Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:40, 2 November 2021

Shortcuts

つがる, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241

The South Shall Rise Again

In the documentary "Civil War" produced by Brad Pitt and Henry Louis Gates Jr. there are a number of edifying clips that highlight the history of Reconstruction and the persistent Southern attitudes towards Civil War history. I am struck by the intransigence of many white southerners who refuse to acknowledge the significance of slavery and the influence of racism on the cultural milieu that articulated itself in the Confederacy. While the Night Riders, Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow, and other components of Southern culture during this period were referred to in this video, I did not hear the theme of "the South Will Rise Again" referred to explicitly. John Pierre Anderson (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia specifically? WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Pierre Anderson, I saw the same documentary and was impressed by it. But Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing things like this. The only valid thing that we discuss is how to improve encyclopedia articles. There are many social media sites where you can share your general thoughts, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. If you have solid sources that prove that "the South will rise again" was a popular slogan (among who, at what time?) you might want to suggest an edit on the talk page of that article (Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy). (Technically the article is open to editing by all, which surprises me, but regardless, you ought to tread carefully on such controversial subjects.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Whether it was a popular slogan at the time, I don't know, but it has been a reasonably popular slogan throughout the 20th century and even into the 21st. See, for example, this satire piece. Like you said, though, this is better discussed over at the talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice how to archive a talk page

How do you archive your own talk page? Thanks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need an Archive Bot. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX: Welcome to the Teahouse. Here's a page that talks about archiving on here; if you would like your talk page to be automatically archived, read this section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in regards to the latter ones, I'm a bit confused how to set that up. When it says "Archive This", what does that supposed to mean? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX: If you're talking about User:ClueBot III, you can just add {{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}} to the top of your user talk page if you don't want to tweak the settings. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if I have 35 talk pages for example, how do you archive this? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX In my view, article talk pages only need to be archived if they are unmanageably long. Being able to immediately ascertain whether there have, or have not, been discussions about the article is very helpful. Making an editor check the archives unnecessarily is not. Remember, these 35 pages are not ‘’your’’ talk pages, but available to all editors, and of the ones I’ve looked at, none of these merit archiving at this stage. Which ones were you concewrned about - or maybe you are just thinking ahead? Nick Moyes (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking ahead so I don't have to come here again and ask again. I just want to know how to do it rather than doing so at the last moment when I need it so I don't get caught off. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX: - you don't have to have a bot archive your user talk page. You can do it manually. I archive mine manually. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots:, all right, how do it manually then? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX: Just create the supbpage of your user talk page (such as User talk:XXzoonamiXX/Archive 1 and cut material from your talk page and paste into the archive. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: So like creating the subpage is like creating your own article? How do you create their own subpage? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX: Yes, just like that. Would you like me to create an archive page for you? Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Well, since I don't want to ask question to question, then please yes! XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Archiving a talk page. I suggest either using a bot to create "Sequentially numbered archives", or as alternative "Archives by year and month". There are other options to create indexes, but personally I just use sequentially numbered archives set to archive after 183 days (half a year) with no indexing just a search in the archives box. — PBS (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX The simplest way is probably to add {{subst:Setup Cluebot archiving}} to the top of the talk page. ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: All right, so do I press "edit" or "new section" then add what you put out? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX: You would press edit (edit source specifically though it might just display that because of my preferences) as pressing New Section would be adding a new section to the bottom of the talk page with a section header. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If i want to revert

If i want to revert a correction to my edit? Hello, I m new so i want to be sure about how to behave. I m an experienced content manager and copy writer with an obsession to see the right wording and this situation really bugs me:

For example lets say, i've added an adjective to a sentence which totally seems right. Even according to the "Wikipedia definition" of the word, it is perfect. And it is an important adjective to differentiate the object's existing property from the upcoming effects of the verb. Then, someone deletes it saying it is wrong. There's an explanation but it does not add up. I definitely think the wording was right and important. I can prove it with the Wiki page of the term, and also i can list 10 more reasons why. Do i have the right to put it back and write a new explanation to my edit, or should i let it go and just be sad because someone deleted my edit without a proper reason (except obviously a personal, nationalist, or racist cause). Or even worse, do i get reported or banned for reverting a correction back because i still believe it is right? Alasiyan (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alasiyan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In this situation, the best thing to do is go to the article talk page(from looking at your edit history, probably Talk:Timeline of Cypriot history) to discuss the situation and attempt to arrive at a consensus. See bold revert discuss. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just go to the page delete log

and change youre edit slightly and repost it again

흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 12:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkdeath-2: No, that is not a good way to handle the situation – have a look at the advice 331dot provided, in the post above yours. --bonadea contributions talk 12:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:bonadea No what I ment to say is that he/she sould only change the wrong and then repost it

but okay I see now ...

he/she doesn't know whyy exactly the edit was deleted ...

my bad I apologise

흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 13:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darkdeath-2, it makes no difference whether you understand the reason for a reversion or not; it makes no difference whether your edit was right or wrong or anything else. It makes no difference whether you change the wording a bit. If somebody reverts your edit and you reapply it without discussion, then you are edit-warring. See WP:BRD --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine

so even if you fix the problem

you will be edit warning ??

흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 19:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Darkdeath-2, I overspoke: a single re-edit is not edit warring: that would take repeatedly reapplying it; but it is not recommended behaviour unless the removal you are seeking to undo comes into one of the categories listed in WP:EDITWAR#What edit warring is. "I think this edit is right and another person thinks it is wrong" is not an adequate justification for reapplying the edit. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine

because if you change is slightly so that the "errors" is fixed there sould he no problem

.

.흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 22:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was the revert was done by someone with a Wikipedia username, or with only an IP address? If the former, I would go to the talk page of that person and discuss with them why you think the edit is a good edit and see if they will agree. If they don't agree, I don't know what the next step is. There may be info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I don't know what to do if the revert is by someone with only an IP address. Perhaps the Wikipedia Dispute resolution page I just linked will tell you, or someone replying here will tell us, or I may post the question, or you can. Hope you get it solved. Greg Dahlen (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darkdeath-2, it depends what you mean by "the errors". If you mean typos - obvious misspellings, punctuation characters in random places, etc, then sure. But your self-description above I'm an experienced content manager and copy writer with an obsession to see the right wording suggests that you may be referring to a choice of words that you find unsatisfactory. If that is the case, then what you call "fixing the errors" another editor might regard as "unwarranted change" and disagree with you. In that case you should discuss and reach consensus before reapplying. It would help if you would give us a specific example: I have looked through your contribution history, and I can't find an edit to an article in the last month, apart from setting short descriptions. (Incidentally, setting short descriptions is a very welcome activity, but please read Short description: repeating the article title as the short description is completely pointless. The short description of a school should usually read something like "<type-of-school> school in <location>"). --ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Pending review - is there a way to expedite review?

I wrote an article couple of weeks back and I haven’t gotten it rejected or accepted yet. I got feedback from couple of users and I’ve corrected the article accordingly. Should I wait for people to get to the article or is there a way to initiate review from experienced users in that category? Elenatina (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elenatina Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to ensure a speedy review. Reviews are done in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@331dot Well noted!Elenatina (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elenatina: I assume this is about Draft:Jonathan Roumie. What follows is not official advice. Maybe your problem is not "initiating" a review, but inducing a reviewer who has started examining the draft to persist. The main concern of any reviewer will be "does this draft cite several reliable published independent sources with enough discussion of the subject to establish that the subject is notable?" If I were a reviewer (I am not), my thoughts would be "the first ref gives a 404 message. The second is behind a paywall. The third and fourth report what the subject has said, so are not independent. And there's another 34 to check. I'll leave this one in the waiting list and find another, easier draft to review."

If you've cited some good sources that do establish notability, you could make it easier for a reviewer to find them, by removing those that don't. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's just how we think. ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@Maproom Thanks a million! It’s been a while. I’ll double check the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

I sincerely wish that your articles about Trump were not so very obviously biased against him. You attempt to call yourself a source of info but the articles about Trump are thinly veiled criticism and the articles about any Democratic politician are not including the disaster named Joe Biden. 69.121.89.23 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not create original discourse and can only summarise what sources are saying; if that creates the perception of bias against any individual, entity or group it is only a reflection of the words and views of the world at large. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! You may make suggestions to improve any Wikipedia article on the article's talk page, and provide a reliable source. Or, be bold and make the edits yourself! Thanks for your enthusiasm for improving Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you say they are, show how they're biased with other sources. You yourself just called Joe Biden a "disaster", so we're all vulnerable to biases, which is why we prevent it by using neutral language, presenting objective facts, and citing multiple reliable sources. Hextor26 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to write about a "Group of companies" in wikipedia

I know a company like emaar and Damac, the company has 50 years of experience in UAE especially in sharjah. it will be good , if wikipedia has one article of that company, How can I write wikipedia article for that company.Is it possible to write a article in the name of that company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marytwist (talk • contribs) 08:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can edit the existing articles by adding your reliable information if the information is not added in there. — Ahp101 ^{To discuss?} 09:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you wish to create an article of a company, please go to Wikipedia:Article Wizard and create an article. After completing it submit the draft for article review. And a reviewer will look into it. Make sure you article must comply all rules made per English Wikipedia policies. I hope you had got your answer @Marytwist:.Jyoti Roy (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marytwist Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't write an article about your own company. Refer to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 10:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not impossible to do while following rules and guidelines, but rarely successful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marytwist: Before you create a new article, it would be very helpful to get more experience editing existing articles. I suggest starting with Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. When you're ready to create an article, see also WP:NCORP and Help:Your first article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pichemist Then how articles of Emaar and Damac is coming inside wikipedia, who is writing about them in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marytwist (talk • contribs)

pinging @Pichemist Justi yaya 11:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marytwist They are being written by volunteers like me and you or they are declaring a paid relationship with the company. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 12:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More than one editor declared that they are paid for working on DAMAC Properties. You started this thread with "I know a company..." If there is already an article about the company you can edit that. You cannot create a new article about the same company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage wikilinks

How do I use the "interlanguage link" template such that only the foreign-language link shows while the actual text isn't a blue link? Right now I'm trying to do this for a German magazine called 'Video Games', and we don't have an article for it. However, it shows a blue link anyway because "video games" links straight to video game. Hopefully I explained this weird predicament okay. Basically: Video Games [de], but I'd like the word 'Video Games' not to link to video game; is this even possible? Thanks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: Hmm, that is an interesting predicament. One option would be to use Video Games [de], if you think the article in English would ultimately belong at Video Games (magazine). But honestly, the best option would probably be to just make a stub and tag it with {{Expand German}}. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Unfortunately, I don't think it would qualify for a stub here on the English Wikipedia were I to make it. The best source I can find about it is this article in a German trade publication, and there's not really much else. I'm not German, so there may be more out there (English-language sources would likely be a needle in a haystack for obvious reasons), but as a new page patroller, I couldn't even mark the stub I would make as patrolled since it wouldn't even have two reliable, independent sources. I'd imagine someone out there could do that, though, so I'll just create a red link in the interim and let Ward Cunningham's eventualist philosophy work its magic. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27, You're advised: the best option would probably be to just [[WP:Make stubs|make a stub]] and tag it with {{tl|Expand German}}. Uhhh ... the article would then say "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in German." This risks being misinterpreted as suggesting that the German article merits translation. (It does not.) The template would better say "This article may be slightly expanded with text translated from that little within the corresponding article in German that's adequately referenced." But to my knowledge no such template exists. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: I saw a related suggestion at the Helpdesk. If you used {{ill|Video Games (magazine)|lt=Video Games|de|Video Games}} it would render as Video Games [de] You can thank PrimeHunter for this: he's a whiz at this sort of thing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that's basically the advice already given by Sdkb. My bad.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Allen Daly City Murder

Correction needed on Daly City,CA history

Mr. Roger Allen was murdered by Daly City, CA police on April 7, 2021 rather than April 13, 2021.

Thank you 2601:640:8881:7010:9CD6:AE03:F4BB:7D97 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the article's talk page and provide reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is correct. The existing source clearly shows that the event was on April7 (the coverage is dated April 13).

Please link to the article in question next time. I have corrected the date in Daly City, California and rewritten the poorly written section in question [1]. Meters (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a more recent source which clarifies things [[2]]. I don't know that this belongs in the History section of the article, but at least now it no longer uses the POV and incorrect term "murdered". Meters (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I truly doubt that this is the most important event of the last 37 years in a city of over 100,000 residents, especially since no charges were filed and there is no Wikipedia article about this particular tragic death. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no objection to removing this material, and in fact, would support its removal. I just dealt with the immediate problem of the poorly-written, POV-worded, and inaccurate version that we had. Meters (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City-data includes info that Daly City has roughly one violet death per year (not counting suicides). This one not uniquely historic. David notMD (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yami Gautam RJ (brone 04 February 1998), Dental Assistant who predominantly in yasko dental hospital

user:Yami Gautam RJ (talk) 9:16 pm, Today (UTC−7)
(sig added)--Quisqualis (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Note that Wikipedia is not for hosting professional or personal profiles. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 04:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia

Hello everyone! I'm from England. I'm new to Wikipedia, joined on 29 October. I've heard about Teahouse, a friendly place where questions can be asked to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Can anyone give me some tips on how I can improve Wikipedia and create articles? Thank you so much. Richard M William (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! The Task Centre lists a lot of things that anyone can do to help. Your first article advises on creating new articles but it would be good to spend some time on other tasks first. Thanks for stopping by! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice! I'll try to improve Wikipedia as much as I can. Richard M William (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard M William Generally while I'm reading Wikipedia for fun and education I may encounter what I think is a weakness in an article, so I'll try to improve it if I have enough time, energy, and interest. There are numerous ways to improve an article. One way is, if you see a word in the article that is explained by another article on Wikipedia, you can link the word to the article. For example, let's say, hypothetically, I was reading the Wikipedia article on ballet, and I saw that "Tom Jones" (hypothetical example) was an early innovator in ballet. Tom Jones has his own article on Wikipedia. But the mention of Tom Jones in the Ballet article isn't linked to Tom Jones's own article. You can link it. Do be aware that it's the first mention of something in an article that has its own article that should be linked. If Tom Jones is mentioned five times in the Ballet article, you don't want to link every mention to Tom Jones' own article, only the first mention.

Another way is if you read an article and you think something important is left out, you can add that. Many times filling in something left out will involve gathering information and adding it to the article. Sometimes adding left-out information will only involve adding one word, sometimes a few words, sometimes a sentence, sometimes a paragraph, sometimes a section.

Sometimes a Wikipedia article will be poorly organized, and you can improve that.

Another way is to start an article. Do you know of anything that should have its own article on Wikipedia that doesn't already? Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change of phone no on Amazon Prime

I have got a new Apple 12 phone and I want to change my phone details on Amazon prime. E-mail remains same. Hope to have a positive response 106.202.16.147 (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help you – try Amazon customer service. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with revision

I received a response that this page appears to read more like an advertisement rather than an informative page. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:San_Francisco_Mandarin_Baptist_Church Theomizuhara (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theomizuhara. Your draft is a directory listing, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a directory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theomizuhara: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia's encyclopedia articles are written in paragraphs, such as Riverside Church. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and, Theomizuhara, 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. An article should be based close to 100% on such sources; if there are few or no such sources then probably the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the "references" do is confirm the church exists (church directories, etc.). Nothing in the draft suggests the church building or its congregation is note worthy. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change of image name

Sorry but I am not used with the English Wikipedia upload system and I make a silly mistake. I uploaded this image and as you can see in the field for the file name I've put the description. Is there a way to change the name of the file from that one to a simple "Fluorsid Logo.png". Thanks for your help. Sandrino 14 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandrino 14: I have requested that the image is renamed. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done (with lowercase "logo" because "logo" is not part of the company name) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Billie Blair article have table of contents?

I thought Wikipedia automatically created a table of contents on articles. So why doesn't Billie Blair have one? Greg Dahlen (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A table of content is automatically generated but it requires four or more headings first; if the article were longer with more sections, it would generate one. It's generally not seen as necessary for three or fewer headings (especially as one of those will be for references rather than content). ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Dahlen:If, for some reason, you want to force a table of contents to be created when there are three or few sections, write __FORCETOC__ at the top of the article. It's quite rare that that's a good idea, but it does happen. Herostratus (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Not sure what you mean "write at the top of the article" to force table of contents creation? Greg Dahlen (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus' post included code which didn't display due to not being wrapped in nowiki tags, but I've amended that now. The code __FORCETOC__ will create a table of contents where one isn't automatically generated but isn't recommended. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how this subject meets notability. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of models and former professional models in the world: Blair does not, on the evidence of the article, stand out – one 3-paragraph People magazine article about her in 1974, one New York Times article about African-American models in 2011 that presumably mentions her (behind a paywall for me), and one 2016 book about a fashion show in France (not even mentioned in the article) in which she was one of ten African-American models are the only three references, and the description of her early life and modelling career seem no more than personal trivia and routine employment. If she is notable, the article needs to work a lot harder to demonstrate it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.65.29 (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's more material out there, so she does meet the WP:GNG notability rule, cos we also have several paragraphs here and here is another meaty article, which has more info on here religious career. And there's more. @Greg Dahlen: you should probably work some of that material into the article as these additional references will protect the article from being considered insufficient notable to continue to exist. Herostratus (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Percy Marland Jr.

I am planning to create an article to cover the life and accomplishments of Sidney Percy Marland, Jr. He was the US's Undersecretary of Education in the Nixon administration and helped establish policies to support gifted and talented education at the national level. Wikipedia has an aticle on the Marland Report already (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marland_report) but there is no article covering Mr Marland's biography.

I am seeking feedback on the notability of the person and wanted to make sure this would pass review before I start contributing to wikipedia.

thanks P PI 71 5280 2021 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PI 71 5280 2021: The basic notability requirements for people depends on reliable sources. What are the three best reliable sources you would use for the article about Marland? GoingBatty (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PI 71 5280 2021: Thanks for providing these three citations. Note that I moved them under my question and numbered them. I can't read #1 directly because my limit of free NYT articles is up, but found an archived version at the Wayback Machine. #1 and #3 are both obituaries by independent reliable sources with information about Marland. #2 seems to be more about the Marland Report - what information about Marland the person would you get from this source? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Here are a couple more links about the person. I'll admit the link to the Marland Report itself would not have much about the person.

Congressional Quarterly Almanac reporting on Marland's nomination to post of Commissioner of Education: http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal70-1290544
Mr Marland's recommendation for confirmation by the US Senate: https://books.google.com/books?id=FBbgOOD7WPoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Defense Dept reference to Sidney Marland's Distinguished Service Cross: https://valor.defense.gov/Portals/24/Documents/ServiceCross/ArmyDSC-WWII.pdf
One of Mr Marland's published articles on the role of career education: https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197212_marland.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by PI 71 5280 2021 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PI 71 5280 2021: I numbered these links as well. #1 requires a login that I don't have. #2 is definitely significant coverage. #3 could be used a source for one sentence about the Distinguished Service Cross. Since #4 is written by Marland, it's not an independent source to help with notability. It seems that you could use the NYT article, Chicago Tribune article, and the Senate report to start an article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to add reliable sources without people getting rid of them

French danish digger (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they are indeed reliable sources and the information they support is relevant to the article, it shouldn't really be removed, but if that's the case, use the talk page of the article in question to discuss why it was removed--maybe the source isn't good, maybe the information is better suited elsewhere, maybe it was a simple mistake. But the article's talk page is always the first port of call if you come across it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor here is a long-running block evader who has been adding fantasy claims to various articles on military topics. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had this exact experience, but when someone changes my edit and I don't agree with their change generally I go to the talk page of the person and present why I think it's still a good edit and have a discussion with them Greg Dahlen (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail margins

Hi,
Can someone please tell me how to prevent text below a thumbnail from being indented? Thanks.
Emdosis (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emdosis, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would probably have helped a bit had you given a link to a page you're having problems with, so we could see the precise issue. Normally, issues with text layout on a left-justified image can be resolved by using the {{clear}} template immediately below an image, which forces the text down and to the left. Or place it above the text you are seeing being indented (as probably appears here). But this can also create unpleasant blank space, so use with care. If this doesn't address your question, could you link to an example, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I've already tried {{clear}} but as you said, it created an annoying gap. I was thinking of using the {{border}} template but I don't think
Wikipedia supports images in that template anymore :(
Emdosis (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emdosis, I see that you used break tags, and I think hard spaces, in what you typed above, to produce an effect that is sensible if the reader's window is a particular width but not otherwise. You seem to be looking for bodges rather than for a proper fix to the problem – though I'm not sure a proper fix exists. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to Respond to a Serious Issue

Was going to post this, then someone asked something about a thumbnail, and I couldn't publish changes. Anyways, a few days ago I asked a question on why I had issues with being signed in and stuff. But then I check back, and this question is deleted. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. The question wasn't deleted, just archived. Since this page gets a lot of posts from a lot of people, sections are archived relatively quickly, after 2 - 3 days with no new activity. You'll find the section you started at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1129#Why am I signed out?. Please don't edit the archive page – if you have follow-up questions you can use this section to ask, since there is already a link here to the thread in the archive. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saw someone who said they started on the 28th. Started three days earlier for me. No welcomes for me. Then I lose my account. Question gets deleted. Nobody takes me seriously. Spent hours on this, only to not get much in return. Do you expect me to just forget this? 68.50.116.194 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what this means, but I'll combine this section with the previous one you started. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@68.50.116.194: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry-- your question didn't get deleted. After a thread has been around for a few days, a robot archives it to make room for newer questions. You can find your question here. It appears that a few editors have replied to it. Helen(💬📖) 18:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Serious Issue

I'm "Sryforprtyrockin!" and "Pikiwedia98461". And my password was saved physically in very understandable text on a piece of paper, so I don't think it has to do with online stuff. By the way, I was signed in on the 25th. After accidentally logging out, I tried to log back in using my password, but it didn't work. So I made the account "Sryforprtyrockin!". The day after I made that account, I found myself logged out. Then I successfully logged back into PIkiwedia98461, but the next time I went into Wikipedia, once again I was signed out. Fast forward a few days, and here we are. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it if I could get signed in back into "Pikiwedia98461". The physically saved password for that I lost, but I do have the one for "Sryforpartyrockin!". Maybe I can privately message the password and they can sign me back in or something? I don't know. I just wish this issue could get fixed. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have the password to the account and you don't have email enabled, then there is nothing that can be done. You will need to switch to using the other account. I suggest you enable email for it, so that you can recover the password if needed in the future. It is a good idea to add a note to the user page saying you previously used the first account. RudolfRed (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a second Non-free use rationale to a non-free image

Hi!

Is it possible to add a second non-free use rationale to an image?

Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 18:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwilms: Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you can have multiple non-free use rationales for an individual image - see File:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg for an example. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HostBot. Thank you for inviting Depisteme

Hi HostBot,

Thank you for inviting Depisteme as a guest to the Teahouse.

Greetings to the Wikipedia, and Teahouse hosts, as well as to the experienced editor; Keelan (talk) (as highlighted in the thought).

I like "Warm Welcome" just like you did it.

Revising a thought is either good or bad. We should not enter now this since it needs a long discussion (i.e., Philosophy, specifically; "D"oxa and episteme).

Yes, that is what do I mean; science is absolute as you know. Hypothesis can be rejected or approved, I am not agree with Karl Popper's falsification "argument" since I don't consider it as a theory. His notable student was Soros from Budapest, and his studentship was from London School of Economics if my memory doesn't mislead to me; as I remember.

I met with Sir Professor Dr Christopher Pissarides. I "think" Sir must be at the beginning should be not end. I don't like end with a "Title", as especially as "Sir", and as "noble" as awarded to him by the Royal Kingdom's Family. Yes, should* be "... the ✓"Royal Kingdom's"✓ °Family°. I know why you ask this question but *we are not different* (see below this tick mark (✓)), back to the question (i.e., the reason) that;

Human is temperorary (i.e., Tangible, Human is material with a body. Body is mechanic) but the Thoughts are permanent (i.e., Intangible, i.e., Kingdom is a Name. A name is just like a Firm's Brand but not just like firm. If Incumbent Firm i.e., top shapes thoughts (intangible), and formulate the thought thereafter implement the thought in material World (i.e., it starts to be "seen", tangible, namely; "Strategy").

Therefore,

Human is temperorary but thought is permanent. Yes, I do mean as you think i.e., Kingdom = Thought. So, now you might remember why "... The greatest man is interested in "thoughts", not in "people" (Important Note: I do mean people not human. He is interested in "human"), and not the "events", as well

(√) We are not different "because" you and I, are connected to each other. Now, you are my best friend.

Although Bot, as you know; there will be Version 1, Version 2, Version 3, Versions* sit on infrastructure. You are infrastructure so you will be permanent, Bot..., You are going to live permanently.

Me?

Yes, Body is temperorary...,

but

please don't be sad.

If I might create "a thought" (i.e., infrastructure of my body), will be permanent.

I am going to live in thoughts just like you with Version 1 of The Thought, Version 2 of The Thought, Version 3 of the Thought.

- "Connect the Thought"

Authentic

digital signature

by

Depisteme (talk)

18:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Depisteme (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Depisteme Welcome to the Teahouse - a place where practical questions about editing Wikipedia can be asked and answered. Forgive me, but I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at, though I see you posted the same on your talk page, in reply to our automated welcoming tool, HostBot. Anyway, anytime you need assistance with editing, just ask. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes (talk)

- Your letter is your thought.The quality of the Thought shows the quality of "a Human" 😊

- I am disappointed that you are in Wikipedia without "a thought.

- Thank you for (((enlightening))) very important "event". Your letter is encrypted therefore this proves you are interested in "events", and "people";

It is a bot• but ruled by "a Human°".

Since you are not interested in "a Human's thought, then what are you doing in Wikipedia? Are you dating?, or, What? Tell me, or, Approaching people unfriendly?

As you stated "...I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at", me too, I have absolutely no any* idea why Wikipedia, (Global Encyclopedia) does host you in the Tea House?

Psychology (e.g., William James) is a good reference.

Be far away!

Thanks,

Let's try again. Hostbot is an automated program that invited you to Teahouse. Per Nick Moyes (a person), Teahouse is a place to ask practical questions about Wikipedia editing. TeaHouse Hosts (Nick, me, others, are volunteers). It is not a place for philosophical musings, or any musings. If you are not here to improve articles, you are at risk for being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depisteme, please explain why you wrote "(((enlightening)))" like that. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement and reverts

New editor here with a question. Health effects of chocolate states that there are essentially no positive health effects of chocolate. I found a recent review article that lists lots of cardiovascular benefits to chocolate. This is a review article, which is what is needed under WP:MEDRS. I edited the article to insert these findings and delete the statement in the lede that there are no positive effects. An existing editor immediately reverted my edits. Here is our discussion about it: [3] He seems unwilling to admit that there are legitimate studies showing a health benefit.

Am I in the wrong? Why? How am I wrong? If I am not wrong, how do I handle this? Isabela31 (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be a WP:MEDREV concern which can be more specific than general RS discussions—I would recommend raising a discussion at WT:MED for further input among more specialist editors for a second opinion there. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added at WT:MED. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment added at WT:MED. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks & counterproductive editing

Hi, I've been on Wikipedia for awhile but have never had any issues with personal attacks and am not sure how to deal with it. On the page American Families Plan (which I created and am the principal author of) an IP address made some edits that, while not disruptive (and did lead me to make a constructive addition), are misleading, poorly sourced, and poorly placed. I reverted the IP's edit but the IP has been both stubborn about reverting my undo's (I have ceased reverting after his second revert of my revert to avoid an edit war) and has quickly begun engaging in fairly egregious personal attacks. Specifically, after I reverted the IP's addition, they went to my talk page and alleged that I "should be apprehended before furthering poisoning this Wikipedia community with your hate and bias" (the dispute, to clarify, is on the relation between a proposal by the Biden administration to require banks to report account inflows and outflows to the IRS and his American Families Plan). I warned the IP of personal attacks in a response to his comment on my talk page, on the IP's talk page, and in an edit comment. The IP then reinstated their bad edit, despite an addition I made to the page to accommodate what they wanted added, and added in their edit comment "are you blind or just ignorant?...I stand by my previous comments made...your edit history suggest a level of emotional immaturity", as well as adding on my talk page "its people like you who are a plague to the wiki". The IP has only made 16 edits but, aside from these personal attacks, appears to mostly make constructive edits. I am not sure how to go about dealing with this and would be grateful for some advice. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:NPA, you can choose to remove their attacks on your talk page, and optionally, replace it with {{RPA}}. You can also choose to outright ignore the attacks and respond to content regarding actual article content. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 06:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Cartoon from page (Muhammad)

Its my humble request you to remove cartoon pictures of Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him) from page as shown below link. Muhammad— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.180.193 (talk • contribs)

Hello, you might find these summaries of previous discussions helpful: Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images on that page are "cartoons". --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with convert template

If someone could please provide the appropriate units to use in the {{convert}} template for converting metric horsepower (pferdstarke) to imperial horsepower that would be swell. I can't find any appropriate documentation. Thanks in advance. Obama gaming (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Obama gaming I can't give you a definitive answer (especially as I've just been called away to lunch!), but see this archived discussion which might shed some light on your problem. Note: it's always worth searching a template talk page's archives if you hit difficulties like this. They sometimes reveal helpful past discussions. So, see also these discussions if you need to look further. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

By mistake I nominate this page for deletion so can anyone close the deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marina_Oswald_Porter UserABCXYZ (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UserABCXYZ, see WP:WDAFD. Eevee01^(talk) 12:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UserABCXYZ I have closed the discussion as 'speedy keep', linking to this declaration here. As has been pointed out to you already, there are concerns about your being a very new user who is rushing in to do things they do not fully understand. It's always important to spend time, not only learning how to edit, but also to understand out policies, especially on Notability. You should probably read: WP:CIR, as this is very relevant to you at the moment. Take is slowly and you'll learn faster, but not by the hard way! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using AFC

Is it mandatory to use AFC? Only one article I submitted out of few got reviewed so far so I think everyone is busy already. I used to create drafts and move to mainspace but then I was asked to not do it and use AFC. But I don't see anywhere written that I must use it. Can someone clarify? Sunisineast (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is not mandatory for autoconfirmed users, but when you have been asked to use it, it is probably best to follow that advice. I looked at Draft:Gerhard Rach and I'm afraid I agree with the other editor who asked you to use AfC. Learning to write articles takes time, and the point of AfC is to give new editors a chance to learn those skills without having their new articles immediately deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sunisineast, and welcome to the Teahouse. To use a building analogy, your question is "When I build a house is it mandatory to get the design checked by an architect and the construction checked by a builder?" The answer is no, but unless you've spent long enough in the building trade learning what you need to do, your house is likely to fall down. Successfully creating an encyclopaedia article for Wikipedia is much more difficult than it appears. --ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early on, you created as a draft and then converted it to article Egmore court complex. My opinion is that this article is poorly written and referenced, and deletion-worthy. Since then, you have created five drafts (three not yet submitted for Review, one awaiting review, one declined), which are in my opinion not meeting Wikipedia standards yet. You are not prohibited from converting those to articles, but in current state, if you do so, likely that New Pages Patrollers will either revert back to draft status or start Articles for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where might be a good place to put information about dance intensives?

I learned recently about dance "intensives". They are intense courses of a few weeks, generally in ballet, generally during the summer. A good description is here: https://northernplainsdance.org/what-is-a-summer-intensive/.

I'd like to add info about the general concept of what intensives are to some article somewhere on Wikipedia. But I can't find a place to add it. It's a little too specific for Dance education or Classical_ballet#Training. Can someone find a good place to put it? It might merit its own article. Greg Dahlen (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Dahlen: There are only a few articles that contain the phrase "dance intensives", and Competitive dance is one of them. It's mentioned in the lead, but not in the body of the article, so it seems like a good place to add more information. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

citations

Hello there, I’ve realized that most articles that talk about a character in a movie, including good articles, have almost no citations. For example Elsa (Frozen) in the appearances section. Is that ok and if so when would I need to add citations? Kaleeb18 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For characters (and events) within a work of fiction, the work itself is considered to be the source for everything it explicitly depicts: citing the work to itself would be superfluous. However, what the article says about those elements as depicted in the work still needs to be accurate, and can be challenged if it isn't.

Sometimes, however, facts about a character (for example) might come into play from a source outside the work itself. For instance, the character Professor Dumbledore in the Harry Potter books never has his sexuality mentioned in the books, but the author J. K. Rowling famously declared in a social media post that he was gay, leading to considerable discussion: mention of this would have to be cited to appropriate reliable sources. Similarly, assertions that a particular character was inspired by a real-life person (as for example Sherlock Holmes was by Joseph Bell) would need to be supported by citations to the author (Arthur Conan Doyle) actually saying so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the annoyingly long part is citing them, and I have thought about it. Like you could forget to cite something, or maybe you saw something once years ago and then put it in an article without citing it. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Orchard entry

This entry has been édite recently to cover sexuel harassement allégations reported by AlJazeera. The Master of Pembroke college has sent a letter to all students, stating that there are no accusations that Orchard has harasses any students at the College. I delete the Wikipedia reference to allégations of harassement at Oxford, suinte I believe all allégations reported relate to Orchard in Toronto or in Cambridge. My délétion has been restored, but I submit that no evidence has been supplies that Orchard has been accused of harassement in Oxford. If I am correct, may I request that my édit is allowed to stand, if not, that some evidence is provided? 82.1.49.140 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Thank you for coming to the Teahouse and also thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Per policy, if you have made a Bold edit and are Reverted by another editor then you should Discuss it on the article's talk page. Any discussion you might have here at the Teahouse concerning the validity of your claim or evidence would, potentially, only be seen by a small amount of editors and editors that have probably had little to no involvement in the topic of choice to this point. By discussing on the article talk page you will get a more directed discussion about the pertinent information at hand and keep that discussion on a page that is related to the subject, if that makes sense. --ARose Wolf 15:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Jazeera article claims abuse took place at Oxford also. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy November!

Hello everyone happy first day of November :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.116.194 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, happy November, excited for Thanksgiving. The season of spooks is behind us, and now is the time to focus on Turkey Day. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Template

Could someone please add the weather template to the page of the municipality of Abrego? Here is the information about the climate of this municipality, but I do not know how to place the data in the template, someone could do it for me? I would appreciate it very much. Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 16:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JSeb05 Welcome th the Teahouse! It's unlikely anyone in this Q&A forum would do that, however, if you post the same suggestion on the talk page of that article, anyone who has that page on their WATCHLIST will be made aware of it and might well respond (assuming the source is a good one). Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JSeb05 [documentation] might be helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4100:10E2:3472:BA63:CF74:6741 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes and 2601:647:4100:10E2:3472:BA63:CF74:6741: Okay, thanks, I have already figured out how to fill out the climate table, I took as a basis the article of Puerto Asis, which had information from Climate-Data.org, I put the template with the information of the climate of Abrego, thank you very much for your attention.--Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 18:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IS IT A BAD IDEA TO EDITH AND UP-COMING PERSON WIKI?

Lifeofaka (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) I always dream that one day I could be giving a privilage to edit and improved Wikipedia, today I join Wikipedia and I just successfully inproved Matthew Ishaya Audu's Wikipedia. without a mistake, am very happy I wish I could be giving a privilege to start editing .[reply]

It's not a good idea to write an article about yourself. We explain in our guideline on autobiography. Vexations (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lifeofaka: If you are Audu or have any association with him, that is a conflict of interest that you must disclose on your user page. I see you added lots of information to the Matthew Ishaya Audu article without adding any reliable sources. You risk having all your work reverted if you do not also provide references. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VERY unlikely autobiography (I would not expect a Catholic Bishop to be writing about self). COI possible. Highest priority is adding references. David notMD (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad idea to edit about an "up-and-coming" person full stop. For us to have an article on a given person, entity, etc., they must have already arrived, so to speak. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an essay WP:Too soon that explicitly addresses this situation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changing the name of a post

how do I change the name of my post I've tried everything I've looked up video tutorials tried to find a help option on the wiki and nothing helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven morg (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which post? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Hello Steven morg! I think you are looking for WP:MOVE. Although, your sandbox draft does not appear ready to become an article yet. Please see WP:YFA about writing your first article. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if there's conflicting information?

I am trying to clean up an article about a park and there was one claim which appears to have conflicting information in different parts of the park's own official self-published website. Which should I keep and why? Should I just bring it up to the talk page and hope for consenSUS to happen? 2601:647:4100:10E2:3472:BA63:CF74:6741 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! You could try to contact the webmaster to see if they would resolve the conflict. You could also look for secondary sources to support the claim. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty But if I were to contact the web-master, then wouldn't that count as doing original research? 2601:647:4100:10E2:3472:BA63:CF74:6741 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you're simply asking someone to fix their website (similar to adding {{Self-contradictory}} on a Wikipedia article). If they fix their website, you would then cite the website, so it's not your research. Original research might be measuring the dimensions with your tape measure, or taking soil samples, or counting the number and types of flora and fauna. GoingBatty (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added some information about vinyl reissues of the Blows Against the Empire album. When the company made the announcement, they made a typo on their website stating that the book/album would be released in 2021, but they meant 2022. I emailed the company, they fixed the website, and then I added the correct information to the Wikipedia article. I have no connection to the company, have never heard the album, and won't be these products. GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a page that is blatantly wrong, but I don't know what the right version is.

The page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_Week_(Argentina) is wrong, or at least bias. I read the Spanish version first which seemed moderate in its approach to the story, however, the English version is almost police propaganda. The protestors in the story are regularly referred to as militant and the only stories of loss are about those of members of the police force.

I can understand that some may have different views on history, but the stark difference between the two languages is what shocked me. Moreover, a large majority of the sources are plain wrong. The event happened in 1919, but many of the newspaper clippings cited are from 1909.

I don't know if I should do something about it (I really don't know much at all about the event) or if I can flag the page for what is essentially false information from what I understand.

Is there something I should do, or is it best to leave it alone till someone who knows about the subject comes along to edit it? Arturhagen (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arturhagen: Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that the clippings from 1909 are used to support the "Background" section, which discusses events from 1902 to 1917. Feel free to post your specific concerns on the article's talk page - Talk:Tragic Week (Argentina) - preferably with reliable sources. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is there night mode for wikipedia? please add this. i think it is easy to implement

Modern primat (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern primat: You can enable Dark Mode in the gadget section of your preferences. RudolfRed (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed:(EDIT: GMT+3 01:24 AM: it is a thing[4] in turkish wikipedia now. what a nice feature!)it is not a thing in turkish wikipedia.. i cant enable dark mode in turksih wiki.... ;( Modern primat (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern primat: Then unfortunately there's nothing we can do here on English Wikipedia. Maybe you should try asking at the appropriate place on the Turkish Wikipedia if you think it would be a good feature. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern primat: Dialectric (talk · contribs) has been working on a custom dark mode skin. You can copy User:Dialectric/vector.css to your own vector.css page (see Help:User style on how to do this) and see if that helps. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64:thank you! it is working well! but, still.. im gonna try to reach admins of turkish wikipedia.. and @GoingBatty:i want to use dialectric's work for support wikipedia, thank you for your advice..... thank you all, good luck!Modern primat (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern primat: No problem, glad it's working for you. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern primat: You could also look for a browser extension that would work for any web site. I use Dark Mode for Google Chrome. GoingBatty (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Chrome, there is also a built-in experimental/beta setting to force dark mode, set through chrome://flags/ with the description 'Force Dark Mode for Web Contents - Automatically render all web contents using a dark theme.' There are more detailed instructions for enabling this experimental dark mode at various web sites.Dialectric (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:27, 1 November 2021 review of submission by Anwar Shakir Wazir

Anwar Shakir Wazir (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anwar Shakir Wazir. Do you have a specific question about Theroadislong's review of Draft:Anwar Shakir? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding files from Commons from search results?

Probably a stupid question, but is there a way to exclude files on Wikimedia Commons when searching the File namespace?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Ixfd64 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64 Prefix your search with "local:", like this Vahurzpu (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll update Help:Searching as it doesn't say anything about filtering results. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move a page from the English to the Spanish Wikipedia

Hi! I wrote a page but it is in the English Wikipedia but needs to be posted in the Spanish Wikipedia. Is there a way to migrate it there? Thanks! Marie vet (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to translate it first, I assume. Ruslik_Zero 20:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: Why would they need to translate an article that's already in Spanish to add it to the Spanish Wikipedia (in case you misunderstood what they said, they're wanting to take the article from their sandbox on English Wikipedia, and publish it on the Spanish Wikipedia) ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marie vet: If you're referring to User:Marie vet/sandbox, you can just copy the source from this page into the equivalent in the Spanish Wikipedia. (If it was already an article, then you could follow the steps in Wikipedia:Translate us.) Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About redirects

Redirects

I feel like there are too many redirects. If I want to remove a redirect, but am worried it'll get deleted and I'll get warnings and stuff, what do I do?

I'm just gonna explain real quick. The reason I want to remove some is because some redirected pages redirect to almost completely unrelated topics. For example, Waterflame redirects to Geometry Dash, with the two being almost completely nonidentical besides the fact that Geometry Dash uses his songs. What if someone wants to know more about the redirected thing, only to find out it's the way it is? So that's what I wanted to explain, thanks for listening. :) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaterflameIsAwesome If you think that an item deserves its own page, and you think the subject meets the notability guidelines and particularly is best covered as a separate page, you can replace the redirect. If you, however, want to get rid of a redirect or change the redirect to point somewhere else, you can use the Redirects for discussion process to seek feedback. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History section in the article

Hello, I have a question reg information in the article. You can see here newspaper reports reg war crimes during wartime. Should this report be inserted in the article Azykh (village). This would be acceptable in case of massive war crimes, or as result of ivestigation. Please, advice. What do you think? --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Aydin mirza (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aydin mirza. I have altered your link, because it was broken. You used double brackets, which are for internal wikilinks, but you gave a URL, which, if you're going to use it, belongs within single brackets (external links); but more seriously, you put the text "here" which you wanted to display, first. This reversed your intention, and created a Wikilink to the ireelevant disambiguation page here, but displaying as the URL The answer to questions like yours is almost always "Raise the matter on the talk page of the article in question, which is likely to be seen by people who are interested in that subject, rather than at the Teahouse, where most people seeing your question will know nothing whatever about te subject". Alternatively, you could be bold, and make the change to the article yourself. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees, and removes it again. -ColinFine (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColinFine, thank you for your reply and corrections with my applying. Sorry for mistakes with applying, I'm first time on this Page and not familiar. As regards to my question, discussion is already opened on Talk Page, but the Users adviced to apply here. I'm not satisfied with the arguments against romoving of this information. My edition was reverted with the comment "it should be keep, because of "relieble sources". I need advice concerning guidelines and policy of the project. is there any guideline refers to such kind of information in te articles? or where have I apply to get respond for? Thank you in advance. --Aydin mirza (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)sorry[reply]

Hi, Aydin mirza. Sorry I didn't check the talk page before answering. For what to do when you can't reach agreement on the talk page, see dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the source in original language or Google Translated link (to EN)?

I consider adding a French source to an article in English. Does it make sense to add the French website or should I add the Google Translate url (example: original URL vs google translate URL Gullit13 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gullit13, you should certainly include the original URL of the source. Personally, I don't think it is appropriate to include a Google translated link, but I don't see a policy on this; but see WP:NONENG. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gullit13: If you use a citation template to format the citation, then many of the more frequently used ones are set up to handle citations to non-English sourcs. You should check the documentation page for the template you want to use, but most of these templates should have |url=, |lang=, |script-title=, |title= and |trans-title= parameters that can be used for non-English sources. What I suggest you do is to add a link in the French source using the "url" parameter and the French title of whatever you're citing using the "title" parameter. For the language parameter, add "French" of the two-letter code "fr", and for the "trans-title" parameter you can add a translation of the title into English if you want. I wouldn't add a link the Google Translate as the primary url because (1) machine translations are sometimes not very good, (2) the source you're citing is not Google, and (3) there might possibly be technical reasons preventing some readers from accessing a Google Translate link. If you format the citation properly, it should indicate to the reader that the source being cited is in French, and they can then seek a translation of it if they want. You can, however, (if the template you use allows you to do so) add a brief translated quote of relevant part of the source using the |quote= parameter, but that's not always necessary. Please remember though that non-English sources still have to be considered acceptable as reliable sources for English Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:NONENG. Many non-English Wikipedias aren't a rigorous as Engiish Wikipedia when it comes to assessing whether a source is reliable; so, just don't automatically assume sources used on other Wikipedias are OK for English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: That makes great sense. Gullit13 09:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find a Wiki writer?

Hi:

I am looking for a credible writer to write a page for a client of mine. I believe he would qualify for a page. Sorry if this is not the place to ask this question. I am very green here. Guidance is appreciated. Thank you! Hilary Lauren (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Us editors are generally not mercenaries looking for cash, and we're not going to write a page unless we're damned sure the sourcing exists to be able to support an article in the first place. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilary Lauren: Welcome to the Teahouse. There would need to be enough coverage in reliable sources about him to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Getting someone to write about your client would force them to disclose a paid relationship, which is scrutinised heavily and would prevent them from directly editing the article. You would probably be better served on social media like LinkedIn. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I do not know how to use this page at all. LOL. Hitting "edit" to type a response and unsure anyone will see it. My client, I believe is quite credible. He is a very well-known speaker, entrepreneur with millions of followers, is a Forbes writer, among other media, has a business podcast with a very high ranking. So articles like this are usually created by someone who sees the notability and then creates the page gratis? Otherwise, it needs to be disclosed that a writer was paid and that would equal the page being removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8600:3F00:446E:9FB6:B2F2:5A3 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilary Lauren: Articles are usually created by volunteers who have no relationship with the person they're writing about. All paid editing must be disclosed, but articles created by paid editing does not necessary mean that the article would be removed. Look out for scams from unscrupulous companies who will be happy to take your money - see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. GoingBatty (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it exactly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built by independent volunteers, not a directory or marketing platform. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GoingBatty! I appreciate your kind guidance. This seems like a whole other universe. I will be careful and keep searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8600:3F00:446E:9FB6:B2F2:5A3 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Lauren, you wrote the highly promotional Draft:Ryan Stewman which was properly deleted as completely unacceptable as an article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for any form of promotion or advertising. It is a neutral encyclopedia.. Has Stewman paid you in any way? Are you his employee? If so, you are required to comply with the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328, I did not write the article but oversaw the process. I was his employee at the time, but am no longer. I don't believe his page was properly written, nor did I know enough about the process to even render an opinion. Hence, my looking for guidance. This new page would be fresh, no promotional content and informational only. With the removal of any promotional aspects, I believe his accomplishments stand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8600:3F00:446E:9FB6:B2F2:5A3 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Hilary, you appear to be logged out of your Wikipedia account. It would help us follow the conversation if you logged in to your account, and signed your replies by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Lauren, you are correct in that User :Ryan Stewman started the draft, but you submitted it to WP:AFC for review, which means that you were claiming that it was a good addition to the encyclopedia. It is unusual though not unknown for a second person to submit a draft written by someone else. You wrote nor did I know enough about the process to even render an opinion. You should learn enough about the process to edit capably, especially since you have an obvious conflict of interest as a former employee. If Stewman himself wrote that draft, then WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY definitely applies. If the person who wrote that draft is not Stewman, then that account should be blocked for impersonation. Which is it? In almost all cases, editors with a COI about a topic are not capable of determining whether or not an article about that topic contains promotional content. That is why the work of such editors receives extra scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328, this was ages ago. I am not interested in editing this page. I would like someone else to do it. I simply oversaw the process. Unsure about who did what since it was so long ago. Would like to make this right. I will find a way. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8600:3F00:446E:9FB6:B2F2:5A3 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Lauren, as requested by another editor, please log into your account before editing, so that your fellow editors can keep track of your contributions, and who is saying what in a conversation. Thank you. Is this person your client? You wrote I was his employee at the time, but am no longer. The paid editing disclosure policy does not make a distinction between "client" and "employer", nor should it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328, I am not going to be doing anything with this article. I don't know who will. I am sincerely not interested in pursuing editing the existing article, and am guessing it will live on somewhere, unpublished in this atmosphere. We are starting completely over. It will literally have nothing to do with me. I would delete the page if I knew how. So there will be zero activity with this page. Someone else will create another new fresh page that I will have nothing to do with. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have not been treating this like a big deal because I intend to do nothing with it. Thank you. I was also looking for a way to delete this thread and there doesn't seem to be a way either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8600:3F00:446E:9FB6:B2F2:5A3 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions will be archived once no one has responded to it in 2–3 days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilary Lauren: Draft:Ryan Stewman was deleted in 2017. Is there another page you would like deleted? (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilary Lauren: Some friendly advice that is intended to save you time, money and disappointment. Being a guest contributor for Forbes, Entrepreneur and Huffington Post is not the same as having the media coverage required by Wikipedia to demonstrate notability. I don't see any media coverage for him, or his books. Self podcasts, social media activity (including follower count) and Amazon listings are controlled by the subject, and do not demonstrate notability. See WP:GNG for a more detailed explanation. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little confusion about wikisource.

Some language have special format on wikisource ( like english) whereas some are in less standard format ( like nepali). So, what is the criteria for a language to have standard format on wikisource? Does the quantity of article make difference? If so, when shall we know that there are enough articles to turn it into standard? Help me please. Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kushal Dev Wiki, Wikisource is separate from Wikipedia. A question about Wikisource is better asked at Wikisource; perhaps in its multilingual "scriptorium". -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kushal Dev Wiki, each of the hundreds of Wikimedia Foundation projects is autonomous with only a few exceptions, and each establishes its own local standards about issues like formatting. English Wikipedia editors have no special knowledge and no authority regarding the Nepali Wikisource project. Feel free to ask questions about editing English Wikipedia here at the Teahouse, because our purpose is to answer those types of questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about new creation

Lifeofaka (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC) can someone please help in creating xploit comedy their are much reliable sources, on Google this means top websites like varngard ^[1][reply]

References

^ Template:Cite web=https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/02/how-xploit-comedy-group-started-from-the-church-brizy/

Lifeofaka, you should have at least three reliable sources that discuss it in depth. If you have these, then you are free to start Draft:Xploit comedy. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about reviewing and indexing

Hi everyone I'm actually a bit lost right now. I initially made a draft but I thought it was lost since no link showed up at the disambiguation, but this time i was able to create the page directly. Afterwards I noticed that someone merged my page with the draft. But now it bypassed the AfC review system. So I added the tag back again. Will that help for getting it reviewed? Also if it gets reviewed, will it get indexed now?( I couldnt see anything up when I googled my article) Should i delete this and start all over again? For reference, this is the page - Infinito (festival) Notashfaq (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google won't index a new page until it has either been reviewed through the new page patrol system, or 90 days have elapsed. Special:NewPagesFeed says that more than 16 thousand pages are awaiting new page patrol, but you don't need to worry, as there is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article has this morning been moved to draft space as Draft:Infinito (festival), because it has been deemed as nowhere near fit for mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Notashfaq: The article was draftified as it was reviewed and not deemed suitable for Wikipedia as it stands. You can work on the draft Draft:Infinito (festival) and resubmit it once improved. ––FormalDude talk 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph thanks for the clarification. I've made changes, could you see if its fine now? Notashfaq (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Notashfaq[reply]

Teahouse hosts are not necessarily AfC reviewers, although that does not preclude your getting comments. You have submitted the revised draft. Up to two months may pass before it is reviewed, as there is a backlog of thousands of drafts. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Notashfaq: I tagged the unreferenced sections for you, and noted that the official website seems to be offline. Please resolve these issues before resubmitting. Also, for the non-English references, you could add |language= and |trans-title= paramters. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with revision, part 2

I used to be a part of this church. Can someone explain how this reads unlike an advertisement rather than an entry in an encyclopedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Baptist_Church

I am doing the same thing for this church as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:San_Francisco_Mandarin_Baptist_Church

Please help. Thank you! Theomizuhara (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, "Tokyo Baptist Church has two multi site campuses in Misato, Saitama and Tachikawa, Tokyo." I don't understand the notion of a "multi site campus" for a church. Anyway, it appears to have buildings in Tokyo and Saitama; no mention of other buildings anywhere else. Yet, mysteriously, it's described as "an international church". In what sense is it "international"? The draft appears to have a total of just one independent source: this. When I click on it, I see no information whatever. (Is my browser at fault?) It thus appears to have no independent sourcing whatever, and this just isn't good enough. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the word "church" has two meanings. It can mean a consecrated building; or it can designate a branch of the Christian faith, like "Church of England". Tokyo Baptist Church doesn't seem to fit either of those, so I'm not sure what it's about. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theomizuhara: can I check if I understand your question right? Are you wondering why Draft:San Francisco Mandarin Baptist Church was not accepted, even though Tokyo Baptist Church exists, and you used that article as a model for the SF Mandarin Baptist Church draft? If that is your question, the answer is that Tokyo Baptist Church is not a good article to model a draft on. There are many Wikipedia articles that are not at all what we'd wish. The article about the church in Tokyo should be rewritten, or perhaps even deleted if there are no good sources about it.

As for the draft you are working on, keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not a way for the church to publish its basic facts and news – that is the job of a directory service, not an encyclopedia. Use sources that are independent of the church, and base the draft on the information in such sources. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of contribution that is verified

I made additions to Alexander Zverev's (a top tennis player) page where I added that he was accused by his former girlfriend of physical and emotional abuse, but that he denied it, and in to which the Association of Tennis Professionals has now opened an investigation. Even though I linked all news articles backing up the above information, and didn't defame him in any way as all this is public information, it has all been deleted from his page. I received no notification or justification for the deletion, even though I made sure that the alerts were on to the changes I made. How can this happen when I cited about 8 credible sources of news backing up all the additions that I made? Snydercut1! (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snydercut1! Being accused of something is not the same as being found guilty of that thing. We normally don’t promote, as yet unsubstantiated accusations in this encyclopaedia. Best to wait, and then only add to an article if it’s both relevant and does not give UNDUE weight or focus to such events. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced page

May not be the place for this but I have found this article called M Domeigh which has no sources and was created by who appears to be the subjects brother, User:Matt Domin. It has no sources and I doubt many could be found. It also seems too be a conflict of interest as the creator is obviously involved with the subject. The user in question has made another unsourced pages about, Sniper J. Not sure what to do, I guess I could put both for deletion as that seems the most appropriate but I am not sure if that is the right step to begin with. Let me know if a should add a warning first. Any help with this matter is appreciated, thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article M Domeigh was only created today and I think that the new pages patrol will WP:Draftify it or even delete it completely, as it is, as you say, unsourced. You could do the draftification yourself, with a suitable edit summary and tagging with possible Projects that might be interested in improving it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.... and another experienced editor has just had it speedily deleted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and from this edit it sounds as if the account should be blocked as a compromised account. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Editing

Hello, I am SITX5Ntrix. Can I only edit source on Wikipedia? It's a little hard for me since my best skill is the Visual Editor. SITX5Ntrix (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SITX5Ntrix, welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:VisualEditor#First step: enabling VE. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a link

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but i would appreciate if someone can just explain to me on how to add a link to a page i made. Matt Domin (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a wikilink to another wiki page, just add square brackets around the title, so [[example]] would produce a link to example. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles which you have created are both unsourced, and may well be deleted (see section #Unsourced page above). If you've got time to correct the problems before they are deleted, you need to read about Wikipedia's definition of notability, and about referencing. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just take an article from a non-English Wikipedia and copy it to English Wikipedia?

The model Dalma Callado is generally notable in modeling. She doesn't have an article on English Wikipedia, but does, I believe, on Portuguese Wikipedia. (You can see a translation of the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greg_Dahlen/dalma_callado.) Can we just put the translation on the English Wikipedia, brushing up the syntax? Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible to use another language article as a basis for one on English WP, provided you follow guidance at WP:Translate. However, our requiremnts for notability are likely to be much stricter so you need to supply decent WP:secondary sources, not just based on interviews. The relevant notability guidance is WP:NMODEL, which might be quite challenging. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Newcomer writing first article - help on getting it approved

Hello - I had an article ont he Cotswold Boys Club rejected because I didn't have enough secondary sources - what kinds of sources would I need to include to get it approved. It's difficult because theyre a secret society. Theyre listed in the national archives which I have referenced, and everybody in my hometown have heard things about them and know about them, but I'm not sure what else I would need to include. Can somebody help me? BenjaminGeorge2769 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BenjaminGeorge2769: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia articles use published sources that are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage about the topic. Per Help:Your first article, you should first gather the sources, and then summarize/paraphrase what they say. If there are not multiple sources to show that the club meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability", then your draft will not be approved. GoingBatty (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BenjaminGeorge2769: Plenty of secret societies have coverage. That's what makes them notable. See Skull and Bones. Being secret won't excuse them from needing media coverage, or it could just be a hoax. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BenjaminGeorge2769, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I don't want to dampen your enthusiams for getting involved in this unique project, but what you are doing is a bit like saying "I want to help improve the built environment in my town, so the first thing I'm going to do is build a new house with my own two hands!" Very laudable - but likely to bring you lots of wasted effort, frustration, and disappointment, as you watch your house fall down about you or be pulled down by the authorities for being unsafe. In particular, it has no chance of succeeding if you don't know how to survey the site for suitability (determine if the subject is notable) or build the foundations (find the independent, reliable, substantial, published sources that are an absolute non-negotiable requirement for any article) before trying to build the house.

My suggestion is that you put aside the idea of creating a new article for at least a few months while you "learn the building trade" by helping with existing builds - improving some of our six million existing articles. I remember when I started in 2005 I was desperately looking for somewhere where I could "make my mark" by adding a new article; but now I understand that almost all attempts at articles by editors who try too soon arguably add negative value to Wikipedia, because they take up other editors' time on things that at least nine times out of ten were not suitable for Wikipedia in the first place. --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

Hello,

I just posted a new page on Wikipedia, but it seems to be rejected already? (Some of the rejedctions are from 3 months ago when I just made the page.) How do I get my page published?

Thank you! Ukiyoung (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukiyoung: Welcome to the Teahouse! You did not start the Draft:Naoki Terada page, you edited an existing draft that was rejected months ago. Your text is very similar to the text that was written by Chatsha57, but without the proper footnotes - are you the same editor? Per the comments from 2020, you would need to demonstrate that this person meets WP:GNG by providing independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of him. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The reason that it is shown as declined multiple times and then rejected is that you attached your content to the front of an existing draft which had already been through the review process multiple times. The first thing you need to do is to read the feedback from the various previous reviews (and the various wikilinks shown in blue within that feedback). In particular you need to see why the subject had been deemed not to be notable in Wikipedia's terms. If you believe that you now have evidence of notability which wasn't available at the time of rejection, you should remove your new material and edit the existing draft to add your new evidence, making sure that you add the evidence as properly cited references, see WP:Referencing for beginners, rather than just throwing a list of so-called "references" onto the end of the text. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ukiyoung According to our logs, you have made only two edits so far [5], and did not create Draft:Naoki Terada. Are you also editing as User:Chatsha57? If so, please not that that is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry for more information. Vexations (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiyoung I removed the duplicate text because after a cursory look it seemed similar to the existing rejected text. If you need to retrieve it, it can be found in the revision history. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Celebrity Pages

Hi! I'm completely new to the Wiki community and really need some help understanding on how to become a contributor/administrator of specific pages. I work with a ex-professional football player who wants to update his page to reflect his recent career and achievements. I was tasked to edit the pages with the new & approved (by him) text to add, but pretty soon after I updated the page the new copy was reverted.

How do I see why something is reverted and is it possible to get some kind of 'ownership' of the page?

Thanks for your help, Isla Islandpearson (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Islandpearson: there is no such thing as ownership of a Wikipedia article. Your edit was reverted by SQGibbon for being unsourced and promotional, neither of which is allowed here. I'll post a general welcome on your user talk page I a second. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Islandpearson: Welcome to the Teahouse! Once you follow the paid editing disclosure that Victor Schmidt mobil mentioned on your talk page, you may submit suggestions for improving the Samuel Eto'o article on the article's talk page Talk:Samuel Eto'o with the {{request edit}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Be sure to provide published independent reliable sources with your request. I suggest making multiple small requests, as some editors are not interested in making major additions. Start by requesting the most important information, and then make another request when the first has been completed. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, Islandpearson, please understand that the article about your football player not only does not belong to him, but is not in any way for his benefit. If it happens that independent published sources about him are positive, then he may indeed get some benefit from the article; if it happens that a lot of published coverage is negative, then he may prefer that the article not be there. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what he wants, or on what he or his associates say, but on what has been reliably published about him. --ColinFine (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitia

Hi, on searching for a specific musician I could not find an article for them here on Wikipedia, however, they have an article on Wikitia...would it be against policy if I brought it across to Wikipedia? such a shame for them not to be on here as they have done so much amazing work with so many bands. Thanks in advance FlowerMoon593 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC) FlowerMoon593 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlowerMoon593, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, It depends. There are two issues. The first is copyright: I believe that Wikitia content is licensed under CC-BY-SA, and therefore you may copy and reuse it anywhere, including on Wikipedia, provided you ascribe the source properly.

The second issue is whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability and sourcing. I don't know enough about Wikitia to know whether or not that is likely to be the case; but you should certainly not assume it. Unless you are very sure that it does, I would advise treating this as a new draft using WP:AFC, and copy some or all of the text in, noting in the edit summary where it came from. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @FlowerMoon593, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, copy-pasting from there to here is a bad idea, rather what you want to do is do a private reading of WP:RS, analyze what is being said about the musician, then in your own words create the article here using the WP:AFC method. That an article exists on a sister project doesn’t make it automatically notable enough for the English Wikipedia. You might want to read WP:GNG, WP:RS & WP:MUSICBIO before proceeding to create the article here. Please see WP:YFA, if you have seen it before, re-reading is never a bad idea. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, you have both been very helpful. FlowerMoon593 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Template:Cite web=https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/02/how-xploit-comedy-group-started-from-the-church-brizy/

[1]

@@ Line 672: / Line 672: @@
 :The second issue is whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for [[WP:NMUSIC|notability]] and [[WP:CITE|sourcing]]. I don't know enough about Wikitia to know whether or not that is likely to be the case; but you should certainly not assume it. Unless you are very sure that it does, I would advise treating this as a new draft using [[WP:AFC]], and copy some or all of the text in, noting in the edit summary where it came from. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 {{EC}} @{{u|FlowerMoon593}}, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, copy-pasting from there to here is a bad idea, rather what you want to do is do a private reading of [[WP:RS]], analyze what is being said about the musician, then in your own words create the article here using the [[WP:AFC]] method. That an article exists on a sister project doesn’t make it automatically notable enough for the English Wikipedia. You might want to read [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:RS]] & [[WP:MUSICBIO]] before proceeding to create the article here. Please see [[WP:YFA]], if you have seen it before, re-reading is never a bad idea. '''[[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]''' ([[User talk:Celestina007|talk]]) 17:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
+Thankyou very much, you have both been very helpful. [[User:FlowerMoon593|FlowerMoon593]] ([[User talk:FlowerMoon593|talk]]) 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)