encyclopedia; its purpose is completely different. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You might want to see Wikibooks for that (if it's even still being used). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Amossimphiwe1 thank you for wanting to volunteer at Wikipedia. If you would like to edit Wikipedia articles about children's books you can read WP:TUTORIAL, and then go to an article that interests you, and work to improve it. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What is &nbsp?

In some entries, I've written, for example, "p. 29." Another editor changes it to "(p. 29)." Why? It doesn't change the text, which continues to say, "p. 29." Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please go into "Edit source" to see what another editor changes it to. You can't see it otherwise, because, as I said, the text continues to say, "p. 29."Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! &nbsp is a non-breaking space - this means that when your computer or phone is looking for places to insert a line break into a long paragraph it won't break apart the two things on either side of the &nbsp. This means that the pp. will stay attached to the page number and you won't end up with a situation where the pp. is at the end of one line and the page number at the start of the next. Hope this helps, 192.76.8.74 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

True, except that a semicolon is needed as well: " ". -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: and :@Hoary: Good to know; I'll use it. Thanks.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You can also use the {{nbsp}} template, which does the same thing. There are some guidelines for the use of nonbreaking spaces at MOS:NBSP. CodeTalker (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

citing source multiple times with different pages footnotes

How do we enter citations for the same source, but different pages, such as "Williams, p. 234-237"?Socratesart:talk 00:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Socratesart:talk 00:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You can use named references with the rp template. CodeTalker (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

should i replace Template:Citation style on Cristina Merchán

i wany to replace Template:Citation style with Template:No footnotes. is my decision correct? please suggest. 28july21 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@28july21: Yes, that would be more appropriate there. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Spanish article

Subject do not qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

Hi Teahouse Editors, my name is Steve, hope all is well.

I'm new to Wikipedia.

Can someone please help me with my Spanish article? SteveJClay (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. Your sandbox draft submission was in Spanish, and was declined. If you wish to write an article in Spanish, you need to do so in the Spanish Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why am not an autoconfirmed user?

Hanny M (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

According to Special:UserRights/Hanny M you are. What's the problem? Meters (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the problem perhaps in some tentacle of Wikimedia other than English-language Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Has not made any edits to other Wikipedias for years, but might have tried and failed. Hanny M, we can't give you any more info without a response. Meters (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

asad

182.184.67.245 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Jejsiguoa

Hello! I am an non-logged editor. I joined wikipedia and wikimedia commons with Jejsiguoa account on 29th january 2021. And till yesterday, I edited and crossed 500 contributions. But now, I want to transfer those accounts to a different ip address. Is it possible? How can I do it? the device with Jejsiguoa is now of no use to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.187.240.151 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account is not tied to any specific IP address. You can log on to that account from any device. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I notice, however that a statement on your user page appears to be admitting to sockpuppetry for the purpose of block evasion. This is not permitted, and would be liable to get your account blocked. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Would I log out from the old device and join with Jejsiguoa from my new device?223.187.240.151 (talk)

As stated above, you can log into an account from any device that has internet access. You need not log out on other devices. I am occasionally logged in from a smartphone and a desktop computer at the same time, and that works just fine. However, you must not misuse access to evade blocks or to engage in sockpuppetry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question by Chondhi

My Chondhi page uptil not showing in Wikipedia for public why? Chondhi (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chondhi In short, you wrote it in the wrong place. Your userpage (User:Chondhi) is for, if you want, to write a little about yourself and what you do/want to do on WP. When you think Draft:Chondhi is ready, use the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

New Article

How can a user create a new article on wikipedia. What is the eligibility 2006nishan178713 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@2006nishan178713, Hello! This is difficult for a beginner but here is some guidance: Pick a topic that meets the demands at WP:GNG. If you don't have the sources demanded there, what you write will be removed. Next, learn how to add inline citations correctly, this is essential. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:REFBEGIN can help with that. Guidance on how to start an article is at WP:YFA, and if you intend to write about a living person, read WP:BLP as well. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tack för vägledningen 2006nishan178713 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Inga problem! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

My post was removed and someone said I was trying to promote

I didn't want to promote but I was kinda explaining the account and I really only need my wiki thing up for at least 10 hours so I can get what I need to happen which is trying to get my Twitter verified somehow. I'm just 13 so you also can't expect a wiki paragraph that I write to look good OverLord Official (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

OverLord Official, we hope that paragraphs look good, but we don't demand it. After all, we can make them look good, if they say something worth saying. What you wrote in your sandbox read in part If anyone knows me and sees this then add anything that is NOT info at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some kind of "social media" proving ground or playground; any sensible 13- or 83-year-old knows the difference. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

And don't ask the same question here and at Help. Duplication wastes volunteers' time. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

General comment for anyone skimming the Teahouse. I'm not into Twitter, but I believe they suspended account verification for quite a while and are now re-introducing it. https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts says To receive the blue badge, your account must be authentic, notable, and active. ... Notable ... Companies, brands, and organizations: ... must meet 2 of the following [three] requirements: presence in public indices, including but not limited to ... stable Wikipedia articles that meet the encyclopedia’s notability standards, ... On one hand, it's nice that Twitter has some faith in us; on the other hand the extra criteria are non-trivial: significant recent mentions in Verified news sources or top .05% (!) ranking in followers. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 17:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I dont use twitter, but as far as the standards in wikipedia, Incorporating Direct Links into your SNS profile / Writing a promotional Statements such as asking people to add, follow or check, your SNS profile, is not acceptable at any circumstances. And What is the benefit of having the

badge anyway ? 海之 09:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Blue J Legal

Hello, everyone! My Draft:Blue J Legal was recently rejected by Tame. Since I haven’t found any advertisement or promotional content myself, I’m asking for help from more experienced users. I did my best to add sources to all the information in the article but you are more than welcome to correct me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blue_J_Legal Rupertdonovan (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: The user first took the reasonable step to contact the reviewer directly at User talk:Tamingimpala#Blue J Legal, and was directed here for assistance. GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the current content is overly promotional but the greater problem, in my opinion, is that virtually all the references are based on interviews with the people involved or what I assume are press releases. So it is a question of establishing corporate notability using reliable secondary sources that are about the company rather than by the company. If you focus on any of these and trim some of the others, the draft would have a much greater chance of acceptance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question by Lovingheartloving

Why my three articles are not accepted yet? It's been 4 day. Lovingheartloving (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lovingheartloving As it says at (the bottom of) Draft:Vera Grabocka "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take a week or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Check also where the review waiting-template says: "Improving your odds of a speedy review". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

For your information, the backlog of drafts used to number in the thousands, and the wait for a review could be months. Your three may take a while because the refs are in Albanian. Also, in addition to the three drafts, you created Rainita Pupi in mainspace without going through the AfC process. In my opinion, the refs do not support her being a notable performer (10 of the 12 refs are about her death from COVID, which contribute nothing to notability). David notMD (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Updating incorrect article - help appreciated!

Hello, please let me know if I'm in the right place. I work for Writtle University College (page here: Writtle University College) and have noticed that a lot of the info on our page is outdated or entirely incorrect.

I don't want to alter the page myself (I realise this could be a conflict of interest) but could anyone point me in the direction of finding an impartial editor to add updates? I could direct editors to sources (e.g. newspaper articles from third parties) or point out incorrect sections.

The colours listed in the info box are wrong, and so is the number of students and the motto. The info on the Northumberland Building Light Well Mosaic is very, very old - our students have done a lot of exciting things since then!

For example, we have a wide range of facilities and in 2020 we were the National Student Survey's UK's top raised institution for student satisfaction (https://www.essexlive.news/special-features/putting-science-practice-writtle-university-4525887) in addition to getting 100% satisfaction for some of our higher education courses ( https://www.hortweek.com/writtle-university-college-achieves-100-student-satisfaction-rating-horticulture-degree/parks-and-gardens/article/1693582) .

We also recently launched the UK's first permanent 3x3 basketball facilities (https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/writtle-university-colleges-summer-sport-festival-to-launch-uks-first-bespoke-3x3-basketball-courts/)

Writtle was the first UK university to offer degrees in Regenerative Agriculture and recently launched a new MBA (https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/university-leads-the-way-with-new-regenerative-food-systems-mba/)

If anyone would like me to point out more new info or incorrect details just let me know.

Any help appreciated! Essex.Comms (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Essex.Comms You may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Writtle University College, detailing changes you feel are needed. Other editors will see this and evaluate your request. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please

Can anyone delete my account forever? Please delete it. Hyderabadi (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hyderabadi It is not possible to delete an account, for both technical and legal reasons(all edits must be attributed to someone); but you may just abandon your account, or you may request a courtesy vanishing. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Accounts can’t be deleted for the reasons give here, but you can simply just not edit anymore if that’s what you want to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Although you have blanked your user page, older versions can still be read. If you want your user page (and all its older versions) deleted, just add "{{Db-u1}}" to it. If you have sandboxes or similar, you can also add it to these. (However, you can't add it to your talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@331dot, Marchjuly, and Hoary: thanks. Hyderabadi (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sand Box

Hello Folks....What's the usefulness of sand box Emmy Rey (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Emmy Rey. Take a look at H:SAND. Basically, your sandbox is a place for you to test out your editing skills and perhaps develop articles. It is relatively free from "interference" from other users but is still, like all Wikipedia, visible to anyone who knows where to look. Don't place copyrighted information in there but otherwise almost anything you want to try out can be used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emmy Rey: I find it particularly useful if I'm trying to figure out how to do something tricky, like a complicated table. I experiment with it in my Sandbox until I'm happy with it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it ok if I gradually edit this article?

As of now I have added 55 citations and I have to add 46 more + changing party colours and names. But I have some other work too, so may I edit the rest later? Or can I move the article to a draft sapce and edit it there and after completion, move it to the mainspace. Excellenc1 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You can leave it as it is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Because of your recent work, I removed the tags at the top of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Gradually editing an article is always completely fine! Wikipedia editors are volunteers and as such are never obligated to do anything except follow the rules. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Help adding criticisms to the IKEA page

I am a junior member at Earthsight and have been trying to add our reports to the criticisms section of IKEAs article. I appreciate Wikipedia's rules re: conflict of interest / self promotion, but I believe our work constitutes substantial criticism, is based on concrete evidence, and is relevant to the article. I've been asking for help frequently in the IKEA talk page but basically keep getting patronised for not being good enough with the formatting and criticised for my persistence as if I'm trying to do something wrong.

There's no denying we have an agenda here - we are after-all an advocacy organisation who want our findings widely known to pressure IKEA and FSC to reform their ways. However, our findings have been internationally reported on by news outlets round the world and can objectively be considered as valid, substantiated criticisms of IKEA.

This is my latest attempt which was denied "due to laughable formatting and incredibly obvious bias" - true I could not figure out how to reference in the talk article, but I'm honestly not sure how to proceed with the bias issue. I mention and link to Earthsight because it's our work and where the full report is, it seems weird to me to cut all reference of the source out, but I'm very much an amateur having a stab at this.

Use of Illegal Timber

In June 2020 IKEA was found to be selling beech chairs made from wood which was illegally felled in the forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians - including their best-selling Terje and Ingolf chairs. In their investigation Flatpacked Forests environmental NGO Earthsight found that many of Ikea’s melamine-coated chipboard furniture products were made from Ukrainian wood of suspect origin.

The report focussed criticism on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the world’s leading green labelling system for timber, which IKEA uses extensively to prevent illegal and unsustainably harvested wood from entering its supply chains.

Ukrainian forester whistleblowers explained how FSC audits could easily be undermined through corruption and deception, especially during the Ukrainian presidency of Viktor Yanukovych in 2011-14, who has been widely criticized for "massive" corruption and fostered an environment where fraud and the doctoring of official documents was rampant.

A further Earthsight report in July 2021 focussed on the brand's popular Sundvik children's range and Flisat doll's house as likely being tainted with illegal wood from protected forests in Russia. Ikea’s House of Horrors linked their furniture to Siberian forests under the control of one of Russia's top-50 wealthiest politicians, Evgeny Bakurov.

The investigation found that Bakurov's businesses broke numerous forestry and environmental laws, using a practice known as sanitary felling to cut down trees under the false pretext they were dead, dying, diseased or damaged. Over the last decade, these illegal deals have helped Bakurov controlled firms harvet 2.16 million cubic metres of wood.

Again, Bakurov's pine was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), allowing it to enter into many other supply chains heading to Europe and the US, aside from Ikea's. The report argues a majority of the EU's imports from eastern Russia are potentially contaminated with FSC audits rarely mentioning or addressing the rampant illegal logging documented within Russian authorities.

Ikea denies all wrongdoing and has announced a temporary ban on sanitary felled wood from Siberia and Russia. The retailer insists Bakurov's wood was "legally harvested" – but have stopped purchasing from his associated companies, citing unspecified "practices of concern".

I'd be happy to work with an impartial editor to include our findings if anyone would be so kind TomElliott113 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC) TomElliott113 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

TomElliott113 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first suggest that you review this beginner's guide to citations so you can work to resolve that issue. I do kinda think that you were dismissed too easily, and have said so on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

331dot sums it up nicely on the article talk page. There was also a response from Shushugah. The information is being looked at. I agree with the assessment that you should not have been dismissed so easily nor should you have been responded to in the way you were. All involved were cautioned not to WP:bite new editors who approach us in good faith and follow the guidelines and policies of reporting a COI or that they are a paid advocate. I feel very confident that your request will be assessed and handled well on the article talk page. Thank you, TomElliott113 for joining Wikipedia and hope you decide to continue to edit and contribute valuable information to the encyclopedia in other areas as well.

--ARose Wolf 14:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is detail about burial remains suitable content?

I would like feedback on whether the information added in this edit of Marian and Vivian Brown is encyclopedic or if it should be removed because it is not encyclopedic or otherwise not suitable for Wikipedia. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It depends. A detail like that should probably be discussed on the talk page. For what it's worth, I personally don't think the location of their urns is unique enough to warrant inclusion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The World of the Orient (journal)

Courtesy link: Draft:The World of the Orient (journal)

Dear colleagues, Could you help me to improve my draft to publish it. Scientific articles about history of our academic journal (The World of the Orient) was published in Ukrainian language, so I can not give: "...the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Please help me in this problem. Spectatorius (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spectatorius: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! There is no requirement that sources should be in English, if this journal has received coverage in Ukrainian language sources then it is completely fine to use those sources as the basis for the article. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spectatorius: You'll find more information about citing non-English sources at WP:NOTENG; however, please understand that while non-English sources can be cited, they will still need to satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, you might be asked to provide information about the sources in English to help others assess them if they have concerns about their reliability. Finally, you yourself don't need to be a native Ukrainian speaker per se, but you're also going to be expected to be competent enough in Ukrainian to read the sources, self-assess their reliability and then properly use it in WP:RSCONTEXT. If you're not, then you should try to find an editor who can via WP:TRLA or maybe even at WT:UKRAINE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeking reliable sources for The Village Of Brambleshire Wood

What reliable sources are there for The Village Of Brambleshire Wood? I had initially submitted it as a stub, inviting others to expand it, say, by including those reliable sources! Instead, it was moved to the draftspace.
ANY help along those lines will be muchly appreciated.
Parker Gabriel 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Parker Gabriel 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:The Village Of Brambleshire Wood Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Even Stubs have to have references at time of creation. If you cannot find reliable source references for this song, the draft will never be accepted. David notMD (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Parker Gabriel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't want to be too negative, but... if writing Wikipedia articles was building houses, what you have done is said "I think a house would be nice here. I've propped up some walls: would somebody please build the foundations for me". Somebody might be willing to have a go at those foundations, but you're the one that wants that house there, so why should they? Furthermore, they may find that when they try to build the foundations that the ground is not fit to build on (the song is not notable). This is why writing a Wikipedia article starts with finding the sources: if you write so much as a single word before you've found the sources, you may turn out to have wasted the whole of your effort. Please sign posts on talk and discussion pages by inserting four tildes (~~~~) or using the signature tool: you've apparently signed longhand above, but haven't included a link to your user page or user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I get permissions from old accounts?

I have had 4 IP adresses and 2 accounts. Had they all been connected, I would have had 265 days of service and ~2,000 edits, which would give me a lot of permissions (Autoconfimered, Extenddend confimred...), which would be useful for me right now. Is there some way I can get them on this account? Starship SN20 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Starship SN20 You can make a request at WP:PERM and explain your situation, as well as your need for the permissions you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Are we allowed to use French reliable sources? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. Great question! Here's what Wikipedia says about that: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Happy editing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: The information kindly provided by Pyrrho the Skeptic can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Change a Redirect page into a Stub-class article: How? (Eyal Press)

I was looking for an article on Eyal Press. All that Eyal Press has now, is a Redirect to the article on the Russell Sage Foundation. I just started a Talk page on Eyal Press, even though it's a Redirect page -- I got to the Redirect page by clicking the link at the top of the Foundation's page. The article will be pretty weak, but Press does deserve coverage. More on the Talk page on the existing Redirect page. Oaklandguy (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

}} Oaklandguy (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Oaklandguy. People are more likely to see your comment if you put it on Talk:Russell Sage Foundation. If you think that the Eyal Press meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then the redirect could be expanded to an article; but if you want to do so, I recommend that you treat it as a new article, and use AFC to create a draft: the reviewer who accepts it will move it over the redirect. Alternatively, if there are sources for it but not enough to establish notability, I suggest you add a section to Russell Sage Foundation (I'm assuming that there is some connection, giving a reason for the redirect): don't creqate a stub if you don't believe it can ever satisfactorily be expanded to an article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, ColinFine. As to notability: Eyal Press is the name of an author whose book was recently reviewed by the New York Times, among others. He was a Visiting Journalist at the Russell Sage Foundation in Spring 2016^[1] That, in itself, is not enough to establish notability, but that webpage would be a source to cite. I've seen some articles that are called "stub class", but I thought were quite decent starts -- what I meant was, a page on Eyal Press could well become more of an article, just not an elaborate one, especially if other editors improve what I would provide. I've made lots of edits but I've never started an article before. I had only a vague idea of the "Articles for creation" process -- I didn't know what it was called -- now I understand that a bit better. Also, now I know that some person in that process (but not me) could do the technical part of replacing the existing redirect page. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Oaklandguy - I assumed Eyal Press was the name of a publishing house! Again, whether or not it can be expanded to an article depends not on the skill of the editors who try and do so, but on whether the sources exist. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, here's another idea. Maybe I should add Eyal Press to Requested Articles. It would go in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#N–S. I could describe why it should be an article and the problem with the existing setup (the redirect page isn't useful except to editors). I could add some citeable sources (I have 2 so far, could easily find more). I think there will be an article someday on Eyal Fine. Oaklandguy (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "Eyal Press". Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved 20 August 2021.

You're welcome to do so, Oaklandguy, but to be honest WP:RA is mostly a graveyard for ideas. In principle people might pick them up, but I don't think it happens very often. I suggest creating the draft yourself - if at some point it's left six months without being edited, it might get deleted, but as long as you keep working at it slowly, it'll stay until you think it's ready to submit, or you decide that he doesn't meet the criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Lo que en esta página es algo que Wikipedia no es?

Lo que en esta página es algo que Wikipedia no es? Nave espacial SN20 ( charla) 17:39, 20 de Agosto 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship SN20 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

¡Hola y bienvenido! ¿Qué quiere decir? ¿Podrías preguntar de otra manera? ¿Está esto relacionado con su otra pregunta? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Non! C'est une blague!

This isn't really something you should joke about. Also, there is a template that you should put with your question to indicate it's a joke, and you really shouldn't be making joke questions on Teahouse anyways. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, please speak English in this Wiki. There's a French Wikipedia though if you're more fluent in french (i don't know how to link to it) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would someone who posts in Spanish be more interested in French Wikipedia than in Spanish Wikipedia? You'll find links to all Wikipedia versions from the main page of Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 19:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it appears they used a mixture of French and Spanish. The question was in Spanish but them saying that this is a joke is in French. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Blaze The Wolf: You could provide links to French Wikipedia or fr:Wikipédia:Accueil_principal. GoingBatty (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Since they seem to have copied their signature from another language wiki I'm adding this Starship SN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in case anyone wants to get to their talk page. FWIW their first edit is to redirect an IP talk page which is a bit odd and might reveal more info then they realize. MarnetteD|Talk 19:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed editors

Hi, I am not able to use translation tool in en wiki as I am not an extended confirmed editor. I've been en wiki editor for over 3 years and made over 1,200 edits. How can I have this turned on? Wolfmartyn (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wolfmartyn Per [4] you are extended confirmed, so the problem is something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. This is the error I am getting, any idea what is it referring to?:

Translate page - On the English Wikipedia machine translation is disabled for all users and this tool is limited to extended confirmed editors.

Wolfmartyn (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia talk:Content translation tool and the instructions at WP:CXT#Turning the tool on and off? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wolfmartyn: The ability to use machine translations is disabled on the English Wikipedia - as an extended confirmed user you can use the content translation tool but you will have to translate the material by hand. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Also you can't save pages into the main namespace, you will need to save your translations somewhere else. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is The Times Bulletin news source acceptable as per Wikipedia notable guidelines?

Hi everyone I have an interesting article to create and I am not sure about the reference can I give The Times Bulletin as an reference? Boti2481 (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boti2481: It depends what you want to use it for, but it appears to be a reliable source (with history going back over a century). I suggest you create the article in draft space though, to give you time to work on it, so you don't have to worry about someone coming along and deleting it from main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Boti2481, the presumption is that it is reliable for news about people and events in and around Van Wert, Ohio, but certainly not for content pertaining to nuclear physics, art history or radioastronomy. Context matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousIndiaz. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

How do I disclose that I am being paid to write an article for my company?

How do I disclose that I am being paid to write an article for my company? Merckie514 (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Merckie514 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will post information about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, please see WP:PAID. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Jejsiguoa 2

To the answer of my recent question, I wanted to create Jejsiguoa account again in my new device. But when I am creating an with account Jejsiguoa, it is showing Username entered already in use. Please choose a different name.. What to do?223.187.240.151 (talk)

You don't need to create an account for each device you use. Simply log in with your existing account information on whichever device you are using. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account, Jejsiguoa, is stored on Wikimedia's servers. You just need to re-login to the account on your new device to regain access. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Carol Hooven, Department of Evolutionary Biology at Harvard book: The Story of Testosterone....

Why isn't her book covered and annotated? SkybirdISLM (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@SkybirdISLM: She's been in the news recently for gender controversies. Sounds like nobody has taken an interest in adding her or the book yet, but I haven't checked to see if there are enough reviews to warrant a book article yet. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This topic's also under sanctions, so I'd imagine that the editors working on it are making sure everything is in apple-pie order before submitting an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this Draft need anything else?

Hello! I'm trying to get my first wiki post published ... is there anything else I need to do to my draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Prudence_Carter

Also, someone else (don't know who) seems to have another draft on the same person ... (my draft seems more complete). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prudence_Carter

Any advice would be appreciated :) Ddiptee (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ddiptee meet Yhtomitttl, Yhtomitttl meet Ddiptee. As Ddiptee noted here, you are both working on a draft about the same person. Wikipedia actually has a guideline about what to do when there is a draft and an article about the same person (see Wikipedia:Processing drafts with duplicate titles). There is also a guideline if one draft has already been submitted (that one takes precedence and the other one is declined). Your situation is a bit different, as neither draft has been submitted. What I suggest is that the two of you communicate on your Talk pages, decide which draft to collaborate on, and let the other one go fallow. Could be which one got started first (Y), or which one has more content (D). If either of you have a personal connection to Dr. Carter, declare that on your User page. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Draft:Dr. Prudence Carter now redirects to Prudence Carter. GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

article submission process

1. The best way to submit articles for review - as a draft page or as sandbox page

2.Do i need to include tags for easy and quick review, and if i need to what is the syntax going to be like? Prosperhaven (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Help:Your first article will help. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Header added

by ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You said: Unambiguous: not open to more than one interpretation. So, you are only interested in if and by golly stories. Since truth is narrowly defined, that would mean the truth does not abide in you. 97.115.149.226 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably about the speedy deletion of Draft:Biblical Evolution, which was described on your user talk page as "unambiguous copyright infringement". IP user: your draft was rejected because its content was copied from somewhere else: that's all. Note that creating a new article is extremely difficult for inexperienced editors, whatever the subject. You may find that what you want to say is already covered in one of the sections of Rejection of evolution by religious groups#Viewpoints or in one of the articles linked from there. --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources demonstrating Notability

Morning all - I'm trying to get a page approved (Scott Bateman MBE), and I perceived that my sources were reliable and showed notability. The editors don't think so, but I'm not sure what could be improved with them? I've got a significant number of other sources that I haven't used but I don't want to use trial and error to get it approved. Would rather understand what's actually being looked for. Thanks Katherinealee (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Scott Bateman (British TV and film producer) --ColinFine (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Katherinealee, and welcome to the Teahouse. At a quick glance many of your sources do look reliable, but they do not contribute to meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because they are not independent of Bateman. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to edit protected article

2021 Taliban offensive

I was asked to generate consensus here but I don't know how to, so I request somebody to do that. 27.7.10.112 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You generate consensus by engaging in discussion on the talk page, to convince others why your proposal should be accepted and why it is an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, I am new to Wikipedia, so please let me know how to use the "Request for Comment" template and how to "ping" editors (and which and how many editors can be pinged).

As an after thought, I request you to read this thread and add the sentence in question (the source mentioned is the Washington Post) as you are an Administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4D90:9497:4C15:4EB4:F36F:5685 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't something that admins do, as they cannot override consensus. There's more information about how to generate requests for comments and pinging. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu is correct. To become an administrator means that the community trusts you not to wield administrator tools to exercise power over others. An administrator's job is to maintain the stability of the Wikipedia project. Protecting an article from disruptive edits is one way to do that. Administrators don't get involved in content disputes, and they don't have the authority to override consensus. If an administrator participates in a content dispute, that administrator must behave as a regular editor and abstain taking actions as an administrator. If you cannot build consensus for what you want to add, then you must accept the consensus. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it OK to make a Wikipedia page's name start with Wikipedia:?

Answer my question. EditJuice (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@EditJuice: I am not an experienced editor, but as per my knowledge, Wikipedia: is for articles regarding Wikipedia's policies and stuff related to users (like the Teahouse). Have you read WP:TITLE? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You can try it, but it won’t be a regular article. Wikipedia:Youtube is not the same thing as Youtube, so it will be subject to different policies. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EditJuice, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two different things that may be going on here. Wikipedia has a number of namespaces, such as User:, Draft:, and Template:: the namespace appears at the beginning of a page name, followed by a colon. Encyclopaedia articles, in the main-space of Wikipedia' have no prefix; for example Germany. So a page should begin with the prefix Wikipedia: only if it is a page about the workings of Wikipedia, or is used to manage Wikipedia: examples are this page, Wikipedia:Teahouse, policies such as Wikipedia:Five pillars, discussion pages such as Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals and essays such as Wikipedia:an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If what you are talking about is (or is intended to be) an encyclopaedia article, it should not have Wikipedia: on the front (it might have Draft: on the front, if it is a draft article).

Separately, a few encyclopaedia articles which are about things related to Wikipedia have names that begin with "Wikipedia", but without a colon; for example Wikipedia community. Does that answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: yes it OK to create something in the Wikipedia: namespace, but it is extremely unlikely that a new user would have any valid reason to do so. See WP:WPNS. I suspect that ColinFine is correct and that you meant an article name starting with "Wikipedia" Meters (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify and Dead Link templates broken?

I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia and I've made lots and lots of minor edits here and there. Only recently, I've started going a little deeper with more involved edits, including things like templates and citations. Just in the past few days, I've needed to add a Dead link tag to a citation on the article for Hugo Boss (fashion designer) (the person, not the company); and a Clarify tag on the page for the movie Evil Eye (2020 film).

I don't know if I did something wrong, but when it actually showed up in the editor, it added all of it's bare mark-up code to the text of the article, followed by the "clarification needed" tag. I tried both visual and source editing and I got the same result.

What am I doing wrong?

PS. Right before I posted this, I did a quick check on those pages to see if they were both still showing the bare code. They aren't, but that only raises a different question. Why do those templates show up as bare code in the editors, but not on the actual pages? JDspeeder1 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@JDspeeder1: when you added the template in this edit you entered the date as {{Dead link|date={{subst:Aug}} {{subst:2021}}|fix-attempted=yes}} This means that the "date" you entered was actually a copy of Template:Abbreviated user group (which has the shortcut {{Aug}}) and a copy of Template:2021 ({{2021}}), which is a error catching template for people accidentally entering the year as a template. When you use the dead link template you either need to enter the date without the template brackets ({{Dead link|date=August 2021}}) or use the DATE template ({{Dead link|{{subst:DATE}}}}) which the server will automatically replace with the date when you save the page. The templates were fixed automatically because there's a bot that runs around fixing dates in maintanance templates 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I someone please review this article?

This article now has 118 citations (You're welcome). Can this have any upgrade on its quality scale? (Note: The citations may not cite the "Since" column of the table in the "List of presidents.." section. Also, the sites France Bleu and actu.fr are used 10 to 12 times each in the article). Excellenc1 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Excellenc1. Unlike typical articles with grades of Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, and FA, "list" articles are restricted to two grades: List and Featured List (FL). Featured articles and featured lists have very rigorous standards and undergo a lot of scrutiny in the peer review process. Thus, the only way to move a List-class article up a grade is to prepare it according to the featured list criteria to the best of your ability, submit it to the page for featured list candidates, respond to and amend criticisms, and see if the list article passes or fails. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Graphic charter of government communication in France

Shouldn't this article be named "Logo of France" or something like that, because anyone interested in the topic wouldn't find this and even Google won't show this article for logo of France (it shows the Emblem)? I know that this logo is not offically recognised as a national symbol but it is used in governmental communication. Excellenc1 (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: I suggest posting your question on the article talk page. If you don't get any response in a few days, then I suggest asking Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France to comment. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Can get some help?

I need some help with Draft:Great Lakes Fleet because I don't know how to cite sources. Could you help me with that? Yours truly Z.M.ZorroMothim (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@ZorroMothim: The three sources in the draft appear to be formatted correctly. The reviewer is asking for additional reliable sources that have significant coverage of this company. See all the links in the gray box at the top of the draft, which starts with "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Stories for kids?

Can l create a stories for kids in Wikipedia article Amossimphiwe1 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Gave this query its own title. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Amossimphiwe1 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so not a place for stories. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Amossimphiwe1: You already asked this question in the "Activities in Wikipedia" section above. Instead of creating a new section, you may post a follow-up question in the same section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha please fix a issue

I am having an issue in Draft:Rishton Ka Manjha please anyone help because we need to get the article to the main page soon Raviana48 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Raviana48 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Raviana48: You may not copy text from another website and paste it into Wikipedia. Instead, you should find reliable sources and summarize/paraphrase what they say. If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article. Who is "we" and why do you "need to get the article to the main page soon"? GoingBatty (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

We need means our production team needs as all the viewers how is going to watch our Tv show needs additional information such as overview cast etc. Please help us to get the draft on mainspace. Raviana48 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you (plural) absolutely do not need to have a Wikipedia article in main article space. Wikipedia is never to be used as a publicity medium. Emphasis on never. If you want to publish information about the show, do it on your own website.

Furthermore, you are evading your block by creating new accounts, and until you get your original account unblocked, you will get no more traction with your help requests. Your block is the only thing that matters now. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Drafting Edits

Feels like a trivial question, but can I use my user sandbox to draft edits that I want to copy over into pre-existing articles, rather than for building new articles? PlasticStylus (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! That is exactly what your sandbox is for, happy editing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PlasticStylus: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to improve it. Yes, you can use the sandbox for most anything related to Wikipedia, such as learning how to edit or to work on some changes to existing articles that you will add to the article later. RudolfRed (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirmation That I Created New Article Correctly

Hello, I recently created the article Petersen Vargas. I am not sure if I created it correctly, as I first drafted it on my userspace and then moved it into mainspace (I am not sure if I created it as a draft, or if creating it as a draft is required). I would like to get some feedback on whether I did anything incorrectly, or if there is anything else I should do about the article. Thank you! Koikefan (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Koikefan. Everything looks fine. Drafts are optional, so you did nothing wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

From technical point of view, looks correct to me! You may want to add Template:BLP to the talk page at Talk:Petersen Vargas and any other relevant WikiProjects, so that they get notified of its creation. A Wikipedia:New pages patrol will formally review it and tag it, if there are any issues. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Atomy - List of Multi level Marketing companies

I am addingAtomy Name in the list .Atomy is a multibillion South Korea based MLM Company|1= boomboom 07:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your edit as we do not have an article about Atomy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shantavira:, maybe User:Bishwa 777 meant

Courtesy link: Atomy Korea? --Maresa63 ^Talk 10:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting timing: Bishwa 777 first tried adding Atomy to the list article. After that was reverted, Bishwa 777 created the article Atomy Korea. However, that article has now been nominated for Speedy Deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi There Yes I tried adding Atomy under list of Business , unfortunately it added preexisting Atomy page not Atomy Korea. Hence research about it and then realized there is not Atomy Korea page. I thought it might be useful for the members who are searching about their business to get a neutral idea about it.

Since it has a millions of members world wide, it makes sense to have a wiki page. boomboom 06:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi There We don't have much article on Atomy Korea but their research partner KAERI has a presence here. So I thought even Atomy Korea should have a page. That was was my intention. If you check their website they have millions of members and they deserve a neutral portal like wiki. Thanks boomboom 06:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Atomy Korea may be article-worthy, but what you created was considered promotional. David notMD (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Not Appearing in Google Searches/Results

Hi, the recently created article Jeremiah Lisbo for some reason does not appear in Google search results, and I am wondering why this is so? The only page that does appear is my Request for Peer Review of the same article. The Lisbo article is relatively new, but there are even newer articles that do appear on Google search results (e.g. Angela Ken). Is there anything I can do to make it appear on Google? Koikefan (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: You can ask Google about it. What Google chooses to list or not list in their search results is entirely out of Wikipedia's control or influence. I'd say give it a month. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

New articles are hidden from search engines until they have been patrolled by WP:NPP or after 90 days, whichever comes first. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and not a venue for promotion. There should be no rush to get it into Google. RudolfRed (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that's a factoid I knew a long time ago but somehow escaped from my memory. Thanks for bringing it back. Looks like the page was patrolled about 3 weeks ago, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something strange with the logs, maybe because at one time the article was redirected, then redirect removed. Special:NewPagesFeed shows the article as unreviewed, & the article source shows <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: The redirect was replaced with an article on the 3rd, which was then reverted back to being a redirect (also on the 3rd) due to not demonstrating notability. The redirect was then automatically reviewed by DannyS712 bot III. The redirect was turned back into an article on the 4th, which has not yet been reviewed, hence why it isn't showing up in google. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. In that case, do you think the delay in being reviewed since the 4th is a normal occurrence, or do you think, as has been suggested above, that something strange has happened with the logs, thereby causing an unnecessary delay? If that is the case, should there be something I do or a proper place this delay should be reported? Koikefan (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: There's nothing weird going on in the logs - the page has just been reviewed multiple times as the article has been repeatedly created and turned back into a redirect. The delay is also completely normal - there are pages from 2005 in the queue still awaiting review. Your page will be added to the list of indexed pages either 90 days after creation or when it is reviewed by a new page patroller, whichever comes soonest. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! Koikefan (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Automatic soft redirects to Commons on all pictures?

Sometimes when an image becomes the subject of discussion it takes place both on en-Wikipedia and on Commons. However, most images are hosted on Commons, you can't directly edit or replace the image on en-Wikipedia etc. so the talk page on en-Wikipedia doesn't seem to add much.

Does it make sense to somehow add soft redirects to Commons on all pictures automatically?

(e.g. have File talk:Jack London Lake by bartosh.jpg redirect to c:File talk:Jack London Lake by bartosh.jpg.) Egroeg5 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Egroeg5:. This could be a good topic of the idea lab at WP:VPI. Since neither of those talk pages has any content, I suggest you provide an example of pages with the problem you are trying to solve RudolfRed (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Egroeg5: Good idea. I have jumped straight to suggesting code at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Talk page of a file hosted at Commons. We can implement it here at the English Wikipedia without a MediaWiki change, and we can tell whether the file exists at Commons but not here. I suggested use of {{Did you mean box}} which is also used in other situations on non-existing pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit a page - how to adit a. Wikipedia page

Radha Raju Ahmed (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Radha Raju Ahmed: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added a link to an editing tutorial on your user talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Rejected

FYI

– added section header GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jaintnp (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)my article is rejected Jaintnp (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jaintnp: Draft:Sushma Adhikari was declined, not rejected. This means you can continue working on it and resubmit. Each award needs an independent and reliable source. Wikipedia isn't looking for links to her videos, but news articles that provide significant coverage about her. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Great Highway

Can anyone help to stop activism NPOV violation s and it's being sneaked mid sentences? Great Highway BikeExpertCA (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@BikeExpertCA: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you have made some edits to the Great Highway article, which have been reverted. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you post on the article's talk page - Talk:Great Highway - where you can discuss your suggestions and concerns, and come to a consensus with your fellow editors. Please also provide reliable sources whenever possible. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: BikeExpertCA has been blocked from editing Great Highway for one month. David notMD (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to link to a 2nd subsection with the same name?

I know how to link to a (sub-)section of another article. I need to link to a subsection that has the same name as a subsection of another, earlier section in the same article. How do I make sure it doesn't link to the earlier subsection? Dutchy45 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read up on, and use, Template:Anchor: this will solve this problem (and other problems too). And it's very easy to use. -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: "it's very easy to use" lol, no it's not! It might as well be Chinese. --Dutchy45 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dutchy45. Please give the full title or URL of any page you're asking about. You can usually add " 2" to the end of a section link to link a second section with that name, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings says section headings should be unique within a page. A link with " 2" will break if the first section heading is later renamed or removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Here 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup is 1 where different subsections have the same name (times 4). Other seasons articles have the same thing. For this "2" do I need to do that after a pipe? --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchy45: No pipe is needed but there is a space in " 2": 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup#Group 1 2. It's confusing to have two "Group 1" in the same tournament. The second external link [5] says A1 and B1 like 2007–08 UEFA Women's Cup. I don't know whether such group names were officially used in 2005–06. The UEFA link [6] is dead. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The second link may be dead, but I got more info by clicking further inside the first link. Thanks for your help. I probably am gonna try to straighten everything out. --Dutchy45 (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dutchy45, the "Anchor" template is very easy to use; however, its "documentation" is indeed confusing and soporific. Let's suppose that an article contains two instances of "===In collaboration===" and you want to point to the second and think that later you might also want to point to the first. Then change the first and the second to "==={{Anchor|collabo1}}In collaboration===" and "==={{Anchor|collabo2}}In collaboration===" respectively. Point to the second via "[[#collabo2|exhibitions in collaboration with others]]" (if within the same article) or "[[Hieronymus Bourbaki#collabo2|Bourbaki's exhibitions in collaboration with others]]" (if not). (Incidentally, there's no need for the names "string1" and "string2". You could call them "tweedledum" and "tweedledee", or "pork" and "cabbage", or whatever. They just have to differ.) Above, PrimeHunter points out that "A link with '2' will break if the first section heading is later renamed or removed." A link to any section heading will break if the heading is later renamed or removed; however, links using Anchor don't carry this risk. -- Hoary (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Aside: unlike in-text section links, the /* section name */ in an edit summary can't be changed after the fact. So once it's broken, it stays broken. :( ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary:, I think I get it now. I'll do some practising in my sandbox later to make sure. Dutchy45 (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Good, Dutchy45; and if you were thinking, "Jeez, more instructions I'm supposed to read; no!", I sympathize. I hadn't used Anchor for some time before I needed to do it recently and I realized I'd forgotten how to use it; so started reading how to use it, dozed off, looked at an article in which I'd used it previously, figured it out in mere seconds, and applied it successfully. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

File:O hudyma cr.jpg on Olesya Hudyma (BLP person), no fair usage template on file

i usually find fair usage template, however there is no such words. can somebody please look into it. 28july21 (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. The file is hosted at Commons. Saying that it's their own work, Lyubomyr76 uploaded it there. If it really is Lyubomyr76's own work, then there's no issue about fair use. If on the other hand you have reason to think that it is not Lyubomyr76's own work, then you should bring up the matter at Commons. (On the page commons:File:O_hudyma_cr.jpg there's an option to nominate the file for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Image Alignment Help

Hello, I am looking for help adjusting the image alignment in the Kangxi Emperor article. As you can see from the article, there are some weird effects on the sections "Personality and Achievements" and "Family", due to the two left-aligned images, making a large white space on the left and making the bullet-point list difficult to read. I looked through a couple of the WP help articles and I played around with it a little myself, but I wasn't able to get the formatting right. Part of the issue is that I really don't understand how the placement of an image in the source text translates into the placement in the article. As far as I can tell, all the images are placed completely randomly in the text but somehow show up more or less where they should. Anyway, I would appreciate any help you can provide. Thank you. Shmarrighan (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shmarrighan: This is referred to in MOS:SANDWICH. Left aligned images are known to mess up the display of some structures, and there should never be text between a left aligned and right aligned image because it doesn't display well on narrow displays (like phones). looking at that article there honestly seem to be far too many images in use - 14 seems excessive. I would be tempted to remove a couple of the less relevant or duplicate images or move some of them into a gallery section. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Thank you! And thank you for the edit you made on the article, it looks better already. --Shmarrighan (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Hi, I come from the Italian Wikipedia and I'm used to using the VisualEditor, without it I work really badly. I tried to activate it here too but I can't, if I go to my preferences under "beta features" no VisualEditor appears. I have activated all the experimental features but I have not solved anything, so even if I want to, I cannot work on the pages. Beaest (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you can change it in Special:Preferences under Editing. Set the edit mode to "Use Visual Editor if possible". ― Qwerfjkl talk 09:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to resubmit 'declined' article Victor Ross (businessman)?

I have responded to helpful comments to improve my article and follow the recieved formatting (I think!), but canmot seem to resubmit...the 'Resubmit' button does not activate. New links and sources have been added. Victor Ross (Rosenfeld) recieved a significant half page Obituary in The Times (London) and was an internationally known public figure, particularly active within the Jewish community. I ould also like to remove '(businessman)' but cannot (Rosenfeld) would be more apt as a title, as VR was asked to anglicise his name when serving in WW2 to avoid reprisals if captured. (I am working in Visual Editor.) Many thanks for your help, hopefully! From RondDeJambe RondDeJambe (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't have any inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Until you have any, it would be pointless to try to submit. As far as the title is concerned, that is something to be decided if/ when the draft is accepted for publication in mainspace. Victor Ross is currently a redirect to another article. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Victor Ross (businessman) has a resubmit button. Before you do, fix the referencing mess. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Numbers in infobox being forced to be links without double brackets

In the infobox at the top right of LEARN journal , the ISSN and eISSN (under "indexing") are forcing those numbers to be links, even without the double brackets. I'm certain that the numbers are correct, yet the pages that the numbers themselves link to don't look like the intended effect. Is there a syntax for forcing text/numbers to NOT be links?

Thanks in advance for any guidance. Mmiklas (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: LEARN Journal - GoingBatty (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Mmiklas, it's a feature of {{Infobox journal}}. The intention, I presume, is that a reader can click/tap through to Worldcat and find a library that holds copies of the journal. There doesn't appear to be a way to suppress it. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Mmiklas (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)mmiklas

If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it

[3:49:37 PM] <EmeraldRhino84> An article with many sources, why did you not agree with it?

If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moamel_Ahmed_Shakeer If possible, is there someone who can help me and modify it or approve it Muamalq (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muamalq: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Part of the issue you have here is that you've included too many citations which is making the page hard to review - this is called citebombing. A simple statment of fact like "This person is a programmer" does not need 11 citations. A statment like "He found a security issue for the department of defense" does not need 21 citations. Cut it down to 1 or 2 really high quality, substantial sources for each fact - googling the name of most of theses sources suggests that there are a few good quality citations here, but there's also a few citations to stuff like press release sites? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, reduce to about 10 citations. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Article for creation

Hi there,

Could someone help me make my draft better please.

Thanks TickTokTickTok (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you are attempting to create an article about the 2021 Greenlandic Football Championship, with each previous year being the subject of an article, BUT THE 2021 SEASON WAS CANCELLED. (Yes, I shouted.) An article cannot exist about a season of games that did not occur. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: So I think this brings up an interesting point: how notable would a sports season need to be for it to be an article despite being canceled before ever beginning? If the cancelation did (for whatever reason) gain international attention, would the article then be '20XX Blahblah Sport Cup', or would it be 'Cancellation of the 20XX Blahblah Sport Cup'? Not asking specifically about this article, of course; it seems clear that this is well behind whatever that threshold would be. I should also note that TickTokTickTok may not have considered this a problem given 2020 Greenlandic Football Championship was created without much ado by a very active soccer editor. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I'm not f*cking stupid, I am aware that the competition is cancelled and so was the 2020 competition as well. And games did occur but the Football Association of Greenland ended up cancelling it. I do research before I start writing you know TickTokTickTok (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is that an article about a season of games that did not take place does not meet Wikipedia's concept of notability. I would differentiate this from 2020 Greenlandic Football Championship because that year the qualifying games took place before the championship was cancelled. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Greenlandic Football Championship

A recent query about the 2021 season led me to Greenlandic Football Championship. I saw that each season has its own article (each with only on ref, from the league), and each team is the subject of an article, mostly with either no ref or only one ref. I have no feelings one way or the other for either football or Greenland, but do wonder about the validity of this collection of articles. Do any Wikipedia-football-knowledgeable editors want to comment? David notMD (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Might be a better question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Posted there. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page is not searchable

I have created a wikipedia page in hindi wikipedia but it is published but it is not searchable in google this is the link plkease make this link searchable in google https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/बृज_किशोर_शर्मा 110.224.177.35 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. This is the English Wikipedia, which is a separate project from Hindi Wikipedia: you need to ask at hi:विकिपीडिया:सहायता. Each Wikipedia has its own policies, but in English Wikipedia new articles are not searchable by external search engines until they have been reviewed. That might also be the case at Hindi Wikipedia: I don't know. --ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The Hindi Wikipedia allows search engine indexing right away but we don't control how quickly an external search engine like Google visits and indexes the page. It was created a few hours ago. Just wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No surprise that it's been G11ed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

an account is vandalising an article by removing verified information

Hello-- new to editing. I have verified all of my edits with credible citations but an article on a living person is being monitored by either themselves or their publicist. This account is deleting entire paragraphs of verified information that is unfavorable to the public image of the subject. What are the rules for this? Does this qualify as vandalism? the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Rye Blindsocialist (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC) blindsocialist

Hi Blindsocialist,

Thanks for asking. The relevant policies are:

No edit-warring,
Proper dispute resolution, first on the article's talk page (Talk:Angela Rye). A helpful essay: WP:DISCFAIL
If there's a dispute about whether material should be within the article, the onus is on you to gain consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS); you have not done so yet.

You have been blocked from editing the page for two weeks to prevent further edit warring, and to encourage proper talk page discussion at Talk:Angela Rye.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand-- when I see the talk page notifications is doesn't take me to a talk page Blindsocialist (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)blindsocialist

@Blindsocialist: Welcome to the Teahouse! I agree that the notifications on User talk:Blindsocialist don't seem to explicitly link to Talk:Angela Rye. You may also wish to read about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Happy editing! 16:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blindsocialist: It appears that the IP you were referring to (in this case, not an account, but rather an anonymous editor) has been partially blocked from editing Angela Rye for two weeks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's August. Think of the two-week block as a vacation. An editor reverted the IP's cuts, so for the moment, most of your added content is present. I believe you can make a case on the Talk page of the article for more content to be added, or existing content edited, even though you are blocked from editing the article itself. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Change draft article url (category?) from Draft to User

Hello. I have a few draft articles I am working on and have not been able to get to them in several months. A bot has reminded me about one of them. I noticed it has a different URL than my other drafts. Does anyone know whether it is possible for me to change the url name or category from Draft to User? And if so, would you please explain how? Currently it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ballet_Florida

and I wonder if it would make more sense to have it as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ballet_Florida

similar to my other drafts? I would just like to keep it in a safer draft format until I have had more time to develop it. Many thanks. Remando (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Remando, and welcome to the Teahouse. User:Ballet Florida would be the user page of a non-existent user called "Ballet Florida". Nobody but that user should use it, and it should not contain an article or a draft of an article. Draft:Ballet Florida is a good place to draft an article about "Ballet Florida". An alternative place would be a user subpage of yours, that you could call User:Remando/Ballet Florida. In my view, Draft space is a better place to prepare drafts, but user subpages were where it was done before Draft space was added, and many users still use them. (Note that I have specified these pages by putting their names in double square brackets, eg [[Draft:Ballet Florida]]. This is more concise than writing a URL, you can retain most spaces and punctuation that is in the name, and it shows you, as a redlink, if any of the pages don't exist). --ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine. I think I did mean to ask how to change it from Draft:Ballet Florida to User:Remando/Ballet Florida. So you recommend I keep it as-is? I was worried that it would be deleted before I have a chance to spend time on it after seeing this note on my talk page User_talk:Remando#Concern_regarding_Draft:Ballet_Florida. -Remando (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Remando. Unedited drafts are subject to deletion after six months of inactivity. All you need to do is make a minor edit to any such draft, and that gives you another six months. Moving drafts is also an option. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Remando! If I understand correctly, you can make a small edit to the draft and that will reset the 6-month timer(?) But if it's something you want to set aside for yourself until "someday", you could move it to your user space. The goal with Draft: space was that other people might find drafts there and work on them, but in practice that rarely happens. (Disclosure: I'm not a big fan of the 6-month limit on drafts, but that's a whole other discussion.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Pelagic and @Cullen328! All very helpful. Remando (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to Edit a post

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § How to Edit a post

– Qwerfjkl talk 19:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone... So when I wanna edit a post, I'll just click on "home" and then read posts, and edit posts that are contrary to what the real thing is..?? Emmy Rey (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by "home". If you find content at an article that you believe to be not true, AND you can provide a reference supporting your conclusion, you can edit the article and add the reference you found. If, on the other hand, you believe you know what is true but do not have a reference, do not change the content. David notMD (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Dieu Et Mon Pais

So my first attempt at making a wikipedia page for the McCurdy Scottish clan family motto was declined. However the Dieu et mon droit page is allowed.

My intention for the creation of the McCurdy Motto page, Dieu et mon pais, is for anyone interested in researching the ancestry of the McCurdy (MacKirdy, etc.) may find this page and be directed to the correct family motto, and the source material for this family motto (Ancestral McCurdys) Figmtnmatt (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I have tagged your draft for speedy deletion as it is a copyright violation of https://ia800905.us.archive.org/27/items/ancestralmccurdy00blan/ancestralmccurdy00blan.pdf Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Figmtnmatt: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Your article appears to be a chapter copied out of a book - you can't upload copyrighted material owned by other people to wikipedia, that's a copyright violation - please see WP:Copying text from other sources. You can use books as sources of information, but you need to write the article in your own words. Pages also need to be structured as an encyclopaedia article with enough information to identify what the article is about, as a single chapter out a book with no introduction or conclusion it doesn't make a lot of sense, e.g. it starts with a sentence which clearly relies on you having read the other chapters of the book to understand - this is why your draft was declined. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the work in the public domain per UK copyright laws since the author died in 1939 and more than 70 years have elapsed since then? Of course, copying from a PD source still needs to be acknowledged using {{PD-notice}}, etc. DanCherek (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, it's out of copyright. Still needs acknowledgement though. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom, not just a family motto. I suggest you simply add your information to the McCurdy (surname) article, in your own words, citing a reliable source for the information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"not just a family motto". That is possibly the most insulting verbiage I have ever read, considering my family's contribution to the Untied States of America. I understand the viewpoint of the copyright of material, however the book I copied from was written in 1930 and is most likely out of copyright. I have removed the copied material. I do not see how any additional context must be included for a McCurdy searching for anything regarding their family name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figmtnmatt (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Figmtnmatt, whether or not a subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability or not, and hence whether or not there can be an article about the subject, has little directly to do with the quality, importance, popularity, fame, significance, or any other intrinsic or consequential property of the subject, save one: it depends almost entirely on whether there is enough material, written and published wholly independently of the subject to ground an article. I take Shantavira's comment as meaning not that the family is unimportant, but that there is not likely to be very much material published about the McCurdy motto (as opposed to the family), unlike the British Royal motto. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I was able to edit the McCurdy surname page and the links I added were further edited by someone to be External links. Much appreciated. Figmtnmatt (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My article was deleted for invalid reasons

The response received is that the article is promotional and its not. How can we address this? 68.199.119.211 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is the only edit from this IP address. What was the title of the deleted article? As an administrator, I could look into it. You can appeal the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think this is about Draft:Dancehall Divas. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. That is considered promotional here. Wikipedia is a place where articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Pleass see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How to join this ongoing voting.

Hello, I learnt that there is a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections going on. Please how can I join..?? And what's it all about..Coz I learnt that there are rewards attached to it at the end of the voting exercise. I need help. Emmy Rey (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emmy Rey: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! You are not eligible to vote in this years election - to vote you must have made a minimum of 300 edits before the 5th of July 2021 and a minimum of 20 edits between the 5th of January 2021 and the 5th of July 2021. These elections occur on meta, here's the page for this year's election: Meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021. I'm not aware of there there being any rewards for voting. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Have I adequately resolved this template message?

I've updated the source for the Emmy awards for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Autobiography_of_Miss_Jane_Pittman_(film); will someone please concur or further guide me in the process? Thanks. Joeythegimp (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joeythegimp: Looks like you've solved the problem to me, there's no information on that page referenced to IMDB anymore! You can go ahead and delete the clean-up template if you want. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Insert image

How do I download images Comrade Fabian Livinus (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Comrade Fabian Livinus: Welcome to the Teahouse! To insert or upload images, see Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and take care to carefully answer the copyright questions. You can't just upload any picture you find online. To download images to your device, use the same process as you would to download an image from any other website. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing an existing book citation

Hello, Thanks for providing and servicing this help forum.

I cited the book source #4 on this Wiki page on the Gion Matsuri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gion_Matsuri# Book: Pawasarat, Catherine (Nov 2020). The Gion Festival: Exploring Its Mysteries. self-published. ISBN 978-0-9985886-6-7.

I used a template for the citations.

I'd like to add a URL for the book (http://www.gionfestival.org/book/), but can't find a way to edit the citation.

I have read numerous wiki help pages on editing and on citations, but have not found examples that match this citation (it has a cog symbol in the upper right window that pops up when I hover over it). And when I click on the article edit tab, I don't get access to the template and the URL field that I'm looking for. (Just to let you know I tried resolving this on my own before writing you).

Any help much appreciated. Thank you. AkasaCatherine (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Akasayeshe: Hello, welcome to the teahouse. The little cog that shows up in the corner of the box when you click on a citation contains the settings for the citation popups (i.e. the boxes that show up when you're reading the article). To actually change the citation you need to click the edit tab at the top of the article then alter the citation template. How you do that will depend on whether you're using the source editor or the wikitext editor. In source editor you need to add an url parameter (i.e. add |url= http://... to the template) in visual editor you click on the citation, click edit then enter the url into the box that appears. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Who is the best dancer in the world

Bandile Mabaso (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the Teahouse is to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question is, of course, entirely a matter of subjective opinion. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with David, but the answer is of course, me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

They're not asking; they're sharing. The answer is "Who", probably a PhD in everything. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Notifications on my phone - all the time

Just the past week, anytime I check my watch list, the list of notifications slides in from the right, and I have to click it to get rid of it. There are no pending notifications; I've read them all, and unticked the little circles, so they're grey. Any thoughts on how to make it stop? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, you should have got an answer already, if it were coming. So, I might as well give it a shot (before recommending some other place to take your question):

Have you tried opening an incognito window/private browsing or whatever else it's called, and logging in? If you do that and the problem is still there, something is different with how Wikipedia handles your account; something to do with your preferences or other modifications you may have made, or just a bug. If it is not there in incognito mode or a different browser, then your current browser data is stuck, so you'll have to clear your cache and cookies. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's it. I'll give it a try. I think maybe that I was checking the notifications so much on a GA/DYK project that my phone has cached that notifications check as the automatic response in my memory. I'll try clearing things. (I am not a tech guy, so appreciate the help. I didn't even think it was a cache problem until your post; thought I'd accidentally turned on a setting somewhere.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have fixed it. Appreciate the help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing the same source? When to use citations

An example. [It was also reported that New South Wales Police had denied entry to ticketholders at the “A State of Trance” music festival in April.16 Speaking to the ABC in June, promoter Richie McNeill estimated that “about 40 people” were turned away from the event after being stopped by a drug detection dog. 17McNeill’s company, Hardware Corp, was also responsible for organising the upcoming Above and Beyond performance at Sydney Showground that weekend. 18When asked about the proposed decision to deny entry to patrons, McNeill acknowledged that his company had given police approval for the plan. 19 “We have to or there’s no event basically” he said.20]

This is a paragraph from an article I'm writing. I've put numbers in where I thought citations might be needed but they'd all be from the same article. Would it be acceptable to put a citation at the end of the paragraph? OpticalBloom241 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, OpticalBloom241. A citation at the end of a paragraph in a well structured Wikipedia article is presumed to verify all of the content in that paragraph. If you want to use the reference in various parts of the article, then carefully follow the instructions at WP:REFNAME. Once you assign a name to a reference, you can invoke it repeatedly with a brief snippet of properly formatted code mentioning that reference name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

New Pages Reviewer tag

Hello 👋

i am reviewing Special:NewPages, i need a tag that helps me on showing Articles which hasn't been Patrolled yet.

thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, You are not a New Page Reviewer and you won't be able to run the tool that helps in this process. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi, dear i think you misunderstood. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

i need it for other projects. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Can you please explain in detail the thing you exactly need? Do you want to tag new articles with any related tags? For example any article being an orphan, or failing notability or cleanup tags etc. Such tags? or anything else? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

or you simply want something that helps in showing articles not patrolled yet? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

by Tags i meant Tag Filter, it helps me to only see unpatrolled ones, and they are marked (like that) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm reply, i am currently reviewing new Pages on CKB wikip in special:NewPages but without the Tag it shows me all the new pages includes Patrolled ones that i don't need them. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, So you are basically seeking assistance for another Wikipedia project. I don't think anyone here would be able to assist. But yes we use the Page Curation tool while reviewing new articles. It doesn't come up with the articles that've been already patrolled but it does show articles tagged with CSD. If that doesn't help, phabricator is the best venue to seek assistance. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

uhmm i think all the projects are linked together? nothing wrong with helping other projects it's wikipedia after all. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad, Each Wikipedia project is different. The only common thing is that they all are hosted by the WMF. If we have some issues here we don't ask at the helpdesk of Arabic Wikipedia. Such issues are seen at Phabricator and perhaps at Meta as well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

ok i got it, sorry 🙏. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sakura emad the Teahouse is for help with editing the English Wikipedia. Unless someone who also happens to edit ckb and is more experienced than you happens to come through here within one and a half days that this post is going to be on this page, you are unlikely to get the help. In the English Wikipedia, it seems this list shows only the unpatrolled pages. There's a page when you change the "en" to "ckb" and press enter, but I wouldn't know if it's what you want. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes! it is (&hidepatrolled=1) thank you alot both of you. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

i have seen it somewhere before a way to only show Articles that's not been Patrolled yet. --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Why are some WikiProjects marked inactive? I know it's not a big deal of a doubt, but I would like to know why they happen. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ken Tony! It does not take many people or wide consensus to create WikiProjects. When they are niche or narrow, they are liable to die, when the few editors who are a part of it stop editing or decide to do something else, or realise they didn't need to create the WikiProject at all and could have just edited under the parent WikiProject. Some WikiProjects may be so narrow in scope that they may have gone inactive because they accomplished most of what they wanted to accomplish. See WP:WikiProject. If you want to activate one, you can do it, but it's better if you have at least a few more editors willing to do it with you. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Starting a page for Zara Rutherford.

I was hoping to start a page for Zara Rutherford to help track her round-the-world solo flight as a 19 year old female. Is this not possible? Packers76 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You have perhaps not read the feedback on your user talk page, or on your draft at Draft:Zara Rutherford? In those feedback messages the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news (hence, not tracking her multi-month effort, and WP:TOOSOON). Resubmit only after she has completed her mission. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Packers76.

I see some advice above by David notMD and at the draft by AngusWOOF to "resubmit after she has completed the trip". Just to be clear, this is not because completion of the trip is required, but because we tend to put a low weight on routine reporting of mildly interesting events; if new articles pop up after the trip, it would show some sustained media coverage.

Another question is where to put the article. After reading both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, I am under the impression that the article should be for the event (something like 2021 circumnavigation by Zara Rutherford) rather than the person. Somehow it feels wrong to me and I would rather have the article at the person name, though. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

propose removal of massive unsourced content from Dogpatch?

There seem to be massive amounts of unsourced content in Dogpatch, San Francisco, and to be clear, I have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations. A repeated mantra that I hear on WP is that unsourced content may be removed without notice or discussion. But I still feel kind of cautious about this. So please provide some feedback as to whether it's really perfectly okay for me to remove unsourced content, such as from § Attractions and characteristics and § History. Fabrickator (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so. If an editor disagrees with you they will revert and you can start a discussion per WP:BRD. Although if you would rather propose it then you can do so on the article's talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclelam - still an active editor as recently as Sept 2020 (COVID?) - was the person who more than doubled the length of the article back in 2012, so perhaps ask that person to come back and fix stuff. In general, I feel under-referenced place articles are less urgent-fix than biographies. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: This raises a point that (based on your comment) seems to be in dispute. Because it is the responsibility of the person who adds content to provide sources, a revert of unsourced content (without having added the required sources) is interpreted as being against policy, or at the very least, is subject to itself being reverted. What part am I misunderstanding? Fabrickator (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I.... am not actually sure. I'm a bit misunderstanding as well as WP:BRD says that if you think an edit should be made, be bold and do it yourself and if an editor disagrees they will revert which will start a discussion of the edit so a consensus can be reached. However you make a good point that it's technically against policy to revert unsourced content as it is the job of the person who added the content to source it. However this seems to not be heavily enforced as unsourced content is removed all the time and then added back by a different person with sources. So I'm not exactly sure what the correct answer would be in this situation. Maybe another editor could help answer this. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I think you are technically sound. It is the policy as you have stated. However, I don't think the intent is to have editors running around deleted every sentence on every article that is unsourced. Maybe that is the intent of some, I guess I would be more likely to either add sources or place a citation needed template on a few unsourced sentences, otherwise I would leave it as it is unless it is a clear violation of NPOV or BLP. That is just me. I tend to leave articles alone unless I plan on working on them anyway. --ARose Wolf 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI - "BLP" is Biography of Living Person, and for those, all content must be referenced, removed if not. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of edits to WP:Verifiability which introduced the sort of self-contradictory guidance, stating at once that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" while observing that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references".

Notice how this compares to WP:Editing policy which states "unsourced content may be challenged and removed". I would note that "challenging" is distinct from "removing". According to WP:verifiability challenges, a challenge is "a good-faith claim that unsourced material cannot be verified in any reliable source".

In the absence of there necessarily being such a good-faith claim, these statements of policy would seem to be incompatible, and one or both of them needs to be changed. Fabrickator (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no significant policy conflict here, though maybe differences in emphasis. All of the relevant policies and guidelines emphasize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and that there are many alternatives to removing content, although it is proper to remove hoaxes, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, copyright violations and obviously non-neutral content immediately. Other good faith content should be kept and tagged "citation needed", unless a diligent search fails to verify the content. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived and worked in or near San Francisco for 49 years and worked for nine years quite close to the Dogpatch neighborhood. In those years, I drove through that neighborhood several times a week. The article states that the Irving M. Scott School is an historic school there, that the clubhouse of the Frisco chapter of the Hells Angels is in that neighborhood, and that there is a Caltrain express station in that neighborhood. All unreferenced. Less than two minutes on Google convinces me that all three claims are verifiable and true, and that the former school building is on the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore deserving of its own article, not removal from the encyclopedia. Editors who "have no interest in making the effort to provide such citations" should never remove such content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So what? We don't each get to decide what the rules are that would be best for the encyclopedia, we establish (through some form of consensus) a set of policies that hopefully cover all possible situations. For instance, the underlying premise is that we would like the content to be accurate, but the policy is that it must be verifiable.

Notwithstanding WP:IAR, if you think a policy is not in Wikipedia's best interest, then the solution is to propose changing the policy, not to ignore it. Otherwise, everybody has the excuse that they are doing whatever they think is best, and there's really no challenging that.

So I agree we're here to build a useful encyclopedia, but the policy is that claims must be supported by reliable sources, unsourced claims can be summarily removed (i.e. as an alternative to adding {{cn}}), and such removals may not be reverted unless a source is provided at the same time. So after I remove all this Dogpatch content, you can go ahead and put it back with citations, but if it's not convenient to you to provide citations, then we'll all just have to live without the content because I made the decision to remove it as allowed by policy. When somebody has the time to add in the citations, then they can restore everything. You don't think that's a difference? Fabrickator (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A visit to WP:Deletionism and WP:Inclusionism might be useful. Again, my own opinion is add citations needed over deleting unreferenced content for place-articles, the opposite for biographies. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You would be within your "rights" to mass-remove with an edit summary of "do not revert without sourcing", but it does not mean it would be a nice thing to do, especially if you think (by personal knowledge etc.) that the content is correct.

At the Teahouse (or Help Desk maybe?) we sometimes get someone asking to change the date of death of their wife/husband because the newspapers got it wrong. We often remove the date entirely and leave an invisible comment telling the next editors about the situation, even if the "correct" thing would be to tell them to ask the newspaper to print a correction (which is a nice way to tell them to get lost). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain in detail what reliable secondary sources mean?

I do not understand how to find reliable secondary sources for gaming news and media that is not released outside Japan, specifically if it's printed media (I don't see any in both US and Japan for printed physical media content tbh). According to Wikipedia, secondary sources mean either books, magazines, or physical media, which I have a hard time finding (I do not see any physical magazines that have content about the game on it, nor do I know which companies/gaming magazine business still print physical magazines). I have searched the internet and online libraries for content related to the game on physical media, but there isn't anything related like Brady Games guide or some Times printed magazine that covers the game and information about it. Because of this, I am not sure how to find Secondary sources in that case. Also, for primary sources, (I believe that the reviewer for my article doesn't consider non-english sources as reliable at all, from their tag review of my submission), I do not find much information on english websites for some, but mostly Japanese/non-english (which I don't speak or understand. According to another person, the sources are reliable, so I am confused on that part as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source (I'm basing on this) Misser420 (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Misser420. Whether a source is considered secondary doesn't really have anything to do with its format. An electronic source could be secondary just as much as a book. Have you read WP:PSTS, which explains the distinctions between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Misser420: I assume we are talking about Draft:Tagatame no Alchemist. See above for secondary vs. primary.

Whether a source is reliable depends on what claim it is used to support, but generally speaking sources with an established reputation for a strong editorial process, issuing corrections when they get things wrong, etc. are preferred. This is true for English, for Japanese, for Swahili etc. sources.

Non-English sources are OK although English sources are preferred if available with the same quality, but they still need to be reliable. The decline comment by IceWelder says many of these sources appear to be from unreliable outlets; I do not know if that is true, but for sure it does not say or imply that being in Japanese is the problem. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Being of a foreign language is not a problem. In the current draft specifically, onlinefanatic.com and appzin.tistory.com are personal blogs, while myanimelist.net is user-generated (a tertiary source); these are by default unreliable. The content from some of the listed sites—sensortower.com, anilist.co, movies.yahoo.co.jp, and satelight.co.jp—are, while potentially from reliable outlets, generated from a database, rather than authored. Additionally, the Satelight one does not appear to show any content. A third of the sources are primary sources (either the dev's or the series' site), which is an issue for notability. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How to message somebody on Wikipedia??

Hello, 06nighthawk60. You write a message on that person's "user talk" page -- just as your own, User talk:06nighthawk60 already shows messages addressed to you. Add your message to the foot of the user talk page (not to the top), and at the end of the message sign it and date it: hit "~" four times in a row. -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Userpage redirects

Hello! So after Colin accidentally forgot to capitalize the T in my username, it gave me a thought. Are users allowed to create user pages that are redirects to their own if the only difference between the usernames of the user pages is the case? I feel like this can cause issues if usernames are case sensitive (so for example, if I redirected the user page Blaze the Wolf to mine, it would cause issues if another user could create an account for Blaze the Wolf). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, I don't believe redirects to cover alternative case are needed. I just tested and searching for:

User:Blaze the Wolf

or

User:Blaze The Wolf

Both provide a link to your user page.

No one else will be able to create a username which is identical to yours but just different by case (At least not without an override which is unlikely to happen)

I just did a quick review of Wikipedia:Redirect and I'm surprised to see that this is not discussed unless I missed something S Philbrick (Talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The weird thing is, when someone links directly to it User:Blaze the Wolf it doesn't redirect to my page. Is this a bug? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I know my former user name User:Tsistunagiska redirects to my current user page but it is an interesting question. --ARose Wolf 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's because when you change your username, it turns your old user page into a redirect. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at first it didn't. A sockpuppet created an account using my old user name and they had to change it and then were blocked upon completion of the investigation. --ARose Wolf 20:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's actually kind of interesting. They were more of an impersonator then than a sock. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It was very odd. They weren't necessarily impersonating because we never edited the same articles. I have no proof but I did suspect they were watching for account name changes. I'm not really sure about the motive because I never contacted them. I wanted to be as far away from them as possible. This is my one and only account and I never want another one. It was a little unnerving until they were instructed by admins to change their name because of the connection with my account. What's even more odd is when I go to the redirect it says it was redirected the same time the change request was approved and moved. I guess there may have been a glitch of sorts or maybe they created the new account at the same time as the change was being processed, I honestly don't know, but it was weird to say the least. --ARose Wolf 20:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The search bar automatically fixes alternate capitalisations (and a load of other things, like accents on letters) direct links don't and would require redirects. If you want to redirect User:Blaze the Wolf to your user page I think the best thing to do would be for you to register that account as a Doppelgänger account and leave it around unused, to prevent the redirect colliding with a later user. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I just tried to do that, however it said that it's too similar to my username, so I think it's safe for me to simply redirect it because if I can't create an account with that username, no one else can. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any point in doing that, Blaze the Wolf: nobody is going to search for that user page, and I doubt that creating it will cause a wrong ping to get to you. I've intentionally pinged you using the wrong version of your username just to see. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That is actually a good point. Nobody is or will be able to search for that specific user page because of the the search bar works. And using the wrong version of my username doesn't ping me. But luckily I don't think redirecting it is going to mess anything up in the long term. If it does I should just be able to request it to be deleted under U1. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How Check Editors

Hi everyone, I will like to find out how I can check and search for all editors in my community (old or new and also unknown). Thanks, Jwale2 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC).

There are relevant categories at Category:Wikipedians in Ghana and Category:Ghanaian Wikipedians, but I don't believe that there is any further subdivision to specific localities within Ghana, and of course there may well be editors who have not declared their locality. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jwale2:. Welcome to the Teahouse. You could also use a Google search for "ghana ip range" to find likely IP addresses that correspond to Ghana (e.g. 41.74.80.0 and so on) and look for editors here who don't have an account. However, there won't be a reliable way to find all such editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

can you tell when the wikipedia page is visible in google search ?

Pushhkar (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pushhkar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles(not "pages") are searchable by outside search engines once they are formally marked as patrolled by a New Pages Patroller, or after a period of time(30-60 days I think). Do you have a particular need for something that you wrote to be searchable? 08:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

90 days if not reviewed automatically by WP:NPP but it can take longer for Google, as it’s a third party service. Overall it’s not the primary motivation for editing Wikipedia. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pushhkar: Please also note that user pages and drafts are not indexed by outside search engines - see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. GoingBatty (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

IABot

Why I can't run IABot tool? It is showing here that it is unable to handle this request. Is this problem only me or is it a common problem? Waiting for a reply. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: The server that runs the tool is down, see Phab:T289447. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a bit unrelated, but what is IABot? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf It's InternetArchiveBot, and it's used to find/create archives of sites (so that if the site goes down or moves all the pages on the website around, we can still see the archived copy of it). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ohhh! Ok. I didn't know there was a specific tool for it. I thought it simply ran automatically. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission declined due to inline citations and footnotes

My submission has been declined due to inline citation and footnotes. I am dumb when it comes to these IT stuffs and referencing. Please, can anyone help? Jdunkwu (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Added a title for this post. Also, Jdunkwu, I'll take a look. I'm assuming you're referring to a draft at AfC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If I'm understanding this correctly, you're referring to Draft:Peter Adinma Dunkwu, which was rejected by Theroadislong. I'll start by saying that it appears – based on the nature of the article and based on your username – that you may be the subject in question. Your username, Jdunkwu, lines up with the first initial of the subject's stated ~~nickname~~ honorific in the article ("JP") and the subject's last name. If this is the case, I highly suggest you read WP:AUTOBIO for why what you're attempting is not a good idea. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Declined, not Rejected. Autobiography is allowed, but all factual statements need to come from reliable source references. If this is about you, and you know some information about you is true, that is not sufficient to be in the article unless you can cite published content not written by you. See Help:Referencing for beginners for ref instructions. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jdunkwu: If you are Dunkwu or related to Dunkwu or have any other conflict of interest, you must declare this on your user page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There might well be a challenge on WP:NOTABILITY grounds, even if the other issues are sorted out. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How to incorporate a video game's opening text into its wiki plot summary?

I am writing the plot summary for the game ULTRAKILL. The first sentences are as follow:

"In Ultrakill, the player controls V1, a machine that uses blood as a fuel source. After the extinction of humanity, the player descends through the layers of Hell in order to harvest the blood of demons..."

However I want to incorporate a series of computer messages that appear at the beginning of the story that serve as the game's unofficial tag-line:

"MANKIND IS DEAD.

BLOOD IS FUEL.

HELL IS FULL."

How would I best do this? Or should this just be left out? EnzoTC (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@EnzoTC: Welcome to the Teahouse. The Manual of Style discourages an in-universe point of view, so that should be left out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Review sandbox article

how do I submit my article for review from my sandbox re? I'm working with the mobile view Olugold (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Olugold (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, see WP:AFC for detailed description of the process. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My first article

Courtesy link: Draft:SkateBird Miami
Hi, I’m a skateboarder and I’m trying to reference a new skatepark that’s being built in Miami. My article has been reviewed and not approved because I need more sources about it. I got articles in the press mentioning it … the thing is new so it’s not easy to come with references JP305 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! If the skate park is in construction, it might be best to wait until the park is completed, before creating an article. See WP:TOOSOON Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@JP305: Welcome to the Teahouse. This may be a case of the subject being written about too soon, and as such might not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. You may wish to take the interactive tutorial if you haven't already, and read up on how to properly cite references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@JP305: both of the people who've replied to you are correct, and I'd add to that that sentences like "cabanas to rest and enjoy the place" read like an advert, and most (all?) of your sources are just press releases. These are not independent from the subject so they don't count towards notability (to count, it needs to be independent, in-depth and reliable). — Bilorv (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

When I tak about the cabanas it’s because usually you dont even have a bench to sit when you skateboard and want to rest. The specs of a skatepark are important to skateboarders. I visited the location and wanted to share the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by JP305 (talk • contribs)

Hi JP305. I can tell you are passionate about skateboarding. I think that is amazing and I'm very glad you are active and also able to get out in the community to visit some of these parks. Unfortunately, your experience while visiting is considered OR or original research. Wikipedia is only concerned with what reliable independent secondary sources say about the subject, in this case SkateBird Miami. As pointed out, it may just be too soon to write about the park. I'm not throwing in a lot of links because most all of the links provided by my fellow editors will get you where you need to go. What I will say is that I empathize with you and understand how important the subject is to you and that you just want to inform other skateboarders about the park and its amenities. Maybe writing your own blog about it or going to a website that features the park and sharing your experience will be better and allow you to share with others. It might just be too soon to meet the criteria here but, in time, maybe more will be written and eventually it will be appropriate to include an article. I hope this helps and I really hope you don't take offense to what my fellow editors are telling you because we all are just here to help. Be encouraged, much wikilove and happy editing!

--ARose Wolf 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows 2 family name sheets for 1 genus: "Ariolimacidae" & "Arionidae" for Genus Ariolimax

FYI

– removed broken template --Maresa63 ^Talk 05:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

As noted above. Regards, LWms

Ariolimax redirects to Banana Slug and only shows one family. Which article are you referring to that shows two? RudolfRed (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed The point LWms (or IP 96.54.23.37) was trying to make is that the genus Ariolimax is listed as being within both the family Ariolimacidae and a member of the family Arionidae. I can only assume this is because two different taxonomic systems were referred to when these pages were created, and it certainly looks like the taxonomy has changed in recent times. It's a bit of a mess, and @LWms/96.54.23.37 you could either post on one of the family talk pages (and then linking to it from a shorter post on the other one) or perhaps, better still, post your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. If you feel brave enough, you could consult page 40 and p365 of this 2017 taxonomic revision and remove it yourself as it looks like Ariolimax is now placed in a family all of its own, and no longer in the Arionidae. (You've got to love the lumpers and splitters!) Nick Moyes (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I decided I should raise the matter at the Gastropod WikiProject. See here. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Submission rejected

Hi, my article draft I wrote was rejected because I included a link to an external SEC report. How can I include the report and not get rejected? I was under the impression that citing an external source is actually helping the article instead of dinging it? Please advise.

Thanks,

Tom Tnoack1 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tnoack1: Welcome to the Teahouse. ~~You did not work on an article draft; rather, you edited~~ If this is about Electrical Transient Analyzer Program, your changes were reverted as the additions seemed promotional. The source you used does not appear to be independent from the subject, and as such has been reverted. Please find a reliable source, and if you have a paid relationship with ETAP, please disclose that on your user page.

ETA: I'm not seeing any draft in your contributions, which suggests it has been deleted, if that is what you are referring to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:MCY.com was deleted, not because you had a link to an external report, but because the draft text was a copyright violation. Wikipedia contributions need to be in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:MCY.com what was the copyright violation? I wrote the copy of the article. Please let me know which sentence or paragraph is a violation so I can correct or rephrase it. Tnoack1 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you usually allowed to remove entire discussions from your own user talk page?

I know that removing notices from Wikipedia administrators is not allowed, but does that apply to discussions? Someone just did it and I thought I'd revert that, but I don't know whether it is actually against policy or not. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MarioSuperstar77. You are allowed to remove such discussions from your talk page, but archiving is preferred. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77 {{subst:Setup auto archiving}} may also help. ― Qwerfjkl talk 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: as there are no removals of discussions from your talk page, I believe you must be talking about this recent removal of a discussion by another user from their talk page.

So, to answer your question within that context: yes they have every right to remove a discussion from their own talk page (except certain required notices, as you pointed out). And no, reverting that discussion on another user's Talk page is not against policy afaik, but would probably be seen as an aggressive move, as users have a lot of latitude about what should remain on their talk page. As far as your own TP, same guidelines apply. See WP:OWNTALK. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

regarding editing chitragutavanshi kayastha

My edits regarding Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha were reverted. I want a clear explaination from the person who has done it. If it is clearly stated that person who has srivastva as his surname is a srivastva kayastha then why my edits were removed? LALAJI1234 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

LALAJI1234, the person is SpacemanSpiff, on whose talk page you pose the same question (in a somewhat belligerent tone) but conclude "ok i have understood it". That's good to hear. I hope that part of what you've understood is that non-Indians are welcome to write about Indian subjects, as long as they do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, just as Indians are welcome to write about non-Indian subjects, as long as ditto. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A time will come when INDIA will be a superpower and we will dicatate things on our own terms. Just wait for that day to happen.LALAJI1234 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't associated with any specific country. Also, this seems like a threat which is against Wikipedia's policies (I don't actually remember which one). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a threat of legal action. And by the way, SpacemanSpiff lives in Chennai. David notMD (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Could someone please explain

Allow me to clarify the offending links in here and I am asking for help: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&title=Draft%3AThomas+Schoenberger&create=Create+new+article+draft:

The Youtube source I cited is cited as such Cicada 3301 ref 17 "Cracking the Code of Cicada 3301". YouTube. Great Big Story. Retrieved 23 May 2020 (though I changed the date to reflect my having re-watched it).

Had it not been so cited I would not have done so, and would have gone straight to IRC to ask how to do it. Is there a way you/wikipedia prefer television programs to be cited? Is there a better way to cite television programs that have aired previously but are not archived on their originating channel? Happy to cite this legitimate documentary the best possible way. Would imbd be better/ I also have imdbpro, but not everyone can access that, so it is really not fair to use it as a source?

FYI, I would never quote some Youtuber blabbing, but "Cracking the Code.." was seriously a documentary, and really good, too. Worth the watch. Thanks!

The wordpress links I use are sworn depositions in court cases which have been cited in part elsewhere for example, by The Daily Beast. Should I add additional links to Trellis, the lawsuit archive site to show they are real lawsuits?

The therealsamizdat is backed up by other sources like the The Great Big Story documentary above, news sources, etc.

I removed the weebly links.

Any other suggestions?

Thanks! PatSeeYou (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

See {{cite episode}}. As for the court papers, we consider those to be primary sources and thus of very limited use; they can't help for notability in any case. This applies to pretty much any other government document. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Thomas Schoenberger David notMD (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Calculating the elevation of a mountain and also distance between two places

1.Hello house, Please having the geographical coordinates of a mountain location, what tools can I use to measure the altitude of that mountain?

2. How do I measure the distance between two places on s map. Is there a tool to do that?Boadu Emma (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Boadu Emma (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boadu Emma Please don't try to derive mountain heights yourself. This would probably be regarded as Original Research. Use reliably published sources that already refer to it, please. If none exist, try to find a source that talks about the general area and its elevation, and refer to it in appropriately vague terms. If you have the coordinates of both points, there are various online tools that a simple Google search can find for you for measuring distance. See also here. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thanks for answering me. I however, want to broaden my knowledge on how mountain's elevation is calculated. I will appreciate if anyone with such knowledge can help.Boadu Emma (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Boadu Emma, purely for your curiosity; mountains are usually calculated based on their height from sea level, but you can also calculate a mountain’s height from the base of a specific location. This is more ambiguous however, as many mountains have multiple starting points potentially even in different countries such as Mt Everest and Mt Kilimanjaro. There are additional concepts such as Topographic prominence. Happy learning and editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes,thanks so much for your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boadu Emma (talk • contribs)

@Boadu Emma: A coordinate just gives you a point on the earth's surface to indicate where the summit is, not its elevation. Techniques for measuring summit elevation (albeit none of it relevant to adding info into Wikipedia articles) include classic Trigonometry, barometric pressure change, LiDAR and, of course, GPS. A quick Ecosia search gave me this, this, this, and even this. Because the Teahouse is a help forum for getting advice on editing Wikipedia, future general questions of this type should either be answered using a search engine and your own inititative, or by asking someone to do the donkey work for you at the WP:REFDESK. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I can't find enough words to thank you. teahouse is blessed with excellent hostsBoadu Emma (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I delete an entire section on "cultural identity" if it doesn't have a source after 1997?

I got a wikipedia and started editing some misinformation about things I care about. I can understand the impulse for people to edit in their own experiences for something as personal as Alcoholics Anonymous but I'm pretty serious about sources in general. As much as I want to delete the entire "cultural identity" section just because I know it isn't true, I think there's an argument for deleting it because it only contains three sources from 1983, 1985, and 1997. How would it be possible to have accurate information about a group's culture with information from 24-38 years ago? Can I delete this entire section while I work on a more modern section with sources from the last 5-10 years? I have a ton...see the talk page of my last edit. Thank you MxLysistrata (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)MxLysistrata

@MxLysistrata: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can be bold and delete it, but it's possible that someone will revert your edit. Instead, you may want to ask this question on the article's talk page - Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous - to gain consensus and give a better explanation than you can in a short edit summary. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

MxLysistrata Since it’s properly sourced, it doesn’t matter how old the information is. I would simply add more updated information to the end of that section, if you can find it. We strive for balance here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire subsection is crap, and warrants deletion. Per GoingBatty, can delete with a clear but concise explanation Many editors watch this article, so if you are reverted, start a discussion at the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what the basis is for such derision about this section. It has multiple sources, and not only that, the sources present different sides of the issue. Would it help to retitle the section from "cultural identity" to "effect on cultural identity"?

Rejecting content merely because you disagree with what it says, that does not sound like an objective reaction. Have there been changes to the AA program that makes these sources irrelevant to the present-day AA program? If there's a source indicating that the methodology of those studies is considered "deprecated", then that would be relevant to the article. Maybe I have a blind spot about something, but removing the current content would suggest to me that we're moving away from NPOV. Fabrickator (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The age of sources is only one of many factors that should be evaluated when determining which sources should be used. A 25 year old academic source may be preferable to a two year old source in the popular press. This is an organization or movement that is over 85 years old so high quality sources published a half century or so after its founding should not be ruled out. MxLysistrata, you say that you want to delete the content "because I know it isn't true" but the section in question presents two different and almost contradictory views of AA, which to me aligns with the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. If you can find high quality and newer sources that address these issues, then bring them forth on the article talk page. An individual Wikipedia editor's opinion about what isn't true carries no weight, unless accompanied by solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

For reference, here's a before-after diff of OP’s edits to the section, which were rather light.

I made a couple of edits myself to the whole "criticism" section. I do think the "cultural identity" subsection title is weird but it does look like a serious source (I have not performed a bibliographic search so maybe it is WP:FRINGE but the onus is on those who want to remove it to prove it). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the AA program has shifted over time, at least to be expecting that participants would hold religious beliefs. That might make those older studies less relevant, but at the very least, this historical content is itself highly relevant. But for the purpose of maintaining encyclopedic content, we should not "pave over" this fact. If AA started out as heavily based on religious beliefs and has become a completely secular program (or at least less religious), it's hard to overstate the significance of this. If we were to ignore the historic changes in an organization like AA, we would be doing a great disservice to the WP community. Fabrickator (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed "Cultural identity" as a subsection title. Changed order of content to chronological. Distinguished between studies and reviews. David notMD (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

new articles

Please let me know how long we should expect to get an approval once we publish content? Also, how can I be added as a regular writer/contributor? Schwartzemg (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Registering an account makes you a regular writer/contributor. Editing an existing article is immediate when you click on Publish changes at the bottom. If you are creating a new article, i.e., a draft, "Publish" means save to draft, not publish to mainspace. Please do not use "we". Accounts are for individuals, not groups. The Welcome on your Talk page has a link to how to create an article. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How to Suggest

Hi Wikipedians,

There is an article with an image that I believe is slightly unsuitable and should be slightly modified. But I don't think I can do it so can I suggest changing this image? Thanks, It'sBirdy (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It'sBirdy, you can have an image modified to your specifications at the WP:Image lab.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with starting article?

How do I do it? DrumFromTheHeart (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Instructions are in the Welcome on your Talk page. That said, you will have a better change at creating an article if you first learn by editing existing articles. David notMD (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How can I add a page from a different language translated over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrumFromTheHeart (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@DrumFromTheHeart: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, even if you're translating an article from another language Wikipedia. You'll first have to make sure that the subject meets the English Wikipedia's criteria for notbaility, since other Wikipedias may have different criteria. See Help:Translation and Help:Your first article for lots of detailed information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability for record labels

Is there a notability guideline for record labels? I'm writing a draft article about Disciple Recordings, and would like to know if there is anything I should add to make a valid claim of significance. This draft is far from complete, I plan to build on most of the content that is already there. Thanks! EDM fan 2 (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@EDM fan 2: Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't think there's a specific guideline for record labels - they would fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New content

How to add new row in table of contents in a article Chaitanya Sure (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chaitanya Sure: Welcome to the Teahouse! When you add a new section header, Wikipedia will automatically adjust the table of contents for the reader. For more information, see Help:Section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Citations

Can I use a book for citation, If it don't have ISBN number? And how to cite same book, many times in a article without writing same information again ? And can I add citation of Marathi language books. Newton Euro (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Use the WorldCat number instead. 2) See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. 3) Yes; we accept non-English sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Newton Euro, Welcome! On "many times," If you use the method described here: WP:INTREF3, you can give your ref a name the first time, and to re-use it you click "Named references" in the toolbar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper Accessability

I recently got a newspapers.com account. I'm wondering if it's okay or useful for me to put block quotes from the newspaper articles I'll be citing on the talk page so other editors can read the source material regardless of whether they have access to the newspaper. Similarly, can I simply include the text in the quote parameter of the citation template, and if so, how much text is too much? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! The policy you want is Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Quotations. Generally quotations should contain the smallest amount of text possible that still contains the relevant material from the source. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I agree with the IP above. My personal guideline is that I will quote up to three sentences from a long, detailed article. If the article is short, I limit myself to one or two sentences. In most cases, I would use the quote parameter in the citation template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: is it ever appropriate to provide a blockquote containing a few paragraphs of text from a newspaper on the talk page where it could be used to expand the Wikipedia page? Similarly, I've noticed newspaper articles can be used to demonstrate notability and was wondering whether blockquoting the content on a talk page is helpful for anyone in the future who might consider an AfD. (I haven't read the entirety of the above mentioned guidelines, but I'll read through them tomorrow) TipsyElephant (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, Wikipedia is very strict about copyright. It is far better to accurately summarize and paraphrase a source instead of quoting it at great length. In one case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the US Supreme Court ruled that a 400 word quote from a 500 page book was a copyright violation. So, I recommend that you keep way below 400 words when quoting a newspaper article. This is a case where less is better. If another editor challenges the reference, then quote a bit more on the talk page, or email the editor the complete text. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You can also describe the length and detail of the source in your own words. For example, "Newspaper A ran seven paragraphs about Person B. The first paragraph describes their recent widget-making awards. The second paragraph discusses their parents, their birthplace and birth date. The third paragraph discusses their education. The fourth paragraph discusses their early years in the widget making industry. The fifth and sixth paragraphs describes their recent widget innovations, and the seventh paragraph describes them as the most famous widget maker of the 21st century." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, one feature of Newspapers.com is that if you create clips, rather than linking to an image of the full page, anyone can see them, even if they don't have an account. Do that and you'll be good! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

When will the article shown in the sanbox get published?

Hi. I would like to know when will the article contributed by will get published? Vaiga Manoj (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Vaiga Manoj/sandbox has not yet been submitted for review, but it would be pointless to submit it in its current state as it has no references. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaiga Manoj, it would be pointless to submit it, or anything like it, because it's blatantly promotional. And that's why I have deleted it. If you want to broadcast an advertisement for this fellow (or anyone else), please do so on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WHY WAS MY PAGE DELETED ? I AM A PUBLIC PERSON, SOMEBODY HELP ME PLEASE ? THANKS

WHY WAS MY PAGE DELETED ? 2603:8001:B301:3F7D:10E9:B99D:B57E:5249 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to The Teahouse. What page are you referring to? I see no page/article that you created. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, please do not type in all caps. That is like yelling. Give us the exact name of the deleted article. Just being a "public person" is not enough for a Wikipedia biography. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SHOUT. ― Qwerfjkl talk 10:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Content Live

Arindam Roy Odisha (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

HOW TO VERIFY MY CONTENT & GET IT LIVE IN WIKIPEDIA. EVEN EARLIER TOO I WAS HAVING A WIKIPEDIA CONTENT LIVE BUT SOME HOW IT WAS DELETED AND POST To THAT I CREATED THIS CONTENT.

First, turn off Caps Lock and stop yelling at us. Second, your draft cites no usable sources. this isn't acceptable. Third, we have little and less tolerance for autobiographies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Arindam Roy Odisha, start with WP:TUTORIAL. If you are trying to start a WP-article, see WP:YFA. If it's about a living person, also read WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See Vimal (actor) as an example of the style and content and referencing for an article about a person in the film industry in India. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to find my article count?

I would add 1 to my {{User humility}} template, but I think I lost the track in between. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Try the edit counter available on wmflabs https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Excellenc1. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This slightly different xtool link has the articles you have created: [7], it says 68 with 1 deleted, which is a little different than the count on your user page. RudolfRed (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It doesn't count some of my articles like Thierry Lataste (which was actually another user's deleted draft which I continued) and Regional Council of Pays de la Loire (whose draft was made by me but was later merged to a pre-existing article which was made by another user while I was making my draft) and maybe a few others. Excellenc1 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Star of (the?) Backstage

Hello, I'm not sure if should I use The Star of Backstage or The Star of the Backstage per English grammar rules. Could you help? Thanks! Patrik L. (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That would depend on context. If you are asking about the Simpsons episode, then the correct title according to The Simpsons (season 33) lacks the definite article. If you think that is wrong, you can discuss it on the talk page of that article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

/'

86.26.112.191 (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question that you would like to ask us? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a COI if...

If I edited a page for the town I live in? It seems like it would be but I"m not exactly sure. I'm not the mayor of my town so maybe not? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're working for the town council/town tourism board (or are editing on behalf of one of those people) and wanting to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion/advertising, then it would be a COI. Otherwise, no it's not a COI to edit on the town you live in, and it makes sense to edit something that you're interested in and presumably knowledgeable about. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

... but of course the edits should be based not on your own knowledge, but on published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf If you are someone who values your online anonymity, consider avoiding editing things such as your local school or college articles - these could theoretically help someone work out where you live, where you went to school and who you might be. Personally, I don't care, but I know many others here do. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know my local school is not notable enough to have an article. But thanks for the heads up. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

zh:中华人民共和国反外国制裁法

Hello! Could you translate from Chinese or use Google transleter? Help me, please--Станислав Савченко (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Станислав Савченко Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:TRANSLATE for information on how translation between different language Wikipedias can be done most effectively. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Or use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language GrahamHardy (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your help!--Станислав Савченко (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this article notable?

Excellenc1 (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Highly doubtful, and if it is, the present sourcing (only one primary source) certainly doesn't establish it. I've gone ahead and placed a WP:PROD tag on the article; thanks for the find! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Koli and kshatriya koliya are different

koli are different from kshatriya Thakor and koli because I have read some where in the koligstan page that they are different and whenever I make a new page for kshatriya Thakor it always get deleted you Wiki I have some proofs of old book pages If you want then I can show you also An indian ancient philospher (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@An indian ancient philospher: So, if I'm understanding correctly, you tried to create a page and it got deleted? What was the title of the page you tried to create? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating a New Wikipedia page

How do you create a new wikipedia page? BalancePublicRelations (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Check out this guide to start creating an article. Fare thee well! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

BalancePublicRelations Before you do so, I would advise you to read our guidelines for conflict of interest editing, paid editing and the username policy. Pahunkat (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BalancePublicRelations: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't have "pages", per se--we have encyclopedia articles on subjects deemed to be notable, in Wikipedia's particular sense of the term. See Wikipedia:Your first article for details. But please note several things:

Your username does not appear to meet our username policy as it represents a company and implies shared use. Please create a new account representing only you as an individual.
Regardless of your username, you are required per the Terms of Use to which you agreed when creating your account to disclose any paid relationship you have with the subjects of any article you are editing.
Encyclopedia articles need to maintain a neutral point of view, and therefore whether paid or not, we strongly discourage editors from working in areas where they have a conflict of interest, because it is difficult for such editors to maintain this neutrality.
Articles should primarily draw their sourcing from reliable sources which are independent of the subject--we care very little about what a subject has to say about itself, and any language which can be seen as promotional will likely be removed.

Please peruse the various links to policies and procedures which I have provided above, and please feel free to ask further questions. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

edit with a source included

If I made an edit, and there is already a source included, why is the edit changed without any explanation? 73.61.22.198 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have no other edits associated with your IP; it is difficult to give a good answer without knowing the edit at issue. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

When someone reverts an edit, they should explain in the edit summary their motivation. Sometimes their edit summary contains links to policies or guidelines to help you understand their motivation. Other times, it can be hard to understand. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you either ask the editor directly on their user talk page, or post on the article talk page and {{ping}} the editor to join the conversation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made edits in the past, so I am not sure why there is a different IP address. OK thank you for the feedback! 73.61.22.198 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP addresses can change over time, even if you are using the same access device. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The changing of IP addresses, especially IPv4 addresses, is another of the reasons why editors are encouraged to register an account. Many new editors do not realize that an IP address is not a feature of a device or a landline, but is assigned and reassigned by an Internet Service Provider. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How to be the first one to create an article on a current event?

Like the ones which come in the main page's 'In The News' section... Excellenc1 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 Creating an article on an unfolding current event is very difficult. It requires good understanding of WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS and the ability to find sources that are highly likely to change hour by hour which in themselves show that an event is worthy of an article here. See also Wikipedia:In the news and Wikipedia:News sources. I remember being up rather late one evening a few years ago (doing WP:NPP work), and saw a brand new page about a fire in a London building that had just been reported. It did not seem notable to me, as so few fires would be. But I decided to give it time, and also turned on UK TV News in case there was any coverage. There was - and it became the Grenfell Tower fire article, and I was pleased I didn't reject it at the time. Personally, I would advise staying away from that kind of breaking news environment unless you are really passionate about such topics and want to edit in a dog-eat-dog scramble to start new pages about such events. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, the advice you got from Nick Moyes is excellent. I will add that breaking news on underrepresented areas of the world may be an exception to the general rule about editing frenzies. So if you're interested in current events, I would recommend staying abreast of news in the developing world. Many important events that happen in Africa, for example, are not covered at all--or not covered well--here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Sadly, we do seem to have a bias towards articles about events and topics in English speaking and 'first world' countries. The difficulty of finding 'reliable sources' must increase exponentially when we're working in a foreign language in those less written-about parts of the world. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is a 23rd great grandson still a conflict of interest?

There is no article for Hans Landis, the last Anabaptist Martyr in Zurich. He is a distant relative, 23rd great grandfather, so would creating an article for him be a conflict of interest? Beelzebub's Brother (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beelzebub's Brother: writing a draft and submitting it for review is the only viable venue on Wikipedia for an editor with a conflict of interest to write an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there. I'd say that a "distant relative" probably doesn't cross the line into a conflict of interest, but Articles for Creation is still a good idea for new editors, because you can work on your draft in a safe space and take your time on it, without worrying about someone coming along and deleting it because it isn't ready for publication. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beelzebub's Brother: I'd say probably not. Here's the test: ask yourself honestly, if you came across negative information about the person, would you hesitate to include it in the article? If yes, that's a COI. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beelzebub's Brother: Sdkb's test is a good one. It depends about how you feel about your 23rd great grandfather. If he's a family tradition who has been celebrated every generation since, of whom the family are deeply proud, who is the subject of conversation every time two aunts are gathered together, then probably yes, you're too close. But if he's just an ancient relative who you happen to be aware of as something someone mentioned once, then no, it's not a conflict. I personally (very risky statement coming up) don't care much about conflict of interest editing, because if someone writes good, balanced encyclopaedic stuff, I cannot tell whether they have a conflict, and the result is the same as had it been written by someone unconnected. The problem is that it's very difficult for someone to write good, balanced encyclopaedic stuff about their own brother. So I'd agree with Anacrhonist: if you think your ancestor is notable, and you think you can write a good, referenced and balanced article, give it a go. The worst case scenario is someone will think you're biased and nominate it for deletion, so if you can cope with that risk, why not try? Elemimele (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn’t Wikipedia use advertising to pay for its content, like so many other platforms? I.e. YouTube. They would never have to ask for money.

73.71.173.85 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Great question. You might enjoy reading this page for the historical, ongoing discussion around this topic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Advertisements are anathema to our values. Wikipedia is built by people like me who have dedicated thousands of hours of completely unpaid volunteer time, and I would seriously consider leaving if adverts were introduced. They would violate our neutral point of view policy, because advertisers would start trying to use that as leverage over us about what we can and cannot say. If you become financially reliant on a company and they notice that your encyclopedia article about them covers the parts of their history they wish to whitewash, then that company is going to threaten to withdraw support, and you will either have to violate your principles or find a new source of revenue.

As it is, the Wikimedia Foundation are completely able to support Wikipedia's servers and many other projects if you choose not to donate (despite the misleading banners that they place on our website during donation drives). I believe I am not alone in much preferring people to donate volunteer labour time rather than money, because we are in dire need of new volunteers and largely unable to complete many basic maintenance tasks that we need to keep our positive reputation and quality standards. — Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Pirzada Shakir

Pirzada Shakir is a Journalist based in Jammu and Kashmir India. He is working with The Kashmir Walla Magazine and contributing to several news organistions 169.149.11.36 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a question about Pirzada Shakir in relation to Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Archiving talkpage

How can I archive my talk page? Hyderabadi (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

For help on archiving a talk page, see Help:Archiving a talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

To quickly set it up, add {{subst:Setup auto archiving}}. ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How can I add further references?

What are you looking for, media articles? I had included first rate international museums and collections that hold the artist's work (Vatican, White House, Portuguese Presidency Museum), as well as major internatinal private art collections (eg. Doria Pamphilij) ...so I really don't understand what it is you require exactly.

Leonel Pedro Gonçalves (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Which article/ draft are you talking about? If it's Draft:Barahona Possollo, you have no references at all. Try reading the advice at WP:Your first article and the links therefrom. Also, please read the feedback, on the draft page and on your user talk page. The words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leonel Pedro Gonçalves: Wikipedia has a very stringent policy for biographies of living people. For example you say "He has had an almost inexplicable attraction for ancient Egypt" but give no indication of who said so or why that's an important fact. All facts in such a biography must be supported by a reliable source so that readers can confirm that this is not just some random comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leonel Pedro Gonçalves:This draft looks like a PR piece written by the artist's own public relations representatives, and would need to be completely rewritten to be turned into a proper encyclopedia article. As such, I have tagged the draft for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional. Please start over, using only verifiable references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject. If these cannot be found (and they don't have to be in English, as long as they can be properly cited), then there is literally nothing upon which an encyclopedia article can be based. --Finngall ^talk 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Leonel Pedro Gonçalves, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I need help understanding why none of my sources qualify accord to Wikipedia guidelines.

Hi! First time here at the Teahouse. I would really appreciate if someone can help me with this draft I'm working on:Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record. I thought that after my last submission the references I added met all the criteria established for notability of the subject, but the most recent review did not agree. Since I got no comments on why the sources weren't valid, I thought I'd come here to get some guidance. Any comments on how to improve the article in general is much appreciated as well. Astropolar13 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Astropolar13: Welcome to the Teahouse. The latest decline seems to also raise concerns of promotional language, which the reviewer may have felt existed because of editorial words like "hence" and "finally", giving it a sense of being instructional. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Astropolar13, it looks like you've gotten several declines on that article. I definitely sympathize with how frustrating that is, and we'll help you out here as best we can. Creating any new page is hard, and that's especially true for company pages, where there's an extra level of scrutiny. First, could you tell us what you consider to be your three best sources for establishing the notability under our relevant guideline? We can give detailed feedback on those more easily than all 15 in the draft. Sometimes reviewers make mistakes and miss qualifying sources, but also sometimes a topic just doesn't have enough available sourcing and isn't ready for inclusion yet; be open to either of those possibilities here. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed a lot of content and refs that in my opinion not relevant to Praxis. Not sure if what is left justifies an article. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at several of the sources which appear very low quality, and almost certainly the result of public relations efforts by the company. One reference labeled Small Business News is actually Mini Business News. Interviews with company executives are not independent coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Astropolar13, what is your relationship, if any, with Praxis Electronic Medical Record? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Tenryuu:, thanks for your feedback!

Hello @Sdkb:, the three most solid sources in my opinion are: Two books by Dr. Mark L. Braunstein, MD, professor at Georgia Tech. You can read more about him here: https://c21u.gatech.edu/team/faculty/braunstein - "Health Informatics on FHIR: How HL7’s New API is Transforming Healthcare" (I bought this book, it is not free online) - "Practitioner’s Guide to Health Informatics" (Found it free in Google Books) and a case study conducted in Uruguay about Praxis: - "Enseñanza de un Programa de Ortesis Mental Clínica: Experiencia con Estudiantes de Medicina en Uruguay. Memorias Del Congreso Nacional De Ingeniería Biomédica".

In addition to this, a source that was already included but was now removed by user David notMD saying that "a self-published book is not a reliable source"; the book was published by Dr. Steven A. Gold, MD, and not the company.

Hello @Cullen328:, I just explained my situation in my talk page. I don't have any relationship with the company.

Hello, Astropolar13. With regard to the book: "self-published" as used in Wikipedia doesn't mean "published by the subject"; it means "not published by a reputable publisher", and generally fails reliability, not necessarily independence. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thanks for the clarification. Could you walk me through why a book published by a doctor would not be reputable? I'm just not getting it yet. Astropolar13 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gold's title The Magic of Praxis suggests he does not have a neutral point of views about the company. Is it known that he has no connection to the company? David notMD (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Magic of Praxis is marketed through the company website, Astropolar13. It is not listed on Google Books. I was unable to find any reviews by reliable sources. There is no evidence that the book went through any professional editing or fact checking. Accordingly, it is not an independent source and not a reliable source by Wikipedia's clear standards. It may well be helpful for users of this software but it is of no use on Wikipedia. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are totally independent of the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks for the feedback. From what I understood, I should evaluate the sources based on the neutrality and reputation of the source and not based on how 'useful' or 'valuable' I think the content is. If it is not too much to ask, could you take a look at the three sources I listed above and see if they meet the criteria? Astropolar13 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Astropolar13, those three sources appear to be reliable and independent to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors creating paintings for articles

Thread has run its course now. Moving final question to users' talk page where I can address it directly. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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

This is an odd one so I thought I would ask here, where odd questions are welcomed. Over at this version of Barbara Teller Ornelas, the infobox image is a watercolour painting of the subject, done by the editor who created the page. I'm sure we would be OK with an editor having taken a photograph and added it to an article they created, since photographs are relatively 'objective', but I am wondering what others think about the portrait being an artistic interpretation? I've asked the editor about possible COI, but that's a separate issue. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 00:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Possibly, for letting me know via my talk page that you were starting a discussion at the Teahouse. I would also like to add my input to the discussion here, as I have done on my talk page and on the Barbara Teller Ornelas talk page. I am a professional artist. Some of my paintings are in museums. I made a quick painting, I believe a good one, for the article because there was no photo. Please feel free to add a photo to the article if you find one. Maybe Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia should establish some criteria for paintings used as portraits. Second, I have not met Barbara Teller Ornelas. There is no COI. I created the article for the WikiProject: Indigenous women. Shari Garland (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion has taken root on the article talk page, which might be the best place to respond if anyone is interested. --- Possibly ☎ 04:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my representation of Barbara Teller Ornelas for those who might want to know the source of this topic. Shari Garland (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions remain:

1) Should I, as a professional artist, continue to make watercolor paintings and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for Wikipedia articles?

2) Should my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas be added back to the article Barbara Teller Ornelas?

3) If the answer to question 2) is yes, then who should add my watercolor portrait of Barbara Teller Ornelas back to the article?

Shari Garland (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Teller Ornelas State Department portrait

I'll give you my opinion: 1) No, based on your painting and the photo I don't think interpretations like this are useful in the WP-context. 2) No, not unless it has coverage in indepentent WP:RS, and if so, not as leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Why would an artist's own watercolor painting image need to include a reliable source when an artist's own original photography image would not? Shari Garland (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A photo, even if burdened with artistic intentions, will probably resemble the topic. A painting by a random netizen is less likely to do so, and without any independent attention, adding it fails WP:PROPORTION. I see no use in adding, in this case, an image with the text "2021 Watercolor portrait of Ornelas, by pseudomynous Wikipedian/User:Shari Garland." That is my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 1) A painted portrait by a professional artist from any era including and in between ancient and modern times is accurate enough to use as an infobox image for a biographical article on Wikipedia. 2) Shari Garland is not a pseudonym. Shari Garland (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Disagree. 2) "by User:Shari Garland" still fails WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, The preferred visualization is a photograph. However, paintings should be acceptable when a photo free of copyright is not available. A painting is so much better than nothing. Shari Garland (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

We disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Another opinion: 1) No. 2) No. (A photograph has been added.) David notMD (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll disagree. I think a portrait is fine. We use portraits all the time for people of whom there are no photographs, and I believe I've seen them in articles (not as the main image) that we do have a photo for. At minimum I think @Shari Garland should feel free to upload these images to Wikimedia Commons, but let some other editor decide whether to use it in the article or not. I don't see this as any different than an editor making any other image. Editors at a given article may disagree on whether to use it, but they may all love it, too. Personally I think that painting is wonderful. :) —valereee (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent input and insight from —valereee: "I don't see this as any different than an editor making any other image." I agree with that statement because photography and watercolor are both types of art. Both art types are crucial modern means of communication. Shari Garland (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

At risk of repeating what I've already written on the talk page: Yes, I love the painting too. Yes, I see a role for drawings analogous to courtroom sketches, to avoid a legal difficulty (in this case, the problem of obtaining images with appropriate copyright permission). But No, I don't think this is a great idea. There is a very real risk that wannabe artists will use WP articles as personal galleries to promote their work (and WP suffers quite enough from autobiographical self-promotion already). We also have a duty to the subjects of our articles. If someone doesn't like what's written about them, we can check that the references support the text. If they don't like a photo, at least the image isn't a matter of opinion: it's simply what was in front of the lens. But what do we do if an actress complains that a drawing makes her look old and ugly, or a politician says the sketch makes them look shifty and unreliable? How can we possibly assess whether their complaints are valid? Elemimele (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, Most people feel flattered when they realize that someone took the time to make a painting of them. I read a lot of books. I can not tell you how many published biographies I have read that are replete with paintings. Paintings are used to communicate information on book covers and in picture sections of biographical works. Shari Garland (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland: No, I'm sorry, that's not at all relevant to this encyclopaedia project. I realise I am late to the party, and that there has been a longer discussion over on the relevant talk page, but my view is that there is no place on Wikipedia for artistic impressions of minor notable people, and absolutely none whatsoever if the artist themselves is not a notable person on Wikipedia. Your picture added nothing encyclopaedic to the article, and there are far better social media platforms to share artistic impressions of people where they can feel flattered. Of course, were there to have been a strong, well-cited linkage between the painter and their subject (e.g.John Lennon drawn by Yoko Ono and not John Lennon drawn by me), then that might be a different story, and one worthy of further discussion. Or perhaps a self-portrait in fabric, woven by the subject herself. Otherwise, there's no place for such fanciful imagery here, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, My illustration was simply that, an illustration when there was no picture in the image field for the infobox for the article I wrote. The picture was, because a picture is worth a thousand words. It was to be informative for the public. Why would photographers on Wikipedia not have to be notable but the painters on Wikipedia would have to be? Why would photographers not have to photograph strictly highly notable people to the exclusion of minor notable people but quite the opposite for painters? Photography is a type of art. Why must some types of artists be notable but writers on Wikipedia do not have to be notable? Further, what you mentioned, an artwork with "well-cited linkage between the painter and their subject" would be considered COI on Wikipedia if an editor such as myself who is also an artist were to paint a portrait of a subject for an article. Shari Garland (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shari Garland I’m just going to simply say I reject all your points, and that you seem to fail to understand how Wikipedia works, and we’ll leave it there. Goodnight. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, A painting two hundred years from now would be more encyclopedic than nothing. Shari Garland (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There is also a copyright issue to be sorted out. A painting or sketch made from a photograph is a derivative work, and must be authorised by the copyright holder of the original work (or someone to whom they've delegated the role). I don't know much about Wikicommons, but I think this means that they'd have to be super-careful about paintings submitted by editors, who may not be aware that they don't have the right to do it, unless they drew/painted the subject from a life-sitting or from personal memory of seeing the individual. A drawing or painting derived from seeing magazine articles or images on the subject's website isn't okay. Ironically, just about the only source where it would be safe to use a photo to create a painting without getting into derivative-works issues would be Wikicommons. Elemimele (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele An artist does not have to have a "life-sitting" or "personal memory of seeing the individual" to produce an original artwork to which they are the copyright holder or donor. Besides, if an artist were to have such a set-up, a COI would be highly likely. Shari Garland (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's an original artwork, possessing its own copyright which the artist owns. But if the artist drew or sketched from a photograph, then the original photographer's copyright additionally still extends to the derivative work. Here's a link for the UK situation [8]. The painting is covered by two people's rights, the painter 'sand the original photographer's, and both must agree before the derivative work can be used. You'll see that in this reference, paintings derived from photographs are given as a specific example. What I'm not clear about is the situation where the artist has never met the celebrity, and therefore must have derived their impression from (copyright) photos, but draws/paints something that is a synthesis not specifically related to any individual photograph. But I see a lot of disappointment in this direction, because the moment someone comes across a professional photo showing the subject from roughly the same angle in roughly the same clothes, they're going to flag the painting as a potential derivative work, and it'll get speedily-deleted, followed by massive arguments and ill-feeling. Elemimele (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, It is not a problem to upload one's original artwork to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons clearly states that the photo must be your own work, and that you are relinguishing rights to it. Shari Garland (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Impression of Barbara Teller Ornelas

@Elemimele It's pretty obvious that this painting that we have been discussing at length is derived from this photograph of the subject, but there the similarity ends. It is sufficiently far from the original picture that I'm not convinced it would ever be described as 'derivative'. It is also so utterly far away from representing the subject that it and others like it have absolutely no place on Wikipedia in my opinion. I would not want to encourage every artist - be they amateur or professional - who wanted to see their pictures used on Wikipedia from uploading such material to Commons. But unfortunately @Shari Garland seems steadfast in her unwillingness to accept that her impressionistic artworks of people don't add value to this encyclopaedia. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I applaud their work in helping to redress the balance of too many male-focussed articles here, but not to the extent of pushing pictures they've done of people in this way. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Photos are preferred, but a painting is better than nothing. So you think we should call it a "draw," Nick Moyes? We can try to do so, however, the public prefers paintings rather than nothing. Shari Garland (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes & Shari Garland, I'm happy to drop sticks and move on, I'm not sure there's much more to be said on the issue. I'm sorry to have written some rather lengthy replies. Elemimele (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele, Please do not apologize for your "lengthy replies." They have all been very interesting. One last thing, Nick Moyes, what exactly did you mean when you said: "I applaud their work in helping to redress the balance of too many male-focussed articles here, but not to the extent of pushing pictures they've done of people in this way." Shari Garland (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Help me, I would like to add a vancouver doctor onto wikipedia

Hiyaitsvanessa (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hiyaitsvanessa, does this person satisfy WP:PERSON? If the answer is yes, then what help are you looking for? -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

First Article

Hello, I have been making minor edits for a while now. I made a draft on a subject that needed an article. I am by no means an expert on the subject. And as this is my first article, I would like some input please. Bulletinbored (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and the links therefrom. In particular, you need to learn how to include references. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

thank you. Bulletinbored (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Acala Cotton

@Bulletinbored: Have you considered adding this paragraph to the existing Gossypium hirsutum article instead? GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: It might be better just to have it redirect, as Acala Cotton is already mentioned in the existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletinbored (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a new editor, but I could use some help

The Otokonoko page and the Glossary of anime and manga are both caught in the crossfire of... well, I suppose it's a content dispute, though I hesitate to label it as such. One user, who I'm suspecting more and more of being a WP:SEALION, is insistent on adding a particular term ("trap") to both articles. Thing is, there's only one even remotely reliable source linking the term to the articles' subjects, and the term itself is a real-world slur.

I personally don't want it included because 1) sourcing linking it is sketchy at best, and 2) real-world slur, but I am willing to compromise by including it with the source while noting that it's offensive. I'm having a heck of a time communicating with the other editor about this.

I'd really appreciate it if someone (or several someones) could have a look at the edit history of the two articles I mentioned and at their talkpages, and if said someone/s would be willing to review my conduct. I've been an editor since 2014, but as I mostly gnome, I'm not as familiar with the intricacies of being in a content dispute and I'd appreciate fresh, uninvolved eyes having a look to see if I've missed something obvious or if I'm being a jerk.

I have a sneaking suspicion the next step is going to be dispute resolution, so I'd also appreciate any guidance for that, since it's also pretty new to me. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, man. I've read the last two sections of the Otokonoko talkpage, time that I'll never get back. (Can't face reading the other talkpage as well.) NekoKatsun, it seems to me (as it apparently does to you) that going on as you are is not an option. I suggest you use Wikipedia:Third opinion to assist in forming a consensus. An RFC is another option, but it seems a little ridiculous for this kind of thing, and might not attract much interest. If WP:3O doesn't do it, feel free to contact me on my page and I'll see what I can do; maybe protect the article. Bishonen | tålk 23:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

Yeah, it's... a lot (thank you so much; I know how exhausting that must've been). I'll have a look at WP:3O, I appreciate it! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

be bold?

Hello everyone

hope you have a great day, i have question in your perspective what is the meaning of "Be bold" in Wikipedia?

i want each individuals opinions, each of them is precious and has their own weight

hope you answer thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Being bold" is the act of doing something yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it or asking for consensus. In my opinion, it's actually a great thing as it encourages people that if they want something to change then they must do it themself or it won't happen. The only problem is the fear of getting your edit reverted which is probably what keeps people from making bold edits. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, it is precious and helps me to understand more about wikipedia through other individuals experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura emad (talk • contribs)

there so many things that discourages you to be bold, for example unfriendly People, short tempered People, as everyone make mistakes they should be Advised and give them the opportunity to learn more, but sometimes i see the opposite. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Formally, Bold is part of BRD: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Be bold, but if reverted, start a discussion at Talk. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sakura emad. That's a good reply from Blaze The Wolf. You can read more about Being bold at WP:BEBOLD. It is never nice having one's bold edit reverted, but if that happens it is hoped that editors will not suddenly revert it back, but would then start to discuss the issue, and work out the best edit to actually make. One may mention certain Wikipedia policies that they've based their action on, and the other might counter with supporting evidence or an alternative interpretation. In the end, it is hoped that a consensus would prevail through discussion. But doing so by plan text can always sound harsher than it is meant. You are absolutely right that the way we some of us communicate here can be off-putting (and I'm sure that applies to me, too, sometimes). So, I am sorry if you have ever felt intimidated or bullied by other editors speaking frankly or abruptly. I do hope that is offset by those others who speak kindly to you, and I see from your talk page that that has indeed been happening. Please try to understand that the more silly or inappropriate the edit or action appears, the more likely someone is to add a bluntly-worded edit summary, and come across as a bit rude. But if that happens, rather than be upset, you can quite simply go to their talk page and ask in a pleasant tone for an explanation, perhaps stating that you are new and want to learn. My hope would be that you would receive an explanation that will help you learn yet another of the innumerable and very intricate way we operate to keep our 6.2million articles in the best shape as possible. We need more female editors like you, so do reach out to Hosts and other users here if you ever feel confused or intimidated, and need help. That's what we're here for. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Nick Moyes i appreciate the way you advice and understand me, it is ok if my edits be reverted (with explanation) it likely happen when i edit in a wrong way, and i really appreciate the soul who gives me the right way to learn and understand more about the environment, as you said yes some mention Wikipedia policies ( as i did) some mention how their work is independent and how reliable their sources are, i believe both parties trying their way to help wikipedia since our goal is to build free, accessible encyclopedia, and i am really sorry you don't need to apologize in anyone's behalf, i think you did and you're trying to do the right job (that's very kind of you), to be honest i felt unfriendly in my first days here, but i understand that everyone tries their best at least in their way to build a better and greater community and for the sake of, i am happy 😊 about it, in the end i appreciate your Hardworks and your Tools that've been used to protect the community, thanks for encouraging me as a Female User to participate on the Wikipedia i am sure it applies to other Female Users too, My Respect for you and her Majesty :) . —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMDThank you, i think it is important then i planning to read it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Needing Formatting Help with New WikiProject

So a few months ago, a WikiProject proposal was made for a 2010s decade WikiProject. Earlier today, it was formed as the WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade. I haven't really messed with much of the behind the scenes stuff on Wikipedia. I just spent 25 minutes creating the banner for it. Any chance someone would be willing to help with the formatting and template stuff to get the WikiProject off to a good start? Thanks for any help in advance! Elijahandskip (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip welcome to the Teahouse. Goodness, that's an incredibly broad subject area - probably far too broad to be really practicable. However, the best place to seek help and advice is Wikipedia:WikiProject Council and its corresponding talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the help. Actually, the proposal had 6 other experienced editors support the idea. The WikiProject will be a part of thousands of articles, but in ones that go outside the decade (like Covid-19 pandemic), the WikiProject only focuses on improving the part inside the decade (aka 2019 for that article). Elijahandskip (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Error with content translation tool.

I got an error when trying to translate from English to Spanish a web page. It says that there is another user translating it. How can I contact that user? The user is Threedotshk. Marce.Vilanova (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marce.Vilanova: Welcome to the Teahouse. Is this about something happening on the Spanish Wikipedia? You'll probably get a better answer there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Page move bug

Hi there! I would like you to fix this issue where for e.g. we make a page move for a page and move it to another page and again repeat the process for the third time, if we would like to move it to the original title(i.e. the first one), we can no longer do that. It gives an error message that the page already exists. It would be very helpful if you could fix this rather annoying bug. Thanks! Username006 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Username006, it is not actually a bug, but a result of the fact that when you move a page, you create a redirect from the old title. You can request a move back to the original title at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --bonadea contributions talk 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: No, because when you do the page move only twice, that time you can revert it. Username006 (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Username006: That's how it's supposed to work. As a normal user with no user rights you can delete single revision redirects when you move a page as long as the redirect is targeting the article you are moving. if you move a page from A to B you leave a redirect at A pointing to B, so you can delete the redirect and move the page back. If you move A to B then to C you're left trying to move C over a redirect pointing to B which you're not allowed to do. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Oh okay. But the error it gives is a bit misleading.Username006 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

More opinion on Draft:Sourajeet Majumder

Hey everyone, I had declined this draft and had requested for WP:THREE which were provided by Wikicontributor12369 here [9]. Since I am still getting back from my break, I thought it will be best to bring here for more diverse and informed opinions. Please help. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest WT:AFC, @Nomadicghumakkad. The banner kinda pretends it is above single drafts, but those are discussed there. The stalwarts of AFC watch that page more closely over the Teahouse which can get a lot of unrelated questions and WP:AFCHD which gets more basic questions. Of course there is no guarantee there either, since it is WP:NOTREQUIRED. You may also try pinging editors who've signed on to help with drafts in the topic area of their expertise and interest at WP:AFC/RBS,(nopinging) Titodutta, for example. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Policy On Deletion of Content in an Article

I am currently involved in an editorial dispute regarding a statement in an article. Basically, I believe the statement is useful and should stay, and another editor has deleted it. I am wondering what the policy is regarding these sorts of disputes. Is there a preference for original content and the onus is on the remover to prove that the content removed is not according to policy? I am aware of WP:TASTE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but was wondering if there were any specific guidelines I should look into in addition to these. Koikefan (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Koikefan (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The place for discussion is on the talk page of the article. If consensus isn't reached there, options are at WP:3O and WP:DR. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Talk:Jeremiah Lisbo Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Lisbo. So the more immediate place for discussion is the AFD page. I have already declined a request to discuss at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard because there is already discussion at the AFD page. I am not at this time expressing an opinion on whether the article should be deleted or kept. However, the AFD discussion somewhat changes the matter of how to discuss the content of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

David Biddulph Robert McClenon, thank you for the input. I think my posting here has been misinterpreted to mean that I am trying to solve the dispute through the Teahouse, but my question here is merely a question about process. Let me clarify by giving proper context: the statement in dispute was originally in the article, then it was deleted. A few back and forth reversions occurred and I was given a warning about edit warring (and the other party was not). Therefore, I ceased editing the article and now the current article has the statement deleted. Essentially, it is simply a matter of chance and the fact that I stopped editing that the statement's deletion "won out." Therefore my question is: if the dispute process runs its course, and no consensus is still reached, is it Wikipedia policy that the statement should be put back because that was the original state of the article? I.e. is the policy for these disputes similar to AfD discussions, where if there is no consensus the original article stays? Thank you for the help. Koikefan (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Koikefan - You certainly have brought either the content dispute or questions about the process of content disputes to multiple forums. I see that you now have a Request for Comments pending, and that is the method of reaching a consensus. I will ask you the same question as I have asked at WP:ANI, since you are in so many forums. Do you have any conflict of interest with either Jeremiah Lisbo or Star Cinema? If so, declare it. If not, you are creating a tempest in a teapot. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is only tangentially related to the dispute and your continuing to bring it up and making it seem that way is extremely disruptive, inappropriate, and a demonstration of an assumption of bad faith. Not sure why the Rfc is a surprise, that has been in existence for 24 hours, no? (I see now that you acknowledged the Rfc in the other thread so you evidently already know about it. So why are you now pretending to be surprised about the Rfc? What strange behavior!) It seems as though you desperately want this discussion to be about the dispute by your continued attempts to bring up the dispute for some reason? I have answered your queries in the other thread. Asking them here again is pointless and, again, seems like your attempt to stir the pot. Please don't ask the same questions over and over again in different fora, as it might be construed as you creating a tempest in a teapot. Koikefan (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"You certainly have brought either the content dispute or questions about the process of content disputes to multiple forums." <-- I have brought up my specific dispute in multiple forums, as these were suggested to me one by one. I.e. I followed the advice that was given to me. I have only asked about the process of disputes, as a general matter, in one forum: the Teahouse. Your attempting to conflate the two makes it seem like you just want to create problems where none exist (in addition to restarting discussions that were over and then subsequently complaining that discussions exist in multiple fora. Hint: they wouldn't exist in multiple fora if you didn't continue them in multiple fora.) Koikefan (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit: What did I do wrong?

Hi, newbie here

I added a table to Euler angles and the change was reverted shortly after, and the admin who did it left me a message on my talk page about "disruptive editing" and vandalism.

I'm not sure what I did wrong, and I'm not sure the person who reverted my changes will answer (or do people usually take days or weeks to answer on Wikipedia?)

So, what did I do wrong? Dragorn421 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See your talk page someone answered your question: (( here )) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

and sorry about mentioning it as "answered" they've told you how to Ping a specific user. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

if you need anything else just ask here, you'll shortly be assisted by someone professional. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Dragorn421! Welcome to Wikipedia! It's unfortunate that you got into a confusing situation at the very start, but it was probably a mistake. You can post your query to User talk:Bbb23 to ask the editor directly, since the ping seems to have been missed. Alternatively, you can post to Talk:Euler angles, something along the lines of "I had added [describe] table to the article which was reverted as vandalism, but since it is not a vandalism, I am assuming it was a mistake and trying again" and add back the table to the article with a clear edit summary along the lines of "It was not a vandalism; please discuss this with me at the talk page where I have started a discussion". Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to edit protected article

I requested someone to add a sentence to a semi-edit protected article here but nobody did. I can wait to get auto-confirmed and do it myself but is there a faster way (I am asking them to use the Washington Post, a reliable source)?-- Baamiyaan2 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The quickest way to edit a semi-protected article is to become auto-comfirmed. ― Qwerfjkl talk 10:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Baamiyaan2, the talk page consensus is that the sentence you suggested (using another account, and an IP) should not be added to the article. That means that you may not add it even when you are autoconfirmed. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't nominate a hook to DYK because I didn't know how to do so

Hi! I've been working on Articles on the First Carlist War for the past 2 weeks as a beginner project. I found a cool fact about one of the battles of the war and added it to the article but didn't know I could nominate it to DYK and so the 7 days have passed (the edit is 12 days old). Is the fact just lost now? I'll still be working on the article and hope to get it to B-class someday but it feels kind of bad that a possibly interesting DYK was lost cause I didn't know about the process. For reference, the DYK can be found here (I didnt add it to the nominations list). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, I haven't investigated whether the article really has been "5× expanded"; on the other hand, I note that you write "I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done", but if you're new to "DYK" you do not have to review another (or do a "QPQ", as it's cryptically called) when nominating your own. Indeed, if you're very new to the DYK business I advise you not to review another nomination; despite the best of intentions, you could easily make mistakes. Better to propose two or three of your own, paying attention to what reviewers and others say about each, and only then start your reviewing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for the reply! According to wmflabs I have authorship of ~80% of the article, with the second author (if that is correct to say) having an additional ~13% but having made their edits when creating the article in 2008. Would the last significant edit before mine being made 13 years ago affect the process or no, for future reference, as there are many battles in the Carlist War whose articles were created in the 2000s but are stubs. I tend to work slowly and adding information as I read through sources and am concerned with going past the 7 day period where I've 5x expanded the article by the time I find a cool fact to nominate for DYK. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz Assuming I have interpreted your question and the history of the articles correctly, I fear you may have misunderstood the DYK process. It's been a little while since I did a few Did You Knows for new articles that I had either created or expanded. But there is definitely a hard cut-off time between when you created/significantly expanded an article/or got it to WP:GA status, and the point when you submit your DYK nomination. If you pass that 7 day cut-off, your nomination will be rejected. The way around that is to develop any article in your sandbox or as a DRAFT. This is because the DYK clock starts ticking from the point the page is in mainspace, not when the draft was started. So you can work on it in draft space or your sandbox for years if you wish, but, having moved it into mainspace, you then have 7 days to make your DYK nomination.

Here at the Teahouse, we always tell people that creating an article from scratch is the hardest thing anyone can do here. Personally, my experience was that understanding how to make a proper DYK nomination was far harder to understand and follow correctly than creating an article. (You may find this of help in future: Instructions for 'Did You Know' that a normal human being can understand)

I really can't see on what basis you'd nominate First Carlist War for DYK. It hasn't reached Good Article status; you haven't just created it, nor have you expanded it size by five times at all, let alone in the preceding seven days. I'm sorry if you missed the cut-off for expanding Battle of Alsasua, but as long as the fact mentioned in your hook is within that article, it won't be lost. That siad, DYK exposure brings huge attention to newly created or improved articles, and that, of course, is its purpose. Better luck next time. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'll make sure to use drafts more often ^u^ --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get this straightened out. First Carlist War exists and you have done very modest editing. Secondly, you copied the article into User:A. C. Santacruz/sandbox where you have roughly doubled the length. You have not yet copied your revised version into the existing article. The DYK 7-day clock will start ticking when you merge your new content into the existing article. HOWEVER, your additions do not qualify for the 5X size expansion, so no DYK allowed. You could considering nominating it for Good Article status. If you succeed, that qualifies submitting a DYK. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply :) --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

assamase

47.29.158.191 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Do you need help or advice in editing Wikipedia? That's what we're here for. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How to generate consensus?

I requested someone to add a sentence to a semi-edit protected article here but nobody did. An editor asked me to generate consensus for it (I am asking them to use the Washington Post, a reliable source), how do I do that? Baamiyaan2 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baamiyaan2: the problem with saying "here's a reference, add it" is that it puts all the burden on the person who has to implement the edit request: it takes you maybe 20 seconds to write that, but it takes me 15 minutes to read the source in full, decide what's useful information, work out whether that information is already in the article by reading it, then work out where the new information should go and whether any other sections need restructuring or adapting to this new information and so on. When we get hundreds of edit requests and big backlogs pile up, I simply can't do that. I'll reject the edit request and go onto one where the requester put 10 minutes of effort in and I only need to put in 3. That's why the rejection comment you got says Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

We have additional problems in that the article has been protected because this is a very intense topic where things get heated and lots of unregistered or new people come here demanding something that violates neutral point of view, such as by showing bias towards the Taliban or the U.S. government of the Afghani government.

It seems to me that you suggested a sentence but you've not really understood the reasons it was contested. The claim you're trying to make is enormous—that Pakistan's government have been helping the Taliban. Now I don't really know much about the topic (and I'm one of the volunteers who read through edit requests) but if that's inaccurate, or a minority opinion, or a U.S.-centric approach to the topic—well, there are hundreds of millions of Pakistanis who would be incensed by us getting it wrong. So one Washington Post article marked as "Analysis" isn't enough. We'd need a much bigger diversity of sources all claiming the same thing. We need to work out how widespread a view it is, so we can see whether it needs to be stated as fact, or stated as opinion ("Some journalists such as Washington Post contributor Ishaan Tharoor argued that..."), or doesn't even rise to that level and can't be included.

This is a very difficult topic area to begin contributing to Wikipedia here and I understand that it feels like you've asked for a very simple thing to be done, but what our article says on this topic is really crucial to millions of people who read it and are likely to take it as reliable fact, so we have to be really careful when someone comes along saying "summarize this source" because we don't know what their agenda is or whether that one source is representative of a worldwide perspective.

If you wish to push forwards in this approach then I'd recommend gathering all the sources you can find on the topic of the Pakistan military/government's involvement and say in a new talk page section "here's the consensus in the literature, here's how it differs from what the article says—do people agree with me?" Then you listen to what others think and when enough people have weighed in, someone will be able to implement what the community there decide is the right outcome. — Bilorv (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, in a very contentious situation, you may find that sources we normally regard as 'reliable' differ in their opinion. In this case you will probably not get consensus to present a single point of view. It may be that instead of requesting insertion of the text "X did this" you will have to see if you can get consensus to add the more arm's-length "The Washington Post reports that X did this", which can stand alongside other referenced statements "X didn't do this", leaving the reader to decide which they believe, or whether they want to look into the original sources themselves. Elemimele (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Referencing

FYI

– Heading added by Qwerfjkl (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How do I give a reference?

TechnoTiger2008 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@TechnoTiger2008, try these guides: WP:REFBEGIN and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Should all Latin America-related articles use DMY dates?

As a Latin America fanatic, I've come across a few articles written in MDY date format even though all Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries use DMY instead. Should the DMY date be mandatory on all English-language articles associated with events in Latin America? 2001:8003:3447:9F01:E01E:E556:BC21:FA42 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC) 2001:8003:3447:9F01:E01E:E556:BC21:FA42 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the most important thing is consistency within the article. I can't think of a logical reason to use the format that's used in that country for the English article, as there is no reason to assume that readers of that article would be mostly residents of that country and therefore confused. I could be wrong, though. Great question and happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This seems to be in the purview of retaining the existing style. MOS:DATETIES offers guidance on English-speaking countries, but not those that predominantly speak another language. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I found MOS:BADDATE which says explicitly Do not use dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy or yyyy-dd-mm formats, which I assume is what the OP meant but MDY/DMY dates; so the answer is neither, only YMD is allowed for numeric dates. However, in article text, we usually write out the months, in which case Tenryuu’s advice above works (i.e. keep consistency and check the local variety of English to choose between July 4, 1976 and 4 July 1976). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Who wrote this article

Malayal 41.116.94.252 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You have not named or linked to any article, so we can't tell you. In general, most Wikipedia articles have been written and edited by many different contributors, sometimes hundreds. You can see the complete history of all edits (additions, changes and deletions), including its initial creation, made to an article by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top of the article page. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

[As there was no article so-named, I assumed in my response above that "Malayal" was intended as a signature. Apologies for the misinterpretation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)]

(edit conflict) I don't see an article with that title, although there is one for Malayali. As with all Wikipedia articles, it is likely to have had a number of editors whose contributions can be seen using the "View history" tab for the article. There is also a tool to summarize the contributions, showing who added most material, which you will find using the "Page history" link on the top of that tab. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues with "promotes or publicises someone or something"

I am having issues publishing a page for a British Entrepreneur being met with the violation that it promotes or publicises someone - however it has been written very factually, using similar pages (eg. Peter Jones, Theo Paphitis) for reference. How do I overcome this? JimboJamesSinclair (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

JimboJamesSinclair Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space or space to draft an article; you may use Articles for creation to submit a draft.

Please read other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not mean that yours can too. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about.

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and what they do. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Your draft was completely unsourced. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as a "good article" on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@JimboJamesSinclair: In addition to the above replies, please disclose any conflict of interest you might have with respect to that person. In particular, if you are paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of that person (or expect to be paid, or are doing this as part as your regular job), you must disclose it in the manner described at the link WP:PAID. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Problems with a stubborn user

Hi dear Wikipedians. I'm having trouble with a stubborn user at Gedik Ahmed Pasha. You can see our discussion there, but basically user rejects content backed by (multiple) sources (with specific quotes) added by myself, but says we should include his own interpretation of a single source that, according to them, disproves all the others (it's about ethnicity. Balkans). I warned them I would report them. Immediately after, they posted this on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help!--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Having read the entirety of Talk:Gedik Ahmed Pasha, my impressions are that:

It is rather cool-headed for a dispute content about Balkan ethnicities, kudos to both of you (ping: Haldir Marchwarden, Demetrios1993)
The most uncivil thing I can find on the talk page is man, what the heck are you talking about?, Please, refrain from edit warring again. (problematic because it implies they are the only one at fault, but it takes two to edit-war), and the threat to "report".

As I have no desire to delve into the details of the dispute (and encourage you not to make any substantive point here), all I can do is remind you of how to do dispute resolution: first hash it out between you two. If it does not work, you can ask for a third opinion (which might be the best attempt here) or a full WP:RFC (read the manual before posting the RfC, it is highly codified); for those, if you can agree on a succinct and neutral summary of the dispute, it would help immensely (for instance: sources X, Y say A, sources Z, W say B, Haldir thinks sources X and Y are unreliable because of M, Demetrios thinks source W is outdated because of N). Only use the dramaboard if you can identify that the other person has clearly violated the guidelines (and so far, we are not even close to that point, unless there was a breach of WP:3RR that I missed). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Tigraan. My warning that I would report was a shortening of the whole posting-of-the-warning-on-the-talk-page-thing. It's very simple: I say let's keep what the sources say, whatever they say, as long they say it and are reliable. I have 4 authors claiming A and zero claiming B. They say that because one author, according to them, implies B, we must cite that author and delete whatever the others say. Again, from my part, I agree to keep anything, as long as it is backed by sources and actually reports what the sources say. They are the only ones deleting material here. I will try with the link you provided. Thanks again for your help.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a new policy - revert IP users with impunity?

This is happening increasingly: I make a reasonable - but, I accept, as always, debatable - edit, which is reverted so fast, that I can only think that it was done without any kind of checking. (I mean, the edit of mine above, as with similar recent incidents, does not scream "disruptive edit" on the face of it, I believe - So should deserve at least a cursory look to check.)

As in this case, when I check the reverter's history, there are masses of reversions, often solely, or nearly so, of IP editors. There is generally a mix of good and bad reversions, as in this case. It is also quite commonly an editor who does not use edit summaries.

I accept that if I choose not to register, I have to take the rough with the smooth, and I see lots of implicit and explicit suspicion of IP editors. I know there are reasons, too. That has never worried me (too much!), but there seems to be a noticeable upsurge in this kind of thing. And it's getting disheartening. Could there be any special reason for this taking off in the last few months? For example, are there special anti-vandalism projects that newly registered users are encouraged to undertake? Or something like that? Any ideas? I'd like to know how long to lay low for, giving WP a bit of rest, if I have to ride-out an anti-IP reversion campaign. But editing has been a real life-saver for me throughout the pandemic, restrictions, etc.

Also, can anything more be done to try to encourage habitual non-users of edit-summaries to a more collegial approach? I find the discourtesy of being reverted with no edit summary whatsoever, quite in-your-face hostile. I would never behave that way to others on WP, so find it really objectionable in registered users - some of whom seem to think they're superior creatures to troublesome varmint IPs.

Rant ended. Thanks for listening. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I opened a report on ANI about this particular editor about an hour ago here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Safari web - mass reverting IP edits without explanation because they seem to be making a significant number of problematic reverts. New editors jumping into anti-vandalism work with little idea of what they're doing is a common problem, you really need a decent grasp of Wikipedia policies before doing it but for some reason it's advertised as being a beginner friendly activity. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Safari web indef blocked as a sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The reported case is an outlier, but the underlying problem is real. It is certainly the case that

some users are a bit too quick to hit the revert button (especially with automated tools)
some users take less precautions when interacting with IP editors

I have no idea if those problems are on the rise, and I do not think anybody has a solution. It occurs from time to time that someone comes to complain about being reverted without an edit summary, we ping the reverter, and they come here to apologize. In the defense of those people, when you have spent the last 99 clicks reverting promotional material, you are not in a mood to carefully analyze the 100th edit that comes through the list, even if you ought to be as cautious as when you started out. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as this reverter appears to have been blocked, they were clearly an anomaly. The occasional over-correction is understandable, and I do not begrudge that from the people you mention in the sort of circumstances you describe. I am concerned that it appears to be accepted that editors exercise less care when reverting the edits of IP users (compared to registered users). I say that, while aware that unregistered users are known for disruptive and clueless editing. I don't think the fact that a disproportionate number of such edits come from IPs should be the basis for a kind of creeping disrespect for all IP users' contributions, though, nor a preparedness to accept this sort of differential approach - even if there are reasonable grounds to develop this kind of implicit bias.

One of the things I was also trying to say, though, was, far from "careful analysis" on the 99th or 100th click, all that was needed was a very quick glance. The edits of mine - and of a few other IPs I've seen - that I have been discussing here, do not even remotely look like disruptive edits. It appears at times, that the extent of the process has been: 'IP made edit; can't see what for in first millisecond; must be bad, even if not, who's gonna pick me up on it?"

I don't want or expect an apology with such events; these things happen, even with the well-intentioned editors who seem to do this. It's just one of those things, but I thought I would bring up how cumulatively demotivating and disheartening it is. With all the massive work done on WP in holding back the tide of low-quality material, while trying to widen the scope and enhance articles, I realise this is very small beer indeed, perhaps to the point of being irrelevant. I thank you all for your attention and responses. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone with the "rollback" user right is abusing it consistently (not just making an honest mistake now and then), that should be reported at WP:ANI or to the administrator who granted the right. Rollback should be granted only to users who can be trusted with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Errors will of course occur - I make more than my fair share! - but that seems more of an argument for the use edit summaries when reverting - always. And I am not certain if "rollback" was used in the cases I am thinking of. But, even when editors use WP tools to revert, is there still the capacity to briefly mention the perceived issue in the ES?

As for "occasional mistakes": It's more about patterns of reverting and communication (or lack of) that I am thinking of, and what that suggests about WP's real-life approach to unregistered editors. Just to give a flavour of what I mean, note the edit summaries employed by this editor. They extensively revert, for sound reasons from what I can tell, and they are always quite terse in their ES. However, when it's a registed user, there is some brief effort to explain. When it's an IP user, there is only ever one explanation: "Revert IP". And that is my concern, (not from this editor, to be clear, just using them as my example.) I note in passing that I asked on this editor's talk page - and then later, on mine - to discuss a reversion they made; I received no reply, so re-instated the reverted reference repair. (While not very talkative, this editor does usually reply to questions from registered editors on their talk page.) But that experience echoes several I have had. I realise there's no "fix" to all this: I guess I just hoped to raise awareness.

Anyway, thank you very much, @192.76.8.74, @David notMD, @Tigraan and @Anachronist for taking the time to respond. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Although one isn't supposed to edit while not logged in, I have done so deliberately in the past to remind myself of what it's like to edit as an IP address. I encourage every experienced editor to try it: put in a few hours on Wikipedia as an IP address to see what it's like, see how others treat you. It gives you a new perspective that makes you think twice about how you respond in edit summaries and talk page comments, causing you to treat any good-faith editor the same regardless of whether it's an IP address or a username. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I might actually do that. Although if I'm allowed to I would use a VPN so that my real IP address isn't revealed Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf See WP:VPN. ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also you got the wrong one. It's WP:NOP Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops (I typically just guess the shortcuts and assume I'm right if it's blue). ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's also quite educational to stop and read the edits being carried out by IP editors. Yes, there are some really misguided IP editors, but if you just pick random edits and read them, you will also find people spotting and correcting mathematical errors in the middle of hideous formulae that only one reader in a hundred could understand, people adding carefully-written paragraphs on marine invertebrates; people sorting out historical misunderstandings in the aftermath of battles that took place in countries that no longer exist, a thousand years ago; WP is a huge resource of human knowledge, and passer-by IP editors who happen to be experts in something obscure, and happen to spot something not quite right, are an enormous benefit to the community. Really, the lesson from this, is stop trying to clock up non-existent bonus-points for reverting quicker than Cluebot; instead carefully read what's been written, and check it really is wrong. So what, if someone else reverts it first? The important thing is that our encyclopaedia remains accurate, clear, and as complete as possible. Elemimele (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editors have been responsible for many of the worst, but (seconding Elemimele) also some of the very best, edits I've seen. My problem with latter class is that there's no good way of paying them a compliment.

(I can't try editing while logged-out: there's an idiot vandal on my IP, and a couple of times I've needed industrial-grade intervention to be able to post anything at all.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a template

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § I don't know how to make a template

– ― Qwerfjkl talk 11:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Help me create a template or else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothernotuser1 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of JustAUser201468. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

NOt only that but they basically just made a threat. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Or else what? You ain't gonna get nowhere with an attitude like that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

0.o why is this happening. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com

I was planning to work on the article about the cult-film journalist and author Danny Peary, and his birth information is footnoted to Encyclopedia.com. From what I read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopedia.com aggregates reliable-source material. Here's my question: Rather than cite Encyclopedia.com, shouldn't we cite the reliable source instead? I've seen "via=" in some footnotes. Would that apply here?

I'll be specific. This Danny Peary Encyclopedia.com page https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/peary-dannis-1949 says at the end that the material comes from the reference work Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. So should the current footnote ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.) be more like ("Peary, Dannis 1949-". Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. Via Encyclopedia.com. 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2019.)

Also I don't see "2009" anywhere on the Encyclopedia.com article. Should the 2009 come out?

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, and thank you everyone on Teahouse for helping me many times.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure any of this even matters. The footnote goes to the same place. Am I being too persnickety? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror My quick passing observation is that you should not cite anything unless you have personally seen and checked that the information stated can be verified from that citation. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be the one trying to create the article. Or try to find other reliable sources yourself that do support Notability. My point being that if Encyclopaedia.com can aggregate sources, you ought to be able to go out and find those sources yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: On the Encyclopedia.com page, click the "Cite this article" button (which looks like curly quotation marks), and you'll see citations that are similar to your proposal (without the 2009 year). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Horror ×2, I completely agree with Nick Moyes. I'm not sure if GoingBatty is making a suggestion rather than just stating a fact, but if there's a suggestion that you should believe what the encyclopedia.com page says about its sources and then cite these sources on encyclopedia.com's say so rather than either citing encyclopedia.com or checking its ostensible sources for yourself, then I strongly disagree. (Incidentally -- and though not relevant to your question -- I bought Peary's Cult Movies trilogy when freshly published and found the three books to be most enjoyable reads. They go into fascinating detail. However, I gradually realized that, for those films that I happened to know well, the details were rather often mistaken.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Sorry I wasn't clear. I was suggesting using a citation with "via Encyclopedia.com". I would do something similar with Newspapers.com. If The Horror, The Horror wanted to make the extra effort to find Contemporary Authors and then cite that directly, that would be fabulous. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary likes this.

So it sounds like two people say we shouldn't cite Encylopedia.com and one person says it's OK? Am I reading that right? I apologize I'm confused. I don't want to be a bother. I just want to make sure before I do anything at the article. I can't really take time to find a library that has Contemporary Authors and go there. Maybe one of you can look at Danny Peary and see the Encylopedia.com footnote and if it's not usable take it out? I'm new and I don't want to rock the boat.

Someone said they thought I was going to create an article. Danny Peary exists. I still have to learn how to make an article. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: I updated the reference in the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you GoingBatty! I'll use that as a model for how I should handle Encyclopedia.com in the future! And thank you for showing me "ping"! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete image

Please how do I delete an image from draft Olugold (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Olugold (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The draft will read [[File:This is the image I don't want.jpg|optional stuff]] or similar; you simply delete this. (I'm assuming that you're editing the "source", not using the "visual editor"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Olugold: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to Draft:Benneth Nwankwo, and you're using the source editor, the code for the photo is [[File:BENNETH NWANKWO.jpg|thumb|Benneth Nwankwo]]. If you're using VisualEditor, click Edit, click on the photo, click your delete key, and save your change. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary and GoingBatty thank you for your swift response. I will edit immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olugold (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Olugold: The draft has been deleted, but the image still exists (for now) at commons:File:BENNETH NWANKWO.jpg and commons:File:Benneth Nwankwo.jpg GoingBatty (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

okay, thanks.--Olugold (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Closing Rfc

I want to close an Rfc but am unsure of the process. Am I supposed to remove the Rfc tag on the Request for Comments page or the tag on the Article in question's Talk page? Thank you. The Rfc in question in on the article Jeremiah Lisbo.

EDIT: I've closed the Rfc but would like confirmation I did it correctly. Koikefan (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Koikefan (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Koikefan: Your closure of that RFC was completely improper, I've reverted it. You cannot close discussions in which you are WP:INVOLVED, see WP:NACINV for the advice for non-admins. An impartial editor who is not involved in the content dispute should review the discussion and close it in line with the consensus of the discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down a bit dude. The consensus of the discussion is delete, which I have conceded to. Therefore, I am withdrawing the question and would like to close the discussion. According to WP:RFC#Ending RfCs that's well within my rights: The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the RFC template. Koikefan (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

IP, this is a RfC withdrawl. Koikefan is the one that added the phrase being discussed. I'm going to close the RfC. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please Approve or Ban me Permanently

Hello Dear Admins, As always satuition in Afghanistan so Bad, Just killing and Kilings... I am also one them the people who living in Afghanistan. I thought i would be helping my country people and copmanies those are Known to create pages as much i can, Cause our people are not familar with Technology and they can't. But here in wikipedians really didn't helped me, Instead of Few of Them were asking for money to approve my page, But i told them i need ligit work and want to learn. I am seeing there bunches of pages those don't have even on Reference as well but still approved, but in case admins like they having personal issues with me. They don't feel in how much struggling i am trying to work, I spent more than Hurdred Hourse on my article, and i have good refrences than many pages, but still not approving.

PLEASE MAKE DECESION NOW, APPROVE MY PAGE, OR DELETE DELETE MY ACCOUNT PERMENETLY ImanSalvador (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

sorry to hear that i will tag an administrator immediately —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete an account, but you may abandon it. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

hello dear @Oshwa sorry to bother you, but i thought you have to hear that! according to @ImanSalvador she/he wants to create Articles that's Totally legit and it's their right, but someone tries to ask for money for that, i think the problem shouldn't be neglected that's why i am informing you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakura emad (talk • contribs)

thanks for accepting it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@ImanSalvador: Welcome to the Teahouse. As terrible as the situation is in Afghanistan, Wikipedia does not make concessions for regions in conflict, and new articles must still follow the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. The reviewers who reviewed your draft, Draft:Zwak News, are not admins. The biggest concern that reviewers raised is that the references do not establish notability as Wikipedia defines it from reliable sources. I see the draft being written as ad copy, which is not the tone that Wikipedia goes for.
Wikipedia has been around for two decades, with existing guidelines and policies enforced and created years after the project's creation. This means some articles have slipped through the cracks, and would very likely be deleted; however, the project is vast, and people edit where they want to edit, so it isn't surprising some articles are neglected.
If someone is asking for money to approve [your] page, report them to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org; articles are not held hostage for approval. It is most likely a scam and should be reported.

Wikimedia accounts cannot be deleted, as edits need to be attributed to one. You can abandon the account and never use it again if you wish to stop editing Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If ImanSalvador has really run into people here who are "asking for money to approve my page", those people are CROOKS and must be ignored. But I'll help you ping @Oshwah:, Sakura emad; you misspelled the admin's name, which means your ping won't work. Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC).
😪 omg my bad, thank you for helping @Bishonen. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This user has been a regular in -en-help and AfC/HD. His draft existed before the Afghanistan crisis started and has consistently never had anything near acceptable sources, to the point that they evidently fabricated a source (rather clumsily) in an attempt to bypass our sourcing requirements. I'd actually look into this user's history; I have a feeling they have a high conflict of interest here and the attempts at fabricating sources, emotional manipulation, etc. are the signs of someone who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia full stop. As to the draft itself, it's at MfD due to repeated resubmissions without addressing the issues reviewers keep pointing out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC) (Edited 05:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC) to link MfD)

Hello Dear Admins, I Hope are all safe; Sorry For late Response, As most of telecomunications Towers are Desytroid We can't Access Intrenet Easily! For the conflict of interest : Sure I was writting about Models for Zwak News fews Years ago when i was like an employee. That time Zwak News Publishing Paper Megazines only. This why I started my frist artcile from Zwak News, Cause I was Fimilar with Zwak News, And knew Information About Zwak News also I was abslout begginer, I didn't know that it's a crime in wikipedia's rules. For the Admin who were asking for Money: As I am From Afghanistan and we also Speak Dari, which is Similar to Persian, Once they admins checked out my Article that, He knew that I am fimilar that I can speak Persian is well, So they were startig chat in Local Lanuages, whcih the rest admins or people didn't know about that what we are talking. The money Seekers Mostly time Creating Seprate Chat Room for Chatting and Was BlackMailing me that I could or the other amdins will delete your artcile now, So give that much money, so i can approve and i approved lot of pages for Afghans; But I was always saying that I need Legit Work and i want to learn. For the ad copy : I tried as much I can to remove any promotional content or Words, Even becouse of that, I have mad the artcile that much short. Even I didn't Included that it's Independent Agency, That words is So important for Afghanistan People, If you not input, Taliban Will think that it's govement Agency, You will be target killed! As I remained as Journalist; I am in Extream Danger of Death, And also, Theres Lack of Credit Cards to Recharge your Internet Data, and Net is Extreamly slow, So this why if not approved that artciles, I wont mind, And I know you are doing you best and and I Respect you soo much. At last Thanks sooo much and i love your Kind response Dear —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 Love you soo much - Pray for Me! ImanSalvador (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please quit it with the attempts at emotional manipulation. If you're seriously at risk, getting safe should be your first priority, not Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Chinese short names in articles

Hi! I am an avid reader of Chinese historical articles on this site, but there is one thing that drives me crazy: I think, for brevity's sake, whenever a person is mentioned multiple times in an article, their name is shortened. For instance, there is an article on Han Fei, and there is a sentence later in the article that reads "Han borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws". So here the author shortens Han Fei's name to "Han", only the problem is this is confusing and not really reflective of how Chinese people use and say their names. "Han" could also refer to the state of Han, which Han Fei is from , and which is also mentioned in the article. And Han is a family name, whereas Fei is the given name or "first name" inn American style. So for clarity's sake it would be better to either just say the full name, "Han Fei borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws , or to say something like "Fei borrowed Shang Yang's emphasis on laws". Thoughts? Are there particular editors I could talk to that regularly handle these articles? I would love to create an account and change them, but before I do that I want to understand why this method is used. I get that it's foreign content, but it only takes a little cultural knowledge to fix, and the articles would read more accurately and be less confusing. 18:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC) HanFeiZiFuRen (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This appears to be the culmination of following the Chinese naming conventions and subsequent use of a person's name. For the most part, I think it'd be easy to tell through context whether the article is referring to the person or the state. As far as using the full name goes, I think you'd have more support if there was another person mentioned in the article that also had the family name of Han. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but it's not easy at all. I'm going to make an account and contribute, and read and understand, but I will also show you examples of where it is confusing. There are many, I've been reading these articles for years. I love them and I only want to make them better. This discussion will probably continue in other boards, and hopefully I can add to them.HanFeiZiFuRen (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I found this in reference to Japanese names "Japanese historical (and some modern) figures may be conventionally known by either their family (clan) name and their given name or their given name only but not their family name only."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use

I think the same would apply to Chinese names. Also this, same article: "In Vietnamese names, given names also take priority over family names. The given name, not the surname, should be used to refer to the person. The given name is nevertheless placed after the family name, following the East Asian naming scheme, even when written about in English." I would like the source for this, pretty much proves my point culturally. HanFeiZiFuRen (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It says the talk discussion is closed for the Chinese naming conventions also, I have a lot of reading to do to figure out where this has been discussed, it's fun though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanFeiZiFuRen (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@HanFeiZiFuRen: Again, it depends on context. It's English convention to refer to people by the surnames if it's clear who/what you're referring to by context. Han Fei is a bit tricky because he's from a state known as Han, but if a sentence says "Han wrote a book" it's clear that "Han" is the person because countries can't write books. The reason that Japanese and Vietnamese names differ is because of consensus among editors, so you'll have to get a similar consensus with Chinese. I doubt that will happen though; Chinese people are rarely referred to by their given name only. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My reference In Popular Culture was deleted?

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

Note to self: Apparently editing is NOT a collaborative effort. Got it. Didn't realize pages are "owned" by individuals. When did that change as I was thanked previously for my first edit? Good to know for future attempts which may or may not happen. Thanks Wikipedia (Considering canceling my monthly $$ amount)Alden Street (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Alden Street (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alden Street: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so that means that we only collect facts that have been reported in reliable sources. There are many other reasons we require all facts to be sourced, such as that lots of trolls come here to add deliberately false misinformation and that readers should be looking at our references to check facts they need confirmed. You can cancel your donation if you want—certainly no-one reading your message is receiving the money. I, at least, prefer people to volunteer time rather than money, but working in a collaborative environment means that you should not respond with anger or hurt when somebody informs you something new about the way Wikipedia works, and conflicts should be resolved by polite discussion (you could have contacted the person who undid your edit to ask for further explanation). — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse. Please don't get discouraged. It appears your edit did not include a cited source. Please try again but include a source for your edit(s). Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv If I knew who undid the edit I could have reached out to that person, but I don't know how to find that person. And as far as citing a source, I cited the season and episode that mentioned the Nambu pistol. How does one include a source citation for a TV show episode? And, BTW, EVERYONE in Wikipedia is receiving the money. QED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alden Street (talk • contribs)

I will note that the edit summary gives the impression that WP:MILPOP is Wikipedia policy but it is not. It is part of the essay WP:MILCG which clearly notes it is not policy. However, WP:N and WP:V are policies and WP:MILPOP is based on those policies. To Alden Street: Please don't get discouraged. See if you can find a reliable source to your statement. If you can then you may re-add the content with the source in the form of an inline citation as the only issue presented is that it was unsourced. My fellow editors, @Pyrrho the Skeptic and @Bilorv, have pointed out some links you might be interested in should you decide to continue editing here.

--ARose Wolf 17:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Your two latest edits were correctly amended and reverted by Loafiewa, the first because you made an incorrect wikilink to a wrong or ambiguous target, the second because you did not cite any source for the information. Wikipedia is collaborative, but contributions have to be both accurate and in accordance with our (admittedly quite complex and extensive) rules and guidelines, painstakingly evolved over sixteen-or-so years.

Reversion of an edit is just part of our Standard Operating Procedure of "Bold, Revert, Discuss." You Boldly made some edits, Loafiewa thought they were not correctly done, and amended or Reverted them, the next step is for you to Discuss the reverted one with Loafiewa (and others who may choose to join in) on the Article's Talk page, or on Loafiewa's Talk page, or on yours, whichever you prefer. Most likely you will agree on how to properly link or cite that contribution. This is all normal and no animosity or ownership is involved.

Donations are made to the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs many activities and projects, not just English Wikipedia. All editors on Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers who have no access whatever to any information about donations, so are not influenced by them (or their absence).

To find out who made a revertion or other edit to the article, just click on the "View History" tab, where the reason for the edit should be given following the linked signature of the editor. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.207 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, editing costs me money (buying books that I write articles about and so on). I've never been paid a penny and I wouldn't accept a penny. Alden Street, to view the page history of any Wikipedia page, there's a "View history" button if you're on desktop or at the bottom of the mobile layout there's a bar saying "Last edited by X" that you can click on. The layout of the page history might look quite complicated at first but by clicking on a few things you should see that you can view (a) what article content changed with each edit; (b) the user pages, talk pages and contribution logs of every editor who edited the page; and (c) what the page looked like at each point in its history (and many more things besides). — Bilorv (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Confused by article category

On August 18, 2021 I published a new article entitled Little Folks. I just went to the article's Talk page and I saw this category: AfC submissions by date/07 February 2017. That date is more than four years before the article was published. I thought perhaps an earlier Little Folks article had been deleted, but when I clicked on the category I found, listed under L, Talk:Little Folks, and when I clicked on that I was returned to the talk page of the new article. I don't understand the reason for:AfC submissions by date/07 February 2017. I'm tempted to delete the category, but there may be a valid reason for it being there. Can someone enlighten me on the category? Thank you for any assistance you can give me. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Karenthewriter, that talk page has had only one edit. The editor was yourself. It says what it says because that's what you wrote. (My guess is that you copied the material in from some other talk page, forgetting to delete the AfC-relevant part.) Now that it does say this, feel free to edit it so that it doesn't. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoary thank you for solving my mystery. I'm sure you're correct, I must have copied material from a Talk page of one of my earlier children's magazine articles. I suppose the good news is that mistakes keep me humble -- I've been editing since 2007, but there's always more I need to learn. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the requirement to get a good article symbol

I need to get a good article symbol in my article wishes to mean how can I write a good notable article?? hope someone can help me with some advice.--HellmuSa (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC) HellmuSa (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, HellmuSa, and welcome to the Teahouse. All the information about Good Articles is at WP:GA. But your question is a bit like "Hello, I've just started learning to build houses and I would like somebody to tell me how to build a prize-winning house". My answer is, spend a few months or years learning the trade - in this case, making small edits and learning how Wikipedia works. It looks as if you have started doing that, so congratulations; but creating new articles is one of the hardest tasks for new editors, and getting them to Good Article status is even harder, so I suggest, in the English idiom, that you don't run before you can walk. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You have created and submitted Draft:Esav Marrakech, which has been Declined. Work on responding to the reviewer's comments. Getting to GA is incremental - first get a draft accepted, then improve it over time. Fewer than 1% of all articles in English Wikipedia have reached either Good or Featured status. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

HellmuSa, you asked about a good article; I'm not sure that you're asking about "Good Article" (GA). I've written and helped in a lot of articles that I think are good. I've only created one GA. (I think that two or three others would qualify but haven't bothered to nominate them.) A GA is an article that has been scrutinized by other editors to make sure that it is satisfactory in various ways. Don't worry about GA yet. Just make your article good. Here's one small suggestion. You call the place a "Superior School". This sounds to me like a literal translation of "École Supérieure" -- and very strange. I went to the official website but didn't see this name used, even in English. Instead, even when describing itself in English, ESAV calls itself "ESAV", or on occasion "École Supérieure des Arts Visuels de Marrakech". -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary hey men what do you think i can do to get this article execpted any usefull tips bro i will appreciated. talk 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

HellmuSa, why don't you start by attending to "Superior School"? Then look for commentary about ESAV from sources that are reliable and independent of ESAV, and summarize this commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding Music Album requires Citation/Reference?

Trying to add an album for an artist, using another of his albums as a template. My entry keeps getting declined. What am I missing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Looking_at_You,_Looking_at_Me Superdelic (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Superdelic. Your draft doesn't seem to contain any citations to reliable sources; so, there's no way for those reviewing the draft to assess whether the album meets WP:NALBUM or verify any of the content in the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help with my first article please!

Hello all!

I have just written my first draft for a writer I very much admire, but it's already being flagged with problems.

Any suggestions on how to improve this please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jo_Lorenz

Thanks,

Chrissie Chrissieessbee (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for contribting to Wikipedia. The individual does not appear to have sufficient notability yet. Meeting notability usually requires significant coverage in well-known, established media and news outlets. Read this for more detailed info. Don't get discouraged. Happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hyperlinks not allowed in article. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My account's email.

I registered a new account with the email of an old account, and now I'm not getting email notifications for pages I'm watching. What do I need to do? SweetTaylorJames (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you enabled the relevant option in your new account's preferences? See Help:Email notification. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that may have been the issue, thank you David! I think I'm back in business. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Corporate Notability for Startup Company DNA Romance

Had a question about DNA Romance - I'm doing some research on this company as part of a class project but found they didn't have a wikipedia page due to lack of notability. I understand they are a small company, but I feel they are actually quite well known in the vancouver area and within dating industry. Wondering what it takes to be considered notable as a small business? Baldxseaxurchin (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

have you read WP:N? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your addition of one reference to Draft:DNA Romance, created by someone else a while back, is unlikely to be enough to justify reviewer approval if resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baldxseaxurchin: Draft:DNA Romance shows no signs of notability for the company, and it is written in a very promotional tone. The content is also almost pure spam: there are a number of claims like "People with greater differences in their receptors known as the major histocompatibility complex are more likely to be appealing to each other"; that's what the company claims in order to sell their app (maybe they even believe in it themselves, who knows), but it's not something that Wikipedia can say in its own voice. In fact, there is some coverage of that misconception in this Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 20:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Baldxseaxurchin, there is no way under the sun that this draft will ever be accepted without a radical rewrite neutrally summarizing the significant coverage of the company in reliable sources that are completely independent of DNA Romance. Wikipedia cares nothing about what this company says about itself or about any PR campaigns that it has conducted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Transitioning from the sandbox to an informative article on the subject of astronomy

How to contact astronomy experts in the tea house Crandall a clark (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Crandall a clark (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Crandall a clark, if you'd like to contact astronomy experts, you can try posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Crandall a clark: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to Draft:Abell clusters and the Rydberg formulas, you could also add {{WikiProject Astronomy}} to the draft's talk page. (That's one of the many pieces of information in the big pink template at the top of the draft.) Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Crandall a clark, an acceptable Wikipedia article, even about a scientific topic, should begin by summarizing the topic in clear, simplified language that a high school student of average intelligence can understand. I have been interested in astronomy for decades and your brief draft is impenetrable to me. Plus very poorly referenced. Reading No original research is also advised, since that is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How to rotate an image?

Hello, I have requested the bot to rotate this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cockfighting_Kamala.jpg, but it seems like the bot is not working. What can I do to make it correct? HxH3 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) HxH3 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Download the original file and rotate it using your computer's default photo editing software? Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It won't let me upload again saying this is a duplicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HxH3 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@HxH3: Looking at commons:File:Cockfighting_Kamala.jpg, I see the bot has tagged it for rotation. I suggest you wait for 24 hours, and if the bot hasn't rotated it, then contact the bot operator. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: It's been a few days now. I requested for the second time yesterday and it told me to wait for 5 hours. I have contacted the admin who handles the bot. I think the bot is dead. I was wondering if there is a manual way to do it.

@HxH3: me and Hoary (talk · contribs) simultaniously uploaded a new version with correct rotation. See WP:PURGE for what to do when it still looks false on your device. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that I beat Victor to it (by milliseconds), which meant that he won the "contest". @HxH3:, perhaps you'd like to categorize the image? -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded too! Now there are 4 images for the same thing. Hoary (talk · contribs)Victor Schmidt (talk · contribs)HxH3 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Or only two, you guys updated, I uploaded a new one.

HxH3, I suggest that at commons:File:Cockfighting Kamala Correct.jpg you click on "Nominate for deletion". (What Victor Schmidt and I did was click on "Upload a new version of this file".) And of course my suggestion that you categorize the image still stands. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Tone of Draft

Hello! I am working on an article that I submitted for review and was declined for "praising subject," could someone read over it and point out specific areas?

This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_E._Stewart

Thank you! JorodHistory (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@JorodHistory For starters, the 2nd sentence should not be in the lead. It says Stewart was noted for “his ability to work with almost anyone, regardless of religion, color, or political belief” and for never backing down from what he believed, but always standing his ground “in a manner which commanded respect. That is not something a reader needs to see immediately, as that description fits innumerable people. Put it further down on the page, please. I'd also suggest that we don't need to know who gave Stewart a particular job - just say he got the job, and let readers find that level of detail by reading the reference if they so desire. On the whole, it doesn't look too bad to me, but maybe others might wish to make comments

. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Back in July you were asked on your Talk page if PAID or COI applied. You must answer. If not, state that on your Talk page. It yes, state the nature of your connection on your User page. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: JorodHistory has declared PAID on User page. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsure of the process of undeleting a page. YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament

Hi, So I've recently gotten into editing and have been editing some pages about my state (Queensland, Australia), it's organisations and some public figures. As part of this I added some info to YMCA Youth Parliament's Queensland section and have what I believe is solid sourcing for it.

I can see that there used to be a separate YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament page but that was deleted for sourcing (and maybe relevancy?)issues in 2010. As it's now a number of years later and I could easily find sources on the topic I believe that this page should be recreated.

I'm unsure how to go about this. I don't want to restore the old page (as I'm willing to believe there was issues with the content), I want to make a new page that is sourced better.

Could someone please help with the process? Thank you and much obliged.

Link to deletion page.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Since it's been nearly 11 years since the article was originally deleted, I don't think anyone's going to object to you going ahead and creating a new version in draft space. Good luck! Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This is what I had hoped. Thank you for your assistance! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk)

Question

i am new please which type of article can i write that will be approved? Mickel jack (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please how can i write an article for a company? Mickel jack (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mickel jack, try the guidance here: WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Mickel jack (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others, with things happening to it that they don't understand. I would strongly advise you to first edit existing articles first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content, which may not be what you think it is. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea to help you learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still want to write an article now, I would suggest reading Your First Article and then going to Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company(not press releases, interviews, brief mentions or announcements), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.

If you are associated with the company you want to write about, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Help!

Can anyone convert the following code into a chart, like at British royal family#Members?

Gulab Singh------Rakwal
             |
             |
          Ranbir Singh---------Subh Devi
                          |
                          |
          _______________________________________
          |                                     |
          |                                     |
      Pratap Singh                           Amar Singh------Bhotiali Chib
                                                         |
                                                         |
                                                       Hari Singh------Tara Devi
                                                                   |
                                                                   |
                                                                 Karan Singh-----Yasho Rajya Lakshmi
                                                                              |
                                                                              |
                                                              _______________________________________
                                                              |                                     |
                                                              |                                     |
                                                       Vikramaditya Singh                       Ajatshatru Singh

Peter Ormond 💬 04:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: See Template:Tree chart for documentation. Also have a look at Template:Six Islamic Prophets, which is a good example of a simple family tree such as what you want to make. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

if numberblocks had a spinoff after alphablocks, what should its name be?

5944alsas (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC) hey! alphablocks ended and i definitely like numberblocks, so what would its spinoff be 8 years after alphablocks ended? (example: colorblocks)

@5944alsas: Welcome to the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This wouldn't really be a question for the Teahouse. It might be better for the appropriate reference desk. You might want to try there for something like that. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How to create a wikipedia Page?

New to the Community Maazkhurram (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I was wondering that how can I add a contribution page to Wikipedia with the product heading. I Tried the contribution button but it keeps adding my name and sample page next to my heading. Kindly plz Help

I'm a little mystified, Maazkhurram. Are you asking how you can continue your advertising campaign for beard oil (an example) (or your earlier promotion of the "Best Home Decoration & Interior Designer Shop in Pakistan") by changing the heading of your list of contributions? If so, you can't; it's technically impossible. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Maazkhurram We expect anyone who is being WP:PAID to write an article here, not only to declare on their talk page who is paying them (you did, but then deleted it), but we also expect them to understand the basics of Wikipedia and not to need free help from us on the very basics of article creation. As you are clearly new to Wikipedia, please first spend a year or so familiarising yourself with how we work before attempting to make a few pennies/dollars/rupees or yen out of our Project. Undeclared paid editors and those attempting affiliate marketing soon get blocked. Thanks for your understanding. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In answer to "How to create a wikipedia Page?" see instructions at WP:YFA. Nick's advice, which is valid for all new editors, is that you are more likely to succeed in creating an article if you first put in time editing existing articles is such a way that your edits are not reverted. So far, every one of your edits has been reverted. Also per Nick, Wikipedia is not a marketing forum. Trying to insert promotional content and refs will get you blocked. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Transferring a Russian jpg to an English jpg for English Wikipedia use

How do I transfer a Russian jpg so it can be usable on English Wikipedia? I need help with the following photo:

Васикова Лидия Петровна.jpg

Thank you (Спасибо), Shari Garland (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The image in question is available here :ru:Файл:Васикова_Лидия_Петровна.jpg. It depends on the licensing/rationale of the photo. If it's freely licensed, uploading it to :c:Main page would be ideal. If there is a legal Wikipedia:Non-free content rationale, simply download and re-upload the photo here:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds complicated. On the page :ru:Файл:Васикова_Лидия_Петровна.jpg that you shared, there is the following quote which translated from Russian reads:

"This file is not free (does not meet the definition of a free cultural work). In accordance with the decision of the Wikimedia Foundation, it can only be used on Russian Wikipedia if the fair use criteria are met. Any other use (both in Russian Wikipedia and outside it) may constitute a violation of copyright."

Shari Garland (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In which case, Shari Garland, it may be used on English Wikipedia only if all the non-free content criteria are met. If that is the case, you will need to download it from ru-wiki (or from its original source, if you know that), and upload it to English Wikipedia (not to Commons), answering all the questions to justify that use. You can use the Upload wizard. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Shushugah and ColinFine. I shall have to look into the matter. Shari Garland (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Per my understanding, since Lydia Vasikova is no longer with us, the image should be ok as non-free on en-WP. I say try, if it's deleted it's deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Podcasts as a source

Hello everyone. I'm still getting to grips with WP and enjoying tidying up and tightening some existing pages. Quick question. Is there any WP stance on the value of podcasts as sources? I know it's a broad question and that podcasts vary hugely in scope and quality. But I regularly listen to the Dan Snow series of History Hit ones^[1], which often contain interesting points. Any thoughts/feedback is v much appreciated. SnowballWT (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "‎Dan Snow's History Hit on Apple Podcasts". Apple Podcasts. Retrieved 26 August 2021.

@SnowballWT: We don't have a guideline specifically about podcasts, although these are essentially the audio equivalent of blogs insofar as they consist of user-generated content. A podcast used as a source should be scrutinized with the same care as we would do for a blog. A blog can be used in some cases, as when the author is a journalist or recognized expert on a topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, a podcast is probably a WP:SPS in general. So, per

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."

Dan Snow may be an ok-ish source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I just posted a suggestion to clarify the policy at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Add podcasts to_user-generated content, if you want to leave a comment there. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all for these answers - and for the subsequent discussion elsewhere. Really useful. SnowballWT (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Review of Zija Grapshi

Can you review my article, please Zija Grapshi. Why my three articles are not accepted yet. Please I beg you. Lovingheartloving (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:NewPagesFeed says that there are 7608 articles awaiting review. As for your drafts, it says that there are 904 pending submissions waiting for review. Please be patient. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You've probably heard this before but, patience is a virtue. Rushing things tends to reduce the quality. So for example, say you were going to make 2 different things. One you only had 1 hour to make and the other you had as much time as you wanted. THe one where you would have as much time as you need would most likely be of a higher quality than the thing you only had 1 hour to make because you had more time to make it good. If we rushed the reviews of articles, the reviewers may miss some things that will end up in a lot of articles that aren't very good. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You by-passed AfC to create Zija Grapshi as an article. My personal opinion is that it is not article-worthy in its current form, and should be draftified, as recently was done to your Draft:Arif Diren. ~~You have also created several drafts but did not submit those, so nothing is happening there until you do.~~ CORRECTION: You submitted three drafts Aug 15 & 16 and those are in the pile of drafts waiting to be reviewed. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: you gotta admit that Zija Grapshi is in a lot better shape than Draft:Zija Grapshi, which was created by someone else and rightly declined. If you feel it should be draftified, I can merge them without conflict (there are no overlapping dates in the history of each at the moment). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the Draft (Derwishi10) has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, So perhaps that draft should be SD's before draftifying the effort by Lovingheartloving. David notMD (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lovingheartloving: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some changes to Zija Grapshi, requested a reference for the award, and added WikiProjects to the Talk page. I don't understand why you have asterisks in the "Life and Career" section. While you are waiting for your drafts to be reviewed, you can continue working on them in a similar fashion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What to add in an article?

All the articles I have made till now are either translations or by copying the contents from a similar article and editing it (like the ones I have made on departmental councils). As a result, I don't know what all to add to continue my draft. Excellenc1 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: The title of your draft is Draft:List of regional prefectures in France, but the first sentence states "This is a list of capital cities of France". I'm no French expert, but I would expect these to match, so I suggest you make the appropriate change. You could also add the appropriate categories (within {{Draft categories}}) and WikiProjects. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

How can I add a citation to the shower page?

When I see citation needed, I do a quick search and can usually find answers to these. But on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shower page, it looks like no one can fix it now? I want to add to the section about drainage and second shower drains in Australia (which is actually quite fascinating to see, as well). Please advise - thank you! Benita >Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse. Benitag (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Benitag Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are unable to edit the article yourself, you may post on the article talk page, describing exactly the edit you wish to make. You can do it as a formal edit request(click for instructions) but that's not required. The talk page is Talk:Shower. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Benitag. I'm not a Teahouse host, but saw your question while posting my own and thought I might could help. You could consider becoming an editor who is autoconfirmed. Then you could edit. Achieving that status is rather easy--four days registered and at least 10 edits. Finding articles to edit is also easy if you look HERE. Find an article or two that is in much need of copy editing and you can easily get 10 edits. That is how I got started. THIS is one to consider. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner - General Note Question

For WikiProject talk page banners, is there a way to leave a specific note with the banner for people to see? I don't mean the hidden text message for editors, but a message that everyone can see. For example, adding a message to Talk:AKM Nazir Ahmed for the Twenty-Tens decade WikiProject to say that the WikiProject only is involved with his arrest/death, which happened in the 2010s. I am not sure if adding such a note to the banner is possible, but I thought I would ask. Thanks for any help in advance. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: After looking at Template:WPBannerMeta and Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks, it appears you could do this by either:

adding |MAIN_TEXT= or |BOTTOM_TEXT= that you want to appear on every banner (e.g. "Note that this WikiProject is only involved in events that happened in the 2010s, even if the scope of this article covers more than that."), or
follow the instructions at Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes to add a new parameter that could be populated on a page-by-page basis, and then add that parameter to the documentation.

You might want to test in a sandbox before making changes to the live template. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Drake's Plate of Brass

Hello Teahouse hosts. There have been recent changes in Drake's Plate of Brass by User 97.120.67.205 which you may view HERE. This user made several edits to add much material which is not cited and removed material that was adequately cited. This user has five edits on this page and one on Francis Drake's circumnavigation. The circumnavigation edit was reverted.

I believe the edits of User 97.120.67.205 should be reverted on the Drake's Plate of Brass article, too, but I do not know how to revert so many edits at once. I've only reverted one edit at a time, and even that is something I have rarely done. So, might someone look this over, and if they are comfortable reverting the edits do so--or--tell me the process so that I could do so? And please know that if I am wrong in my assessment about reverting User 97.120.67.205's edits, I would like to know that. Most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Hu Nhu (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: To revert multiple edits at once:

Go to the article history HERE
Next to the edit BEFORE 97.120.67.205 (which was done by Pbrks), click in the first circle.
Next to the most recent edit by 97.120.67.205, click in the second circle.
Click the "Compare selected revisions" button
At the top right next to "Revision as of 14:17, August 11, 2021", click the "Undo" link.
Confirm everything looks good, enter an edit summary stating why you're reverting all these edits, and click "Publish changes"

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, you're directions were very clear and worked perfectly. Thank you. Hu Nhu (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[1] "Eyal Press". Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved 20 August 2021.

[2] "‎Dan Snow's History Hit on Apple Podcasts". Apple Podcasts. Retrieved 26 August 2021.

[1]

[1]