Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, 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

help with review thats been months now

Hello there, I improved my sourcing and would like someone to take a look and offer an opinion on whether it's been improved enough... this draft was already excepted and then was returned to a draft out of the blue. Almost all the sources are huge news websites in Israel and none was paid or is a press relase and this company is traded as well as many people uses its tech. Its been months since the last review and I feel its not fair so I was told to write here, can someone help please? --Shanisun (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Shanisun (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Shanisun. You might feel that it's unfair that your submission hasn't been reviewed yet, but you're being paid to edit whereas the reviewers, like the vast majority of other editors, are volunteers, so I would say that it's unfair for you to expect them to review your submission to a deadline. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Yes I was paid when I worked for but now i'm not and I must say I dont expect anything but its been months and not weeks and I waited till i thought its been long enough. Didnt mean anything by it...

• @Shanisun: Right now the article is not in the review queue. You could add it by placing {{subst:submit}} on top of the page, but you would do well to ensure you have addressed the previous criticism before. Are there three reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject at length? If not, the article will not be accepted. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There are more and most of the sources are from the biggest news and econamy sites in Israel. I feel something in the process of this draft isnt going as it should be and i hope you can help.. by the way, I waited since feb this year since a reviewer told me it is in the queue. Shanisun (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Itamar Medical Theroadislong (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it was in the review queue, Tigraan, it's just that the template was at the bottom of the page. Now it has two of them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the newer of the two AfCs, so that it will be clear that the submission was in March. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, I came here for help and now it seems my draft is under attack... I will try to explain again since im in loss of words and understanding of whats going on...

Itamar Medical is an Israeli company, its now public and also has offices and employees in the states. I wrote the draft and its written in the formal tone and it was approved. Than, it was removed and placed as a draft again due to sources. now, i have almost 30 sources in the draft, all the Israely websites are the biggest sites in Israel and all articels there were written by journalists and none was paid or is a press realease, i.e: ynet, globes, haaretz, TheMarker, walla. How can this be and the draft isnt approved and now there is a new reason of tone? is there something I should know or is it because its an Israeli company? please explain because i really dont understand whats going on here and its been for months now... Shanisun (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to put in a request for an experienced contributor to create a new Wikipedia entry?

Hi,

I run a children's science magazine called Whizz Pop Bang that has been published every month since Aug 2015 (we're on Issue 71!). Many other newer magazines with smaller distributions have their own Wiki pages but not this one :(

As someone who has an interest in the magazine and who has never edited a Wiki entry, it doesn't feel right for me to create the page. Is there a mechanism for putting in a request for someone to create a page about the magazine? It has 20,000 loyal and loving subscribers, mostly in the UK but also internationally too.

The website is: https://www.whizzpopbang.com

Thanks for any help and advice you can give. RedFoxMonster (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello RedFoxMonster and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking first, that will save you time and effort. Yes, there is such a place, WP:REQUEST, but it's very backlogged and you'd have to be quite lucky. However, per WP rules, existing is not enough, see this link: WP:GNG, that is your first hurdle. Do you have 3-5 sources, that are at the same time independent of the magazine (and you, etc), reliably published (no blogs, wikis etc etc) and about the magazine in some detail? Articles about it on BBC, Times etc would be excellent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Like this: [1]. Do you have a few more? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the speedy response! The following sources aren't as high-calibre as the Guardian but would they be enough?...

• https://www.teachwire.net/products/product-review-whizz-pop-bang-magazine
• https://www.rockthecotswolds.com/rockers/all-the-rockers/whizz-pop-bang-magazine/
• https://www.theschoolrun.com/best-educational-magazines-for-children
• https://startups.co.uk/startups-awards/peoples-champion-finalist-2018-whizz-pop-bang/
• https://www.teachwire.net/news/teach-primary-awards-2019-finalists-announced

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedFoxMonster (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond at your talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

For the interested, Whizz Pop Bang. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm (almost) at edit war with Asoftchsolutions

For a few edits now, Asoftchsolutions and 103.163.58.98 have been adding links to asoftechsolutionsllc.com which I was reverting because I do not consider these additions valid. To me, these additions appeared aimed at promoting the company (describing the company as "Best website and app development company" coupled with the similarity of the user name and the domain name). I left two messages for this user (on Talk:Outline of web design and web development and User talk:Asoftchsolutions), but so far did not receive a reply. I read WP:DISPUTE, but frankly, I'm not sure how I can resolve a dispute with someone who does not engage in discussion and just pushes their own edits. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh, thanks for noticing that account. WP:DISPUTE is aimed primarily at conflicts where both parties are editing in good faith but just disagree. When an account is clearly operating in bad faith and WP:NOT HERE to help us build an encyclopedia, such as here with an account inserting spam links, a different set of rules apply. For these accounts, the typical response is to give them a warning on their talk page, as was done by @Quisqualis, and to then report the account to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if they persist, which Quisqualis also did. The only thing left to do now is wait until an administrator comes along to block them, which should happen shortly. You can revert any further edits they make without worry, as the normal restrictions against edit warring don't apply when combatting spam accounts.

If you're interested in helping more with combatting vandalism, you may want to check out the counter-vandalism unit or try out the WikiLoop DoubleCheck tool. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Asoftchsolutions now blocked. 103.163.58.98 (possibly Asoftchsolutions, not signed in) has been warned. David notMD (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. Outline of web design and web development still gets a bunch of non-constructive edits from fresh accounts, but they are being reverted by other long-time editors. The level of vandalism right now probably does not need any special attention, but thanks for the tips. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I waded in to do a little copyediting, and the quicksand appears to have reached my bellybutton...

So, I picked this article pretty much at random from the list of those that needed copyediting, figuring I'd just do a little cleaning up.

But of course, it's more complicated than that. Nominally, the article is about a building. A residence. Which has changed hands many times; at a dizzying pace, lately, in fact. The British register of historical buildings thinks it's notable, and it's been cataloged in excruciating detail, which is reproduced in the article verbatim, copied-and-pasted from an un-cited source, which I surmise to be an un-published monograph, referencing nonexistent figures, etc. Lots of

South-east façade, symmetrical with central entrance; 5 bay with fenestration 2:1:1:1:2. South-west façade, also symmetrical with 5 bays and fenestration 2:2:1:2:2. Hipped Welsh slate roof with rendered stacks. Devonian limestone ashlar with pilasters carrying entablature and parapet, plain 1st floor band. Architraved sash windows with glazing bars.

ad nauseam. So, I set about boiling all that down a bit, to just the more pertinent bits.

Then I got to the second half of the article, which is a britophile heraldic litany just as bad as the preceding drone of architectural minutia. Also undoubtedly copied-and-pasted from some dusty tome.

So, which is it? Is this article about a building which is notable for its architecture (which is admittedly a hodge-podge of only-moderately-thought-out renovations), or is it notable for its inhabitants (who were, many of them, sufficiently notable to be included in indexes of British landholders, but not, by and large, sufficiently notable to be otherwise much mentioned, beyond the son of the founder of the Singer sewing machine company, who was, himself, merely notable for being an early example of a modern failson. (Oh, wait! Edited to add the salacious detail that his non-bio-mom had his dad arrested for bigamy!) Or should the whole darned thing be marked for deletion, as not meeting GNG? I note that there's not an SNG for architecture.

I'm kinda lost on what direction to take this clean-up, or whether to, well... When I was a kid, I'd sometimes pick up a rock on the beach or wherever, and ask my dad (who enjoyed geology) what it was, and often as not, he'd say "It's leaverite. Leave 'er right there where you found 'er." Is this leaverite? Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:TNT? CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe? I mean, one could propose a deletion, and see if anyone cares enough to come out of the woodwork. Or I could re-write the darned thing from scratch, though I honestly don't care enough about the topic to do a worthy job (I care a lot about architecture, but this particular pile of, uh, "Devonian limestone ashlar and Welsh slate" seems profoundly uninteresting), and the principal question would remain: if this building is notable, is it notable in and of itself, or notable because of the people who've inhabited it? The conundrum being that, to me, it seems clearly not notable on either account, yet the British register of historic buildings disagrees, and clearly a whole pile of fanboys have disagreed over many centuries. Bill Woodcock (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Burn it. Not clear if the purported notability is for the estate, the building, or the people who lived there. He history of the article appears to have been started with the people, then different editor added all the building description. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is purportedly about a house. I've removed most of its content, as not being about the house. I think there's scope for plenty more removal of content. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just whacked out a bunch more, and then added internal links to the pages of the historical notable owners. Good enough for now? Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

MUCH better. And given that the original creator is indef blocked, and the other major contributor stopped contributing in 2017, unlikely that there will be any champions for massive reverts. Now, find articles that need improvement and get more than five views per day. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

How did I get here?

Listen, man. I don't know how I got here. All I did was type some mumbo-jumbo on Google and click some blue words. Now I'm here. From what I gather, this is like a hidden page for Wikipedia editors or something? I've been going from page to page for an hour and it's just so cool-- seeing all these things that I feel like I shouldn't be able to see. Anyways, I'm probably just out of my mind right now 2601:482:1:28B0:3960:AB75:228A:186F (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user! This is a forum for new Wikipedia users to ask questions about editing here – it's definitely not hidden! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Every article has behind-the-scene stuff. Just click on Talk or View history. For the latter, clicking on the date for any of the list items shows what the article looked like on that date. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

SVGs

Anyone know of any users that are good at making vector graphics? Looking for someone to make an SVG of File:OK Kosher logo.jpg. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 03:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JediMasterMacaroni! I've marked the image page with {{Should be SVG|logo}}, so hopefully someone might come across it there. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, JediMasterMacaroni. I just re-drew it for you (it's at File:OK_Kosher_logo.svg) and replaced the instance on the OK Kosher Certification page. Note that I matched the color of the jpeg, so if that wasn't accurate, it may need some fine-tuning. Which I'm happy to do, if you (or Shlomke) want to do a little detective work; I can take that as a PMS number or an RGB value. Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@JediMasterMacaroni: For future reference, WP:GL is where such queries usually go. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bwoodcock for drawing it, and Tigraan for the info. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Need to know the Difference between Secondary and Primary Sources.

Hi Wikipedians!! So, I have got my Draft Virtue Clan reviewed. But I have been said that the article only has primary resources. I have read the links, but I am not clear with what that does mean. Please do help me with this. Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: There's more information at WP:PRIMARY (and by extension, WP:SECONDARY). Reliable sources you use should be independent from the subject, and shouldn't have any conflicts of interest that would undermine their reliability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea:, you reference a GQ article, but the article does not actually mention your subject. The Market Watch citation is just an un-edited reprint of your press release. The podcast is, arguably, a secondary source, as it's an interview with your principal, but it's a single source. Search engines don't really reveal any secondary sources; only your LinkedIn page, your press release, and your own web site; all primary sources. Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about page merge

Hi, I've been going over the Application Security and Web Application Security pages. They were full of outdated information and some information that I assume to be mostly of commercial nature (I teach this topic at an University in Vienna, Austria and hope that i do know enough of this topic, hopefully thats true).

Now when looking at Application Security and Web Application Security, they are highly redundant. Esp. the Web Application Security Page has some semi-relevant content that is already included in the linked OWASP page.

What I'd do is to remove the Web Application Security page, move most of the non-redundant content into a "Web Application Security" section in the "Application Security" page (and redirect to that). I'd throw away the existing "Best practices recommendation" and "Security standards" sections as the benefit is not clear and they are redundant to better content in "Application Security". "Security Technology" and "See Also" would be merged with the corresponding sections in "Application Security", this will remove approx. 50-75% of that content as it is already described in more detail within the other page.

Is this too excessive? I just went through the whole "information security" parts of the wiki, that parts might need some editorial work (which I can do from time to time). I do not have that much experience with wikipedia-editing, so I wanted to get some feedback first (to prevent cleanup work after mine) Andreashappe (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Andreashappe: While I am in no way an expert on the topic, your suggestion to merge Web application security into Application security seems very reasonable to me.

The main option would be to just go through with your changes and see if someone objects. This is the recommended course of action whenever you intend a change that is not likely to be controversial, and what I would do. (Do ask another question if you are unsure about the technicalities of how to do redirects etc.)

You could also formally propose a merge. There are templates to fill etc. but just leaving a note on the talk pages of both articles would already be a good step for that. However, there is a substantial risk that nobody will comment on the proposal, considering that it is a fairly technical topic, which is why I would recommend just doing it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What is solid policy on Wiki respecting different language and culture?

I was wondering this for a long time, what policy Wiki follows on different language writing styles and cultural values? For example, I have seen there is a warning that appears when you try to edit a British language version, while there are also some warning that appears when editing an old article that is culturally believed, for example, calling something in a specific way, editing that triggers the warning and is reverted back to the previous form. However, I have also seen many articles which require prefix or postfix but they are not allowed. So I would like to ask what is a solid policy that we can tag or cite during these edits? Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the policy you are referring to with regards to honorifics or titles is described here in part, at least. Regarding which version of the English language(i.e. British, American, Australian, Indian) to use in an article, please see this policy; in general, it depends on the topic. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There is also the broader MOS:HONORIFIC. Regarding "respecting", WP:CODI can be related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have some examples that come in the same policy shared above Ram Singh Kuka where it says Guru Gobind Singh Ji where "Guru" and "Ji" are both honorifics, or take an example of Guru Tegh Bahadur There are many references in this article with "Guru" "Shahi" "Ji" and many others all of it are honorifics, there are other millions of example which can be easily found on Wiki, either an organization has solid single policy for everyone or it allows everyone isn't it true?

Single policies usually cannot be applied rigidly in isolation. We also have a policy of using, as article titles, the name by which subjects are most commonly known by English speakers globally (since this is the English-language Wikipedia), even if they are not the official or even strictly accurate names. If (for example) a person is most commonly known by a name that includes one or more honorifics, that is the form of the name we should use. Determining whether this is so or not is something that has to be discussed and decided on a case-by-case basis. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Then is there a way to discuss honorifics? for a different area of the wiki do we have to use specific talk pages or there any bigger pages, like teahouse where it can be discussed globally?

Getting twinkle

Hello, I've read the Wikipedia:Twinkle page, but I'm not understanding how to get it. Can you please show me the steps Shabib (talk)

Hello Shabib20, welcome to the Teahouse, to install twinkle, you need to go to this page and use command/ctrl f to find the checkbox for twinkle, then simply check the box and twinkle should be installed for you. -Justiyaya (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, after checking the box you have to click "Save" at the bottom of the browser window, otherwise the changes won't take – I tend to forget to do that, and just go back to the previous page, and then I have to do it all over again. --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes SIGCOV?

Hello hosts! I need clarification on SIGCOV, what exactly amounts to SIGCOV? Because the examples given at WP:GNG leave a gap in the middle for what can be considered SIGCOV and some editors seem to apply it in different ways. So what is the minimum exactly? 1 paragraph? 2? 100 words? 300? Feature length article? Help please. Princess of Ara_(talk) 09:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If in doubt, discuss it on the talk page of the article about which you are concerned. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I looked through the archives and found so many perspectives. Princess of Ara_(talk) 13:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Unfortunately, that is highly context-dependent, and the gap in the guideline is likely intentional. The criteria given at WP:GNG, "no original research is needed to extract the content", is probably as detailed as you are going to get.

I would like to offer a precision though: the sources used to show notability are not the only ones you can use to write the article. I would say (others might correct me) that the rule of thumb would be whether you can write a useful (if short) article using only what you have in GNG-level sources, and if so, you are then allowed inputs from other sources (provided they are reliable, etc.).

For example, Magnus Carlsen (the current world chess champion) is notable because he has been covered in numerous articles from the general press, but the vast majority of the article is sourced to specialized chess websites that would probably be WP:ROUTINE coverage of tournaments (hence, not GNG-quality).

Do you have a specific article/draft in mind? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Your explanation makes and I've had the same Idea at the back of my mind but some editors look for more of the length of the article. The draft in mind is Draft:Uzor Arukwe. Thank you! Princess of Ara_(talk) 09:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Princess of Ara, Let the record reflect that I have declined it at AFC. AFAIK, WP:SIGCOV has nothing to do with length of the article in question (correct me if I’m wrong if that isn’t what you were referring to) rather WP:SIGCOV has to do with the sources and not the “length of the article per se” a tip; when using sources, avoidance of sources that point to a WP:TOOSOON might be a good idea. Sources with “10 ten actors to watch out for in 2020” or any sources with the title along those lines might be a good idea. Using WP:OFFLINE sources too is a good idea. Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I knew you were going to show up at some point. Thank you for being ever so consistent. The only reference SIGCOV makes to the content is that it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. It doesn’t say anything about the title pointing to TOOSOON. That aside, I agree that the subject does not exactly have significant coverage and struggles to meet GNG but even TOOSOON says that even in cases where a person might not meet the GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word. Editors are encouraged to also consider the topic-specific notability sub-criteria He meets at least #1 of the SNG for actors having had significant (named) roles in multiple notable movies except you’re saying the GNG is a must. Princess of Ara_(talk) 06:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to review draft article

Greeting Wikipedia family, I have submitted my article through the AFC process. I am here seeking your kind support to check and review my article if there anything I should improve.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Khmer_Beverages Lorheng (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to delete brand names. In my opinion, the content and refs do not establish that the company meets Wikipedia's concept of corporate notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). David notMD (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

deleting text box

Can someone advise me please how to delete the text box at the top of the article I have edited that has now addressed all the concerns about references and citing sources? The instruction page mentions deleting the relevant codes but I cannot see any when I go into the edit action. Trish TrishLudgate (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The article does not have properly formatted inline citations. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If you look back to the version prior to your edits this month you will see that the references were correctly cited, but you have removed those citations. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Roger Woodward has been more than tripled in length. Paragraph after paragraph contain unreferenced details. TrishLudgate has a deep knowledge of Woodward's career, but has not addressed whether this is because of a personal or professional connection, i.e., WP:COI or WP:PAID. The "Selected" lists of accomplishments appear to list every performance, recording, interview, publication, etc. Throughout, there is a lot of name-dropping. In my opinion the article would be better for having its current length halved. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Much of the material appears to be sourced to "National Library Australia, Roger Woodward Collection MS 10379". I am guessing that this is the collected papers of Roger Woodward, in the collection of the National Library Australia. As such, that would all be unpublished material, not suitable for use as a reference. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As a more trivial observation, it might be useful to expand the lede paragraph somewhat with some details summarised from the main text. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Separate pages for Japanese Breakfast and Michelle Zauner

In Talk:Japanese Breakfast, multiple users have brought up that Michelle Zauner should have a separate page due to Japanese Breakfast being more of a band now than a solo project, as well as Michelle's previous/current membership in other music projects, and her careers in both music video directing and as an author, all of which are separate from Japanese Breakfast the band.

There is a draft for an individual article at Draft:Michelle Zauner, however it did not pass AfC due to some of the information in it overlapping with the page for Japanese Breakfast. The reason there is overlapping info is because it would be irresponsible to remove this information specific to Zauner from the band page until this article is approved.

How should I go about this? Memories of (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Memories of. If there is enough independent published material about Zauner specifically to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there can be an article on her, based on those sources - whether or not some of the material is duplicated in the article on the band is irrelevant. If there are not sources that establish that she meets those criteria, then she is not (yet) notable for her solo career, and there cannot be a separate article on her. --ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I name a battle?

Hi, I have been improving the article Bairam Khan, who was a prominent military leader of the Mughal Empire. He participated in several named battles, but the battle that took place when he rebelled against the Mughal Empire has not been named anywhere. Interestingly, I have found three reliable sources mentioning the battle, two of which gave many details as well. We know the name of the village and city near which the battle was fought, so would it be appropriate to name it on the village or the city? The battle was an important event and has been described in considerable detail. Uchiha Madara 17 (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uchiha Madara 17: You shouldn't give it a proper name. For proper names, we rely on reliable sources; if no RSes give a proper name then you should refrain from making one up. However, you can refer to it as the battle near XYZ, or something like that. 106.201.110.52 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then I shall call it 'Battle near Gunecur' (the named village near which it was fought). Uchiha Madara 17 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a cool discovery. Might I suggest reaching out to a military historian/a historian of the Mughal Empire, and asking if they know of a name for that battle? They might be able to point you to a source where it has been given a name. If not, they might decide to give it a name themselves (or adopt whatever name you've chosen) and then use that name in a reliable source, in which case you can use it on Wikipedia! - Astrophobe (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Don'r let the title fool you, I know about copyright and all that. I was wondering if for large repitive tasks involving articles could you use a base template and fill it in with the nessaccary information. For example if I took the article Andrew J. Widick and wanted to make the article Francis A. Wilson could you take whats written in Andrew J. Widick and swap the required info. Is this allowed or frowned upon. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You could use the layout of one article as a guide for another. You could use a template such as an infobox found in one article in a similar fashion in another article. There's no problem in doing such a thing. However, you might want to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability because even though you format an article exactly the same way as another article, the subject will still need to be Wikipedia notable for the article to survive a deletion challenge. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Gandalf the Groovy for the message above. GeraldWL 14:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that in practice editors not infrequently do this. However, to avoid problems while working on the partially-altered draft, it might be a good idea to copy the exemplum article into an off-Wiki text reader on your own device, and make all the alterations there, before copying the result back into an on-Wikipedia draft. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with that approach, Gandalf the Groovy, is that I don't believe this is a repetitive task. What goes in an article depends on what the sources say, not on what an article about a different subject happens to say. I'm sure the headings are often worth copying, but the content? Also, if you're contemplating doing this, make sure you follow the practices in copying within Wikipedia: the licence conditions apply even if you're then going to rework what you copied. --ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, There is a template designed for this type of task {{Biography}} S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Was this image removal appropriate?

I removed an image at Pinkfong twice at here and here as it appeared to be promotional due to the logo and the wording of the caption (admire?), but it was reverted yesterday by the person who uploaded the image, and reverted again today. The edit summaries were as follows:

• My first removal: "Removed promotional image"
• First revert: "re-add Wikimedia Commons approved image" (that editor didn't refute my claim, and from what I understand, just because an image is Commons-approved doesn't mean it can sit in any article)
• My second removal: "this image adds nothing encyclopaedic to the article, has a watermark, and is not related to the company's actual industry which is kids' media and not cakes" (I meant logo when I said watermark)
• Second revert: *no edit summary*

I don't want to violate any rules, so can someone explain whether the image removal was appropriate? 45.251.33.134 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 45.251.33.134. Image use on Wikipedia is supposed to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Image use policy; in particular, images are to be generally only to be used when they're contextually relevant as explained here. The file you've removed is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a free license that meets Wikipedia's licensing reqiuirements; so, there no real reason to remove it for copyright concerns. That leaves contexutal concerns and that is where different editors may reasonably disagree. You feel the image is promotion, but the editor who re-added probably doesn't; so, basically what you've got now is sort of an image-related content dispute that you're going to be expected to resolve per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Continuing to remove the image is most likely only going to lead to it continuing to be re-added and eventually that will lead to you, the other editor or the two of you together being warned or even blocked for edit warning. At some point, somebody is going to need to stop and start discussing; so, my suggestion to you is to follow the dispute resolution process and start a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why you think the image should be removed. Invite the other editor to participate and explain why it shouldn't. If the two of you can't figure out some compromise together (perhaps there's another image that can be used that addresses both of your concerns), then move to the next step of the process and try and get input from others. Edit warring never ends in a win for those who take that route no matter how right they believe they are, but a discussion based upon relevant policies and guidelines may turn out to be a win for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears the image was removed by another editor and has also been nominated for deletion on Commons. So, that means there are copyright concerns and the image shouldn't probably be re-added until they're resolved. As for the watermark, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Watermarks even though that's not a formal Commons policy or guideline. A watermark isn't ideal in most cases, but it's not necessarily a reason for deleting an image and in some cases the watermark can be removed so that it's no longer an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly, I inadvertently found this discussion, although not given notification of it. Yes, the image is under discussion at Commons, and I agree that adding or deleting the image should be addressed at Talk:Pinkfong. Just let us know which editor needs to initiate it, please. I reverted the image deletion once, then attempted to discuss to avoid edit warring, but found two IP addresses had removed it and was confused where to address it, at 45.251.33.194 or at 45.251.33.134. Thank you,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bonnielou2013: Another editor besides the IP removed the image because they had concerns over its use as well, but the place to discuss this would be on the article's talk page. Even if you feel you're right about the image's licensing (which I think you are) and it's context (which might be not be the case), I wouldn't suggest anything that might resemble edit warring over the image. Leaving an edit summary each time you re-add the file is not likely going to be seen as sufficient and an exemption to the three-revert rule by administrators in what is essentially a content dispute. As I stated to the IP above, at some point somebody is going to have to start discussing things to try and resolve whatever the issue may be and that person doesn't automatically need to be the IP. In fact, since you7re one of the people who seems to be in favor of using the image in the article, it could be argued that the WP:ONUS sort of falls upon you and the others who want it used to establish that it should be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for edits timelines

How to request other editors to edit a protected article, element, template? is there a list of editors available somewhere or you just have to request on the talk page and editors will automatically be notified? Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman, you may find Template:Edit semi-protected useful. GeraldWL 14:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sir Ubaid Ur Rehman: for a slightly easier route, the edit request wizard fills in some of the fiddly stuff for you Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Translation Pages

I am bilingual. I want to translate a few pages from Spanish to English. Do I have to make a brand new page? How do I do that? How do I keep the image/border formats? Thanks. Heuristically (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Heuristically: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information on how to do so at WP:TRANSLATE. Just be aware that policies differ between Wikipedias of different languages and not everything is going to make it over. Image and border formats should remain unchanged if you bring the code over as well (remembering to attribute it to the other Wikipedia). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia do not have the same criteria for what defines a reliable source reference, so an article existing in Sp-W may be Declined if submitted as a draft to Articles for Creation, or else nominated to Articles for Deletion if created as an article. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources to get an idea of what is required. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Protected Page

Hello, I want to edit a protected page. I have the references, but I am not sure of my language. If I edit, can someone review it to be neutral and acceptable on Wikipedia? GONvsKillua (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@GONvsKillua: What is the page you want to edit, and what do you want to add to it? 106.201.110.52 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi GONvsKillua, welcome to the Teahouse, if the page is protected, and you cannot edit the page, you can submit an edit request, basically using the talk page (by clicking on a button that says "talk" next to the article button that is next to the wikipedia logo) to propose an edit. If you can edit the page, be bold with your edits and don't be afraid of making mistakes. Feel free to link the article and type the proposed change here, and we'll add it for you if that's what you prefer. Justiyaya (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Your query here at Teahouse appears to be your very first edit ever, so you will not yet be able to edit a protected article. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Need help in findind pages for editing!

I want to edit but i cant find articles which requires editing and which don't. Is there any way to get info about articles that needed editing. Siddartha897 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Siddartha897, and welcome to Wikipedia. The page WP:Backlog displays current Wikipedia backlogs, which you can help clear. A good backlog to start in is Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. Make sure to remove the tag at the top when done.
Really, most articles need improvement. You can try finding an article that interests you, find reliable sources, and then add content to the article. The introduction is a good place to start on this.
Hope this helps! — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Siddartha897. I occasionally visit the Wikipedia Task Center to find articles that need copy-editing or similar tasks. I've been able to do a few interesting edits that way. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897 You can also try WP:Backlog. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

yep! @Berrely:, @Mike Marchmont:, @Qwerfjkl:. Tqs for the info.Siddartha897 (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Uploading images(of celebrities) to wikimedia.

Is there a better way where can i find copy righted imaged which i can reuse here. I mean is there a specific source. Siddartha897 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897, you can only upload "free" images of people to Wikipedia (images that can be used commercially). Pictures of people don't generally fall under fair use and hence can't be used on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia profile

GoodDay! How does one go about getting a profile of work on Wikipedia, who has worked with many other people with Wikipedia profiles already? Thankyou (redacted) 2600:1700:2D60:53F0:55F5:9FE3:F605:E18 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. One would have to be notable by Wikipedia's standards, and understand that Wikipedia is not a site to post resumes and CVs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia does not include "profiles". We have encyclopedia articles. Please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Page of my own

FYI

 – added header Maresa63 ^Talk 19:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello can anyone tell me how to do a page of my own? is this possible? Cheers Mate Bluebellthecat2905 Bluebellthecat2905 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluebellthecat2905 Do you mean creating a User page or an Autobiography? ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 19:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluebellthecat2905, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, as previously asked by Qwerfjkl, do you intend for a Wikipedia article on yourself? If yes, then unfortunately we strongly advise against such. See WP:COI and WP:AUTO.Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving draft to article

Hello, I have completed my draft of the article "Sennay Ghebreab" and want to move it to article now. But there is no button "Move" as described in the instructions. Can you please help me publish my article? Noaghebreab (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Noaghebreab, you need to read the messages on the draft page. Your draft has too few reliable sources to support notability, and you have used inappropriate external links in the body of the draft. Submission right now will guarantee another decline of your draft.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft:Sennay Ghebreab submitted to AfC, Declined, resubmitted on 9 June. In time it will reviewed. While waiting, remove all the hyperlinks and improve the referencing. David notMD (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Since I frequently work with academic bios, I was asked to comment. There are two major ways in which the draft is unsatisfactory (1) It is very highly promotional & not written in an objective fashion. It contains far too much material about person life, activities that do not amount to notability , an impressionistic account of his teaching and work, and an account of his university department. A WP article focuses on a person's notability , sp the peripheral material needs to be removed. The style of writing needs to be improved also: the first step will be removing all the adjectives. (2) He is borderline notable according to our standard, WP:PROF Notability in his field of work is judged primarily by showing the scientific work influential, as measured by citation o it in Google Scholar or Scopus, etc. In the biomedical standards , the minimum accepted here is at least 2 papets with well over 100 cites, but Google Scholar shows 123, 98, 65, .... It's not a formal guide, but the results of recent article discussions here makes it clear that this is what people examining such articles at AfD regard as acceptable. Perhaps it should be lower, or higher, or not used as an indicator at all, but it is what is used, and there is no point in accepting a Draft if the article is going to be rejected at WP:AFD. However, he's working in a specialized area, and, it might be one with lower citation density. But there's an objective way to sse how influential he is: compare his citation record with people in the same field whom he cites or who cite his work: .His most cited paper, with 132 cites , cites papers with 551, 430, 328, etc but that's not very indindicative as everyone can & usually does can cite the classic papers in their field, What is indicative is that his papers are cited by papers on very similar subjects with 503, 329, 309, 253. 219. 100, 98, 88 ... .. citations frome one of his better-cited papers, and 339, 219, 124, 92, 72 from another. , which is enough to show he is important in his field bt not one of the most important. On balance, I would accept it if the promotionalism gets fixed, and let it take its chances at AfD. After all, WP:Draft is just meant as a prelinary approval step to get rid of the drafts that are not going to pass. With the promotionalism in, it will not pass, with it removed, it might. I'm copying this to the user talk pa as a record. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the article title and the author name, it seems there might be a conflict of interest to declare. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking for editors to create a page about myself

Could someone help me creat a page about myself ? and have my LinkedIn account page as a reference to my Wikipedia , given any additional information needed . TyseanS99 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

TyseanS99 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct you in that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages" about subjects. You may make a request at Requested Articles- but leaving aside the severe backlog there(almost rendering RA useless)- you seem to want an article to enhance your internet presence or search results for you. Wikipedia is not concerned with those things- they may be a side benefit, but that's not our goal. A LinkedIn profile is not acceptable as a source. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you truly feel that you meet that definition, you should allow independent editors to take note of your career or life and choose on their own to write about you, forcing the issue doesn't usually work.

Please also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock a Wikipedia article to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others unaffiliated with you from editing it. Any information about you, good and bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

COI Question

I am currently being paid to work on an artistic project pertaining to a specific individual. My employer reached out to an art funding organization in order to receive extra funding so that I could work longer than the project budget initially allowed. My employer and I decided, that with the additional time I would be able to work, thanks to the extra funding (not the funding we received for the project), I should research the person the project relates to and potentially write an article here for them. We were never asked to create the article, nor is anyone paying us to (rather we are using money given to us to support the arts), but I want to be sure there's not conflict of interest I should disclose. From what I can tell COI occurs when: I am the person the article is about (I am not), someone has paid me specifically to write an article, or I own the thing the article is written over; so I don't believe there is, but it never hurts to check. JorodHistory (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

JorodHistory Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking your question. Since your editing falls within the purview of your work, I think that you would be considered a paid editor and you would need to disclose that per WP:PAID. You don't have to be specifically paid to edit Wikipedia to be a paid editor. As for a conflict of interest, it doesn't sound to me as if you have one, if you or your employer are working on this project without the knowledge of the person your work is about. I'm certainly not an expert, though, so feel free to hear other opinions. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

JorodHistory I agree with 331dot that you are a paid editor. It seems fairly unambiguous: you are creating a Wikipedia page on someone as part of your employment. See WP:PAID for the proper procedures.--- Possibly (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Quick question: who would the client be in this scenario?

Question In regards to updating a Voice Actors page

I am having trouble with editing a Voice Actors wiki page.The Actor in question is Sean Schemmel,who in the past has made Homophobic remarks. I have sources to several articles and and a video from youtube. But my edit keeps getting removed. GBZ93 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@GBZ93: Your edits keep on getting reverted owing to the fact that YouTube videos are often non-RS. treekangaroos (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

GBZ93 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia content must be sourced to independent reliable sources. YouTube videos do not often qualify. IGN may qualify, depending on the story itself, though a mainstream news organization would be better. Please discuss your proposed edit on the article talk page. Edits about living people are subject to the Biographies of Living Persons policy, and must have very good sourcing, especially for a controversial claim. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@GBZ93: I agree with 331dot here. BLP articles:

must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Your edit breaks the many guidelines of WP:MOS, such as MOS:YEAR and MOS:PUNCTUATION. Your edit can also come across as confusing or unclear. treekangaroos (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Honest question, how do they come across as unclear? and thank you for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBZ93 (talk • contribs)

Stub

Hi I have been working on expanding this article, at the moment it has 590 words, can I remove the "Stub" template, according to this page it says that one of the criteria to remove the stub template is that the article has more than 500 words, do I have to take into account other criteria to remove the template? Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 00:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JSeb05. I have upgraded the article from "stub" to "start". A stub is defined as "an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I think the article provides a basic level of encyclopedic coverage, and to me, that is more important than word count. Thanks for working to improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting help with a large amount of research for "List of Bohemian Club Members"

A lot of people listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bohemian_Club_members have their "Living" column blank, and it will require a lot of research to fill in the missing data entries. RandomUser1035763 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RandomUser1035763. There are way too many redlinks on that list, in my opinion. It makes my eyes glaze over. I notice that Bob Weir is on the list, but what about Mickey Hart and Jimmy Buffett? Aren't they members too? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't create the list, but I just decided to start working on filling it out. It seems like a really daunting task, which is why I asked for help. I'm not sure about the other band members; I'll have a look at the source for Weir and see if there's anything about them. RandomUser1035763 (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomUser1035763: That looks like quite a bit of work. I did the first redlink on the list, out of curiosity: Hiram Reynolds Bloomer. Best of luck.--- Possibly (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice start, Possibly. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RandomUser1035763 (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with refill in regards to page: The Word is Murder

Created the page: “The Word is Murder”. Shortly afterwards it received the notification that it was using bare URLs. Ran the refill tool as suggested and it fixed three of the four bare URLs. It gave an error message for the fourth URL stating that “No title found”. What do I do now? Anastasios999 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anastasios999: Courtesy link: The Word is Murder fixed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Help to reset my password

Accidently my account was lodged out (@TewariKamal) and now i don't remember the password to login. Please help me reset my password . 106.195.126.5 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

TewariKamal has not specified an email adress, or it was not confirmed, so a new password cannot be send. Iff you find the confirmation mail in your inbox and its less than 7 days old, you might be able to click the confirm link in order to confirm yoour email, after which you can visit Special:PasswordReset to get a new password sent to your inbox. In all other cases, you unfortunally won't be able to get a new password, which means that you can only create a new account with a different username, stating your previous accounts name and the fact that you have lost your password for that one (and don't forget to confirm your email this time). Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

To add to the above, if you are not able to retrieve the password, you can just create a new account. If you do, please write on that new account's page that you had edited as TewariKamal in the past to avoid any suspicion of sockpuppetry. Also, consider adding committed identity to your new account as an alternative account recovery method. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Why Ariana Grande article is extended confirmed protected?

So, when I go to Ariana Grande article it is indefinitely extended confirmed protected, while other singers article (e.g. Taylor Swift and among others are semi-protected). So, why Ariana Grande article is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely? Lkas123 (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lkas123. Articles are generally only protected when they are subject to serious disruption, and usually the degree of the protection depend on how many times the page has been protected before as well as how serious the disruption is. If you do to Ariana Grande, click on the edit tab and then look at the top of the page, you see a box that states "Note: This page is protected so that only users with extended confirmed rights can make edits. See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection." If you click on "View full long", you'll see exactly how many times the article has been protected over the years. If you want more specific details you can ask the last administrator to protect the page for further clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Lkas123 I haven't examined the Ariana Grande article yet, but if it is subject to a higher level of protection, it means that the lower level(semi) was ineffective at ending disruption. The most likely explanation is that users were creating accounts, making 10 edits(productive or otherwise) and waiting 4 days to become confirmed, and then engaging in disruption. It's harder to game the system with extended confirmed(500 edits and 30 days). 331dot (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Official video as source?

Can a video from official YouTube channel be used as a source, for example an official channel of a TV network has released trailer/teaser of its upcoming show, then could that video be used as source? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

In general, an official YouTube channel of an existing TV network or news paper or other organization is considered as comming from that organization, so it inherits all properties of that organization. So you can use it as a source. However, it is not an independent source on itself. So TV news reporting uploaded to YouTube is probably a reliable source about the news being reported, but the TV channel promoting itself on its YouTube channel is not reliable source on itself. Do you have a specific example? Anton.bersh (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Update a Page for and Org that Pays Me

Hi! I’ve been successful at having some basic updates to a page for the Direct Selling Association in the past. My bio page discloses I am paid by the organization. I want to ask help from someone who can update basic board of director information for me? I saw in the Wikipedia app my talk page history and I asked those editors for help but I find this whole thing SO Confusing I don’t understand the best way to do anything here. I am honest and I don’t want to violate rules. If someone could help me and maybe explain things to me? I would have a better understanding for the future. Thank you so so much! BradReichard (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

BradReichard Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you have already declared a paid editing relationship, you are halfway there, really. You simply need to propose any chanegs you feel are needed on the article talk page, Talk:Direct Selling Association, in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). It is possible to do this with the app or mobile version(I find it harder, though others do it successfully), though those do not have the full functionality of the regular desktop version. It may be easier for you to do it with the full desktop version in a browser on your phone; if you scroll to the bottom of any page on Wikipedia in the app, there is an option to switch between versions. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thank you for your response! So I made the edit request here and I was wondering if you could maybe see if I did this correctly... I would love some guidance. I am always so confused by this interface. Thank you! BradReichard (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

BradReichard Looks good. If no one replies after a time(a week or so), you can then mark it for attention by adding {{request edit}} to it. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot ok so what you said means that I go on to the talk page and then simply type that HTML code {{request edit}} with the doubled open and bracketed "request edit" and that flags someone to help me out? Thank you so much BradReichard (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct.(though you would leave off the "nowiki" tags that serve to suppress that function here) 331dot (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot, the fully functional desktop site works just fine on current smartphones. I do 99% of my editing that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. That's what I was advising them to do. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Challenging an entry

There is an entry in the historical description of the G7 that is flat out wrong: "British Queen Elizabeth II was forced to broker a deal to form a minority government after a hung election, creating a situation so unstable that another election the same year had to take place." The British Monarch is apolitical and doesn't have the political authority to "broker" anything; much less the formation of a government. CPN 11:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CPNowell (talk • contribs)

CPNowell Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please bring up your concern on the article talk page, Talk:Group of Seven, where the editors that follow that article will see it. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance CPN 12:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's been changed now: Special:Diff/1027859962. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

References

I need help to add more content to a locked article please

Hello, i hope your doing all great. Im here because i need help to add more content to an actual wiki, content of which is locked. Please Help.. (heres the url ↓) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lujaina_Mohsin_Darwish Danielbrandnitions (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Danielbrandnitions Hello and welcome. The article you link to has been protected("locked") due to conflict of interest related issues and sockpuppetry. If you have a conflict of interest, please review the conflict of interest policy. Once you do, you may visit the article talk page, Talk:Lujaina Mohsin Darwish and make a formal edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed, preferably sourced to independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor creating drafts of fictional people/albums

I've been watching the edits of the editor Silverwingsband98 from about six months now – what's unusual here is that all their contributions [2] are to create drafts for entirely fictional articles, clearly with no intention of ever publishing them in mainspace (because they are obviously fiction) and keeping them as drafts, presumably for their personal amusement or satisfaction. Attempts to politely ask them on their talk page why they are creating fictional drafts have been reverted without explanation [3]. And when the six-month draft period runs out, they simply ask for undeletion [4], so clearly they plan on keeping the drafts indefinitely.

Should I actually do anything about this? On the one hand, they aren't obviously vandalising or hoaxing Wikipedia by keeping these articles in draftspace, and they wouldn't dare try to publish them in mainspace as they'd get called out as an obvious hoax immediately. On the other... Wikipedia isn't supposed to be someone's personal playground for their fantasies, and to keep drafts forever. But I know that going to ANI seems an extreme response that would just cause a lot of grief and hassle, and maybe I should just let things be and mind my own business. Any advice? Richard3120 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged some of them for speedy deletion as blatant hoaxes, there are many more though! Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: they are all hoaxes. For example, the two supposed live Queen albums – these were supposedly recorded during tours for the last two Queen albums with Freddie Mercury, but the band never toured these albums, as Mercury was too ill by this point to perform. Mercury's last performance with Queen was in August 1986, five years before his death, and before either of the last two albums were released. You will find no evidence of the existence of these supposed live albums – no chart positions, no reviews, and no evidence that the tours took place, because they didn't. Richard3120 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly... all articles have been tagged for speedy deletion and the editor blocked, although the latter was never my intention. Thanks to everyone for their help. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The nice thing about Speedy deletions is that not only are the drafts gone from draft space, but in addition, all history of contributions to those drafts have vanished. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

False, uncited statement leads to edit war warning

Please see the warning at User talk:Thelisteninghand and my detailed response, as I have had no response from the editor I disagree with. Any editor who could take the time to read this carefully will understand that WP is making a completely false claim on Miles Davis (final years). Davis makes a vague statement in autobiography - editor has made own incorrect interpretation. Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Already being discussed at Talk:Miles Davis. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Small Doubt

Where do questions in TEAHOUSE(here) vanish aftersome days. I can't find my previous questions. Siddartha897 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Siddartha897, teahouse questions gets automatically archived 3 days after completion, you can find archived questions by searching for them in the archives section that is right under the table of contents. You can also browse archives by clicking on archive pages individually, like this page Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1112. -- Justiyaya (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Butler Leather Goods Factory

Hi,

It would be great if someone can help getting my draft reviewed and help it published sooner than later. You can access my draft at Draft:Butler Leather Goods Factory

Thanks again!

Regards Mellontikos (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mellontikos, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has one reference, the company itself, and on WP, that doesn't work at all. See these links, WP:GNG and WP:NORG, for the sources that are crucially necessary, and if it applies, follow the guidance at WP:COI carefully. You also need to learn how to add inline citations, WP:EASYREFBEGIN has guidance on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, once submitted, it goes into a pile of about 5,000 drafts waiting for review. Not a queue. Could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before reviewed. Teahouse hosts are not reviewers. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Mellontikos, your draft has not yet been submitted for review, so it is not yet in the review queue/pile. I agree with other commenters here that the draft is not ready because it does not have adequate independent reliable sources as references. Once you have improved the referencing and think it is ready to be reviewed, click the submit button to put your draft in the review queue/pile. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

All content, regardless if true, must be removed unless there are published articles entirely independent from the company that can be used as citations. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I recommend the entire Key Role Players section be deleted, with instead a simple sentence in the history section, to wit: The company was founded in 2008 in Chennai, India, by Noorul Islam, with guidance and some funding from Magnus Nystrom, Director of Nystrom Stockholm." David notMD (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

how do I edit the title on a draft article?

how do I edit the title on a draft article? Palisades1 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Palisades1: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're autoconfirmed you can do it yourself by moving the page to another title in draftspace; otherwise, don't worry about it too much and drop a message in the associated talk page so that someone who sees it can do it for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm hesitant to create a new article because of the long time it takes for review. The page (Joe Whitty) was submitted several weeks ago and Id hate to go to the back of the line. There are several different pages that refer to the same name - can change the name after it has been accepted? Again, thanks.Palisades1 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Palisades1: If the draft's title conflicts with that of any existing article (which I don't see in the case of Draft:Joseph Whitty), whatever reviewer approves it will see to it that the title of the article is suitably disambiguated. If there are non-conflicting overlaps (like that of Joseph Whitty with Lawrence Joseph Whitty), suitable hatnotes can be added to the articles, or a disambiguation page can be created. You don't need to do anything now. Deor (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again. Palisades1 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't upload image

Hello,

I am the owner of the artwork and I am trying to upload it to a post though I keep getting told " We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

The file is in good standards, is the correct information, and I own the rights to upload it. Why can't I get this too work>

Also when I clicked on the links this error message gives me it just brings me to a the home page and not the info that I need to look up to fix this issue. I can't even shoe you the message because the nI try to attach it I'm just told the same issue basically

Please help and thank you, Ray JusrtMakingTheWorldBetter (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

JusrtMakingTheWorldBetter, let's take a step back. Who created the artwork you are trying to upload? And who took the photo of the artwork you are trying to upload? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I am the creator of the artwork, my tribe voted on the final piece so it was a group effort of hundreds of people, but I am the one that made the design and the final art.

Thank you

Hello, JusrtMakingTheWorldBetter, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about c:File:Official Otter Pride Flag by Bearbackgear.jpg? You have succcessfully uploaded that image to Commons, and I can't find any evidence (in your Commons talk page or user log) that you have had any trouble doing so, or that you have tried and failed to upload another image. In any case, problems on Commons are better asked about at c:commons:Village pump than here. --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: the records of the other attempts can be found in the commonswiki abuse log. (For unknown reasons, abuse filter hits only show when you look into the abuse filter log, not on combined log pages). Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Our water, I saw a post telling me we should stock up on water, terrorist may contaminate our water supply. If this is true, would you be warning us?

 Porchpicker (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Porchpicker: Welcome to the Teahouse. We don't answer questions like this here, as it doesn't pertain to editing or using Wikipedia. Perhaps you should contact your municipal office? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting a draft page of a translated article

I'm working on a draft that I translated from PT Wikipedia. It was already submitted once before and rejected due to primary sources (I'd just used whatever sources were in the PT version). I've now beefed up the sources and re-submitted; I just want to make sure that I formatted everything correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Antonio_Peticov.

Is there anything I need besides the bit stating that the page was translated from PT Wikipedia?

 Actionactioncut (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The prose seems a bit purplish. Here are just three sentences: In the midst of the travels of the evangelizer André, his wife, Gláucia delivered the couple's second child to the world. No obvious need for "to the world". Actually you could just say "Antonio was born to an itinerant evangelist and his wife", or similar. Throughout his life Antonio witnessed the evangelizing work of his father, preaching the word of God throughout Brazil. He did? There was nothing particularly secret about my own father's (entirely secular) work, but I witnessed virtually none of it; which makes me wonder: Did the son actually attend the meetings? And isn't "preaching the word of [their supposed] God" what professional evangelists do? (Is there a need to say this?) It was the beginning of an awakening that, in truth, would become eternal. (Unsourced.) All men, Socrates and your biographee included, are mortal; thus the "awakening" (vocation?) will not be eternal. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: The prose is definitely purple at times — it's still very "Portuguese" in style. As I was just translating, I didn't want to make drastic edits to the content, but is it okay to remove unsourced flourishes? -- Actionactioncut (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Actionactioncut, if an article at pt:WP is larded with twaddle, I hope that somebody will cut it out and in the meantime feel sorry for its readers. Please don't inflict this on en:WP readers as well. No, you are under no obligation of fidelity to an original. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Article declined

I've just had an article draft declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Casper_Esmann I am not affiliated with the subject in any way so I don't really understand comment from the reviewer. All the info in the article is taken from valid sources such as newspapers or tv broadcasts. Flyinglonglegs (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyinglonglegs. It means that there are lots of sources cited that mention him, but none do so in any depth or detail. We need that depth of independent coverage to meet our Notability criteria for living persons, as he doesn't appear to meet our Criteria for Musicians at this point in time. See also WP:TOOSOON. (Note: this is a general response; I have only skimmed the draft and have not checked all the references. The reviewer would have done that.) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Getting a notable person's page published

 Courtesy link: Draft:Donald E Brown

I'm a new editor, but I know this page, Draft:Donald E Brown, is notable and should be published! Right now it says that he is not notable and that the page may be written from a fan's point of view... how can I or someone else fix that? I don't see any fan language, and the sources show he's notable, including a Wiki page about at least one of his companies, Interactive Intelligence. If you search Donald Brown or Don Brown CEO on the Internet, he's kind of a big deal in the tech world... help! Cadams55 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cadams55, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, allow me begin with correcting a misconception, Wikipedia does not have “pages” on anyone, rather we have articles on encyclopedic notable subjects. As for the {{fanpov}} tag, it means the neutrality of the article is questionable because of the wording, specifically because of promotional wording, reading WP:NPOV should help you get better insight. Lastly, I noticed you used an exclamation mark in your opening statement, specifically in this line above; I know this page, Draft:Donald E Brown, is notable and should be published!, it is generally considered rude, we are all volunteers here and assisting or helping you, requires you to be polite. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

To expand a little, Cadams55: firstly, an article (what you called a "page") is never notable, rather the subject of an article is (hopefully) notable, and the article has to demonstrate that notability.

Secondly, "notable" doesn't mean in Wikipedia what it means in normal speech. Rather, it means "has been written about at some length by persons independent of the subject, in several different pieces published in Reliable sources that are known to practice good editorial control and fact checking." An article should be mostly or entirely a summary of the information contained in such sources, to which it must all be correctly cited – that is how the article demonstrates the subject's notability and verifies the information.

Trivial and uncontrovertial facts (like job titles) can be corroborated by less-than-extensive mentions of the subject, and/or by sources not independent of the subject (like a company web page), but these can't be used to support notability in the Wikipedia sense.

Thirdly, "notability is not inherited" (check the title of the essay – that link to "Notability is inherited" is part of a list of invalid arguments). It may be that a company is notable, (i.e. well documented in independent published reliable sources) but its CEO (for example) is not: the opposite might also be true.

Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.58 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi I have a question, what template and set of rules do you uses if you want to request a section in and article be spun off into its own article. BigRed606 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Splitting. That article explains when splitting is appropriate, how to propose a split and how to use templates, including Template:Split. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

re-visiting a deleted entry with new material and serious updates

Re-visiting a deleted page - notable changes

Hi all, wanted to softly check - whether besides my typical / basic scientific contributions - if leading my country's first ever space mission to the ISS is considered as notable and hence to revisit my original entry and update?

Thanks very much for ur help and guidance .

see https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/malta-to-send-research-capsule-to-international-space-station.872020 and https://foreignandeu.gov.mt/en/Government/Press%20Releases/Pages/Malta-to-send-scientific-experiment-to-the-International-Space-Station.aspx and many more Professor Joseph Borg 22:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Borg (scientist) was created and then deleted in 2018. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Borg (scientist). I am not sure if these new potential references (or any other accomplishments in the interim) would justify trying to create the article again. Borg himself is not going to the space station. All that is going are tissue samples. David notMD (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem with article title

When people search for T.I. Webb, Jr. but they leave off the final period (after Jr.) they get a "Did You Mean" page. This has been a problem, believe it or not. Would you please do a redirect for T.I. Webb, Jr (no period) to T.I. Webb, Jr. (with period)? It may be that some email links automatically disregard that final period causing an incorrect link. Thank you. Eagledj (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eagledj, hello and welcome, I see you are a regular, have you tried engaging with the article creator or try and seek consensus at the tp of the article? Assuming both have failed then the appropriate venue should be WP:RM. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eagledj: I turned T.I. Webb, Jr into a redirect. It's also better to request redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, or just create them yourself. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

When is the article I have made visible to the public?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Mason Smith

I am just wondering when an article that you have written is open to the public eye, when I search for "mason smith" the article does not appear. Bruinsfan65 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bruinsfan65, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, it takes probably 3 to 6 months(I’m unsure) for an article to be indexed by google. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bruinsfan65: Welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is currently in your userspace, which search engines do not look for. If you'd like, someone can help move it into draftspace where you can work on it before submitting it for review with {{subst:submit}} at the top. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Bruinsfan65, search engines will not find any userspace pages or draft pages. They also will not find new articles until they have been "patrolled" by a qualified editor or created by trusted editors with the autopatrolled user right. Read Wikipedia:New pages patrol for information about the process. Once a page is marked "patrolled", Google will index it in a matter of minutes. On another matter, please read the notability guideline for hockey players. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving an article into draftspace

How to I move my article from sandbox to draftspace? Bruinsfan65 (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bruinsfan65: You need to be autoconfirmed—your account should be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits—in order to be able to move pages. In the meanwhile, you may request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves (but I have already moved your article to Draft:Mason Smith, so there is probably no need for that). Kleinpecan (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"I have already moved your article"—nevermind, Celestina007 did it before I could. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Bruinsfan65, see Draft:Mason Smith. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Be aware that now that it is a submitted draft, could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before it is reviewed, as there is a huge backlog of drafts. Meanwhile, work on improving the draft. You got a comment that the refs are not up to par. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi there! My name is Emma, i just recently got into editing for a few wiki pages, which were adding information about celebrities on certain articles and i'm overall still new to this. I have a question, in regards to editing articles and such, how do you usually find your sources? (I mean, I'm actually trying to learn about how to research and find credible and reliable information, along with how to write impartially.)

I got a notification from an Alexanderlee, welcoming me to the community, and thank you for that. They also said to refer to this Talk (Teahouse) section if ever I have any questions.

Thank you for your time! Have a nice day! Ggyuwwoo (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ggyuwwoo! Which sources are best really depends on the article—e.g. history pages obviously need very different sorts of sources than chemistry articles. We have a detailed policy on what we consider an acceptable sources at WP:Reliable sources, as well as examples at WP:RSP. Those might be good pages to start. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ggyuwwoo, For living people, its mostly just googling. Now, you want to make sure your sources are reliable. For well known publications, you can check this list. For less known publications, it takes a bit of practice, but you can get a sense for what is "quality journalism" and "tabloid nonsense" pretty quickly. For living people, we have a set of standards that are higher than the rest of the encyclopedia: WP:BLP. In short, living people have reputations that we could damage (and sue us for!) so anything we say about them has to be from a good quality source, especially if its controversial.

When we say write neutrally, we mean a few things. For one, a neutral point of view. Now, that usually isn't too relevant for mundane stuff. It only really comes into play when there is a controversial topic, usually historical. But neutral also means that we write in the formal style of an encyclopedia. Our writing is stuffy and almost detached. Its factual, without puffery or embellishment. This is important for living people, as we don't want to make them seem more important than they are. That does a disservice to our readers. The finer points of encyclopedic writing take some time to grasp, so don't be afraid to ask for more advice :)CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Undelete draft

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I am trying to undelete draft and publish it, how can I do this? Draft:Gehad Hamdy Mrjohnaytedvx (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mrjohnaytedvx! There are instructions at WP:REFUND. Let us know if you have any trouble and we can help. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

How to create a page that redirects to another page?

How to create a page which when linked in another page do not show a red link? When glyconeogenesis is linked in another page (like glyconeogenesis), it redirects to gluconeogenesis. Glyconeogenesis is not gluconeogenesis. How to create a new page for glyconeogenesis ? Thermoacidophile (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thermoacidophile: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can access the redirect page by searching for glyconeogenesis then clicking on the link in the small text below From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. From there you can delete the redirect, but you may want to consider writing a draft in draftspace first (see Your first article if you haven't made one before) so that it is substantial when it enters mainspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Found it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermoacidophile (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Proteon draft article, looking for advice to improve.

I had noticed that a few articles on WP referenced a non-existent article for pioneering Internet router company Proteon (for example, the Token Ring article), so I personally set off to remedy the situation with Draft:Proteon. My article was rejected for non-notability. I suspect I wasn't clear enough in my description, since I had a number of 3rd party sources including books and journals about Internet history and historical trade publications. The feedback was cursory and perfunctory. I modeled the article after several similar pioneering Internet companies founded in the 1980s, so I was a little surprised at the reject. Any advice on improving would be welcome beyond the canned feedback. I made some changes and resubmitted, but given the long turnaround time, I thought I might seek further advice. Remaker (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Remaker Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure which articles you used as a model, but unless they are classified in quality as a "good article", you may have chosen articles as a model that were problematic themselves. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about.

The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning that there is at least a chance it can be improved. The main issue seems to be that the sources you offered do not have significant coverage of the subject, and that the article just tells about the company and what it's done. Wikipedia articles must do more than that. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company(please review). Announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, staff interviews, the company website, and other primary sources do not establish notability. For example, Ford Motor Company does not merit an article because they opened or closed a factory, or released a new car model, but because many people outside of Ford have written extensively about Ford and its effects on the auto industry, manufacturing in general, and society. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for the reply. I have cited journal articles and independent books on the history of the Internet confirming the prominent role played by Proteon in Internet history. They invented foundational technologies that power this very website, though were ultimately dominated by competitors. The mainstream media took little notice of Internet technology at the time, so relying exclusively on traditional mass media seems to be a too-narrow view. Millions of people were impacted by this company's work, especially in developing the OSPF protocol and early LAN technologies. Using your Ford example, Proteon would be more akin to Abbott-Detroit Remaker (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Remaker If the sources go into extensive detail about this company, that isn't clear from the text that you submitted. The sources only cite what the company has done, not why it is significant. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

how to edit my Wikipedia account

 Imranafzalchauhan (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Imranafzalchauhan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What is it exactly that you wish to do? I can think of several different ways to answer your question depending on what it is you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:TUTORIAL could be of help. If you intend to create an article about yourself (in short, don't do that), see WP:AUTO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

AutoED gets tagged by CosmeticBot

I have Installed WP:AED; I use it pretty frequently on pages I've edited. I also use WP:RFL.

Now, My issue is that Edits using WP:AED often get tagged by WP:COSMETICBOT, and that being the case, shouldn't the Code for WP:AED be updated so as to not trigger WP:COSMETICBOT?
What is the use of WP:AED being a Wikipedia script if it triggers Wikipedia bots?? -- STC1 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

References appear below External links

I am editing a page but for some reason my references have come up below External links. There are some original reference above External links, but my new ones appear below External links - how do I fix this please BLG1952 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@BLG1952: I believe you are referring to edit made on Samuel Strang Steel. You need to add {{Reflist}} like so. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you that seems to have worked