Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

reliable and independent sources = example

 Courtesy link: Draft:Priyanka chahar choudhary

hey i made a submission but it declined and it says not notable .can someone please give me example of reliable and independent references please .thank you in advance Akb bhatia (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which says The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Akb bhatia: All 3 sources are from The Times of India, which is generally considered unreliable. See WP:TOI. You will need more reliable sources to show they are notable. --The Tips of Apmh 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You will also need to explain how it is different from the version that was deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong hey can you please tell that India today source is reliable or not

@Akb bhatia: India Today is mixed in its reliability, they seem to have a history of not fact-checking their information. --The Tips of Apmh 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong and pinkvilla , india forum ,tellychakkar any one of these — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akb bhatia (talk • contribs) 07:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Permission needed. Can I work on the subject? I am a movie addict. Hope I can work with Wiki rules if I get permission to do so.--Priya Ragini (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Priya Ragini: You don't need permission to improve a draft. However, you could post at Draft talk:Priyanka chahar choudhary or User talk:Akb bhatia if you want to discuss your ideas for improving the draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

How to send warning to editors after reversion

After I revert any edit how to let them know and warn the user?... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In general, you should leave edit comment explaining your reason for revert. If you need to leave a warning, you can use any of existing templates, here are a few to choose from. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Along with Anton.bersh, you should try Twinkle, as a faster way to revert, and to send out warnings/notices. Severestorm28 23:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You could also try RW. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी Besides using anti-vandal tools, you can place {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on the vandal's talk page under a month heading. So the vandal's talk page would have a section called February 2022 with a vandalism warning under it. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 20:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So it would look like this. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 20:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Press release citation

Can I add press release as a reference for citing a singer best---- work? Sweeto dweeto (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No. See WP:PRSOURCE. casualdejekyll 21:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Sweeto dweeto, press releases aren’t good but aren’t necessarily bad, since it’s based on the publication of the subject it would be treated like a WP:PRIMARY source thus wouldn’t count to or be considered when ascertaining the notability status of a given article. Thus you are discouraged from optimizing them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Sweeto dweeto, if the topic is already established as notable, then a press release can be used for non-controversial things. An example is a corporation announcing a new CEO. A press release should never be used for an evaluative claim that something is the "best". Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about moving an article

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Would it be appropriate to move this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messor_pergandei) to a new page (titled Veromessor pergandei)? It's now referred to more commonly by that Latin name, whereas at that time it was not. Cerambycidfreak (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you ask on the article's talk page: Talk:Messor pergandei. GoingBatty (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cerambycidfreak, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, my colleague GoingBatty is very much apt, what you want to do is seek consensus at the talk page of that article, you also need to notify editors who have made significant edits to the article, if you find that the approach isn’t yielding the desired results due to lack of sufficient participants in the talk page you may need to go to WP:RM & list the article there. Unilaterally moving articles to a new namespace isn’t necessarily wrong but it is usually reserved to a group of editors known as page movers who are familiar with policy and can determine when a unilateral page move wouldn’t be considered controversial or harmful to the collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a message on the article's talk page... just kinda waiting for someone to respond. Can I try and move it if both of your ideas don't work? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It actually looks as if it was moved. Thanks for the advice! Cerambycidfreak (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

How to suggest possible error/correction

Can I, and if so how, suggest changes to a posted Wikipedia entry? (“Impedance Analogy”) Reasonably sure I’m right and not wasting anyone’s time. Thx. Bldg36nites (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That page is not protected, and therefore anyone can edit it. @Bldg36nites - Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Just click the "edit" button at the top of the page. casualdejekyll 00:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may submit an edit request, for suggesting edits, for more information, please read WP:EDITREQ. Severestorm28 00:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The page in question is not protected, so an edit request is not needed. (Unless they'd like to wait a million years for someone to finally get around to the COI backlog.) casualdejekyll 00:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just in case if this editor runs into trouble into some page-protected article. Severestorm28 00:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bldg36nites: I'm not sure what you mean by your question. No such article called "Impedance Analogy" exists on Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does??? See Impedance analogy??? casualdejekyll 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I sometimes forget that when linking articles it's case sensitive. My bad. I was typing it exactly as they had put it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bldg36nites I'm really glad you asked your question here - thank you. I also spotted that you did then manage to edit the article on Impedance analogy. I'm afraid it did get removed by another editor, but that was because it was more of a commentary or observation, and did not add or correct any factual content in the article itself. However, please don't let this put off, but instead maybe try expressing your concerns on the article's talk page, and link to any supporting sources, if that would help you present a rationale argument for disagreeing with any content there. We really do welcome people with expertise in a subject if they can help improve encyclopaedic content, but it can take a few goes to understand how things work here. I realise it's never nice having one's contributions immediately removed, so I thought I'd drop by and explain to you why this was necessary in this instance. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The direct answer to this user's question should have been to point them to the article talk page. They did not ask how to edit the page, they asked how to suggest a change. The user is clearly not 100% sure they are right (which they aren't) so shouldn't have been encouraged to edit the page directly. Talking about protected pages and edit requests is likely to just add confusion. The user doesn't need lessons in our arcane procedures, they just need to discuss their issue with someone. SpinningSpark 10:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, @Spinningspark, which is why I was so confused when Severestorm answered the way they did? However, I didn't catch on that the user in question already knew how to edit and wanted to ask first if their edit was appropriate. Learning opportunity for me, it looks like. casualdejekyll 19:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Citing is hard

I know that content should be supported with reliable sources, But the hardest part of citing evidence is the entering the date. Thats because an error will occur when you type it in and it would say "Check value dates in." Why does it do that? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:DA:5313:91CD:37AD (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us where you're encountering this error? Also, if you register a Wikipedia account it becomes much easier to help you, however you don't have to if you don't want to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You'll see that error when you try to enter an improperly formatted date into a date parameter in a template such as {{cite web}}. There is a lot of helpful information at Help:CS1 errors in the "Check date values in: |<param1>=, |<param2>=, ..." section. What date are you trying to enter? GoingBatty (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that you are not obliged to use citation templates, we don't have a standardised citation method on Wikipedia. The most important thing is to get the reference in the article by some means. You can use plain text if you can't get the citation template to work (and they can sometimes be difficult). The formatting can always be fixed later by others. Some editors create articles without citation templates at all. This is a perfectly valid method of citation, although you should always endeavour to use the citation style that has already been established in the article. SpinningSpark 11:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Major Movement of Sections Mirror

I am going to start working on reorganizing Atomic clock for greater clarity. I am wondering how to create an entirely new and different copy of the article that is not the main article that I work on moving sections around and not worry about messing up the main article. I think there's a way to create a user subpage or a sandbox to do this. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ScientistBuilder,

Reorganizing an article? You should probably discuss this first on the article talk page. Just pasting in your "new and improved" article might otherwise see some substantial resistance and your edit could be reverted by editors who are watching this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your creation of \Atomic Clock was Speedy deleted. You can have more than one Sandbox. Once created, sections from the existing article can be copied, revised, and then inserted into the existing article. David notMD (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant to do /Atomic Clock. I make mistakes! ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atomic_clock#Quantum_Mechanics_Science_Physics_Section for consensus on reorganizing atomic clock ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Average Admin Edit Count

I'm just curious I'm reading a book on Wikipedia titled Wikipedia: The Missing Manual from 2008 and I am wondering what is the average, min, and max of admin edit counts? ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No idea about the average (I'd guess somewhere in the 10k-100k range), but the lowest and highest edit counts that I am aware of are Lustiger seth (725) and Ser Amantio di Nicolao (4591220). —Kusma (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this statistic is a bit misleading: Lustiger seth contributed 43,723 edits to DE Wikipedia. Using the same logic, one could note that administrator Lustiger seth has only 27 edits on RU Wikipedia. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Lustiger seth is not an administrator of RU Wikipedia, though. casualdejekyll 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Where can I see whether person is admin or not on a particular Wiki? Anton.bersh (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh I used XTools.. see how here "Is administrator" is ticked as yes, but here it's ticked as no casualdejekyll 00:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ScientistBuilder,

Edit counts are constantly changing and increasing. At what point in time do you want this data? Edit counts for individual editors can be seen by clicking on Edit Count at the bottom of an editor's contributions page but not every editor enables this feature. Editors in different user classes are not tracked for edits. Admin statistics can be found at User:JamesR/AdminStats and are updated on a daily basis but they don't include edit counts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit count is not a meaningful measure of user's experience or contribution. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Editcountitis (it's a humorous essay, but the points are valid). Most users with very high edit counts employ some level of automation. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You can get a comparison of administrator admin actions (not edits) with this tool. You can get editing statistics for individual admins with this tool or this tool. The last one only has limited data if the user does not sign up to it. I don't know of any tool that compares all admin edits. SpinningSpark 11:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: You could also look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and focus on those users that have "Ad" in the "User groups" column. GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh@Kusma@Casualdejekyll@Liz@Spinningspark@GoingBattyI'm just curious but is there anything like, "If you get 1000000 edits, you can apply to be an admin automatically or something" ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: no, there is nothing like that. Becoming an admin is (ideally) a function of sound judgment and the community's trust in an editor, which cannot be guaranteed at any raw number of edits. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to become an admin by the way because you have to deal with vandalism. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there something like an admin for a WikiProject? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @ScientistBuilder:! No, most WikiProjects are fairly informal: they serve more like a bulletin board where people can coordinate work on articles related to a topic. I personally use them mostly for content assessment tables when I want to find something to improve. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi ScientistBuilder, not all admins are needed to deal with vandalism, we have admins dealing with copyright violations, the DYK queue, spammers, AFC and several other places where you are unlikely to encounter vandalism. As for edit counts and adminship, it used to be said that if you haven't become an admin before your 10,000th edit you were unlikely to make admin. Nowadays I'd be as surprised at someone passing in their first three thousand edits as I would be if someone passed in their first 12 months of active editing. Oh and as for admins for Wikiprojects, MILHist elects some people, but I haven't heard of any other Wikiproject doing so, though whether this is a matter of MILHist scale or culture I wouldn't be sure. ϢereSpielChequers 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a look with the API. Excluding 4 adminbots (Edit filter, ProcseeBot, ST47ProxyBot, TFA Protector Bot) and one 'rename' (Khaosworks101), you get this: Count: 1,050; Min: 725; Max: 4,598,060; Mean: 75,218; Median: 35,931 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to be an admin and mostly focus on editing well and less vandalism patrol, or is the role of an admin to enforce the pillars of Wikipedia? ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a controversial point, actually. The thing about RfA is that it's a horrible, terrible, place. At least in my opinion. The thing about adminship is that it's kind of biased to those people who work behind the scenes - simply because it's much more useful to them. There's a reason they call it the mop, you know. Admin tools are mainly used for cleanup rather then actual writing, and if you just want to write, then there's very few uses you'd have for the toolset. (Not that everything admins do is vandalism patrol - there are many many many many other things admins do as well.) casualdejekyll 00:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

According to User:JamesR/AdminStats, in Wikipedia history more than half of all admins have never blocked a single person. But when asking for a toolset, people are going to ask, "why do you need that and what are you going to do with it?" -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit filter is a bot? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really, but the edit filter owns an account (User:Edit filter) which it can use to block and change user rights (theoretically, long story). It's described as an admin, sort of: Special:UserRights/Edit filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

fed wup with ads

hey guys i just put this here bcos i cant seem to edit th main page. iused to use this site alot but i think iom goin g to have to stop using it now bcos of all the ads especiallythe really inappropriate onest bh. like im just browsing this site which i jnow by eleve year old son sometimes browses as well when hes at mty house and whenever i go onto a page i get like halg a dozebn pop up ads for porn completely blockngf my whole page and when i try to close them dsometimes thy just spawn even more! now i know ur run by voulenteers and i really really really appreciate that as uer creati g a really great free servcw for us an d i always loved this site and so did myson so money must be tight as i saw u asking for adonations before but pls pls pls plspls think about what ur doing!!! rthis is a site that kids use as well so its really no appropriate for porn adfs to pop up and completelt cover ur sceeen whenever ur on this iwki. hope wheover reads this has been thining what im thinking a its really not aceptanble idk if this is something the dmins decided on an d deceided to bn all discussion about LOL but im sure oyher ppl will h`ve thought its inappropriate too! peace and love x FedUpWithAds (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

wy is no one respondiong FedUpWithAds (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@FedUpWithAds: Wikipedia does not have ads. Check your computer for malware. RudolfRed (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

FedUpWithAds, you have twice added your complaint about ads to the article Ptolemaic Kingdom (second occasion), which seems about as strange as your claim to have seen porn ads. But then you have also said: i trie to asdd a new section on tourism and tourist advie but someone deleted it hbcs i think bcos i didnt really add any content as TBH i had a few drinks. Sobriety is a key to the use of Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Would also explain the poor spelling and grammar! Username142857 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noting this user has been blocked. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

How to cite things

I’m not that new to Wikipedia but I only ever edit grammar and I do not know how to cite something I write WarInTheDesert (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@WarInTheDesert: Do this:

The earth is round.<ref>example.com</ref>

Which produces:

The earth is round.

See this page. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see Help:Referencing for beginners which has templates for various types of references. For example, the website template provides places to enter the https and title and other stuff, and creates the ref for you. David notMD (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@WarInTheDesert: You might also be interested in the video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

hey

Can I rename my username please? --ThisWikiIsEditedByIrresponsibleJerks (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC) ThisWikiIsEditedByIrresponsibleJerks (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@ThisWikiIsEditedByIrresponsibleJerks: To rename your account, read WP:RENAME then go to this section and follow the link which says Simple renames (confirmed email address required). --Jack Frost (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested, can you check? --ThisWikiIsEditedByIrresponsibleJerks (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please wait for some time; a user who has the rights to rename will respond shortly. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw your contributions, but you have not seemed to put a request yet? Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Change in heart? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No, user has now been renamed to Vqd123. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m blocked on Simple Wikipedia for this, thanks for helping me rename. --Vqd123 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: And now your blocked here, too! Just one of many proven sockpuppets of User:DontSpreadMisinformationGuys. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: They pretty much said they would create more sockpuppets here. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing we can do to prevent them. Yes we can disable their ability to create accounts, however they somehow still manage to create an account. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Well, providing it doesn't take me too much effort, I, for one, am quite happy to delete any pages created by a blocked editor or revert any edits made since they were first blocked. Sometimes that's the only way to show a repeat offender that, once found out, their time and effort here since evading that block will have been in vain. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Verify Truth

Am I Allowed To Post Questions Here? 2600:8807:C40:1D00:8165:DD1A:F539:E24D (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes? Do you have any further questions about editing Wikipedia? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but if it's about "verifying Truth" you’re not likely to be satisfied with the answer. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your questions have been thoroughly answered here. In summary; Wikipiedia is not free webhosting for you to post your music videos or add non-notable names to the "List of composers" page. Further time-wasting efforts will result in a longer block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation of fluctuating figures

How to cite a figure that keeps fluctuating e.g the number of countries in which a particular singer is heard as by radio keeps fluctuating . If have added a figure in my article but when i checked the website again the figure was different. Can somebody tell? I am worried that my article will be rejected because of this. 2407:AA80:116:5EC6:D4D:933E:BB0D:16F1 (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the title of the article? It's impossible to know for certain "the number of countries in which a particular singer is heard as by radio" (radio waves don't respect borders) so I suggest you omit that, or just say "many countries" or "few countries" as appropriate.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether this is a good idea or not for your particular example, the usual way of dealing with time sensitive statistics is as follows. In the article text say "as of February 2022..." or something similar giving a date. In the citation give the access date you looked at the website to get the information. Make sure that the website gets archived (using the Wayback Machine is most popular) on the same date you accessed it so that other editors are able to verify this in the future. SpinningSpark 10:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how such a statistic can possibly be encyclopaedic, unless it has been reported on by an independent source, which will normally be dated. --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with Improvements

Hello Fellow Teahouse Members I was Wondering if Some Improvements could be Done with List of Planetary Nebulas, I Noticed A Few Names Missing. Kuhn Alexander --2022-- DemonymsPlayer (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@DemonymsPlayer: Add it yourself. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Googling "Kuhn Alexander nebula" produces no results. If you add it to the list you will be expected to provide a reliable source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the user was suggesting that that is the name of a planetary nebula. SpinningSpark 12:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@DemonymsPlayer Welcome to the Teahouse. Further to @AssumeGoodWraith's very curt response to you: if you aren't confident with your own skills in English, but would still like to see changes made, then feel free to post at the List Article's talk page and suggest what those changes ought to be, and why you feel they are needed. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Kuhn is my real name I was not recommended for Naming a Nebulae that.DemonymsPlayer (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there

 Muratcan63477 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome @Muratcan63477. Do you have any specific query? Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Bebras Competition Creation

Hey everybody,

I am new to Wikipedia and want to create an article about the Bebras Competition, a CS competition with close to 3 million annual participants worldwide. I created a Draft for it with links to the website of the international umbrella organization of the 54 member countries, maintained by the University of Vilnius. I also linked the UK competition website, which is maintained by its national organizer, the University of Oxford and the US website which is maintained by the local Bebras organization.

Unfortunately, my draft was declined because I did not provide any outside sources. As this is a competition for middle and high schoolers, I am not entirely sure how outside info on the tournament is of any relevance, as this is not some hotly debated research topic, but an academic competition. Furthermore, the sources cited aren't some shady organizations with interest in gaining PR off of some Wikipedia article but reputable non profit bodies maintained be the likes of the oldest university in the Baltic states, namely Vilnius University, and the oldest English speaking institute of higher learning, the University of Oxford. (!).

Please give me advice on what to do. Here is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bebras_Computing_Competition

UPDATE: As I unfortunately couldn't figure out how to respond to other users comments yet, I will just put this here. I have reworked the draft and included a news article from a UK newspaper hosted on Yahoo News, an article from the MIT Admissons Blog and two independent studies about the competition. I hope this will get it approved! Thanks for the advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashfrank (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks in advance Hashfrank (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hashfrank: If there are no reliable outside (secondary) sources, an article cannot be made. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Bebras clearly exists as an international organization. What is absolutely necessary for a draft about Bebras to succeed is to have references that are independent from Bebras websites, as those are all considered primary. Wikipedia cares not for what an organization (or company) publishes about itself. SeeWP:NORG. As AGW replied, unless there are reliable source references about Bebras, independent from Bebras, not going to happen. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hashfrank: I concur with my colleagues above about sourcing, but I wouldn't despair too much about the possibility of finding them. For a competition that big, I'd expect there to be something, even if it's only a student newspaper writing about it happening at their school. Something like an article about the competition in a math educators journal would be ideal. If you come any possible sources you'd like to run by us, feel free to link them here. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hashfrank: I'm not familiar with the Digital Careers website, so I don't know how notable it is, but here is an online source that may be of help to you: https://digitalcareers.csiro.au/en/Bebras. Also, if you search for "Bebras Competition" at Google Books (books.google.com) there are previews of several published sources (references) to use in your draft article that are independent of Bebras Competition. Best wishes on getting your draft article accepted. Karenthewriter (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Get in touch with author of a wikipedia page

Hi. Regarding the wiki page: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9C.png

the blue stripe in the picture is not an accurate shade of blue (it should be a dark blue and not the light blue as shown). How do I reach the person who posted that picture to ask him to change the shade of blue in that picture and the other similar pictures he has posted to a more accurate shade of blue? The owner's name on wiki is "David_Robin_1".

Sincerely, Yitzchakm2 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Yitzchakm2, that's actually on the Hebrew Wikipedia. But it was uploaded by User:David Robin 1. SN54129 14:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, where that user is not active. Every Wikipedia is separate. You will need to ping him on the Hebrew laguage Wikipedia.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shantavira, How do I ping him? (That his name is in red apparently means that he has no page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitchakm2 (talk • contribs)

@Yitzchakm2: this is his talk page on he-wiki, and ready for you to edit  :) SN54129 14:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shantavira, Thank you very much. I sent him a message.

Yitzchakm2 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wigwamiella article references

I want to know if these two references are able to be used for an article I'll be making about a possible trilobozoan. The sources are https://www.gbif.org/species/8532800 which I'll use for the author of the species, and https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0100 which I'll use for the actual information. Another source I found was https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Biostratinomy-of-frondose-organisms-in-the-Ediacara-Member-a-Aspidella-the-holdfast_fig1_342132470 but was just the diagram from the previous site. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus No, please don't. Wigwamiella is evidently a taphomorph of Aspidella, not an actual taxon. A WP:REDIRECT to that article and an expansion there might be appropriate, but not an article, as far as I can ascertain at a quick skim through. As I advised you previously, you need to be sure you're talking about genuine species not form taxa, and really, really understand the subject. The sources you cited are reliable for many things, but your interpretation of them does not appear to be so sound. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Then Why is wigwamiella represented as a seperate creature in the photo for the trilobozoa article? (the blue dome-shaped thing with a foot). Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a reliable and up-to-date source of information. The drawing (not photo) was created in 2006, the article Droser1 et al. was published in 2020. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC))

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus I agree with @Alnagov. That picture was created by another keen amateur, like yourself, and the editor who made it also published it on deviantart - hardly a scientific source. If I had my way, I would delete it. But it has already been used in many language wikis and I’m prepared to overlook that for now, but no more with the scratting around trying to extract obscure articles about things beyond your understanding. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Rangamini Werawatta

RANGAMINI WERAWATTA

Como hago para que mi artículo acerca de la biografía de esta persona viva sea aceptada en la comunidad por tratarse de alguien que da un aporte al mundo en asuntos de ciencia y tecnología. La misma debe ser en inglés porque esta dirigida a personas en Asia y Europa. Caperucitabohemia (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This Teahouse is for helping with editing the English Wikipedia. If you have questions regarding the Spanish Wikipedia you need to ask there. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks as if you have tried to submit an article in English to the Spanish Wikipedia. An article in English needs to be here at enwiki, but before you write a draft here you need to read the advice at WP:Your first article. The draft would need references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate that the subject meets our criteria of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated but, WOW, the speedy deletion criteria on eswiki are BRUTAL. Speedy deletion based off of WP:NOT??? Wow. casualdejekyll 19:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanking

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I thank Royal Autumn Crest for the welcome? Mamestraconfigurata (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mamestraconfigurata: Welcome to the Teahouse! On your talk page, click "Edit source". Underneath the welcome message, you can type:

:{{ping|Royal Autumn Crest}} Thank you! ~~~~

and then click the Publish changes button. The colon will indent your reply. The {{ping}} template will notify the user that you provided a response. For more information, see Help:Introduction to talk pages. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maemstraconfigurata: Hey there, just chiming in with another way to do this. You can go to the revision history of your talk page and there will be a little 'thank' button located next to RAC's name. Click on that. I hope this helps :D Helen(💬📖) 19:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate and Mamestraconfigurata: If you want to go even further, you can click the "Wikilove" button on the top-right, and send them a barnstar. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 21:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to schedule when to move a page, and then for it to be done automatically on that date?

Telenor Bulgaria needs to be moved to Yettel Bulgaria exactly on 00:00, 2022-03-01. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 21:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No??? Not that I know of, at least. Why does it need to be moved at exactly that time? We'd only use the new name if reliable sources are talking about it - see how Turkey hasn't been moved to Turkiye, for example. casualdejekyll 21:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: Turkey isn't yet officially Türkiye. It plans to change its name in the near future, but it is still oficially "The Republic of Turkey", according to the UN.

Telenor will officially become "Yettel" on 00:00 2022-03-01. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 21:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We follow what Reliable Sources have called a subject, not what it calls itself. I suspect we would take that approach with countries just as we would with people who decide one day in the bathroom that they want to be called 'Ye' from now on. However, once a name is in established use (i.e. after some time), then an article name change would be OK.

However, providing there are reliable sources to confirm a future name change will happen, there is nothing to stop that new name being mentioned within an article, and also for a WP:REDIRECT to be created to take users searching for the future name to the relevant article. Hope this makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

QuickQuokka, the notion thst an article must be moved at a specific moment in time indicates that you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We do not time the renaming of company articles to the wishes or whims of the corporation. Instead, we move such articles based on coverage of the new name in reliable sources that are independent of the corporation. Please read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks! I didn't know that, I'll keep it in mind for next time! QuickQuokka ^[talk] 09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

UFO sightings

 Rudolph wisc (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rudolph wisc. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk)

Please I need help my article keeps getting declined

 Oti (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Otiroyal. Your draft needs inline citations. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At Draft:Daniel Chimezie Okeke, none of those https at the end count as references. All references are to be in the text, to verify facts in the text. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

blocked due to open proxy now closed / want to practice by filling in random needs reference / safety questions

First, thank you for taking the time to help me, I am new. I have been blocked because I use a VPN, VPN now off, how do I get unblocked? Second, someplace there is a option to be sent/shown random needs reference articles, happy to do that, but I cannot find the link. Where is it? Third, I am nervous nervous about having my proxy address revealed. As a Jewish scholar, I am writing Jewish articles and I understand that gets antisemitic responses, some virulent. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do to insure my safety since VPNs aren't allowed? Thank you; Wikisigh (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Wikisigh (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisigh: You are not blocked. If you want to use a VPN, go request an exemption. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Just further clarifying: the IP of the VPN is blocked, not your account. Being on a blocked IP also means that you cannot edit from your account. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisigh: You might want to look at Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion and Wikipedia:Personal security practices, which also link to other relevant pages. If you are logged in, then no one will know your IP address (although there's a limited number of trusted and regulated users (checkusers) who could look it up if there was good reason). Generally speaking an IP address, especially a VPN address, is not the weakest link in any personal threat model. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

May I have or where is the link to volunteer to fill in references on random articles that need them? Wikisigh (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Wikisigh (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisigh: Welcome to the Teahouse! See the links at Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles needing additional references. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisigh If you're interested, English Wikipedia is at the moment rolling out a new Homepage feature for new editors like you who are using desktops to edit (but not mobiles). Right now, only 25% of new accounts get the Homepage tab enabled by default - it's right next to your Userpage tab. (If you can't see it, just go to Special:Preferences and, right at the bottom of that page, tick Display newcomer homepage and save the setting.

You will now have a new Homepage tab in which you are offered a set of articles to begin editing on, and which have been tagged for some form of improvement being needed. You can select which main subject areas you are offered to work on, as well as Easy, Medium, or Hard tasks to do. You even get randomly assigned a 'mentor' who has volunteered to answer any question you might have. Good luck with your very own Wikipedia Adventure! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if the articles of creation desk would allow any Nebulae that haven't been Added and i would be happy to add one --Alex-- DemonymsPlayer (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Lists of nebulae lists nebulae (Doh!). Are there nebulae without articles? David notMD (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@DemonymsPlayer Not all astronomical objects are deemed notable, and thus would be worthy of a Wikipedia page. The criteria for this can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). I'm afraid the AfC team can't suggest noteworthy articles for you to add.

However, you can find a list of 'required articles' at WP:WikiProject Astronomy, and here, too. Beware that just because somebody has suggested creating a particular article, doesn't necessarily mean it would be deemed 'notable'. It's up to you to find suitable sources with enough detail to merit creation of a new article. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Lawrence O'Bryan Branch

I believe I have Mr. Branch's Bowie knife but to be sure i need photos,is this something you can help me with? Thank you, Carol Seamans 74.221.75.125 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Carol, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm really sorry, but this is not something we can help you with. The Teahouse is a forum to guide new users how to edit Wikipedia. It sounds like a Google search and an antiques expert are needed - not us. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Good faith

What is good faith? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:A01B:3072:D880:3FB8 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Good faith is when someone does something wrong, but you don't assume bad intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.124.250 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Good faith is the intention of doing good things, whether or not it was actually good. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Assume good faith. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Competence is required --David notMD (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk response

I was trying to make my user page recently and accidentally tried to make it an article, user:TimTrent denied it and told me that I shouldn't do that. I was wondering how I could apologize properly, I'm afraid that I'll do it wrong and annoy someone else Commadore Cundo (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Commadore Cundo, you have already made it. It's at Commadore Cundo. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That was when I tried it again the right way after the article got denied, I was moreover asking about how to respond or relay messages. Is this right by the way? Commadore Cundo (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your question. You didn't make an article; you made a draft: User:Commadore Cundo/sandbox/User:Commadore Cundo. Yes, creating it was a mistake. An apology is not necessary. It's polite to reply in some way to regular messages; however, the message you got was a reviewer's comment on a draft, and it's normal to respond to these comments by doing something or other, and not by replying to them. Just forget all about the matter, and six months from now it will be automatically deleted. But if you'd prefer to accelerate its deletion, set out to edit it, delete all its content, and save it with an edit summary such as "Blanking a draft that I created by mistake". This will result in a fairly quick deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Or just add {{db-g7}} to the top. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Commadore Cundo. Or indeed just say here, simply and clearly, that you want it deleted. (No apology needed!) -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Commadore Cundo (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Editorial Guidance

I've recently joined and started publishing on Wikipedia, although I'm not sure of the actual process of becoming a senior editor. Can anyone help me out with the process or any specific guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinMcCarthy001 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi AustinMcCarthy001. There is no heirarchy of editors on Wikipedia and no official promotion system. Everyone is free to work on whatever they wish. But you can, if you want, find the most appropriate award at Wikipedia:Service awards and put it on your user page yourself. SpinningSpark 08:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, AustinMcCarthy001. Wikipedia is does not have a hierarchy of editors although there are rights to do stuff (such as edit articles that have restrictions placed on them usually owing to vandalism) which come after you have a certain number of contributions. This is explained at WP:UAL. You can also ask for access to the Wikipedia library to assist your Wiki-related research once you lave made 500 edits and been around for 6 months at least. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary not logging in with Wikipedia log in

When I log into Wikipedia it no longer automatically logs me into Wiktionary, though it logs me into the other language Wikis such as the French and German Wikis. How do I set it to automatically log me also into Wiktionary as I both edit it and have a difference Appearance set up? Thanks Nobbo69 (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Blur image in article

Hello, I have a question. I have uploaded some high quality images in Wikipedia. Before adding these photos in any article, they are fine. But after adding in any infobox, the images are getting blur or of lower quality. Why does Wikipedia reduce quality of images after adding in infobox? How can I prevent this from happening? GoldenHayato (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoldenHayato Can you give a couple of examples of articles where this happened? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for replying. You can see it in pages like Viacom18 and Vodafone Idea Limited. The logos have became little bit blur or of lower quality. Please check them. GoldenHayato (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Afaict by the File: pages, the logos are as you uploaded them, not auto shrinking by bot, so I don't know what the problem may be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Article Title / Lemma Otto Fried vs. Otto Fried (Artist)

Hi everybody! I have a problem with an article title that I can't seem to wrap my head around. There's this new article I helped move about the contemporary german-american artist Otto Fried (Artist). The only reason I had to add the parenthesis was, that there is an already existing article title Otto Fried, which weirdly enough and without any detectable reason redirects to the article Otto Fries. Is there anything I'm missing here? In my opinion it would be probably the best to get rid of that redirect and move the contemporary artist to the parenthesisless article name. In the german wikipedia where I'm mostly active I'd need to speedy delete the article Otto Fried before I can move the artist content there. Any suggestions or opinions here to this case? --Grizma (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Grizma (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Grizma, my guess is that @Lugnuts created the redirect in 2007 because it could be helpful as a common misspelling. However, now I see no reason why your article shouldn't "have" it. I think you need an admin to do the deed correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for the ping. I've moved the redirect and moved the Otto Fried (Artist) page to Otto Fried. @Grizma: Hope that's OK! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Perfect you two, thanks a lot! Grizma (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Interlanguage link template

If the English article name is the same as an already existing one (in this case a disambiguation), the template doesn't work.

Ex: I'm writing an article about an series, one of the actresses is Zhang Nan, there's other people on Wikipedia with that name so there's a disambiguation page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Nan), I can't write Zhang Nan because then the template wouldn't work. Megutim (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Megutim. I don't quite understand what your problem is, but does Template:Ill#Displaying different text solve it? I think the example in that section may be somethign like what you are talking about. ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't work either. The actress part is exactly what I want to omit for it to be just 'Zhang Nan' but Zhang Nan is the disambiguation page for people with that name. Megutim (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Megutim, please explain exactly what you want - how it should appear, and what it should link to. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/uiA2jYc

I was writing it like this but since the disambiguation page is called Zhang Nan, I'm not able to use the template.

I want to be able to write 'Zhang Nan' without it linking to the disambiguation page automatically. Megutim (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

How to remove boxes with requests for citations etc after you have made the edits required

Hi, I'm working on the Rankin photographer wiki page, and there are 3 banner boxes with requests for changes in them - the changes were made ages ago but the requests still remain, you are supposed to be able to remove them but when I go in to edit them I don't see how - can anyone advise please? CujoJnr (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You can open source editing mode and just remove {{more citations needed}} and {{BLP unsourced section}}. However, you need to make sure the problems are indeed resolved before removing these templates. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Rankin (photographer).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Question from Username142857

I submitted my sandbox for review to become an article on accident. Is there a way to revert this? Username142857 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Username142857: Yes, you can remove the afd submission template. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, ok! Username142857 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Also, for future reference Kaleeb18 it would be the AFC template and not the AFD template. AFC is Articles for Creation while AFD is Articles for Deletion. Both complete opposites of each other. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf my bad, that was a bad typo to make. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: It's alright. Doesn't matter now that the user has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with tables

Can you help me with Masked Singer Season 7? I'm not good at making tables yet. Can you show me the ropes? Agent K-Nova (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Agent K-Nova: for the technical aspect of making a table, you may want to look at Help:Table. I also find it helpful to look at other tables and copy their formatting- for example, the tables in The Masked Singer (American season 6) may be a useful reference.

I will add, however, that it looks like SecondLooneyaccount reverted your edit partially because the table wasn't done properly, but also because he thought it was unnecessary. Per Bold, revert, discuss, the recommended next step would be to discuss with him on the talk page of the article, rather than just re-adding the table. Aerin17 (t • c) 21:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia mobile

Is there something wrong with wiki mobile? I can usually remove the .m. in the url to see the desktop of view Wikipedia, which makes it way easier to edit on mobile. But now when I remove the .m. it still shows the mobile view and puts back in the .m. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb12: You should be able to scroll to the bottom of the page and there should be an option to use desktop version. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Bonnie Wright

I have a interview of her on You Tube where she says she had Irish Roman Catholic heritage but is on You Tube how do I out reference on her Wikipedia article? 78.152.205.167 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid YouTube is not useful as a reference, If you can find something that is not user created (ie in mainstream media) then that will be very useful. Reading Help:Referencing for beginners will be of use to you then Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the YT-video, see WP:RSPYT, can you link it? If it's an anonymously uploaded WP:COPYVIO we can't use it, but if it's say CNN:s YT-channel it may very well be usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. You can use Template:Cite AV media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Bonnie Wright. Unless her grandmother is a Wikipedia-notable person, there is no value in adding such information. Parents, yes. Naming siblings, grandparents, children, no.David notMD (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Added by User:Rkunreal93 and reverted. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Google news

Is google news a good source for referencing?---- Sweeto dweeto (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweeto dweeto Hello and welcome. Google News is an aggregator of sources, not a source itself. You can certainly use it to help find sources, but when writing a reference you should use the source itself, not Google News. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sweeto dweeto. Google News is not a source. It is a search tool you help you find sources. It is up to you to verify whether or not the specific publication is a reliable source. For example, Google News may display articles from the Wall Steeet Journal, a generally reliable source, and it may also display articles from the Daily Mail, which is not a reliable source. You must use your own editorial judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

A hatnote to a section

Could someone please help me with the formatting of hatnote that points to a section within an article. In particular, I would like to add a hatnote to D. Napier & Son to distinguish it from D. Napier & Sons. However, that latter company exists as a section within a larger article on Duncan Napier. Is it possible for the hatnote to link to the section rather than the whole article? I hope this makes sense. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mike Marchmont. You can accomplish this with the following wikicode:

[[Duncan Napier#D. Napier & Sons|D. Napier & Sons]]

The # character takes the link to a section of the article and the | character displays what follows that character. The output is D. Napier & Sons. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply, Cullen328. I tried your suggestion, but unfortunately it didn't work. I used this syntax:

{{For|the Scottish herbalist|Duncan Napier#D. Napier & Sons|D. Napier & Sons}}

which rendered like this:

For the Scottish herbalist, see Duncan Napier § D. Napier & Sons, and D. Napier & Sons.

I understand the use of # in a Wikilink in the body of an article, but it doesn't appear to work within a hatnote. Any further help would be appreciated. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: I have updated the article with the hatnote. The last pipe symbol has to be "escaped" (see code and Template:!). 108.52.196.8 (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That's perfect. Many thanks, @108.52.196.8:. I didn't know about the escape character. I will now add that information to my personal knowledge base. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this subject notable?

I have a question regarding the notability of a subject. There is a company called SiberX. It isn't mentioned in any well-known places and I just wanted to make sure the company isn't notable enough to have an article created for it. Here is the company: https://www.siberx.org AAR007 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@AAR007: Welcome to the Teahouse! The test that Wikipedia uses to decide whether or not to write an article goes like this: a subject is considered notable enough for an article if it has received significant coverage (so not just passing mentions-- we're talking large sections of prose) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I hope this answers your question. If not, hop on my talk page and we'll sort it out. Have a wonderful day (or night), Helen(💬📖) 19:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

How does a registered user become an administrator?

How does a user that is logged in become a administrator? Are there any possible ways for them? 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:813F:2FE7:825D:2582 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @2603:8000:F400:FCEA:813F:2FE7:825D:2582:, welcome to the Teahouse. Nominations for adminship are made at RFA, where the community votes to decide whether the nominee should be given the administrator tools. If this was clear as mud, feel free to pop me a message on my talk page and I'll try to explain it better. Happy editing! Helen(💬📖) 19:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You may want to read Becoming an Administrator in Wikipedia:Administrators. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Be advised that you can do the vast majority of things on Wikipedia without being an adminstrator(you can do many without even having an account as well, though not as much) and that administrators have no more authority than any other editor. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

They just have mandatory chores. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: What activities are "mandatory chores" for an administrator? GoingBatty (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Publishing new wiki page

Hello, I recently created a new page called "Center for AI and Digital Policy." I am trying to understand how long it will be before the page is visible on the main wiki site. Looking forward to hearing back from this community. Thank you Rachel Rcs119 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Center for AI and Digital Policy Anton.bersh (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Rcs119 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for a review; this must occur before it can be formally placed in the encyclopedia as an article(not a "page"). However- and I don't mean to disappoint you- if you were to submit it now, it would be rejected quickly, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about a subject. An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of the activites of the organization or other brief mentions, and coverage must be independent- not written by the organization or based on its materials(like press releases). Please see Your First Article.

If you are associated with this organization, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rcs119: Based on your page, I assume you are affiliated with the subject. I'm glad that you are upfront about it, you just need to formally declare it. Also, are you paid by the subject? Anton.bersh (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rcs119: The article starts with "The Center for AI and Digital Policy’s (CAIDP) mission is..." This is an example of MOS:PUFFERY, being against the rule of Neutral point of view, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. It is also often an indication of Conflict of interest. When I read an encyclopedia article about some office, company, association, social movement, person or anything, I need it to tell me WHAT the subject is and WHY it is important to me and to the rest of the world, but not how wonderful the subject thinks it is. Wikipedia is not a place for expressions like "as an independent corporation", "significant publications", "more than 100 experts", "provides recommendations to national governments and international organizations", "well-informed policy", "cutting-edge research", "high-quality resources", "is a cornerstone for the development"—unless they are actually a common description of the entity; and if that is the case, it must be confirmed by references to multiple and independent sources. Otherwise it is just a blatant promotion, which is one of things which Wikipedia is not. --CiaPan (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC) (re-signed to re-ping)

What to do after a level 4 warning is given

This is hypothetical, but if someone gets 4 vandalism warnings in a month, and vandalizes again, what happens to that user? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming level 4 warning was justified (and not given on a personal whim of another user), the receiving user is considered "sufficiently warned". When another user spots further vandalism, that user can report this vandalism to admins who then evaluate the actions of the vandal. Then most of the time vandal gets banned. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Related article: Banning policy. Also, note that some bans are temporary (have a set time duration), some are indefinite (have no set end time, but can be appealed) and only some bans are truly permanent. Unfortunately, that's all I know, since I never was involved in ban enforcement, most of the time I managed to convince vandals to stop by engaging with them on Talk pages. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh: Please see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Plain old vandalism will almost always end with a block, rather than a ban. If you see someone vandalising past their 4th warning, you can report them to WP:AIV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a template for returning a user's edit count?

I tried searching but couldn't find any. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 22:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Only for certain admins, for example Template:Adminstats/Kusma can be used to display that I have 57711 edits. —Kusma (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You can click on preferences (upper right, the sandbox and the beta-link), and it will give you an approximative number of your edits so far. Lectonar (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Lawrence Devereaux recommended I reach out: Want to remove Templates

Dear Wikipedia,

Lawrence Devereaux recommended I reach out to ask about removing these 2 "templates": 1. This article...has been extensively edited by...someone connected to the subject... 2. This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (August 2021)

I've tried to revise it to be neutral and encyclopedic and add references, but it seems I've not done enough. Can someone please provide further guidance?

Thank you,

Gibson Armstrong GibsonArmstrong (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Gibson Armstrong. Assuming you're talking about the article Gibson C. Armstrong, the main advice I will give you is to stop editing the article. As long as you are editing it, the first notice, at least, should definitely stay. Please confine your involvement in that article to making edit requests in the talk page, as recommended at WP:AUTO#IFEXIST, so that an uninvolved editor can decide whether or not to apply the change you are requesting.

I also don't think the second notice should be removed at present either. I have removed the paragraph about appearing on a TV show saying something about a shooting: I don't see how that is encyclopaedic even if the reference cited mentioned this appearance, which it doesn't. I haven't looked any further. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Significant News Coverage

So I'm a bit confused here. My article draft has been rejected because it doesn't have significant news coverage even though I'm pretty sure it does. Can an admin or someone explain to me what I'm missing here? Thanks. Ibuprofenunlocked (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ibuprofenunlocked, is this about Draft:Scrabdackle? Four of the five references are published by the game author, so they are not significant independent coverage. While the Kotaku article looks like an independent source, it does not actually talk about the game much. It is very uncommon for unreleased indie games to generate enough coverage for an article on Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Editing advice

I have written a major update to the entry for the National Centre for Australian Children's Literature. The previous entry is out of date as there has been significant structural changes to the organisaion as well as new events and information about services such as databases. Now I have never had any experience of writing for or dealing with Wikipedia previously and I have found it a very frusrating experience. When I look for or read any of the help or procedure pages I find the language/terminology used confusing and unhelpful. I have tried to find someone who has experience to help but without success. I transferred what I had written to a sandbox and with fearfully hit the publish page button. An editor has gotten back to me to, very unhelpfully imply that what I have written is not objective or balanced, that there is a problem with my user name and, that as I work for the organisation (as a volunteer I might add) I shouldn't be writing it. I wasn't actually given examples of what the issues were with the entry, or told what was wrong with my user name and how to correct it or how anyone not involved with an organisation could write about it.

So how about some genuinely helpful editing advice? Ruth Nitschke (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Ruth Nitschke (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine, then. CliffsNotes for you:

• You have a conflict of interest because you volunteer for the NCACL. At best your goals (Improving the exposure of the NCACL) and ours (a neutrally-written encyclopaedia project) dovetail.
• Because you have a conflict of interest, your view of what is neutral is skewed in favour of NCACL, and this shows in what you have written.
• Wikipedia has a lot of jargon, which I'll take the opportunity to try and explain as I go on.
• Your draft/userpage, as it is presently written, is promotional (i.e. it is written to "pretty up" or otherwise promote the organisation).
• We do not include visions, objectives, mission statements, or any other bloviating crap the company defines itself with, as content like this is always going to be both promotional in tone and unencyclopaedic on its face. We are an encyclopaedia project, not a billboard.
• Your footnotes are all nonfunctional, which gives the impression you copy-pasted this from somewhere (likely a now-deleted Wikipedia draft, since the copyvio check comes back clean). See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to actually cite your sources and WP:Reliable sources for what sort of sources we deem to be acceptable. (If you would rather a summary of the latter, we're looking for newspaper/news magazine/trade industry articles or scholarly books that (1) haven't been written or commissioned by the subject or their surrogates, (2) have been fact-checked or published by an outlet with an editor-in-chief and established fact-checking and corrections policies, (3) are not routine coverage of the organisation, and (4) discusses the organisation at some length in the source itself.)
• The "Collections" section is promotional in tone and would almost certainly need to be heavily edited or (more likely) removed outright. (As an aside, you create sections by using equals signs, i.e. ==(title)==. 2 is standard, more means subsections.)
• The "Artworks" section has the exact same issues as the section immediately above - it's unambiguously promotional. The remedy is the exact same - rewrite it wholesale or remove it entirely. The same applies to the "Accessing and Sharing the Collection", "Exhibitions and Seminars", "Publications", and "Access" sections.
• The "Funding" section needs removed outright. As a rule, funding is generally not considered to be a particularly noteworthy part of any organisation's article, being dispensed with in a sentence or two if at all, and any news with regards to funding is considered routine. There are exceptions, but they generally do not apply here (i.e. being funded by laundered money or being the charity arm of a for-profit organisation, cf. Ronald McDonald House Charities before their divorce from McDonald's).
• The "Volunteers" section needs removed outright as irrelevant.

For further information, I suggest having a look at WP:PSCOI. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Add to this that you have put your draft on your User page, which is exactly a wrong place. Expect it to be Speedy deleted very soon. If you can get to it in time, cut from there and park at your Sandbox. Your refs are not refs, i.e., superscripting a number does not create a ref. David notMD (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI: The existing article is at National Centre for Australian Children's Literature. David notMD (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Establishing notability for a biography (BLP)

Hi everyone! Wanted to know if these sources establish the notability of this singer. [1] [2] Toofllab (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab you are starting at the wrong place. Instead of presenting possible references and asking of they are useful, you need to understand what is required for a living person's referencing.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Please compare the references you have found with the tough criteria we need them to meet. I could give you a direct answer, but you will benefit from working this out for yourself. If you need more guidance please ask. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

In answer to Toofllab's question: no, they don't. To establish notability, you'll need multiple (three or more) reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. The sources you list are based on what he said, and so aren't independent. Maproom (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft Approval

Hi, I have been working on a Wikipedia page draft and would like to ask if it would be approved if submitted. The draft has been rejected once before and the advice provided was as follows:

Comment: Most information isn't sourced with inline citations, and therefore the information cannot be verified. Some parts aren't written with a neutral point of view. Clearfrienda 💬 23:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Comment: Fix close rephrasing [1] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected these issues as best I can and would like someone to have a look over the draft to see if the issues have been fixed properly. If there are still problems, could you please let me know what I need to change specifically? Here is the link to the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Australian_Leadership_Index

Thank you. Leadership scholar (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Leadership scholar I have left a comment on the draft. What you have done is not just WP:CITEKILL, but WP:BOMBARD. You seem have a misunderstanding about referencing so need to read WP:REFB

I hope you find the comment helpful

Please feel free to submit for a further review when ready. I have been unable to see past the state it is in at present Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your reply. While I am here editing and fixing that up, is there anything else that requires adjusting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadership scholar (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Leadership scholar As I said, I could not see past the state you left it in. Once you have corrected it then we wil be able to see what is truly present. You are engaged in an iterative process.

As an aside, please use more care when replying to messages. I had to disentangle your message from my own. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I am not very familiar with using this platform for replying etc. I understand, I have finished editing now so if you could please have a look over the current version that would be great. Thank you for your help.Leadership scholar (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Leadership scholar if you submit it for review (if you have not done so already) another reviewer will look at it in due course. It is a very rare thing for me to review a draft more than once. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I have not submitted it for review yet. If it is rejected again will it get deleted? I was a bit hesitant to submit because I wanted to make sure that I avoid deletion as much as possible. Leadership scholar (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Leadership scholar The review process is iterative. Your draft has not been rejected, but it has been declined. The difference seems subtle, but is real. Rejection is as near final as it gets, but is a thing to be used rarely by a reviewer. Being declined means it has been pushed back to you for further work. Note that you may ask a reviewer who reviews your draft to explain their review if you find it awkward to understand.

There is no real limit to the number of times a draft may be submitted. It does need to show improvement between submissions, though. Reviewers are human! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

How to deal with conflict and potential racism issues

I am very confused about how to approach racially sensitive topics. It seems like mentioning racism is an easy way to get banned and I am not trying to get banned. It is hard for me to know what to do when approaching articles such as Orania, Northern Cape, which is an open white nationalist settlement. I have been openly accused of "anti-white" racism, which seems much more problematic than mentioning racism and systemic bias more generally. It seems clear to me that the article downplays the white nationalist elements in a variety of ways, most obvious being the focus on "Afrikaner" identity. Should I submit a request for comment?

I also feel as though one or two users tend to follow me around and WP:HOUND me. I do not want to get banned for reporting them, what is the best way to approach this issue?

I personally feel that I have been engaging in good faith and trying to create consensus wherever possible. What am I supposed to do when my edits are reverted without consensus? It is incredibly frustrating when I am told to find consensus to restore the WP:STATUSQUO.

I understand debate and arguments are part of Wikipedia but constant opposition to every edit I make is incredibly stressful :/ Desertambition (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition, looking at the edit history of Orania, Northern Cape, I see that other editors generally share your view (as I do). So, as you find the opposition stressful, my advice is, walk away, and let others continue the fight. Devote your efforts to other issues (in Wikipedia or elsewhere), you'll achieve more that way, and it'll be better for your health. Maproom (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Change image from non-free to free

Hello, I have seen some images, in which it is written that this image is of fair use. But some of those are actually in the public domain because they are too simple. How can I change those images from non-free to free (fair use to public domain)? Should I re-upload those images? Thank you. GoldenHayato (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If the files don't exceed the threshold of originality, you can move them to the Wikimedia Commons instead rather than keeping them hosted here on the English Wikipedia. More information on moving files there is available at WP:MTC. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi GoldenHayato. It's sometimes a good idea to be careful with this kind of thing because the concept of threshold of originality (i.e. being "too simple for copyright protection") can vary quite a bit from country to country as explained in c:Commons:Threshold of originality. Some countries (like the UK, for example) have quite a low threshold of originality in comparison to others. Since Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explainedin c:Commons:Fair use, logo files (in particular) often end up being deleted from Commons when an administrator feels the logo is too complex to be public domain and there's no way to verify that copyright holder of the logo has otherwise released it under a free license that Commons accepts. It might be a good idea for you to ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright about any logos you think are too simple before moving them to Commons just to see what some others might think. Lots of files that are moved to Commons with the best of intentions do eventually end up being deleted because they're not considered acceptable for Commons for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Help on article which is appears an advertisement

Hi All, My first submission (National Green Front) was not accepted because it appears to read more like an advertisement. Could you someone please help me on here to identify those sentences. Thanks ChinthakaGK (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

courtesy link: Draft:National Green Front Karenthewriter (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Right from the start, I'd say "joined hands" is more what you'd see in an advertisement than an informative encyclopedia. Overall, just keep in mind that the goal of an article is not to tell a story to persuade someone to like a group, but rather to provide neutral information and facts. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ChinthakaGK: Welcome to the Teahouse! I think "extraordinarily surpassed" is another phrase that reads like an advertisement. Most of the text in the "Formation" section and the entire "Financial Vision" section is unreferenced. Your goal in creating a draft should be to gather independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the organization, and then summarize/paraphrase what they state. Please read Help:Your first article if you haven't done so. You can also use {{Infobox organization}} instead of the table at the top of the draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ChinthakaGK: How did you acquire the image of Dr. Pathum Sankalpa Kerner? GoingBatty (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @GoingBatty: Thank you for your kindness and reply, I noted your point and the answer to your question - I found Dr. Pathum's Image below the online paper article and cropped the background. https://www.sundayobserver.lk/2020/08/02/opinion/green-politics-and-system-change-aim-%E2%80%93-dr-pathum-sankalpana-kerner. May I remove the image or add a citation? and May I remove the "Financial Vision" section and rewrite the article?

@ChinthakaGK: Another editor has already removed the image, as you may not upload a copyrighted photo (altered or not) to Wikimedia Commons as your "Own work". Another editor has already removed the "Financial Vision" section. You may continue rewriting the draft and resubmit when you're ready. (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) 14:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions of more than 40 characters and featured article criteria

When a set of featured articles are part of a series of articles (for example, articles that talk about championship matches), the short description vary greatly from article to article. Per the "championship matches" examples, the short description of the first article is "Final of Scottish championship tournament held in 2010", the second article has the short description of "Association football match", and the third article sums it as "football match between X and Y", not to mention all three being either Featured Articles or FAC articles. When someone needs to edit the short descriptions of other articles (FA or not) to ensure parity with the featured articles, that editor has three choices corresponding to the three FA/FAC articles mentioned, and if all three were to be chosen across several other non-FA articles that will end up becoming FA articles, we might have a "short description disuniformity" problem that might turn off some editors who want to edit short descriptions. The solution to the "short description disuniformity" problem might be to unify all three choices and make short descriptions that are "coherent" with the original three choices, and this leads to questions about the resulting lengths of such short descriptions. Unifying these three short descriptions (each of them approx. 40 characters per WP:SDSHORT) could become short descriptions with upwards of 100 characters. Right now, as I have observed on the Wikipedia mobile app, short descriptions can go up to the hard limit of 250 characters. Can these articles with short descriptions of such detail (primarily short descriptions with upwards of 100 characters) become Featured Articles per WP:FACRITERIA?

If not, we might need to do an WP:RFC about this. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LunafreyaLaphicet. The most important thing to keep in mind about short descriptions is that they are unimportant. I have been editing here for over 13 years and have been deeply involved with writing or major editing of hundreds of articles. I have never given more than five seconds of consideration to the short description of any of those articles. The goal of "ensuring parity" is a fool's errand, in my opinion, since editors have far more important things to work on than short descriptions, and especially parity between articles on unimportant elements . The most important thing once you get past their unimportance, is that short descriptions should be short. Therefore, in your example, "Association football match" is the best since it is the shortest and most direct. Keep it short and do not pay too much attention to it, because it is unimportant. See Wikipedia:Short description for details. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

But does that mean short descriptions of upwards of 100 characters might become an WP:FAC obstacle? LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If it is a problem, then it will get fixed. Just do it right first time and as per Cullen328, keep short descriptions short. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

OK. Appreciate it. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

my very firts article

Thanks wiki! hey, first of all I am glad that I got an opportunity to write here. My question is that I have written my first article, which is a draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Husayn_ibn_Muhsin_al_Ansari) I would like to know when can it be finally published so that everyone who searches can find it? when can it pe removed from draft and get published? Please publish it as soon as possible... Syed Abdullah Ibn Umar (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You'll want to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article so someone helping out with WP:AFC will review it at some point. However, keep in mind there are almost 3,000 articles in this queue so it may take some time. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Syed Abdullah Ibn Umar: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you were to submit the draft in its current state, it would most likely be declined. Every Wikipedia article needs a lead section to summarize the article and explain how the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, called "notability". For help structuring this lead section, see MOS:LEADBIO. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Did it for you. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith No, you perhaps didn't. I submitted it now. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible I didn't submit it because it is going to be declined. I added the unsubmitted template. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith Ok, but atleast he would be happy that we are taking an initiative to make his draft into an article. He will soon understand why his draft won't be accepted. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It has been submitted. The drafts waiting for a reviewer are not a queue, so it may be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. During that time, you can work to improve the draft. The Lead needs a few sentences summarizing the information you believe makes him notable. More refs are needed. If Declined (likely), that means that you can continue working to improve the draft before resubmitting. Last - after a draft is accepted and becomes an article, there is a delay of up to three months before it will be found by using a search such as Google. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

When to mark as link rot

I was looking at the link rot page to see what scenarios i should tag something as rot, and i noticed a lot of talk about references and citations, but what if its an external link at the end of the article thats dead? Should i remove it, leave it untouched, or mark it as dead? (Ive already checked for an archive and found none) Aidan9382 _(talk) 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hello, I have a question about reliable sources. The article (Draft:Philipp Hochmair) was declined twice because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I have added the filmography and a few newspaper articles, but I don't know if that is enough. It would be a great pity if the article is declined a third time. Thank you very much for the support.Emmy1707 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Emmy1707 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emmy1707: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some tweaks and then declined it, as the "Early life" section has no references. GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Link to other Wikipedia pages

Please help. What is the Wikitext to link a word eg. Johannesburg to another Wikipedia page which describes Johannesburg in detail? 102.132.134.49 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To link to another Wikipedia page, place the name of the page in double brackets like this: [[Joe Biden]], which appears as Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Additionaly, the code [[Joe Biden|Example]] will produce Example, with 'Example' linking to Joe Biden. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

For more information, see WP:Wikilinks. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Linking to another Wikipedia article

Please help. What is the Wikitext to link a word eg Johannesburg to another Wikipedia page which describes the word Johannesburg in detail? Mysky2blue1 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Answered above. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Mysky2blue1 In your draft Draft:Vivian Granger you need to remove all the nowiki to make the Wikilinks work. All of the content needs to be referenced. See Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

 Ddjjo (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, i'm feeling quite bullied on wikipedia! I've written an article that is far better cited than other articles and well researched. An editor just removed it because he said there was not significant coverage but there are several profile pieces on the subject. Why is wikipedia really biased against some people?

Hello Ddjjo Wikipedia is not bias we just have some "rules". In order to creat an article about anything, it must pass the general nobility guideline (see WP:GNG). There could be a million sources talking about that person, but Wikipedia must back information with reliable sources (see WP:RS). We are not bias against you we just have some policies an article needs to meet before being made. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am going to start with "Wow." You created Andrea Ferran as an article. An editor was of the opinion that it was not ready for mainspace and moved it to draft. At no point was it "removed." You moved it back to mainspace, left a note on that editor's Talk page (appropriate) and left a note on that editor's User page (very inappropriate). David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ddjjo: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia has some existing articles that are poorly cited. You're welcome to improve them or nominate them for deletion, but comparing your work to them is not a winning strategy - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have concerns about the quality of the references. Numbers 2, 3, 5 and 6 cannot be viewed, as not online, but the nature of the citation information you gave does not make clear how those are about Ferran. Numbers 4, 7 and 9 appear to be mentions of her name and an event, but cannot be considered the type of 'at-length' content needed to support Wikipedia notability. That leaves the non-English refs, which are beyond my ken. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ddjjo I apologise if I have just added to that sense of 'bullying' you describe. That was certainly not my intention but, as an administrator here, I have left notes on both your talk page and that of TeatroEnEspana expressing concerns about possible multiple accounts or off-wiki coordination being used to create this article, and the need to declare any Conflict of Interest that any editor might have with their subject. You might wish to address those on that page. These are all normal things for other editors to bring to the attention of new users. With over 6.4 million articles here on this hugely popular site, we see a considerable number of attempts to use us to promote particular individuals or businesses. These all need to meet either the criteria laid out at WP:NBIO or WP:NCORP, where we need detailed, in-depth coverage of a subject, not just short mentions. Should another editor feel a new page has been created a bit too soon, they may simply move it to Draft to allow further development. This is not bullying, but it is certainly often better than that same editor deciding to nominate a new page for an Articles for Deletion discussion. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

E-waste or e-waste?

In the Electronic waste article, I noticed an editor recently changed every instance of 'e-waste' to 'E-waste', not just when it begins a sentence, but throughout. This looks jarring to me and it's not anything I have encountered before. (Back when "email" was often hyphenated, as "e-mail", it was never written this way: 'E-mail' - unless starting a sentence. Is there a WP policy or MOS guidance on this? I did try MOS:ABBR and elsewhere, but could find nothing specific. My own dictionary does not show it with a capital. Could you direct me to the right policy, if there is one, or tell me what the usual practice is, please? Thanks for any advice. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus I agree with you, though the better place to have raised it would be on the article talk page itself if you were unsure. I would simply revert their edits all in one go. If you look back through the article it's clear that e-waste has been used throughout over many, many years. It's not a proper noun, so a capital E is not appropriate. Compare with how lower case e- has been used throughout Electronic cigarette. This simply one editor preferring to insert their desired formatting, and you are free to revert it with a clear edit summary. Just about getting into an edit war if they try again - that's the time when posting on the talk page of the article makes sense. MOS:CAPS gives general guidance on most forms of capitalisation, though a quick skim didn't reveal an example for your situation. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan is a province of PRC

Why is Taiwan a country? Firstly, it isn't recognized by any of the permanent U.N. states. Moreover, there are many sovereign states out there but do you know how many had recognized Taiwan (and how many detached from Taiwan to support PRC diplomatically). Overall, it is a breakoff province of PRC under an ongoing cold civil conflict. Ultimately, Wikipedia will likely crush any of these thoughts and treat them as Chinese-backed propaganda and deliberate measures to confuse the Internet with cyberwarfare, but this is a fact. Taiwan's recognition in recent years continue to drop drastically amid the rising dragon, and the great shift is taunting every Western media out there. In my opinion, if a sovereign state is not recognized by any of the permanent U.N. states, nor does it receive widespread officialized international support, it should be treated with a term different from the term "country". Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11 Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question cannot be answered here at this help forum, as it is purely for solving practical Wikipedia editing problems. Have you stopped to carefully read the article on Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan? Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say about a subject, not what certain individuals or groups wish to hear. Serious concerns over accuracy - rather than one political viewpoint or claim can be discussed on the relevant talk pages of those articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The article has 4 references supporting the claim that Taiwan is a country so it might be hard to dispute that (unfortunately that means China will refuse diplomatic relations with us because of that)― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait! Wikipedia had diplomatic relations? Is there a flag? Passport? Currency? Clearly, Wikipedia's population of registered editors is larger than most countries, so maybe country status is overdue. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Time to turn the this blue...Lectonar (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

All UN members are permanent and 13 of them recognize Taiwan. If you refer to the five permanent members of the Security Council then that's a tiny sample which shouldn't decide what a country is. And lots of UN members have some relations with Taiwan and treat it as a country in many respects but choose to not officially recognize it because it antagonizes China. See also Country. The "Joke" by Blaze Wolf is partially right. Wikipedia is banned in China, partially because they dislike that we have uncensored information about Taiwan (and many other things like human rights in China). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I was just making a joke! I didn't know China actually banned Wikipedia! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf, see Great Firewall. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I know about that, but I didn't know Wikipedia was on it ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

help with article that has been turned down 3 times

my article has been turned down three times and I need help please :-) I have tried three times to get an article published. Each time it has been denied, I would revise it according to what was suggested by the editor who rejected it. Then the next editor denies it for something else which I then fix and resubmit. This last rejection is very similar to the original reason it was denied entry which I thought I had already addressed. The person I am trying to add is a TV celebrity (Breegan Jane) whose peers are included in Wikipedia. I cannot imagine why she shouldn't be. Any help is very much appreciated. I am about to give up and that's not usually what I do. I have put so much work into this. Jeanne Pritt Sheridan (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Breegan Jane Karenthewriter (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jeanne Pritt Sheridan It seems the draft does have some reliable sources, but there are still some sources that are not. There is also a lot of unverified information. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also if you if you are related or know the person you are writing an article about, it is highly suggested that you do not do that as that would be a conflict of interest (COI). You need to declare on your userpage that you are a relative or know who Breegan Jane is. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Karenthewriter: @Jeanne Pritt Sheridan: Instead of the list of "Media features", I suggest you use those articles as references for information about her. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I think you meant to ping Jeanne Pritt Sheridan. Karenthewriter is the one who gave the courtesy link. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Whoops! Thanks for catching my mistake! @Jeanne Pritt Sheridan and Karenthewriter: Sorry for the incorrect ping! GoingBatty (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Linking to another Wikipedia article

In my draft Draft:Vivian Granger someone mentioned that I need to remove all the nowiki to make the Wikilinks work. Please could someone look at this draft quickly and tell me where I have gone wrong. I used the wikitext as follows: Link .. this should make the words go blue for a link to drill through to it's wiki page Mysky2blue (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mysky2blue: Hello mysky! I've removed all the nowiki tags from your article and replaced some of the info with an infobox (only the info you have for the infobox), however your article will most likely be declined since it is completely unreference. See WP:Referencing for Beginners for help in adding refs. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Draft:Vivian Granger has two references, but no footnotes. GoingBatty (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw those supposed "references" but I have no clue what they are for or what the reference even is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mysky2blue. Draft:Vivian Granger was made with VisualEditor which works differently from the source editor. See Help:VisualEditor#Editing links. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much everyone - I really appreciate all the help and I will be working on the references Mysky2blue1 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What is this "unhelpful" log about?

Hi, I was looking through my user logs, and I noticed one particular log that just reads "unhelpful", which seems rather vague and non-descriptive compared to the rest of the logs. I was wondering if anybody might know what this log was about? LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi LikeLakers2. It's probably from Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool. It left behind a lot of partial logs when it was discontinued in 2014. Just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know! LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The log doesn't give a lot of information, so it seems pretty unhelpful to me. :-) GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@LikeLakers2: I checked the HTML and it's from Article Feedback Tool Version 5. The log is in your name so I guess it was you who called some feedback unhelpful and not somebody who said it about you. The user and page is gone from the remaining log and I think all actual feedback was deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: To be fair, I wouldn't be too surprised now-a-days if someone called me unhelpful 11 years ago, haha. But jokes aside, since these logs no longer appear useful, perhaps they could be deleted? I'm not sure where to suggest that sort of action though.LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@LikeLakers2: phab:T115303 from 2015 is "Expunge old AFTv5 log entries on WMF wikis". Some things move slowly. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Where to put reasons for edits

I made an edit. It was changed back and I was told I needed to explain the edit. I am not sure where or how to do that.

Thank you. Albetha2!98 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Albetha2!98: Hello Albetha! You should always explain your edit using a edit summary. The page I linked provides an explanation as to what it's for and how to use it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I gave an explanation for my edit - Mo Pinel

I deleted the reference to me and my mother because Mo Pinel abandoned me and my mother as a child, he stole and disowned me. He wanted nothing to with us and we wanted nothing to do with him. Given this, I am removing the references from his Wikipedia page. I explained this in the most recent edit, as I was required to do. Yet, I have once again been told I did not provide an explanation.

I am uncertain what else I need to do here.

Thank you. Albetha2!98 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Albetha2!98: Providing an explanation doesn't make you immune from being reverted. Your reasoning of him abandoning you has nothing to do with the removal of the reference. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not, Blaze Wolf, but it should prompt us to consider whether the information belongs in an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I was told that I didn't provide an explanation for the most recent edit in the edit summary. My point was that I did provide an explanation in the edit summary. Whether or not Wikipedia chooses to "allow" the edit or accept the reason for the proposed change is different than saying that I didn't provide an explanation in the edit summary. That was the point to my question. A variation of my most recent edit was made by an editor, and while my mother would prefer that her name be removed, the current edit is acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albetha2!98 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Naming spouses is normal procedure, but naming children (or their education, or their profession) is not, unless they themselves are subjects of articles. I removed that information. I also removed the ref, as it was to a 1995 newspaper article (which was behind a paywall), and so guessing it had nothing to do with Pinel's first marriage and child. David notMD (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't look at the history and see you'd done that, David notMD. I found a paragraph cited to a source which confirmed none of the information in the paragraph, so I removed the paragraph. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Albetha2!98: I'm fairly sure the warning says you didn't provide an accurate edit summary. Correct me if I'm wrong though. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand now. Apologies. This is not something I do often. I understand what is necessary in the future. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albetha2!98 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To link or not link in Block Quotations

I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and MoS:L and am I not sure if it good practice to insert wiki links in a block quote. ScientistBuilder (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ScientistBuilder. Per WP:MOS#Linking, the recommendation is to be "conservative" about wikilinking within quotations. Personally, I never do it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: I’m with Cullen328 I never do it, but might rarely put a link in a regular quote. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes an article "promotional"?

I've had 2 reviewers both say that my article is too promotional, but I'm still not sure why. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:AOZ_Studio What could I do to make it less "promotional", and more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Ising4jesus (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ising4jesus Start again in a brand new draft. Write only what others say unbidden about the org in multiple independent reliable sources, using your own words. Do not write what you want to say.

Are you associated with the subject of the draft? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent they have already declared their COI. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18 Ah, so they have. @Ising4jesus please read WP:PAID. Working part time there means you are, broadly construed, paid Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well Ising4jesus, the little words like this one in the lead high-level would be considered promotional. I would suggest reading WP:WORDS and WP:NPOV. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ising4jesus. Let's take a look at the first sentence of your draft: AOZ Studio (also known as AOZ BASIC or just AOZ) is a high-level computer language, well suited for games and multimedia, as well as general purpose applications. That is not neutral language; it is evaluative language. What reliable source independent of AOZ calls the language "well suited" for anything? That's promotional language, not encyclopedic language. Vast swaths of your draft are entirely unreferenced and therefore must originate with the company. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published reliable sources entirely independent of the company say about the company. Otherwise, a Wikipedia article about a company turns into a sales brochure for the company, and that simply is not permitted in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"High-level" is a technical term, not a promotional term. It indicates the type of computer language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language.
I do agree however, that "well suited" is evaluative language. Perhaps something like: "AOZ Studio (also known as AOZ BASIC or just AOZ) is a general purpose, high-level computer language, with heavy emphasis on graphics, audio, and video commands." That is a matter of fact statement rather than "evaluative". Would this language be more acceptable?
Ising4jesus (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I need guidance and help

I have trouble creating an article Hello . I made a draft entitled Seyyed Mahmoud Razavi, but my draft was disqualified and not approved due to lack of resources and invalid resources. The person for whom I was going to write an article, Seyed Mahmoud Razavi, is one of the top producers of Iranian cinema and the producer of great movies such as The Midday Story and The Midday Story: Blood Trail and films such as: Lottery - Atrium - Cyanide and many more. Other movies. Due to my inexperience in English Wikipedia, I could not get more resources and now I am asking if anyone can help me to complete the draft: Seyed Mahmoud Razavi and publish it so that both I can learn and I have written an article and helped to spread Wikipedia. Let me know if anyone can help me. Thank you Ahmad1387 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ahmad1387: Welcome to the Teahouse! While the folks here would be willing to help you understand the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, or help you with the technical nature of wikicode, it's unlikely that anyone here will have the ability and desire to search for independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this person. I added some WikiProjects to Draft talk:Seyyed Mahmoud Razavi, and maybe someone from WP:WikiProject Iran will be inspired to help you. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. However, there are thousands of articles that you could help improve. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Sedum Adolphi"'s article notability?

Hi, I just wanted to ask a question about the notability of plant species Sedum Adolphi. I'm planning to create an article about it (of course in my sandbox first). —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022: Welcome to the Teahouse! WP:NSPECIES tells us "Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid." Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

However - @GoingBatty, @I'ma editor2022 - there is already an article on this topic at Sedum nussbaumerianum, therefore any duplicate articles would be speedy deleted under A10. I recommend that instead of putting your effort into creating a duplicate article, you try to improve the already existing article. casualdejekyll 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: Thanks! I created Sedum adolphi as a redirect to Sedum nussbaumerianum to make it easier to find. GoingBatty (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

new , how can i see if approved≈

hi, im really new at this, didnt understand if i did it right, but for now i didnt see that my contribution was approved??? Yanivd28 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yanivd28: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is not an approval process for most articles, such as Lead, so once you make an edit like this one, it is live for everyone to see. However, Certes reverted your edit a few hours later in this edit, and kindly explained why in the edit summary. If you're new to editing, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yanivd28: Unfortunately I had to remove the new entry from Lead's See also section, which lists related articles that aren't linked in the text above. We don't have an article about Vitalki, so there's nowhere to send the reader. (There is a draft, but it doesn't yet establish the artist's notability.) The album cover also plays a less critical part in the study of lead than, say, the inventor of the fuel enhancer. I never enjoy undoing someone's first edit, and I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it fair?

check this a IP tagged the userpage for deletion as it's not notable. (Aslo previously when it was in it's draft form a ip tagged the page for deletion). No other experienced users have problem expect some particular IP. Any suggestion or advice from experienced users? ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: I've undid their edit since that criteria does not apply to user sandboxes (and also Drafts) and left them with a warning on their talk page stating that only the general criteria apply to user sandboxes. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If this weren't true, then no it would not be fair since then someone could just tag the page for deletion before someone would have a chance to prove that it's notable. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, criteria U1, U2, and U5 would technically still apply there (I don't think U5 applies to sandbox drafts), but none of them apply. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

While it is true that A7 doesn't apply in draftspace or userspace, the IP doesn't deserve a warning for tagging a draft about a non-notable person who has been spamming Wikipedia relentlessly. They were mistaken, not disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 19:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea: what's your suggestion? As a IP has recently blocked from my userpage for doing unnecessary edits on my talk userpage. Aslo want to know your views on this page? ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that mistaken and disruptive are not mutually exclusive - see WP:CIR, although this case doesn't really come anywhere near that. I'd think some sort of level 1-warning equivalent message would be appropriate. casualdejekyll 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

aggree with @Casualdejekyll: ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I was simply attempting to warn them for adding speedy deletion criteria to a place that doesn't apply, and I simply just used the warning I gave them since there were no other warnings that would be appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My first article was marked for deletion?

I recently wrote an article about one Mr. Andrew Zellgert who writes science fiction. I interviewed Mr. Zellgert in December about his work and I felt inspired to write a Wikipedia article about him. No sooner did I publish this article did someone announce it had to be deleted due to 'insufficient information.' I would like to know what is considered a sufficient source of information? I have links to all of Mr. Zellgert's platforms, his book listings on various notable websites, and my interview notes. What do I do? ~Draftabillman Draftabillman (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Draftabillman The key question is "Does Zellgert pass WP:NAUTHOR. If he does, can you edit the article to prove that.

All you need is to show that he passes, and you can do that by showing how he does at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Zellgert. This is a place where you may make policy based arguments for retention.

A word of caution. Please do not be tempted to answer every single point that anyone makes. Take your time, create your best argument, and post that there, if he passes. Then walk away and treat your post as a Fire-and-forget missile. Less truly is more. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, I am unsure how to go about this. I clicked the link to the author requirements and I am not sure where to begin. My problem is most of my information is coming from the interview or his biography. How does one go about answering a deletion request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draftabillman (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Draftabillman It may be, then, that he does not, yet, pass WP:NAUTHOR. If he does not then the article cannot be salvaged.

One answers a deletion request quietly, calmly and says one's piece. For example, I have made a comment at this one. Wait and watch what others say. There is no rush, although I do see that you have suggested that the article be "closed". That may be interpreted as that the author requests deletion and has been the sole substantive editor. If so then the discussion goes away.

Next time please use Wikipedia:Articles for creation where reviewers can and will guide oyu Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Are reviews an appropriate editorial source for a hotel article?

I've been assigned to write a Wikipedia entry for a hotel in Boston, but so far have not been able to find independent editorial articles/sources where it is mentioned, except for independent review sites (ex: Travelociy). They are independent, but aren't "articles" per se. Are they enough to qualify the hotel as 'notable'? Thank You 2603:8001:6400:9300:91FF:8AAA:C078:FFA1 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)