Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1096

Archive 1090

←

Archive 1094

Archive 1095

Archive 1096

Archive 1097

Archive 1098

→

Archive 1100

Article has an advisory saying it reads like an advertisement

I am an associate of a living person who is the subject of an article. An editor has put an advisory on the article saying it reads like an advertisement. Can I, as a person who is an associate of the subject, make suggestions on the talk page for how to remove advertisement-like language from the article? Mking92124 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mking92124, welcome to the Teahouse - just a comment: it might be helpful to name the article so we can have a closer look at it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Tam O'Shaughnessy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mking92124 (talk • contribs)

For clarity, I made this a separate comment and linked. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mking92124 You are welcome to make suggestions on the article talk page. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make, depending on what your association is. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thank you for your help. I have put suggestions in the talk area of the Tam O'Shaughnessy article for how to make the language neutral. I have included a disclosure that I have a professional relationship with the subject. Will someone review my suggestions automatically, or do I need to alert someone?Mking92124 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mking92124. In general, no, somebody will not necessarily notice your request (though they might this time because of this discussion). If you attach the template {{edit request}} to your request (put it like that, with the double curly brackets) it will get put on the list of requests waiting. It still may not necessarily happen quickly: like everything on Wikipedia, it depends on volunteers, who choose what they are going to work on. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding an interactive map

Hi Teahouse. I'd like to add an interactive map to an article, like the one in the infobox of the Manhattan article. Can someone offer some pointers or direct me to a how-to? Many thanks! Kdorse (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kdorse: The map in the Manhattan infobox uses Template:Maplink and (I believe) an OpenStreetMap polygon, but I'm not familiar with the procedure for creating such a map. If no one helps you here, you can probably find assistance from someone at Module talk:Mapframe or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Deor (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case its linked through Wikidata (i am not an expert on this, i was intrigued by your question and tried to figure it out): The Manhattan article corresponds to this Wikidata Item and the OSM polygon of Manhattan has a Wikidata-tag with that items ID (Q11299 - see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:OpenStreetMap how thats supposed to work). With this setup creating the map in the article is done by just adding {{Maplink|type=shape}} to the article. But I guess it really depends what map you want to add and how much data is already there. If you want to create a custom map, it's probably much more involved. --Smurftrooper (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Smurftrooper: Thank you! I'm understanding this better and feel like I might be getting there. Fortunately, someone has already created the OpenStreet map I need. It is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4227581#map=10/46.1760/-83.8683. It's listed as OpenStreetMap relation ID 4227581 in wikidata item Q6638058. I just don't know how to make the connections to have it show up on the related wikipedia article. Kdorse (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kdorse: Ok, great, so i guess all the connections are already there. You now only have to insert the template in St. Joseph Island (Ontario). I don't know how you want to present the map, but if you just add for example {{Maplink|frame=yes|plain=yes|frame-width=325|frame-height=250|frame-align=center|type=shape|fill=#ffffff|fill-opacity=0|stroke-width=3}} to the article, it will display the map. You may want to have a look at the Manhattan source how they have done it within the infobox (search for "image_map") there. Also have a look at the documentation of the template if you want to tune the optics. Cheers --Smurftrooper sup? 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, i just saw you already tried to insert the map in the infobox. I do not know whats going on there, maybe the infobox on that page works different than the one on Manhattan? It has something to do with it, because once you insert the Maplink-Template in the article body, it works. Not even sure about that anymore. Don't know, sorry :( --Smurftrooper sup? 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, in preview it works, but not once you publish it. This feels like a bug, probably best to ask someone at Module talk:Mapframe. Again, sorry --Smurftrooper sup? 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

When to move from suggestion on talk page to taking action / making changes to article?

I made a suggestion to change the images on the wikipedia page for Truth on the talk page. The same suggestion had previously been made by at least 2 other editors on the talk page but batted down by other editors on grounds of censorship and as far as I can tell a misreading of Wikipedia's rules and style guide. In my own Talk page entry, I pointed out a number of guidelines on the Wikipedia style guide that were being ignored or broken by the images in the article and a couple of other editors sounded their support for the change I was suggesting as well.

Now that a few days has passed with no further activity or opposition to my suggestion, when can it be considered that the change can go forward? TranquilDragon (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be WP:BOLD and make the change and see how people feel about it. If it's reverted, do the WP:BRD cycle and discuss with the editor about it. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 20:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

KCTU-LD's Affiliation with MeTV

Guys, I looked In MeTV#Affiliates, and it says that MeTV started on KCTU-LD in 2011, while it says 2010 on The KCTU-LD Wikipedia Article itself. Does anyone know when MeTV started it's affiliation with KCTU-LD, because I'm confused with the Dates. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, LooneyTraceYT. As always, the answer is, look at the sources. The 2011 date is sourced, the 2010 is not, so Wikipedia prefers the 2011 date. The source is not ideal - it's MeTV's Facebook, which counts as reliable because it appears to be the official account of one of the parties, but is primary; but for things like dates, primary sources are usually acceptable. So a reliable secondary source would be preferable. Since that post was from early January, it wouldn't surprise me if the agreement had been announced in the press in 2010, but taken effect at the beginning of 2011. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick Question: Edit Conflict - other editor reverted their own talk page entry

Greetings,

I have a quick question: Another editor has just reverted their own edit at a talk page discussion, and I am getting an edit conflict with my answer to them. What is the best practice in this case? Should I restore their post and somehow mark it as retracted? Should I just post my answer without theirs (which might confuse others)? Should I not post my carefully crafted response at all, even though I believe it would benefit the discussion?

Feels a bit weird because I do not want to meddle in someone else's talk page responses. -- LordPeterII (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: I would not restore the edit they reverted. If your comment is useful to the discussion, then just reword it so that it does not depend on being a reply to the previous post. RudolfRed (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This really depends on the specific context, but generally RudolfRed's suggestion sounds like the way to go. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, those were quick answers! I managed to rephrase it so it doesn't rely on the previous post, and instead becomes an addendum to my own. I guess if that would have impossible, I might have asked again; but I agree this is the best solution. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Current events

Yes, I was just wondering why does Wikipedia's highly detailed day by day current events portal only go back to July 1994? 47.150.227.254 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Because no one has created older pages yet. Maybe that's an area where you would like to contribute. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 so 1994 was never actually current events here, and it isn't that detailed. Compare for example July 1994 to July 2020. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(c) for photo from books

I have come across this photo from WikiCommons. It was uploaded there by an editor who photographed a book page, presented it as "own work", and offered it as copyright-free for further use. It shows an event from 1918. I have checked and it is being offered FOR A FEE by the Central Zionist Archives here. I know this doesn't mean that the CZA are the (only) reproduction rights or (c) holders, but I also don't know if our colleague's formulation ("own work") is OK. I also believe one should check if the actual photographer isn't known by name, as he should be mentioned in the file as the actual author. There weren't all that many official photographers in Jerusalem in 1918. Anyone who knows the laws (which differ from area to area, stricter in the EU and less so in the US) & WP rules? Arminden (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, You may post this query at Commons:Help desk since its a Wikimedia Commons related. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 12:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Amkgp Thank you, I'll try right away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminden (talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Arminden.

1. The claim of "own work" appears incorrect and is probably based on a common misunderstanding, but which has a fairly anodyne result here. By contrast, the same misunderstanding (or sometimes knowingly false claim) is a real problem when the work is actually copyrighted – see WP:OWN WORK – it should be changed to "Unknown" or to credit the actual author(s) if known;
2. The photograph is in the public domain because of age, as it was taken prior to May 24, 2008, and had to be taken in 1918, and so its copyright expired expired 50 years thereafter, certainly by January 1, 1969, under paragraph 21 of the British Copyright Act of 1911, as applicable under Israel's copyright statute of 2007 (see e.g., Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Israel and Commons:Category:PD Israel & British Mandate);
3. The fact that it's being offered for a fee from CZA doesn't tell you they're claiming copyright ownership, just that they're setting up a paywall—such as to transmit rich media at a higher resolution than you can find elsewhere/offering a print service/something in that arena—which people do for public domain material all the time;
4. However, and not because I see this as actually happening here, but please be aware that it is not at all uncommon for people and organizations to seek to sell material under a false claims of copyright ownership over public domain material, or even to copyrighted material owned by others. When some work is manifestly in the public domain because of status, such as age coupled with location, ignore such claims as on-their-face false.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

That clarifies everything, thanks a lot! I'll save your advice for the future.

Kind regards, Arminden (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Use transparency on small font sample or use white background?

I've made and uploaded a sample of a typeface to commons. The background is white, and I was wondering if it would be better to make the background transparent. The characters themselves are very small (16x16) so I don't know how it would display in transparency on mobile devices. Should I replace the white background version with a transparent background, or let it be? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 22:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: If you don't get an answer here after some time, then consider asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Accessibility if there are any accessibility considerations here. RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Help - How To Undo Last edit to New page that has still not been submitted or published?

How can I undo my very last edit to a NEW page I am working on? I accidentally deleted a couple of paragraphs while creating a new page, before publishing it, and I would like to just "undo" or revert to last version. All help says to click on the "view history" tab, however that option does not appear in the "new" page I am working on. CBrookUM (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't notice any major subtractions among your recent edits, and therefore wonder if you really did what you believe you did. Anyway, in order to go back to any earlier version, view the article in the normal way, click on "History" (under "This page"), click the time/date of the version that you want to revert to, check to make sure that this really is the version you want, and click "Edit this page". (You will not be able to edit only part of it.) You'll be warned that you're about to edit an old version. Don't edit it; simply save it as it is, with an explanatory edit summary. Make any needed changes in a subsequent edit or series of edits. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not trying to edit an already published page. I am in the process of creating a "New" page, that I have NOT published yet. As I was creating the New page I accidentally deleted some significant content that I had created for the page. All I am trying to do is "Undo" my very last action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBrookUM (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@CBrookUM: If you didn't click the [Publish page] button, then Wikipedia doesn't have any record of the page. Maybe your browser would recognize CTRL-Z to undo? GoingBatty (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

help frommy talk page

4th Decline for Agantukaya. I am a beginner and trying to do an article. struggling with footnotes. Read footnotes section for beginners and has taken a easy way out and reduced the content from the initial write up. but still rejected. can you please tell me how to improve further. Thank you Agantukaya (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Senaka Rajapakse, and it has been Declined, not Rejected. Yes, you need to learn to reference properly. David notMD (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Agantukaya: See the documentation at Template:Cite web to help you with Draft:Senaka Rajapakse. In each reference, the |title= should be the title of the web page or journal article or book, not "Professor" or "Dr." The |last= and |first= parameters should be the name of the author of the web page or journal article or book - hopefully Rajapakse did not write every reference you provided. GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much GoingBatty David notMD that makes lot of sense. will edit.Bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agantukaya (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Susan Lontine

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I've been attempting to get some practice with the basic editing process by updating articles for Colorado and Wyoming state representatives. I have not added any political commentary, only electoral history. However, my edits to Susan Lontine, adding information about the 2018 and 2020 elections, were recently reverted. The editor who reverted my edits notified me through my talk page, and told me that they do not "appear constructive". Where did I go wrong? Screechybird1 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Each of four assertions was referenced. You removed three of the four references, as duplications. All four references were indeed identical, and your version was less cumbersome than what it replaced. However, it was also less informative: Why should the reader believe that the three unreferenced assertions are factually based? What you should have done was rather different: Change any one of the four instances (preferably the first) of <ref>{{cite web|title=Susan Lontine|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Susan_Lontine|website=Ballotpedia|accessdate=February 15, 2021}}</ref> to <ref name="ballotpedia">{{cite web|title=Susan Lontine|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Susan_Lontine|website=Ballotpedia|accessdate=February 15, 2021}}</ref>, and change each of the other three to <ref name="ballotpedia" />. (I've used the name "ballotpedia", but this could be any word or pseudoword as long as you're consistent.) This would result in a single reference cited in four places. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make a rant on Wikipedia and post it on Wikipedia?

Is this allowed? JennilyW (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@JennilyW: No. Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox. See WP:NOT RudolfRed (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, JennilyW, depending on what you mean by "a rant on Wikipedia". See WP:Essays. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Conversely, see WP:NOESSAY. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 23:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, depending, possibly on your userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Young_In_Hong Submission declined

Dear Teahouse Unfortunately my other article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Young_In_Hong has not been accepted either. Here too, I don't understand why it's not clear that she satisfies WP:ARTIST. Kind regards, thanks for your help! Sabine Hagmann (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In order to have an article in English-language Wikipedia, a person must be notable (as this is understood here). WP:ARTIST starts: Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:; and I now realize that, when plucked out of context, this makes little sense. Take it to mean In order to be considered notable (a requirement for an article), an author, editor, journalist, filmmaker, photographer, artist, architect, or other creative professional must satisfy at least one of the following four:. I shan't go through all four; but the first is The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. To show this, one doesn't just assert that she's regarded as important or is widely cited; one instead cites a description (from a reliable source) of her as either important or widely cited. (Again, this isn't necessary: it's merely one option among four.) Another possibility is for an artist not to meet any of the four criteria in "WP:ARTIST" but nevertheless to qualify for an article by satisfying some other criterion in WP:PERSON; however, this is unusual. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC) ....... trivially reworded Hoary (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thank you! -- Sabine Hagmann — Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sabine Hagmann: I hope you have a reference for each item in the Artists' Residencies, Awards, and Exhibitions/Performances sections. (Of course, you can use a reference more than once.) Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't request an article for Norm Architects

Can't find the "request article" link. Keep getting redirected to write it myself Dear Wikigods,

I'm tasked with requesting an article about the firm I'm working for - as I've got a COI, I'm advised against writing it myself. But every time I try to request an article to be written, I end up in the same menu, where it looks like I'm supposed to write it myself... What am I doing wrong?

Thank you!

Best regards, Karl Karl at Norm Architects (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The correct place to request an article is at WP:Requested articles, although you need to bear in mind that Wikipedia editors are all volunteers and so it may take ages for anyone to pick up your suggestion. It is not prohibited for someone with a WP:COI to draft a new article, for which the WP:AfC process is best. Your main hurdle will be to prove that Norm Architects are notable, as defined at WP:GNG. I did a quick Google search and failed to find sufficient references to show they might be. So my advice would be to draft a relatively short article with say, four, WP:SECONDARY sources that are independent of the company and not based on interviews or press releases. If you can do that, there may some hope the article would be accepted. Do not use a WP:PROMOTIONal tone as that is not allowed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. As for your other troubles, please see my comment on your user talk page. There is, in my opinion, no reason to abandon or apologize for your username (which is admirably candid). -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Ornalik of Zaram Band

Greetings friends I'm working on my bands page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zaram_Band how long does it take to get it published? Mornalik31 (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Forever and a day - it's not submitted and it has no sources, thus it will never be accepted in the current state it's in. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...}

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.Template:Z26-- Abdul Muhsy talk 14:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How to published a draft

Hi! I need some help to publish my draft on Federico Bilotta, a living professor. Please let me know! Valeriaspe (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Valeriaspe (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Draft:Federico Bilotta. David notMD (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Notability (academics) for the criteria for academic people. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valeriaspe: See also Wikipedia:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Biography for Cubanlynk

Im seeking assistance in creating a Biography on Wikipedia for Musician Cubanlynk Josephclarke17 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cubanlynk

@Josephclarke17: I recommend you start by following the guidance at WP:YFA. The first thing you need to do is determine if the subject is notable, such as by meeting the guidelines at WP:NMUSIC. If it does, then continue by finding reliable sources and then writing the text of the article in a non-promotional, neutral way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, i hope there's someone here that is willing to write the article for me , that knows the guidelines and how to write a proper article for wikipedia

Hello, Josephclarke17. You replied in the right place, but it would be helpful if you sign every time you post on a discussion page, as you did your original question.

There are two parts to getting somebody to write an article: the easy bit is asking - you've done so here, and a formal place to ask is at requested articles. The harder part is motivating somebody to do so - we're all volunteers here, and work on what we choose. So you need to catch somebody's interest. You are much more likely to do that if you first do the spade work, of finding the references - read the links that RudolfRed gave you. Then, assuming you find sufficient references that meet all three of the criteria: reliably published, independent (so nothing published by the artist, their publishers, producers, labels or agents, or based on interviews or press releases from any of these, and no sites whose purpose is selling), and containing significant coverage of the artist - otherwise stop wasting your time - I suggest looking for a WikiProject that is relevant, and asking there. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

– for additional guidance read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: It appears that the draft has been speedily deleted for unambiguous advertising or promotion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Citing a book

Hello! I am new to the editing community, and I have a problem. I need to cite a book for a citation. the book is not free, however, and I do not know how to cite it. The source I used was a publishing store in which the book can be bought, however, I do not know if that is acceptable. the book is called "The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa; Soviet versus German Armour on the Eastern Front" by Boris Kavalerchik. please respond asap. thank you, and have a nice day. KommanderC (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@KommanderC: The book does not need to be free or online to be used as a citation. You may choose to use {{cite book}} to create the citation. GoingBatty (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey KommanderC. First, the fact the book is behind a paywall does not make it at all un-citeable. For our policy on this, please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. As to how to cite it, I suggest using a Citation templates – here {{Cite book}}. They allow you to just plug in the appropriate parameters, in any order and it will always format consistently (you should always cite a source transparently, for verification purposes; for a book, we usually present the year, title, author name(s), publisher, isbn number, page number(s) and url, if there is one). (For this book, however, there's a translator, so I'd provide that information as well.)

As to the convenience link to a url, I recommend not using the online store's, but something like Google Books (which in this case has preview available). Specifically, I suggest the following format, which will display as set forth below, from the footnote you'll see at the end of this sentence (just note that where I have written "INSERT" in the citation, next to the pages= parameter, that is for you to place the actual page numbers that verify the detail you are citing; use "page=" if it's one page"):

<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa; Soviet versus German Armour on the Eastern Front|last= Kavalerchik|first=Boris|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Tanks_of_Operation_Barbarossa/7XjNDwAAQBAJ|isbn=978-1-4738-8682-7|translator-last1=Britton|translator-first1=Stuart|year=2018|publisher=Pen & Sword Books|pages=INSERT}}</ref>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

thanks @Fuhghettaboutit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KommanderC (talk • contribs)

You're welcome KommanderC. By the way, it takes some getting used to but becomes second nature – please remember to sign your posts on discussion pages like this one (type four tildes (~~~~) or click on the signature button located above the edit window). Also, by convention we respond to posts by indenting one level in from their indentation level (just place colons (:s): so:

Original Post
:Reply to it
::Reply to that
:::Really?
::::Yes really!

Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm drafting my first article in User:Paranoid Numanoid:sandbox:Rev Charles Swainson, M.A.

• Link: User:Paranoid Numanoid/sandbox/Rev. Charles Swainson, M.A.

Any guidance or comments please? I'm trying to demonstrate how notable his work and legacy are, and I'm linking all quotes and statements to good books (reliable verifiable sources) and I hope I'm doing an ok job so far!! How is it looking to your trained eyes? I'm only halfway through editing my first draft but there are one or two things I will need to ask about later...any feedback welcome. Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete the Parents section and other stuff that is not about him. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above, but well done. It is already better than some articles already on wikipedia! --Bduke (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. More:

• The title of the eventual article should skip the "Rev" and the "M.A." and instead be "Charles Swainson (X)", where X is whichever seems most suitable among "naturalist", "ornithologist", "rector", or whatever. (Labelling him as one among these does not imply that he's not additionally one or more among the others; for example, Akira Toriyama (ophthalmologist) is about somebody with some notability as a photographer.)
• Book titles go in italics; don't additionally put them in quotation marks.
• There's no reason to put "LONDON" etc in full capitals.
• Far more importantly than any of the above, you're going to have to be more careful in referencing. Here's an example: His original and compendious research formed the foundation of several subsequent major works of ornithological literature, including William B. Lockwood's "Oxford Dictionary of British Bird Names"^[5] and Harry Kirke Swann's "A Dictionary of English and Folk-Names of British Birds; with their History, Meaning and First Usage, and the Folk-Lore, Weather-Lore, Legends Etc Relating to the More Familiar Species".^[6] This makes three major claims: (i) that his research was original and compendious, (ii) that it was the foundation of Lockwood's Oxford Dictionary of British Bird Names, and (iii) that it was the foundation of Swann's A Dictionary of English and Folk-Names of British Birds. The sentence has what at first appear to be two references, but it's not clear that either backs up what the sentence says; rather, they seem merely to provide bibliographical information (thus making the cumbersome subtitle of Swann's book more obviously unnecessary in the main text). Now, it could be that Lockwood, Swann or both say that Swainson's work was original and compendious, or that their own works were largely based on his; but if they do, you should make this clearer (by pointing to the precise page number(s), by quoting, etc).

-- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) edited Hoary (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paranoid Numanoid: Except for the lead, the other sections do not have any references. Please make sure each piece of information has a reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow - guys - thank you for the rapid and constructive feedback, it's exactly what I was looking for. Now motivated to work hard and integrate my new learnings!! Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've worked up some key parts of the lead paragraph, especially the "three claims" which of course was unconsciously done on my part! and that's why we need editors and critics - and I was delighted to find that both of the dictionaries which followed Swainson in fact did rely on him to a greater extent that even I had first realised. Maybe I've made too much of this, I will of course look into this more deeply. I know the rest of the article is not anyhwere near as "finished" as the first part, but that's just the way I'm working at the moment, sorry. Any further comments gladly received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Numanoid (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Should've signed my last comment Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

blue colored links

how to create blue links Zbani kurdi (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Zbani kurdi blue links link to existing articles, while red links link to articles which do not yet exist. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Zbani kurdi, and welcome to the Teahouse. You put the name of the article between double square brackets, thus [[Spain]] displays as Spain and links to the article called "Spain". If you want the text to appear different from the name, you put the text after a "pipe" character, so [[Spanish language|Spanish]] display as Spanish. See WP:Wikilinks for the whole story, and WP:CHEATSHEET for other kinds of Wikimarkup. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zbani kurdi: Welcome! To create a link to another Wikipedia page, enclose it in double-square brackets. [[Wikipedia]] produces Wikipedia -- a link to the encycopedia article on Wikipedia. I suggest you try out the WP:TUTORIAL or the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with creating a good article

Hi everyone, a few days ago I've written a page about Bihać Operation, and I want to nominate it for a good article but it still needs to be improved before I do that. The page met all B-class criteria except for grammar, I'd really appreciate if someone who is a native English speaker could copyedit the article. I would also love to hear other suggestions for improving the article so it can meet good article criteria. Thanks! OakMapping (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

OakMapping, welcome to the Teahouse - please file a Request on the Guild of Copy Editors Request Page WP:GOCER . CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for helping me out. OakMapping (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker, I will do my best to fix any grammar mistakes.KommanderC (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A problem I am encountering is a problem with redundancy. I would maybe replace some of the "Bihac Operation"s with things like "Battle", "Military engagement", "Conflict", or something else. there is also what I feel is unnecessary background info on the battalions. You can create stub articles on the battalions for the basic info, instead of putting it on the Bihac Operation article. I am exited to see this get nominated. Good luck! Best regards- KommanderCKommanderC (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

KommanderC Thanks a lot for your help and suggestions. I will remove some unnecessary info about the brigades and create separate articles for them. Regarding the issue of redundancy, feel free to replace "Bihac Operation"s with other words wherever you see fit. Again, thanks for helping me out. Cheers! OakMapping (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What Makes Quality Sources?

Frankly speaking, I have read a couple of approved articles on Wikipedia to compare it to my recently submitted one. I have also read to crosscheck on Wikipedia policies and guidelines on notability but I am moved by surprised on the standpoint of some reviewers.

First, can't an article on a political appointee be accepted on Wikipedia? Second,can't the same article be approved when the sources reports official duties of the office holder? Third, are print news third party independent sources which do not have online platform unaccepted to give a subject notability? Fourth, on the office of a mayour or local government chairman, is he not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia even when reliable and veritable sources are available? Fifth, when did Wikipedia policies start considering notability based on the numerical strength and number of towns a mayor or local government chairman controls?

Let us take the case of Draft:Ojo Maduekwe and Draft:Ibrahim Magu. These are political appointees yet they are accepted as articles on Wikipedia. The case of the first subject even surprised me as there are only 4 sources cited on it. When that of the second article has sources discussing his official duties as EFCC Chairman.

Let our reviewers be fair in their acceptance and rejection of articles. Nwachinazo (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Nwachinazo (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Nwachinazo's examples are Ojo Maduekwe and Ibrahim Magu, i.e., articles, not drafts. The fact that other stuff exists (WP:Other stuff exists) is not considered a valid justification for a disputed draft, in this instance Draft:Nyerere Ogbonna. A difference I consider valid is that Ogbonna is an appointee at a state level whereas Maduekwe and Magu were at federal level. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I make my site Reliable

How can I make my site Reliable like The_Times_of_India My site is https://alatestnews.com

Please give me my question;

1) How many days will it take to make my site reliable like NDTV, The_Times_of_India

2) What steps will I have to take?

3) Any method by which I can show my site is reliable like it.

4) What thing I have to remove from my site

5) What thing should I have to add to my site. 

Digimarksomnath (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You have created a news feed website and have been inserting it into articles as a reference. This is considered promotional spamming, and has been reverted by several editors. If you persist, you will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia strongly recommends that people do not try to create articles about themselves (your Sandbox). See WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A source can be considered WP:RS if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A website created 2020 that gives very little info about itself [1] has no reputation of any kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Digimarksomnath: IMVHO, when you ask 'how long does it take to become a reliable source' you should ask 'how many years' rather than 'how many days'... (despite all other points raised by other users above). --CiaPan (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Digimarksomnath. None of the questions your asking have answers that would render the material reliable, except possibly what you would have to "add", but not as I think you intended that question to be answered—what you would need to add is a variety of personnel including people who graduated from university journalism programs, some of them having already worked in the jouralism field for a number of years; editors, fact checkers, copywriters, cameraman, photographers, a legal staff, etc. – who then started producing actually reliable material which would result in a feedback loop, the site's actual reliability would become more and more widely known because of its quality which woudl translate to a reputation for reliability and so on, until it reached a critical mass, and eventually it'd be The News©℠®™℗.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Digimarksomnath: How long has The Times of India been around? How many people do they have working for them, what are their jobs, and how does that contribute to their reliability? In other words, make your site a proper news organization as recognized by the readers it should aim to serve. Once it is recognized that way, people (not you) may start citing it in articles here, and there will no doubt be discussions about whether it is a reliable source. People making the argument for reliability will be able to point to your site's track record of good reporting and qualified editors, fact-checkers, etc., and (hopefully) successfully make the argument that it's reliable. The more you, as the owner, attempt to promote it, the harder that argument for reliability is to make, since it appears that you simply want to attract more "eyeballs" by using Wikipedia to promote your site. That's not what we're here for. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can Morgan Edge be added in the category of fictional american jews.

 Jack1578 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Only if you can support that statement with a reliable source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: If this is about your recent edits to Morgan Edge, then the category you want is Category:Fictional_American_Jews. The category you recently added has a typo. Also, as mentioned above, you need to provide sources that support this character is a Jew. RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: I have fixed the category name [2] and deleted the misnamed Category:Fictional America Jews. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In action comic #468 Morgan Edge was revealed to be jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1578 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

At Special:Diff/1006975742, David notMD reverted the category addition with the summary A statement in 1977 that his birth name was Morris Edelstein does not guarantee Jewishness. Jack1578, is this the basis for your claim – that it's a Jewish-sounding name? Please discuss at Talk:Morgan Edge. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion- Can you Pls. ADD Televangelist Michael Dean Murdock, to LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA'S "NOTED PEOPLE" Section ? Thanks You Very Much.

 2603:6011:4544:7300:5471:2BEC:74D7:87F1 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. We've also removed a number of names that shouldn't be there per our policy at WP:LISTPEOPLE--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

write new article - specific topic's notability, copyright

Hi, I'd like to create new Wikipedia page about Steven Hassan's BITE model (very briefly described on his page), using as main source his book "Freedom of Mind". While I'm pretty sure this is a notable topic, I wonder if there may be a copyright issue, if not what is the limit of using text from his book to explain the BITE model. Thank you. InukshukBro (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse and thanks for the question. You can visit Wikipedia:Copyright violations to learn about copyright violation and related policy on en-wikipedia. Also, go through Your first article for writing guidelines including notability threshold for subjects etc. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 20:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, InukshukBro. I'm afraid that one thing you may not do is to use his book as the main source for an article on his model, because it is a primary source, and can only be used in limited ways. The bulk of such an article must be based on sources wholly unconnected with Hassan; and if you cannot find enough such independent sources to base the article on, then by definition the model is not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings InukshukBro, and ofc welcome to Wikipedia! I usually just go to google to check if there are independent sources covering the subject - I especially find google news useful. And looking there, there's a few sources that at least partly mention the "BITE model": Fox News Byline Times Vanity Fair Taiwan News Psychiartic Times. In combination with the book as a primary source (used sparingly), you might have just barely enough notability for an article (not sure if about the model or the book?) - but it also might just not suffice, and a discussion might determine that it should rather be an expanded section at Hassan's article.

I recommend you follow the advice by Amkgp and ColinFine first, and then revisit the links I have posted here to determine if you want to go ahead with writing that article. Writing an article is hard and takes a lot of time to get right! (While it sounds like an interesting topic, I personally cannot help you with this because I am working on several articles already.) --LordPeterII (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answers and tips, expanded section at Hassan's article seems the right approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InukshukBro (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox problems

I have an infobox that has stopped working. The code is as follows

Elizabeth Clark
[[File:Elizabeth Clark c. 1915 .jpg|frameless|upright=1]] Elizabeth Clark, about 1915
Born	(1875-05-14)14 May 1875 Hartlebury, Worcestershire, United Kingdom
Died	21 April 1972(1972-04-21) (aged 96) Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Resting place	Kilmeston, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Occupation(s)	Story teller, lecturer, author
Years active	1915–1955

I think I have the correct filename under image, but I have forgotten how to find files. Could somebody please tell me how to locate my files? Pogga D (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Pogga D, I believe your {{circa}} template is breaking the file name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean. If I remove the {{circa 1915}} it makes no difference I still don't get the image. I need to check the name of the file.Pogga D (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pogga D: Is it a file you uploaded? Did you upload it here on Wikipedia, or on WikiCommons? AdmiralEek (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't recall, I really need to search both.Pogga D (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Pogga D The file is called File:Elizabeth Clark c 1915.jpg (with no . after the c). As the filename in the article needs to be exactly the same as the uploaded name, I removed the circa template. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and I believe you've fixed it.Pogga D (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to use the circa template, Pogga D, it belongs in the caption rather than the filename. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks Larry I had forgotten about the circa templatePogga D (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures and Documets

I did the editing, but still finding it diffucult to upload pictures and documents, in fact cannot find the areas to the links. Kativhup (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Kativhup, are you looking for WP:File Upload Wizard? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Kativhup Your question above appears to be your only edit to Wikipedia (or any other WMF project). Are you in the right place? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Mexican State Flags

Every state in Mexico has a coat of arms and a flag in their infobox. However, that flag is almost always just the seal on a white background. I have heard that Mexican state flags are not really a thing on public display, and if you look at the Spanish Wikipedia for Mexican State X it just has the seal and not the flag. Why do we have Mexican state flags on English Wikipedia? Is it just to keep the formatting the same as states in other countries? They seem made up and unnecessary. T-Ro Trains (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@T-Ro Trains: There is a discussion about the use of state flags of Mexico at WikiProject Mexico, where you can join and discuss it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can The Joker be added in the category of fictional characters without a name.

 Jack1578 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: You should discuss this on the article's talk page: Talk:Joker_(character). RudolfRed (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jack1578. Help:Category shows how to add a category but Joker (character) has been named both Joker (Jack Napier) and Arthur Fleck in official films so it doesn't seem appropriate. Joker (character)#Origins says about comics: "Payback" gives the Joker's first name as "Jack". He is unnamed in many stories but so are lots of characters. Where do we draw the line if we start calling people unnamed just because they aren't named most of the time? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Thesis Research

Hello! I'm a new wp user and I'm very sorry in advance if I'm not supposed to use the Teahouse platform in this way. I'm a senior design student at Parsons and am doing my thesis on wikipedia and disinformation. I was wondering if I could find someone to interview about being a Wikipedian and their thoughts on how WP has progressed over the past 20 years? Or point me to a social media group that I could dm instead? Again, very sorry this isn't an editing question. Happy to take this post down if it's inappropriate. Hotplates (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

We're pretty broad-minded hereabouts. Thank you for the invitation and for your single (so far) edit elsewhere. I've reverted the latter, well-intentioned though it probably was. I really think you should edit some more. It's not because you have to show you've "earned" the right to ask questions. (You certainly don't have to, though of course your improvements here and there would be appreciated.) No, it's because a bit of experience would probably sharpen your questions. If Nicholson Baker found time to do it, you can too! -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hoary makes a good point. I left a welcome with some materials for getting started on your talk page.

There was another user who recently was doing interviews (in their case specifically about COVID-19); the answers I gave to them might be useful to you as well.

Regarding a social media group, you're looking for Wikipedia Weekly on Facebook. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse#Very_broad_questions_about_Wikipedia_and_about_your_experience_as_Wikipedians. may have something helpful. You could try asking at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Vandalism studies and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit may have information of interest. Also Wikipedia:Disinformation. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hotplates please read Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia with particular attention to the sections about surveys and interviews as well as best practices. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the helpful advice! I really appreciate it. Hotplates (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotplates (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing query...

I'm a fairly established editor, but I've lost that box beneath the edit summary box that had common Wiki markups and I can't find how to add it! I've looked in all my preferences but to no avail. Sorry if this is the wrong place for this query! Many thanks for all your great work here. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi No Swan So Fine. At the bottom of the edit box you should see, just to the left of the default insertion characters "– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §" a field that says "Insert" with a small blue button marked with up/down carats. Click that, and a drop down menu should o[en. Choose "wiki markup". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much...Not sure what happened earlier! No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Who will offer to implement this "good" roads merge/redirect suggestion?

The suggestion at Talk:Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 § Merge of articles on this act is nearing its 10th anniversary without the portion relating to Rural Post "Good" Roads Act of 1916 being implemented. Are there any volunteers either to do it, or to offer some specific pointers on doing it?

Also, do you think there's any "good" reason for retaining those quotation marks in the title of the article? (It looks to me like this article title is only used in Template:United States Postal Service.) Fabrickator (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: For now, I added another source (from the House history site) and moved it to the correct title (without "Good"). It was used in several more places, which I also changed. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

finding citations

I have trouble getting enough reference material online to add citations where needed. I have tried the local library and Internet Archive. There must be other sources to use. Would there be a list of online resources for those of us who like to add citations? OodFloo (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@OodFloo: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources could be helpful, but it probably depends on the subject of the article - what is reliable for video games may not be reliable for international governmental relations. Template:Find sources might be helpful. Reaching out to the WikiProjects associated with the article may also be helpful. GoingBatty (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@OodFloo: What are you looking to write about? What are your interests? AdmiralEek (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Google Books is an incredible resource, and often points you in the direction of many other sources. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@OodFloo:, I suggest that you also look at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, especially the "Find sources" section at the top. The Library makes a number of useful sources available to WP editors. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency in some Chemistry articles

I was doing some editing and research and came across this situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maleic_acid_dibutyl_ester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_maleate Dimethyl maleate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethyl_maleate Diethyl maleate

So Dimethyl maleate article is called that as is diethyl maleate. However, Dibutyl maleate (DBM) article redirects to Maleic acid dibutyl ester. Surely there needs to be some consistency. Probably needs a very experienced chemistry editor to look at. GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey GRALISTAIR. I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry for someone to take a look and advise or sort the issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

These sort of inconsistencies are a consequence of different article creation dates and editors. Fortunately, the ability within Wikipedia to use redirects means that readers looking for a given chemical under a variety of names (and e.g. molecular formulae) should find it. As advised, WT:WikiProject Chemistry is the place to discuss this if you have a specific proposal to sort things out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: I've no idea if it's the case here, but it can also be that a butyl compound may be more commonly known by a name in a different nomenclature system or trivial name than an analogous ethyl compound. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) may be helpful. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Well it has been sorted so great news. Article has been renamed as suggested. So I suggest this section on Teahouse can be archived etc. GRALISTAIR (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Protecting page

Hello, How do I protect a page from Vandalism, if I’m not an administrator? How do I get administrative privileges ? Cyberanthropologist (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cyberanthropologist. Requests for protection are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Becoming an administrator requires, among others, thousands of edits and deep experience in many areas of the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I am posting below a canned template providing some standard advice about dealing with vandals.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) to be blocked from further editing. Before posting 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--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberanthropologist (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft has wrong name

I've recently started work on a draft, and noticed after it's creation that I miscapitalized the name. How do I get this changed? Do I give some sort of note to the reviewer, or can I get it changed while it's in draft namespace?

Specifically, I need Clone Drone In The Danger Zone → Clone Drone in the Danger Zone.

Or do I just move it myself? Confirming simple decisions.  WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: You can just move it yourself - see Wikipedia:Moving a page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Accusation of child abuse

So I’m trying to get rid of some misleading information about me being a child abuse victim. I don’t identify as a child abuse victim so I’m obviously finding this situation pretty concerning. I’ve tried to voice my concern and delete the content but now I’ve been totally banned from editing. Out of everything I’ve done in my life, I am being remembered for something I’d prefer to forget. If anyone can help me if greatly appreciate it.

Thank you Matt Franis (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Matt Franis. Since the situation you've described above has WP:REALWORLD implications and would also fall under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, I don't think the Teahouse is a very good place to discuss such a thing. I think the best thing for you to do would be to follow the instructions given in WP:BLP#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia. That section contains some information on a few ways you can seek assistance with a matter such as this; there's even a way in which you can seek assisance via email if you're uncomfortable discussing certain things publically on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Matt Franis: I would urge you to seek aid via email. This is not something you'd want dealt with in public regardless of its veracity. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I am very disappointed in how this was handled on Wikipedia - the responses you received prior to this should have been far more considerate. I agree with Marchjuly and Jéské Couriano that sending an email would be a good idea, but in the meantime I have removed the content from the article. - Bilby (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Table weird bold

Hey all! I was just editing List of World Heritage Sites in Indonesia, when I noticed a weird bold at the side columns in the Tentative list section. I tried see if there's a markup but can't find one. Does anyone know what's wrong? GeraldWL 06:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: That's what happens when you use an exclamation mark (!) instead of a pipe (|) at the beginning of the cell, like at ! scope="row" | Bawomataluo Site. The reason why the first table is not bolding is because plainrowheaders is specified at the top of it, at {|class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ganbaruby, thanks for explaining! It has now been fixed. GeraldWL 07:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors Abuse is permitted by wikipedia

I have a problem with Wikipedia and how the editors conduct themselves. The common approach from most admin/editors is that they like to selectively pick on specific articles and instead of being helpful they aggressively "show their power" by incorrectly editing pages, deleting pages which do not align with their personal beliefs, and provide details and input on articles regarding Wikipedia guidelines which when cross-referencing with the actual guidelines are not correct. It is becoming the wild west as Wikipedia rules and guidelines are actually meaningless because editors are allowed to make up there own rules and if there rules are in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines , the editors rules and decisions almost always supersede anything stated by Wikipedia.

There are too many false and misleading articles on Wikipedia which are permitted to remain published and protected by admins/editors. This removes credibility of Wikipedia. Now in addition to the abundant amount of misleading content on Wikipedia, admins are now becoming aggressive on editing and deleting articles based on their personal beliefs, and values and are no longer required to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Society today has enough issues with fake news, misleading information, and fraud. Wikipedia appears to now be joining this trend and I believe may not be exempt from legal implications. The United States Government needs to be made aware of what is happening on Wikipedia including foreign influence by admins and the common practice of wiki admins protecting misleading articles to mislead the American public on companies, politics, law, and financials including Wikipedia's strong support for allowing American corporations to post and edit articles about themselves while publishing indisputably false statements/data/details on their organizations which also can have an effect on shareholders, investors, and gov entities as Wikipedia allows self-promotion for profit including false information. The SEC and the FTC needs to be aware of the recklessness from the Wikipedia foundation and editors who are in violation of SEC laws, international laws, and election laws as Wikipedia admins are mostly complicent in unethical practices.

Without an ounce of integrity , what actually is wiki to you? ~jonscott239 Jonscott239 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonscott239 It is difficult to respond to a general grievance. If you have a specific situation to discuss, please go into detail about it. If there are specific examples of editor and administrator misbehavior, please go to WP:ANI.

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are not being summarized accurately, please bring it up on the relevant article talk page, if that fails to resolve the issue, go to dispute resolution. If the sources are correctly summarized but you disagree with what the source says, you will need to bring that up with the source.

Please understand that Wikipedia does not claim what it says is true, only that it can be verified. Only you can decide what is true for you. This is why Wikipedia presents sources to the readers, so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves.

Please be aware of no legal threats. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: WP:Articles for deletion/GoVoteMiami (2nd nomination)

I strongly suggest you find a different topic area to work in. Coming on here to publicly take umbrage about an editorial decision in an area under sanctions is generally not a smart idea. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 12:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What is not a smart idea? Is this is threat or further umbrage to further a political cause? The problem here is that after I got the article started was I harassed and targeted for deletion and accusing a legitimate complaint of being not smart and umbrage is exactly the problem. Per Wikipedia you are not supposed to have a special power or act as an authority above other users. Edits and decisions need to be made based on facts and guidelines set by Wikipedia. You are not supposed to be selective on what to delete and what to keep live based on your own personal beliefs and emotions. You are supposed to be cordial and respectful. You should not allow fraud and misleading articles be published on Wikipedia while nominating legitimate articles based on fact for deletion and with out a fair and civil discussion. The verbiage used in the previous comment about "umbrage" and "not smart" is antagonizing and displaying personal anger and emotions with purpose to initiate and eccelate an issue negatively. When a person takes the time to write an article, fact check, list cites, and make continuous adjustments based on feedback received they should not be aggressively bullied, harassed, and nominated for deletion. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia with few editors/moderators. How does every edit made on this article always receive an instant issue and complaint? Is all this back and forth nessessory or productive? What is the real issue here and why all the threats, bullying, and attacks on an simple article on a bipartisan nonprofit which is not self promoting, has cites, only facts listed, and no bias or controversy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonscott239 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonscott239 I don't understand how you are seeing what you say you are seeing. I am not a foreign agent trying to interfere with elections. I haven't "bullied" you or anyone. I've explained to you the guidelines that have applied and informed you why the sources you offered were not acceptable. This situation has gotten very sad and it doesn't need to be. I've only wanted to help. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonscott239I forgot who you were; I'm sorry your work was deleted, but it has nothing to do with what you say. If you are interested in a civil discussion about it, I'd be happy to explain why. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jonscott239: In case you're wondering, The common approach from most admin/editors is that they like to [do all sorts of things against policy] is when I stopped reading. Most? Really? Nonsense. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonscott239, (i) I think you may be confused about "notability". A subject must be "notable" in order to get an article here. The scare quotes are deliberate: plenty of people and organizations who are notable as the word is normally understood are not Wikipedia-"notable"; plenty of celebs, memes, pop songs, Family Guy episodes and so forth are Wikipedia-"notable". (ii) On "foreign influence by admins": If you'd like to suggest that non-Americans should not edit articles on the US (and, to be fair, that non-Sammarinese should not edit articles on San Marino, etc), then Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the place -- but only after you've devised a compelling argument for your rather stunning proposal. (Wikipedia isn't big on nationalism.) (iii) "The United States Government needs to be made aware of what is happening on Wikipedia [...]." I imagine that it's more concerned with Covid-19, mass unemployment, school disruption, Burma, Ebola, Belarus, white supremacists and the like, but you can try -- probably via some website with the TLD "gov" rather than here. (iv) "Wikipedia admins are mostly complicent in unethical practices": not something for complacency! -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This section on this person's page is a bit too overt

Fiona Graham

Under the court case section...

The case is about which fire safety classification a building providing accommodation was a single accommodation unit or not. Importantly it was dismissed on technical grounds about when the appeal against the council was filed, rather than details about the incident itself. It leaves out a lot of other information including how she submitted planning permission early on etc...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/3141102/QLDC-notice-against-building-petty-owner https://www.building.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/resolving-problems/determinations/Appeals/2011-069-appeal-judgement.pdf https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2014/sc84_2014_sc85_2014wanakagymltdgrahamvqueenstownldc.pdf

1. I don't think it deserves its own section. It seems to be just one event in her life, of which there are many numerous events. I would rename the section to "Other activities" and reduce the paragraph to "A property owned by Graham, The Wanaka Gym Ltd., was fined a total of NZ$64,000 and ordered to pay NZ$9,000 in costs, following a conviction relating to which buildings code her property should fall under, after appeals were rejected on technical grounds."

2. It needs to mention that her appeals were dismissed on a technical ground. We need to remember that she contends that she was not running tourist accommodation (with the evidence that she does not have staff etc...).　I am not privy to the little details but it appears she was catering to long term stayers and argues that the safety codes were aimed at short stay tourists - and that she was modifying the house to the different standards anyway.

Considering that the appeals were rejected on technical grounds about it being submitted too late to the council, it would be incorrect for wikipedia to assume guilt in this situation. The house also complies with the general accommodation safety code, just not the short stay tourist code which she says she was not catering for.

And on a side note about the page, it needs a lot more information about her other activities as well, but being Extended Protected makes it hard to add good information.

Geicraftor (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Geicraftor Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should make these suggestions on the article talk page, Talk:Fiona Graham, in the form of a formal edit request(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

331dot - unless I'm wrong, this account seems to be another Graham sockpuppet; see their sandbox article and their edits to Geisha. This has happened more than once, as the Talk page for Graham's article details, and the language used here - extended protected status making it "hard to add good information", a well-covered court case being "unnecessary" to have a section on - is the exact same, though if the user has any references on it being dismissed on the grounds of being submitted too late, I do think that should be added in, if referenceable. Otherwise, it's the same merry-go-round we've been spinning on for the last, literal decade of editing.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Maximilian Acevedo

i dont know how to publish a page im working on ive edited it and everything i just dont know how to make it bublic please if anyone could get back to me ad publish it i will email it to you Zidanez786 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Zidanez786 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I regret to inform you that your draft is a long way from being turned into an article that is part of the encyclopedia. It is completely unsourced to independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about someone, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to first learn more about Wikipedia.

Are you writing about yourself, by any chance? 331dot (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You have a submitted draft Draft:Maximilian Acevedo and you have similar content on your User page an at your Sandbox. Delete content at those two, so there will be only one place for the draft. As 331dot wrote, very likely your draft will be Declined for lack of references. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Graeme McLagan/former BBC Home Affirs correspondent and writer on crime and police.

I first submitted an article that was rejected for lack of references on 31st December 2020. I re-submitted on 1st January 2021 and have not heard back. I now have additional information so want to re-submit, but can I do this before hearing back about the first re-submission? Christopher michell (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Christopher michell You are free to edit a draft at any time, even if you have submitted it. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As best as I can determine, there exists User:Christopher michell/sandbox, Declined once on 12/31, not resubmitted and an older Draft:Graeme McLagan, Declined once, not resubmitted. Pick one, continue to improve it, submit it. Given one of his books (Bent Coppers) is a Wikipedia article, likely McLagan can be notable if you add better refs (include some from the book article). David notMD (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I hazard a guess that you have a personal or paid connection to McLagan. That should be either described on your User page or denied on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How to make wikipedia agile and collaborative?

I'm a new contributor and already discouraged because it seems to me that a totally intransparent, formal process seems to be more important than useful contribution.

• How is it possible to work collaboratively, in an agile way, in Wikipedia?
• Somebody keeps undoing my edits on a page, pretending to be authorized to do so. How can I check his authority? How can I escalate a dispute?

I spent many hours trying to make an article in my field of expertise better. It will probably be a very short episode of engagement with Wikipedia. It's probably much simpler to write my articles elsewhere and post links to them in expert forums, that will spare me the trouble I experienced here... TomRoad-1 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

TomRoad-1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry you have not had a good experience. I can tell you that almost any editor is allowed to edit almost any article(with some exceptions. There are not levels of authority here. Even those with the administrator tools, like me, have no more authority than any other editor. In the event of a dispute, you should use the associated article talk page to discuss your concerns with the other editors involved. If discussion fails to resolve the issue, there are channels of dispute resolution.

I assume that your dispute relates to List of home automation software. Another user correctly told you that draft articles are not linked to in the main encyclopedia. Your draft must first make it into the encyclopedia, preferably through submitting it at Articles for Creation.

Do you work for the company you are editing about? If so, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. You may also wish to read about expert editors. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's not clear, here is an analogous example: Articles about towns often have a list of notable people. Each name is in blue because there is an already existing article about that person. Adding a name not already an article appears in red, much as your addition to the software article. And is then deleted. Only after your draft is approved can the name of the article be added to the software list. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile Draft:Domoticz was deleted because it contained copyright-protected content. Editors are prohibited from copying content into Wikipedia even if intending to rewrite it after. Content has to be paraphrased in your own words before moving it to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TomRoad-1, and welcome to the Teahouse. In my experience, editing Wikipedia is very collaborative: I'm not quite sure what 'agile' would mean in this context, but I think it probably can be. But there is a lot for a newcomer to learn, and perhaps one of the problems is that because a) everybody knows how to write English and b) it is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", people think they can come here and start contributing without having to learn how to do so. Added to that is that observation that many people come here with the intention of getting a particular subject (often a company, a band, or an artist) "up" on Wikipedia, not realising that that goal is promotion, which is fundamentally incongruent with all the aims and purposes of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Stub for Horlah Oladeji

Please I need assistance on creating a stub for a young 21yrs Old former National U20 goalkeeper of Nigeria horlah Oladeji. I will appreciate any kind assistance. References about him exist Jhonnnnny (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jhonnnnny: The subject needs to be notable enough, either under WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. We don't usually have articles written about youth players who haven't played a professional match. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see any point in ever creating a stub now, in the 2020s. It was a way to get breadth to the encyclopaedia in the early days; but now, in order to have an article at all, you need to find the sources, and we have the articles for creation process, so why not write the article? If somebody contemplates writing a stub, especially about somebody who is or may become a public figure, I am suspicious of promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference issues

Good morning, am a contributor from Zimbabwe and am having a problem. The issue here is in Zimbabwe, the sources available to prove a subject is notable are the ones that are reliable but then nomatter if I add them, my contributions are not recognised.

I think it is key to observe carefully what happens when it comes to Zimbabwean media references.

Two of my recent articles where moved to draft space due to issues to do with referencing I.e Mudiwa Hood but if you do a research online one can see that the subject is indeed notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvandofarira2 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zvandofarira2: – Just looking online I found a number of sources on Mudiwa Hood – they are articles of which Mudiwa Hood is the subject, and not merely passing mentions, so they may be accepted as reliable sources (WP:RS) – Mudiwa Hood has also been nominated for an award, which may count towards notability – if Mudiwa Hood meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC and reliable sources can be found to support the article content then the article could pass. Also review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons – best wishes, Epinoia (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: - So what could be the reason behind for the Mudiwa Hood article to be removed from mainspace?

Courtesy: Now at Draft:Mudiwa Hood and resubmitted to AfC after editing by creator. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zvandofarira2: Consider removing some of the refs that support his being a Hip hop musician. Also, remove refs that are just name-mentions versus lengthy content about him. Reviewers can be turned off by poor ref quantity versus quality. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Ok thank you. Let me work on that. What else can be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvandofarira2 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Request review for someone else's edits?

I noticed some odd edits from an IP editor this morning, and I think it'd be good for someone experienced to have a look at them. Is there some standard way to "flag something for review"?

The editor in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.91.30.89. At least part of the editor's text is copied from other sites (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1007272616&diffmode=source seems copied from https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_3.php). Aapeliv (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You should revert that and the other major edit 5.91.30.89 did on copyright grounds, and also adding content with no reference. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Person I know page editing

Hi, can I still edit a page of a person I know? In case I can, what sort of information can I put? Thanks. Radspeed (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Radspeed: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for asking! Check out the Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide for how to handle this situation. It is better if you work on articles not connected to people you know. RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Radspeed. If you know a person who is the subject of an article, then you have a conflict of interest. Best practice for you would be to avoid editing the article directly, and instead make formal edit requests on the article's talk page. Any new content must be neutrally written and must summarize what reliable, published sources say about the person. Information based on your own personal experience is not permitted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Radspeed. I went ahead and expanded the article and am continuing to expand it with reliable sources. I have not yet read your discussion on the article's talk page, nor have I read your prior edits of the article, so if something you believe should be included is missing, please let me know. I'm not an arbiter of what should or should not be included in any given article, but I'll try to make an informed decision. If you do have suggestions, please try to substantiate them with reliable sources such that they can be easily incorporated into the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can another Wikipedia user simply ORDER me to make a separate article -without discussion and without answering my objections?

I added a dozen sources to a Wikipedia article and they were removed, with no discussion, just an order. Is this normal? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceoil#Why_did_Ceoil_remove_a_dozen_sources_concerning_Nazi_looting_of_Van_Goghs_? Thank you. Eli185 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Eli185 No one can order you to do anything. But if constructive discussion fails to resolve a problem, there are channels of dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eli185: You added a detailed section [3] to an already long article. The page history [4] shows Ceoil removed most of the section with edit summary "this is all very interesting, but should be in a separate dedicated article".[5] Category:Vincent van Gogh has many separate articles with material which is judged too detailed for the main article. If you make a separate article then the main article can have a summary section per Wikipedia:Summary style, and link to the article. It can also be added to the category and {{Vincent van Gogh}}. You could also try to get consensus for a detailed section in the main article by posting to Talk:Vincent van Gogh. Ceoil moved your post to Talk:Vincent van Gogh#Why did Ceoil remove a dozen sources concerning Nazi looting of Van Goghs ? so other editors of the article can see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Eli185 I agree entirely with the edits by Ceoil, who wrote in the edit summary upon the removal "this is all very interesting, but should be in a separate dedicated article", and then responded to you on their talk page, when you asked about the removal there, seemingly without having noticed the quote edit summary, or at least not having pivoted in a manner acknowledging it): "As I said Make a separate article". Articles need to be focused on their subjects, not giving undue weight to peripheral matters. Editorial discretion is a crucial part of writing. There are of course levels of this. The extreme end is "connective trivia".

Here's an example of pure connective trivia—an extreme reductio ad absurdum for illustration purposes. We have an article on William Shakespeare. We also have an article on Scooby Doo. There is an episode of Scooby Doo that features the ghost of Shakespeare as the harum-scarum. It might be appropriate in the article on Scooby Doo to mention the Shakespeare episode appearance—though even there, as a matter of editorial judgment, such level of detail might be a bit indiscriminate, belonging instead in a dedicated article providing a Scooby Doo episode list, with short summaries of each episode. On the other hand, it would be the height of absurdity to mention in our article on Shakespeare that an episode of Scooby Doo featured Shakespeare's ghost – utterly out of focus for that topic; beyond-the-pale-attenuated; pure connective trivia.

Now, I don't think the Nazi's looting of Van Gogh works is "pure connective trivia". Again, the above presents an extreme to make a point. Nevertheless, in Van Gogh's biographical article it is very out of focus to include seven paragraphs about this topic. There are so many things that are connected to Van Gogh in general, and if we treated each one at the same level of connection, in the same level of detail you wrote, the article would mushroom 1,000 fold. In my estimation, due weight for the Nazi looting of Van Gogh paintings supports maybe a sentence or two – which is exactly what the user who reverted your addition of these seven paragraphs reduced it to. Just as the user recommended, those seven paragraphs could certainly form the germ of a dedicated article focused on the topic of Nazi looting of Van Gogh works. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Corporate Notability

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cubix (company)

Hi,

I am quite new to writing on Wikipedia. I always thought of writing up information here, but have only started to write my first page because I have an abundance of information with me regarding Cubix.

I work with Cubix, but wish to establish a page with company facts. Just like Wikipedia demands, I want to put up the information with all the references I have, and then leave it to the public to edit, add or subtract details.

If you look at the page I have created, I would like:

1. Help with building corporate notability, if that's something I can build. 2. To know what else I could do to get this page approved, so that I could leave it to the community.

Thanks Zenameer (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Zenameer Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, and is not a place to have "simple facts". A Wikipedia article about a company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please review Your First Article. A company is either notable or it isn't, you cannot "build notability" as no amount of editing can confer notability.

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.

Please also read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you are required to make. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Zenameer I just want expand upon this and say that while this draft has two crucial, foundational issues noted by User:331dot, they can be overcome. As noted in WP:OVERCOME, linked above by 331dot, if Cubix gains significant, independent coverage from reliable sources (I'll refer you to WP:INDEPENDENT for what's meant by "independent"), then there's no fundamental problem with it having its own article. As a famous example, Twitter during its infancy had its Wikipedia article deleted for notability issues. Not even a few years thereafter, however, you would have been laughed out of the room had you suggested deleting its article for notability. This is because Twitter – totally outside of Wikipedia – received substantial, independent coverage from reliable sources (this is obviously an extreme example, and an article's subject does not require the absurd amount of notability Twitter has). As the company is based in Pakistan per one of the company's press releases, I'll point out that the English Wikipedia – while we prefer English sources if they're available – also accepts articles in other languages (for example, I recently edited Lucknow–Kanpur Expressway, which has a majority of its citations in Hindi). So for example, if there's substantial, independent coverage in, say, a reliable Urdu source, that can contribute to notability as well (and/or just attest to a statement of fact in the article).

The other issue, of course, is paid editing/conflict of interest. If and when a time comes such that you believe Cubix meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, we would ask that you submit Cubix to Wikipedia:Requested Articles/Business and economics/Companies and/or ask about it again here, and I have no doubt that – so long as it does actually meet notability criteria – an editor or editors would be more than willing to jump in and create an unbiased article. This would be done with the understanding that – while you and others affiliated with Cubix would be welcome to help out by disclosing your affiliation and making suggestions on the draft's/article's talk page – unpaid, neutral editors would be making the actual edits and that neither Cubix nor anyone connected to it would have editorial control over the article.

If/when Cubix is ready for its own article, I hope this can be useful. It seems clear to me that you've done your best to use the proper channels for this article's creation and that this draft was made in good faith, and while sometimes there's just nothing we can do as is ostensibly the case here, we really do want to help out with good-faith contributions, so please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. In the meantime, I'd recommend reading the material provided by 331dot above, as they're great resources for new editors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you make a page?

I am unsure how to create a page. Please help! MarioFyreFlower (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

MarioFyreFlower If you're wondering how to technically do it, go to the title of a page that does not exist and click "create" where the edit button usually is. If you're wondering how to write an article, maybe check out Help:Your first article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted notable links

Hello, I’m trying to create a page for an artist. However, I’ve noticed some of the links to his most notable achievements (e.g popular videos or website features) have been removed and cannot be found on web archive.

I’m worried that if I resubmit the article, it will be deleted. So I’m looking for any advice? I’ve noticed other artists have been added to Wikipedia with very few reference links, sometimes only one link which is on wayback machine, and they have been approved. So I’m trying to find out if there’s something I’m doing wrong in the draft process to cause the article to get refused.

Thanks in advance! H o AggressiveGap3546 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If you mean Draft:Krafty (rapper) the Declined note and a comment explain why declined. Links to his songs contribute nothing to notability. David notMD (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing an "Honor/Award" from an Artist's page

If I work for an artist and that artist would rather not have some other company use the artist's Wikipedia page to advertise an award the artist never accepted or knew anything about, how could one go about removing this entry for good? Or is it just something we must be vigilant over and continually ask to be removed as fellow users in a free and open internet?

It's not as though the artist is trying to hide anything or even resents the award per se, but the addition (and numerous re-additions) by this internet award blog is solely for the promotion for what appears to be a for-profit company and should not--in our admittedly biased editorial estimation--appear alongside this artist's many other awards/honors (which includes a MacArthur)--as if this blog's award is on par with the artists other achievements. In understanding of the purely open ethos of Wikipedia, and in understanding that there may be nothing to be done, what recourse could be possible? Could the entry be flagged in some way through the editing interface? I am not an expert on editing Wikipedia pages but I believe the continued addition violates Wikipedia standards with regard to self-promotion and the protections for still living biographies. 72.43.134.42 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Unless you can tell us what article you are talking about, I'm afraid our ability to help you is very limited. --Jayron32 17:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry. I wasn't sure if I had to request it myself on the artist's talk page and was confused on how to do it. The artist's name is Mark Bradford and I don't work for him exactly, I work for a lawyer who represents Mark and his Gallery representation. The Honor/award in question is the first one listed on his page: an award from Queerty about being a "trailblazer" for the LGBTQ+ community. This is all well and good (Mark clearly is that) but this citation appears to directly lead to the Queerty site itself and the second citation subsequently leads to a listicle on Queerty's site (which presumably would receive some ad revenue from the redirects). Since Mark has no idea what this is and attempts by Mark's representation to try to contact the organization have yielded no answers about this "award" is there anyway to prevent this from being the first honor/award listed on Mark's page? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.134.42 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is in need of cleanup in general. I have re-ordered the awards to be in more chronological order. Its unlikely anyone is going to click on Queerty's citation anyway, and if they do get ad revenue from it, who cares? If you really are Bradford's representative, it would be a bad look for a gay artist to be against a gay organization that has honored him. If you really are his representative, you will likely find better luck by emailing info-en@wikimedia.org and providing proof of your relationship with the artist. AdmiralEek (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've looked over the history of edits to the article in question, and I see no real evidence that the sentence about his being published in a list by the magazine Queerty was added by any representatives of the magazine or that it is being re-added by the same. It seems far more likely that the information was added by someone who either read the magazine in question or was aware of the artists work and just added it. The wording is not promotional towards the magazine, nor does the citation linking to it represent promotion. Wikipedia cites sources all the time (it is probably the MOST important part of writing an article) and citing sources of information has nothing to do with promoting the works that information comes from. Also, I wouldn't call "being named in a list of people" an award. It's not like they arranged a ceremony, presented a plaque, etc. The magazine just published a list, and his name was on the list. Those aren't awards, per se. No one from New Music Express asked Morrissey or anyone else from The Smiths when when they named their album The Queen Is Dead as the greatest album of all time; and yet they did. Citing that fact doesn't promote NME as a magazine, it's just a statement of fact that NME put the album on their list. --Jayron32 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I have emailed the address that was provided. I am just trying to pursue an entry (for my job) that seemed to Mark and his reps as an entry that was not reliable, seemed not to be noteworthy, and seemed to us as tabloid. I should have been more specific in the beginning and understood the mode of communication here. I think citing this from Wikipedia's own page on Reliable Sources might clarify where we're coming from: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.134.42 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Error in a link

In the Wikipedia article on the Tilde, this line appears: For most Western European languages, the only diacritics used are accute (´), grave

Here, accute is a link. Very likely it should read: acute.

I know how to edit text, but not this. Nor do I want to be the one to change it.

Larry Dunn of Bakersfield Larry Dunn of Bakersfield (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Larry Dunn of Bakersfield, I made the edit to fix the spelling. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Larry Dunn of Bakersfield If you don't wish to make an edit to an article yourself, that's all right. Every article has an article talk page for discussing changes to that article, and you may use it to make requests like this one. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Larry Dunn of Bakersfield: If you want to learn more about how to edit, check out the WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for merge/deletion

Hi, I think the article Shawty (slang) should be merged with AAVE or deleted, since it doesn't look like an encyclopedic entry. How would I go about requesting this? Thanks. Finder of Eggs^{How's My Editing?} 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Findanegg, welcome to the Teahouse, the process to do so is explained at WP:MERGEPROP, hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Create account but the captcha security code does not show up

Trying to create a account and the captcha security code does not show up I need to known how to get it solved as captcha works on other websites but not Wikipedia Email me at (Redacted)  64.222.180.90 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That is strange did I you hit refresh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovecats0519 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@64.222.180.90: This request needs more details. Which browser are you using? Are you using the desktop site (en.wikipedia.org) or the mobile one (en.m.wikipedia.org). You can request an account if it fails repeatedly. Also, please do not add your email adress to a highely viewable place such as this Teahouse post. Answers will only be provided here anyway. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Brand New Today - All my edits were reverted?

I attempted to make a number of changes to the Vibram Five Fingers page. I cited my sources but all my edits were reverted as vandalism? I spent a good deal of time tracking down and verifying sources. Did I make too many edits in too short a time period? I'm sure I'm doing a number of things wrong - hoping you kind folks can take a look at the edit history and let me know. IdontlikePR (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The current Wikipedia article excludes this lawsuit by the family of deceased Ethiopian Olympic runner Abebe Bikila over Vibram's nonconsensual and uncompensated TM of the Bikila name to market one of their barefoot running shoes https://apnews.com/article/7373346e39d4463fa0fb9bf579990ed9

The current article also does not disclose that Harvard research cited in the article was funded by Vibram (disclosed in the existing cited source, but not the wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdontlikePR (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You were reverted by User:ClueBot NG, which means that there was something "special" in your edits. Ruslik_Zero 21:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

IdontlikePR, you tripped a refspam edit filter. When you're citing a source multiple times in an article, subsequent mentions should look like <ref name="Bikila lawsuit"/>; the full citation only needs to appear once. However, I know little to nothing about edit filters and how ClueBot works, so my suggestion may not work. Make of that what you will. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome IdontlikePR well i may not be an expert but sometimes those bots make mistakes so it was probably accidental. Ilovecats0519 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@IdontlikePR: From a first glance, it looks like the edits shouldn't have been reverted. Please report it as described on this page (click the blue text) Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why Joey Bishop and Larry Bishop was remove from the category of american jews.?

 Jack1578 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack1578 they were subcategorized into categories like Category:Jewish American comedians, Category:Jewish American male actors, and Category:Jewish American screenwriters. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: Joey Bishop was changed to Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent in 2016.[6] See WP:SPECIFICCAT for the relevant guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't add back this edit.

I'm trying to revert this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Geography_of_Arizona&diff=prev&oldid=1007375349 because they removed content from the article and replaces it with "cap". When I try to revert it, it tells me that I can't revert it. JennilyW (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

JennilyW, I've gone and reverted the edit for you - one of the domains used as a citation was on the spam blacklist, so I removed it. Pahunkat (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Where was the link to the blacklist on the article? I couldn't see it. JennilyW (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@JennilyW: There was no link to the spam blacklist. There was a link to the domain city-data.com which is included on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist as \bcity-data\.com\b. This means you cannot save an edit which adds or restores a link to that domain. The link must originally have been added to the article before the domain was added to the blacklist. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. JennilyW (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Who maintains the entries found about record labels? Is it the label themselves, or someone else?

To whom it may concern:

Hello! My name is Brian K. James, DJ/Producer known as "The Engineer". I am based out of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area. I have recently gotten my own record label off the ground, Daibutsu Music. I am a long time fan of, and donator to Wikipedia. Thanks to all of you who make this possible, and I'm happy to help as much as I can.

I'm writing to you today with a question about how I can get my record label it's own entry here on Wikipedia. One of my favorite record labels, Plus 8 has an entry as well as all of the electronic music ones listed on Wikipedia.

My question is: Who creates and/or maintains the information about the record label? Is it done by people who work for the label? Friends? Who? If it's possible for me to create my own entry, how would I go about doing that? While I've just gotten my label up and running, I've been in the scene here in Philly for a long time, and would want to add my information to the tapestry that is Wikipedia. I also want to make sure that any information that does end up here regarding me, my work, my label, my podcast is accurate and truthful.

If someone could contact me about this, I would greatly appreciate it! Sincerely, Brian K. James / The Engineer / Daibutsu Music 73.188.205.56 (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Brian and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a great question, and thank you for asking it, rather than diving in straight away in the hope of promoting your record label on Wikipedia. The absolute key criterion of whether Wikipedia will carry an article about a topic is NOTABILITY. If you follow that link, you'll see that we mean that a topic has to have been written about in depth by a number of independent sources. Anything based on company websites, press releases, or personal blogs/social media doesn't count. In other words, has the world at large taken notice of the subject? If not, and if no such sources can be demonstrated, then an article about that topic would not be merited here. As for who writes the articles, that should also be by people unconnected with the topic, so as not to introduce bias into an article. See WP:COI to learn more about 'conflicts of interest'. As a new business, it's unlikely that it would merit an article right now. Should it take off, and the world notices it, then maybe its time will come, and someone will want to make a Wikipedia page for it in due course. But that person should not be you, or anyone connected with the business. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

All articles are maintained by volunteers. You should not write about yourself: see WP:AUTO. Instead, find articles that you are interested in, where you don't have a conflict-of-interest, and work on those. RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Brian. Wikipedia's articles are written collaboratively by the many volunteers on here (including me) who take interest in a subject, meaning that we just write about whatever we want to write about. We have a core policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, meaning that we cannot accept promotional writing. Article's are not "owned" by anyone; we do not care about what the company wants to say, but we just reflect what reliable sources have to say about the company. Subjects must fulfill the notability guideline (WP:GNG or WP:NCORP) for an article to be written, which means there must be significant coverage in several independent sources. In your case, you have what is known as a conflict of interest, and you are strongly discouraged from creating an article about your own company and also editing your company's article should it exist. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Anxiety as a new editor

As someone who is brand new to the editing scene on Wikipedia, I can't help but be excited yet anxious over doing so. All of the information is so new to me it's a little overwhelming. Aside from doing the tutorials and understanding Wikipedia's policies and rules, I was wondering if there is anything else I can do aside from using the sandbox to practice to feel more confident as well as help with the anxiety I am feeling? EpicCarnage12 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC) EpicCarnage12 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello EpicCarnage12 well as a somewhat new user I recommend you use the sandbox first and foremost and then go and help out with some of the articles that need slight edits i will get back to you with a link shortly Ilovecats0519 Ilovecats0519 (User) (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UT WP:CLEANUP that page has many articles that need a few smaller edits great to start out.

@EpicCarnage12: Excitement, tempered with anxiety are perfectly normal reactions to have when you first realise you can make your own contributions to this amazing encyclopaedia! It's both a huge responsibility and a great adventure - just like your first days at university when everything seemed new to you. But you soon settled in and came to understand the workings of the place, just as you will soon come to understand the basics of this complex but well-constructed compendium of knowledge and sources. If you treat the learning curve you're about to embark on as a bit like learning to drive, you'll appreciate that starting off slowly and gradually gaining confidence is far better than rushing off up the highway, only to come a cropper the first time you meet other vehicles. There are huge amounts of things you could do to start you off, though not all of them will appeal to any one individual. Finding and reading articles that interest you personally is most likely to give you greatest satisfaction, so fixing things like spelling, grammar and punctuation may seem miniscule at first, it's a great way to appreciate you can make a difference to any article. Adding sources to help support a factual statement that has no reference is also satisfying (the editing tool you use has a 'Cite' button which allows you to add information very easily via a template, or even looking up the full details for you just from a url or ISBN number.) You might like to look for ideas at Wikipedia:Community portal (3rd section), or WP:TASKS for things to do. You've over 6 million articles you could edit. The other bit of advice is to listen to other editors if they point out something you've not done right - don't be upset if that happens - just ask them to explain a bit better. Asking questions is the best way to learn - 10 years on and I'm learning new stuff almost every day... and enjoying taking part in it, too. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As an editor with 10+ years experience I follow the same strategy I've always used – I only edit subjects that interest me, and that I have some knowledge of. I read Wikipedia articles on favorite topics and notice what might not be correct, or what needs expanded on, and then I go to good reference sources and read up on the subject. (As a university student you should have access to a library filled with reference books.) Start small and add a couple of lines of new text, written in your own words, and not copied and pasted from a copyrighted document. Use a neutral voice, and don't give your opinion. Then add your reference sources, so future readers can see you didn't make something up, but got data from a respected source. You can also help an article by rewriting a confusing sentence, or correcting spelling and punctuation.

Make sure you're logged in while editing, and add a short sentence to the "Edit summary" line, so others can know why the changes were made. Then click the "Show preview" button and review your changes to make sure everything reads well, and when you've got your edits in proper shape, click on "Publish changes." And remember, changes can be changed, so if you go back in a couple days and decide your work can be improved upon, do another edit, and no harm done. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing pages on Wikipedia

Hi

Why can I not edit on Wikipedia anymore?

Sincerely IvanFaught 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanFaught (talk • contribs)

IvanFaught, this is your first edit this year. What have you tried to edit that you couldn't? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not edit now. I only asked a question now. I do not really know where on Wikipedia I can talk to somebody to ask questions. If I try to fix spelling mistakes I am warned by the system about discretionary sanctions. I do not want to be blocked from Wikipedia by trying to help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanFaught (talk • contribs)

IvanFaught It is difficult to help you unless you tell us which article or page you were attempting to edit and were prevented from doing so. You have no warnings about discretionary sanctions on your user talk page, but such notices are usually informational only. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

IvanFaught, you edit infrequently. However, I noticed your edit to Jared Kushner a couple of years ago that reversed the meaning of a reference and your earlier edit to Walter Veith where you called him a charlatan in Wikipedia's voice. That kind of editing is unacceptable because it violates our policies such as Verifiability and the Neutral point of view. You are welcome to edit, but you must edit in accordance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Login

FYI

 – Created section header. GoingBatty (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

how can i create a login in wikipedia 2405:201:C009:402E:7439:CB5D:D18D:1561 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a link at WP:REGISTER. Very first link. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

UI for creating new articles

I'm just trying to understand some Wikipedia history. IIRC, the main page used to have a link to Wikipedia:Article_wizard for editors who wanted to create articles. Currently the main page doesn't seem to have a link for creating a new article at all. Does anyone know when this was removed and why? What is the path for editors to discover how to create an article? Thanks in advance! Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Clayoquot, from the mainpage, you can follow either of the Help or Learn to edit links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: I don't recall such a link. My searches at Wikipedia:Main Page history#Snapshots of the Main Page don't show anything. If you make a search without an exact match then you get an option "You may create the page". Many editors probably found that randomly and started using it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter and {u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}. This is helpful. I could certainly have been mistaken about where I saw the link to the article wizard in the past. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Error Maybe

Hi I am a new user and I think I have made an error submitting my article. Can anyone please advise. I followed a source from You tube on submitting articles, But I am not sure if that was correct. I tried searching for the article through Googles search engine and could not find it. Willmajor1 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Willmajor1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article needs to be marked as formally reviewed, and once it is, it takes time for search engines to index it. It appears that you have written about yourself; though not forbidden, it is discouraged. Please see the autobiography policy. Any further changes will need to be made as edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Willmajor1: You created the article Will_Major. It will not show up in Google or other search engines until it has been reviewed or after 90 days, whichever comes first. If you are Will Major, you should not be writing about yourself -- see WP:AUTO. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Willmajor1 The article has been nominated for deletion. Standard practice is a week or two for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Major, after which an Administrator will make a decision. The problem is weak references. You are welcome to try to add stronger references about Will Major's music career. Refs to his songs do not contribute to notability. This may be WP:TOOSOON. You can also leave a comment at the deletion page. (You should not add a "Keep" as you are the article's creator.) David notMD (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Want to Create Page for "Dr. Vivek Bindra"

Want to Create a Page for "Dr. Vivek Bindra"

I know how to create a page on Wikipedia, I want to ask here that can I start creating the page about "Dr. Vivek Bindra"

Is enough for the article to cite?

1. https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/dr-vivek-bindra/1089394
2. https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/from-carry-minati-to-bb-ki-vines-these-are-the-10-most-popular-youtube-stars-in-india/slidelist/76276240.cms#slideid=76276413
3. https://photogallery.indiatimes.com/celebs/celeb-themes/indian-youtubers-who-started-small-and-skyrocketed-to-success/articleshow/77215198.cms?picid=77216418
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Vivek-Bindra
5. https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/bollywood-news/vivek-bindra-early-life-achievements-and-other-details-revealed.html
6. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ratan-tata-on-bharat-ratna-campaign-by-vivek-bhindra-on-twitter-would-humbly-like-to-request-that-such-campaigns-be-discontinued-2364362 Digimarksomnath (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Digimarksomnath: No, it is nowhere near enough. None of those sources would be possible to use in a Wikipedia article. Many attempts have been made to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote Vivek Bindra (which is why Vivek Bindra, Dr. Vivek Bindra and possibly other titles as well are protected from creation), and it is clear that he is not notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. See also Draft:Vivek Bindra, and the information about conflict-of-interest editing on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the draft, his doctorate is from a fake university. That is not going to fool anyone.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

closed quotation mark and closed parenthesis on new line

In the Pietro Aretino entry, footnote 16 ends with a closed quotation mark and a closed parenthesis on a new line. That looks bad. In an effort to bring them up to the preceding line, I removed the parentheses--open and closed. That didn't work; it left the quotation mark on its own line. Therefore, I replaced the parentheses, because, all things being equal, I prefer them. Can this be fixed? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus. What is your browser? It is your browser window and settings which determine whether something happens to be at the end of a line. It is usually your browser which determines where to wrap it to the next line. The text was People.″). Repeated many times:

People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″) People.″)

My Firefox browser never wraps between ″ and ) or between . and ″ when I change window width. Apparently your browser makes a different choice. We use straight quotation marks and apostrophes per MOS:STRAIGHT. I have applied this to the whole article so the text is now People."). Repeated many times:

People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.") People.")

Firefox doesn't wrap between " and ) or between . and ". I don't know what your browser does. It's possible to disallow wrapping with {{nowrap}} but I wouldn't use it here. There isn't enough reason to clutter up the wikitext. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, thank you for fixing it. My browser was Edge. It looks good on Firefox as well, although I don't know whether it had been a problem on Firefox before you fixed it.

I've always clicked on the quotation marks at the bottom of this (and every Wikipedia) page, which come out curly; I thought that we were supposed to. If using the straight quotation marks on the keyboard is acceptable, then I'll use them. But, if they're acceptable, then why does Wikipedia have the curly ones at the bottom of the page? I suppose that one should use them for the sake of consistency, when editing an entry in which others have used them.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: I have tested Edge with the same result as you. It may wrap between . and ″ but not between . and ", so all is good. ″ is not a curly quotation mark ” but a double prime. It has some valid uses in Wikipedia but not to quote. The straight quotation mark is on keyboards so we don't use space on it in the wiki markup menu. Same for single prime versus apostrophe. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

e/c @Maurice Magnus: FYI, you can see previous versions of most Wikipedia pages, articles among them, by visiting the page's history and chosing an appropriate link there. --CiaPan (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I understand. I glanced at the Wikipedia page "Line wrap and word wrap," and I gather that wrapping is what we want -- it means to keep stuff on the same line, right? (I don't need to understand the technicalities of what it is.) Another question: How is that you two, PrimeHunter and CiaPan, replied to my post on TeaHouse so promptly? Did you just happen to check it this morning, or do you get notifications when someone posts? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: Line wrap and word wrap is our encyclopedia article for readers. Help:Line-break handling is more useful to editors. Wrapping means to continue on the next line. Nowrapping means to keep on the same line. The Teahouse is on my watchlist but I have also added a TH link to the top of all pages, using code in User:PrimeHunter/vector.js. This page is frequently edited and often I just click the TH link, expecting new posts since my last visit. I also have VPT and HD links for other pages where I answer many questions. The links use the anchor #footer which is automatically added to the bottom of Wikipedia pages. I don't get notifications unless you ping me, and our replies weren't particularly fast. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Where should I write this piece

Hi, I'm a student from Queens, and I'm spending this semester researching pandemics across a few classes and fields. As of now, I have my research topic: The ways African-American communities in New York City have changed since the COVID-19 pandemic began, and hopefully, this research will help in making historical parallels between this pandemic and the 1918 Flu pandemic (Though, I'm unsure if I intend to include these parallels within my Wikipedia writing). So, I wonder where I would actually place this research on Wikipedia. I think I could add it on to COVID-19 pandemic in New York City or African Americans in New York City, though I can also see it being worthwhile to make the topic its own page, as it is a topic that could be expanded and widened beyond my own research question. Any help would be appreciated! Owenpayne2000 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Owenpayne2000 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Owenpayne2000, welcome to the Teahouse. Would these be findings that have come up from sources that you found for your research and are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards? Those would be welcome, but something from your own paper would be considered original research, which is something that Wikipedia would not be looking for (not to mention a potential conflict of interest). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I will not be producing any of my own research, I have access to a lot of libraries and encyclopedias through my University library, so hopefully, I'll be citing those scholarly sources first. I would be writing this article as a collection of information without a specific agenda or POV I desire to push, I would be making those arguments in separate papers and assignments. I want to treat this article as an exercise in objectivity. Owenpayne2000 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Owenpayne2000: I see. I suggest starting an article in draftspace (Your first article has a lot more information on the process, and you might want to take a look at good and featured articles to get an idea of how articles should be structured); I'll point out two things as you're gathering sources: secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, because they establish the subject's notability (plus Wikipedia is a tertiary source), and take care not to draw inappropriate conclusions from improperly synthesising content from different sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright! Ill keep that all in mind as I write. Thank you for your help and clarity. Owenpayne2000 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction

Hello,

Recently I have made a correction to a Wikipedia entry but it didn't get accepted. I believe the information in the original article is bias and provides misinformation on the subject. What could I do under the circumstances? Shouldn't there be some option for balanced information presentation in Wikipedea?

Thank you for your soon response.

Lana

 2607:FEA8:7A5F:CD30:4064:6EEA:E63E:8ECB (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In general, if one of your edits is deleted, the next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD for more info. You didn't state which article this happened on, so more specific advice is not possible. Also, you should not post personal details when asking questions. RudolfRed (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first thing to do would be to tell us what the article in question is. A look at your editing history shows nothing apart from the above edit. Without that info, there's not much that we can do to help or advise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can Joey Bishop and Larry Bishop, Jerry G Bishop be added in the category of american jews.

 Jack1578 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: Please see the reply to your previous question on this topic. They are in subcategories of that category. RudolfRed (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Olšina (Ralsko)

Hi, and thanks for the Tea-Room chat site.

I recently translated a Czech Wiki article about an extinct village. Based on my personal family research, a great-grandfather of mine was born in this village. Since the article only exists on a Czech wiki article, (with pictures), I made my very first attempt to translate the information using the Wiki translation tool. At the moment it appears only as a 'Draft'. I'm just wondering how long it will take until it will be reviewed and published online by the Wiki Editing Team.

Thank you for your time and efforts.

Kirk Haggerty Munich, Germany KPHaggerty (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@KPHaggerty: To ask someone to review Draft:Olšina (Ralsko), please add {{subst:sumbit}}{{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. It could take several months to be reviewed. GoingBatty (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi KPHaggerty. I have transformed two of the citations your used, taking them from naked URLs to fully-attributed citations. This should help with the review that will take place once you follow GoingBatty's advice. Best regards-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you GoingBatty and Fuhghettaboutit. I hope I did it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPHaggerty (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@KPHaggerty: Oops! I misspelled "submit" in my instructions above, which I've now corrected. Sorry about that! GoingBatty (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@KPHaggerty: I have fixed it at the draft and also repositioned the images so that the text is not squeezed between. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I updated the template so it indicates the draft was submitted by KPHaggerty instead of you. GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh *****! I have to do that everytime a certain help desk regular adds it for another editor, so should have remembered! Eagleash (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove tags

I plan to remove a tag to my Draft, but do not know how to proceed. Henk Borgdorff (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Henk Borgdorff The unreferenced tag has been removed. The three Declined notices must stay as long as this is a draft. Given that your User name is the same as the draft Draft:Henk Borgdorff, the autobiography tag must stay, unless you are not Henk, in which case you must change your User name. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Henk Borgdorff (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Henk Borgdorff If you are Henk Borgdorff, you should state that on your User page. Autobiography is discouraged (see WP:AUTO for reasons and how to manage) but not forbidden. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Biography section needs references for all facts. Also, there are many hyperlinks in the article. These all need to be removed. Wikilinks are allowed (appear in blue) if there are existing Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear David notMD, David notMD (talk) I have removed the hyperlinks in the article (and placed the references in footnotes). I thought I already stated my name on my User page, but I guess I have not...? Could you please tell me how to proceed with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Borgdorff (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Henk Borgdorff Click your username that you see on this page, that will take you to an edit window for your user page. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear 331dot (talk), I have created a user page. Will this do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Borgdorff (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On the User page, you should declare that you are creating a draft about yourself. Autobiography policy does not forbid this, but does discourage. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WorkTime (software) article improvment

Hi,guys I want to post a new article (about employee monitoring software, named WorkTime) And need help with making it. Looks like there is not a lot of info about it,maybe you can help? Thank You! Joseph1993BLP (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Honestly there's not much more to add than the comments made by Timtrent at Draft:WorkTime (2). Reliable, third party sources are key. If you cannot find any, then it's not an appropriate topic and the only advice would be to write about something else. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The first thing you should ask yourself before making an article is: Is it NOTABLE? If you can't find any reliable, independent sources that talk about this software, it shouldn't have an article. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:WorkTime was Declined three times and then Rejected. Draft:WorkTime (2) does not appear to be an improvement. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

How Do I publish my userpage

FYI

 – combined sections by same person about same topic. GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to publish a user page and it won't allow me to publish my page saying an automated filter is blocking me? Dr. Steve Perry (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I was flagged and deleted for apparently self promoting so I took out a lot of my article and only left a bit in no resume is in my article just a few facts about notable coverage and my message to help spread positivity in the world. Do you think it will be flagged again? Dr. Steve Perry (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Steve Perry: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you have a userpage at User:Dr. Steve Perry. Please note that the userpage is not a place for you to post your biography as if it is a Wikipedia article - see WP:UPNOT. What is the complete message that you are receiving? GoingBatty (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Steve Perry: The big red banner that is now on your userpage is not an automated filter, but was manually added by Pahunkat because it appears you are trying to promote yourself instead of helping to build the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Again, please see WP:UPNOT. GoingBatty (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, thanks for pinging me here - by the looks of things there isn't much left to do now :-( Pahunkat (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Steve Perry: Please stop trying to create an article about yourself. Your content, currently (again) on your User page is self-promotional, and has no place at Wikipedia. Expect that it will be deleted again. If you persist, you will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Appears that Dr. Steve Perry has recreated User:Dr. Steve Perry after it has been Speedy deleted at least once. SP also had the content in a Sandbox that was Speedy deleted. UPDATE: SD'd again, and gone. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

AND...Dr. Steve Perry blocked. David notMD (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for a correction

I noticed, what I believe to be a mistake in a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation Below the table Summary of modes, there is a note about g(i). I believe this should be f(i). Before I make this change, how can I ask previous editors of this page if this is correct? Wi11iams (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wi11iams: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. You can start a discussion on that article's talk page to ask other editors about it. Alternatively, you may be WP:BOLD and make the change. If someone disagrees, they will revert the change and then you can discuss it. See WP:BRD for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference

How do I bring a reference from a reliable source if there is no reference? Asaduk93 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Click the cite button and then put the url of the reliable source into the automatic section. This might help WP:CITE. TigerScientist Chat 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Asaduk93. While I'm aware your question has already been answered by TigerScientist, I assumed this question was about Draft:fast Cell Repair Ltd. and hopped over to take a look. Upon closer inspection, whether intentionally or accidentally, you removed lines from the draft that were marked as 'Do not remove' (these lines were three instances of the draft's submission being rejected, plus a comment from SK2242). Additionally, you uploaded a high-res image of Fast Cell Repair's logo to Wikipedia without any sort of licensing, and you added unambiguous marketing to the draft – on top of how much was already there – namely: "[Fast Cell Repair] has a reputation through its reliable services." Because of this, I've left a message on your talk page asking you to please disclose any financial stake in promoting this or any other topic you edit about should one actually exist. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Template query

Is there a template that says something like "this article can be expanded using text from this related article... Cheers --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Arcahaeoindris (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: It's not exactly quite what you want, but you can add a link to the other article in the talk page and add this template: Template:Missing information. But to avoid duplicating content in multiple articles, which may not be updated concurrently, sometimes it's better to just add a short summary of the info you feel is missing, and link to the other article in the "see also" section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Entries

I'm a new editor. I started with the WP article on Medicaid because it was listed as in need of copyediting. I'm considering a possible change but I wanted to first put my idea on the article talk page to get feedback. I've done this (see heading about Privitization towards the end) and signed my name, but my question is, who will see my idea? Will anything pop up somewhere that there is a new entry on the talk page for Medicare? Or do I need to specifically notify past editors of this article to solicit their input? Howbeit (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Howbeit. You're in luck - it's a well-monitored article! By going to the View History tab and clicking 'Pageviews' you see this page of stats which reveals it has 235 'watchers' who automatically get notification of any changes to the article. It also gets over 600 views per day, so many people will be aware of your post and of any changes you might make. I also see you've already had one feedback comment there, which is great. Had you posted and not had any response (especially if it were on a low-interest article, with few watchers) it can be best to go to a relevant 'WikiProject' (which you can see listed on the talk page at Talk:Medicaid) and then to post a comment there, pointing people to your post about that article (avoid posting questions in more than one place - just link to the discussion. Remember to 'Watch' the article by clicking the star icon to add it to your WATCHLIST so you are alerted to any replies. Does all this make sense? Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

– in the menu bar at the top left is a Preferences tab – click on Preferences and scroll down to "Watched pages" and make sure the "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist" box is checked – every time you edit an article or Talk page it will be added to your watchlist – click on the Watchlist tab in the menu bar and it will show you if there are any new edits to the page – also, at the left of every page is a Wikipedia menu – if you click on Page information there is a field for Number of page watchers, which indicates how many people have that page on their watchlist – if you want to notify a particular editor that you have made a comment on the talk page, use the ping template: {{ping|Username}} template – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I properly demonstrate the notability of a topic?

Hi all,

I am very new to wiki, and have posted my first article, which has been published. I have added 3 references from newspaper articles to the subject, 2 of which, I feel, prominently feature my subject. I woke this morning to the following update from wiki: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted". I should hate for my article to be deleted, but at this time, I have limited sources for references.

I have 2 questions around this: 1: What is the deadline to find additional references? 2: What else can I add? I have tried the Wiki FIND feature, but nothing comes up.

Thanks in advance Gold 3350 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Lance TV Ballarat David notMD (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Boneymau. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well Gold 3350, my thinking was the Courier articles are borderline because that is the local Ballarat newspaper so not really reflecting wider regional or national notability. And the ABC article is mainly about broadcasting licences and uses Lance TV as an example rather than it being significantly about Lance TV. As usual, WP:GNG applies and there might also be a guideline that is more specific to the topic. It's skating pretty close to the notability standard and probably dipping below it, which is why I added the note. You should also declare a WP:COI if you have one. Boneymau (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting an Interview with a Wikipedia User, Editor, or Content Moderator

Hello, I am a student at IUPUI (Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis), studying Human-Computer Interaction, and a new Wikipedia user. We have a project regarding the social processes of communication, conversation, and collaboration online. We picked Wikipedia and its talk pages. Seeking a Wikipedia user or editor with moderate experience, we would like to interview you and ask some questions. It should take no more than a hour over Zoom and we greatly appreciate your help. Thank you.

This is relatively urgent, we would like to talk before Monday, February 22. Thanks!

Please respond and thank you! User:CheeseCommander, on at 2144 UTC on 18 February 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseCommander (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@CheeseCommander: welcome to the Teahouse. Although this isn't really the right place to ask such a question (and I'm not actually sure where would be appropriate) I appreciate you seeking help from editors. If it's of use, I'm willing to spare you an hour over the coming weekend, assuming I fit your demographic. I've been on Wikipedia for 10 years, helped out here as a Teahouse host for the last 3 years, and have been an administrator for a year. I've done a few interviews for Wikipedia researchers in the past. But I'm in the UK and retired, so maybe I'm too advanced in years or too 'foreign' for your survey needs! I suggest you don't respond to me here (as you don't look like you know how to 'ping' someone) so instead please either respond on my user talk page, or send me a private email via the 'email this user' link on the left pane in desktop view when on my userpage. My local time matches UTC, and I can be available to help you almost anytime over the weekend (ecept mealtimes!), or after 7pm UTC on weekdays. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requests for MasterClass article

Hello! My name is Alyssa and I work for MasterClass. I've disclosed this on my profile and at Talk:MasterClass, where I've proposed some changes to correct and update the article. More specifically, I've asked to fix language about the company's founding and remove a sentence which is not specifically confirmed by sourcing. I tried posting at a few WikiProjects but still haven't received feedback. Maybe an editor who helps here could take a look? Thanks in advance! MC Alyssa (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@MC Alyssa: Addressed on Talk:MasterClass page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about judging notability of current events

Hi all! I'm a fairly new editor, and while I think I have a decent grasp on WP:N, I wanted to ask: is an event like the ongoing power outage in Texas sufficiently notable in its own right that it deserves an article separate from February 13–16, 2021 North American winter storm or list of major power outages? I don't intend to create an article myself just yet, but I think this makes for an illustrative example. Moonjail (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, let me know if such an article already exists and my search game is just too weak to find it. Moonjail (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Moonjail! Ultimately, I think (this is highly subjective; others here may have different opinions) that this passes the WP:GNG and therefore could have its own article, but as it stands, I think it's worth it to contain the information in one article instead of splintering it off. While creating a splinter article could help to divide the content into subsections and allow the incorporation of more details, it could also mean that it's more difficult to navigate to and/or that it doesn't receive as much editorial oversight as a centralized article. If anything, I would try to stay within the framework of one article for the time being, and if the issue in Texas persists over a long time or otherwise becomes an ongoing ordeal (e.g. becomes a large, recurring political or infrastructure rebuilding issue), then reconsider splintering it off.

However, this isn't cut-and-dry. I would say that if essentially all you wanted to do was take what's in the article right now, add a few details, and push it off to a new article, then it should stay in the main article. However, if you and others would be willing to greatly add to the existing material and cover it in depth from multiple angles, it could be worth an article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, TheTechnician27, that helps a lot. Unfortunately it's looking like this is going to be a protracted ordeal that demands separate inclusion, but I think I'd better defer to more experienced editors WRT starting a draft in the very near future. Moonjail (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding Notes in Visual Editor

FYI

 – Converting into header. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot figure out how to add Notes in Visual Editor. Am I missing something, or is this not available? Thanks. Sunnycloudsocks (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sunnycloudsocks: I assume you mean footnotes. In VisualEditor, they're created through the "Cite" button in the toolbar on top. If what you're working on does not have a references section yet, add a header titled "References", then go to Insert->Template and type in "reflist". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, Sunnycloudsocks, if you're referring to explanatory footnotes and you want to make notes that use lower-alpha designations, it is possible, but source editor is better at doing that. You'd have to go Insert → Template, use the {{efn}} template and type what you want to say in the note. After you're done, you can create a new section, Notes, and use the {{notelist}} template to display them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to italicize parts of an article title?

Mars Helicopter Ingenuity has "Ingenuity" in italics. How can I create an article, on Wikipedia, that has only a part of the title in Italics? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: Looking at that article, it uses {{Italic title|string=Ingenuity}} to specify the part of the title to italicize. RudolfRed (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: You can also use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. GoingBatty (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Newbie picture editor

Hello all, have been editing for 3 1/2 years in Indian films (saw hundreds) and now wish to picture-edit many of the film posters, beginning with early Tamil films. Thai Ullam of 1952 is a good example. Many aren't pictured squarely, have tattered edges, creases, stains etc. Have GIMP program and have used it on a couple hundred of my own pictures. I just want to restore original appearance as much as possible. As Lincoln said "It is above our poor power to add or detract. I may not be programmed for etiquette and protocol, but I wish to get the procedural stuff right. I've read that you don't have to be in the graphics lab list, but i'm announcing that I will be doing it. Comments? Suggestions? Menjobleeko11 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Menjobleeko11: The thing about film posters is that they're non-free content and are used on Wikipedia under fair use for identification purposes. In many cases, this means that the rights belong to the creators of the poster, and Wikipedia does not have the rights to modify the image. Therefore, I'd suggest just leaving the images as is. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Won't be doing it.Menjobleeko11 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Embedding a citation in an explanatory footnote

Thank you for answering my other question! How do I go about embedding a citation in an explanatory footnote (in source editor)? Sunnycloudsocks (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Sunnycloudsocks! You would use a reference inside an explanatory footnote just like you would in the actual prose. So for example, if I want an explanatory footnote with a sentence, a reference, another sentence, and another reference, it would look something like this:

{{efn|name=genericName|This is a sentence.<ref>{{cite news|url=|work=|title=}}</ref> Next sentence here.<ref>{{cite web|title=|url=|website=}}</ref> }}

You don't have to name your efn, but it's useful for keeping track of and reusing it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This what I attempted to do, but it seemed to not work. It made the explanatory footnote disappear. Although I will note that my footnote, and 1 of the 3 the previously existing footnotes, use <ref group=n>, while the other 2 previously existing use <refn | group = n>. This seems to be different then the "efn" you used. Perhaps that is the issue?  Sunnycloudsocks (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

See note 2 in Bev_Facey_Community_High_School#Athletics for an example of a citation embedded in a footnote. Meters (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Singers notability

Hello everyone, If a singer has a verified page on Facebook, does it mean if i make a biography for him on Wiki, it will be accepted?

Best regards Bahastt (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bahastt. Facebook's description of a verified user is: "The verified badge appears next to a Facebook Page or account’s name in search and on the profile. It means Facebook has confirmed that an account is the authentic presence of the public figure, celebrity, or global brand it represents." One of its qualifications is that the subject is 'Notable', and their definition of notability is: "Your account must represent a well-known, often searched person, brand or entity. We review accounts that are featured in multiple news sources, and we don't consider paid or promotional content as sources for review."

With that said, Facebook's notability standards may vary greatly from Wikipedia's. For a singer, these are WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. I would look at both of these, as while the singer may meet Wikipedia's criteria, being verified on Facebook does not confer notability, nor does it necessarily imply that it will meet Wikipedia's notability standards. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Bahastt. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. While a verified page on Facebook may meet the requirement of being a reliable source (unlike most things on Facebook), it will not be independent of the subject, and so can be used in only very limited ways, and does not contribute to meeting Wikipedia's criteria on notability. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear theTechnician and Coline, thank you both very much, now i understand more. Bahastt (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice on Creating and Publishing, An Article On The Greatly Debated Subjects Of , "The Processes Of Elimination."

 Widgetfan8 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Widgetfan8: We do have an article at Process of elimination. I suggest you improve that one first. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to find the most required articles to edit?

I want to be helpful. I need to know what articles are the most in need on Wikipedia. Doitthebestyoucandoit (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for looking to contribute! Head over to the Task Center to pick something to do. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

New editors often find that very short articles (see WP:Stub) on topics that have knowledge about are a good place to help. Be sure to understand the requirements for references, as unreferenced factual content will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Question from JESUS IS THE WAY123

So do I edit whatever I want or is there anything specific you would like me to be editing? I would love to have something assigned to me and can work with whatever you give me. -JESUS IS THE WAY123 JESUS IS THE WAY123 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

JESUS IS THE WAY123 General rule is edit what you know. No assignment process. David notMD (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@JESUS IS THE WAY123: We can always use some help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@JESUS IS THE WAY123: You could also consider joining a WikiProject to work with editors with similar interests, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:TASKS may have something you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

About Reliable Source

Are this 3 news portal reliable according to Wikipedia's policy asianage, Deccan Chronical, The Statesman ?? Jroynoplan (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume that by "news portal" you mean a website that republishes or otherwise aggregates news stories from other sources- it is those other sources that would be the reliable source, not the portal itself. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroynoplan (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jroynoplan: @331dot: I think the OP is asking whether the three news brands listed (Asian Age, Deccan Chronical, and The Statesmen) are reliable sources, to which I would reply that those news outlets are generally allowed by the Wikipedia community. They are established newspapers in India so it would be hard to argue otherwise. Geicraftor (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Geicraftor:, thank you. Really this information is helpful.

Established band, has reviews - rejected for Notability

Hi there - I have been working on creating a page for a band I love - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beequeen - It was rejected due to a notability issue. While they are not the Rolling Stones, Beequeen has been around for over 30 years and has been reviewed many times, played around the world, and has particularly notable member. I added in new references after it was initially rejected. I reviewed the Notability in Music Wiki page and feel I followed those directions.

I submitted back in October for the next review, and know it takes time. But I didn't enter in any keywords for the reviewers. I tried to enter things, but that process didn't make sense to me. And I can make more updates while I wait for the next review.

Please take a peak at the draft page and let me know if you can make any suggestions to make this smoother going from here.

Many thanks to all of you for the assistance! Don Muteelation (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Muteelation: Which of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles does Beequeen meet? I also suggest adding independent sources to the draft. Also see WP:ITALICS and WP:REFPUNCT. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: 1) When you mention which notability topic do they trigger - They certainly cover Criteria #1 - Coverage in non trivial manners in independent reviews. These are listed at the bottom of the draft page. #6 is a certainty, but I didn't cover that too much in the article to give the main focus to this band, Beequeen, not to the individual members. #7 is a sure thing - again, I didn't expound on the individuals, but one member is world famous for his work and stature in experimental music. So - how do I notate this in the article so it gets through the review? Nothing I see in other articles calls out how people are notable to specific criteria. So when you asked in your reply, how do I ensure this is covered?

2) Independent sources are already added in the draft. 3) When you pointed out the italics and punctuation articles - did you mean I needed to add italics or the article had punctuation issues? What was the reference to those 2 links for? Thanks!Don Muteelation (talk)

@Muteelation: Notability is important for every article. I suggest you change the list of reviews into paragraphs supported by those reviews. Album titles and magazines should be italicized, and punctuation should be placed before the references (not afterwards). Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Muteelation: I have created several articles about fairly obscure bands which have been accepted. I am not familiar with Beequeen, but I've taken a quick look at your draft and I can see several areas where it could be improved fairly quickly and easily, particularly the formatting and referencing. When I get some time over the next couple of days I'll see if I can help bring it up to standard. Turner Street (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Turner Street: Many thanks for the assistance. Last night, prior to your review, I had updated many of the references to remove Discogs as a link and tried to avoid simple interviews as a reference, instead going to third party reviews where possible. I'd love your assistance.

As some background, one of the members, Frans de Waard, has been a major mover and shaker in the experimental music scene since the early 80's tape culture. He still publishes Vital Weekly which is a weekly experimental music review online zine of sorts, and a book was published of the past 30 years of reviews recently. He has collaborated with musicians around the globe and has, oh boy, several hundred releases.

Thanks! Don Muteelation (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Article meets notability guideline, banner must be removed.

The article for Legacy Five, a gospel group, has been flagged. Apparently, it "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music." It does, though.

The group has been recognized for many years by American media as one of the most popular gospel groups in the country. They've been awarded several times on the Singing News Fan Awards, and nominated for a few Dove Awards, the highest, best-known award in the gospel industry. I agree the article may need aditional citations, and I will be adding as many as I can in the next few days. But contesting the group's notability seems a little exaggerated.

I'm asking for help because, even though I'm not really a beginner on Wikipedia, I still lack knowledge on many topics. Editors with more experience may help the article more than I would. I believe it would be a good idea to remove the banner and justify clearly the reason for doing so, so that the editor who added it will not do it again.

I'll gladly do it myself if someone gives me a hand, or anyone might just check the article and do it at once.

Thank you for your attention. LucasBitencourt (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@LucasBitencourt: Continue to work on adding the references to show the notability, then the banner can be removed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LucasBitencourt, in general article tagging like that is meant to properly categorize the article so that later down the line, editors who are interested in resolving certain types of issues can find them. It's not meant to be a huge statement about the article itself. As you said, the article does need additional citations--note how the words "Dove award" does not appear at all in the article--and that's most likely what the tagger noticed when they tagged the article. I found this, saying that L5 actually won a Dove this past year, which would help with the notability question. Keep adding sources to the page as you suggested, and then that tag can be removed. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. I will keep adding the references. LucasBitencourt (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Interested editors should consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy Five. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Let's save the article. Notability is definitely not an issue, except for the gentleman who wants the article to be deleted. LucasBitencourt (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

McCarran International Airport soon will rename as Harry Reid International Airport

I saw the McCarran International Airport will be renamed as Harry Reid International Airport. Someone able to rename McCarran to Harry Reid it? Lkas123 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It *will* be renamed in the future, but hasn't been renamed yet. A short sentence saying it will be renamed should suffice. Geicraftor (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lkas123, a short sentence accompanied by a published, reliable source. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source, or too biased?

While I share this site's viewpoint, I wonder if it is too biased to be considered a reliable source: https://www.zinnedproject.org. Dgndenver (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dgndenver: That is a pretty POV heavy source, it seems to exist to push Howard Zinn's ideas. That's not a neutral source in my book. I think you could find a better source for almost anything it is looking to cover. Also, it seems mostly focused on teaching to younger school kids, whereas we are mostly looking to use college level or above sources. AdmiralEek (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dgndenver It looks pretty biased. Just an FYI, another good place to ask (though a bit more formal) is at the reliable sources noticeboard, and there is also a list of many sources and their reliability that Wikipedians have made. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both.Dgndenver (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't Wikipedia label disturbing/graphic images?

I do hope that Wikipedia can label disturbing/graphic/nudity images, as the encyclopaedia is for everyone and it should be considerate of those unwilling to see such images. Tony Zhao (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CENSORSHIP. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for children or for those who are most easily offended, it is an encyclopedia for everyone. --Jayron32 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Does that mean we sometimes show graphic images? Yes, to illustrate a point. We have images many find unpleasant, but what is considered unpleasant varies by culture. For example, many in the Muslim world do not want us to show images of the Prophet Muhmmad, because they believe that to be offensive. But we are an encyclopedia, not a religious publication. For a different angle, we also show some pictures of dead bodies, such as on our article about Lynching in the United States. Graphic? Yes. But is it what happened and the subject of the article? Also yes. Now, we aren't trying to shock people, we follow the principle of least surprise. But we would do our readers a disservice by not including such images. This has long been the subject of discussion on Wikipedia, and we have repeatedly decided against warning labels on articles or images, because we do not want to be in the business of censorship. AdmiralEek (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to warn a user

If a user is continuously vandalising Wikipedia then how do I give warning to the user, also after how many warnings should we ask an administrator about blocking the user? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest using Twinkle to give users warnings, its a nice interface. In terms of warnings, if someone has recieved a level four warning you can report them to WP:AIV for prompt action. I usually give a level one or two, but not both, then three, then four. Sometimes I skip three if its egregious. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I make the opposite suggestion. There is no requirement at Wikipedia that specific warning templates, or a specific number of them, be used before an admin will take action. All you need to do is tell someone that they are violating Wikipedia policy, and that if they continue, they could be blocked. The best way to do that is to write, on their user talk page, a short, succinct statement to that end. --Jayron32 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Situationally, depends on whether the User is exclusively vandalizing an article or articles, with care needed to distinguish between good faith edits and obvious vandalism. If solely to one article, requesting temporary article protection is an additional remedy to consider. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalising and disruptive editing

What is difference between vandalising and disruptive editing? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Its a fine line. Vandalism is done in bad faith, and is usually trolling, adding bad words to articles, intentionally being an asshole. Disruptive editing is problematic, but may be in good faith, may be constructive initially, but is ultimately causing issues. Things like repeatedly reverting, tendentious editing, not playing nice with others, making obscure style changes just for the sake of change. Anything that disrupts the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a fat, dark, and easily discernable line. Vandalism is editing that has intent to harm Wikipedia as its goal. Something is only vandalism if the person doing it is not (in their minds) trying to improve Wikipedia and make it better written or more accurate, but is instead just trying to mess things up. Disruptive editing, on the other hand, is behavior where the editor believes themselves to be doing what is best for Wikipedia, but is doing so in a way which runs counter to the collaborative nature of the work we do here. Good faith disagreements over content are never vandalism, but they may spill over into disruption if the behavior of the parties involved makes it hard to work smoothly. --Jayron32 16:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is about Karan Bajaj, I consider what happened there closer to disruptive editing than vandalism. The IP wants to contribute, but has no concept of Wikipedia requirements for references or encyclopedic style being neutral point of view. IP editors often vanish after a day or two, but if returns, may benefit by more explanation on Talk page versus 'vandalism' warning. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

What should be done to primary sources in an article? Talking about articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Relief_Fund Should those be taken out? Malone98stockton (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ideally one should refrain from using primary sources where possible, though on occasions it might be acceptable to use primary sources for generally fixed facts that can't be opinionated (e.g. location of foundation vs being the biggest charity in the world). If possible, try to find new sources which aren't directly tied to the charity and replace the citations. Geicraftor (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, it can be a good idea to use primary sources to cite an instance of a subject saying something. So for example, if I wanted to say: "Al Gore has said that ginger ale is his favorite soft drink", I could link to his official webpage that has a quote: "Ginger ale is my favorite soft drink [this is a fake quote; pls no sue 4 libel]." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to create an article

I want to create an wikipedia list article with "List of Indian Junior Records in Athletics". Can anybody help me?? Jejsiguoa (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. First, think of (or quickly read up on) a dozen Indian junior records in athletics. Choose half a dozen among these. Can you find sources that English-language Wikipedia regards as reliable for each of these? If so, then a list may be worthwhile. But if you can't, I regret to say that it probably won't be. -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that it would be hard to justify an entire article for a single athletic record, but a collection of records is justifiable. For example, you wouldn't create an article about an Olympics win, would you? Geicraftor (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I have reliable sources about it from AFI (Athletics Federation of India). It's only records for U 20 Athletics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejsiguoa (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jejsiguoa: You might find the information at Help:Your first article helpful. GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm creating a new English wiki page for a German-American Scholar

I'm creating a new English wiki page for a German-American Scholar & just realized that he has already has a page in German. should I translate that or copy links over to my sandbox. this is my first attempt at writing a bio Karxpava (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Karxpava, you can bring material over from the German Wikipedia (WP:TRANSLATION has more details), but just be aware that because each Wikipedia project has policies and guidelines (particularly notability) that differ from each other, the entire translation is most likely not going to make it over. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I edit semi-protected articles

How can I edit semi-protected articles? I want to update the "Education" section on the page of "Lebanon" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon link. Of course, I will use reliable sources. Samirtohme (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Samirtohme. As you have an account, the page will be available to edit after you have become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Alternatively, you can make a suggestion on its talk page at Talk:Lebanon. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Large unsourced sections

What are the rules regarding dealing with large swathes of unsourced text in articles? For example, on the page Badhan, Sanaag the vast majority seems to be original research and has no citations e.g. "Badhan has the largest hospital in Sanaag region, built by the Diaspora of the Region, sadly the hospital is closed since February 2009 due lack of funding and now the local community is left to face the daunting task of taking their sick to Bosaso in Bari region."

Thank you (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jacob300. WP:GEOLAND suggests that this town will past the test of notability but I agree it sadly lacks citations. As the article was created in 2007, it is unlikely to be a single editor's original research. Maybe adding a template along the lines "need more in-line citations" would help attract attention to it: the page is said to have 32 watchers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, thank you for your response. I will add a template requesting for more in-line citations. Are there rules against removing such large swathes of text all together in light of WP:BOLD guidance?

Jacob300 (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, bold action is always OK but make sure you provide a good edit summary and don't get in to an edit war if someone else reverts your change. See WP:BRD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike Turnbull, thank you for your advice. I greatly appreciate the assistance.

Jacob300 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

First option should be to try to find refs, second to point out lack of refs. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no page for Professor Gul Rahman Qazi

Afghanistan became like a candle of fuel and water, others took advantage of its light, liberated themselves and their country, and became one fist and one piece. Now, in the villages of our war-torn land, we need the sincere cooperation of others, but in any case, we must become the architect of our country. Speech by the Judge at the fifty-first anniversary of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey in 2013.

If you search on google you can find many interviews and topics about this person, we respect him because he is a true patriot for peace, education, and ethical politics, I have listed his name and also gave the links of websites that wrote about him, let me know please why is that someone who spends his whole life doing good for others is not even on Wikipedia??? his past works: 1-Former Professor at Kabul University for more than 30 year 2-Former Head of Political Science department at Kabul university 3-Elected former head of lawyers union of Afghanistan 4-former head of Independent Commission for Overseeing the implementation of the constitution 5-founder and elected head of Afghanistan Peace and Salvation Council 6-Joint Front for Peace and National Unity 7-Hamid Karzai Political Adviser 8-Founder and CEO of Qalam Institute of Higher Education

https://www.google.com/search?q=professor+gul+rahman+qazi&rlz=1C1CHBD_enAF926AF926&oq=professor+gul+rahman+qazi&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4j69i60l3.4658j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Mahmoodqazi (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mahmoodqazi, that's probably because no one has started an article on him. If you have sufficient reliable sources that establish his notability for Wikipedia's standards, you could consider drafting an article. If you are unfamiliar with the process (or Wikipedia in general), read Your first article and try the interactive tutorial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My edits are no longer automatically accepted

This edit of mine was automatically acccepted. [[7]] However, these subsequent ones on the same page were not [[8]] and [[9]], as may be seen from the edit history. [[10]]. Why is this and to what extent will this continue? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jontel: I think what happened here was that the software treats your edits as auto accepted, but if someone reverts to your version, that's now considered as manually accepted (even if it was automatic in the first place!). There doesn't seem to be any issue with you though :) Sometimes the software works in mysterious ways... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks for the swift response and the reassurance. Yes, I think I saw this mentioned somewhere and there was a reversion to my version on 14.2, five days ago. The problem is that, now, my edits are not being automatically accepted and I am being treated as a new or unregistered user. How can I regain the rights I have been awarded as an extended confirmed user? Jontel (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Note: My rights have been abrogated on all such pages.[[11]] Jontel (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I can still edit Extended-protected and Extended-confirmed-protected articles. Jontel (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek, I just had to accept their most recent edit to the article (diff), it was highlighted in yellow and marked as requiring review. Pending changes protection also does not show up in the page's protection log, even though I can see the box with the protection rationale when reviewing. Do you think I should submit a ticket to phabricator? Best, Caius G. (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, the Page protection fields in Page information, which say for Edit and Move, "Allow all users", is positively misleading.Jontel (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like phab:T233561. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, just a quick question about templates. When I add a template to an article, is anyone notified of its appearance? Or does it differ between templates? Thanks, Gageills (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gageills: It depends on the template, and whether you add it correctly. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reusing References

I am trying to reuse a reference in an article. I am editing an article on Madeleine Colani. I click on the "named references" but I do not see the reference that I used before. In fact, i only see one of the four references. How do I reuse my reference if it does not appear in "named references"? Edwin Hustead (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Edwin Hustead: In the Madeleine Colani, reference #4 is already used multiple times. The first time it's used as <ref name="NYT-2012">, so subsequent times it can simply be reused with <ref name="NYT-2012" />. If you'd like to use the other references again, you'll first have to name them. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How to get one on one help with building my first wiki page

Can I build my new page in the Sandbox and have it be reviewed. I am sure that my subject will pass the notability standards but I just want to make sure I am citing it correctly. Can I get help with that?

Thank you

-Sepia Dog Sepia Dog (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sepia Dog: I suggest you follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Citations

Can YouTube videos be cited? For example, if I'm building a Career graph of a news anchor, is a citation of the interviews he/she have conducted and which may be on YouTube permissable? Mommatwrk (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mommatwrk: YouTube videos can be cited, but consider who is publishing the video (like you would consider who publishes a magazine or newspaper article). Also, Template:Cite AV media reminds us that we should not cite material that violates copyright law. GoingBatty (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mommatwrk: you may want to check this out too, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. - Bekkadn (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for these. Will check them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommatwrk (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mommatwrk: – also check WP:YOUTUBE – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Abdulla2021: YouTube is information resources and you can cite by the researcher and writers, cite the author's name or creators name, followed by the creation date, the access date of the video, and then the link to the video.

How Much is Too Much?

Hello Wikipedians, I'm new to editing and I'd like to know "how much is too much" when adding to a section dedicated to potential objections to a theory/idea/etc that an article is about.

To give a practical example, the article I think I'd like to edit is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

If you scroll down, there's two short paragraphs explaining potential objections to the thought experiment. I'd like to add one more that I recently learned about in my philosophy class. I think it is not only a fascinating objection, but upon subsequent research it seems to have had a considerable influence upon contemporary scholarship in the area, as many philosophers have either wrote about it or attempted to answer the objection itself.

My only fear is that it's inclusion in the article will make the objections section too long, perhaps longer than the lead section itself. I wouldn't want to unintentionally convey to the reader that this thought experiment is somehow invalid or bad on the basis of there being a lot of objections to it. I thought about asking the talk page, but that doesn't seem to have gotten attention since George Bush was President, and I mean that literally.

So, in general, how could I know without consulting anyone that adding to a section would not make it excessive?

Thanks everyone. Mmarinkovic5678 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mmarinkovic5678: It's hard to tell you without seeing the paragraph first. However, do keep in mind that everything on Wikipedia needs to be attributed to reliable sources, so you'll have to find those first. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mmarinkovic5678. The concept that you are looking for is due and undue weight, which is a subsection of our core content policy requiring a Neutral point of view. In order to make a confident judgement, you need to be conversant with the range of opinion among mainstream philosophers about this thought experiment. Consider the quality of the reliable sources you would use as references. If you are acting in good faith, you are welcome to make a bold edit, with at least one good reference. But if other editors disagree, pay serious attention to their arguments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. As long as you have references to add. The article gets >10,000 views per month (?!?!) and has an active edit history, so you should get responses that could range from deletion to addition. You should consider starting a new section on the Talk page at the same time, with a rationale for your addition. David notMD (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I think I will go ahead and make the addition, bearing in mind the necessity of discussing it on the talk page and using reliable sources.Mmarinkovic5678 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

[Comment made without heading]

Dear wikipedia, the infinity symbol that i have made in the infinite page was necessary. so i have no idea why the message i got was not constructive. please write back, in regards, Sean Chand. 67.181.61.140 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone reverts an edit of yours, then discuss it on the article's talk page. This is the normal process, and you can learn more at WP:BRD. RudolfRed (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In this instance, the Infinity article has an infinity symbol as a figure and also at the end of the first sentence. Your adding a third use of the symbol did not improve the article, hence reverted, and you cautioned. David notMD (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Same for your addition to Christian Cross. David notMD (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

FYI

 – New Section -Maresa63 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ricky Glaser

Can anyone review my article? Cheers!

--Sk8Wiki (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Sk8Wiki (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, we all can — although it would have been courteous to provide a link to it. I think it unlikely that anyone will accept it into the main encyclopaedia in its present state with little to show the subject is WP:NOTABLE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sk8Wiki, a person is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article only if they have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. None of your four references meet that standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Photographs/ Captions

Hi, is there a certain rubric for photographs that can be added, especially for first time editors. If I want to add graphs or pictures of the topic of my article are there specific guidelines to those captions, other than not placing anything unrelated or inappropriate? As for captions that are added underneath these photographs, do they have any rubrics, guidelines, or restrictions. Will photos be removed like weak information will be removed? Are photographs and captions up to our own discretion or do Wikipedia editors prefer and specific type? Alexaneybold (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Alexaneybold (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Alexaneybold. Begin by reading Wikipedia:Image use policy and the section of the Manual of Style that can be found at MOS:CAPTIONS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How to make biography show up in category list under last name rather than first

Hello! I'm a somewhat new editor and I just made my first article, Morgan Bullock. Everything looks fine, but the page is listed in several categories under M rather than B. It looks like it's supposed to be listed under her last name, since every other article is ordered that way. Is this just a glitch, or is something else I need to do to get it to show up properly? (I'm not terribly concerned about the order on the Category page, but I have a feeling it might be a sign that I missed a step in creating the page.) Aerin17 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aerin17: You were missing Template:DEFAULTSORT. I added it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thank you so much for your help! Aerin17 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

I wanted to report a username, and I went to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but I did not understood how do I report, means after going to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention how do I report.  ExclusiveEditor (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: There's a link at the top of the that page to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions. GoingBatty (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia:NPOV violating user page

I think the user page of User:Wipro International is made for a promotion, and violated wikipedia:NPOV. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I would think that since it’s not an article and it’s a user page, he can put whatever suits him on the page. He may have been using the page as a sandbox for an article that was never finished. AntoineHound (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, as it is a userpage, NPOV doesn't apply, but it is WP:PROMO and is a violation of the pillar policy WP:NOT (particularly WP:NOTWEBHOST and the content guideline for userpages, WP:UP. BTW, AntoineHound, you should probably read UP too. You are most assuredly not allowed to put "pretty much whatever you want" there, and you are specifically not allowed to draft an article there. As creating that userpage is the only edit that editor has made, the userpage should be marked up for speedy deletion by placing Template:Db-U5 at the top. 174.212.238.134 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

username of User:Wipro International and content of the userpage indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, and since it's pretty much the same topic, I merged this section and the section above. You can report the user at WP:UAA. If you haven't enabled Twinkle, you should. It semi-automates thinks like reports at noticeboards. 174.212.238.134 (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect Discussion

Can someone take a look at this and make sure that I did it right? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_20#State_farm AntoineHound (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@AntoineHound: Looks fine to me. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Short description question

Currently writing a short description for Jangid and I put in a new short desc over at Wikidata. I have it set to none, but does this appear as the Wikidata description for everyone else, or do I manually have to copy it in? And if it doesn't show, is there an option to let it use the Wikidata entry automatically? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: I currently see "Caste in Hinduism known for producing furniture and arts" through Shortdesc helper on my desktop, but nothing on my phone. However, I don't know why you want to set it as none; per WP:SDNONE, a short description is helpful here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: I want to "link" the short descriptions between WD and WP. Can I do that? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: The English WIkipedia has chosen to not use Wikidata descriptions. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

IP address as host

Can a ip address be host? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think technically no, though we have a few regular IP respondees, such as "The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195", as he or she states before the standard Wikipedia signature. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Editors do not need to be hosts to answer questions here at Teahouse (although sometimes non-host err in their answers (as, sometimes, do hosts)). David notMD (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure

If anyone here has the right to delete pages, please delete Draft:Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure, I already made the move to Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure so please deleteDraft:Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure thanks.Aviation160 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aviation160: Do not copy and paste content because we need to retain the page history in one place. Page moves are done through More->Move on the top next to the search bar. Right now your mainspace article is deleted because it was copied there prematurely, but your draft shows promise (ReaderofthePack thinks so). Please work on the draft some more, address some of the issues raised there, and move it into the mainspace at at later time. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

[EC] Yes, I have the right to delete pages. I deleted Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure, which as you say you created. You don't mention that promotion to article status of Draft:Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure was recently declined (by ReaderofthePack; her helpful comment was a waste of her time, it seems). I'm just the latest person to delete "Rowley Jefferson's Awesome Friendly Adventure": Tavix and Discospinster did so on earlier occasions. I'm surprised that the enthusiasm for creating an article on this subject -- by The Incognito Guy (already blocked as a sockpuppet) and yourself (twice) -- isn't matched by enthusiasm for providing reliable sources that would attest to its notability. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: A quick Google shows that there does appear to be several notable sources. I wonder why the OP didn't bother citing them. Geicraftor (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, Geicraftor. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Incidentally, my mention of "the right to delete pages", was of course mistaken. I have the technical ability to do so, an ability I can only use according to policy. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Aviation160: I'm more than willing to help you on this, but you need to be willing to work with us by following guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, so can any body move the draft to a (article) so it will be normal? I don't have permission, Thanks Aviation160 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Aviation160, if you could bring yourself to improve the draft, then somebody might indeed move it. But you've ignored what ReaderofthePack wrote and haven't shown any interest in improving the draft. Referencing aside, there's a remarkable contrast between your writing style here and the writing style in the draft. Indeed, the draft looks as if it's somebody's little joke. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How does one become a confirmed user to be able to edit semi-protected pages?

 Bootpalish (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait and edit - see Wikipedia:User_access_levels. Jontel (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bootpalish, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has been autoconfirmed since 2013 so you can edit semi-protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox editing

I'm new to Wiki editing. I've edited text in an infobox but it's now just sitting at the top of the article. How do I get it back into an infobox? Any help gratefully received. SMBraund (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SMBraund. <nowiki> opening and closing (</nowiki>) tags are used to tell the software not to interpret wiki markup, so that when you save, the display of the page will show the code, rather than having the code propagate to its function. Wherever you copied the infobox from, you copied its code by clicking edit first, and then took the content with the nowiki tags included, instead of from the page in "read mode". That's the main reason for the problem. There was one other issue, which is that you enclosed the name of the website in curly brackets – template markup. I've fixed it all with this edit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) P.S., as to the second issue, I think you meant to use {{URL|Insert URL}}, so I've now changed that as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sigh

What to do!? Keep it up Kenzie021 (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kenzie021. Hmm. You're at Wikipedia. You've made two edits only, to a sandbox where you said "hi!" and here, where all you've said is "Sigh What to do!? Keep it up ?" Are you maybe looking for our article on Viagra?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kenzie021: Okay let's get serious. Joking aside I'm not sure what you're post regards, but to the extent you might be looking for something "to do" at Wikipedia, please visit the Wikipedia:Task Center. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding article on Nest Man of India

Regarding the article on Nest Man of India I would like to enquire that, can I write an article with title 'Nest Man of India' which is very famous title given to Rakesh Khatri, who is also know as Sparrow Man. The Nest Man (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, The Nest Man, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The simple answer is, Yes, you may write an article on any subject you like, provided that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. If you cannot find the sources that are essential to establishing the Nest Man as notable by Wikipedia's criteria, then it will be a waste of your time trying to create an article. (I had a quick search on Ecosia, and got no hits at all for "Nest man of India", and all the hits for "Sparrow man of India" were for somebody else, called Mohammed Dilawar.)

But there are two caveats. First, creating a new article that is accepted into the encyclopaedia is much, much harder than it looks. For a new editor to try creating an article is like trying to play a violin concerto when you have just picked up a violin for the first time: not only will it be hard, but your first few (or your first few dozen) attempts are likely to be dreadful, and you will probably get upset and disillusioned when you don't succeed in such a hard task. I strongly advise any new editor to spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before you eventually read your first article and try it.

Secondly, your user name suggests that you might be connected with Khatri. If this is so, you need to know that creating an article when you have a conflict of interest is even more difficult, as it is likely to be hard for you to forget everything you know about the subject and write a neutral article based on the independent sources (that you must have found to establish notability). Also, many people have the mistaken idea that writing about themselves or their concerns in Wikipedia is a way to get known: this is fundamentally wrong: using Wikipedia to tell the world about somebody or something is called promotion, and is forbidden. Finally, if you are Khatri, then you are strongly advised not to write about yourself in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Intent here appears to be an article about Khatri making nests for sparrows. See https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/2019/oct/13/from-hobby-to-pursuing-a-cause-delhi-green-activist-builds-nests-to-save-sparrows-2046706.html David notMD (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

How do I let a user know, that a page created by him is Proposed for deletion. ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: at the bottom of the box that's placed in the article when you propose it for deletion, there's some text saying "Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project:", followed by a template code that looks something like this (but with the actual article title and concern) : {{subst:proposed deletion notify| article name |concern= your concern.}} ~~~~ Copy the template code from that box, and paste it to the user's talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, the same here, please take a moment and make yourself comfortable with WP:PROD before doing so, thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Article edit

Hello fellow editors:) I had published an article about Ibrahim El Khoury, and then someone put it back as a draft because: "looks too much like a cv" after looking at it from another angle, I think that he was right; I now have made important changes and have added many resources, and I would like to know what you guys think, and if it can now be put back as an article? Thank You 😊 Carlhatem (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Carlhatem (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlhatem. You probably would be better off submitting the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (or AFC) for review than trying to move it back to the WP:MAINSPACE yourself. Submitting the draft for review will allow an AFC reviewer to look it over and and assess it to see whether it's ready to be an article. You're not required to do this, but drafts approved via AFC tend to have a better chance of surviving a deletion nomination than those that are moved to the mainspace by their creators.

Finally, you've uploaded a number of photos to Wikimedia Commons to use in the draft and you're claiming them (except one) to be your own work. Did you take all of these photos yourself? Did you create the "National Order of the Cedar" certificate yourself? Basically, "own work" means you are the person who originally took the photo or created the work; if all you did was scan the photos or found them somewhere online and they were taken by someone else, then you can't really claim them as own work. You might want to take a close look at c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:OTRS because if you didn't take these photos yourself, then you're going to need to get the consent of the person who did. The one photo you didn't claim as "own work", you uploaded under a "CC-zero" license, but it seem highly unlikely that a photo taken in 2003 (even if the author is anonymous) would be considered to be OK under such a license because that license implies that the person who took the photo is known and has agreed to waive their copyright ownership over the photo. If you just made an honest mistake regarding the copyright status of the photos, then that's OK; however, in that case you probably should tag the files for speedy deletion as explained here before someone else nominates or tags them for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlhatem. Agreeing with everything Marchjuly wrote above, please see also WP:OWN WORK.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much for your advice, I will work on it right now.Carlhatem (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Right edit?

Is this edit right? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ExclusiveEditor. That edit has already been reverted by Theroadislong with the edit summary "Unexplained content removal". See also Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)That editor removed referenced content without explaining why, so it was correctly reverted.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Q.

How can I leave a block request? $'YEG.talk.contribe.'$ 14:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi 윤은강. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Requesting blocks. This might be entirely irrelevant, but I've noted in the past that ocassionally new users say "block" when they're actually talking about page protection (probably because the vernacular meanings of the words can be easily confused if unfamiliar with their technical meanings here), so for that, please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. By the way, in order to request a block, you usually need to have done certain things first, so for the details of that, please see {{Reportvandal}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

$'YEG.talk.contribe.'$ 14:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you modify the appearance of your name, talk and contribution links, as near-impossible to see. David notMD (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, I agree S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocking user

A user is vandalizing pages and even after getting Level 4 warning he is vandalizing wikipedia, then how should I report the user to administrators and get them blocked? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You can ask for assistance at WP:AIV if you've tried discussing things with the other editor and they haven't stopped; however, before you go to AIV, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism just to make sure their edits are likely going to be seen as "vandalism" by an administrator. You might also want to look at this if you're not familiar with how the administrator noticeboards typically work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, before reporting a user you should make yourself comfortable how to fight against Vandalism at WP:RVAN since you warned a User directly with the highest warning template w/o proper previous warning. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, if this is about Karan Bajaj, in my opinion those were rightly reverted edits (no refs) but were in good faith rather than vandalism. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Hello everyone I am very sorry for disturbing Wikipedia, I just don't know what to edit. I am new and I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stawberry Poptart (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Stawberry Poptart Start by learning that your User page, your Talk page and Talk pages of articles are not places to compose content or express your own thoughts on a topic. The last has already been deleted. I suggest you delete the other two. I will leave some general guidance information on your Talk page. The goals include improving existing articles. Article talk pages are for discussions about how to improve articles (not personal experiences or opinions). David notMD (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Maneesha Kukkapall

I think I messed things up, Can someone fix it ? apologies GrahamHardy (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There we go. It's been moved back again. No problem there :-) --SimmeD (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

new article for dental occlusion ties

I invented dental occlusion ties (brand name: Minne Ties)about 8 years ago. They are a tool that can be used for surgeries related to the jaw/teeth. Academic articles have been published about them and they have been the subject of a number of articles in the lay press. These devices were FDA cleared in 2017. They are available and in widespread use across the United States. There are no articles in Wikipedia that reference them. Is this something I can write/contribute? I obviously have a conflict of interest as the lead inventor, but I use them clinically and I know their story better than anyone.

Thanks, Alan Johnson, MD Facial trauma MD (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Facial trauma MD, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking rather than just going ahead. As you surmise, you have a conflict of interest in editing anything relating to your devices. In fact, if you are the inventor, then Wikipedia will regard you as a paid editor, and you must make the declarations specified in that link.

The general rule is that you should not directly edit any article anywhere in Wikipedia in connection with these. What you can do in relation to an existing article is make an edit request on that article's talk page: be precise about the text you would like added or changed, and provide a reliable published source - preferably one wholly unconnected with you, your institutions, and your brand - for any information you wish to be added to the article. If you attach the template {{edit request}} to your suggestion (as explained in the link above), in time somebody will come and look at your request and decide what to do about it. They may implement it as you request, or change it, or reject it, but they will tell you why, and if you disagree, you can continue the discussion with them and make your case. Like everything else on Wikipedia this is done by volunteers, so there is no guarantee about how long somebody will take to get to it.

If you are asking about an article devoted to Minne Ties, that is a bit different. You are discouraged from writing it yourself, but not forbidden; but if you do must use the articles for creation process, so that it gets reviewed. Be aware that writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks for inexperienced editors, and most drafts are declined several times before they ever get accepted. You will need to start by finding the sources (reliably published, and wholly unconnected with you, your institution, and the manufacturers or marketers of the device; note that articles based on interview and press releases are not independent) to establish that the product meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you can find them, then you may create a draft: see your first article. You will then need to forget everything you know about the product (you see why this is difficult with a COI)? and write a draft based almost entirely on what those independent sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Feature help

Can anyone please tell me how to on auto patrolled feature ??? DasSoumik (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DasSoumik, and welcome to the Teahouse. As a general tip, if you want to find out about a feature of editing Wikipedia or the Wikipedia community, it is often helpful to try searching for "WP:the topic" in the search bar. I entered "WP:autopatrolled" and it took me to WP:Autopatrolled. That page starts "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles and pages in order to reduce the workload of New Page Patrol." Thus it is completely irrelevant to the 99.99% of editors who have not already created many successful articles. I hope this is not a violation of the principle of assume good faith, but my impression is that when inexperienced editors ask about this sort of user right, it is often because they are trying to do something that more experienced editors have stopped them from doing. --ColinFine (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine thank you for your reply. I am asking auto patrolled feature cause I am not able to find article which is need more ref, more information. So if I get this feature then I can easily find those article and can contribute more on wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasSoumik (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@DasSoumik: You have mis-understood the autopatrolled user right – you don't need it to be able to edit existing (or even to create new) articles. If you want to see various categories of things to work on (including articles needing citations), please see Wikipedia:Community portal#Help out. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1: thank you

How To Add Credits for Film and Television Projects in Main Credit Box?

Hello! How can we add a citation to all film and television projects so that all Production Designers are credited along with the Director and Cinematographer in the main credit box? Production Designers are part of the primary "trinity" with the Directors and Cinematographers, responsible for the look and feel of the film and as important as they are and the Editor. In the film (or tv show itself) we are credited with full page title cards in the same way that the Director and DP are. We are often credited BEFORE the Cinematographer in the film itself. In addition, we should be able to credit the Costume Designers in this main block. All of our roles are responsible for the look and feel of the project.

I have attempted to add myself on some of my film projects and it has never shown up. Here is the history of my attempts to add myself to my projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dhiwish11 In fact, my most recent attempt to add myself was blocked and deleted by someone you can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dhiwish11#Welcome%21

Because there are so many film projects on wikipedia (and I have personally designed over 40 projects you can see here https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1120039/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 ), please consider these page links of some films that I was the Production Designer for, as examples only to show how we are credited now. Each Wiki link is followed by an imdb.com link (you have to scroll down to see the crews' credits) so you can see how this definitive film and tv website credits both Production Designers and Costume Designers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Love https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1079980/reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He%27s_Way_More_Famous_Than_You https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2076216/reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreplaceable_You https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6119856/reference

Appreciate this consideration and change to the wiki! Dara Wishingrad dhiwish11 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiwish11 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Dhiwish, and welcome to the Teahouse. For starters, I believe you're referring to the Infobox, which appears at the top right of an article and gives basic information about a subject. The infobox templates Infobox film and Infobox television do not have a production designer parameter. Therefore, if I'm not mistaken, you would first have to visit their respective talk pages and make a proposal to add such a parameter.

Second, it appears you made those edits about yourself. Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict-of-interest editing and furthermore expects editors with such a conflict to disclose it when editing articles about a subject they have a conflict of interest in, be it financial or not.

Third, while it's true that IMDb credits you and that I don't personally doubt that you were the production designer on these films, IMDb's use as a source is often disputed due to the presence of user-generated content.

I believe the first point is the biggest factor in why your edits have been reverted, as Bovineboy2008, the editor who reverted your edit on A Very Senior High, stated: "Reverted good faith edits by Dhiwish11 (talk): Not a parameter in this template". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing a page that is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it

Hello Teahouse,

I would like to update this page as it is out of date - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Peace

However, I am unable to as it has been protected and there is a reference to 'extended confirmed access'

In the History Page it says:

21:08, 29 May 2018‎ Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 talk contribs‎ m  6,918 bytes 0‎  Protected "Children of Peace": Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite)) 

The user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 doesn't seem to exist and I don't know who to go to in order to get this changed.

Many thanks, Clare Bolt (Iamclarebolt) --Iamclarebolt (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Iamclarebolt (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The key words in that username are "Renamed user". This is an ex-administrator who's since left the project and requested a rename to get his username out of public logs. I'd ask about making the edit on the talk page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You have had an answer to the identical question which you asked at WP:HD. Please don't ask the same question in multiple locations. David Biddulph (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Political Bias

I'm not sure what to do about a disagreement over wording I've had with another editor on 2020s in fashion who I think is trying to push a political cause. Llewee (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Llewee, and welcome to the Teahouse. Does dispute resolution help? --ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Llewee: Further to ColinFine's reply, I have looked at the article and quite agree with you about POV-pushing. I have checked the sources (very poor) and have edited the page to the best of my abilities and removed all unsupported content. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Suggestions/Recommendations

Hello All! My name is Benjamin Aviles and I am a new editor here on wikipedia. My question is: if I ever decide to create a whole new article, how do I decipher on my talk page which recommendations/suggestions to take into consideration when changing my original article? Is there a general rule of thumb to follow? I ask this because sometimes I am going through the Talk Page's of some articles and some suggestions seem like it would not be a valuable contribution to the article. For example, this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Violent_crime is a Talk Page of an article that has a lot of suggestions. How can I determine what are good suggestions? Thank you volunteers for taking the time! Benjamin.aviles1 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Benjamin.aviles1 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamin.aviles1 and welcome to the Teahouse. That's an interesting question, and it often really comes down to common sense and Reliable Sources. In the example you gave, all the comments dated back many years, and I don't see anything there to act on. Just random views thrown up in the air, so I would ignore them. We don't act or edit upon opinions, but improve the encyclopaedia if good sources are provided or available to base our editing on. If you were to start an article from scratch, it would first have to meet our Notability criteria and be based upon proper, reliable sources. Once in 'mainspace', if either that article's talk page, or your own talk page received feedback about it, it would require a critical assessment to determine how to respond. If another editor warns you that you've added inappropriate content, then you can either check and accept their assessment, revert the edit (just once, and with a good edit summary), or, better still, ask them to explain their concerns so you can constructively discuss how best to improve the article. This is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question - I hope I've at least managed to give you a steer towards the best approach to editing. If you ever need specific answers about an edit you have made, it would help enormously if you'd provide a DIFF to show us what your concerns relate to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Benjamin.aviles1. As someone who has actually contributed to Talk:Violent crime (a long time ago), I would suggest you just go ahead, be bold, and edit the article how you see best fits the guidelines and follows policy. The article is rated Start Class so pretty much anything you can add will be an improvement. If you have any questions about article structure, content or direction, feel free to ask them on the article's talk page because that is what they are there for. The suggestions that are already there will often be dated, so check how old they are and see if the issue they discuss has been resolved. Often, if a discussion is much older than the last edit the issue has been fixed and nobody has updated the talk page to say so. But sometimes an "old" discussion is still relevant. What constitutes "old" is relative to the number of edits as well as the absolute age, so one shouldn't be hard and fast, as "old" could mean yesterday in one fast moving article with lots of edits or ten to twenty years in an article that is rarely edited (there are some). If I would make one suggestion with editing a Start Class article, what it focuses on now is probably not going to be the focus of the ultimate article. So write about what is not there, rather than what is currently there. You will need to think outside the box on this one because violent crime is not just about what is counted by statistics, it is about humans behaving badly, so be wary about using other Wikipedia crime articles for too much guidance because many have the same focus issues. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Referring to location names that change

I'm writing a history section of a place in Taiwan that has changed names, as well has been pronounced differently over time. I have to refer to this place several times over the course of the section, and I'm wondering how I should call it? For example, Yuli, Hualien went through these changes:

• Pushige (璞石閣): Qing era
• Potsuko (璞石閣): Japanese era (1895-1917), retained same characters but pronounced in Japanese
• Tamazato (玉里; possibly -sato): Japanese era (1917-1945)
• Yuli (玉里): ROC era (1945-), retained same characters but pronounced in Chinese

It's not just this town either, and unlike this one, some of them are hard to verify when they changed their name. I've seen WP:MPN, but I have no references in English, so I have no idea what the dominant English at the historical context is. Any ideas? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering a possible edit in the article "Comal (cookware)."

The article states that the Comal was used by the Aztecs to "toast coffee." As coffee was introduced to the New World for centuries, I think this statement is not correct. Any thoughts welcome. 100.15.180.14 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse - the best (and right) place to discuss this and ask for comments would be the talk page of the article, you will find it here Talk:Comal_(cookware). CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi person editing from ...180.14. Since you have pointed out a logical impossibility, and you are correct – coffee dates from approximately the 15th century, and was introduced into the Americas around 1600, the material must be removed, and I have just done so. It may be that the person who added it simply meant to indicate that it has been used to toast coffee, but was a bit sloppy when they added it in in a sentence that was speaking of the pre-Columbian period. In any event, it was entirely unsourced. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is Typhoon Haima not included in the costliest Philippine typhoons?

It left a damage of 972.2 million USD. It struck Northern Philippines last 2016. The local name is Super typhoon Lawin. 49.150.48.8 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 49.150.48.8; welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you're referring to Template:Costliest Philippine typhoons. I could be mistaken here, but I believe the cost is only to the Philippines itself. So for example, whereas Typhoon Rammasun is listed as #3 at $885 million, the overall damage as described in the article's infobox is $8.08 billion. Therefore, if this is correct (unfortunately, the documentation on the template page doesn't ostensibly answer this question; its creator, Renzoy16, might be able to shed some light on this), we would have to find some reliable source which states the damage caused to the Philippines.

Moreover, at a glance, I can't find any source attesting to the figure of $972.2 million USD, so regardless of the list of costliest Philippine typhoons, it would be good to find a source for that figure so we can add it to Typhoon Haima's infobox. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I think I did not created that template, I may have improved it but I did not created it. Sorry. But to answer your query, the list was based on available data gathered by the editors as supported by reliable sources. The list, I think, is not official since that is not based from any government source. The list may be incomplete but all are supported by reliable sources.AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 03:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Daleks

Who loves the Daleks? Starkiryu64 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Starkiryu64 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please ban this user

The user ip 2001:569:78BA:4A00:2017:8571:4DDE:3EB is constantly vandalising, and has removed my vandalism notice from the page. I do not know completely whether this can get them banned, but if it can, please ban this user. EGL1234 (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like Vandalism. Vandalism means to intentionally cause harm to Wikipedia pages. See WP:NOTVAND. Also, on Wikipedia, there is a difference between a block and a ban. Plain vandalism will get you blocked, not banned. See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

REMOVING SOURCES

Hi, I would like to ask if I also need to remove sentences/paragraphs associated with references/sources which are considered dead links or inaccessible links. Thank you! Gomenacy00 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gomenacy00: Please don't delete a ref yust because it is no longer, or not cuurrently, working. Its always better to find an archived version, for example in the Wayback Machine. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: noted, thank you! Need to undo some edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomenacy00 (talk • contribs)

How can I make a article?

Hello! How can I make a article or can't I? roscoe (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You can certainly, however, please be advised that sucessfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can do on Wikipedia, it requires much time and effort. You can try to follow these steps:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

INFORMATION ABOUT THE TEAHOUSE

WHAT IS THE TEAHOUSE Dime123 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dime123, Welcome to the Teahouse!

As it says at the top of the page:

A friendly place where you can ask questions

to get help with using and editing Wikipedia S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential COI on recent edits to Serviced_apartment

I could use some assistance with evaluating potential COI and responding to the editor YoulettingsUK for their recent edits on this article. I also see some concerns with the article on their added target page for wiki voyage. I am not familiar with that site but it appears to be part of Wikimedia. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

DrGvago, welcome to the Teahouse, what makes you feel that the user is violating our WP:COI policy ?! Wikivoyage is a "sister project" of Wikipedia and supported and hosted by the same Wikimedia Foundation. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford this article linked (has since been redirected) to the article on Wikivoyage for Peterborough which lists accommodations with email addresses that matched the editors username. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Peterborough

DrGvago (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

DrGvago, indeed - the user has been blocked meanwhile. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 5.236.137.138 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Can default date style on the Edit Bar citation codes be changed in settings?

Is there any way to change the default date style (for the clickable Access Date) in the Edit Bar citation codes, via one's personal settings or preferences? It defaults to British date style, and has to be manually changed to American style with each use if American style is desired. Thanks for any help or advice. TerryBG (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@TerryBG: Template:Use mdy dates and related templates will automatically render the dates inside the citations in the correct format. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks Ganbaruby. Is there any way to change the clickable default date-style that the edit bar uses? I like for the dates to conform to the national style of the subject I'm using, even if I forget to add the mdy code to the top of the whole article. TerryBG (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@TerryBG: Me too, just for consistency if nothing else. I also noticed that, starting a couple weeks ago, the click-to-fill icon (whatever it was) for that field disappeared. Anyone know what to do about this before I dig into it after some sleep? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@TerryBG and AlanM1: Seemed to have figured it out. You just copy the following onto Special:MyPage/common.js:

$('head').one('reftoolbarbase', function() {
CiteTB.UserOptions['date format'] = "<monthname> <date>, <year>";
});

Hope this works! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Turns out I had already found that (and other options) at Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0#Configuration, done it, and promptly forgot about it. BTW, the problem I had with the missing "fill-me" button (with the calendar icon on it) next to the "Access date" field was apparently caused by the name change of the field from "accessdate" to "access-date". I made the change to my common.js and the calendar button reappeared. I've inquired about changing the doc at the relevant talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ganbaruby! And if I'm editing a British subject for a while, can I just remove that code from my subpage and it will revert to the default? TerryBG (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@TerryBG: Yup. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

How Long To Wait?

If I want to edit an article page, I am using the talk section to make sure it is fine to contribute to the article. Is there a certain amount of time to wait before adding the content that I wish to add if no one has commented back for days? Cbeedy (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cbeedy: If you want to change something, be bold and edit it! After all, Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." If your edit gets reverted, don't feel discouraged and follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Most experienced editors around are pretty nice people, so definitely reach out to them and ask for clarification and seek consensus on the talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

How to practice TWINKLE

I want to Practice TWINKLE feature but if I practice it in my sandbox, such as warning feature then it will warn myself, How do I practice TWINKLE feature? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, well, from your recent edits we discussed yesterday and my own experience in my earliest days I would like to advice you to use Twinkle very carefully - see especially WP:TWINKLEABUSE, it is a very powerful tool with lots of features but made for more experienced editors - make yourself familiar with the whole Twinkle Doc you can find here Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc and never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, I agree that you should be careful with Twinkle especially when learning the ropes. It is important to read about how it works, but in my opinion, you really only get used to it after warning real people and using it in real situations. Make sure that you have read enough on Twinkle that you know what everything does. Try practicing the warn feature on yourself but click "Preview" (below the optional message box) so you can see what the message would have looked like. Try going through different options and previewing them until you are familiar with how it works. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 15:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Interlanguage link

Does interlanguage link work in templates, wikitables, and infoboxes? Like what I did in 1970–71 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season for some reason it didn't remove the external language link even though there is an article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul Vaurie. As to your first question: I'm pretty sure {{ill}} works in all three. I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear as to what you then ask. You've made a lot of edits to that article (summarised here). They all look OK to me (apart from not needing the lt= parameter when the target article name is the same as the text you're putting in that parameter ...and the fact that you don't need to repeat the same person's wikilink innumerable times, as with Michel Prost and many others. You might however find that purging your browser cache gives you a better view of the changes you've made. There's a link in the 'More' tab at the top of the page in desktop view to let you do that. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your response. I will try my best to purge (I don’t know how to do it but I will make sure to try) and for the edits on the Michel Prost repetition, I think for articles such about association football club seasons this is how it is done. I’ll check out some more popular articles to see if this is the correct way. Anyways, thanks for your response. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: The purge link is not default. Nick Moyes may have enabled 'Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page' at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It purges Wikipedia's cache of a page. See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for purging your browser cache. If "it didn't remove the external language link even though there is an article" refers to a specific link then please say which one so we don't have to examine all 64 links you edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The external language link that did not function I have since removed and placed a normal wikilink. It was the one in the infobox with Le Mans. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have now undone my latest edit. You can see there is still an interlanguage bracket next to a blue link for Le Mans. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: US Le Mans is a redirect. Template:Interlanguage link#Usage says: "As of February 2016, if there is a redirect for the term in English Wikipedia, both the redirected (blue) link and interlanguage link(s) are displayed." This is because a redirect will often be to an article where the redirected subject is only mentioned briefly, or not at all. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes more sense! Thank you. Now the issue is how I can maybe delete that redirect (this way people will know the article of US Le Mans does not exist.) Can you help me on that? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: We don't delete valid redirects for that reason. It appears US Le Mans is among clubs which merged to form the redirect target Le Mans FC. That's a valid reason for a redirect, but if it was a real name of one of the clubs then it should be mentioned in the target. If it wasn't a real name then there should be no links to the redirect. That applies to all the redirects at [12]. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

New Medical Research

When following the MEDRS guidelines, is it possible to cite medical research that has just been published and there are no literature reviews yet due to the rapid emergence of the disease/research? Jencastiel (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Jencastiel (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

UM... No. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a trailing indicator of developments in medical research. Individual clinical trials - especially those in new areas or with provocative results - should not be incorporated into Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

List of prolific inventors#Worldwide_utility_patents

I am the Frank J. Viola listed on the table of most prolific inventors as holding 319 US Patents. As of January 5, 2021, I now have 321 US Patents. How can I get this 319 number Corrected to 321? Does this list get updated automatically by Wikipedia, or do I need to do something to make it happen? Thank you! Frankonzoar (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frankonzoar. Just below the table in the article it says "This table is usually updated every Tuesday evening in US Eastern time, and is current as of February 16, 2021.", which probably answers your question. I've no idea how this is actually done but if you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see whether it is by a bot or active editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

But it says it is updated every Tuesday, and is up to date on 16th February, but you say that it is out of date from 5th January. I suggest you raise this at the talk page Talk:List of prolific inventors, Frankonzoar. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Need help with Laura Jane Grace article

Please see my entry at the bottom of the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Jane_Grace  YarrowFlower (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello YarrowFlower and welcome to the Teahouse. The article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. However, Wikipedia merely reports what reliable sources say about a subject, and the information you propose to delete is correctly sourced, so you will need to make a much stronger case for its removal.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find a Wikipedian with sufficient editing privileges who agrees with my position on the matter. The rest can be litigated between that Wikipedian and anyone who wants to dispute the change with them. —YarrowFlower (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@YarrowFlower: There is a specific noticeboard for these gender-related issues at WT:WikiProject LGBT studies, where you should get a response in line with Wikipedia policies on this topic (which I'm not sufficiently familiar with to comment). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you so much, Mike. That's extremely helpful. —YarrowFlower (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Some language corrections needed regarding recent articles written by me

Fellow Wikipedians,

I know the first line of help for such a request would be the Guild of copyeditors, but A: I don't wanna overload them with work and B, these articles don't have serious issues, I'm not sure about things like CEs and grammar. It'd be nice if somebody could take a look at them, since I want to make the most out of them.

The first'd be Marina Devyatova. I worked on this article without being a native speaker of neither English/Russian. I think the article is okay, but it may need some corrections, so if anybody can help or at best find somebody with knowledge in both languages to help me finish the article, I'd be more than glad to hear from you.

I also worked on the article Junin de los Andes. Like I said, though I'm an experienced editor, English is not my native language, so I'd appreciate if somebody could read it. Like I said, I know the Guild of Copyeditors has more than enough to do, and this, not being an article with too significant issues/ not running for GA status, could need a read by a native speaker.

Your help/suggestions are welcome, also if I should use the Guild next time. Have a nice day!--Gunt50 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Gunt50, best would be to mark them with the CopyEdit Template Template:Copy edit - the Guild is regularly working on this stuff and only if they are tagged properly they can be found by them. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford Alright, I put the template on the most urgent article. Like I said, I don't thing there are big problems, but some bilingual Russian/English user should definitely take a look at the text just to make sure everything is alright. The other article can wait a bit longer.--Gunt50 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

How

How to edit in Wikipedia. Thecoolviewer800 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thecoolviewer800 See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thecoolviewer800: Also check out the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please delete redirect 'Ahmed Kamel'

Dear community, I finished my draft for the german-egypt artist Ahmed Kamel (here) and would like to delete the redirect (here), that goes to another guy with a second name. Is there an admin who can do this for me? Btw - is the submit-queue really 4 months? Thanks guys and greetz from germany! Gnomad (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The redirect will be removed if and when your draft is accepted. Yes, there is a long queue; more that 4500 submitted drafts awaiting review. David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Gnomad, Actually, it is NOT a queue. Reviewers look at the submitted drafts and decide what they want to review next. Can be days, weeks, and (sadly) sometimes months. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. This operations are different to the german wiki Gnomad (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that all of the images are from Kamel's website. If true, this means they are copyright protected, and should be removed from the draft and from Commons. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There are descriptions of his artworks. Who's words are those? David notMD (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I have the permission of the artist and the permission mail is on the way to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Gnomad (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of entry on True Story of the Kelly Gang film

Right after watching the 2020 film "True Story of the Kelly Gang" I read the current entry under this tile in Wikipedia. I don't understand this, but many of the facts related in the second paragraph in the Plot section are not included in the film ... or at least they aren't in the 130 minute version of the film I saw on Showtime on 02-20-2021. For example, there is nothing in the film that would lead anyone to believe that Ned Kelly's family had settled northwest of Melbourne or that his father (Red Kelly) had numerous run ins with the legal authorities prior to the point in time at which the film's narrative begins. While these claims may be true background information my question is: is it appropriate to include such details in the Plot section in the entry on a film that aren't mentioned or verified in the film? When I read a summary of a plot of a film I assume that all that information is contained in the film itself, and is not information extraneous to the film. Maybe this information should be included in another (new) section of this entry titled "Historical Background" or something similar. Radphilosophe1 Radphilosophe1 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Radphilosophe1, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to the 2019 True History of the Kelly Gang (film). It's based on a novel which sounds largely fictional although inspired by real events. Whether the mentioned events are real history or from the novel, the film plot should indeed say what is in the film. It may occasionally mention other things, e.g. to help readers who know the novel and may misunderstand the film plot, but should be clear about it. A separate section may have more content about significant differences from the novel or history. I don't know the film, novel or history here. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles on the film, the book and the person. Each article can and does refer to the other two articles. Each should correctly represent its subject alone and there is no real need to replicate material between them, unless it is to highlight differences, in my view. Jontel (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

For some reason this entry on the "True History of the Kelley Gang" (yes, you are correct, this is the proper title of the film to which I was referring) is in the category of: "This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." I wonder why this particular entry is in this category and how one would go about making edits of it, given that it is in this category. Any information appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radphilosophe1 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Radphilosophe1: Your account has been autoconfirmed since 2019 so you can edit semi-protected articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Sorry to bother you about it. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radphilosophe1 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Mug Shots of Criminals

Hello. Can I upload a clear photo I took of a mug shot of a convicted murderer, to the page on the murder? Thank you! JayElk33 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JayElk33. Please read WP:MUGSHOT.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hyper links

How do you make hyper links? I want to know how to create hyper links in wiki pages EeveeAnimationswastaken (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello EeveeAnimationswastaken and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean links to other Wikipedia articles, you can create these by adding [[these brackets]]. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Eevee, if you want to do this in visual editing mode (the one that looks like a word processor), you can highlight text and click on the icon at the top of the page that looks like two links of a chain. This will let you link to other Wikipedia articles or to an external site, though doing the latter within the article's prose is usually discouraged. Likewise, if you want to create an external hyperlink in source view, you can use single brackets with a link followed by the text. So for example, this hyperlink for Wikipedia's homepage looks like [https://www.wikipedia.org/ this hyperlink for Wikipedia's homepage]. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Converting articles from other wikipedia versions

Hello. Currently there are multiple pages on different versions of wikipedia that do not have an English equivalent. Currently I am considering converting the pages on the Radpanzer 90 (Deutsch Wikipedia), Spähpanzer Ru 251 (French Wikipedia), M41D (Chinese Wikipedia), and some others. Is it allowed for me to do this? Det the Eigth (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Det the Eigth, yes, translating pages from other Wikipedias is welcome, with two main caveats: (1) English Wikipedia has its own notability policies, and some other languages are not as strict, so confirm that the page meets WP:GNG before translating. (2) It's best if you know the other language, and if not, you should be careful to correct any errors introduced by Google translate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Det the Eigth: You're not just well within your rights to translate articles over, but it's actually greatly appreciated. While I won't try to read the Chinese Wikipedia's page, I notice that the Radpanzer 90 and Spähpanzer Ru 251 articles are really scarcely sourced. Because of this, it might be best to start them as a draft and then improve the sourcing before adding them to the mainspace. Per Wikipedia's CC licensing, you'll also have to properly credit the original per WP:TFOLWP. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Hello, Det the Eigth, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, yes and no. You are welcome to create articles about these in English if they meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability (the fact that they exist in other editions doesn't automatically mean that they do meet these, but they may). And you may use translations of the text from the other version in your article, but you do not have to. You may also copy the citations from those other languages into the English article - source in English are preferred if they exist, but non-English ones are accepted. But what you will be doing is creating a new article in English Wikipedia, not "converting" an article. See WP:Translation for more. --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with page changes to Johnson & Johnson article

Can someone please take a look at my post at Talk:Johnson & Johnson#Probable copyvio - can’t find in page text? I can’t understand why the edit can’t be made myself b/c the article text is different from the edit text. Thanks 108.21.51.204 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC) 108.21.51.204 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi 108.21.51.204, good catch! I see the problem has already been taken care of. If you have further questions, feel free to ask :) --LordPeterII (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I still don’t understand what went wrong. Changed to desktop view (cause mobile view is unuseable). I went to the edit link at the top, searched for “tuesday” (without any quote marks), found nothing, thought it might be case sensitive so I changed the find entry to “Tuesday”, found nothing. It must be a problem with find (Iphone) or browser I’m using (Firefox). 108.21.51.204 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, why don’t they get rid of the mobile view? So terrible! 108.21.51.204 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Having Trouble adding previous teams played to infobox basketball Biography

Im having trouble adding the previous team played to infobox basketball biography. The field name is Years and Teams

Hello, questioner. You have not signed your post, nor linked to the article you're asking about. Please be clearer and much more specific in your posts if you want us to answer you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Feed2wiki apparently incorrectly removed part of their post. Perhaps they would like to try again by adding to this section (don't forget to sign with ~~~~ at the end). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How long will it take to review a GA-article?

On February 13, 2021, I nominated Ha Ha Clinton-Dix for GA. I nominated Marlon Humphrey for GA-status on February 14 (one day later). It has been around 7-8 days since. How long will it take before both of these articles get a review? --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC) AlabamaFan101 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@AlabamaFan101: According to Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations there is a backlog of more than 500 articles awaiting review. It will probably take some time, so be patient. There is drive starting March 1, so perhaps some progress will be made then. Additionally, you might consider reviewing some articles you are not involved with, to help get the backlog down so your nominations can be done sooner. RudolfRed (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you! I will find a article to review. Would this increase the chances the two articles I nominated get reviewed sooner before March 1? —AlabamaFan101 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Karma does not work on a 1:1 basis. Under Sports, there are 94 GA nominations. The oldest not in review date back to August and September 2020. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

MeTV Programs article to watch

Can anyone watch List of programs broadcast by MeTV, because Alot of people are editing the article without edit summaries, and I sometimes could be lazy to Revert these edits. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@LooneyTraceYT: It's not entirely clear what you're saying, but you should not be reverting something solely on the basis that it does not have an edit summary. Unless there is something wrong with the edit itself, leave it alone, and instead leave a message on the editor's talk page encouraging them to use edit summaries. RudolfRed (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

source

 Den Socling (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Den Socling: Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Den Socling: In regards to your (now reverted) edit at wood drying, we want reliable sources for your claims. This means if you introduce a sentence resembling: A vacuum kiln can dry X amount of wood in Y time., you need to provide a source for it. If it has no source, it may be better left out, because of Wikipedia's policy on no original research. Hope this helps! WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Question for the teahouse: sources

FYI

 – Converting into heading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Are there any circumstances under which you can cite an expert on a subject directly if you know them? For example if you have a Professor who's a leading expert on a subject internationally can you cite things they've said in classes and lectures? Or do all sources need to be from peer reviewed works and highly academic publications? Julianloll (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, likely not. Mainly because of no original research, and if it wasn't OR, they need to comply with WP:RS, too. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Julianloll: The expert may be able to point you to published sources that can be used as references (maybe the class textbook?) GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Julianloll. References used in Wikipedia need to be to published, reliable sources, so comments made in a classroom do not meet that minimum standard. However, if a professor says something in a lecture, it is likely that the same assertion has been published elsewhere, quite possibly in a paper that the professor wrote . Although peer reviewed papers and books published by academic presses or widely respected publishing houses are the gold standard for academic topics, a wider range of sources are accepted for other topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, are we able to cite things such as documentaries or videos we find online? For example, are we able to cite something from a BBC documentary? Thanks. Greenflowers04 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Greenflowers04

@Greenflowers04: Yes, as the BBC is a reliable source. However, remember that you cannot cite online material that violates copyright law. GoingBatty (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, Greenflowers04, if you provide a link in your reference to a video on the official BBC website, then that is fine. But if some random person includes a clip from a BBC video in their own YouTube video, then linking to that is not permitted. They probably don't have permission, and they may possibly have cherrypicked the content, removing context. We should never link to sites that violate copyright or lack rigorous editorial control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing a draft article.

I began writing a draft article some time ago and have not completed it. I have no intention of working on it further without help. I am wondering if one can submit a partial draft. Can one ask more experienced editors to help before one publishes? GTBlakeman (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@GTBlakeman: Presuming you are referring to User:GTBlakeman/Eternal justice, you could add some WikiProject templates to the talk page (maybe some of the templates at Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer?) and ask for assistance at the WikiProject talk pages. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I add a notes section to organize citations made within an article?

If I want to add a reference list to the bottom of my article, how do I compile my citations into a neat section? On other articles, it says that it was generated with the use of a template. MTSpencer79 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC) MTSpencer79 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. By "citations", I assume that you mean numbered references; if I'm wrong, please correct me. The template is Template:Reflist. Its use is simple: under the subheader "==References==" (without the quotation marks), you add "{{Reflist}}" (again without the quotation marks). This will cause your numbered references to appear there. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Information appearing in more than one article

(I gave this new question its own section title) David notMD (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple of ideas for the Wikipedia page that I want to work on. But while looking for a wiki article I found that some of the articles have the potential to have overlapping information. Do I have to worry about whether or not the information might be presented in a section on another page? (Ex: foresensic science article talks briefly about blood stain analysis) If I do how do I know if the information was already presented on another page? GZhen (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC) GZhen (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@GZhen: You don't have to worry about if the information is on another page. If you feel like the information is pertinent enough to the subject, feel free to include it. Go into as much depth as you need while not going off track. That being said, there is also a hatnote at Template:Main, which are put under section headers to show that the section has a main article that goes into more detail. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions request:

Greetings! to all editors of the teahouse I need some suggestions from all of you to develop it. This is my 1st article work User: Auramstate/sandbox. Please give me some time of yours to check this draft and guide me to correct if there are any errors. I have 2 doubts before submission for review. 1. Is this work eligible for hosting a Wikipedia space? 2. What category should be tag in this work? Auramstate (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Auramstate: I don't read Hindi, but it appears that many of the English language references are using the same Indo-Asian News Service article. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states that there need to be multiple sources independent of each other. Although the draft states "Raju has also worked with several companies as a content writer", the two references after this statement do not include any work for other companies. GoingBatty (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I am feeling happy that you have given me your precious time to test my work and your suggestion is very helpful for me. I will follow your suggestions. Thanks with best regards. :) Auramstate (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Creation of a new article versus adding as a section

Hello. With respect to the terms of notability, if I am looking to edit an article and the information for a certain section is much larger than the the rest of the information provided, would it make more sense to request that a separate page be created? With the assumption that it met with all aspects of notability but it has direct relations with the subject of the page. Thank you! RSuee (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC) RSuee (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@RSuee: It's hard to answer in general. You might want to ask on the article's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Examples I am aware of are Potassium and Potassium in biology, Magnesium and Magnesium in biology, and then for Vitamin C, also Vitamin C deficiency, Vitamin C megadosage and Vitamin C and the common cold. There is sone duplication of content, and there are linkages.

I doubt a request would get anywhere. David notMD (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Doubt on a template

Actually, what is the use of dmy dates template? I clearly don't understand what is the use of it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony Peter. The linked page explains it. I could quote it but I guess you read it. Do you have a more specific question about it? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How to be an administrator?

May I know what is the terms to be an administrator? Laney145 (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Laney145 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Laney145, thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. One can become an admin by applying successfully at the requests for adminship. However, one needs to garner a very large amount of experience and show excellent knowledge of policy and generally good behaviour on Wikipedia, and as a result it is very difficult to make a successful request. Typically, applicants are expected to have been members for several years and have tens of thousands of edits, and demonstrate that they have full knowledge of policies and lack a track record of incivility or controversies. Since you are a new editor, I would rather advise you to make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, and start making minor improvements to articles to garner experience. Hope this helps! JavaHurricane 09:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Laney145: Administrator candidates go through a rigorous process known as an WP:RFA to become administrators; there's one right now that you can check out and see what it's like. It is very, very hard to become an administrator. You must have significant (read: years) of contributions and a solid track record of good decision making, plus a good reason to need to tools that come with the administrator role. Keep in mind that you really don't need to be an administrator to do most things on Wikipedia, and I've heard from them that being an administrator is a very tough job. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Laney145 I would add that being an administrator just means that you have some buttons or tools that would be irresponsible for everyone to possess(such as deleting articles). Administrators have no more authority than any other editor. You can do probably 95% of things here without having the administrator tools. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As 331dot says, it's just a few extra tools. It's kind of like how in a large building, only a very few people would have access to the janitor's closet, which is why you'll often see an image of a mop to indicate who is an administrator. So Laney145, I'm curious, what specifically is it that you were hoping to do? Odds are there is a way to get involved in whatever area you're interested in without admin tools. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the most decent and respectful way to get indefinitely blocked?

--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael An interesting question. Are you looking to get indefinitely blocked? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes. I won't return here. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to read that, Jeromi Mikhael. WP:SELFBLOCK might be one option, if you're sure you want to be blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael (ec) You don't need to be blocked to stop coming here. Most people who wish to not return simply stop using their account. You may also request a courtesy vanishing. If you truly feel that a block is necessary to keep you away, you may contact one of the administrators listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GFJAOFJOSWJF JWAOJDCWSM ALDJKSOFJ=FP-SWKD. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Help in draft

Hello

I need help to know the reason behind rejecting this draft: Draft:Abdou Diop And if someone can help me to improve it, I will appreciate it. I think all sources available in the web are good but just in french.

Thanks Art&football (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Interventions section should be deleted. Nothing it the rest establishes that Diop is other than a businessman with a career. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, a businessman but notable to have a Wikipedia page. isn't he?--Art&football (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: Which of the references do you believe are independent sources providing significant coverage of Diop? GoingBatty (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Here are 3 independant sources:

https://leseco.ma/business/abdou-souleye-diop-a-la-tete-de-mazars-maroc.html https://telquel.ma/2017/02/06/abdou-diop-prend-les-commandes-mazars-maroc_1534466?fbrefresh=4 https://www.leconomiste.com/article/1067654-cgem-abdou-diop-president-de-la-commission-afrique LesEco, TelQuel & L'économiste. 3 big and independant medias in Morocco. There is also JeuneAfrique (if you know medias in Africa, you may know it): https://www.jeuneafrique.com/193532/archives-thematique/abdou-diop-le-grand-fr-re-s-n-galais/

What do you think?--Art&football (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: I think the first two are reprinting the same press release. The third is behind a paywall - is it also a press release? GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: No the first 2 are about nominating him as the head of Mazars Morocco. The 3rd one is about his nomination to be president of the Africa Commission of The General Confederation of Moroccan Companies.

The 4rth one is a biography article about him. We can add this too: https://www.buzzsenegal.com/news/News/ce-senegalais-conseille-le-roi-du-maroc_n_18664.html --Art&football (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: The buzzsenegal.com article is four sentences - not significant coverage to help establish notability. GoingBatty (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I have found some additional sources that can help establish notability:

FinancialAfrik: https://www.financialafrik.com/2017/02/06/le-senegalais-abdou-souleye-diop-aux-commandes-de-mazars-maroc/ https://www.financialafrik.com/2020/09/25/abdou-diop-monsieur-afrique-de-la-cgem/

Short biographies here: http://fieldattitude.com/wp/biographie-des-intervenants/ https://www.forumae.com/amo-team/abdou-diop/

Long article in MAP: http://www.mapexpress.ma/actualite/economie-et-finance/entreprises-marocaines-en-afrique-interview-president-commission-afrique-cgem-abdou-diop/ Long article in Afrimag: https://afrimag.net/patronat-marocain-senegalais-abdou-diop-tete-commission/

Long article in L'homme actuel; https://lhommeactuelmagazine.com/interview-abdou-souleye-diop/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art&football (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

How do I properly cite a source on wikipedia. We used the subjects website and reached out to her promotion team for a lot of information. We also gathered information from social media and online interviews. How do we cite that? Her official website is www.tariajaybre.com Tjmills1 (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: You have created a Declined draft at Draft:TariaJaybre` with no references. David notMD (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing that you know Taria personally, as a lot of the draft content is about her personal life, not her musical career. All that has to be deleted unless it can be referenced, and you need to describe the nature of your connection (relative?) on your User page. References need to be to published stuff about her. Stuff from her website, her promotional team, interviews are considered primary sources, and thus do not contribute to her being notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.

Given first album not released yet, this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tjmills1 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid citations from the "subjects website", "her promotion team", "social media and online interviews" are completely useless to Wikipedia. You need to find "significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per the links provided to you on your talk page.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tjmills1. It may help to realise that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . --ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Image change

Hi, please could you let me know when an image change is needed in a wikipedia template. MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MasterD.D. Patel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question makes no sense to me: most templates do not contain images, and for those that do, there's no particular reason why they need to get changed. Please clarify your question - it may also help understanding if you specify which template you are referring to. --ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, MasterD.D. Patel. I believe you're talking about an infobox, as you recently updated the picture for John Williams' infobox – from a picture taken in 2007 to one taken in 2009 – which was then reverted. If you're wondering what conditions the image should be changed under, it would usually go as follows: an editor decides to change the image. If it gets reverted, as yours did, then it can be discussed at the article's talk page to get a consensus on whether or not to change the image. This is known as the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. I hope this helped and that I've understood your question correctly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What now?

I have just recently become extended confirmed. I am also currently being trained for the CVU. Now that i am extended confirmed, What else is their to do? Starman2377 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Starman2377, It gives you the right to edit articles that are extended-confirmed protected to counter vandalism. See WP:XC for more details. Panini^🥪 14:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Appears you have made the leap into article editing. Great. So many articles need help. A minor comment - I suggest not bothering to Welcome IP accounts (numbered) to Wikipedia, as so many are just a person deciding to make one edit (sometimes vandalism!) and then never return. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Sources for esports articles

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

---

Hello, i am very confused about what kind of references could be considered as reliable sources for esport related articles according to wikipedia GNG? For eg:- the article i created earlier Stalwart Esports has major coverage because of their India x pakistan thing, but here in india we have much more major organisation but they don’t have enough links, they have references in indian media houses only, For example:- Orange Rock Esports is a very famous esport organisation and they’ve won many tournaments and i want to do article on them but they have references in websites like (SportsKeeda Esports) (Dot Esports) (Talk Esports), I wanted to confirm will these articles be accepted as reliable sources for wikipedia? I can confirm that they are very major esport media houses in india, but wanted to confirm from some experienced editor/ admin as per wikipedia GNG. Also if you reply to me, kindly tag me. Thanks Hums4r (Let's Talk) 23:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 

Hello Hums4r, and welcome to the Teahouse. I was going to recommed that you tried asking this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Esports, but I see you found that already. In general, no WP:SPS, no WP:USERG. It's ok to use non-English sources, but they still have to be WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Dead Links

What are the best practices for including an official website in an infobox or under the external links section when the subject's official website is no longer active and the only available links are archived? Also, what if there is an article for a specific project done by a person with a website that no longer contains information related to the project? For instance, someone who released a podcast for a number of years and included information on their website at the time, but now the podcast is no longer active and isn't included on the website. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: If the websites are archived, you can use {{webarchive}} with the most recent archived version. GoingBatty (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Recently improved a draft article that is within a redirect page. How to get it in article namespace?

Okay, I'm sorry if the title sounded weird, I'm not too familiar with terminologies here. But I recently added several information and improvements to Draft:Twice3 which is within a redirect page of "Twice3" (category:Redirects with possibilities). How do I get other editors to consider it for inclusion into article namespace? JTan1017 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@JTan1017: There are two possible solutions:

1. You submit the draft to WP:AFC by placing {{subst:submit}} (as it appears when viewing this page here) to it. This variant is much slower (due to review backlog), but it is more likely that reasons why someone might send this to WP:AFD are found before it gets promoted to article. In this case, the reviewer will take care of the move for you
2. Or you request a move for technical reasons. This proccess is faster, but will still take some time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you! I did both options.

Userboxes

Hello,i was wondering why when i was trying to add some userboxes to my page, some of them worked while others did not? Can anyone explain why some of them would not work? Thank you in advance. Ilovecats0519 Ilovecats0519 (User) (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ilovecats0519 Fixed. I removed the nowiki David notMD (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ok thank you David notMd Ilovecats0519 Ilovecats0519 (User) (Talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Will I be notified about autoconfirmation?

I recently made my tenth edit here, and got a notification about it. Since I don't use Tor or anything else to hide my IP address, and I created by account about 2 years ago, I should be autoconfirmed now. When do autoconfirmed privileges take effect, and will I get a notice somewhere about this? KirbyDude25 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi KirbyDude25. You won't get a notification that you're WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, but you can check for yourself by going to Special:UserRights and searching your user name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I checked, and it says "implicit member of autoconfirmed." I assume that it means that I meet all of the requirements for autoconfirmed. Thanks for your help! KirbyDude25 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@KirbyDude25: Yes. You should also be able to see it at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism report

The page Sushant Singh Rajput of Wikipedia has been vandalised. (incorrect death cause).
Cokeah (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cokeah, the cause of death (suicide) is consistent with the information given by reliable secondary sources. I am well aware of the controversy, and while several conspiracy theories exist, the official version flatly states that he committed suicide. Unless new reports in reliable secondary sources change the cause of death to something else, we can't (and won't) change it, as Wikipedia reports what reliable, secondary sources states. See also WP:TRUTH. JavaHurricane 08:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput#FAQ — READ THIS FIRST if you are requesting changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that the talk page is presently semi-protected specifically to curb the conspiracy-mongering. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry on proper 'title' parameter usage for the citation of websites

Hello! While browsing random articles on wikipedia, I found Summer storage tank, of which the first citation was titled 'Insert Title Here'. Clicking on the website, this is indeed the title of the page due to the <title> tag in the <head> element.

However, there is an element named 'IRRIGATION PROFILE OF CHITTOOR DISTRICT'. Would it be appropriate to replace the title to that, or should it stay as 'Insert Title Here'? I checked Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters and Template:Cite_web#Title, but these did not answer my question, unless I missed something. PascalCase (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi PascalCase, welcome to the Teahouse. We have some citation tools which automatically fetch the title from a page. That was probably used here. I don't think an editor would have written that title. Poor html titles like this should be changed. The url isn't responding for me but if it displays 'IRRIGATION PROFILE OF CHITTOOR DISTRICT' then 'Irrigation Profile of Chittoor District' would be suitable. We don't use all caps. PrimeHunter (talk)

Thank you for your assistance and clarification! I have done so using sentence case as other cited sources on the same page do so as well, and Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters says its best to stay consistant. PascalCase (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@PascalCase: I trimmed the references a little. Someone could also add the |trans-title= to reference #3. GoingBatty (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

List of youngest birth fathers

List of youngest birth fathers have wrong wikilinks. Please check and remove. Thanks in advance! --2001:B07:6442:8903:F938:6B9A:863C:E8FA (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I didn't find any obvious errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by wrong wikilinks? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the Teahouse is a place to ask for people to do things for you. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can, be bold and fix the wikilinks. If you don't know how, you can post a request on the article's talk page - Talk:List of youngest birth fathers - so a knowledgeable editor can assist you. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Animated programs broadcast by MeTV

Does anyone think that the links in List of programs broadcast by MeTV#Animated is reliable? If so, I will leave it alone, But not, I will edit them for you guys. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

LooneyTraceYT Welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss this and air your reservations is on the article talk page where interested and knowledgeable editors will see it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is a Wikipedia Lock a thing?

I paid for a Wikipedia submission to a 3rd party business, and the company are now saying that I need to pay £1000 for them to get a "Wikipedia lock" as they are claiming competitors are rejecting the page.

They said the money goes to Wikipedia. They have said if I seek a refund for the original cost they will lock the page so no one else can add to the page. Can they do this? MatthewLawson.ribble (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a scam. What they mean by "lock" might be something like edit locks, but these do not "prevent" a page from being rejected. Established editors will still review and nominate the article for deletion. Do not pay the money. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝)

Seconding what WhoAteMyButter says, this is entirely false/fraudulent. Even apart from those threats, paid editing like this is generally frowned upon and I would discourage you from trying to use any of these types of services in the future. If you want help creating an article, please start at Help:Your first article or the WP:Article wizard. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: user is being helped on Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help, and has said they will be contacting the address listed at WP:SCAM. Perryprog (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Index

I am going to create a Wikipedia page but don't know how to create the content area https://prnt.sc/103mo5s Where all content index is shown in a box. Please help me ButlerJan (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ButlerJan, I assume this is about User:ButlerJan/sandbox. Once it has at least four properly-formatted section headers, a contents box will appear automatically. Currently there are only two. Maproom (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I created section titles, but this is still an utter mess. The attempt to create an infobox failed. Hyperlinks are not allowed. References need to be embedded in the body of the article, and not just as 'naked' htmls. There is so much else wrong that I give up. Maybe others will be moved to give direction. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

​ Hi ButlerJan. I have deleted the page under CSD G11, as unambiguous advertising. Please note that the page contained copyright violations – content copied from Truya's websites both word-for-word as well as too closely paraphrased to the original. We cannot host copyrighted material, and even if it was rendered usable, it would be unsuitable for use here, as blatantly promotional content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

But what if two notability guidelines fight?

Greetings,

so I have a specific question about notability (well who doesn't, 80% of questions here are about notability ^^). I've recently started to meddle a bit in merge discussions, and have now dipped into deletion discussions. But I'm curious about how exactly the arguments should be made there. Because in these two examples Jitender Mehra & R. W. Chandrasiri the nominator referred to WP:GNG which makes sense to me. But both are cricketers, so they seem to fall under WP:CRIN as well. Can a deletion occur because they fail GNG, but pass CRIN? This ofc applies to any situation where there's a specific guideline that supplements the GNG. Which one takes precedent (I assume the supplement)? Or do we just use common sense (our own judgement) in the end?

But maybe I am misunderstanding the discussion there and they fail both GNG and CRIN, in which case the decision is obvious. -- LordPeterII (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: See point (1) at Wikipedia:Notability. Either the GNG or the subject-specific guideline can be used. If the person passes CRIN, then that person is presumed notable. RudolfRed (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LordPeterII there is a tension I see between the SSNGs and the GNG, that is not well clarified in guideline or policy that your post calls to. (I personally believe we should get rid of all the SSNGs—entirely—partly grounded on issues implicated by your question, but that's a much longer post.)

Anyway, they provide (are supposed to but not all properly clarify) presumptions of notability—'X is presumed to be a notable topic → because Y status → usually means the necessary sources from which notability actually depends (on which an article with verifiable content could be written, beyond a stub) → are likely to exist for topics with that status.'

All presumptions are by definition rebuttable. Accordingly, if one does a hard dive into a topic's sourcing, such that it can be said with some degree of certitude that suitable sourcing actually doesn't exist (despite falling within some SSNG criterion), deletion is still warranted.

That's my take on the manner the SSNGs must ultimately interface with the GNG as a logical necessity, in the larger context of what we mean by notability and its pragmatic gatekeeper function of keeping out indiscriminate topics that can never be built into proper articles that meet our core content inclusion policies. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What do I do if most of the information I need for the Wikipedia page I'm editing is a primary source?

Hello! I am an intern at the Air Conditioning Contractors of America. This month, I've been given the task to update our Wikipedia page as it does not hold much information about the association, and would like to expand for anyone who would like to look us up. After failed attempts, I now understand that the sources I've used are from our website which prevents me from creating the page. Although, if the information can only be found at our website, how should I move forward? For example, we want to list out current members (companies) would it not be okay to use our website? I am confused on what is allowed or not, or what is considered promotional or not, and would really love some insight on this as I am a little lost! (I am also aware that since I am a paid intern, I may be considered a conflict of interest but I've followed instructions and have included that information on my profile)

Thank you! Wingelcaburian (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wingelcaburian, and welcome to the Teahouse. If most of the information you need is in a primary source, (and, Air Conditioning Contractors of America has no independent sources already) then the subject is almost certainly not notable, and you should not waste any more time on trying to work on an article which is going to get deleted. You are doing the equivalent of building an extension on a house which was built in the first place without having checked whether the ground it was on was solid or not. Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would add that the appropriate place for the ACCA to speak about itself is its own website, not Wikipedia. Any article about the ACCA is not "their page", but a Wikipedia article about them. Feel free to show your superiors these messages. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, ACCA is now nominated for deletion. See Air Conditioning Contractors of America. Only potential to save it is find and use as references valid secondary sources. However, as you are in paid situation, the place for creating references is on the talk page of the article. If refs found, you can also leave a comment at the AfD that you have found valid refs and proposed that those be added to the article. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to copy and paste text from a different language Wikipedia and put in the same page on the English Wikipedia? (of course the text is translated and fixed)

Would it be okay to copy text from a different language Wikipedia and translate it like i did here? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Janusz_P%C4%99cherz&diff=prev&oldid=1008295843 Thank you Starman2377 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Starman2377 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377: Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. In general, yes, provided that you attribute its source. You should also take care that you copy the source code over, so that references are retained. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add required attribution yourself, like described in Help:Translation, or give an URL to the source so we can do it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Starman2377. In addition to what the others posted above, you should understand that each Wikipedia project is separate from the others and that each Wikipedia project has its own policies and guidelines. Since English Wikipedia is the project with the most articles and the most editors, other language Wikipedia projects often follow in its footsteps and establish policies and guidelines that are quite similar; however, some project's don't enforce these policies and guidelines as rigorously as English Wikipedia. So, just because an article exists on another Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically mean it's OK to exist on English Wikipedia (and vice versa) as explained in WP:OTHERLANGS and in paragraph 4 of WP:OTHERSTUFF. You may still be asked to establish how the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability by other editors and any translated article you creat can be nominated or tagged for deletion if another editor doesn't feel it meets English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Such a thing could happen regardless of how long it's been an article on the other language Wikipedia or whether it's nominated or tagged for deletion on the other language Wikipedia. As for the actual translating itself, you should probably avoid machine translations as explained in WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. While the quality of machine translations have improved greatly over the years, it's still better to avoid such a thing. If you're competent enough in both English and the original source language, then perhaps it's best to simply use the sources cited in the other language and either translate the article yourself or write the article from scratch in English. If you're not confident in your ability to do either, then perhaps you can find someone who can and who would mind helping you do such a thing at Wikipedia:Translators available. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can Morgan Edge be added in the category of fictional american jews in comics

 Jack1578 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack1578: You asked the same question a few days ago - see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1096#Can_Morgan_Edge_be_added_in_the_category_of_fictional_american_jews. for the answers you received then. GoingBatty (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Midnite Special Appearance RE: Dianne Steinberg

I appeared on the Midnite Special in 1977/'78 to promote my album Universal Child for ABC Records. I had just begun filming in the role of "LUCY (in the Sky) in the RSO/Universal Movie "SGT PEPPERS LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND" w Peter Frampton and the BeeGees.

The day my band and I arrived to film, the Dazz Band was recording their segment. It may help to note the band members: Steve Lukather/Guitar/pre-Toto, Kenny Lee Lewis/bass/pre-Steve Miller Band, William 'Smitty' Smith on 2nd Keys, Mike Baird/drums, David Pomeranz/Songwriter/BG vocals, & and Trish Smith/BG vocals. Two Questions: How can I attain a copy of my performance? And how can I be added to the lists of Artists posted here?

Dianne Steinberg (AKA Diane Steinberg Lewis 71.84.25.43 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dianne! I don't know how you would obtain a copy of the performance. If you would like to be added to List of guests appearing on The Midnight Special, I suggest you post on the article's talk page - Talk:List of guests appearing on The Midnight Special - using the {{request edit}} template, and provide a published reliable source if possible. GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A general question

added a section title David notMD (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How are you editing today? PhampH102 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Significant proposed changes to the Susan Wagle page

edit source] In 2018, Wagle cosponsored legislation with Kansas Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley that worked to bring more transparency to state contracts. Senate Bill 394 required lobbyist registration for anyone attempting to influence officials in state agencies or the executive branch over a state contract. Prior to the enactment of this legislation, lobbying efforts were only required to be disclosed if such efforts were directed toward the legislative branch. Wagle stated the need for this legislation arose due to a lack of transparency within the administration of Republican former Governor Sam Brownback.

Government Accountability[edit I love Kansas (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi I love Kansas. I'm sorry but your post is impenetrable to me. You've composed a headline that talks about making significant proposed changes to a particular article, and then copied and pasted some content already in the body of that article, with nothing I can see explaining the connection between the headline and the text, or what you propose as changes. Nor can I find anywhere that you've proposed any specific changes to that article, such as on its talk page, Talk:Susan Wagle, which is the correct location in almost all cases for making suggestions regarding a specific article or to discuss a change you tried that was reverted. Can you clarify what you are seeking?

By the way, unless you created the text you copied and pasted above, your post above is a copyright violation (but of an eminently fixable kind). When you take content from an article here and post it somewhere else on Wikipedia, such as to a forum like this one, or re-use it in another article, you must provide suitable credit to the Wikipedia authors of that content who own the copyright of their edits, which we all agree can be done (among other ways) by linking the article in the edit summary where the page history is available, together with stating what you've done. I have fixed the copyright attribution in this edit, per WP:RIA. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and make sure to follow copyright in the future by giving suitable credit to your fellow editors. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@I love Kansas: P.S. the preferred method for linking other Wikipedia pages is to enclose the name in brackets, instead of posting the URL. Thus [[Susan Wagle]] produces Susan Wagle. See more at Help:Link and Help:Cheatsheet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @I love Kansas: welcome to the Teahouse. I definitely feel any suggestion for changes should be posted, not here, but at Talk:Susan Wagle where interested editors may wish to comment, or request you provide citations if they feel something ought to be added to the article. Just rmeember that other peole can't hear you thinking - so do make sure to be totally clear as to what changes you would like to see made, and why. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia text message

I have received a text message from number 18339870836 that states : "We think you are now eligible to have your personal Wikipedia profile, contact asap" followed by a link. I did not click the link or reply as am assuming this is a scam but wanted any insight/clarification please. 101.178.218.78 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey person editing from 101.178.218.78. It probably is a scam – see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning – but it might not be. There are a bunch of mostly incompetent, often predatory acting, but nevertheless actual services that do write Wikipedia articles for money. The result is often a pile of stinking garbage, done in violation of our policies, for far too much money, that most of us could do far better than in about an hour, and that get deleted, but that's not "technically" a scam, right?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, "you are now eligible to have your personal Wikipedia profile" is a straight, blatant, falsehood, because nobody in the entire universe "has a personal Wikipedia profile", because profiles are not what Wikipedia contains: not one. Therefore, they are either blisteringly ignorant of Wikipedia, or deliberately lying. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, English Wikipedia has articles, not profiles. It is possible that in your career field you are notable enough to be the subject of an article - which neither you nor anyone else would have control of. Wikipedia strongly recommends that people not attempt autobiography (see WP:AUTO. Paid article creators/editors are required to state on their User page that they are article creating for a client. David notMD (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Issue with someone constantly editing an article with bad sources

Hello. I manage many of the pages for the recently-deceased rapper and producer MF Doom, including the page for his first album Operation: Doomsday. Recently, a user by the name of Ascribe4 has been editing the article, adding large amounts of text which only cite a few sources, including one AllMusic article they cited 15 times (which they are using as the main source of biographical info, clearly going against WP:ALLMUSIC). At first they were blatantly plagiarizing the article with verbatim text, which I quickly undid, but it seems whenever I undo their submissions for not meeting Wikipedia's criteria for WP:PLAGFORM or WP:ALLMUSIC they just put it right back. There are now several grammatical and spelling errors and inconsistencies through the article because of this one person's edits. I'm not sure what I can do to get them to stop, I don't want to have to watch the article 24/7 to undo their edits. I made a post on their talk page which they have not responded to, nor have they responded to any of the other posts on their talk page. Is there anything that can be done to stop this person from adding bad content to the page? Hostagecat (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hostagecat: Both of you are engaged in an edit war defined by the three revert rule, which is a blockable offense. Repeated reverts is not constructive towards Wikipedia or its readers. Please cease warring and discuss civilly on the talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Hostagecat, please note that you do not "manage" any articles in Wikipedia. You may have chosen to put work into those articles - thank you! - and continue to pay attention to them, but you have no more right to control them than any other editor. (I am making no comment about the virtues of the specific edits in this case, as I haven't examined them). --ColinFine (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You and Ascribe4 have both been cautioned on your Talk pages to cease the edit war - at risk of being temporarily blocked - and instead start a discussion on the talk page of Operation: Doomsday. David notMD (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Would anyone else care to chew me out for asking for help while I'm here? --Hostagecat (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, wait...Yes! You started by stating that you manage many of the pages for MF Doom. That implies a paid situation. Are you in fact paid or otherwise compensated for your work on Operation Doomsday. MF EP, Madvillain, Madvillainy and MF Doom discography? And at least a half-dozen others? If so, that needs to be declared on your User page. AND...rather than edit those articles directly, limited to posting requested changes on the Talk pages of the articles. David notMD (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Helping confirming move of article on College Committee on Disability Issues (CCDI) to main Wikipedia

Hello, I am just learning. I have created a new page on information that did not otherwise exist. The article is entitled College Committee on Disability Issues (CCDI). The page describes a Province of Ontario committee related to college disability service committee. I am not sure what or if my page will be posted. Do I receive a confirmation for someone that it has? Tutorial session indicated that simply need to move it to Wikipedia and that is that. However, I can't seem to find my entry now in Wikipedia so am quite confused. Any help would be welcome. Also when I was trying to move my article up, it was also including my invite to the teahouse and I had to go back and delete that part of the post as was not part of my article. I could not see what was to be moved - a print preview - so that I could have seen that there was extra information that I did not intend to include. How would I ensure that this does not happen again in future? Thanks so much! Linda Lindachamberlain1 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Lindachamberlain1 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Lindachamberlain1: and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was actually published, but it had some material in it (talk page notices in the actual published article, etc) that made it inappropriate for what we call "article space". I moved it to draft space where you can work on it: Draft:College_Committee_on_Disability_Issues_(CCDI). You need to find more sources that are independent of the organization and add those to the article. See WP:NCORP and WP:RS. When you are ready, you can submit the draft to be reviewed by clicking the submit button on the article. Possibly (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Now at Draft:College Committee on Disability Issues. David notMD (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

An editor removed all the content that was a copyright violation. Content cannot be copied or closely paraphrased from existing sources. David notMD (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding Pictures to articles

Hello Please how can i add pictures to articles Rodesma (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Rodesma, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you know what file you want to use and are just looking to place an image somewhere in the article, you can use this syntax (not all of these parameters are required). If you want to put it in an infobox – the box at the top right of the article – you can place the file in the image = parameter. If you don't know what image you want to use, you can search for it at Wikimedia Commons, our sister project that hosts copy-left images and other media. If you can't find anything there but you have something you'd like to use that's compatible with the Creative Commons license used there, you can upload your own image as well. Please let me know if you're referring to something I didn't cover here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

General info wikipedia:Images TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I cite this YouTube video

Hello,

I would like to cite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM7C_Pw7OL8 in The Broomway. Are youtube videos acceptible in articles? Thank you. Nightwolf1223 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nightwolf1223: I would say yes, because it is published by Tom Scott (entertainer). If the videos were from random person or copyright infringement, then no. GoingBatty (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nightwolf1223: Depending on context you may need to do in-text attribution though. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing My Userpage

Hello I just wanted to ask how do i edit my own userpage? Like example, how do I add my Birthdate or Where I was born and etc? Flash Lloyd (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Flash Lloyd Hello. I would strongly advise you against posting too much personal identifying information about yourself, as a guard against identity theft. Unlike social media, there is no way to limit who sees such information. However, you edit your user page just as you would any other page. You have already added infoboxes to your user page, so you would add other information in the same manner(though just typing it out instead of putting an infobox). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Flash Lloyd: You can use {{Infobox Wikipedia user}} but you can also just write plain text. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tariq shah bahrami

Dear Sir/mandam, Hope this email meets you in a good condition. I have created a page by the name of (tariq shah bahrami) but i sent the bio to preview for wikipedia. it will be very kind of you if it's confirmed by Wikipedia. thanks Waseem.nasimi (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Waseem moved the draft to Tariq Shah Bahrami without a review. Not a wise idea for an editor's first attempt at creating an article. It has now been nominated for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Waseem.nasimi You can contest the SD, and ask that this be moved back to draft. Wordings such as vast experience, sound understanding, fondly oversaw, extensive experience... have no place in an encyclopedia article. David notMD (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: You're much more experienced with article creation than I am, but it seems to me like this doesn't quite meet G11, because a lot of the information in the biography are actual facts, while the peacocking could be cut out and the article improved were it moved back into the draftspace again. Per G11: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." [emphasis mine] TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not the editor who nominated it for SD, hence my suggestion to Waseem to contest the SD and ask that it be reverted to a draft. David notMD (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Oooh. My mistake. I should've checked the edit history, but since you do so much work in the draftspace, I just assumed it was you. Would I be able to request it be moved back to a draft, or does that have to be Waseem? Only ever used the draft space once or twice, so I'm not as familiar with it as the mainspace. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I contested the deletion so the article can be improved. As Afghanistan’s former Defense Minister, he seems to meet the notability threshold. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Waseem.nasimi The article remains an article. You have a list of references at the end; those must be incorporated into body of the article (same as existing refs 1 & 2). David notMD (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why my user page is deleted? I created once

Why my user page is deleted? I created once Digimarksomnath (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Digimarksomnath: You actually created it in a subpage of your sandbox ( User:Digimarksomnath/sandbox/Digimarksomnath), but it was deleted as it was basically trying to act as a mini-CV and promote yourself, which is not allowed. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide me the link, where I can create my user page in Wikipedia format. I will not promote but basically, I will tell you about what I am, for this, I am ready to link from my personal website, social media. Can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimarksomnath (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Digimarksomnath. Your user page can be found at User:Digimarksomnath. If you click on that link it will take an editing window where you may create a user page; however, I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:User pages before doing creating one so that you understand what types of user pages Wikipedia allows. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:User pages for what belongs on a user page and what does not. Among 'NOT': your personal website, your social media, and anything that has to do with your business endeavors. The purpose of a User page is to describe your intensions as a Wikipedia editor, and perhaps a mention of credentials that justify your belief that you are competent to edit certain types of articles. Mine, for example, states PhD in nutritional biochemistry (I edit articles about nutrition). I do not mention my business. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi, Please could someone let me know how to make a userbox. (and the code for one) Thanks.MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, MasterD.D. Patel. Both the Userbox Maker and The Super-Simple Userbox Maker seem like good options to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Contributions in the public domain

I was reading WP:UPGOOD out of curiosity, and I noticed the line: "Contributions can also be given a wider license – for example releasing them into the public domain or multi-licensing them – by putting a notice to this effect on one's user page." Would I be able to add a notice to my userpage that both places all future edits of mine in the public domain but also retroactively releases all of my prior edits into the public domain as well? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello TheTechnician27 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can show this by putting {{User publicdomain}} on your userpage, which will show Template:User publicdomain. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked notable pages

What to do of those pages which were sysop blocked permanently long back but they are notable in today's date. Is it possible to create them? Just asking because I created the page imo (app) and coincidently one admin also created the page Imo (software) then I suggested him to redirect both the page to imo.im which was admin blocked. Sonofstar (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Sonofstar (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Creation_protection. There are options such as asking at WP:RFPP for the page to be unprotected. It is best if you can contact the admin that salted the page. It is also suggested that you create a draft of the proposed new article. RudolfRed (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in articles on natural numbers

Hello, I noticed that there are many quite obvious inconsistencies between the articles devoted to some natural numbers- is this purposeful? It would seem that such articles should be rigorously fact-checked, however, there are things such as even the articles "65 (number)" and "66 (number)" do not mention the numbers' parity in the same place, if at all, as the articles "67 (number)" and "68 (number)." It is apparent that this inconsistent theme is quite popular when observing other articles; for example the articles "62 (number)" and "63 (number)" state "<number> is a natural number following <number> and preceding <number>," where other articles state "<number> is the natural number following <number> and preceding <number>" ("a," in the first example, is replaced with "the," in the second example). I'd simply report these issues as directed when attempting to edit, however, there are seemingly many inconsistencies such as the examples given- I'm wondering if this all is somehow purposeful, or if I just missed something. ASploopyPerson (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ASploopyPerson: I'm sure it's not intentional. Indeed, I doubt many editors would give much attention to an article such as 63 (number). If you find the inconsistencies troubling, you could usefully correct them yourself. Maproom (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi ASploopyPerson. I don't know the answer to your question, but I can tell you that the way Wikipedia articles develop will often lead to such inconsistencies between similarly situated articles – indeed you will often find that related articles are at wildly different stages of development (e.g., with one being a poor stub with ten edits, marked for basic copyediting, and its cousin polished to a high state with 700 edits and classified as a featured article).

Wikipedia has no central authority assessing articles in any regimented way and dispatching people to make things consistent. Rather, every article you see was developed because some volunteer, like you or me, editing by his or her own lights, was interested in the subject and dove in to boldly help out. Notwithstanding this, we do have volunteer collectives, called "Wikiprojects", that do attempt to organize articles in certain subject areas in various ways, possibly to foster some of that consistency work you're here about.

Every article (and project page like this one) has an associated talk page, which will often list a banner template flagging that the article is within the purview of some Wikiproject. If you look at the talk pages of articles on natural numbers, such as Talk:66 (number), Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers is provided as the associated Wikiproject.

A post to that project's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, stating your concerns, is likely a good way to bring this up at a dedicated forum where people knowledgeable in the area will see it. On the other hand, you might be the best person to fix this, because you are the person who noticed it and seems knowledgeable in the area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Speeding the AFC process

AfC submitted waiting for reply Hello all,

I submitted an article for review, and it has been almost a month. Is there anything I can do to speed the process, other than adding tags? Thank you so much B. BettinaGsott (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No, not really. But there's a lot that you can do to increase the chances that the draft will be accepted. Here's how Draft:New Horizon Art Car now starts: The New Horizon Artcar Project is a private art initiative launched in 2018 at the Art Miami fair^[1], USA, which encompasses the New Horizon art car. Different artists portrayed the car via paintings, videos, poems, music, silk scarfs and a car miniature. By remembering the spirit of 1969, the NEW HORIZON Artcar Project shall invite people to think positively about change and challenges, about NEW HORIZONS[2]. To which my reaction is "Huh?" I mean, is this article primarily about the project or the car? And what is the car, and what is the project? After looking in some of the (not consistently impressive) sources that are cited, I infer that the car is a carefully restored/refurbished BMW from 1969 that has been "artistically" painted, for a certain nostalgic effect; and that the project is the PR/marketing enterprise based on this car. I wonder why the draft doesn't say this directly (or why it fails to correct my misunderstanding). I also somehow get the impression that the Wikipedia draft is intended less to inform the reader than to impress the reader. Is my reaction unreasonable? -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The above draft has now been reviewed, and declined, again, for the reasons provided at the top of the draft.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

BettinaGsott, no, unfortunately you cannot speed up the review - currently there are more than 4,100 articles in the queue and it can take up to 4 months for reviewing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

How to use watchlist?

Hello! Just a question, how are watchlists supposed to be used...? ThatIPEditor (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ThatIPEditor: On any page that you are interested in, click the star icon next to the "View history" button on the top right, and it will be added to you watchlist. Then, at the "Watchlist" page next to your username, you can see every change done to pages on your watchlist. This is a good way to check if changes done to pages you care about are constructive. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ThatIPEditor. See also Help:Watchlist#How to read a watchlist (or Recent Changes). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List defined references

As a programmer, list defined references seem so much nicer to me than defining them inline. All of the references are in one place and, when editing, it seems easier to focus exclusively on prose. I suppose I would like to know: what are the negatives of this format and would it be improper to change this in an article (moving any inline references content to reflist). Thanks, ritenerek^talk :) 09:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ritenerek. Many users prefer to add new material and the reference in the same place. Both can be done in the same section edit. List-defined references are more likely to not be updated when prose is changed. Wikipedia:Citing sources#To be avoided says:

When an article is already consistent, avoid:

• changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, that makes sense. Thank you, ritenerek^talk :) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritenerek: As programmers, especially of languages/era where it was necessary/common to declare your variables in a separate section, LDRs naturally make sense to us. I suppose they make sense for people with recent or ongoing academic background in writing papers, too, where one might have sources on index cards (or the digital equivalent) and easily translate their source deck into a reference list. However, the majority here seem to prefer the inline approach, and the existing style used in an article should be retained. That could be because it's common to make small changes by editing the section only (helps documentation by auto-inserting the section heading into the edit summary, faster and less edit conflict on large pages, etc.), so one would need to edit the reference section, save it, then edit the text that references it.

In addition, there is a bug (I haven't checked the status recently) related to using nested references and LDRs. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 183#Bug in list-defined references?. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

How do i create a navbox?

those things at the bottom of articles, how do i make them? I have before, i just forgot how since i haven't edited in a while.

Sbob99 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sbob99. Hopefully Template:Navbox can get you started here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sbob99: The easiest solution is usually to look at the code for an existing article that does something similar to what you want. If you've done it before, you can look at your contributions to find it, then edit the article and template to see/copy the code. For example, from your contribs, Duke Nukem II, with the navbox {{Duke Nukem series}}. (BTW, please don't add anything after the signature tildes – they should be the very last thing in your post, and already will include your username (I removed the dup above). Thanks.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

New editors

What do I do when I am a new editor? GreenBayPackerFan25 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

GreenBayPackerFan25, welcome to the Teahouse. You could check out the task center for articles that need maintenance. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD Fiber Patch Placement

Dear Wikipedia Master Minds, please help me to understand, why my attempts to optimize the "FPP" article are completely ignored. I really tried my best to align it with your regulatories. Thank you in advance for your answers and help. Antiquatuss (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Antiquatuss, I have an addin that identifies predatory journals. The second and fifth references in Draft:Fiber_Patch_Placement are identified as potentially a predatory Journal. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thank you for your comment. The sources are master theses or studies. I tried to find the variants accessible online. The text as such is honestly scientific. Concerning the magazine I cannot say more as: it is also mentioned in all offline citations. Antiquatuss (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted page. Can it be taken back?

Hello

I decided to create a page about a musician from Angola called Dizzy Diddy, but I found that the page was deleted before and the editor who created it was blocked.

Can it be taken back if we take into consideration these sources : Journal of Angola: https://www.jornaldeangola.ao/ao/noticias/detalhes.php?id=361407 https://jornaldeangola.ao/ao/noticias/detalhes.php?id=379778 https://www.jornaldeangola.ao/ao/noticias/detalhes.php?id=406324 Novojornal: https://novojornal.co.ao/cultura/interior/angolanos-nos-eua-para-os-premios-black-entertainment-television-1415.html Makangola: https://makangola24.com/c4-pedro-e-o-destaque-do-angola-music-award-cultura-jornal-de-angola/ others: https://bwevip.com/vencedores-do-concurso-musical-angola-music-awards/

Thanks Art&football (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: The article at Dizzy Diddy was deleted because it was created by blocked user. The admin that deleted it (Bbb23) is now retired. I suggest you start from a clean slate. See WP:YFA for info on how to create a new article draft. RudolfRed (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sad to hear about the retirement of Bbb23. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Hello Thanks for replying. Just done it. Can you check please? Draft:Dizzy Diddy

It has already been reviewed. Check out WP:NMUSIC on how you can show the person is notable. RudolfRed (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing the google search engine image

I would like help changing the image on the google preview page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Rodger When I search "Alison Rodger mq" the image pulled is the first image from google images however that isn't the correct person. I have tried adding a profile image to the wiki page, however, that still hasn't worked. Please can you help? Graceanncooper (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Graceanncooper, this an issue with Google. Click the feedback button at the bottom of the card and say the picture is wrong. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Graceanncooper - I clicked to report the error as well - sometimes it can take Google weeks to fix. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Arab Wiki help

Hey, I’m a Wiki editor in English, and occasional scroller in Arabian. The Wikipedia pages for the Arab site are absolutely broken on Israel. It calls Hamas a “liberation organization” that has “never hurt anyone but the Zionist Occupiers”. It says the country is an apartheid-which I’m pretty sure it isn’t since I used to live there and was fine, but instead of at least presenting that in its own spot, it’s just what they call it. And they have conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the western world through Israel all over it. The mods there don’t help, and I don’t know what to do to make it slightly more sane. Any ideas? Batsquatch (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Batsquatch: Each Wikipedia is a separate project. You will need to ask for help at the other Wikipedia for any issues there. I'm not sure, but this [13] may be the Arabic version of the Teahouse. RudolfRed (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much!