Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Question About Editing

I know the primary activity here is adding new information from different sources, but for some reason that feels really daunting to me. I've tried correcting spelling and grammar, but most of those edits get reverted, and to be honest, I'm feeling a bit lost here. Is there anything else I can do to be helpful here, things that won't get reverted? I do want to be a good editor here, but am unsure of where to start. Endymiona19 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Endymiona19, welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to start out via The Wikipedia Adventure, which guides new users in being accustomed to Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Endymiona19, I know exactly what you mean! I've edited an article, but feel I know less about editing than I did when I started. The guides are, by and large, useless, and most of the questions I put to the Teahouse result in load of incomprehensible answers that seem designed to make me feel stupid. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Endymiona19. There are plenty of discrete tasks you can help out with that are listed at Wikipedia:Community portal#Help out that are not "fraught". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I have yet to collaborate or add anything besides a citations template without it being reverted. I am a person who appreciates support to begin making positive changes, but I have yet to find it on Wikipedia. DHHornfeldt (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Like this 'teahouse.' If you were looking for conversation over tea it is surprising when you find you're actually standing at an info booth and being redirected. DHHornfeldt (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

DHHornfeldt I'm sorry that the Teahouse disapointed in that sense. The fact is that the talk-page format isn't really suited to a social setting. If I may redirect you again, some Wikipedians do use live chat to speak to each other which does have more of a chatty vibe to it - see WP:IRC or WP:DISCORD depending on your preference, I suspect that might be more your... ...cup of tea. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DHHornfeldt, Welcome to the teahouse. You do make an interesting point but I think it's a little misplaced. Let me see if I can persuade you. Imagine walking into a physical tea shop, and asking for directions to the loo. if you received the response, "welcome to our tea house, why don't you please have a seat, I'll bring you a cup of tea and we can talk" when you really want to be told how to find the loo, I think you'd agree that they weren't being helpful by offering to engage in a conversation when they simply wanted information. This is a place for chatting but it's also an information resource. If someone comes in and asks a question that has been asked 100 times before, it is far more efficient to point them to the place where all the questions are answered rather than taking the time to rewrite and possibly misexplain the concepts. Your initial post express the frustrations of many brand-new editors and you specifically asked where to start. years of experience with brand-new editors led us to the conclusion that we needed something for brand-new editors and that's why the Wikipedia adventure was created. It's an attempt to do something other than create a boring list of rules; it hopefully is a mildly entertaining introduction to Wikipedia editing. In other words, it was the perfect response to your question. If you try that site and still have some questions, you'll be in a better position to ask a specific question and people here will be happy to try to specifically answer, although I'll warn you in advance the odds are high that they will point you to a page that has all the answers. If you'd like to try chatting, try chatting and someone may join in. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, Paul Carpenter Maybe you didn't notice I'm not the op. I get that you're trying to help but I'm not looking for anything. As you said "This is a place for chatting..." so I thought I'd try chatting. Now I know how chatting goes. Seems like you are excited for WP:ADVENTURE and I hope that lightens your workload. Many happy returns and all that. DHHornfeldt (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, DHHornfeldt, you make a good point about social spaces and the role of the Teahouse. I've heard that some of the other-language Wikipedias like German or Italian have more general off-topic chat at their equivalents of our en:Wikipedia:Village Pump (café, beer-hall etc.). I think it's a problem of scaling up to larger numbers of people. That and and the drive-by nature of many of the Teahouse questions. Pelagic ( messages ) – (20:41 Sun 17, AEDT) 09:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who originally posted this section. I just wanted to thank everyone for their help and welcomes. I am making my way around here and am currently working with another editor on an article, so I think I'll eventually find my place here. Endymiona19 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo Page

Don't understand the tag on Imo (app) page. Should I move my page to draft? Where can I read if there is a discussion regarding this page? Sonofstar (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. That article has already been moved to Draft:Imo_(app). You can continue to work on it there. I suggest reading WP:YFA which will help you with the steps to make the draft ready for review. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You created article and moved it to mainspace. An editor deemed in unworthy and moved it to draft. You did some editing and again moved it to mainspace. Your own Edit comment:"Page is good to move." Then another editor moved it to draft. I strongly recommend you let the draft go through the AfC review process versus flipping it to mainspace again. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There’s already Imo (software). From memory, I think that was mentioned recently somewhere? Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:53 Sun 17, AEDT) 22:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: your draft contains more citations and useful information than the recently-created page Imo (software), so you should definitely collaborate on improving that one rather than making another with a similar title. It might be sensible later to create a re-direct from "Imo (app)" to "Imo (software)" but you should discuss that at the article's Talk page first. Once you have finished merging your information, you can ask for the draft to be deleted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks to acknowledging it and share the process. I dropped a message on the talk page of the page creator of Imo Software user. Let me drop a message on the talk page of IMO app also and try to merge the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofstar (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Retired" template being posted to noticeboards?

Why/how do random people post

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

to the noticeboards? This happens semi-regularly, and I don't understand how they end up there. Sometimes they want to delete their account, but why do so many users independently arrive at the same bizarrely convoluted and ineffectual method for achieving that? JoelleJay (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally I take it as a kind of shouty "I QUIT!" The user you linked may have just misunderstood, however. One would think that anyone who knows enough to insert a template would be doing so intentionally? Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:03 Sun 17, AEDT) 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi JoelleJay. The {{Retired}} template is mainly for user pages. I don't think it for use on noticeboards; so, if an editor added it there, then they probably did so by mistake. Editors use the "Retired" template for a variety of reasons but most just want to let others know that they're no longer editing and thus no longer responding to anything posted on their user talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's an optional template, but some feel it's better then just simply disappearing without a trace. Just for reference, accounts cannot be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I know how the template is supposed to be used for userpages, I'm just confused how there are dozens of users who are (seemingly) inexperienced/CIR enough* to try to post that template on a noticeboard, but also understand what a template is and can navigate to a noticeboard. I always assumed they were trolls, but it's also such a pointless and specific effort with so little disruption that it's hard to imagine why anyone would do that.

Just on AN since September, there was the above 2-week-old user, with 4 edits; this 1-day-old account with 3 edits; a 2-week-old with 8 edits; and this guy who made it over 2 years with 2 edits. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If they click their username without having a user page then they get a page like User:SiraliAgg with the link user page in the first line. That page mentions {{Retired}} in Wikipedia:User pages#User pages and leaving Wikipedia. That could explain how they find the template. I don't know how they reach WP:AN. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ooh PrimeHunter that makes so much sense for the template! JoelleJay (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

With respect to I'm just confused how there are dozens of users who are (seemingly) inexperienced/CIR enough* to try to post that template on a noticeboard, but also understand what a template is and can navigate to a noticeboard., welcome to Wikipedia where some people "chose to understand" only the things they like and "refuse to understand" pretty much everything else. There is after all no requirement to editing other than being to access the website. It's basically learn as you go along and some people only learn what interests them or what helps them accomplish their objectives. As for it's also such a pointless and specific effort with so little disruption that it's hard to imagine why anyone would do that., pretty much the same thing could be said about WP:VANDAL, WP:SOCK, WP:DE, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:PRAM, WP:EW, WP:IDHT, etc. Some editors seem to need to feel they're WP:WINNING at all times and perhaps they feel that going out with a bang by announcing their departure is the best way to show everyone else who's really in control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with JoelleJay – it's weird. I think it's more likely that there was some kind of external influence guiding them to post it on AN. There are social media and other sites that are inhabited by WP-haters/disruptors; you probably can find it if you want to search and wade through the drivel. I'd rather do most anything else. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Index

Index How long does it take for a contribution to be indexed? Jimn8n8 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jimn8n8, only articles in the mainspace are indexed in search engines, assuming this is what you are asking. It either takes 90 days or a new pages patroller to approve it, whichever comes first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jimn8n8 If you mean Wikipedia's own index of articles, I believe these are indexed within a few hours of creation.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jimn8n8: What you have done is a common mistake – creating a new article on your user page, which is, instead, for telling other editors a little about yourself and your editing interests on Wikipedia. Pospective articles should either be created in your User:Jimn8n8/sandbox or in the "Draft" namespace. Based on it's current state, it looks like you have some work to do still, so I'd suggest just cut/pasting it from User:Jimn8n8 to User:Jimn8n8/sandbox. Then, have a look at WP:YFA and WP:AFC. When you're ready, insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of it and it will be reviewed by the AFC volunteer reviewers. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)

Something is wrong with Template:Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) and I can't figure out how to fix it. Can someone please help? Thank you, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Charlie Smith FDTB. Can you explain what problem you see or are encountering with its use? The template is displaying fine as far as I can tell.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Charlie Smith FDTB: I guess you refer to unwanted whitespace at "Organizations", "Communities" and "Books and publications" in [1]. Some of the parameters had non-breaking spaces which are not stripped. I have removed them.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Every so often, I've wasted time hunting down problems that end up being due to embedded nbsps and other unusual characters that I can't see a legit reason to be in wikitext. Has it been considered to have an edit filter to prevent these (or at least warn, if there is an occasional legitimate reason for them)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1: There was a proposal to tag at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11#Copying and pasting with WP:VE adding hundreds of hidden non-breaking spaces. It was in response to a specific VisualEditor issue which was fixed. MOS:NBSP says: "Insert non-breaking and thin spaces symbolically ({{nbsp}}, {{thinsp}},   or  ), never by entering them directly into the edit window from the keyboard". I don't know any legitimate uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing comments that show up twice

I was hoping to remove comments from a discussion I started since the same comments are on two different talk pages. Is that possible to do? Thank you! 161.77.224.143 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 161.77.224.143. See WP:REDACT for more, but generally you may remove or edit comments you make on a talk page as long as nobody has responded to them yet or as long as too much time has past since you made the post. So, if you posted the same thing on two talk pages and nobody has responded to you yet, then you probably can remove one of the posts; if someone has responded, then you probably should just let that person know that the same discussion is taking place on another talk page and politely ask them to continue it there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe ... not too much time has past ... was the intent above. I.e., you shouldn't delete something that others may have already read (and might be reacting/responding to). Use the techniques at WP:REDACT instead. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Is marketing Wikipedia as a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" false advertising?

What are considered reliable sources and is there any reflection done at Wikipedia to see if there is bias or implicit bias that is being codified by the perception of those selected to review and accept articles or edits?

NmuoMmiri (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC) NmuoMmiri NmuoMmiri (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NmuoMmiri: Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but there are guidelines that editors must follow - see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. One of those is the use reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anyone can share their opinion about bias in a particular article by posting on the article's talk page - see Help:Talk pages. GoingBatty (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thank you for the response. I am new to Wikipedia so I beg your patience with any doubts that I have about the editorial process. I have read the article on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The confusion that I have is when bias is mentioned in the article, it does not clarify bias in the articles that Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. The question I have is whether Wikipedia considers all articles that it classifies as reliable sources to be free from bias, overt and implicit? If so, then the reason for my first question was to verify if anyone can edit Wikipedia? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to market the media sources that it considers to be reliable or can anyone edit Wikipedia articles for objective review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NmuoMmiri: Editors recognize that some sources can be biased. The suitability of sources is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, with a list published at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. GoingBatty (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NmuoMmiri: You may be referring to the references in your Draft:Providence Office Products. While the references you provided may contain correct information, they do not demonstrate how this company meets Wikipedia's standard for inclusion, called "notability". I suggest you also review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you for your reply. I have been reviewing the list of reliable and perennial sources. I am not arguing that perhaps the consensus is that The New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek are considered reliable sources while The New York Post and Daily Mail are considered unreliable. It could be a matter of opinion or a matter of legacy. And while Google Maps is considered reliable while Bing Maps is considered unreliable, could leave some to wonder, there may have been a consensus in this decision as well. I am not arguing with consensus, but consensus by whom? Is this consensus by viewers of Wikipedia or by a selection of editors? Among the editors, is there any protocols in place to prevent implicit bias? I ask because Wikipedia has quite a reach and although I am new to editing a Wikipedia article, I am familiar with the influence that it has on the Internet. I have reviewed the topic of notability. After reading, the first impression is to equate "notability" with "fame" or "infamy". And while infamy can lead to calamity, or calamity can lead to infamy, I ask whether Wikipedia allows references from sources that are not available on the Internet?

These are topics that may just be developing because of the recent discussion around media, the Internet, and censorship. Through the development of social media, it is an opinion that traditional media organizations holds and rejects certain views. Social media is considered platforms where people are able to express themselves freely. However, because of the dangers surrounding free speech, there has recently been an effort to provide some censorship in social media platforms. Many traditional media platforms have already had some type of censorship through the editorial process. The editorial process of Wikipedia is what I now have the opportunity to explore. I would like to learn if the editorial process for Wikipedia is more like a social media company or like a traditional media company. I assume it would be difficult to get a clear answer on that subject, but that was the theme of my original inquiry.

If there is any information or threads about how Wikipedia plans to address any concerns regarding both traditional and social media, they would be greatly appreciated. I understand the difficulty in assessment as these are growing technologies. I remember reading the New York Times as a youth, and the experience of reading it online is quite different than that I remember of perusing the actual pages. The front page of the online version has many opinion articles today. That is also true of the online versions of Time and Newsweek. That is quite a remarkable difference from decades ago. Are the qualifications for reliable sources given to a whole organization or just the part of the newspaper that are actual articles?

Thank you for providing guidance on editing the draft of Providence Office Products. Providence Office Products provided a great role for the community in offering products during the pandemic. It is an e-commerce business, that is not just a local store, but able to deliver products anywhere. Thank you again for your time in assisting me navigate this learning experience. NmuoMmiri

What is your connection to Providence Office Products? David notMD (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a customer of Providence Office Products, I have purchased products from Providence Office Products. During the pandemic, many small businesses in Texas went out of business. I am on the other side of Texas than Providence Office Products, hours away, but I was able to order products from them online and they delivered. This was notable, because early on in the pandemic, many products were difficult to find. Providence Office Products had local media coverage in their area for all the services that they were providing. Face masks, hygiene products, digital marketing materials, logo design, custom embroidery, t-shirts with logos, even coffee mugs. Anything you would need to keep a small business going, they could deliver, anywhere. Not just in Texas, anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Why are you concerned with my connection to Providence Office Products and not addressing any of my concerns about the editorial process at Wikipedia? I have read talk pages where people have had their pages about their best friends approved. What are the protocols if any to prevent overt or implicit bias among the editors at Wikipedia?

comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

NmuoMmiri, your last substantive comment is very long and I'm not going to engage with all your points, but just to pick up on a few:

• Consensus is achieved through discussion by editors who have any interest. We can't compel people to participate in discussions, though important ones are widely publicised.
• I'm not sure where you've read that Google Maps is considered reliable but Bing Maps unreliable, but I can't imagine many instances in which a map would be a useful source for article content.
• You ask if the editorial process for Wikipedia is more like a social media company or like a traditional media company. I'd say neither. It's an encyclopedia, which is different to a social media site or something like a newspaper. Nether social media or traditional media content is determined by consensus.
• In answer to "Are the qualifications for reliable sources given to a whole organization or just the part of the newspaper that are actual articles", yes, we often differentiate between news and opinion pieces from the same publication (either in terms of their reliability or whether they need to be treated as opinions rather than fact). See the various entries for Fox News at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for an example.

I hope that answers some of your queries. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Thank you for the response and clarification. Yes, these explanations are very helpful. I have a better idea now of consensus. I am making the assumption that for reviews, there is not a consensus but a decision being made by individual editors. As I am not familiar with the editorial process, I still am unaware of any protocol to prevent bias by an individual editor or the consensus of a group of editors.

As for the examples of reliable sources, I was just referring to the list of reliable and perennial sources. I understand that this topic is beyond Wikipedia, so I am not expecting a response on the reliability of sources. I am just raising the point that that traditional and emerging media sources are also subject to opinions and bias. If Wikipedia is more like an encyclopedia than social media then it is subject to review of the bias or opinions of some of the sources in the perennial sources list.

Thank you for providing the classification of Wikipedia as more of an encyclopedia than a social media platform. I am currently looking at the page of Emuzed. I am providing this as an example of a company page that appears in Wikipedia for the sole purpose of comparison and not from any knowledge of the company what so ever. I am using this example just to find out more about how the review decision is made for these entries.

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. You have answered many of my questions. In fact, you have answered all but one of my questions. The only question that I have remaining are what, if any, are the protocols in place to reduce implicit bias at Wikipedia?

comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that anything can be completely free of bias, NmuoMmiri, but please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I also meant to link to Wikipedia:Consensus above, for an explanation of how consensus is reached. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry That is helpful information. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view briefly discusses editorial bias but it could go into more detail about editorial bias if it provided an example of how editorial bias can occur. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is quite a fascinating article. Thank you for providing it. A good research project may be to see how often selection bias occurs if that information was available.

comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

I asked about your connection to Providence Office Products because WP:PAID or WP:COI may apply if you are being paid to create an article or have a personal connection to the topic at hand. Wikipedia asks that if either apply, that information be on your User page. Ditto for the other article for which you have created drafts. David notMD (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you for the advice. I am new to Wiki editing so I am not familiar with all the regulations. I wish I was being paid to edit wiki pages, but I am honestly not. I have created drafts on articles that I believe should be added. I am not an expert of office supply stores but I wanted to highlight a company that perservered and assisted people through the pandemic. A lot of companies were price gouging and crushing small businesses throughout the pandemic. Many small businesses went out of business. In Texas, a large percentage of the workforce rely on small businesses. If a small business is providing assistance in difficult times, is it notable?

I will be more careful about the topics that I propose at Wikipedia. But there are many topics that are just missing entirely. I read another comment that you made earlier about not letting existing pages be the standard for new pages. I think that helped in finding out why there appears to be double standards set accross many genres or topics that appear. I would still like to know more about the possibility of protocols at Wikipedia to impede double standards, systemic editorial bias, systemwide selection bias, or implicit bias at Wikipedia.  :Cordless Larry provided some assistance but I do not think that the resources provided addressed all the concerns. Thank you for the guidance on paid editors and conflicts of interest. That was helpful. comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

David notMD My connection to Providence Office Products is that I am a Customer of Interest. I am a happy customer of Providence Office Products because it was very difficult to purchase office supplies during the pandemic. In the United States, the major office supply chains are in takeover talks and the few office supply stores that remain are notable. I am a customer of Providence Office Products just like I am a customer of Wikipedia. I do not remember companies in my Encyclopedia Britannica. Now it appears there are more companies in Wikipedia than anything else. There should be protocols to prevent the commercialization of Wikipedia, protocols that prevent selection bias or implicit bias at Wikipedia. NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

Another question may be to find out the requirements for a company page to appear on Wikipedia. Is there a standard anywhere for company pages to appear on Wikipedia? Significant media coverage on companies can be misleading. Some locations may not have the same amount of media organizations as others. What if there is a large farm in a rural area that employs many people in that community. The rural area may not have the media organizations, but that does not make the large farm insignificant. NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@NmuoMmiri: The requirement, like GoingBatty said, is notability, specifically WP:NCORP. It's by no means a perfect system, but it's a system that works for our purposes. Every piece of information must be verifiable, so we rely on reliable sources to back up every bit of information. Therefore, we're offloading the editorial judgment to the writers of reliable sources because they have established authority and track record of factual reporting. This is perhaps why we have little coverage on farms but more coverage on companies. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion has moved beyond the scope of the Teahouse and probably should be closed. It's an interesting discussion in many ways, but it seems better off being continued at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) since that seems to be primarily what it's about. Asking general questions about Wikipedia:Notability at the Teahouse is fine; however, once things move into a more detailed theoretical discussion of a particular WP:SNG, then the discussion should be moved to the SNG's talk page because that's where any proposed changes to the guideline are going to need to be sorted out and a consensus for them established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you for the response on the topic of notability. I understand that it is a system that works for our purposes. When you say our purposes do you mean "our" as the editors or "our" as the readers?  : @Marchjuly: I am willing to close the discussion or move it to the appropriate page. However, my original inquiry has not been answered. The original inquiry was to discover if there are protocols in place to prevent system=wide selection bias, implicit editorial bias, or overt editorial bias at Wikipedia. The discussion of the notability of companies for the purpose of identifying how companies like Providence Office Products or companies that are in rural areas can receive equal treatment as companies that are in urban cities with great media coverage, I can move to the appropriate page. I noticed there are list pages for companies that are in major cities. If there is a page to ask questions about the editorial process at Wikipedia, please provide directions. My original request was to understand the protocols to prevent systemic implicit selection bias at Wikipedia, if they exist. This discussion can be kindly closed if there is a place to identify the topic of implicit selection bias or overt selection bias and for new personnel to ask questions to seasoned editors about the editorial process. NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

List of all Compounds

I was looking at all the isotopes of elements and was wondering, if possible, if we could do all the chemical compounds of every element in the world. Could we? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Blacephalon: Glossary of chemical formulae and List of inorganic compounds list the most common, but the first link also states why a complete list would not be possible. Orville^talk 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Then why don't we expand on the lists we do have because I se no superheavy element compounds on there. UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Blacephalon: Go for it! You can also discuss the contents of the list article at Talk:Glossary_of_chemical_formulae, and find a community of editors working on improving chemistry-related articles at the Chemistry WikiProject. Orville^talk 20:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have but no one is talking to me...UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again @Blacephalon: it may take days (on some articles a week or more) to get a response on a particular article's talk page. You may get a quicker response by starting a new discussion on the Chemistry WikiProject Talk Page. Happy editing! Orville^talk 02:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Sounds familiar. Haven't you brought this up previously? Perhaps nobody has anything new to say. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I have before, not that anyone has done anything about it though that I know of. I do have some compounds that are in articles that are not in the list. Even still, its a bit confusing on if a compound has been made or not since the article is vague about it, ya know? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

hi I just wanted to ask what age are you supposed to be to make a Wikipedia account Alisha rains (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Alisha rains. There is no minimum age. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors may be relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ohh I thought I was too young to be on Wikipedia so am I allowed to ask anybody anythingAlisha rains (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am blocked

Hello, Wikipedia keeps telling me that I am blocked whenever I want to edit but sometimes when I want to edit, I am unblocked again, it keeps coming and going. What could be the problem? Josedimaria237 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: It could be that you're trying to edit without logging in, and that your shared IP address was blocked because of bad actions taken by another user. Providing an exact example might be helpful. I suggest you always log in before editing. GoingBatty (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your account has never been blocked but occasionally an account may be affected by an IP block. Please see Wikipedia:IP block exemption for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, editing on app can be a pain the ass. When you do activities in desktop, your account is auto-logged out on app. Have contacted the developers but received no responses. GeraldWL 07:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Would like help in editing my draft CallRail @Theroadislong

 Courtesy link: Draft:CallRail

I'm pretty new to this, so please excuse me if I'm writing this note in the wrong place. My recent article submission, CallRail, was declined by Theroadislong. I would like your help in understanding how I can improve this submission. When creating the article, I used an existing Wikipedia page as my guide. I studied their sources and how they framed up the topic with the hope that my post would not get flagged. Can you help me further understand and point me in the right direction? I can strip the copy down to sound more neutral but would like some guidance in terms of source finding, etc.

Thanks, AzumSauce07 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AzumSauce07. The quality of the references is all-important when writing a Wikipedia article. What is required are multiple reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic (the company in this case), and these sources must devote significant coverage to the topic. What I see are directory listings, funding announcements, promotional websites and coverage obviously generated by company press releases. It is the quality of sources that matters, not the quantity. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Reviewers take those standards seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AzumSauce07, I see that you have declared that you are a paid editor. I also see that you have a total of eight edits to date. I am curious why you think that you are qualified to write an acceptable article about a corporation with so little experience? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not all existing articles deserve to exist. Thus, modeling on an existing article is no guarantee for success. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(Ed) Indeed. For structure, tone, standard headings, categories, navboxes, etc. existing articles are a great guide. But the primary hurdle of notability is a separate thing.

Having said that, on a quick glance at the article, some parts (like the lead) read as objective descriptions, but others less so. For example Conversation Intelligence was launched around the same time as Form Tracking. It works by automatically recording calls and using artificial intelligence (AI) to transcribe and analyze phone calls.. That may be true, but does it primarily tell the reader what it is? Or only indirectly? I would write something like "Conversation Intelligence" is a feature/module/whatever that records calls and uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to transcribe and analyze phone calls. It was launched in year.[ref] And even then, is listing products and services the best way to describe what CallRail is? Our aim isn’t to sell CallRail to prospective customers.

Stylistic matters aside, the real question is "is CallRail significant enough to deserve an encyclopedia article?" Or are you just trying to improve the way you show up in Google, Alexa, and so on? There is a fundamental tension here: G, A, etc. use Wikipedia because our contents are supposedly vetted and kinda "reliable". If we were an indiscriminate listing of self-described company promos then we would be of no value to them. They could just pull their info cards straight from the official company websites. Or you could pay Google to get an ad listing at the top of the SERP.

Sorry for the rant. When it comes to sources, I would normally respect Forbes, but "5 Website Tools To Boost Your Marketing Campaigns" doesn’t sound like critical journalistic output. SearchEngineLand I would think is well-regarded. A local newspaper's local business awards might count for something but how important is that in the global scheme of things? Atlanta's not exactly a small town, but would a reader in Stuttgart or Mumbai care to whom AJC awarded a great workplace award?

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (01:09 Tue 19, AEDT) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s a Forbes "contributor" piece so useless in terms of reliability. SK2242 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A more accurate link is WP:FORBESCON. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bata

Bata do not have eyes 152.57.116.106 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Bata the shoe company? If so, yes they don't have eyes. Although the workers do... if they even do. GeraldWL 07:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have a question or a suggestion, go ahead and express it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is about the fish described in Labeo bata, the picture in that article would seem to disagree with you. If you have a reliable published source that says something about their eyes, please open a discussion at the talk page Talk:Labeo bata. --ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Or did you mean bats, as the 's' is close to the 'a' on the keyboard? David notMD (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I link a term to Wikidictionary?

The term aperçus is used in an article. Can I link the term to the Wikidictionary entry? If so, what is the proper syntax for that? TIA UClaudius (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @UClaudius: You can use [[wikt:aperçu]] or [[wiktionary:aperçu]], to link to it. Orville^talk 02:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Still trying to link to a definition

FYI

 – Merged from below. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I had asked how to link a word to its definition and was told for the word aperçu I could use "wikt:aperçu or wiktionary:aperçu". Apparently, I am doing it wrong, because instead of just the linked word, the result is: wikt:aperçu or wiktionary:aperçu. What am I doing wrong? UClaudius (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

UClaudius, you didn't pipe it. Adding a | after the text in the brackets should do what you want it to do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@UClaudius: If you want the blue link word to show as aperçu, you would type [[wikt:aperçu|]] Orville^talk 07:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Orville, If you want to link directly to the English section of the Wiktionary page, you can use the template {{wt}}. So {{wt|en|aperçu}} displays as aperçu, and links to the English part of that page. {{wt|fr|aperçu}} similarly links to the French section. --ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HTTPS vs HTTP?

HTTPS vs HTTP

In general, if a web server is doing a 301 Redirect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301) to the HTTPS version of the url, should wikipedia list the HTTP or HTTPS url? Gavreh (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Gavreh: I'm not sure I fully understand your question. If you're referring to the internal blue Wikilinks, they are formatted like this: [[Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikilink|Wikilinks]], [[Porlock]], or [[WP:TEA]]. Since they don't contain the full URL, they are not HTTP or HTTPS specfic. Orville^talk 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to links to external websites, WP:EL says that https links are preferred. RudolfRed (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No it does not. There is no preference for external links. It does say for Wikipedia articles, https is prefered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Specifying protocols says: "preferring https:, where available". The section mentions internal links but applies to all external-style links. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The section is definitely talking solely about inbound external links to Wikimedia. We should rewrite or expand it to clearly state that HTTPS is preferable in all cases of external linking, no matter the target. Zindor (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can’t point to a guideline, but I would expect if you’re adding a new link then you should use the canonical target (after any 30x and stripping unnecessary params). Plus I thought there was a bot that updates http -> https links in the situation that you describe? Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:38 Mon 18, AEDT) 12:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I already pointed to the guideline: Wikipedia:External links#Specifying protocols. It might be formulated better but it applies to all external links. https is preferred, even when both work without redirecting. If http redirects to https then there is absolutely no reason to link http. We have bots that update links to some sites which are known to work with https. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was attempting to generalise to 301 redirects beyond the http→https case, but was a bit off-topic. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:36 Tue 19, AEDT) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have clarified the guideline.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a template for a List of Pages I've edited (w/stats)

I'd like a query for a list of articles, similar to the query for the list of contributions available with this: Special:Contributions/Jaredscribe.

Ideally, it should have four columns: name of article; number of edits made by this user; Total bytes added by this user; Bytes removed by this user. Does something like this already exist?Jaredscribe (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Jaredscribe (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Jaredscribe, we have something called XTools, which contains data on users that are publicly viewable. The first two queries you mentioned can be found on your XTools page here. The second two are only available on the XTools page of a certain article, which can be found by typing the article name in here. I'm not sure if what you asked for exists, but this is probably the next best thing. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 08:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AfD

Can you suggest an article for deletion? If so, how? AlphonseOop (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but instead you normally think hard about the article, its subject, and the likelihood of creating a good (policies/guidelines-compliant) article about the subject; and if after doing this you conclude that the matter is hopeless, you go ahead and nominate it for deletion yourself. Here's how. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

STARTING PROBLEM

i need a guider to get started with my account 42unkown (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

42unkown, what do you need help with? If you would like a guide to editing, The Wikipedia Adventure is a great place to start. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 09:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with deleting content

Hi, I’m a new editor. I recently added an info box for the page Irish Music Rights Organisation. I put the logo that was already on the page into the infobox but did not want to make any destructive edits so I did not remove the logo that was already there. I hope this is not bad practice but in any event would somebody mind removing the logo(or inform me if I have done something untoward) Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Midnight713 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Midnight713, welcome to Wikipedia! What you've done is perfectly fine, so I've removed the duplicate. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 09:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Giraffer!

Midnight713 (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

echo off

@echo off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.189.151.195 (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@filterbubble off && echo chamber on; Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:30 Mon 18, AEDT) 12:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@echo chamber on off on off on off on off on off on off. GeraldWL 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Title issue

FYI

 – Heading added by Berrely

Hello, I made a mistake and created the page Stefan Weintraub under a previous title and now I can't link to to the German original. Can someone please help  ? Thanks in advance. LouisAlain (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC) LouisAlain (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain, are you trying to revert your move? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: I looked at your edits and see you added it to the Wikidata item Eric Borchard (Q1351136). I have removed it at Wikidata.[4] It can now be linked to another German article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; the German original indeed links to the english version but I still can't link the english Stefan Weintraub to its German source. LouisAlain (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added the English Wikipedia article to Wikidata. Hope that fix it. Grimes2 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ΚΑΛΑΘΟΣΦΑΙΡΙΣΗ

πώς μπορώ να γίνω μέλος της wikipedia? 37.6.1.86 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Translation via Google Translate:

BASKETBALL

how can i become a member of wikipedia?

— Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To join Wikipedia, you can create an account at Special:CreateAccount. However it may be better to create an account at your local Wikipedia The Greek Wikipedia.

Translation via Google Translate to Greek:

Για να εγγραφείτε στη Βικιπαίδεια, μπορείτε να δημιουργήσετε έναν λογαριασμό στη διεύθυνση Special:CreateAccount. Ωστόσο, ίσως είναι καλύτερο να δημιουργήσετε έναν λογαριασμό στην τοπική σας Wikipedia The Greek Wikipedia. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

H0MARUP

I want to have an article special just for my relative. He is a translator. Can I do that? And by the way, I want to know how to make an article on Wikipedia. Thank you! H0MARUP (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there H0MARUP, and welcome to Wikipedia. Policy strongly advices against creating an article for someone you know on Wikipedia, as it will mean you have a conflict of interest, so the article may not be written from a neutral point of view. Most people are notable; chances are, if they were someone would've already created an article about them. Wikipedia has specific guidelines on articles for people, seen at WP:NBIO. I would recomend not creating an article about your relative. However, if you believe they are notable and you can write from a neutral point of view, then H:YFA is a good place to get started. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Is there a chance you are referring to Draft:Christian Bernert? — Yours, Berrely • Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about him. You can see my drafts? - Yours, User:H0MARUP 13:52, 18 January 2021

Trying to reply a message for user Berrely in my question. How can I do that??? H0MARUP (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You answered successfully, HOMARUP, except that you created a new section, which is not helpful when replying to an existing section. I have removed the header, merging the two section. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And to answer your previous question: everything on Wikipedia is publically viewable - drafts, talk pages, sandboxes, everything. That's why the "Save" button was renamed to "Publish". But only articles in the main space are indexed by external engines such as Google. Please read about notability before doing any further work on your draft: Wikipedia is only interested in topics which have already been written about in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft very, very, little content and no references. This cannot become an article unless there is published stuff about your relative. If there is not, then you should consider abandoning this effort. To delete your draft, at the top put db-userreq inside double curly brackets {{ }}. An Administrator will come along and delete the draft. David notMD (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah there is an online newspaper for him, but I just don't know how to add. Please help! H0MARUP (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)H0MARUPH0MARUP (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H0MARUP (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

H0MARUP, your two other drafts are not eligible for inclusion. First, the Austrian thing has nothing to tell and has no references. Second, the anime thing is copied from a fandom site, is unencyclopedic, and has no references. Please read WP:YFA to help you understanding what articles can be made. GeraldWL 12:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Creating article in Wikipedia - conflict of interests

Hello, I'm trying to upload to Wikipedia an article about the Polish shipyard Sunreef Yachts. The article was decline a couple of times, because there wasn't any information about the editor of the article. I'm writing about Sunreef Yachts shipyard as an employee of the company. Where can I submit this information to make sure that the article won't be declined again? Thank you in advance SztolpenOS (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SztolpenOS. You'll find details of the declarations you are required to make at paid editing. Doing so will not "make sure" that the article won't be declined again, but it is a requirement for you to continue to edit Wikipedia at all. As for getting the article accepted, please read the many comments at the top of it. One thing you could do is to remove all citations to sources which are based on press releases from Sunreef, and any information which is sourced only to such non-independent sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is marking articles as stubs considered minor edits?

Basically what the title says. I want to know if it's a minor edit to mark an article as a stub. Is it a minor edit? I would like to know. Toad64 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Toad62, if it's really a stub according to WP:STUB, then yes it's minor. GeraldWL 14:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me, I appreciate it! Stay safe. Toad64 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Toad62 I would say it's always non-minor, since it's a judgement call as to whether it's a stub or not. See WP:MINOR. Also, is there a reason you have your sig say Toad64 instead of your actual username, Toad62? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I like to change things up a bit, you know what I mean? Since the process of renaming your entire account is really long, I thought, "Hey, why don't I change my signature?". I won't change it for now, because I think the username Toad64 is nice. BUT, I may change it in the future if I get bored of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad62 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I just had an idea what if I include my past signature usernames into a new section on my user page? So far, I've only changed it once, but if I change it in the future, it would be nice to know if someone was confused about the username thing. Toad64 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

|edition=has extra text ?

Hi everyone. I am new to this and working on a draft for a new page Draft:Ballet_Ireland After adding some book references/citations (sorry I am unsure of the distinction), I am getting an error "|edition=has extra text". Could someone enlighten me as to how I can resolve this or if I have made a rudimentary error in adding the citation? Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Midnight713, basically you added two words there (e.g. "Carl Sagan") and apparently |edition only welcomes one string. I've combined the two of them. GeraldWL 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful Gerald Waldo Luis, thank you kindly for such a swift resolution! Much appreciated. Midnight713 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Midnight713, nevermore-- I mean never mind. GeraldWL 14:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Approval

Hi guys! I just set up a wiki artist page for my artist & got the basic information I want in there with all the right referencing etc. What’s the best way to get the page approved or reviewed!

I’m using it to add more awareness about my artists aswell as boost his social presence up and this will really help ! Itsyoungartz (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Itsyoungartz, welcome to the Teahouse. Your userpage is currently being marked for speedy deletion. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is for; it is not a place to boost [an artist]'s social presence, and there are other sites that are geared more towards doing that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong spelling of name

 Courtesy link: Lydia Cappolicchio

I have managed to correct my name in text but not the headline. Why? Onion Island (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Onion Island, welcome to the Teahouse. I've gone ahead and moved the article to a different title (Lydia Cappolicchio → Lydia Capolicchio), as a cursory search for external sources and an unanswered discussion on the talk page from years ago strongly corroborates the correction. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Section link template inside hatnote template

I'm working on Nellah Massey Bailey § World War II women recruitment campaign, and I'd like to add a "See also" for that section and link to American women in World War II § In the military. I tried just putting the section link template directly inside the "see also" hatnote template but it's coming out a little wonky, with extra brackets as shown in the article. Any ideas here? DanCherek (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Related: the target article (American women in World War II) doesn't currently include any information about the original article (Nellah Massey Bailey) so should the "see also" link not be used in the first place? Regardless, for my own education I'd still be interested to see how the syntax should be written. DanCherek (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, It appears Zindor has fixed it — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha, seems like I was overthinking it. Thanks Zindor! DanCherek (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, DanCherek. Sometimes templates aren't compatible together and nesting one within a parameter of the other causes errors. In this case id guess both templates employ hidden wikilink syntax, that's why the extra set of square brackets appeared, and the colon was probably there to disable categories. See WP:ANCHOR for more about section links. Regards, Zindor (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Referencing query

Could someone explain what is/does?

Thank you Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2021

@Maryanne Cunningham: Assuming you're talking about just [[s:]], it's a shortcut interwiki link to Wikipedia's sister project Wikisource. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you U:Tenryuu. All I want to do is continue using a referencing system in an article started by someone else, which doesn't seem to be possible. "Linking to Wikisource" means nothing to me: I don't know what it is and it doesn't seem to fulfil any of the (much publicised) need for independent verifiability, as it just takes you to another wikipedia page. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to and where are you seeing it? It's possible that it could be linked for further reading on the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is Vortimer. Thank you U:Tenryuu. (I don't know if this is the correct way of adding your username, I do apologise if I've got it wrong.) Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Maryanne Cunningham, I am not receiving pings from you because the software does not recognise U as a namespace. It's better to use something like {{Ping|Tenryuu}} or {{Re|Tenryuu}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you {{Re|Tenryuu}}. I'm slightly confused. Have you not just pinged me, using u (or was that U)? Or did I just use the wrong brackets? Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, {{Re|Tenryuu}}, {{Ping|Tenryuu}} The one with the U in it seems to work best, or didn't it ping you? Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Maryanne Cunningham, you were using square brackets (which create a link) instead of curly brackets (which create a template, which can be heavily customised to perform certain actions like notifying users). The two examples that I provided are meant to be copy-pasted when reading, not editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Maryanne Cunningham: it's not a Wikipedia page, but a Wikisource page; but otherwise you're quite right: most Wikis are user-generated, and so unacceptable as sources. What goes between the <ref> and </ref> should be a citation of an external source. However, if that source happens to be available in Wikisource, then it would be acceptable to include a link to the wikisources page (which would look something like [[:s:name-of-the-work]], but I'd have to look up how you specified a particular chapter or page) within the citation, just as you can include a link to a copy Google books. But that link does not replace the citation, it supplements it. And I'm not sure whether the citation templates (which are not mandatory, but most people use them) have a parameter for an interwiki link as opposed to a URL. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, Maryanne, Wikisource being a "sister project" to Wikipedia means that it's also hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, but functions separately from the encyclopedia. It's a repository for free books (and other documents). One of its major functions is that scanned/photographed pages are transcribed by volunteers to produce more usable text. In this view of page 404 from Six Old English Chronicles, you can see the image of the printed page side-by-side with the transcribed text. Hope that makes sense, Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:35 Tue 19, AEDT) 20:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Pelagic! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. Could you explain what <nowiki> means. Why does a reference begin with code? (the pages with advice on referencing, and there are many, all seem to advocate starting with either <ref> or some other combination of brackets and the word ref). Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The <nowiki>something special</nowiki> code tells the software to treat its contents as plain text and not interpret any special wiki markup. Compare ''italic'' versus italic. Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:47 Tue 19, AEDT) 20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha, thanks Pelagic Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maryanne Cunningham: In help and discussion pages, when it discusses wikitext, it's usually intended that you copy it when reading the article. If you are in edit mode, you will see the things like <nowiki> tags and {{Tlx}} templates, which are used to format/link the code for viewing. You are meant to copy the code when viewing the page, not when editing it. For example, if I write that you should use <ref>{{Cite book|last=Smith|first=John}}</ref>, it means you should copy the code displayed when reading the page, from <ref> through </ref>, without all the <nowiki> and <code> tags and {{Tlx}} and {{=}} templates that you see when you edit this page. I hope that makes sense (it's hard to explain it without using the same techniques I'm writing about). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you AlanM1. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The Art Gallery of Calgary vs Valerie Cooper

Does this Lawsuit Merit a Wikipedia Article?

I am a Museum Studies student doing an assignment on on the Art Gallery of Calgary vs Valerie Cooper Lawsuit. I tried to look the case up on wikipedia and when I couldn't find it I thought of making it myself, but I wasn't sure it was appropriate content.

This court case occurred in 2012 and led to the 2019 the AGC amalgamated with two other institutions to form Contemporary Calgary. Because the case is old it is necessary to search Waybackmachine in order to track down some of the original reports. I'd like to write an article on the lawsuit. Permareperterra (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Permareperterra, and welcome to the Teahouse. As with any other subject, the crucial thing is whether the case meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: principally that there is enough secondary material about it published in reliable sources. If so, you're welcome to take on the (quite difficult) task of writing an article. I suggest you read your first article, and use articles for creation to create a draft that you can work on in peace. --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rather than a stand-alone article, which would likely attract very little in the way of viewers, consider adding content to Contemporary Calgary. That way, the one ref you already have may be sufficient, or if you find more published stuff, cite that, too. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH MAKEING A WIKI ON WIKI

I NEED SOME HELP MAKING MY OWN WIKIPEDIA ON WIKI FOR ME AND MY NEW RADIO STATION 97.5

AND SOME PEOPLE OF WIKI SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR MY STATION. DJ JAYLON (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:97.5 FOR THE LA. And please do not type all capital letters, as that is considered shouting. David notMD (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

okey can you plase show me how to make a radio station wiki

FYI

 – Merging with above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

i fixed what you say to fixed DJ JAYLON (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No references, no article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every article has references to published stuff written about the topic. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

e/c This is an encyclopedia, we have articles about notable topics, it's not a venue for promoting yours or anyone's radio station. If you can provide three reliable independent sources that cover the station in significant detail, it would be a helpful step in creating an article Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

See List of radio stations owned by Entercom. Each of those stations on the list is the subject of an existing article, with references. Consider those as examples of what is needed. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AND, I am deeply confused. How is this "97.5 R&B for Los Angeles" if it is located in Missouri? David notMD (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

no not yet to be going to be on radio in st,Louis soon. i already paid and stuff. DJ JAYLON (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DJ JAYLON. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamentally mistaken idea about Wikipedia: the idea that it has anything at all to do with telling the world about yourself and your endeavours. It does not, and people who try to use Wikipedia in that way generally have a frustrating and disappointing experience. If at some time Wikipedia has an article about you or your station, the article will not belong to you, you will not have any control over the contents, and it may very well contain material that you would prefer it did not. (You would be welcome to make suggestions for changes to the article, but those would not necessarily be carried out). Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . And promotion of any kind is forbidden. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi there, I keep seeing an issue regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Monson. Would someone be able to help me with this? Edit544 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Edit544: It seems you are referring to the multiple issues template at the top of the article. Each issue contains a link to the appropriate policy and guideline to help you understand the issue. Since you have a conflict of interest, the best thing you can do is to post on Talk:Nick Monson to suggest additional secondary sources that are reliable and independent of Monson. I added {{WikiProject Record production}} to the talk page in the hopes of drawing other Wikipedians to the article to provide assistance. GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

question about an image

I ask to a photographer whit e-mail if i can use his image. He accepted but he says "Understood usage only permitted for Wikipedia regarding the Woodstock festival" and that i have to quote the photographer and the source. The image it's really important for the woodstock page. I have to use the "fair use" copyright? i have all the evidence of the conversation on mail. All the Best --TommasoRmndn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC) TommasoRmndn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TommasoRmndn. I'm afraid not. There is almost certainly no way you can use that photo on Wikipedia. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that all material is to be freely available for anybody to reuse for any purpose. Unfortunately, if we followed that principle to the end, we would have many fewer picutres than we have, which is why the "fair use" exception exists in Wikipedia. But fair use images are allowed in Wikipedia only if a number of criteria are all met - and one of them is that there is no reasonable chance of a free image becoming available. If you can show that the image and the way you will be using it meet all of those criteria, then you may upload the image to Wikipedia itself, explaining how it meets the criteria (and the owner's permission is irrelevant in this case). If you cannot meet those criteria, then the only way it could be used in Wikipedia is if the copyright owner explicitly licensed it under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA, which would allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, as long as they gave attribution. From what you say of the photographer's email, he would not give such permission, so I'm afraid you cannot use it here. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rock Hendricks Submission

I've tried my first attempt at an article, then when it was held up pending various missing elements and references sections I went back and rewrote the sandbox version to improve various elements, then MOVED it from the sandbox. I think that move may have been a problem as I already had a contribution on the same subject pending.

I confess I'm lost as to where things stand now on my latest contribution effort including changes to make the listing 'notable'. Can someone help set me straight. I'm trying to learn through books, youtube and this site.

Thanks,

Mark D. Metoliusmark (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Metoliusmark: First, please be sure to read WP:PSCOI and declare any conflict of interest at your user page. It looks like you accidentally moved it incorrectly, and it was moved back to User:Metoliusmark/sandbox. As I'm writing this, I see that it's now been moved to Draft:Rock Hendricks. When you've removed the <big>...</big> tags and completed your draft, you can add {{subst:submit}} to submit your draft for review. GoingBatty (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note: I have done a history merge, as the content in the sandbox was developed through many edits after the AfC decline (including adding some references [such as they are; I have removed a circular one to another Wikipedia article]), and so appeared to be the preferred content for review. I have reformatted in various ways and returned the AfC decline and comments.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Metoliusmark. The issue with the move is taken care of; the draft, including all your edits is now integrated in one page. I have made it so your more recent edits appear but also the comments of the reviewer who declined it. Please see and follow GoingBatty's advice above about disclosure, and what to do when you are ready to re-submit. However, please do not re-submit it in anything like the state it is currently in. It will surely be declined for failing to cite sufficient reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 sources, verifying the information content, and that treat the topic in substantive detail to demonstrate the subject's notability.

You cannot "make" a subject notable by any amount of editing. You can only demonstrate that a subject is already notable by citing sources showing that the world has taken note of them by treating them substantively in the types of sources I mentioned. IMDB is user-generated content and has no value to do so. The Spotify link has no substantive content. As already noted, citing other Wikipedia article is of no value. I suggest reading WP:NERROR. In sum, you need to find and cite the right types of sources. If they don't exist, then don't waste your time; no acceptable article will be possible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

How do i center in visual edditor?

How do i center tiles in a table in the visual editor? Lionsleeps23 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lionsleeps23, welcome to the Teahouse. You may find an answer in the 'Editing tables' section of the Visual Editor User Guide. Failing that, please describe in more detail what you'd like to achieve with the table and we may be able to help. Is there a specific page you are working on? Regards, Zindor (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Whattup, Zindor. Im editing the phonology section of Inuktitut. (I finishe it btw). The original was pretty badly made. There was a voiced section?? Like what. So some tiles are uncentered. Lionsleeps23 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lionsleeps23, i went into the source and added 'text-align:center' to the style tag of the table. Did that resolve all the issues for you? Few of us here use Visual Editor, so I'll have to do some research and get back to you on that. Let us know if there's anything else we can help with. Zindor (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

aw thanks Zindor, your a real one. Lionsleeps23 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

RFA

I have 2 questions, I would like to ask about requests for adminship. 1. How do neutral votes effect the RFA vote percentage? 2. What sort of Users get adminship and how should you go about it? 20th anniversary (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

20th anniversary Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would start with the underlying premise of your questions in that you don't need to be an administrator to be a productive contributor here. You can do probably 95% of things here without being an administrator. Being an administrator just means you have extra buttons or functions that would be irresponsible for every user to have(such as being able to delete pages). If you can demonstrate a need for the administrator tools, such as performing work on Articles for Deletion discussions, reporting vandalism, or other actions, the community would discuss any nomination of you and if it agrees you merit having the tools, grant them to you. While there are few hard and fast qualifications to be an administrator, it is expected that you have a lengthy edit history of productive contributions that demonstrates that you understand most Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Typically this takes years and thousands of edits to accomplish- and seeking it out doesn't always work. It usually occurs naturally when other editors notice your work. I didn't seek out the toolset, others thought I merited it.

Neutral votes are just that- neutral- and do not impact the percentage. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you:)

The way to go about it involves making a large number of significant improvements to articles over a period of years. 20th anniversary, you may wish to make a start at this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20th anniversary (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

EasyTimeline fixing

Where can I go to learn more about "Easy"Timelines? I wanted to fix the timeline on Premier of Alberta but only found "Timeline of Alberta Premiers" in curly brackets there. Skimmedmilk62 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Skimmedmilk62:  Fixed Template:Timeline of Alberta Premiers by changing "d/m/Y" to "m/d/Y". GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is a resubmitted AfC visible to multiple editors?

Hi Everyone, Just wondering when a reviewer declines an AfC and it is resubmitted after completing the improvements, is that resubmission visible to multiple reviewers or only the original reviewer that declined it?

My original draft was reviewed very quickly. I understand there is a backlog of AfC's but I'm just curious.

Many thanks, Midnight713 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Midnight713. Nice work on the draft. To answer your question, any reviewer can see and make a decision on your resubmission. I've removed the br tags from your post as mediawiki already parses the whitespace. Best of luck, Zindor (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zindor: Thank you very much and thank you for the formatting advice. Learning as I go, little by little... Midnight713 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Midnight713: Given what a good job you did, posting here resulting in the draft being accepted (by me). (That is not the typical result of a post here about an AfC draft.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

@Fuhghettaboutit: That's wonderful! Thank you very much indeed! I will continue to work on some other editing work outside of my article (grammar, citations etc) to get more experience. I've learned a lot from doing my first article, not least the helpfulness of the community here. Many thanks! Midnight713 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

how to add external links

I'm editing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Thompson_(film_director)

I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong with the reference #4 for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Why does the the reference keep showing the whole URL? How do I get it to have that little external link icon? Somapsyche (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Somapsyche, it's probably because you didn't add https:// before the URL. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I see you added it for me, you're super! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somapsyche (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting a topic

Salsa. Not interested in creating/editing at my age. There is a superb salsa (dance) instructor way over in the UK by the name of Mario Hazarika aka Supermario. Several Youtube videos of him at different Salsa Conventions worldwide are posted. Just wanted to have him included on Wikipedia 108.161.170.122 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You can add your suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Performing arts#Dance people if you like, but that is no guarantee that someone will create the article (or that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called notability. GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?

FYI

 – Separating from above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am AppleAKB (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)AppleAKBAppleAKB (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC). I was editing Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? article. Someone made comments on the page and had received -193. When I undone the edits, they undone them again. We have been going over the who is right or not. Can someone compare RYLELT7 edits and AppleAKB's. I really request you because she has made me a little nervous about being blocked. Please respond on my talk page. AppleAKB (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

AppleAKB, I strongly suggest you and RYLELT7 discuss this on the article's talk page, as both of you have passed three reverts in an article in 24 hours, which is a blockable offence. I also suggest you read WP:TONE, as fragments like This is the love story [...] and The 8 episode series recalls the events that are special for any Arshi (Arnav+Khushi) fan are not appropriate for Wikipedia's voice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@AppleAKB: about your comment Someone made comments on the page and had received -193, I think that what you are referring to here is the edit history of the article where the figure "-193" appears after some of the edits. This is not a "score" or negative evaluation of the edit. It only means that each of those edits removed 193 bytes from the article. Similarly, numbers in green show the number of bytes added to the article, and are not an approval rating. More information here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted article

Note: This regards the deletion of User:TBrehautStudio21, under WP:CSD#G5.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted article

Dear Teahouse Readers,

I submitted a carefully prepared article which was verifiable and correct which was promptly sleighted for deletion. Please refer me to a good editor who can help me to resubmit my article. As each item was correct and notable. I don't understand why it was deleted.

Thank you.

Best,

Taisha 172.58.228.83 (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. There's a bunch of issues here but I am dead tired and going to bed, so I leave it to others to explain more but, I just wanted to note that I was going to undelete and move the page to a draft location where you could work on it – given that much of the reason for the deletion was the unfortunate fact that the content was placed by you on your userpage, rather than in a more suitable location – but I cannot undelete it because it was a copyright violation of this site.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To expand on what Fuhgettaboutit says above, we cannot accept text which has been published anywhere else, as a general rule. Even if it was "verifiable and correct" it would still put Wikipedia as a whole in legal jeopardy to host content which is essentially plagiarised. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO). Also, please comment and edit only when logged in. Your account is User:TBrehautStudio21 but when you commented above while not logged in it appeared as from IP address 172.58.228.83.

1776 Commission

Hi there. The Trump administration's 1776 Commission marked Martin Luther King Day by putting out a "report" that defends the Founding Fathers for owning slaves and attacks the Civil Rights Movement. The WP article needs some help. Can anyone here help? Or point authors in the direction of → 1776 Commission? --93.211.218.85 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What help do you think the article needs specifically? SenatorLEVI 06:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for improving an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

my miss anand

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.

---

 122.167.70.210 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

my miss anand too. GeraldWL 07:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Anand SenatorLEVI 07:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

& ← an "and" ... Pelagic ( messages ) – (18:50 Tue 19, AEDT) 07:50, 19 January 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.

What advice do you have for new, young editors?

I'm 17, and have only recently joined Wikipedia as an editor (though I haven't edited much – only translated a few pieces and made some minor lexical changes to articles for the sake of clarity). Most importantly, I'm interested in becoming more active and joining Wikipedia's community!

What tips and advice might you have for new and young editors like me? What are some of the best ways to integrate quickly into the community? What are some little-known tips about contributing to Wikipedia's trove of knowledge?

Thanks very much! - An interested member Lanterne.wiki (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lanterne.wiki, everyone has their own way of getting started. The best advice is to look around and see what interests you. I personally started in counter-vandalism, however if you want you could try content creation, clearing out backlogs and many more, see WP:DASH for everything you can do. I think a lot of new users miss out how useful some scripts and gadgets are, Twinkle is a must have. Simply going through the "Gadgets" section of preferences will do you good. A good thing for new editors is the adoption program, where expereinced users mentor newer users and help them into the community, teaching them the basics for what they need to know. However, others may have a different opinion, and I'm sure others would like to reply. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Lanterne.wiki: Welcome to Wikipedia! You may be out of the intended age range by now, but this essay addresses our younger editors to remind them to do things like not give out personal data. If you're new to editing wikis in general, you may benefit from taking the interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure. This cheatsheet is a nice document to refer to when you want to use some of the basic formatting tools on here. I also suggest taking the time to learn how templates work, as it can help cut down time on typing out code.

As far as starting out goes, experienced editors recommend contributing to pre-existing articles (as creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on here). If you would like ideas as to what articles to improve, you can check out the community portal's "Help out" section, or get suggestions at User:SuggestBot/Requests.

An important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors will have different perspectives which will clash with each other. When you get into a conflict or dispute like this, always try and discuss it first politely on the article's talk page (it can be accessed by clicking the "Talk" tab somewhere at the top of the article).

Shameless plug: If you're interested in copy editing, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lanterne.wiki, we get this question relatively often, and so I've written an essay on some interesting ways to start which you can find here Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 08:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all these responses! I'll explore the Adopt-a-user program, the Guild of Copy Editors (@Tenryuu:, thanks for the plug!), and read your essay, @Giraffer:! What a great way to be welcomed to the community! Lanterne.wiki (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Certification for linguistic proficiency?

Hi!

I've noticed that some people, such as @Rosguill: have certification for linguistic proficiency on their User Pages. Are these given by Wikipedia itself, do users who have these upload official certificates for approval from Oversight, or are these self-reported?

Thanks! --Lanterne.wiki (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Lanterne.wiki (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Userboxes indicating language skills are based on the user's self-evaluation of their proficiency. They are not certifications, and the levels in the userboxes don't correspond to any official language proficiency test scale. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Thanks very much! --Lanterne.wiki (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It can be helpful to know that a user is proficient in a particular language, for instance if you need help evaluating whether a source is good, but mainly, these userboxes serve to give other editors a bit of information about yourself. It makes us all look less like faceless anonymous Internet strangers, without adding any information that could serve to identify the person outside Wikipedia! More information about language user boxes here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

​As an addition to Bonadea's comment, adding those userboxes to a user page also categorises them. If you're looking for someone who's a native German speaker, you can go to Category:User de-N to find an index of all the user pages that have had {{Babel|de}} added on them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Question by Techvaness

How do I successfully publish a biography of a media personality Techvaness (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Techvaness: I assume this refers to Draft:Abena Kyei Boakye. Unfortunally, I am not an admin and therefore cannot see the deleted revisions. In general, the steps to create a new article are as follows:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

Maybe some of the admin folks could have a look at the deleted draft and tell you more precisley. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt mobil, their talk page shows the deletion as being a speedy G11. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 11:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The text was extremely promotional in nature, with much glowing language about the subject and no sources at all. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that, at least IMO, still differences in content deleted under g11. Some things are the worst of the worst, while others are in a way "So, while it is promotional, one could invest a few hours recuing this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Change.Org petition as supporting reference within the body of an article.

Change.Org Petition as additional reference? Hi there. Quick question. Say I want to edit an article about a subject that people are debating: Can a petition on Change.Org be linked to as an additional reference (to show public backing), in support of the published academic and subject expert views on the matter that precede it within the body of that article? I'm not asking whether such a petition would merit an article of its own. Many thanks in advance. Sandwidgiz (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandwidgiz Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be better to have a secondary reliable source that discusses this petition, instead of the petition itself. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for your quick reply. I do have a published article, by a well-respected business journalist that discusses the problem in general and references the academic and expert support, but the article does not reference the petition (rather, I felt, that petition is an artefact in itself). I just felt it added some weight to the other references, as it clearly shows public support (with countless public comments akin to a newspaper article). But thanks for the advice! Much appreciated :)

Sandwidgiz, can you share the link to the article so that a more accurate comment can be made? Also, it is not required to have the petition link. It's not encouraged to, especially if the link is still active. If the petition has ended, it can maybe be included. GeraldWL 12:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis Thank you for your feedback. I'll leave the edit for now and see what happens in the future with further articles, etc. It's nothing major, I just wanted to know whether it was allowed. Cheers! Sandwidgiz (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Doraemon

After working on the article, I nominated Doraemon for WP:GAN. I just wished to ask the Teahouse editors to give their opinion on possible edits to further improve the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

MAKING A NEW PAGE ABOUT SOMEONE

Hello there, I have been trying to create pages for my son and daughter for a while and really finding it difficult. Can you help me with this please?

My Son is the current Mr World, Jack Heslewood and my daughter is a former Miss England & UK, Kirsty Heslewood.

I hope you can help. Best Wishes, Kerry Heslewood - Mum Kerry Heslewood (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Kerry Heslewood Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may not be aware of it, but you have been given some good advice on your user talk page, User talk:Kerry Heslewood, that I would recommend that you read and review the policies linked to therein(if you haven't already). The main issue I see with your draft is that you provided no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell about someone. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the absolute hardest thing to do here, and most people fail in their first attempts, especially if they have not edited existing articles first. It's harder to do when one has a conflict of interest, as well. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You could take an existing article on a Mister World, such as that for Rohit Khandelwal as a template for a new article. However, as you have been advised, the main problem when writing about someone close to you is to be neutral (see WP:NPOV) and only include material in well-known reliable sources such a newspapers that are independent of the subject: which means, usually, that the source is not just based on interviews. If you can find, say, four such sources than you should be OK. The initial draft doesn't need to be long, it just needs to show that WP:NOTABILITY. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Your draft User:Kerry Heslewood/sandbox has no references, and it also has hyperlinks in the body of the draft, which are not allowed. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Aprove for my draft Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre

Hi, I am creating a page for my grandfather. He was the first to create a non private reserv for animals in Brazil (!), and had no Wikipedia page. I created one in Portuguese, he is already in wikidata, and created one in Spanish, not linked, because who created the wikidata, didnt add the Spanish language, and I dont have permission to do it. And I have my draft in English waiting since september for the second revision. It is very important to disseminate his work, mainly at these times, when nature in general is not respected. I´ve been to #wikipedia-en-help, some of the volunteers took the name of the draft, but I had no answer so far. So I am writting to see if I have to complete anything, data, references, etc. I trully appreciate any help, thank you very much. Alexandra

ÞÞ Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra Aguirr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Waiting since September is a long time, but there is unfortunately no way to speed up the process; drafts are reviewed by volunteers who do what they can when they can, in no particular order. Wikipedia is not concerned with disseminating your grandfather's work, but in getting the draft right. You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse Alexandra Aguirr. It needs a complete re-write to make any sense, it looks like it has been machine translated? Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 331dot thank for your message, and yes I am waiting! :) Hi Theroadislong thank you for your message here and at may gandfathers draft. I did the translation from portuguese. with the help of a distant relative from England. A complete re-write to make any sense looks a bit offensive, as it doesnt has any sense at all, what I dont believe. But anyway, thanks for your contribution, anyone is always welcome! :) Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Embarrassing question

I am fairly experienced on wikipedia and I have recently written a new article in Draft:Hydrogenated MDI (H12MDI). I cant remember or workout how to submit it for review - please help. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello GRALISTAIR, that's not something to be embarrassed about. Next time you want to submit a draft for review just insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. I have already inserted this at the top of your draft. SenatorLEVI 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has been accepted and is now live. GRALISTAIR, do you need a chemical drawing for the compound? I can put an .svg file on Commons if you're not going to do that yourself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The required code is {{subst:submit}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou very much indeed. Yes please a drawing of the chemical compound would be great thank you. GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

If a article consists of lines like- "This is a popular book" or "This is a popular Tv channel" then would it be violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view? 103.139.171.67 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, popularity is subjective and that sort of language should be reserved for either direct quotes or statements such as "this book sold x copies in its first edition" with a source for that information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert?

Hi, I recently had an edit reverted on the friendlyjordies article, with vandalism being the reason. I presume in good faith that the reason for the revert was simply that it was tagged with "possible BLP issue or vandalism" rather than an implication of intentional wrongdoing, though I asked the editor who reverted it and haven't gotten a response. Having a look at the actual tag on Special:Tags it seems any edit on a biography of a living person with a word such as "corruption", among others, will get the tag (do I have that correct?). I redid the edit thinking it was a possible typo I made that triggered the tag/reversion, but it wasn't as the tag remains, so I do assume it was just the word "corruption".

What is the correct thing to do here? (Assuming I interpreted what happened correctly) should I just not add any edits to biographies of living persons that contain words like "corruption", "fraud", "fired", etc lest it gets instantly reverted? Thanks. Volteer1 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Volteer1. No, you should not modify anything you are doing as a result of this. This was patently an incorrect and improper revert by the user in question, who should never have tagged your edit as "vandalism", even if there could have been some valid reason to revert you (though I can't see any). There may be a good explanation (we all make mistakes – a few weeks ago, I rolled back another user's edit with a misclick without even realizing I had done it; just postulating: maybe the user had multiple tabs open, and had a moment of confusion between your edit, and another user's addition of "fart" to our article on Beethoven; who knows). But we reserve the use of "vandalism" for edits that are obviously intended to harm. We don't use it even for incredibly poor and misplaced edits, which, though they should properly be reverted, might have been made in good faith. We all take responsibility for our own edits. This is on them, not you. Chalk this one up to the inexplicable, until you get an explanation by the user. As I have linked his or her username in this post, they will be pinged here, and maybe can explain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Addressing something else in your post: the fact that an automated process tagged your edit as possible vandalism to a BLP, when it was not—though it potentially prompted the ensuing revert—is no vindication of it. If that is the case, then the result should be for the user to slow down and be more careful. I think that is likely to play out here, as the user's talk page has another user complaining about a nearly identical improper revert, with the automated tag as the reason for reverting as "vandalism", as if that's at all a valid excuse.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks Fuhghettaboutit. Definitely a little bit frustrating but it's good to know it's nothing I should be having to worry about. Volteer1 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: You're welcome. I'll note that upon investigating, I discovered that this was a far wider issue than it appeared at first glance – a pattern of these vandalism reverts and warnings for good faith edits was revealed. I have followed-up here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Obtaining Advice

In the discussion following rejection of my article Draft:Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison for the first time, it was suggested that a better introduction to the topic would help. However, a second editor, in rejecting the article, suggests the problem is more basic than that! My aim in the article is to show, specifically, how to obtain the bearing of a transmitter from the signals received by an array of microwave antennas. It was not my aim to write a general or woolly article on microwave direction finding. In any case, a general description of RF direction finding already exists. I know that the techniques described will only be of interest to a few, but even though established many years ago they are still in use today. The article does contain mathematics, but many articles already on Wiki are more complicated. Is there anything I can do to make my article acceptable to Wiki editors, or should I abandon it altogether. Please advise. D1ofBerks (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, D1ofBerks. I can see you've put a lot of work into that draft. What concerns me is whether it might be original research. Is each derivation present in a single one of your sources? If not, that would be Synthesis. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for replying to my query. The content of the article has been well established for a number of years, so I don’t think it could be called original research. However, it is true that I refer to a number of sources, but as these cover much the same material and are not contradictory at all (they just say the same thing in slightly different ways), I don’t think its synthesis. I aim is to present the basic concepts on how a bearing value is derived in what I hope is a clear manner and give enough references for those who wish to pursue the matter further. D1ofBerks (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources (Non-Google News / Google Books)

I'm looking into improving Slidecasting, but the word "slidecast" and "slidecasting" is basically never used. I nominated the article to have it moved to "Enhanced podcast", but I was curious whether some less official sources were considered reliable or not. I mentioned some sources on Talk:Slidecasting that are from blogs and other non-news sources and I was curious how I would determine if the source is reliable. I'm pretty sure I've seen some guidelines on this, but I don't remember what they are so if you could point me in the right direction that'd be really helpful. I know I've seen people use blog posts, dictionary entries, company websites, and other less official sources but I've always been unsure about using them so I've shied away from it in the past, but I was hoping to learn how and when to use them now that I've got a bit of experience. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Slidecasting article was already mostly relying on blog posts and non-news sources before I started editing it. Should I remove those sources or are they considered reliable in some way? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Pages on Other language wikis

In advanced settings we see a logo on which if we tap we get to see that article on other language wikis, but I know an article which is on other language wikipedia but is not shown in that list, Therefore how do I add that article from other language wikipedia to that list. 103.139.171.67 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Underneath the list of Languages, it says 'edit links', click there and it'll take you to the Wikidata item where you can add other language wikipedias. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you asked from the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn't appear to have a link for unregistered users. Logged in users can enable "Advanced mode" in Settings to get a "More" link on the top right of articles. This includes a "Wikidata item" link where links to other languages can be edited. Unregistered mobile users can switch to the desktop version by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom. Then you get the option Paul mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding persons or institutions

I'd like to add some people and institutions to the free fund of knowledge. How do I become a contributor? 66.191.87.58 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@66.191.87.58: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can, at least in theory, yust give it a go. I do need to say however, that sucessfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can start on Wikipedia. There are guides available here here or here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Creating a new article is one of most difficult tasks at Wikipedia (and some users consider it the most difficult). Based on my own experience, I would strongly recommend you not to hurry. It's better to stay here for some time and read, read and once again read to grasp a feeling of what an article should contain and what it should look like. Then start doing minor fixes, updates and expansions. In the meantime talk to other users to get comments and comment yourself on what you and others are doing. And only then you may hope you're ready to write a new article from scratch successfully.

Of course you need to know about the most important rules and policies of Wikipedia, starting from Five pillars through Verifiability, Notability (with its specific subsections for people and for organizations and companies, at least), WP:COPYVIO, WP:COI & WP:PAID, and others, like WP:OWN. These, and many more, are listed at Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines.

You don't have to learn them all by heart - but you need to know they exist and remember they apply also to you.

And the simplest way to learn them is by assimilation, which requires time.

Meanwhile you can try to take the The Wikipedia Adventure to learn Wikipedia basic features.

Good luck! CiaPan (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get help creating an (English) Biography page that already exists in German

A German Wiki page exists for my grandfather Josef Fraenkel (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Fraenkel), but I wondered how I can flag this to Wiki editors that it should be in English Wiki too? The instructions for this are unbelievably complicated! And I do not speak German so I cannot even work out how to tag that article that it needs translating. Does anyone have any simple advice please? NB Josef was a British citizen from about 1940 - 1987 when he died, was published in England, and all his direct living relatives are in the UK, so it only seems logical. Thanks.

There are even a perfect categories for him... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Jews_who_immigrated_to_the_United_Kingdom_to_escape_Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_historians#F Bubbeles (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bubbeles. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is entirely created by volunteers who work on what they want to work on, when they choose to work on it, flagging that an article should exist often achieves nothing, unless you happen to catch the attention of an editor who might be interested. There is a formal place to request articles - requested articles - but that often seems more like a graveyard of ideas. Possibly the best place would be to try and find an appropriate WikiProject, and ask there, since the members are more likely to have some interest in the subject. You could also try looking through the category Category:Translators de-en; but that will only identify the editors who have at some time said they were available to translate. You would probably need to look at each one: at their user page, to see if they have said anything about their availability, and at their user contributions, so see if they appear to be currently active (and also to get an idea of the kinds of subject they have translated articles on). If you find some suitable candidates, you could ask on their User talk pages. I don't know a way to shorten or automate this task, though.

Looking at de:Josef Fraenkel, I see there may be a problem, in that the sources given may not be enough to satisfy en-wiki's criteria for notability. There are only two given. The Adunka appears to be a nine-page paper in a volume from Edinburgh University Press, a reliable publisher: that is almost certainly a good source; but one source is not usually enough to establish notability. The other source is an entry in a biographical handbook: that could mean anything from a two-line listing to a three page essay: the latter would work for notability, but the former would not. (The titles in the Schriften are all presumably by Fraenkel, and so cannot contribute to notability). And indeed anybody who translated should see those sources rather than just copy the citations across. --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

Edit and add titles and subtitles I am responsible to update some school's Wikipedia pages. They have a huge change in the content and also their title and subtitles. I want to update them somehow that looks natural and is not violent of Wikipedia rules. Could you help me with this? Ninasaas (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ninasaas Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say you are "responsible to update", I take that to mean you work for or represent the school. If that is true, you must read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, for information on formal disclosures you are required to make. You are welcome to propose edit requests on article talk pages, detailing changes you feel are needed, if those changes are sourced to reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ninasaas, and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing that you and the school must understand is that you do not own Wikipedia's article about your school: it should summarise only what independent sources say about it. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . So, by all means make edit requests, but information you give will probably not be added unless it can be found in such an independent source. That is why the edits you have so far made to Nagoya International School have all been reverted: they were promotional, saying what the school wants to say, not what independent commentators have said. Your own website is the place for promotional text, not Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Donations Alternative

Hello. I love this website a lot and feel very bad every time I am asked or want to donate. I am still in high school and have no credit card to donate with. I know many other readers have the same problem so I thought of a solution! Wikipedia is nom-profit right? So they don't use ads to get money and depend on donation. But what if Wikipedia did make money threw sponsorships? My idea is that if reader can't donate threw credit card or other electronic currency, then Wikipedia can ask to redirect them to a different Wikipedia owned website that shows the viewer an AD or some other sort of sponsorship thing, and boom, Wikipedia now gets money there sponsorships on a different website and viewers can OPTIONALLY donate without using online currency! I think its a good idea but there are probably more things to it that you guys have to do or reasons I don't know why you can't but know that many people want to donate but can't because they have no form of online currency. Thanks! 2600:1700:4940:1E80:A045:E8AC:F252:B2F8 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to donate: but do not worry. There is absolutely no requirement on you (or anyone) to donate; and at present, the Wikimedia Foundation is not struggling to find enough money to keep the servers running. Please continue to enjoy Wikipedia and the other wikis that the Foundation runs. If you really want to donate, there are other ways than credit cards: see WMF:Ways to Give/en. --ColinFine (talk)

Ads for Wikipedia is a perennial proposal that is usually rejected because advertising is non-neutral. I'll just be more specific in that you can mail a check to Wikipedia if you wish(and as you may not have a checking account, perhaps a parent, guardian, or other adult friend could donate for you). Again, though, donating is not required, be it now or when you are an adult with a credit card. Though Wikipedia runs on donations, and is looking to create an endowment so future donations are of reduced necessity, its finances are stable and Wikipedia is not in jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"CentralAuth token expired"

I logged in and it gave me a page that can't make me go back to in red text that CentralAuth token has expired. What does that mean and am I compromised? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: it means that your central login session expired or got lost. Please check if you are blocking cookies for the wiki you are trying to login on and login.wikimedia.org. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, I don't know what that is 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: "central login" or "central auth" refers to a feature in the software behind Wikipedia that you can login on one Wiki (for example, en.wikipedia.org) and are simultaneously logged on on other Wikis of the same Wikifarm (for example, de.wikipedia.org). For that purpose, the software behind Wikipedia uses short-lived tokens and cookies on the domain https://login.wikimedia.org. Those tokens have a limited lifetime of I think 10 seconds. The error message means that the token had expired when the software attempted to use it. There are two reasons why this message could appear: 1) network failures or 2) blocked cookies/cross-origin-scripts/etc. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, Ok, I thought someone hacked me or something 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with a disruptive user

Hi, I'm having trouble dealing with a disruptive user: They've been reverting edits by loads of people, including myself, providing very little justification or reasoning if any at all, accusing me of vandalism even though my edits were based on a primary source included as a reference in my edits, had an edit summary explaining the changes, and had a discussion on the talk page.

When I asked them to stop behaving this way on their talk page they first deleted my comments with no response twice, and when I restored them, they basically said that unregistered users don't matter, and accused me of vandalism again.

This is not an isolated case for this user: Other people have pointed out their disruptive behaviour, and been met with similar responses: Accusations of being a bot, continued accusations of vandalism even when it is clearly not the case, more "you're not even a registered user" type comments, and deletions of entire comment threads and warnings whenever they feel like it.

The thing is, I don't think this person is a vandal, so I'm not sure if a block request would be appropriate at this stage. They do seem to want to help in some way. It's just that they're doing it very badly and being very disruptive as a result. But while things would have been fine if it was just a new user who needed guidance, this user is being very hostile towards any attempts to correct their behaviour, with warnings having no effect at all.

Despite all my explanations, and another user trying to engage them as well, the user has persevered in accusing me of vandalism, and though he has not done so yet, stated that he intends to revert my edits again. I'm really at my wit's end here, how do you deal with a user like this? 109.236.4.20 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. When it's a content dispute, then DR tells you how to proceed. But it sounds as if it's a behavioural issue. If you have tried to discuss it with the editor in question, and they're still doing it, then WP:ANI is the place to report it. Note that 1) you should provide links to the postings/diffs that you are unhappy with; 2) you must notify the other party; and 3) admins will look into your behaviour as well: see WP:BOOMERANG. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to point out here that users, with the exception of a few things, are allowed to remove content from their talk pages; it is considered an acknowledgement that they have read the warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I did intially consider WP:ANI but thought it to be an overreaction, at least at this point - They seem to have good intentions, it's just that they're seemingly very new and misguided.

Regarding removing content/warnings: It appears that I was mistaken, but also - What about discussions that are in progress between other parties? I replied to another user who was commenting on this person's disruptive editing, and before they could reply the person just removed the entire section from the talk page.

Also, what about when the user first replies to the warnings, saying that they don't matter because they're coming from IP users, before they remove them? They've certainly seen the warnings, but they are literally saying that they are refusing to acknowledge them.

In any case I'm currently trying to reason with them, but they're still justifying their "anti-vandal" activities with statements like "95% of my edits are responsible which is good for a beginner almost seven editors thanked me until now". Is there some guideline that I can direct them to? Someone else already requested that they see WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND but it's seemingly had no effect. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Oxforder has been blocked for 31 hours, but given how argumentative and disruptive this editor has been (as evidenced on talk page and what has been deleted from Talk page, including Warnings from long-time editors), I imagine once the block is over, will continue behavior. David notMD (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I had hoped that their being blocked would have convinced them to calm down and just read the guidelines, but they've now taken to accusing me of personal attacks and are just repeating the same refuted point over and over again like a broken record. And it's a very easily refuted point at that (claiming that I did not have an edit summary or source, sometimes while linking to the diff which shows that I did!). I think I will bring this up to WP:ANI after all if they keep at it.

I'd like to ask though, would I have to remain engaged in the process once it's brought up to WP:ANI? I am very tired of dealing this person and really just want to be done with it at this point. I'm really far too tired to go through if it means I have to participate in some drawn-out process.

The main thing I'm worried about, which is why I haven't just ignored them already, is how they threatened to revert my edits in the future: I don't want to have to worry about my efforts being ruined at some unforeseeable future time when I'm not looking. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Oxforder continues to defend behavior on own Talk page (allowed during the temporary block). You will just have to wait until the block expires to see if behavior tempered. One option an Administrator has is to block either one of you or both of you from editing a specific article. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Table

I need help fixing the table under List of Jewish American politicians. For those who served in the Trump administration, in the Cabinet, the table is not formatted properly and Steve Mnuchin is on the outside of the table. Can someone please help format this correctly? Thank you. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, Pennsylvania2. I have no idea what happened there, and I'm no table expert, but I think I've fixed it. Regards, Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 19:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 20:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Birthday

 73.92.16.111 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Arthur Chagn

Do you have a question for the Teahouse? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you allowed to reply to discussions at ANI?

I was just wondering so I don't get in any trouble wit dicussion there. SoyokoAnis 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you are allowed to contribute to discussion at ANI even if you're not an administrator; just make sure that it's constructive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, thanks! Are you also allowed to contribute to discussion on the Teahouse or only Teahouse hosts? SoyokoAnis 00:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis, if you believe you have an answer that solves whatever problem the asker has, you may add your input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:, okay! Thank you! SoyokoAnis 07:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SoyokoAnis. The Teahouse tends to be a bit friendlier and more forgiving of a place than ANI; so, before posting anything at ANI, I suggest you take a careful look at WP:ANI advice. Wading into the middle of a heated ANI discussion when you're not very familiar with the process or you're not directly involved in what's being discussed might not be the best way to pass the time on Wikipedia. ANI discussions tend to be heated because ANI is usually where editors go to try and get someone else WP:BLOCKed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And on occasion, get blocked themselves. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

uploading an image to an existing page

I am working on editing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Thompson_(film_director) I have permission to use an image which I uploaded to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lightcone.BrucePosner.jpg#filelinks How do I get that image to show on the main page? It's a picture of the person, obviously... Somapsyche (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somapsyche: It looks like the image was deleted because the permission wasn't given properly. Please see this for info about the permission that you need to grant to Wikipedia when uploading images. A suitable license would be Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

So it looks like only the person holding the copyright is able to upload? When I read the instructions, it includes and option for my having been given permission to use the image. So I don't understand how it works. If I have permission, how do I get it on the webpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somapsyche (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somapsyche: Copyright is pretty confusing. You shouldn't upload on behalf of the copyright holder! Like what the response above says, follow the steps at WP:CONSENT, and read WP:DCM for more info.

Alternatively, we encourage media uploads to be done at Wikimedia Commons instead. Over there, there's a helpful copyright release tool at Commons:Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator, which streamlines the process (see Commons:Commons:OTRS for more info). The difference between uploading to the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is that uploads to Commons can be used on any Wikimedia project, while uploads to the English Wikipedia can only be used on the English Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What is going on at Carmel Convent School?

The article history looks really really weird to me, I've got no clue what to do here. Can someone more experienced take a look at it? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Skarmory: Many school articles see a lot of vandalism from students in the school themselves. Many also contain information that is not properly sourced to reliable sources. This one's history does not look too strange for a school to me; you could improve it by looking for reliable sources yourself and editing the text for grammar, flow, etc. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Position of the Contents

How do I move the Contents below the Top Introduction? Ggae1885 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Rita Asfour

@Ggae1885: The table of contents automatically appears beneath the introduction and above the first header. In your case, you have a header above your first paragraph, so the table of contents appears above that. You'll need to remove the header for it to appear where you want. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ggae1885: You moved the draft to articlespace too soon, as you have not provided any references. To avoid it being deleted, you may want to move it back to draftspace and continue working on it. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Kerwin Walton Wiki Page

Can someone help with Kerwin Walton the basketball player from North Carolina wiki page he's a very humble kid but he should have a page think he's leading all time scorer at his former high school Valid773 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valid773: Any subject must fulfill the notability guidelines to have an article: either the general notability guideline or the basketball-specific notability guideline. In both cases, you must have sufficient reliable sources to back up any information in the article. High school/college athletes rarely hit the notability guideline, so I'd make sure you have enough sources to demonstrate notability. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would you change something back from an edit that is widely known without checking your resources that something is not correct. Chris Stirewalt was Laid of and that's all there is to it.

 162.234.162.5 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Every content addition you make in articles should be accompanied with a reliable source, so the information can be verified. If you need help adding references, check out this guide. SK2242 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Chris Stirewalt was laid of by Fox News. It is being reported by the Washington Examiner, The Los Angeles Times went as far as to say fired, The Daily Mail,The Washington Post, Fox News and many other news outlets.

FYI

 – Section merged by Tenryuu.

Chris Stirewalt was laid of by Fox News. It is being reported by the Washington Examiner, The Los Angeles Times went as far as to say fired, The Daily Mail,The Washington Post, Fox News and many other news outlets.

In response I was told

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia Yada Yada Yada. This is important information that people should know. If the student maintaining this record is hurt by this development the student should be reassigned to a new subject that the student can maintain impartially.

Otherwise this Wikipedia is the last place you will find out facts because it will be the last place to update them. 162.234.162.5 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

His firing is in the article now. However, all three of your edits ([5][6][7]) were written in a very unencyclopedic tone and were rightly reverted. Wikipedia is ok with being "the last place to find out facts" because we rely on other sources to report first. We do not publish original research. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The opening paragraph already said "Fox News laid him off in January 2021" with sources [8] before your edits. It was there during all your edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Cropping images

Hello could somebody please give me a step by step process of how to crop an image? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie, check out Commons:CropTool if you're interested in cropping an image on Wikimedia commons. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How to manage edits to a controversial article? Peer-reviewed cites being deleted as 'bullshit'.

Having personally experienced the oral health benefits of the ancient practice of Oil pulling, I wondered what Wikipedia had to say on the subject. I was disappointed to see the article appeared to have a strongly negative bias towards the matter.

Curious, I took to the internet to see if there was any peer-reviewed studies that verified the benefits I had experienced. I immediately found two: One, from The NCBI, and the other, The Indian Journal of Dental Research. I posted a small edit to the article, indicating that there were studies which show benefits to oral health, and cited my sources. It seemed a simple, yet useful contribution to the subject.

Knowing the subject is controversial, and sensing the tone of the existing content, I popped back a few hours later to see if any further discussion was taking place. Instead, what I found was that my edits had been reverted, and the reason given was "Unreliable quackery journal; far from WP:MEDRS". No attempt was made by the editor who revered the changes to discuss them with me.

I took a day or so to think about this, and did a bit of reading on how Wikipedia recommends handing such things. I feel that the article deserves to have sources cited which show demonstrated benefits. My edit simply clarified a single sentence, and provided two valid sources. I restored the edit I had made, and noted that both sources cited can hardly be considered 'unreliable quackery'.

What happened next was twofold:

1. A different editor again reverted my edit, but this time the reason given was 'Remove bullshit'
2. The following post appeared on my personal talk page:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Oil pulling, you may be blocked from editing. Don't add content nonsense and unreliable Ayurveda quackery sources to the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This troubled me greatly.

I'm by no means some hero-level editor. I pop in from time to time and contribute where I can. I am grateful that Wikipedia has a strong contingent of editors looking out for nonsense, but when that becomes overzealous, and a subject becomes policed by a biased mindset, we all lose.

So, I'm somewhat at a loss here, and would appreciate some advice:

• Part of me figures just drop it. It's oil pulling. The world will not end.
• Part of me, however, feels that what has happened here is something people need to stand up to, lest it drive away the very folks (namely, all of us) who make Wikipedia what it is. The additions I made to the article are not "quackery", nor are they "bullshit". If those are acceptable standards for deletion of edits, then folks, Wikipedia is kinda sunk.

Well, thanks for reading my long tale. I would appreciate any and all perspectives. Jimvanm (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jimvanm: There could be some of Wikipedia's systemic bias coming into play here. However, your sources aren't that high quality either. The NCBI one isn't a study, but a poorly-written review of other studies. The second has a sample size of just 20. I suggest giving WP:MEDRS a read; we want to publish scientific consensus per our no original research policy. Instead of looking for individual papers, I suggest you look for reliable secondary sources covering oil pulling and its supposed benefits. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jimvanm: It appears you are attempting to edit in good faith, and I'm sorry you didn't receive a more civil response. You explained that you updated the article, and someone reverted it. Instead of making the same edit to the article, it is generally more constructive to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss your suggestions at the article talk page: Talk:Oil pulling. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Help

hello everyone, can someone improve my page? you are welcome Ali banu sistani (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ali banu sistani, which page are you referring to? SK2242 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ali banu sistani, is it perhaps your userpage you are referring to? I notice you have several userboxes on there declaring userrights not associated with your account. If you have an alt-account that is part of those groups then please declare it, otherwise I'd highly recommend removing said userboxes. That would certainly be an improvement to your page. Zindor (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference Lists

Unsure about how to properly format the references section on a page... whenever i attempt to do it, the font too large and not indented TheExpertOnEVERYTHING22 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheExpertOnEVERYTHING22: I looked through your edits and I'm not sure which page you're referring to. Take a look at Help:Footnotes for help, or look at any page with properly formatted references and try to copy that syntax. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheExpertOnEVERYTHING22: Help:Referencing for beginners may also be helpful. I see you've edited Caine and Playford International College - both articles have properly formatetd reference sections. GoingBatty (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

SOmething disturbing

is happening at Second impeachment of Donald Trump involving pictures. I can't figure it out, perhaps you can. Carptrash (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Someone vandalised a template; I've reverted their changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An editor has removed several Basque names

The editor 2601:742:8001:2D80:E8A2:6A27:971D:6861 (contributions) has removed many Basque names in articles about locations in Spain – I believe that's what nearly all of their contributions have been so far.

I have no experience with location names in Spain, but it looked odd to me. Since I wasn't sure if there's perhaps a policy against having Basque names for some locations and since at least many (perhaps all) of the Basque names were unsourced, I didn't revert their edits.

Any suggestions on how to proceed?

Thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 06:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

archival databases as sources

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and curious about using archival databases or a film archive's online catalogues as references when adding information on the location of a film print (or for info on said film). Is it enough to link to the database and provide the film id in the reference? Thanks! SacKate (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SacKate it's very difficult to answer your question in the abstract, could you show us an example? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

My topics

Hello Everybody! I want to write articles about my hometown and villages, what do you think will it be published in Wikipedia website so that all people around the world can access it and read it ? Zaki5030 (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Zaki5030, welcome to the Teahouse. Populated places are generally presumed notable, so it's likely you could write such articles. Census records are a handy way of providing demographics data and verifying the existence of places. Some recommended reading would be Your First Article, What Wikipedia is Not and Referencing for Beginners. Be sure to check that the articles you'd like to create don't already exist. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Becoming part of this site

How do i get to be part of this site? 204.12.85.214 (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)