Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, 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

Getting some off-wiki help for a team of editors

Hello Everyone!!

I'm Rafi from Bangladesh. I mostly work in Bangla Wikipedia but thinking of starting my journey in English Wikipedia too. I have a team of 20/25 members who are currently active in bnwiki. The interesting fact is we're all from the same educational institution. We worked together to make our college article a "featured article" in bnwiki. We're also leading the "Wikiproject Notre Dame College" there. We want to start with the same spirit here. (Actually working with this type of motivation helps a lot in learning) The fact is these freshers are more comfortable in social media like facebook messenger and mail. So we'll need some amazing people to train these guys using social media or mail. Can I get some help? Mrb Rafi (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrb Rafi first of all, thanks for all your contributions, but this isn't a place to ask for people to help you, we are supposed to help you technical-ish problems. but you could always ask for help in return for barnstars ig. Lovin'Politics (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrb Rafi: welcome to the Teahouse! It is perfectly fine to ask for help here at the Teahouse, it's why it is here (and you do not have to do anything in particular to reward anybody who helps you out – Lovin'Politics was not being serious.) However, the Teahouse volunteers are not necessarily prepared to go outside Wikipedia; if your friends are prepared to use IRC, there is some information about the Wikipedia IRC channels here, and there is also a Discord server, which you find out more about here. As you probably already know, it is always a good idea to use the article talk page, in this case Talk:Notre Dame College, Dhaka, to communicate with other editors especially if you are planning a major rewrite/restructuring. Good luck with your project! --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrb Rafi, people who study or studied at a particular school would have a conflict of interest when writing about that school. Please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and observe what it says. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hoary Going to a college and editing about it (provided it's not part of any internship within the college, but just as a regular student) is as much a conflict of interest in Wikipedia terms as writing about the city you live in. VAXIDICAE💉 18:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Mrb Rafi! Even though IRC and mailing lists have been around since the beginning, I feel that the culture at English Wikipedia is strongly oriented towards communicating on-wiki, so that discussions happen in the open and are preserved for long-term reference. (This often puts us in conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation which develops policy in Facebook, Slack, Google Docs, and face-to-face meetings.) Apart from some activist groups that organise off-wiki, a lot of us distrust social media companies like Facebook and WeChat, so it might be challenging to find people to do outreach via social media. Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh? Perhaps your group could form a sub-project there for discussions that aren’t directly related to the article about Notre Dame College, Dhaka. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (04:40 Sat 20, AEDT) 17:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics:@Bonadea:@Hoary:@Pelagic: Thanks to you all for your cooperation. bonadea, discord is a good place, of course, I'll try to bring them together there. Irc may seem a lil bit uncomfortable for new editors, the talk page too. At the very first we face the problem of making new people comfortable with wiki markups. We've seen that most of the people leave wiki just because they find these markups tough and feels as "they don't belong here 'cause they're not that much smart!" I've heard it from some of my junior brothers while introducing them to Wikipedia for the first time. At this point, social media can give them a more "tangible" idea of what they're doing. They can communicate with the same people there whom they may talk onwiki. For the same reason, I've seen our local wmf chapter also focuses on using social media for new editors. And "Conflict of interest" topic was also raised while we were working on bnwiki. We were able to convince the whole bnwiki community that we're following the rules strictly. Some of the most experienced bnwiki editors also observed our workers for the whole time. We got this privilege because I was able to make a whole team of 20/25 completely new editors where I was totally alone at first. Hope you understand. And thanks again for all of your cooperation. Take love! -Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrb Rafi, DiscussionTools is now available on English Wikipedia! (@Whatamidoing (WMF) posted that their team expectected to have it turned on last Tuesday, but it wasn’t until yesterday that I checked my Beta Preferences.) What this means is that if your group members tick the box, they will be able to post comments using a visual editor instead of wikitext. (It does also have a Source mode that your colleagues can use as they start to get more comfortable with markup. For now, you'll need to use the desktop site, not mobile.) As I understand it, a big reason the Foundation invested in developing this was for exactly your use case: editors from regions with a high use of social media who may find wiki talk pages counter to their expectations, or feel wiki-markup is a barrier to participating. Of course you can still make use of other channels, but I hope this will help your junior brothers to communicate with people like me who don’t use IRC, Discord, Facebook, etc. Have you encountered DT on Bangla Wikipedia? I don't know if it’s deployed there yet. Please do give it a try: I imagine WAID and PPelberg would be very interested in your experience using this with a mid-sized group. — Best wishes from Australia, Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:19 Sun 21, AEDT) 23:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we do want to know how it goes! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mobile Editing

I've noticed that when I'm editing on my phone that it's impossible to use the visual editor for categories when the title of the article is too long. The button to publish comes after the title and instead of wrapping around once it reaches the end of my phone screen it just goes right off the end and it's impossible to tap. I was wondering where I should mention this for someone to look into fixing. I know I can just type the category, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. You may want to consider using the fully functional desktop site, which works perfectly well on mobile devices, and does not suffer from the numerous bugs that affect the mobile site and the visual editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: How do I change to the desktop version? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, while in mobile mode, scroll to the very bottom of the page. You will see a link to click to enter desktop mode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant Hi , welcome to Teahouse. It's simple to do that. After typing category just hold your phone horizontal on landscape . You will see button. Research Voltas (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: Turning my phone sideways does absolutely nothing (it just stays vertical), and even if it did I'm guessing that really long title would still go off the screen because whoever programmed it didn't account for long titles. I was originally wondering if there is someone who deals with the backend who would be able to fix the problem that I should get into contact with. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I rethreaded the conversation above, hope that's okay. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:33 Sat 20, AEDT) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, when I go into mobile VE, I just have the toolbar buttons with Publish Changes across the top, no page title. Are you talking about the "Add pagename to new categories" screen? We could file a ticket on Phab:. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) might be able to advise who looks after the mobile categories feature, though she’s fairly busy with the talk pages project at the moment. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:33 Sat 20, AEDT) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Pelagic. The mw:Mobile visual editor belongs to the Editing team, and I'd be happy to file a Phab ticket (unless someone else gets there first).

@TipsyElephant, can you give me a link to the article where you encountered it, an example of a category that's too long, and some idea of what your phone/screen size is? They'll want to be able to see the problem for themselves, so that they can figure out whether their solution actually solves the problem. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): so the problem isn't that any category is too long. The problem is that when a title of an article is too long it pushes the publish button off the right side of the screen. For instance, really long article names like The Carl Donnelly and Chris Martin Comedy Podcast make it impossible to add a category. I've found that article titles that are about 25 characters long render the button useless. I can just barely add categories to The Dead Authors Podcast, but I'm unable to add categories to The Anthropocene Reviewed. I'm currently using Android on a Moto G7 Power and as I've previously mentioned turning my phone sideways does not change the view, but even if it did I'm guessing the text still doesn't wrap around for really long titles. It's also worth mentioning that even medium length titles result in the publish button being only partially visible. For instance, titles around 17 or 19 characters cause the right side of the button to be pushed off the end of the screen. When adding a category to The Daily (podcast) the letter "h" at the end of publish is not visible. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, I think I'm missing something. What device are you using? Which site (mobile view vs desktop view) are you using?

Your original comment says that you're concerned about the mw:mobile visual editor, but I can't see any edits labeled "Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit" in your contributions. This edit seems to have been done in the mobile wikitext editor.

Also, I don't think that the mobile visual editor lets you edit categories at all. It has a character formatting menu (A) and a Link button and a Cite button in the main toolbar, but no button for categories. I wonder if you would be willing to describe for me, step by step, exactly what you're seeing and clicking on at each step. That would help me figure out what's going on, so I can get this bug report filed (because it is definitely a problem). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): I select the mobile view. I do not hit the edit button at all so I guess it's not the mobile view or the source view, but I wasn't sure what else to call it and it's definitely not source view. There's a categories button at the bottom of the article. If I select that button it shows me categories ("content based" or "organizational") that the article is already in and then I tap on the "add to category" button in the top right of the screen. I then "search categories" and select the category I want, but to finalize the category I need to press a button that says publish in the top right, however, this specific page always says "Add <article name> to new categories". So when the article name is really long it pushes the publish button located to the right of "Add <article name> to new categories" off the side of the page. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

permission revoked?

Hi - I have just tried to edit Jay Inslee and I wasn't able to edit without pending reviews and I am an extended confirmed user Lovin'Politics (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: Welcome to the Teahouse! Click the lock at the top of the article, and you'll see the article is under pending changes protection. Scroll up and you'll see a table at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Types_of_protection that show the differences between protection levels, and that all edits are reviewed when a page is under pending changes protection. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty but I am extended confirmed, I should be able to edit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lovin'Politics: Please study the table at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Types_of_protection. While extended confirmed editors can perform normal editing for articles with Semi-protection and Extended-confirmed protection, the instructions for Pending changes protection state "all users can edit. However, once an unregistered or new editor makes an edit, that edit and any subsequent edits by anyone will remain hidden from "readers" (users not logged in) until the edit made by the unregistered or new editor is reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin." GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

But shouldn't that only apply to unregistered users or non-autoconfirmed? This person is extended confirmed, so they should be able to bypass pending changes protection. I think it's some sort of bug perhaps? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Snowmanonahoe, see phab:T275322. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Am I being targeted by this editor?

Hello house, I have the feeling that an editor has deliberately decided to limit my progress here. I have endured accusations and insults, pulling down my works and tagging my articles with issues, moving my articles to draft and so on. I registered to edit Wikipedia one year ago, had a few edits. I changed countries and found myself with enough free time this year and I decided to dedicate this time towards contributing to the development of articles on Wikipedia. I decided to join the Wikipedia:project women in red and and business project. Though I am still finding it difficult to get used to the rules here, I have always improved my edits. I created an article with the title Nengi Rebecca Hamson and I was told that same article had been created and was deleted. An editor queried my choice of editing that particular article and requested that I give my reasons before I continued to edit. I explained myself and I got a reply from Fiddle Faddle, in his words: Thank you for your full and open declaration. It is precisely the declaration needed. It is necessary sometimes to ask these questions, and to have them answered. There is no stain on your character. Please enjoy editing Wikipedia. I have strived to be a better editor and ALL my choice of articles are from the list of women in red project, [1], under US, but a certain editor has reversed one of my recent articles created, Sarah Friar and moved the article to draft, [2], asking me to explain my decision to create that article. In his words, Would you be so kind as to explain your choice of article creations? That is, how do you select & decide what articles to write about? You are Nigerian and often create articles on non notable foreign entrepreneurs and I’m a tad bit puzzled by this. Is there a competition going on or something? Of course no policy prevents nor restricts you from creating any article of your choice but I really do want to know, how do you decide on what article to create? Furthermore, you might want to learn policy on the optimization of files prior using them else you risk getting indef blocked for multiple image copyvio's. I do not have files on that article, why am I being threatened with indef block? Let me also add that the same article about Sarah Friar was edited by Theroadislong who assisted me to make some corrections on the article. I will be pleased if other editors go through my edit summary/contributions and my articles and give me a second opinion. I have NEVER contested any of the reverse edits and I do not plan to do so now either. I just want to avoid communication with the editor because his comments are way too harsh. Once I notice any message from him about my articles having one issue or the other, I just move on with my life, because communication with the editor is not personally pleasing to me. I want to learn more, I am opened to learning, but I feel like I am being bullied. The same editor has called me useless and stupid for forgetting to sign my comment on his talk page. Please I need help. Thank you. MesutOzula (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MesutOzula, Wikipedia is not always a sweet and gentle place, but your experience is not typical. Regardless of any underlying issues which may or may not be present (I have accepted your declaration on your talk page) all of us have a duty to remain civil and to assume good faith in our dealings with others.

I am concerned that you report that this is not happening.

Generally, a dispute such as this can be resolved by avoiding the other editor. This is not always possible. So asking for help is the correct thing to do. The question for you is, what type of outcome would you like to see?

Before you answer that, I'd like to draw your attention very clearly to one important fact about moving to any form of dispute resolution here. Fair or unfair, you need to read and read a second time WP:BOOMERANG. Once a dispute resolution process starts the outcome can be surprising. The dealings of all parties are examined, and verdicts by the community can boomerang on the person asking for help. Be clear: I am not making any accusation of any description, I am simply saying what happens, and asking you to consider this with care before you start a process running.

The first piece of advice was to avoid the other editor. The second is to seek to ignore them. If that does not work the third is to ask them stop interacting with you. I suggest that only then do you consider dispute resolution. Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MesutOzula, if your purpose is to help improve Wikipedia, there are many easier, more rewarding, more constructive, and less frustrating ways than trying to create articles about living people of doubtful notability. Maproom (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that ignoring the other Editor will help in this case after all what I have read in the last couple of minutes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy so others do not have to search like me - the editor refers obviously (among other) to User_talk:Celestina007#Thank_you_for_the_advice CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, thank you for the advice. To answer your question on what type of outcome I would like to see; I believe that this is a faceless forum of intellectuals. I do not know the editor and never plan to, therefore, it pays me nothing to want to pick up a fight with them, considering their standing and profile here, I couldn't possible go up against them in a dispute, I would most probably lose. Again, even if I could match them, I do not want to engage them at all. I just want to edit Wikipedia. But if there are laid down community sanctions to that end, then I will fully corporate with whatever process involved.

It is enough that I am still trying to get used to the technical challenges that come with editing Wikipedia as a new editor, it just does not seem fair for those challenges to be compounded by deliberate attempts by an experienced editor. Let me add that I am not bothered by the corrections. Like I mentioned earlier, I am opened to corrections and Chastisement where necessary. I am just not okay with being stalked and bullied to bow out. Thank you. MesutOzula (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MesutOzula, I think that, looking at the sound advice from Maproom to avoid living people of doubtful notability, you are following a reasonable quest to add people from Nigeria to Wikipedia. May I join their advice in suggesting that you start with those of obvious notability, learning the ways of this place, before moving to see if you are able to establish and verify notability for those less deserving.

It might be a good idea to start by enhancing other articles before going back to creating new ones

In all probability this will mean you and the other editor are less likely to coincide in a combative scenario. Note, though, that they specialise in the part of the world you are editing in and that they are strongly protective of Wikipedia. Indeed we all are. Fiddle Faddle 10:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, @MesutOzula, I am a she/her & no one has called you useless or stupid so quit with the gaslighting and feel free to provide diffs to the contrary.

My comments to you have always been factual and policy based. You have thus far created numerous articles on subjects with dubious notability. In fact, you first drew my attention when @Timtrent made this edit where they moved an article you created back to draftspace, that very article has been edited severally by the Nigerian UPE ring who have six times now unsuccessfully tried to move the article into mainspace so naturally I took a look at your history and what I observed was you creating biographical articles of dubious notability. I gave you a piece of advice, you said you understood, but what did you do? You proceeded to create more articles on individuals with dubious notability & other editors also had to drafitfy your articles, see here & also had an article you created G12 speedy deleted see here so the comments pertaining to your image copyright violation weren’t based on the Draft:Sarah Friar article, rather I was speaking generally, you have thus far violated both general article copyvio's & image copyvio's and a look at your talkpage would compel any concerned editor to tell you the same. No one is targeting you but if you have more than three editors telling you the same thing, chances are it is you who is in the wrong & it’s behoove of you to study imperative policies before attempting to create any more articles, let alone biographical articles on living persons which requires extra care. You literally could have bypassed all this drama had you just answered the question. Lastly if you keep violating our policy on copyrights you would get blocked, it’s literally a factual statement and not a threat. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@MesutOzula You have just been given a final warning by a sysop which invariably means another copyright vio from you would result in a block. I don’t see why you would refuse to adhere to our policy on copyvio’s but choose the WP:IDHT route which is just disruptive editing at this point. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, The editor that passed the warning said everything that needed to be said, there was actually no need for you to repeat the same message here. It is not as if I recently created the said page. It was my FIRST article on Wikipedia more than one year ago. Anyways, that is not the point. I wish to humbly plead you do not contact me nor communicate with me anymore, unless you are, moving my page, tagging or carrying out official communique, please, do not communicate with me anymore. I have done all I could to avoid you. If I violate a rule and you have to take action, the summary of the action would do, no need for personal messages anymore, please.MesutOzula (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why cannot Wikipedia cite itself, from say another page or language?

Why cannot Wikipedia cite itself, from say another page or language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocusfleur (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A simple answer is that as anyone can edit Wikipedia, the Wikipedia articles are not considered verified. The solution: if there is information in a Wikipedia article that you want to use, copy the content AND the references supporting that content (remembering to acknowledge in the Edit summary where the information was copied from). Or, copy the refs and paraphrase the content, again acknowledging source for the references. As for other languages, Wikipedia English has different standards for what are considered reliable source references, so referenced content in a non-English Wikipedia may not be valid in English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to that answer, this would essentially be a circular reference, i.e. "This is right because I say it's right". Circular references are basically useless when it comes to verifiability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I am currently working on a draft about Reveley Island, a small island off the coast of Western Australia, because information for that island is only on the Swedish Wikipedia, and the Cebuano Wikipedia because of Lsjbot. I was denied, because I cited from said Wikipedias. What was written in those articles was valid information, so it's a pity I could not use that. Crocusfleur (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Worthy books that are not widely reviewed

While I agree that some books are probably not worth being included in Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia's goal of collecting all the worthwhile knowledge of civilization requires that we include some books that didn't sell well enough to be widely reviewed. How can I demonstrate that a book I want to add to Wikipedia is worthy, despite there being few references available? Peter Jedicke (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pjedicke: Well references are how you prove that a subject is notable. If no references exist, then it doesn't fit the guidelines. Also, WP:BK has specific instructions for books, but it still requires coverage in most cases. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 14:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pjedicke: "widely reviewed" isn't really necessary, two reviews from reliable sources should suffice. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, how could you write a well-sourced article? If you can, then it's probably not an issue. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Just make sure you don't use primary sources where you don't need to. I can tell you from experience that if you can only find primary sources it's going to be deleted. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, secondary sources are necessary - though primary sources can be used for the plot, within reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not "some" books; the vast majority of books don't merit articles, imho. Of the minority, "articles" (stubs) could be written about a lot, but I've no reason to think that they'd be beneficial. Although a copy of Laurie Bauer's Morphological Productivity sits on my shelf and I don't at all regret the purchase (quite the contrary), I'm not convinced that the article is worthwhile: better, I think, to have integrated what Bauer and his critics have said into the material here about the phenomenon of morphological productivity. Anyway, I don't suppose the book has sold more than a few hundred copies; and yet it does have reviews, because people interested in its subject-matter (a minority taste, to be sure) would want to know about it. Yet the same logic would probably say that a book about the history of such-and-such a defunct brand of motorcycle, car, camera or espresso-maker also merits an article. Do you want that stuff too? (Who'd maintain it?) As for "all the worthwhile knowledge of civilization", you need civilization for mass transit, and I find knowledge of the timetable of my local rail services immensely worthwhile and can present reliable sources for it, but it has no place in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The answer to my question, then, is that some folks don't see Wikipedia the same way I do. I think the Morphological Productivity book deserves an article -- even if I confess I certainly never would have stumbled upon it myself. The article I wrote that was rejected, which motivated me to pose this question, contained about as much information as the Morphological Productivity article, so I like to think that applying the same criteria to both books would get my article re-instated. Perhaps I'll be able to find a few more references to the book I wrote about. I like to think that a book is worthy if a responsible volunteer contributor is motivated to share that book with Wikipedia users. Anyway, thanks for giving me something to think about. Peter Jedicke (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Pjedicke, the draft currently has two references: one of them is usable, the other is not. So effectively this has one source, and one source is not sufficient. ¶ A quick look in Worldcat shows that the book was published not only by Corgi but also by Chatto & Windus (ISBN 0701132094). I'd be surprised if there weren't reviews of it published from 1987 to 1989. If you're patient working on other articles (or drafts), you'll become eligible to use the "Wikipedia Library", which is likely to be helpful. (Or of course if you have access to academic databases via a university or similar library, you could use that.) ¶ Unpublished PhD dissertations shouldn't be used; still, the bibliography of this one might give you some leads. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You could also ask at WP:RX or WP:REFDESK - people with access are generally more than happy to at least let you know if there is a source if you point them to where it might be. For example, before they made JSTOR access standard, I used to do JSTOR sweeps if requested Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearing history

Is it possible to clear WP history without me having to completely clear the browsing data on my computer? Thank you, Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Lettler If you are referring to your edit history logged here on Wikipedia, there is no way to remove it. If you are referring to Wikipedia browsing data on your computer, you would need to go into the settings of your browser and delete the files related to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

331dot, I mean my view history, not my edit history. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Lettler, I'm not sure that there even is a view history on Wikipedia. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lettler In the Google Chrome browser, at the top right, click on the three dots and choose History and then History again. On the History page, search for Wikipedia, then select each box and the click the Delete button. Other browsers could have similar options. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Article request

Someone at wikipedia needs to create an article about Marion Miley. Kentucky U.S. Women’s amateur golf player who was murdered a during robbery at her home on September 28, 1941.  Tuktoyyuktuk (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion, Tuktoyyuktuk. Anyone can create it, so maybe you? At any rate, I've relayed your suggestion to Women in Red, a group of editors who focus on woman biographies. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Tuktoyyuktuk. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site for some more details, but basically anyone wanting to create a Wikipedia:Article about Miley is going to need to establish that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Since she was killed so many years ago, it might be hard for to track down such sources. If there are any books, magazine articles, newspaper articles written about her that go beyond the fact that she was murdered (e.g. maybe she received press coverage for her exploits as a golfer or for some other reasons), then an article might be possible. If you can find such sources, then you can start a WP:DRAFT yourself and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready. Yu can find out more about writing articles in Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. The important thing though is going to be to establish that Miley is Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about her: otherwise, any attempt to create such an article is unlikely to be approved regardless of who tries to write it or how beautifully it's written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable source coverage of Marion Miley, who was one of the most famous woman golfers of the late 1930s and early 1940s. There was a front page story in the New York Times when she was murdered. A 2020 book published by the University of Kentucky Press is devoted to her life and the murder. A lengthy 2020 article in the Palm Beach Post has plenty of biographical details. A book was published in 1993 about the warden who presided over the execution of the three men convicted of her murder, and according to a review published in the Chicago Tribune, it discusses this murder in great detail. An hour long documentary film about her life and the murder was broadcast on some PBS stations in 2016, and shown again in 2020. An annual women's golf tournament in her memory has been played for 75 years. She's notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There you go Tuktoyyuktuk. I admit I didn't dig for sources before answering your question like Finnusertop and Cullen328 did and just was trying to give you some general advice. However, since Miley does appear to be Wikipedia notable, you can be bold and try and create an article about her yourself if you want. I still think it would probably be a good idea to start with a draft, but that's not required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Tuktoyyuktuk, Finnusertop, and Cullen328: Just want to update that there now exists an article about Marion Miley. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for specific comments to edit the article

I have submitted article for review. Read feedback about citation , references. most references are links which I have provided near each section of information to prove its correctness of content, sperately for journals and for sites. I don't know why it is not being accepted by Noah the robot? .. can someone specifically help with this query of how I have done citations & references in my article? And what is erroneous? Prachi.chopade (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Prachi.chopade. For the convenience of other editors, the draft in question is Draft:Prabhakar B. Bhagwat. First of all, User:-noah- is not a robot. User:-noah- is a human being. Your draft article contains promotional language praising the subject, which violates the Neutral point of view, and that is a core content policy. Remove all of that praise. There are several errors in the formatting of your references, which are generating red error messages in your reference list. These errors in the wikicode should be corrected. Referencing for beginners is an essay that should help you debug your wikicode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Prachi.chopade, there's trivia. We read that he was "Member; Selection Committee for Selection of Architect"? Whose committee, and selection of an architect for what purpose? But no, please don't answer: his membership of any such committee would be unimportant; so just cut it. Also, the section on LEAF (as one example) is sourced to (i) LEAF itself, whereas we want independent sources, and to (ii) "'FOREST FOR THE TREES; TREES FOR THE FOREST' – THE MONOGRAPH": a monograph written by whom, published by whom? -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Prachi.chopade: Also, the inline citations are currently at the end of each paragraph. Please move the references to the end of the sentence(s) they are supporting. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Approval

I have studied thoroughly and learnt the usage and writing style of Wikipedia. I just want to know how long does it take for the wikipedia content to get approved ? Does it automatically move to the livespace after it is approved ? Nirju1998 (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You should submit your draft for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nirju1998, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, you seem to have ignored the most important bits of the "usage and writing style of Wikipedia", which are verifiability and neutral point of view. The sources in Draft:Dony Hazarika may be reliably published (I don't know), but not one of them, in my view, meets both of the other two equally important critera: being independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. (The ones that are about Hazarika rather than about individual works are clearly based on interviews and press releases, so are not independent: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says about themselves, or what their associates say about them). This means that at present the draft does absolutely nothing towards establishing that Hazarika meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and the draft cannot be accepted as an article in its current form.

As for "neutral point of view": the text is full of evaluative language: phrases like "academic excellence", "love and devotion for music", and even "eminent" do not belong in any Wikipedia article except in direct quotations from independent sources. And "melted down Dr Hazarika's fatherly authority" belongs in a chatty magazine, not an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nirju1998: I also suggest you use the "External links" as additional references, as much of the information in the draft does not appear to be supported by a reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

1 questions about Multiple issues template

I just ***love**** this page, you guys help me out so much! For a BARNSTAR, can you please help me?

RE:

{{Multiple issues|

{{citation style|date=May 2019}}

{{Advert| date=March 2021}}

{{Primary sources|date=March 2021}}

{{COI|date=March 2021}}

}}

(1) can I notify readers in the Multiple issues template that there is currently RFC on the talk page?

(2) How do i add:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion WP:PROMO Answer: {{Advert|date=March 2021}}

Thank you!

Infinitepeace (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: welcome back to the Teahouse. No, an RfC is not publicised on the article page, neither in a standalone template, nor in a Multiple issues template. --bonadea contributions talk 07:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This might be a case of WP:BARNSTARITIS... Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How do you talk to your host on wikipedia?? Ima Jewels (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you talk to your host on wikipedia?? Ima Jewels (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd try to answer your question, if I knew what you meant by "host". (I'm not aware that Wikipedia has "hosts".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or, Ima Jewels, do you mean Teahouse host? If so, just ask a question (about editing or using Wikipedia) on this page. And somebody, very likely a "host", will respond. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps you mean "How do you reply to a Teahouse host who has answered your query?" If that's what you mean, Ima Jewels, you edit the section in the Teahouse, as I am doing here, and add your reply on the end of it. You can notify the host of your reply by using a Ping, like {{U|ColinFine}}. --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Gympie Pyramid

hi, somebody is sabotaging my recent rewritten article 'Gympie Pyramid', leaving nasty comments with his changes. This text was edited by Doug Weller and he considered it as ready to be published. How can I report someone to be deleted? Wikigetsme123 (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A quick (perhaps too quick) look doesn't show me sabotage or nasty comments, but it does suggest disagreement between you and InedibleHulk. The two of you should discuss this at Talk:Gympie Pyramid. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No way. This guy's crazy. Give him what he wants, I'll pretend I saw nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ajoy Hijam

 Ajoy Hijam (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ajoy Hijam, do you have a question? If it's about creating a page about yourself, then simply, please don't attempt to create one. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

How do you edit your wikipedia page Ima Jewels (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ima Jewels If you mean that there is a Wikipedia article about you that you wish to edit, you should not do so directly, but you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. If you mean that you wish to edit your user page, User:Ima Jewels, you appear to have already done so. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Meet

Vishuvc007 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Vishuvc007 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Vishuvc007 Since starting your account a week ago, all your edits have been reverted. Do you have a question? David notMD (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Declined

My first Article Declined Please help Me to verify my article Nabyl8899 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nabyl8899 could you tell me which article was declined? Lovin'Politics (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_Clinic_Maldives this one i think this was not declined it is not accepted at this time. can you help me to get the article better. Lovin'Politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabyl8899 (talk • contribs)

Nabyl8899, hello, friend! The reason this article was declined (which is the same as "not being accepted at this time") was that the only references you included were the official websites. In order to establish the notability of this medical facility, you need to include multiple reliable sources that are independent of it, meaning they have no connection like a reliable news source. You can check out WP:REFB for some pointers on citing sources. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is this source reliable?

is there a question? Lovin'Politics (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

LP: The querier's question was moved, and answered there. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

HMCS Bonaventure

To Whom it May Concern:

My grandfather made the 10,000th landing on the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure. I'm in possession of a plaque made to commemorate the event, a photo of which I posted to Wikimedia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMCS_Bonaventure_10000th_Trap.jpg

I would like to update Wikipedia's page on the HMCS Bonaventure to reflect this information, but I was told that Wikimedia does not constitute a reliable source. What would be an acceptable way to cite the information on the plaque?

- RIPCaptainCWMillerJr (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello RIPCaptainCWMillerJr and welcome to the Teahouse! The plaque is a primary source. Primary sources can often be biased, so it would be preferred to use secondary sources. If you want to insert the image itself, then please use the format below:

[[File:HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap.jpg|thumb|HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap]]

which renders as the image to the right →

HMCS Bonaventure 10000th Trap

If you want to insert it to an infobox, then look at the template docs on how to insert the image. See H:IMAGE for more info. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have reduced the image size here by adding "|100 px" to the image markup--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi RIPCaptainCWMillerJr. The plaque is not usable to verify this detail—in my view not because it is biased; indeed, were it reliable, I don't think its use would obviously be prohibited under our limitations for use of primary sources—but because it's not a reliable source for the information. While I'm sure it is what it purports to be, it's just not the type of thing that reliably verifies information in and of itself, e.g., a physical award is not a published source with editorial oversight and a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".

A reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 source would be something like a (non-vanity) book, a magazine article, a newspaper story, etc., discussing the landing, that verifies the additional information you want to add, that could be cited in relation. Possibly, such a verifying source is already present in the article. Specifically, the sentence in the article that discusses the 10,000th landing ends with a footnote (e.g.""...), which cites to page 337 of the 2013 book British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories. I can't check myself easily whether it mentions your grandfather's name in relation, as that page of that book doesn't appear to be accessible to me online (I did attempt some Google Books searches and some more general ones, but was unable able to find a usable source).

There is another issue here. I certainly understand the desire to commemorate a loved one, and that adding his name to the article as the actual person who made the landing would seem a natural way to do so – but your desire to add this is in conflict with the proper role of an editor. Should this detail be added? Would the article be improved by adding this person (your grandfather's) name? Possibly. Or would that be a bit too much detail for a tertiary source, encyclopedia treatment of this topic, that properly summarizes, without going into minute detail? That decision should be made based on whether adding the information (if and only if it can be properly verified) is desirable as a matter of editorial discretion, based on a variety of neutral precepts guiding our writing, and not because someone has a personal stake in seeing the person's name commemorated. You are not here for those reasons; you are not neutral on this subject but have a conflict of interest in seeing this added.

Still, in comparison to the problems we see of non-neutral writing here (a daily, raging stream of blatant advertisements written by business owners, et al.), this is a small matter. Anyway, finding a proper source for the addition might not be sufficient condition for its addition in light of the reasons I've discussed, but it is a threshold one. Nevertheless, If you can find that source, because of your conflict of interest, please post to the article's talk page asking for the change to be made (be sure to provide transparent details of the verifying source), rather than directly making the change. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

All - thank you very much for the information and assistance, you guys make some really good points. Can't really argue with the conflict of interest issue. Stay safe out there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:181:2C0:E865:C2B1:331A:9FBF (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Been Hacked

216.8.236.112 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC) {{subst:Been Hacked. I have little to no computer knowledge trying to learn as I go. Your site is awesome,John thanks for the heads up! I plan to learn more as I go.. However right now I have someone that is disrupting my digital life. Every aspect cell phone, computers the whole thing is a pain. I don't have any use for much and I am a simple person. About to retire and drop off the grid, Life is short now all I want to do is enjoy what time I have left... In the good old days, a really good shot to the nose cured a lot of problems. But today our world is too violent to attempt lessons like that.. Any help would be greatly accepted.

Thank you all so much.

}} 216.8.236.112 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You probably haven't been hacked. Try resetting your device(s) and see if that fixes the issue. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. This page is actually about questions specifically related to Wikipedia matters, and those who contribute here are not necessarily computer experts at all. We do have a forum, however, where general questions may be asked, that is specific to computer issues: the computing section of Wikipedia's reference desk <--that's a link>

So, if you restart your devices, and are still having the same problem, I suggest you post at that forum. However, your post gives no details that anyone who might have a solution to suggest could work from. If and when you post there, I suggest explaining in as much detail as you can exactly what is happening; the text of any error messages; that X happens when you do Y; what devices are affected; what operating systems you are using; which browser—anything that might be relevant given the actual nature of the problem.

To put it in more familiar terms, by analogy, your current post is akin to someone at a legal advice forum posting "I have a terrible legal problem that affecting everything in my life, please help me with it", and ending there, with no account of what the legal issue actually is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Needing editors to add county maps for pre-1876 US presidential elections.

I am not good enough at editing and making shades. It would be nice for some editors to utilize the county maps on all the pre-1876 elections.

It would also improve the quality of certain articles about it. The county maps are devoid in almost everything before 1872-1876, so it would be a little bit better to make it so.

P.S. There is an 1836 or 1840 map of Michigan... so why not the other states? :) Xdude gamer (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Teahouse is not a place to recruit editors for a project. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bop34: Easy there friend. Not as if it's a question asked in bad faith. GMG^talk 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I didn't mean for it to sound that harsh. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh makes sense. Is there any place that could be used for that? Xdude gamer (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer:, the best place to recruit editors for a project is by asking editors who have edited either that article or similar articles via their talk pages. Unless you catch an editor having a bad day, they will probably be happy to help with the project. If you catch one on a bad day, don't take any offense if they "brush you off" or respond with a seemingly harsh tone. Hopefully that helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks :) Xdude gamer (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I am being told my article has an advertising tone

 Courtesy link: Draft:World Affairs Council of Houston

Hello everyone, I've been working on this article for a few weeks now and have changed it quite a bit in order to comply with wiki standards. I am an unpaid intern that was asked to create a wikipage for a non-profit organization that has a sizable impact on the local and global community and has been around for 30+ years. I've detailed the history of this organization and its creation but it's still being flagged as "blatant advertising" and when compared to other similar articles accepted I'm left confused as to why mine continues to be flagged. So I suppose my question is, is creating a wikipage for a non-profit organization do-able and if so what additional information would you suggest in order to eliminate the advertising tone? EditorofWorldAffairs (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Being a non-profit does not absolve promotion tone. Complete writing a Lead, cut all the crap about FPA, Robert, Mary, the listing of staff, remove all hyperlinks from the text, learn how to do refs right, find better refs, ref every factual statement, delete all statements that are not factual, and maybe only then consider resubmitting. Because the Rejection ("STOP") is from a very experienced Wikipedia editor. Oh, and first, declare that you are paid, as unpaid intern qualifies as a form of compensation (you are getting job training and something to add to your resume = 'paid'). David notMD (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EditorofWorldAffairs. Creating an article about a subject (not a "wikipage for" it) is doable, provided you find several reliable sources that are wholly independent| of the subject, and have significant coverage of it; and then you forget everything you know about the subject (and, especially, forget everything that the subject would like said about itself), and write an article based 100% on what those independent sources say. The article will not belong to the subject, and will contain what a consensus of editors agree that the independent sources say about it, not what the subject says about itself, still less what the subject wants to say about itself. Since your draft has no independent sources, it is not acceptable as an article, and has in fact now been rejected, not just declined as before. Your best advice is, unless you can present at least three such sources as I mentioned above, give up and stop wasting any more time on this. Wikipedia is not here for your organisation (or any other) to tell the world about itself. --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Saving a page from deletion

Hello editors. Greetings of the day! I had created a page for a college professor a few years ago. The page is flagged under the Articles for deletion (AfD). I am trying to provide additional information and references for the page. It would be great help if some suggestions can be provided here to save the page from deletion. BeTheChange 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rk.radhekrishan (talk • contribs)

• @Rk.radhekrishan: The short answer is that you need to include independent coverage in published secondary sources. This does not includes the subject's own websites, social media, or personal publications, as these are not independent. If the subject does not yet have this type of coverage, they they are not yet ready for their own article. GMG^talk 15:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rk.radhekrishan: Judging by your user name, is the article in question, Radhe Krishan an autobiography? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

New Pages

I have identified a new page of a notable person who is living, Zondra (Zoey) "Pricelys" Roy. She is listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotYourPrincess but is one of the only ones of the 42 contributors who does not have her own page, but she has TONNES of press about her. I am a journalist who has done articles on her and cannot believe she doesn't have a page. What is the best way of creating one for a new editor? I have already completed some page edits for other entries with grammar and copy-editing. I googled her name and began to make a list of articles I could use to reference various biography points and achievements and awards she has won. I do know her, but I don't think that puts me in a conflict of interest position. Please advise. IndieAndie (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

IndieAndie hi, you might want to read Help:Your first article. I'd recommend creating it in the draft namespace to allow it to be reviewed, especially if you feel you might be non-neutral here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article NotYourPrincess lists 42 people but less than half have their own articles on Wikipedia (only the blue links go to existing articles). I think that you would be best to take a look at a few of the ones that have biographies and base your draft on that. Use the articles for creation process and focus on establishing notability in Wikipedia's specific sense, which means finding four or so completely independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of her. The draft doesn't need to be long but it does need to establish notability. Your potential conflict of interest doesn't prevent you doing the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

submission of intellectual autobiography

I have a partial (75%) draft of a lengthy intellectual history of my career (not a biography as such) that I think meets your neutrality requirement and would have some interest to students of health care law and policy. I'd like a judgment on its acceptability and advice on how I can get help putting it in proper form, with references etc.

Clark Havighurst, Wm. Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus of Law, Duke University Phone: <Tel No. removed> HCL&Policy (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@HCL&Policy: Can you please include a link to the draft? Also, please see WP:COI on how to handle a conflict of interest. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I presume that the draft is offline, Sungodtemple. Welcome to the Teahouse, HCL&Policy. Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography), but if you're determined to do so, please see Help:Your first article. Your biggest challenge is likely to be making sure that any biography of yourself only includes content that can be supported by published sources, meaning that you'll have to put aside anything that you know about yourself but which hasn't been written about. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi HCL&Policy. Without seeing the draft, it's difficult to provide an answer. I could be totally off base on this but I am betting, just based on your description, that it looks nothing like an encyclopedia article should, and has reams of material it shouldn't (and looks more like something belonging on Linkedin). Again, I don't know you, but we the same mistakes so often that I am guessing based only on your description. Please, do defy my expectations!

Let me put in the form of a thought experiment. You're assigned the project of writing about a professor of Law from Latvia you'd never heard of before, and have no access to anything written by that person – not their CV, not their publications, nothing. Instead, you only have access to a few books you've found at Google Books, written by third parties who are writing about the history of Latvian Law, as well as and a smattering of Latvia Times newspaper articles that wrote in disinterested terms about him or her (i.e., reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21; and not primary sources).

With only that material, you are further told you must write in completely matter-of-fact terms about that professor you'd never heard of, from these materials only, and to avoid all evaluation (show, don't tell), and must also include any controversies about him of her; your job is not to be positive or negative; you are utterly disinterested and just taking this on out of intellectual curiosity). You are also told you must transparently cite sources corroborating every fact you write about from these sources (without copying the words used), to verify the information, and are sent to this tutorial for how to cite the sources.

You are also told you may look at Wikipedia's featured articles as a guide. The resulting biography, assuming you learned about citing sources, and really took on board what you learned from reading a smattering of featured article biographies, is what we're mostly looking for. Or stated yet another way, 95% of everything you've written that is not what a disinterested third party with access only to such materials would write, probably doesn't belong. Does that help at all? See also: Help:Your first article; Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

HCL&Policy I suggest you look at Duke University School of Law, the section on notable faculty. Using WP:YFA, you could model your draft on some of those. The Talk page of each article has a rating - use those rated "Start" or better as models. Once you have an adequately referenced draft, submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Do not be disheartened if your first submittal is Declined (the reviewer will state reasons). Also, consider if there is public knowledge about you that you would prefer not be in an article - be aware that once an article exists anyone can add content as long as it has valid references. David notMD (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why 31 hours?

I've noticed most vandalism-only accounts or ips get banned for exactly 31 hours the first time around, time and time again. What exactly is the significance of 31 hours? Seems like a pretty arbitrary number to me.  Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Snowmanonahoe. The thinking is that it is a short block, but long enough to affect the vandal's normal time to mess around the following day, but significantly shorter than a 48 hour block. It is selected to stop repetitive minor vandalism. All block lengths are a bit arbitrary. From the practical point of view, 31 hours is one of the standard block lengths that appears in a menu when an administrator is making a block, and so it is a popular choice for that reason as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... Thanks. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c (Note: I'm not saying anything substantially different from Cullen328, but I put in some calculations so I decided to post anyway after the edit conflict, despite the redundancy...) Hi Snowmanonahoe. I haven't tracked down any actual discussion to answer your question today, but I remember years ago searching out this detail. In sum and substance, it was to the effect of that we get a lot of vandalism from schoolchildren, and others who have an editing time window – during which they have a block of free time and the opportunity to be active online. 31 hours is a time period that has the affect of often addressing the next day of that "window". Keeping in mind that blocks often are made after a series of warnings, followed by some lag time, if, for example, someone vandalized between 4:30 p.m., when they get home, and a 11:30 p.m. bedtime, and they're resulting 31-hour block occurs at the 5:33 p.m. mark of that window, that will rope in the following day's period from 4:30 p.m., and extend to 12:33 a.m. (where a block of 24 hours would not). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on my answer, Fuhghettaboutit. I think we've covered it pretty well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: :-) When I edit conflict and see your name, I immediately know I'll be following a good answer-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

submit draft for review

Hi I'm new here. Just wrote an article about rock musician Philippe Manca: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Philippe_Manca Problem: when I click on Submit the Draft for Review, a new editing draft blank page appears: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Philippe_Manca&action=edit&veswitched=0&section=new&preload=Template:AfC_submission/Subst&editintro=Template:AfC_submission/Subst/Editintro Can you help me? Thank you. Leon LeonToffee (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it will be accepted. First off, you should transform bare urls into full citations, along with a few other problems. Read Wikipedia:Your first article for more information.

If I were you, I would edit already-existing articles to get a feel for how articles are written. It makes it a lot easier to write an article. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How to block vandalism

Hello, where to report vandalism and how to quickly revert all the vandalism made by one user? I never needed to know such a thing, but now the user 178.143.50.74 aka HunCzeLit224 wholesale disrupts multiple cities and town pages. Thanks for advice! FromCzech (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

FromCzech, you can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to bring this to the attention of an admin, who can block offending users. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple: You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) to be blocked from further editing. Although blocks may be issued at any time, depending on circumstances, typically, before seeking a block there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (easily remembered by the shortcut WP:WARN). Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself.Template:Z36 Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm little lost in it, maybe because of my English, so once again, what exactly should it write into Edit summary when I'm reverting the vandalism to give a warning because of disruptive editing? FromCzech (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey again FromCzech. Well, for the edit summary, you can be detailed, or not, but that's not where the warning usually is placed. Instead you would post to the user's talk page (my talk page, for example, is linked in my signature at the end of this post).

The appropriate warning can be a tailored one, or you can save time by using a template that already contains suitable warning language. For a list of them, please see WP:WARN, as linked in my post above.

For example, if you were persisting in posting spam links to articles, I might revert you at the article, and then navigate to your talk page and I might type this: {{subst:uw-spam1}} followed by my signature (~~~~) and save. See the template, at {{uw-spam1}} to see what that template places. If you then posted more spam links, I might go again to the your talk page but this time use a higher level warning in the same template series, {{uw-spam2}} or {{uw-spam3}}.

If you then ignored all these prior warnings, and kept adding spam links, after a final warning I would go to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and follow the instructions there to ask for you to be blocked.

Does that help clarify what to do?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Fuhghettaboutit Thank you very much, I think everything is clear now. FromCzech (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@FromCzech: Great!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: User:HunCzeLit224 started editing 22 March and has already changed or added to dozens and dozens of articles, almost all to section Twin towns - Sister cities. If these are valid, then it is editing. If not, an odd form of vandalism. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Need help writing content

I need help writing source related content. Thanks Azim1974 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Azim1974. We are not keen on people trying to use Wikipedia to advertise their own business, as you appear to have done. Is this what you still hope to write content on, or is it something else? We only accept articles which meet our Notability criteria, and which are based upon published sources, independent of the subject. We ignore sources that have simply used a comapny's press release or insider newspapers to talk about it. You would also need to be open about your conflict of interest by declaring it as described at WP:PAID. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Composer - Music Information.

Hi! A pleasant good day. As a composer, how do I get my song information on Wikipedia? 72.252.32.58 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. As the composer, you have a conflict of interest which you must disclose, and since you may earn money off of your song, you must also comply with the Paid editing disclosure. Please read the notability guideline for songs. If your song meets that guideline, then read Your first article, write a properly referenced draft, and submit it for review through the Articles for creation process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

But remember, please, that Wikipedia is basically not interested in what you say or want to say about your songs: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about your songs. That's how an encyclopaedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Creation for an Inspiring Person

I just got to know about an Indian Businessman who was born with cleft lips and treated by Smile Train. He got featured by Adline Castelino for being an inspiration for many. I am sharing the references for checking whether we can create the Wikipedia Page for him. 1. https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/harkirat-singh-paras-sets-foot-120354864.html 2. https://www.instagram.com/p/CI3G1kTBkkf/ 3. https://www.smiletrainindia.org/stories/harkirat-singh-paras-quiet-kid-successful-entrepreneur Jm149 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jm149. The first link is highly promotional and almost certainly the result of a press release. As for the second, it is a social media post sharing a video from SmileTrain and does not establish notability. The third is written by the subject on Smile Train's website, and is a primary source that does not establish notability. You need significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of this person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jm149, those references are not enough to establish notability. The Yahoo piece appears to be from NewsBytes, which has questionable reliability (you could find out one way or the other by posting at WP:RSN). Instagram is not acceptable as it is self-published. The Smile Train article is written by Harkirat Singh Paras and is thus not secondary. Please review the general notability guideline to better understand what is required. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerned about accuracy

I have concerns about entries that are not accurate but have long view social misguidance embedded in the way statements were crafted. As a financial contributor and someone who grew up thumbing through the Encyclopedia Britannica, I went back to check the definition on Britannica and found support for my initial interpretation. I know if I enter the subject matter here that the whole community will jump on me for the suggestion of it being anything but what contributors have made it, and it is not to suggest that the documented history is inaccurate but the modern interpretation of the term. Balancedview8 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(gave this query a title) David notMD (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Balancedview8. Since you haven't told us what term you are talking about, it is difficult to understand what you're saying. Wikipedia works on the basis of reliably published sources, and views on various subjects do gradually change as new material is published, and older material is seen to be wanting in some way. But on top of that, there can be different editorial views on the relevance and appropriateness of particular material, and we work on consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How to request U1 CSD of a js page

Hey I'm curious how I would request the deletion of my common.js page. As it is a js page, tagging it doesn't really work. Does anyone know how to do this? βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bop34! You should be able to accomplish this by typing it as a comment like so: /* {{db-u1}} */. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay that's what I did I just didn't know if it was correct. Sorry for wasting your time. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a waste at all, we're here to help! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I know there's probably a place i can get this info but

If there's any articles that need editing or haven't been in a long time, I'd like to get some suggestions because I'm new here and I'd like to contribute in any way I can. SneakingPastInfinity (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome SneakingPastInfinity ! Two good links to start: User:SuggestBot/Requests#Suggestions_based_on_specific_pages and Wikipedia:Task Center, happy Editing, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Building a Profile

How can I create an autobiography for my client on Wikipedia? Honorable KARISHMA Princess H. Pelham-raad (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Honorable KARISHMA Princess H. Pelham-raad. An autobiography for your client? Are you your own client? ("Autobiography" means a biography of oneself.) If you are being paid for editing Wikipedia, you must abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use: disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. For how to do these things, please see WP:PAID. Also, you will only be allowed to create a biography article for a person who is notable according to our notability rules. Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC).

Also, Honorable KARISHMA Princess H. Pelham-raad, please note that what we have in Wikipedia is not "profiles" but encyclopaedia articles. If at any point we have an article about your client, the article will not belong to you or your client, you will not control its content, and its content will not be based on what your client says or wants to say about themselves, but solely on what people who have no connection with your client have chosen to publish about your client in reliable sources. Articles are for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers, not for the benefit of their subjects. Please also look at an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why reject my submission?

Hello! I contributted an edit to an article, and it was not published. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.89.181 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Which edit do you mean? The last edit before you talking in the Teahouse was back in 2007. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no filter hits, either. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits to articles do not get published

Hello. I make edits to articles, but they don't get published. What am I doing wrong, or is this just a waste of time? Bob Rchiiibob (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rchiiibob: I looked at Special:Contributions/Rchiiibob. Most of your edits are from 2018, so it is perhaps not suprising that other editors have made changes to the same articles since then and perhaps modified or undid your changes, which is the normal process for collaborative editing here on Wikipedia. Is there a specific change you are concerned about? RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rchiiibob: You have only ever made 9 edits under your account name, 7 of which were in 2018, and two this year! Yes, I'm afraid it is a waste of time adding uncited trivia to serious articles as you did three years ago to Truffle, which were removed by another editor with this edit. Their edit summary explained why that happened. But I'm sure you will appreciate that we really do require citations to support statements added to articles, and anything deemed irrelevant, overly detailed or of dubious veracity will indeed be removed as not being Verifiable. Stick to adding content that is relevant and well-sourced (see WP:REFBEGIN) and you should be fine contributing here. If we can help you further, do let us know. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers

Is there a way to make talk pages healthier here, especially for newcomers? Some of the talk pages are so off-putting because of the way editors talk to others. Newcomers get the worst of it, from what I've observed. Or is the disrespect an expected part of the environment? I've read the talk page guidelines and the civility policy, but neither seem to have much of an impact on the unpleasantness occurring at some talk pages. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Howdy, New Sheriff in Town and welcome to the Teahouse. Personally, I think simply trying to set a good example in one's own communications is the best way to slowly lift standards of civility, and never to get riled up, nor tell the other editor that "Wikipedia ain't big enough for the both of us". Of course, it's hard to include nuance and subtlety in talk page posts via a keyboard, and many active editors find themselves inevitably having to leave short, sharp messages for editors when they make a mistake that needs correcting, before moving on to the next problem, and the next, and so forth. Here at the Teahouse we try to offer a friendly face when we answer questions, and I don't see that you've personally encountered any problems yourself. But I can see you are interested in subjects which can attract strong opinions, so perhaps you've seen some blunt speaking on those pages. Either way, welcome again to Wikipedia and enjoy your own Wikipedia Adventure. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you, Nick Moyes. I have been appalled by some of what I have seen. I plan to mostly stick to biology pages. After what I've seen at the more controversial pages, I'll try to leave those alone as much as possible. Even many pages people would conclude aren't going to be controversial turn out to be a hotbed of discord. I knew that female biology topics could be political, but the discord on the talk page can still blow me away. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, New Sheriff in Town, people do get hot under the collar for all sorts of reasons but, being a collaborative project, it's important to be able to debate different perspectives without insulting the other person and thus to reach a consensus. Sadly, many editors seem to forget that, and descend to attacking the other person, not the statements they want to add or remove. Sometimes, it's the old hands (who ought to know better) who go straight for the jugular. Even today I found this happening in a minor way on my own talk page, hence this comment. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen senior editors being the worst offenders. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about this. I'll do my best to not get hot under the collar. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi New Sheriff in Town. I'm a little late to the thread, but I notice that the article you're referring to is a Featured Article that is being actively edited by a team of senior editors. That might not be the best place for a newer editor to start. From my own experiences, sometimes I'll make a one word change to a featured article and it'll get reverted. The senior editors that work on those articles craft every word carefully, to conform not only to our complex Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also to the written and unwritten norms of the Featured Article process. I consider editing Featured Articles to be an advanced skill, and you might have a better experience editing in a less stringent area. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Novem Linguae. It's a featured article, but some felt it wasn't the quality article it once was. So it's been undergoing what you guys call a review. Featured article or no, I feel confident in saying it's no excuse for how multiple editors there have been treated. From their own mouths with takes like this one (which was toned down afterward) and what is said in the thread as a whole, it hasn't been a pleasant environment. That's why those like me who are knowledgeable in the subject area are discouraged from taking part in discussions there. So are non-experts, even though an essay from you guys says Wikipedia doesn't give experts special treatment, and I don't see any experts in the subject area there. A newcomer can help out with advice or opinions on the discussion page. The newcomer doesn't need to edit the page outside of that. Still, if what the newcomer has to say will be dismissed or seen as lesser than because they're new, it's really discouraging. I didn't want to point to that thread because it's not the only page I've seen which colors the Wikipedia environment as rife with discord, but also because I'm not interested in hearing from those who have been rude there. So please don't call them here. I said my piece there. I said others and I observed that discussion page and other discussion pages to get a sense of how editors here collaborate. It's not one of the pages I was very interested in editing, but I know a couple of people who were considering contributing there and turned away when they saw the arguments there. Thank you for your opinions, but I don't want to linger on this. In addition to the crash course I've been given by others about Wikipedia, I've been reading up on Wikipedia's ways when time allows, and I will push forward with heavier editing once I feel more confident about doing that. For heavier editing, I will be starting with the circulatory system article and have said on the discussion page there that I will be expanding two sections. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

New Sheriff in Town, roger that. Thanks for the response. I hope your editing goes very smoothly and that you have a good experience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

New Sheriff in Town thanks, interesting conversation! I'd like to add to the title of this section "making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers and for women". Aggressive writing on talk pages is one of the factors that has contributed to Gender bias on Wikipedia (check out the recent discussion on the talk page there; the most controversial thread has already been archived for now). I don't know if there is something wrong about the way I write on talk pages or how I edit (or are people getting tenser because of Covid lockdowns?) but just recently I've copped quite a big of flack, mostly from experienced, long-term, male (?) editors (who sometimes refer to everyone else as "he" instead of "she" or "they"). I assume there are probably PhD theses out there somewhere that have analysed how people use talk pages, who gets aggressive when and why. I very much like the policy of WP:NOBITE. - Anyway, thanks to the friendly helpers at the Teahouse and let's keep supporting each other! EMsmile (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No. That kind of gender stereotyping is not helpful. Editors are editors. Male editors are editors. Female editors are editors. Genderqueer editors are editors. In each of these gender groups, and all others, the difference between individuals is going to be a lot more important than any similarities – especially since within each group, there will not be one single similarity that is not also shared with all other groups. In other words, a talk page discussion that is "healthier for women" is either going to be better for all editors, or better for some women and worse for others, and the mere wording is going to alienate a substantial number of female editors. --bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bonadea. Even though I requested that editors from that page not be called here, you made this post. Why? I didn't want this thread to become a part two of that one. For reasons I've said there and in this thread, I didn't reply there. I replied here (and only because Novem Linguae replied to me and I felt okay about expressing my feelings on that reply here). Now I feel unsafe in this thread. I posted to the Teahouse for uninvolved opinions from friendly editors. I don't want this thread to be a mouthpiece for why editors might behave in very subpar ways toward others when the page is a featured article or serve as an extension to say why an editor there may have been treated the way they were treated there. That will only lead to that editor arguing with the one saying that about them. I have gotten plenty of advice and insight already (thanks to friendly editors above and email), and this thread wasn't meant to be about just one discussion page. This isn't a knock on you, EMsmile. Your comment before this post is appreciated, and I can see from the article and talk page you pointed to that many agree with you about Wikipedia suffering from a male-female gender gap and partly due to bias. Still, count me out for saying anything more in this thread. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

When a discussion on one very high-profile and visible talk page links to a different talk page and criticises specific editors, it is a matter of basic courtesy to also create a link in the other direction. In some cases such a link is required – that is not the case at the Teahouse, but there is no reason not to connect the discussions, especially since the article talk page shouldn't be used to discuss editing behaviour anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, bonadea; I think a careful review of the entire talk page by anyone concerned will be revealing. Meanwhile, WP:FOC is a key aspect of Wikipedia editing that can be pointed out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Block vs Ban

What exactly is the difference between a block and a ban? Lomrjyo (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Bans can only be overturned by community discussion, appeal to ArbCom, or appeal to Jimbo. In addition, banned users' edits may be summarily reverted. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You can find more specific information at WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK.

The last paragraph of the lead section of WP:BAN states as follows:

Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism, disruptive editing or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans.

On the other hand, the last paragraph of the lead section of WP:BLOCK states as follows:

Blocking is different from banning, which is a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban.

I hope that helps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I have found this confusing. The explanation above concentrates on how ban and blocks are used, not on what they are. My explanation, maybe mistaken, is: a ban is an instruction to an editor to avoid certain topics or types of behaviour, while a block physically prevents them from editing. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Bans are formal editing restrictions, which blocks can enforce. A block is a technical prohibition from editing, meant to prevent disruption(such as violating a ban). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Louis III of France

I made some substantial edits to Louis III of France and I was wondering if it can qualify to go up from its original class. (Start-class I think) Xdude gamer (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: Welcome to the Teahouse! Each WikiProject has their assessment criteria and a way to request a review. See the following pages for more info:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle_Ages/Assessment

Hope this helps - happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: I've not yet done any content assessments specifically for WikiProject Biography, but their descriptions for quality grades are copied verbatim from the standard quality scale, so I'll take a crack at it. The absolute biggest (albeit only) obstacle I see to this reaching C-class is its contents' very poor verifiability. The reader experience for a C-class article reads as follows: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." I think this article would be a fine resource to a casual reader were it not for a glaring, multi-layered issue: putting myself in the shoes of a casual reader, I have basically no way to verify 90% of the content present in the article due to a lack of inline citations. I want to clarify before I go into this that this is neither your fault nor your problem, as this article has been like this for a decade; nobody's imposing any of this on you unless you want to go the extra mile and fix what your predecessors did terribly wrong. Say I – still a casual reader – read the text:

When Charles died in 877 and then Louis the Stammerer died two years later, some Frankish nobles advocated electing Louis as the sole king, but another party favoured each brother ruling a separate part of the kingdom. In September 879, Louis was crowned at Ferrières Abbey.

No inline citation, so maybe I scroll down to the section labeled 'Sources'. Now I have five sources to choose from: four books (one of which now has a link to archive.org; yay, progress!) and one journal article (the latter of which has the right year but the wrong volume; I'll fix that after this). Without inline citations, we already have a problem: which one of these sources – if any – substantiates the text? You, Wikipedia, want me to run out and find all of these just so I can hopefully find one that substantiates your claims? 99.9% of casual readers just quit at this point, but that's not even the end of it: three of these sources have no page numbers. So if I'm a casual reader who's actually bold enough to even try digging into this further using the sources I've been given, I'm now stuck digging through these books to find material that I believe may attest to what Wikipedia has said about it, and I'm not even sure some of these do. As an example, Charles Oman's The Dark Ages 476-918 (sixth edition, because our citation specified 1918) contains no mention of Louis III in its index, and a search for 'Louis III' returns nothing. As the icing on the cake, almost none of these have anything identifying them despite the fact that such identifiers exist. The journal article has no JSTOR or DOI despite both of these existing, and none of the contemporary books have ISBNs. The Charles Oman source, which understandably doesn't have an ISBN, didn't even have an edition number before today.

All of this takes this article from being "a fine resource for a casual reader" as I described above to being extremely frustrating at best for a student/researcher and practically useless for a casual reader. This is earnestly the only thing I think keeping this article mired in Start-class, but fixing it would be a pretty sizeable undertaking. GoingBatty, your thoughts? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the page in disarray and I actually didn't place any other new changes other than a bit of grammar, some headings, and other such bits and pieces. Oddly enough, I didn't check the sources. I thought they were reliable enough.

In my thoughts, I believe that perhaps a little more stuff could be added. But until then, some reliable sources will have to be found. Xdude gamer (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Further reading length

What is generally considered an acceptable number of sources to list in the further reading section? MOS:FURTHER says "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" and Wikipedia:Further reading says "the section should be limited in size". Is 10 too many? 20? 30? Wikipedia:Further reading goes on to say a "historical topic like World War II would run into thousands of items" which makes me think that thousands is obviously unreasonable, but that perhaps 100 wouldn't be. Personally I'd guess anything more than a dozen is too much, but I'm curious if there is a more specific guideline. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The thing with Wikipedia's rules is that they're almost always somewhat vague as to not be overly restrictive but still leave room for debate. In my experience, even looking at our most exceedingly long articles on exceedingly broad topics, the average is usually just shy of 10 – mind you, these articles have hundreds of citations and are thousands of words long. I believe, both here and in your discussion with Hoary, that you're referring to the article Minjung theology. I think an article of this length – especially one whose prose seems to be wanting for inline citations and possibly even expansion – could reasonably have one source at the most relegated to 'Further reading' material. With a 'Further reading' section for short articles, the question usually arises: "Could this be used as a reference? If so, it should be in references, not in further reading. If not, why is it in further reading?" For example, were this article substantially longer, 'A History of Korean Christianity' ticks all the boxes for an excellent 'Further reading' source, but this source is already (rightfully) used as a reference. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Further reading language

If I'm working on an article dedicated to something in a different country that has generally been written about in other languages than English is it appropriate to include non-English sources in the further reading section? Is it appropriate to include English sources in this context? It seems like English sources would be more helpful for English Wikipedia, but perhaps coverage from the country of origin would be more accurate and less removed from the subject. I'm also curious about citing sources in general throughout the article in this context. Is it better to have articles from the country of origin or is it best to have a mix? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Further reading" sections are unusual. For a minority of articles, they're helpful. Let's suppose that your article is about something far more discussed in French than in English. If there's an article about it in fr:WP, it seems a bit pointless to add French-language further reading items to the en:WP article: people competent to read them can get them from the fr:WP article (and if they're not already there, you can add them there). Country of origin? For matters pertaining to any particular country, perceptive, unthinking, excellent, crappy sources can usually be found among those published both in the country and outside it. So no, I'd never make a generalized statement that it's better to have material from "the country of origin", or indeed that it's worse to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• @TipsyElephant: Regarding sources, the guideline is at WP:NONENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed (...) However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As you note, the "equal quality and relevance" criterion is rarely met. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

79

 73.93.153.84 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a question? -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Blank draft

Please Accept My Article Shah Kinchitkumar Arya (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Shah Kinchitkumar Arya, your draft Draft:Arya Kinchitkumar Shah was declined as it has no content. Are you trying to create an article about yourself? Maproom (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

is the story about a women who lives lonely in toga(ilaheva)a legend or a myth?

 45.117.242.251 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. There are lonely women everywhere, but since there doesn't seem to be any place on earth called Togailaheva I would say it's untrue.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

ARTICLES FOR CREATION ISSUES

I submitted an article Draft:Virony Nigeria please check it out for any issues. Also I need to know if it is still under review or had been remove Sharges (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Declined today. Reviewer gave reasons. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sharges, welcome to the Teahouse. The current status of the draft is "declined". Please read the reasons given by the reviewer. The reasons given are that it sounds like an advertisement, and that it does not have enough high quality sources such as newspapers and books to meet our notability guidelines (notability = what is allowed to have its own article). Feel free to fix the issues mentioned, then hit the "resubmit" button to resubmit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please can you help me with the error and corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharges (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sharges, no. You are a paid editor, and we are not going to do your work for you. Read the resources that we have generously provided you with. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Muble Solutions Pvt Ltd

Is possible to create a company page for "Muble Solutions Pvt Ltd" Urogulfs (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Urogulfs. Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. My advice would be to gather up three good sources (newspaper articles, books), and post links to them here. We can double check and make sure this topic passes our notability guidelines. If it passes, then you can move on and create a draft. There are some slightly different processes and advice that could be given, but in my opinion this is likely to be the smoothest process for you. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia newbie, would like to request a major edit to a page but am clueless how to

Hello, I am a common Wikipedia reader, although I have never edited anything nor am I really sure what I am doing with editing. I never really wanted to bother with it, as most things seem to be very accurate. I have found something however that is related to a subject I am passionate about that seems incorrect, if not inconsistent. I do not know how to properly request an edit with proof and what not though, and I don't want to do something wrong and cause any trouble for it. I'm an avid wrestling fan, currently we are in Wrestlemania season which is the time of the year people will be reading more about it's history than any other time. I have found an inconsistency with the Wrestlemania Wikipedia page in the "Final Match section" This section does not state the "main event", but the literal final match. For 2020's Wrestlemania 36, the final match was Drew McIntyre (c) vs. Big Show for the WWE Championship, an extra match added after the Main event which Drew McIntyre won. However, the page lists the match which was the Main Event, not the final match of Wrestlemania that year. The entire show was on tape delay, so even though this match was shown the next night on Monday Night Raw, it was presented by WWE as the final match of the WrestleMania 36, after the Brock Lesnar (c) vs. Drew McIntyre match that Wikipedia has listed. The entire event was on tape delay so, my argument is that this match was presented by WWE themselves in WWE-canon as the final match of Wrestlemania 36. That event was held via tape delay, and most of the matches were presented to us the first two days, however the final match was presented on Monday at the beginning of WWE's Monday Night Raw. It was however still shown as the official final match that took place! Anyone can go back and watch that show and see this to be factual. I'm not sure how someone would add articles to show this as fact but, any wrestling related article about the event would verify that this is factual. This causes an inconsistency because the Wrestlemania 9 listed Final Match, Hulk Hogan (c) vs. Yokozuka, was not the main event but was also an extra added on match after the scheduled main event ended (which was Bret Hart (c) vs. Yokozuka, and Yokozuna won). So Wrestlemania 9 lists the extra match as the final one on your page, and Wrestlemania 36 does not. I feel that this could be confusing for fans. People reading the page may assume it is the literal Main Events of each Wrestlemania, but if that is the goal of the Wrestlemania Wikipedia article, than the Wrestlemania 9 Bret Hart (c) vs. Yokozuna match needs to replace the current one. If the goal is to show the absolute final match, than the Wrestlemania 36 one currently listed needs to be changed to the Drew McIntyre (c) vs. Big Show for the WWE Championship. Either 9 needs to be fixed, or 36 does. I would love to be able to request an official edit on this and help out with the accuracy of Wrestlemania history. I have absolutely no idea how I would do this, but I figured I would make a Wikipedia account, ask for help, and explain what I would like to accomplish! Thanks for your time! MoneyTakerBaby (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MoneyTakerBaby Hosts here at Teahouse are volunteers. Your 'wall' of text makes it difficult to wade through. It appears you believe one or more (?) Wrestlemania articles contain errors. The next step is either to A) change the articles, or B) on the Talk pages of the articles, start a new section, and explain there what you think is wrong, so that an editor reaing your comment will implement the change. There is no such thing as an "official edit." We are all editors. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MoneyTakerBaby, welcome to the Teahouse. My advice would be to post a much shorter version of this suggestion, in a new section on the page Talk:WrestleMania. An experienced Wikipedian will evaluate your request, and if they agree, they will make the change. I recommend writing your request in a "Change X to Y" format, and I also recommend including a URL to a reliable source that we can use to verify the change. Normally you can just fix articles yourself by hitting "Edit", but that particular article is semi-protected, probably due to recent vandalism. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. WrestleMania 36 has a description of Main event: McIntyre defeating Big Show, as an "dark match." There is a discussion about this on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I will comment that one of the most common good-faith mistakes by new editors in Wikipedia is posting a very long post, either asking for help or expressing a view about what should be changed in an article. We need to remember not only that concise posts are usually better but to encourage other editors to post concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Email query

 Courtesy link: Glenmuir Water

Received the following A reviewer suggested improvements to the page ‪......‬. Tags: uncategorised, refimprove.

What does this mean? Rmwmaci5 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The reviewer -- of which article? -- probably thought that categories should be added and that the references should be improved. (And how is this related to email?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what the user means but sometimes new users mistake the notifications for emails, or they have the setting to be emailed when they have notifications turned on. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 13:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rmwmaci5: The notification is about [3] which is a log entry created by this edit. It added two boxes with help links about references and categories. The second box has been removed because the page now has categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

how do I type

Excuse me but how do I type in roblox? 119.94.1.209 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

To start chatting, press the / key on your keyboard. This will open up the chat window, if enabled by the developer, and a chat-bar where you can type what you would like to say. Once you have entered your text into that bar, hit Enter on your keyboard to send it. This is also not the right place to ask such questions so please ask only Wikipedia related questions here. SenatorLEVI 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow Xx_SenatorLEVI_xX for more MLG Roblox tips and tricks. ;) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, well my actual username is Awesomecross123, but I made that when I was 12. I'm fairly good at MLG, thank you. SenatorLEVI 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If you mean the article Roblox, then you click the edit button to the left of the search bar. Please try to make your questions more clear in the future though. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability regarding awards/recognition

Jumping from WP:GNG, is there any guideline or standard regarding being the recipient of awards? Essentially, if there is a BLP article which is mostly being propped up because of awards received, would that constitute notability? I don't see anything in WP:NOTE that touches on recognitions and awards.
Some context; I have noticed a handful of BLP articles that include the subject's position/role/title in some organization, their published works, some awards/recognitions received, some bio trivia, and nothing more. Would such an article be deemed notable? Obviously each article should be inspected independently, but just looking for general clarification. Thank you! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC) PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, PerpetuityGrat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whereas the GNG is designed as a general guideline for any subject, WP:BIO is probably where you'll find your answer, namely in WP:ANYBIO, which states that a factor which can contribute to notability is that: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Depending on the article you're analysing, you may want to take a look at subject-specific notability guidelines. For example, WP:BAND has a whole slew of notability criteria not found in WP:GNG or WP:BIO. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi PerpetuityGrat. I am a bit conflicted because I believe that all of the subject specific notability guidelines should be deleted—because the only thing that matters is whether the sources exist upon which a verifiable article can be created, beyond a sub-stub, mostly based upon reliable, secondary, independent sources Template:Z21—and the SSNGs essentially function to provide alternative criteria for keeping articles where the GNG cannot be met, i.e., for topics for which insufficient sources cannot be located, and so no suitable article can be written but... "let's keep them anyway".

That being said, yes:

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)—a page I created and wrote most most of, but would now have deleted if I could—says "The book has won a major literary award" (a criterion I don't mind, but only because it's utterly useless – since any book meeting it will inevitably meet the GNG anyway);
• Wikipedia:Notability (films) provides: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking";
• Wikipedia:Notability (music) offers: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award";
• Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level";

And there's more in others. See Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. A common denominator of each of them is that the award be of special significance. You will find, for example, at many AfDs people will bring up some industry award as a basis for keeping, and then the discussion will properly turn to the fact that every industry has numerous awards at every level of significance, most of which do not confer upon the subject much "note" at all. (Sort of akin to the the fact that every movie poster has pull-quoted rave reviews. It's just that the good ones are quoting Rolling Stone and the The New York Times, etc., and bad ones quote some magazine you've never heard of, which functions solely to provide rave review quotes for shitty movies:-)

You can find numerous examples of this playing out in the results of a search like this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: & @TheTechnician27: Hoping to get some insight here. Here are three articles that I believe may lack notability. Hoping to get your analyses on these, in effort to further improve my understanding the notability criteria: activist Gigi Raven Wilbur, academic Ann M. Mongoven, and journalist Tanya Gold. Are these worth deleting in your opinion? Are these notable? Thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey again PerpetuityGrat. Unless someone is obviously notable, or obviously non-notable (i.e., for the former, a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, e.g., Google Books and JSTOR each return scads of results with substantive treatment of the subject; and for the latter, the person is contemporary and their notability is tied to online activities but there's next to no results for a Google web search), determining notability for edge cases takes a serious time investment in WP:BEFORE activities. Doing that with the due diligence I would need to invest to give you any sort of definitive answer would require me to make that time investment, which I'm not going to devote.

Maybe saying what I just did, though, helps? Let me put it another way, that might provide some more clarity. Putting aside whether a person meets some criterion of an SSNG that circumvents the GNG (which, as I've indicated, is in my view a waste of time, because such standards are non-encyclopedic bullshit), finding out whether someone meets the GNG for an on-the-merits discussion at AfD (i.e., what actually counts toward notability) always looks to the existence of the rights types of sources, with a sufficient depth of treatment, and not what's currently written in an article. That is why the time investment would be necessary to provide an answer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. A quick Google Books search returns a lot of results for Gigi Raven Wilbur. Again, I cannot really say without looking in more depth, but that is a facial indication that they are notable. Reinforcing the point above, whether the text of the article currently suitably demonstrates that notability is entirely irrelevant to the question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, of the three, the weakest article is about Ann, as three of the refs are to the website of the university where she has an appointment, and the others are to her published works. Nothing there ABOUT her. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle

Help, I have signed up at the proper spot indicating I want the news letter but I have not recieved it. Is there a period I have to wait until the recognize I joined or did I sign up wrong? Any help is appriceated. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: I’m not familiar with The Bugle but I am the Signpost. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Get me WP:IMAGES of Spider-Man!

@Gandalf the Groovy: Well how about that - I randomly stumbled across it while looking on another user's talk page, and so I added it to Bugle (disambiguation). Now the next person can find it more easily. You might have more luck asking about delivery on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Help! English-speaking reviewer who can read sources in French needed :)

I have submitted early december an article Draft:International_Association_of_Department_Stores which has been reviewed by SK2242. I have made changes, however he advised me to come and look here for someone who could review it top priority. I have submitted the draft 2nd of December, and I reviewed following his refusal on the following day. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! --Perchsquirell (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Perchsquirell (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Perchsquirell: I can see why it was declined. It could also be declined again unless it is restructured and tightened up. I recommend you reorganize it into these sections: History, Operations, Membership. I've deleted the long list of managers and external links - that's too much, per WP:NOTDIR. Refs go after punctuation. Avoid unsourced promotional-leaning sentences such as "Of the many scientific management research groups set up in the 1920s, the IADS is practically the only body that has a record of continuing membership and activity since then." Also, please read WP:COI if you have a connection with the organization. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

HELP ON A DECLINED ARTICLE

please can anyone help me with Draft:Virony Nigeria. The article was declined. Please help me with the corrections on the issues raised Sharges (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sharges. I don't claim to speak for everybody at the Teahouse, but there are a few huge, interconnected issues with your request that I think will disincentivize basically anybody here from pitching in.

• The first is that there's a very good chance this subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria or its notability crtieria for companies. Wikipedia editors can't create notability out of thin air, so there's a chance this article can't possibly be fixed until more coverage is given to it in reliable, independent sources (see: WP:TOOSOON). Essentially, an editor could throw hours of their time down the drain if the subject turns out not to be notable.

• The second is that, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is a community of volunteers. If nobody anywhere is interested in going onto Wikipedia to create a functional article, that article just doesn't get created, and given how much could potentially be covered in a project like Wikipedia (and its sister projects, etc.), editors usually already have a ton on their plates.

• And the third is that this article has been paid for and is wholly an advertisement. I don't want to use your disclosure against you, as that's the right thing to do; it would've been completely evident to almost any experienced editor that this article was paid by the sort of corporate 'dialect' it uses. Wikipedia was founded as a space where corporations don't get to just throw cash at a platform to advertise their products or represent themselves more favorably, and therefore editors give articles on active corporations the utmost scrutiny. Moreover, even assuming editors didn't care about the project's integrity whatsoever, there's still the matter that this would involve unpaid volunteers fixing the work that you were, well, paid to do, and for the express purpose of generating profit for a company. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

What TT27 said. You are asking for free help because you failed to complete what you were paid for. Teahouse hosts advise, and on occasion will help with good faith, non-promotional efforts by non-paid editors. David notMD (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

An idea based around Simple Wikipedia.

So there is a Simple English Wikipedia. What if they made a Simple Spanish, or a Simple French Wikipedia?

Would it make sense or would it be a waste of time? Just a simple question, is all. xdude (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There will never be another simple Wikipedia because the policy changed since simple wiki was created. Ruslik_Zero 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Out of curiosity, I went to that page and there's nothing about Simple Wikipedia. I did find this though, which suggests that the groundswell of support for closing the largest Simple Wikipedia discouraged others from starting a foreign language version. You'd think that policy would be clearly spelled out somewhere though. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The rules are written a little squishy without hard boundries, in my opinion. It says the language must "ordinarily have" its own ISO 639 code (but not that it MUST) and it also says that "in most cases" it excludes written forms of the same language. Perhaps there is enough wiggle room there to convince someone that a "Simple French" Wikipedia should be approved, but it seems unlikely. RudolfRed (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Timtempleton and Xdude gamer: meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3) is the most recent attempt to shut down Simple English Wikipedia. The way I'd boil it down is that creating the Simple English Wikipedia was an experiment that has clearly failed, but not quite so badly for efforts to shut it down to succeed. Still, there is zero appetite to repeat the failure in another language. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Huh. I didn't really know they had that proposal! I can see that going on though. Simple Wikipedia is a bit dumb and it doesn't have enough articles to make it worthwhile. It has everything there (infoboxes, templates, etc.) and yet most people don't use it. And it doesn't have much of a fan base...

  I guess I learned something :) xdude (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Xdude gamer: most people with the competence to write for any Wikipedia have little interest in writing for simple Wikipedia. Readers should be editors but our audience of readers there is inherently different from the audience of editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: If there was enough motivation, someone could fork Wikipedia and create their own (not sponsored by WMF) encyclopedia based on a "Simple" version of a language. RudolfRed (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation of an article

I've submitted an article that has just been created : Thanks. I had this article transmated into Spanish and Russian. How must I proceed so that the reviewers know that it's a"simple" translation (without going trought the whoe process of a review) ? Thank you. Pariswasafeast (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pariswasafeast: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for working to expand it. The article still needs to be reviewed because each language Wikipedia is a separate project with different requirements for articles. RudolfRed (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm too scared to edit

I've come across many statements which were provided with almost valid sources while editing Wikipedia articles.But they usually represent personal opinions or partial point of view. Since I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm hesitant to edit and remove these statements in the fear that I might be banned permanently from Wikipedia. What should i do in such a situation .RonaldWeasley.voldy gone moldy (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to make the edit yourself, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page suggesting that the material be improved or removed. RudolfRed (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Consider WP:BRD. Use editsummaries, and discuss as necessary. Opinions are not necessarily wrong to include in a WP-article, it depends on the context, see for example WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, don't be afraid! Seriously, the worst that will happen is you'll get reverted and you can discuss things. It's really hard to get blocked permanently the first time, you've got to really try for that to happen. Showing good faith, and using edit summaries to explain reasons and discussing on the article talk page goes a really long way to making other editor welcome your edits, presence and thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah really remember just to be bold. If you think that it will improve the encyclopedia then do it. There's no reason to be afraid, especially as a new editor. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia:Be bold is written precisely for people thinking what you are thinking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Being bold is important on Wikipedia" , Wikipedia:Be bold - do not be afraid, you will not be banned that quickly and if there will be plenty of warnings before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

ADD HEADING I NEED HELP

how do yu adding head JohnSmith43526 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

JohnSmith43526, hello, friend! You add a main heading by surrounding the text with double equal signs, like this: == Heading text ==. You can get a subheading by typing three equal signs instead of two: === Subheading text ===. You can add up to 8 equal signs (I believe...) for increasing smaller subheading. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith43526 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Question from New Editor About Irish Twentieth Century Charts

I have been asked a question by a new editor that maybe someone here can direct them toward. User:Waldenhorse submitted Draft:Andy Cooney, and I declined it, and he is trying to improve the draft. He says that Cooney charted in Ireland in 1986, and is asking for help in finding popular music charts for Ireland in 1986. So my question is where to tell him to look, as in, for instance, what WikiProject could help him. I am sure that he would appreciate any other advice about getting his draft approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Waldenhorse ---> Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and ������WPCOUNTRYMUSIC ??! CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Translated source lists

I am translating from the French wikipedia here, and I am not sure how I should translate the reference list. Most of the references look like they're from French language reference books that I doubt would have English equivalents. Any advice? NightS H I F T (49) (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nightshift49: Its fine if you don't translate most of the sources. Keep the original titles, publishers and the like in French. That way readers can easily go find the sources by searching the french title. Obviously translate dates. AdmiralEek (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Nightshift49:. The basis for this is WP:RSUE. Best regard--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nightshift49: I recently translated perhaps ten articles from fr.wikipedia on French women artists. I would not assume that the French sources or article claims are correct. I stopped using fr.wikipedia as a translation source because I discovered too many factual errors and exaggerations in the French Wikipedia that would not survive on en.wikipedia. When I did use the French text and sources, I would try to use the URL of the source in the cite web template to expand the source. This is preferable to simply translating the parameters of the "lien web/titre/auteur" template to the English version. I'm not sure what you can do about verifying the short refs without a URL that you mentioned above, but I would give it a try if possible, perhaps in Google Books. --- Possibly (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nightshift49: I suggest you use the |trans-title= parameter when creating references to publish the English translation of the French title. GoingBatty (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Declined

An article which I wrote was declined. [[4]]. This person was not considered "notable." They were a prominent model in the 1980s, having been on the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine three times, being the subject of four full pages in Francesco Scavullo's 1982 book "Women," appeared on tv talk shows, being notably young to be on the cover of a magazine as referenced in an issue of New York Magazine, and having two articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer written about them. Additionally, they were given the first offer to appear as the main actress in the 1980 eight time Academy Award nominated Martin Scorsese film Raging Bull, though this is not readily verifiable. Is there more required to be notable than 8-10 independent published sources? Cjc716 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cjc716. Your draft has only three references, so the rest of the 8 to 10 you mention are not relevant to this discussion since they are not included. The first is her obituary. Most editors agree that obituaries are not fully reliable sources because the content is usually provided by friends or family unless the person is very famous. In this case, her brother was the source for much of the content. The second is a book by a photographer she worked with which includes an interview with her. The third is a magazine story about "hottest models" featuring a photo of three other models on the cover. The anecdote about Scorsese is also not relevant because it cannot be verified. Models are not notable for appearing in advertisements because that is what they all do. Models (like anyone else) become notable as a result of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the model, the photographer, the advertiser or the publication the ad appears in. The Scavullo book adds nothing to her notability because it is not an independent source. In conclusion, the references now in the draft do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cjc716: I just reviewed Draft:Lisa K. Cummins. The closest guideline is WP:NMODEL, which is really more general entertainer notability. With that in mind, the New York Magazine article listed as a source doesn't seem to mention her at all. I also Googled her and didn't find any significant coverage except her obituary. Appearing on several covers of notable magazines in itself isn't enough - someone has to write about her doing so for it to be notable and usable in an article. There's unfortunately not enough coverage to demonstrate notability (as defined by Wikipedia). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I read the New York (magazine) article and it mentions Cummins in one sentence. That's a passing mention, not significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I definitely missed it. Uncomfortable subject to linger over. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

how to get better at editing

i am just starting out and i don't know how to edit properly if there are any tips i can get from people that would be a great help Key word once (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Key word once: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. There is also the WP:TUTORIAL. RudolfRed (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits like this one here [5] at Paronymic attraction are unhelpful though, the spelling was correct before and I have reverted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Locking an article

How to lock my article? Wiki orb2 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If there is a problem such as ongoing vandalism, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. John_Felix_Raj which you edit a lot, does not seem to have that issue. You might want to read WP:OWN. RudolfRed (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wiki orb2, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to lock an article (whether John Felix Raj or anything else) to your version, the answer is that you can't. Doing so would be contrary to everything that Wikipedia stands for. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And it worked as it should! Had it been locked, this hagiography advertisement/CV masquerading as an article would have remained that way, but it's much improved since you've posted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Not being able to edit any page

I have been editing various articles, and now have completed 7. For some reason, all Wikipedia pages now only allow me to "edit source" or "view source." There are no "edit" tabs available to me. Can you help me on this? Caribou J (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Caribou J, and welcome to the Teahouse. Which page are you having trouble with? 'Edit source' is just editing directly in Wikipedia's markup language, and some pages (such as the Teahouse) only allow source editing. However, when on an article, you can go into 'Edit source' and freely switch back to the Visual Editor at any time by clicking the pencil icon in the upper right and selecting 'Visual editing'. It could just be that you ended your last edit in source mode, so the next time you went to edit, Wikipedia provided you with the option 'Edit source'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much for your quick response. That did it. I have been surprised at how many articles are semi-protected or more, and one can only "view the source." I was able to do what you said with "edit the source" tabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribou J (talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Caribou J: You are only one edit away from being able to edit semi-protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How long would you think it takes to make a general Wikipedia page on a person?

Maybe something around this length? Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schur Isaacrsmith (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Isaacrsmith, and welcome to the Teahouse! This answer is so variable based on the editor(s), the subject, the quality and quantity of sources about the subject, etc., that there's almost no way to give you an answer that's not wildly incorrect for your specific circumstance. Personally, I would call "several hours" a conservative estimate for one experienced editor. Assuming you're looking to write a biography yourself, maybe just knowing who the subject is would help us give you a better answer. If this is the case, I want to advise you that creating an article is one of the most difficult tasks for a new Wikipedia editor, so much so that we generally recommend it for advanced editors. Nevertheless, we obviously don't discourage new editors from trying their hand at article creation, and the page on your first article is worth a read if you want to, so to speak, dive into the deep end. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Isaacrsmith, hello, friend! In addition to the information kindly provided by my fellow editor, I would suggest that, if you choose to try your hand at creating this article, you create it as a draft. By doing this, you can work on the article without interruption (except for the occasional nosy bum like myself) and without any pressure to create it quickly. You can also then submit it for a more experienced editor to review and offer you feedback of any necessary changes. Good luck on whatever you choose and have a nice evening! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There are many. many valid biography articles much shorter than that. Tend to classified as Stub (the example you chose was next higher rated Start). What is essential is having at least three reliable source references that are about the person. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacrsmith: 100% agreed with what David notMD has said here, and I really should've brought it up when you mentioned the biography's length. Stubs are much easier to create than a medium-length one like Michael Schur, and there's room to expand upon them in the future. Creating a solid foundation is much more important than creating a sprawling article right off the bat. There's no stigma at all – not even a little – to making a short but informative, high-quality article and then expanding upon it. As an example, let me show you how the article for the star Sirius started back in 2001 versus how it is today. Obviously that 2001 version would need citations to independent, reliable sources with significant coverage to survive on today's Wikipedia, but an article of that length and quality of prose would be entirely admissible into the project today. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Got it! This is all very helpful! Seeing the growth of the Sirius article definitely helps me get a better grasp of what I'm trying to accomplish. I appreciate the help.Isaacrsmith (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The important thing is to create a solid foundation, which means to provide enough evidence of notability that the article cannot be deleted. Generally that implies reliable references not connected to the subject. When filling out the details, the standard for references is more variable depending on the nature of the content they support. Starting with a well supported stub is quite acceptable.
If you can list your references and the name of the subject here, I am fairly sure someone here will be able to advise you if the article is likely to be accepted before you go through the effort of creating it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of Press Releases and Social Media

I am on a quest to update and create pages on minor state legislators in the US. My next target frequently posts on Facebook. To what extent can I paraphrase his (or his staff’s) posts to use on the page?

Thanks, FlyingKitten2024 FlyingKitten2024 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FlyingKitten2024, welcome to the Teahouse. We should try to avoid this as much as possible. Using WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources in articles is not ideal. This is one of the reasons that WP:GNG exists: to ensure that there is enough quality material to write articles. As much as possible, you should try to use WP:GNG type sources to write the article. If your choice is to leave the article as a stub, or expand the article with WP:SELFPUBLISH, it is usually preferable to leave it as a stub. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae It does, thank you!Followup: what about press releases advocating for something? The guy put out a press release urging WV Congress members to oppose dc statehood. Should I include that?

FlyingKitten2024, anybody under the sun can crank out as many press releases as they want. If reliable independent sources report on his stance regarding DC statehood, then it can be included. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that a given press release is worthy of mention. We summarize what reliable independent sources say, not self-serving press releases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sounds good!

@FlyingKitten2024: To add to what Cullen328 stated about the use of press releases, I think they can be used to complement reliable sources but shouldn't be used wholly in place of them. So for example, maybe there's an article in the Charleston Gazette-Mail about a statement in this representative's press release. So maybe in the article you could say: "XYZ stated that they believe Pluto should be made a planet again." And then cite an article from the Gazette-Mail and another subsequent one of the actual press release attesting to this information. Primary sources aren't always bad, but we never want Wikipedia to become overwhelmed with what subjects have to say about themselves. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding chronological history and material to Surf Etiquette article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Surfing etiquette

Hi Wikipedia editors, I submitted the Surf Etiquette article, and it was denied as a "How to" article. I had reviewed all the writing rules and format.

My question is if I am able to find historical reference (chronological dates of certain rules posted, legal cases, articles and books) will this be adequate to add to the article and be published?

Why do I think this information is necessary. Surfing is seen an explosion of interest, growth and expansion. Yet, there is really no "written" rules outside of magazine or online articles regarding these surf rules-of-the-road. I've seen and experienced more rules broken these last three months than in the last 6 years.

Thank you, Lisa H. Navymom9194 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Navymom9194: I suggest you reword each sentence with the second-person pronoun "you" or "your" per WP:PRONOUN, and any other sentence that is written as a direct order (Do this, don't do that), and any sentence that starts with "And". I don't understand why the draft states "There are certain unwritten codes of conduct", as you provided pictures and references of various codes of conduct. GoingBatty (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Navymom9194. I'm not sure that a draft like the one you're working on will ever be OK for a stand-alone article per WP:NOTGUIDE, but perhaps some of the content might be able to be incorporated into Surfing if rewritten in a more encyclopedic way as suggested above by GoingBatty. This might be something worth discussing at Talk:Surfing. Finally, please take a look at c:User talk:Navymom9194surfer because there are a number of problems with some of the images you've uploaded to Commons to use in the draft. Basically, you've uploaded some photographs of copyrighted works that appear to have been created by others; such photographs are likely WP:Derivative works and Commons cannot keep them unless it can be demonstrated that either (1) the photographed works are no longer eligible or not eligible for copyright protection (i.e. they fall within the public domain) or (2) the consent of the copyright holders of the works has been obtained and verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is a lack of information on surfing etiquette in the Surfing article, and a considerable amount of useful information in the draft. I recommend merging the relevant content into the main article and copyediting it so that it states what surfers do,which is encyclopedic, as opposed to what you, as a surfer, should or should not do, which is a 'how to' guide or advice in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My article

 Hdfhsdgav (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC) why did you canceled my article

If you mean User:Hdfhsdgav/sandbox, that is not a WP-article, it seems to be a story you wrote. Take the time to read WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hdfhsdgav, please make a few evidence-based, constructive edits to an existing article or two, and thereby persuade me that your purpose here is to improve the encyclopedia. (NB I do not want any barnstars.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I add references to an articles and how do I create my own user page?

 N Jeevan (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

N Jeevan it looks like you already have a userpage at User:N Jeevan. To add references, see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Article on new info

New info not on the internet Hey, I have tryed to write an article on Jamiscus Cubensis, a rare psychedelic mushroom that there is no info on the internet about yet. I tried to write an article but was told that i should edit the original psilocybe cubensis article putting Jamiscus cubensis as a subsepecies. I did this but got denied because I have no refrences but there are none to use. What do i do Thanks Bigbobbycarter (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bigbobbycarter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a topic has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, it would not merit a mention on Wikipedia at this time, and unfortunately there is nothing you can do until such sources exist. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How is it possible that Jamiscus cubensis is subspecies of Psilocybe cubensis when both have different Genus ? Parnaval (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Any Draft Reviewers here?

Hello everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia. Draft:Divya Gokulnath (The co-founder of BYJU'S), this is my very first draft. Kindly any reviewers please go through this. Regards YogeshWarah^Talk 09:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Yogeshwarah: welcome to Wikipedia. The draft has been correctly submitted for review, and it will be reviewed in due course; as it says in the yellow information box on the draft, that may take days, weeks, or in some cases months and I'm afraid it is not possible to predict exactly how long it will take. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Last of the summer wine

I was looking at the individual characters pages for LOTSW and notice they are no pictures of the characters is it possible to added them it is the following pages

Nora Batty

Norman Clegg

Compo Simmonite

 Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fanoflionking. The answer, I'm afraid, is "probably not". Unless you (or somebody) can find free of copyright images (very unlikely for a fictional TV character), or unless you can use a non-free image in a way that satisfies all of the non-free content criteria, then no image is possible in those articles. --ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Black and White in black and white; guidance on capitalization.

It has recently become fashionable to capitalize "Black" where it refers to race, which also has predictably sparked a countertrend to capitalize "White" in similar circumstances. Where could I find community guidance on this? I looked at WP:MOS/CAPS and found nothing except for an undecipherable closed discussion on the talk page. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Jacona (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of title

I feel like a bit of an idiot in that I created a page of a person and forgot to capitalize the last name. How do I fix this? FlyingKitten2024 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FlyingKitten2024,  Done. You're not an idiot, it was just a simple mistake! Have a nice day! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

EDG 543 Thank you so much!

Unrelevant sources and wrong information in the article

What can be done in order to remove wrong information from unrelevant sources from the published article? Dejanmilic (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Dejanmilic, see WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. Bringing better WP:RS can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Quote, Pages, and Chapter Parameters

If I'm using a long source to support multiple sections within a Wikipedia article and I would like to use the quote, page, or chapter parameters to indicate where and what I'm citing how would I do it correctly. For instance, what if I use the quote parameter, but there are two different quotes I want to use, one for each section. Do I create an entirely new reference/citation? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba

How can I restore this article which was deleted? I have made necessary adjustment and wish to republish it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torksimlife (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Torksimlife: Welcome to the Teahouse! Once you have understood all the feedback you received on this article, you can follow the instructions Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Notable sources

Hi there, I'm writing a biography page for an international artist and designer, and I'm unsure of how many sources I will need to support the article. Do I need sources for every piece of information? Or just a minimum of three sources? Would interviews count as reliable sources?

Thanks for any suggestions! Mamiecolfox (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be best if you add a source for everything. Also see Wikipedia:Interviews. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mamiecolfox: Welcome to the Teahouse! Gather your reliable sources, summarize what they say, and use the sources as references. If you're considering including information that doesn't have a source, then I wonder if you have a conflict of interest that you should disclose on your user page before proceeding. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How and what do I exactly do when you nominate an article for ITN?

I'm trying to nominate 2021 Boulder shooting for ITN, but I don't exactly know how to nominate it. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 14:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

LightningComplexFire, The procedure is outlined at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Thank you! ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Inforboxes

Hi guys, I'm new to Wikipedia, but have a few pages I'd like to try and tackle in the near future. One of which is a company page so I'm just learning how to do this - can anyone advise on creating small sideboxes which usually contain company picture and general information, such as website, employee numbers etc. Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks Keeptothefacts1988 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Company page sideboxes

Hello - can someone please help me identify how to create company page sideboxes, which usually contain employees, turnover etc Keeptothefacts1988 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You will need to use some kind of template to do it (or create one), but please be warned, if the article is about a company, please keep a neutral point of view, as documented at WP:NPOV. Thanks. EGL¹²³⁴ 14:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How does someone make a team?

So something like a Typo Team or a Guild or whatever.

Kind of want to make one :) xdude (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Xdude gamer Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Do you have an idea of what you would make a guild for? Starman2377 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How to change my signature??

I don't like the classic default signature. How do I change it? AwesomeHurricaneBoss (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signatures § Customizing your signature. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)