Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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

(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.)

Topic: ShareChat. Isn't it notable enough to be on Wikipedia?

I've been trying to publish Wiki page for ShareChat but it's getting rejected. Need some tips: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ShareChat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurshva (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ankurshva: - there are quite a lot of tips provided in the notices at the top of the draft. Do you feel you have addressed all of these, or is there some aspect of them that you don't understand? Hug^syrup 07:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You have tripled the length of the draft since the last decline. However, much of what has been added - including entire sections - have no references. Either provide citations or deleted unreferenced content before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You disclosed a paid relationship on your Talk page: "I work for ShareChat (company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd), and, as part of my job responsibilities, I am editing this Wikipedia article about ShareChat on behalf of company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd." This information belongs on your User page. Also, you must comply with WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's an app available only in India, and supports several Indian languages, but not English. It might be appropriate for one of those Indian language wikis. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, that makes no sense. Either it's notable or it's not. What has the demographic it services got anything to do with anything? It's borderline inappropriate to suggest such a thing, in my opinion. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 17:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My concern was the bolded part – it is intentionally not useful to the English-speaking world, for whom it is not developed or targeted, with which I have no problem whatsoever. Is it of interest (notable) to enwiki readers? Doesn't notability have at least some attention to audience? Has it been covered significantly by English-language sources? I understand this is not a requirement, but it is an impediment to verifiability. I apologize if you or anyone else is offended by what I wrote; that is certainly not my intent. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to expand a little, I can understand that mention of things not of interest to English-speakers can be useful from the standpoint of complete knowledge. They should certainly find a place in lists, etc. But if English-language sources don't find them notable enough, that seems a good indicator that a separate article may not be appropriate.

Having said all that, unless there is another ShareChat, I believe it is notable based on a quick Google search (the above was based on comments by other reviewers in the existing draft when I wrote the above). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be English. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Personally i think it's notable enough. And notablity has been increased since Twitter has invested 100mn on ShareChat recently 12345 -- CptViraj (📧) 03:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

where to put scanned documents to cite as references

For an article I created Suzy Williams I had several documents in hard-copy (paper) form only, not available on The Web to my knowledge, that I wish to cite as references. Most of them are clippings from reputable newspapers that would normally be considered to be good secondary sources under other circumstances. I electronically scanned all these documents and had them archived in a photo album for the FaceBook page of the article's subject, so that I could cite them in the article. An editor labeled all these citations (and no others) as "[non-primary source needed]". Apparently, the scanned documents were not put into an appropriate place. Where IS an appropriate place? --Dr.bobbs (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

To publish newspaper clippings here on Wikipedia would almost certainly be a copyright violation. If you have sufficient details to satisfy verification (such as newspaper name and date) you can cite them using {{cite news}}; they don't need to be available on the web. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You cite the publication, not the individual piece of paper you happen to have in your collection. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dr.bobbs. As pointed out above and as also stated in WP:PUBLISHED, source cited in articles don't have to be available online; you can find out more about how to cite such sources in WP:SAYWHERE and WP:CITEHOW. As long as the source is considered to be reliable (per WP:RS) and used in context (WP:RSCONTEXT) it should be OK to use; not being available online may make verification a bit harder, but it should be OK as long as there's a reasonable way for someone to access the source if necessary (i.e. it's not something in someone's private personal archives). You should, however, be willing to clarify the source to others if it's challenged for some reason because it cannot be found online.

As for being a primary source, it could still possibly be used, but primary sources needs to be used carefully and only in certain contexts, particularly if the source is about a living person. Being a primary source and being unavailable online are really too different issues which need to be addressed separately. There are plenty of primary sources available online, but not all of them are appropriate for citing as sources for a Wikipedia article; similarly, there are plenty of secondary sources which are not online which probably could be cited as sources to an article. In this context, "primary" doesn't mean "not online", but rather refers to the relationship of the source and the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies--Dr.bobbs (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggest edit to protected content?

How do I suggest edit to protected content? I have noticed an incorrect birth date in the summary data about an individual which is in conflict with a later entry in the text which is known to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarofDavidCox (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the page is semi protected, which most protected articles are, you can either wait until you have 10 edits over 4 days, or post a request on the talk page, by adding this {{Edit semi-protected}} to the top of your message.

Some pages have more strict protection, such as Extended confirmed, 500 edits over 30 days, where you can use {{Edit extended-protected}}, or full protection, which allows editing by only admins: use {{Edit fully-protected}}. It should be remembered though that any protection above semi is rather rare, and is only used where strictly necessary.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thus far, the problem seems to be that the dates given in the article's various parts (none of which cites a source) do not agree with one another. Wikipedia is not based on what anyone "knows", rather, it is based on WP:Reliable sources. If you have a reliable source for the date of birth, you may propose a change to the article on its Talk page, giving a link to the source of your information.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the birth month to April for consistency, but we really need a reference, otherwise the date might get deleted.  Dbfirs 06:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If the subject is a living person all the unreferenced dates must be removed, per WP:BLP. This is not optional, BLP rules are mandatory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Page move request

I am a fully disclosed paid editor represeenting Richard Wayne Lewis I have requested that the page be moved from Richard Wayne Lewis to Ric Lewis as this is what he is referred to by the RS. I have built a small consensus on the talk page, what I would like to know is, can I move the page myself now a consensus has been reached?Essayist1 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: No objections, so I say you can go ahead and do it, but I would wait for confirmation as I’m not 100% sure. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be better if you allowed someone else to do it, but if that doesn't happen in a day or two, you should be okay to move it yourself, but you will want to clearly point to the consensus when doing so. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):@Essayist1: normally, per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#When_to_close_discussions it's rare to close a discussion until it's been open for a week, which this one hasn't yet. Per WP:PAY, as a paid editor you a 'very strongly discouraged' from editing articles directly (which would include a move) but not outright banned from doing so. So, given that, I guess it's down to you, and we can't tell you whether you can or can't. The best outcome is probably if someone else makes the move for you, but I realise it can be frustrating getting attention on a low-traffic article, and you may end up wanting to just do it yourself. Now that you've come here, I suspect someone from the Teahouse might be happy enough to do it and if no one else jumps in first, I'll happily do so once the discussion has been open for a full week and no objections have been raised. Hug^syrup 11:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be really nice if the talk-page of said article had a bit more participation for the consensus-building process....and I would keep the discussion there open at least until the 22nd of this month. Afterwards, you should be ok to move it yourself. Lectonar (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for all of your advice. I will leave the page be uuntil the 22nd. If someone could move the page for me after the 22nd that would be greatly appreciated as I don't want to violate WP:paidEssayist1 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, it's been 7 days now, could someone move the page for me please? Essayist1 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The 7 days doesn't expire until later this afternoon. Leave it until then. Why the hurry? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

List of countries by vehicles per capita

The list has no sources for many numbers. I updated the sources with numbers from Eurostat with the most recent numbers from them see: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Passenger_cars_in_the_EU

But some anonymous user is constantly deleting my edit. I don't know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinz3734 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Heinz3734: - they have given a reason for reverting you ("Eurostat data are old and give no absolute number, already discussed earlier") so you need to now follow the WP:BRD cycle and discuss this change on the article talk page rather than continue to attempt to make the change, otherwise you are edit-warring. IP users may or may not discuss the change with you but, even if they don't, other editors will give their view and if you can get consensus there for your change, you can safely reinsert it. Until then, it is best not to keep trying. Hug^syrup 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: - Eurostat has current data for the amount of cars and no the data is pretty good/updated/not old. I will create an article in the talk page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinz3734 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Need Help publishing first article

Hi all! I am a student researcher who is new to posting on Wikipedia (long time user). I posted an article about a notable private company I've come across multiple times in my research. When I tried to look them up I was surprised to find they aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, despite regularly seeing them on TV and in the news. I decided to write my first article about them because it seemed fairly straight forward and easy. I wrote basic biographical info and listed a few notable accomplishments (see below). My article, however, was deleted almost immediately due to "conflict of interest" rules. I do not, in no uncertain terms, work for the company in question, or provide any services to the security industry, as has been suggested. I want to get started publishing on Wikipedia, however I'm apparently in need of some guidance. I have read a variety of similar pages, the Wikipedia guidelines, and the terms of use but I'm not sure where to go from here. I will paste my article below, and would greatly appreciate any guidance or feedback.

First, sign your signature here and on article Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. This allows other editors to see your contributions. When you add content to your User page, a good idea would be to declare there that you have no conflict of interest with Chesley Brown International. As to your content (hidden, but available, below), you can try again to create a draft at Articles for creation. See WP:Referencing for beginners, as referencing is not by inserting URLs into the text. You also need to work on neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

LINK: [[1]] Chesley Brown International is a privately owned Risk Consulting, and Security Management firm based in Atlanta, GA. It was established in 1990 as Chesley Brown Associates. History Chesley Brown International was founded in 1990 by Brent C. Brown as a consultant to retail, Class A office complexes, warehouses, and hotels (https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/1997/06/09/focus15.html). The company focused on helping businesses manage security risk by uncovering gaps in their security systems. Chesley Brown obtained its first large consulting client in Atlanta, Georgia in 1991 (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html). Developer Blaine Kelly’s Landmarks Group hired Chesley Brown to audit the Promenade II building. During this time the company began to develop the Chesley Brown Report (CBR) which became the industry-standard for security auditing (https://www.georgiatrend.com/2003/10/01/the-best-and-brightest/). Starting in 1993 Chesley Brown expanded their relationship with Charles Rice, founder of Barton Protective Service, which allowed Chesley Brown to grow operations nationally (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html). Throughout 1995 and 1996 Chesley Brown consulted and supported more than 70% of Atlanta’s downtown skyline (https://www.georgiatrend.com/2003/10/01/the-best-and-brightest/) prior to the summer olympics. In the wake of the Olympic park bombing Chesley Brown provided expert analysis to national media outlets such as CNN, Fox News, MSNBC (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html) and were quoted in the Wall Street Journal article titled “Buildings Can Be Safer but Never Totally Safe” in the April 25th, 1995 issue. In 1997, Chesley Brown became the first security company to offer both consulting and uniformed security services (https://chesleybrown.com/our-history/). They were the first to provide security management as a critical component of property management, which later became known as “Total Security Management,” considered an innovation at the time (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html). In January of 1999, Chesley Brown International assumed security management of the nation’s first and largest mixed-use development: Country Club Plaza (https://www.thepitchkc.com/when-westport-gets-wild-security-guards-ban-the-unruly-but-critics-say-the-blackballing-goes-too-far/) which encompasses 18 city blocks in Kansas City, Missouri. Developed in the early 1920’s this project had previously operated their own private public safety agency. By 2003, Chesley Brown had grown from an organization of just one, to a multimillion dollar company with over 500 employees in 27 states and three countries (https://www.georgiatrend.com/2003/10/01/the-best-and-brightest/). In 2004, Chesley Brown expanded their corporate offices (https://chesleybrown.com/our-history/). In 2006, Chesley Brown once again set an industry standard by being the first private security firm to launch their own event-driven worldwide remote monitoring system known as InCommand Worldwide (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html) which was modelled after the United Kingdom’s own state-of-the-art system. Geographic Locations Chesley Brown is headquartered in Atlanta and Kansas City and has offices in Houston, Lexington, Nashville, Orlando, Pittsburgh, and Tampa

Citing/Copywrite Question

Hello! I was wondering, if I'm adding multiple sentences from another source, should I rephrase it and put a foot note after each sentence? Or is it better to cite it with quotes and have one citation at the end?

Thanks! Laurendevera (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Laurendevera, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can upload it to Commons as Public Domain: see WP:Uploading images#Free license and public domain images. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post? Your answer currently seems rather impertinent to the question at hand... Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 00:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright question for STS-87

I want to add an image that is copyright-free but I cannot do that... I can only label it as 'my work'... But it is related to the topic at hand...

Here's the article telling the story of the image.

https://elfquest.com/elfquest-takes-a-ride-on-the-space-shuttle/

--Vikinghammer1979 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The necessity of images for a page.

Salutations, new user here, I was wondering if it was necessary for a page to have an image? I ask because I am writing a draft page and the image I want to attribute to this topic is a copyrighted logo, which I have read is a big no-no for Wikipedia commons. Will my draft be rejected for having no images when I submit it?

Thanks, LycurgusOfTahiti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LycurgusOfTahiti (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't need images. It is good to have them, but is by no means a necessity. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 18:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:IMAGE for more information. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Once your article is published, a low-resolution copy of the logo can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) using a WP:Fair use argument. Dbfirs 20:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Added editing of site.

Add in Wikipedia Site, under Novels: The Appointment: The Tale of Adaline Carson, Lynx House Press, 2019. ISBN 978-0-89924-163-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Keeble44 (talk • contribs) 18:40, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

Hi John Keeble44, welcome to the Teahouse. If you're proposing a new article about The Appointment, and you're the same John Keeble who wrote that book, your best course is to add a request to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Literature/Books. It wouldn't be a great idea to try to write the article yourself, both because writing a new article is a difficult thing to do, so you'd want to get some other editing experience first, and because you would have a conflict of interest as the author, which would need to be worked around as well. Check the notes at the top of the requests page, particularly Be sure the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The particular guidelines about which books should have articles about them are at WP:NBOOK. If you'd like to start editing Wikipedia yourself, I'd suggest editing some existing articles, and asking questions here at the Teahouse if you need help. I've always found it a friendly and helpful place. I'll leave some links on your talk page, too. All the best, › Mortee _talk 23:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Updating SeaChange International's "About" Section

Hello,

I am the Marketing Manager for SeaChange International, Inc.

I need to update the "About" section of our company - but there does not seem to be an option to do so. I can edit other sections like "History" but not the blurb at the top.

How do I go about doing this?

Best, Catie Algiere Marketing Communications Manager SeaChange International, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsoc6 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Marsoc6, are you on about the Wikipedia:Short description? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Or the introduction? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Edit" in the very top menu bar allows editing of the Lead (stuff before History), and in fact, the entire article. HOWEVER, as a paid employee, you are not supposed to directly edit the article at all. Instead, you are required to comply with WP:PAID, which means declaring paid status on your User page, and requesting changes on the Talk page of the article. An editor not affiliated with SeaChange will decide whether to incorporate your proposed changes. Yes, this is annoying. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding creating a biography article of a political figure on Wikipedia

Hello, I am an official parliamentary secretary of Republic of Moldova, I was recently assigned to create the (unbiased) biography in three languages on wikipedia of Moldova's current vice-speaker, Mihail Popsoi.

I have just obtained a message from Drm310 stating "I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited was User:Mihail Popșoi/sandbox, which appears to be an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally. The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page. If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to it, please propose the changes on its talk page.".

With this in mind, however, I am intending to write the biography of Mihail Popsoi, hence it is NOT an autobiography since it is not written by the person in matter.The current high political position of Mihail Popsoi is of paramount importance for digital resources (including Wikipedia) available for the society , hence, I am expecting the articles not to be taken down.

Thank you!

Kind Regards

Victor Agrici — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihail Popșoi (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Mihail Popșoi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason Drm310 thought it was an autobiography is that your username matches the person you are writing about. Since you state that you are not Mihail Popșoi, you will need to change your username immediately. Please visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a request. After your name is changed, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing as there are some required disclosures you need to make. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Members of a national parliament are considered notable per the notability guidelines for politicians, so that is not an issue. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Victor Agrici, once you have changed your username to your real name or to a pseudonym of your choice, you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and find WP:Reliable sources for the information that you know, then use these as in-line citations. Dbfirs 20:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Kuringgai Aboriginal word

Same question/comment appears to have been posted twice

Please read this report was funded by Government / councils There was a story published in the Daily telegraph “Misunderstanding: The historical fiction of the word Guringai that has filled a void in our knowledge of the original inhabitants by John Morcombe, Manly Daily February 20, 2015 2:41pm.” https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/misunderstanding-the-historical-fiction-of-the-word-guringai-that-has-filled-a-void-in-our-knowledge-of-the-original-inhabitants/news-story/b1aec152c74220c535883621081a2fd2 In a new document, Filling A Void, by the Aboriginal heritage office http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/news/2015/filling-a-void/ The Aboriginal heritage office also states “there is no record of the word Guringai /Guringay or any of its derivatives, including Ku-ring-gai, in any of the early accounts of the colony after white settlement and no hint that the Aborigines of the northern beaches or any other part of Sydney had ever heard the word”. Regards Gringai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringai Man (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read this story the research was funded by Government and Councils and the Aboriginal heritage office

There was a story published in the Daily telegraph “Misunderstanding: The historical fiction of the word Guringai that has filled a void in our knowledge of the original inhabitants by John Morcombe, Manly Daily February 20, 2015 2:41pm.”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/misunderstanding-the-historical-fiction-of-the-word-guringai-that-has-filled-a-void-in-our-knowledge-of-the-original-inhabitants/news-story/b1aec152c74220c535883621081a2fd2

In a new document, Filling A Void, by the Aboriginal heritage office http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/news/2015/filling-a-void/

The Aboriginal heritage office also states “there is no record of the word Guringai /Guringay or any of its derivatives, including Ku-ring-gai, in any of the early accounts of the colony after white settlement and no hint that the Aborigines of the northern beaches or any other part of Sydney had ever heard the word”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringai Man (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gringai Man, I have read the story. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? That's really what the Teahouse is for. If you think, for example, that our article Kuringgai should be changed based on what's in the story, you could be bold and make the changes yourself, or you could start a discussion on the talk page for that article, or if there's a change you want to make but you're not sure how, you could ask again here, explaining the issue you've run into. I hope this helps. › Mortee _talk 23:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Not showing up in search results

Hi!

I wrote a Wikipedia entry several months ago which is not showing up in the Google search results for the individual. I read that new pages typically have a robot.txt on them to prevent them from being indexed in search results until they are either 1) approved or 2) 90 days have passed. I believe both of these thresholds have been met however I still do not see it! Can someone please look at the page and let me know what I did incorrectly? or what I can do to get the page to show up on Google when you look at his name? the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Galante

Thank you! Drsammyjohnson (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

Drsammyjohnson, it looks like the article was approved by a new page patroller in July, so the robots.txt should have been removed. Additionally, while it doesn't show up as a search result for me on Google, it does show up for me on DuckDuckGo. This may be a problem on Google's end. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Drsammyjohnson It takes time for search engines to index articles once they are marked as reviewed. They can do so at different rates; Wikipedia has no control over it. Google will likely index it soon. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drsammyjohnson. I just completed a Google seach on my Android smartphone for Forrest Galante. The Google Knowledge Graph at the top includes a link to the Wikipedia article that you wrote, and that Wikipedia article is #7 in the natural search results, after two of his own web pages, and his Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and IMDb pages. Since he has such a robust social media presence, that seems like the correct search result to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this might have fixed itself very recently. When I looked a couple of hours ago, after Rosguill's reply but before Cullen328's, I didn't see mention of the the particular article, even if I added "wikipedia" to the search. Perhaps we have some friendly Google fairies nearby, or perhaps this was just fortuitous timing. › Mortee _talk 02:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks for Journals, Newspapers etc... in article citations

Hello:

I know the MOS suggests that when adding a wiki link to a topic in an article it be linked once at the first instance. Does the same rule apply to linking newspapers, journals etc... in citations. I have been told the same rule applies, but I have also been told that for the convenience of the reader every citation should be linked. I have come across both "styles" as I copy edit articles for the GOCE. I can find nothing in the MOS to clarify this. Can you help?

Thanks!

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofingered Typist, that's an interesting question. I've usually not seen works themselves linked to in citations. When citing an online news article, for example, you'd always link to the article itself, but it's pretty unusual to also link to the Wikipedia article about the publication, though I have seen it done. The examples given at {{Cite news}} don't include links, and there's no parameter |work-link= as there is an |author-link=.

Personally, I think links can be useful if the publication is interesting but a bit obscure, especially if its own history is related to what the main article is about, but for publications you'd expect most readers to know of, it can be, if anything, slightly unhelpful because they might click that link thinking it'll take them to the particular story. I wonder if anyone else has stronger views about this, or knows of relevant guidelines. For now, I'd say don't worry about it and leave links as they are while copyediting; it'll move you on to the next article faster and whatever you fix there will probably be more important. All the best, › Mortee _talk 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Twofingered Typist. There is no firmly established policy on this, but personally, I tend to lean toward more linking in references rather than less linking. I have written about a hundred articles and have substantively expanded hundreds more. I use citation templates. I routinely link to articles about newspapers, magazines, book publishers and authors in my references because I believe that this makes it easier for interested readers to evaluate the reliability of a given source and therefore the reliability of assertions it makes. Anyone who does not care can easily ignore the blue link. As for only linking once, I use named references for multiple uses of a reference. Problem solved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for yur prompt reply. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Iowa Straw Poll is now Iowa State Fair Straw Poll

Should it be 'moved' or ? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking if the Iowa Straw Poll should be moved to a new page. Then I would suggest not, you can always request a name change for the page using this template {{Requested move}} BigRed606 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That template looks like a request to change the name of a section rather a page. Why are you thinking the page shouldn't be given a new name? While it started off as a Republican-only affair, the "results were non-binding" (per the Significance §). When the Iowa State Fair took over in 2015 and made it Dem as well as Repub, it was still 'non-binding'. Aside from renaming the page, it looks like all that would be needed is minor edits to the intro para. I'm thinking it might be better to me to do that than create a "Iowa State Fair Straw Poll" page separate from the "Iowa Straw Poll" page. That's a distinction without much of a difference. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr, I'm also not certain why BigRed606 suggested {{Rename section}}. There is {{Requested move}} if you're not able to move the page yourself or if you think someone might reasonably disagree with the move. You can see that a requested move was used here in 2015 when the page moved from Ames Straw Poll. The instructions for that template explain how to use it (on the talk page, using "subst"). I've not looked deeply but moving it seems reasonable to me. The only question is whether it's still mostly referred to in sources as the "Iowa Straw Poll", regardless of its official title (WP:COMMONNAME; WP:TITLE) › Mortee _talk 01:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thx — it does seem that, for now, it's still largely referred to as "Iowa Straw Poll". I guess that means I should do a redirect(?) so people searching for "Iowa State Fair Straw Poll" get rerouted to the former. How is that done? Humanengr (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

To make a redirect, go to the page you want to make a redirect from, in this case Iowa State Fair Straw Poll, and make a new page there that consists of the wikicode #REDIRECT [[Iowa Straw Poll]] (More instructions at Wikipedia:Redirect if you want them) › Mortee _talk 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thx much — done. Humanengr (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr You were very vague on what your questions was. And I was just trying to help. And I still don’t think you need to create a separate page for the same event BigRed606 (talk), 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606 — Are you referring to @Mortee's edit? Thx for your help; At this point all I need is an answer to my question here. TIA, Humanengr (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

BigRed606 I think it was a misunderstanding. You linked to a template about renaming a section when the question was instead about moving an article. You've since edited your comment to link to a different template. Would you mind not doing that, after there have been replies? It changes the meaning of what people replying to you said, without them necessarily being aware of it, and without it being clear to anyone else reading what they were replying to. In any case, it's great that you tried to help. Misunderstandings happen; no need to feel bad. › Mortee _talk 03:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606 and Mortee: Thx again to you both. Humanengr (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing title name

Hi,

This page is of my father https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuc_Tuan_Thai, he passed away a few months ago and I would like correct the title of his page/name since it is incorrect. I'm a casual/beginner of Wikipedia and was wondering if anyone can help me change the title of the corrected name. "Thái Thúc Thuần"

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoistThai (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DaoistThai and welcome to the Teahouse. Is the change just from Tuan to Thuan? If so, then we can move the article for you. Does the Olympics site use a wrong spelling? If you want to change the order of names, then please find a WP:Reliable source in English that uses the correct order. We tend to omit diacritics. See WP:Commonname. Dbfirs 06:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this how to reply? I feel so out of my depth, the order of the title/URL? Is incorrect, the last name is Thai, middle Thuc, first Thuan, it would be great if the it can be in the order ex; Thái Thúc Thuần in the page title since I don't think URL can have those special letter symbols, many thanks for replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoistThai (talk • contribs) 08:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, we can change the title of the article by moving the page to a different title. However, as mentioned, you will need to provide a reliable source for verifiability one of our core policies. If you are still confused or have anymore questions, please feel free to ask here or leave a message on my talk page. Best wishes, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The order of names is different in different countries. This is the English Wikipedia, so we use English order. If the olympic website has got it wrong, then please point out a website written in English that gets the order right. We are trying to help you here, so please don't be offended by Wikipedia rules. Would you like us to move the page to Thuan Thuc Thai (English order)?Dbfirs 14:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dbfirs,

Thank you, that is fine since it is english version website and so it follows the standard of english naming order.

As toward user Willbb234, I would like to keep some sort of semblance of privacy to verify, is there a way to give a proof/verify that's not public? I understand that the upkeep of wikipedia is on the good graces of volunteers and there isn't any 'official' capacity that represent Wikipedia right? I can provide proof that if I can do it with a modicum or privacy 1 to 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoistThai (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Any source you provide need to be accessible to the public so they can be verified if desired. Private sources aren't acceptable and shouldn't be used. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

article translation from English-to-German.

At 70 years of age, I would like to learn German, especially for Reading Knowledge of German. I speak and write American English. If I looked up an article written in English, and go to the same subject article written in German will the German article be a exact translation of the English article into German? That it to say, may I use the German article to learn German, and the compare my translation accuracy by comparing it with the same article written in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autodidact7 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In general, no, there will be large differences because the projects are independent and the articles are independently written. Occasionally, an article might be a direct translation, but this will be rare and will be noted in the history of the translated article. Dbfirs 06:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

New article: Alfred James Collister

Hi, I've created my first article on Alfred James Collister, a Manx artist.

It says it is published but when I search live on Wiki, nothing comes up.

Is there a delay in publishing first articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanhear (talk • contribs) 07:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just find the below, so I've answered my own question...….

This page in a nutshell: We can help you write an article if it is about a notable topic and it does not violate copyright law. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal home page or a business list. An article topic must be notable: covered in detail in good references from independent sources. Do not copy-paste content from other websites even if you, your school, or your boss owns them. To create an article, try the Article Wizard. To create articles directly, your account must be at least 4 days (96 hours) old, and have made more than 10 edits. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Wikipedia:Requested articles. If the topic is not notable, or contains copyrighted material, the article will be rejected or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanhear (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Svanhear. You have not written an article. Instead, at User:Svanhear, you have written something that resembles an article but is in the wrong place. Your user page is not for article drafts. That page is for you to describe yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and what your plans are on Wikipedia. Please read Your first article for excellent advice about writing actual encylopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute over many articles

I am involved in a content dispute that spans many articles and templates. The dispute initially involved three editors. One of them was blocked for block evasion, but other than that, it has remained civil from all sides, so there is no conduct problem. However, the nature of the dispute involves quite a few navigation templates and articles, so the discussion is scattered and hard to follow. Other users got involved in some of the talk pages but are probably unaware of the broader dispute which involves mainly two editors, including me. What would be the next best action? Should I open a centralized discussion in an article's talk page that represents the central topic and reference all other discussions? Or ask for a third opinion? Any advice will be appreciated. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarioGom, welcome to the Teahouse. Centralizing discussion sounds eminently sensible; discussion forks can be a pain. You could do that at WikiProject Socialism if there isn't one article that's the real core of the issue. Alternatively, choose one existing discussion to keep, perhaps Portal:Communism. The debate doesn't belong at the portal because it's not about the content of the portal, but you mentioned that discussion was coalescing there regardless, and at least it's talking about the broad issue. WP:TALKFORK suggests using {{FYI}} and sometimes {{Moved discussion to}} to add links from anywhere else the same discussion has been happening.

If the particular question is still about when to say "Marxist-Leninist" rather than "[C/c]ommunist" then the third opinion process probably doesn't fit because it's for disagreements between two people. Even leaving aside the blocked editor (I understand they're appealing), there are the !voters here, here and here (slightly separate as those were about titles, where WP:COMMONNAME applies), and the first non-IP respondent here. Alternatively, you could consider starting an RfC as a way to get more editors involved and, in time, a definitive result. Perhaps try the centralized discussion first. I hope this helps. All the best › Mortee _talk 16:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Mortee: Thank you for your advice! Note that the dispute is not the naming one you mention (it is related though). That one is already covered by RfC and after listing it at WikiProjects there are other editors involved and we are somewhat advancing. The dispute I was referring to involves Template:Communism and Template:Marxism_sidebar, with some ramifications elsewhere. I'll check how to centralize in a meaningful way and then possibly prepare an RfC once the options are clearer. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom ah! Sorry, I should have asked instead of assuming. I saw the image issue at Template:Communism but I didn't see it being discussed anywhere else (the discussion at Template talk:Communism sidebar was moved there last night), which is why I got this wrong. Good luck! › Mortee _talk 17:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Mortee: Actually I was not fully accurate with the characterization either. Since there are a few different disputes related to communism and Marxism-Leninism, with very similar arguments being used for them, I'm starting to mix things. --MarioGom (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Paid-contribution disclosure

Hi, Sorry I wanted to know how are the conditions to edit articles for Wikipedia and get paid. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.178.143.107 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If you read the articles I mentioned, paid editing is a conflict of interest. Editing with a COI is discouraged, but allowed as long as it’s disclosed. You must disclose who is paying you to edit, or you will be blocked. To disclose who is paying you, put the following on your user page/talk page: {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=InsertName|U1-employer=InsertName|U1-client=InsertName|U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.}} I hope this helps. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 13:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Just in case there's a misunderstanding, 99.99% of all users who edit Wikipedia do it for free and for the love of improving the world's greatest online encyclopaedia. Don't look to this site to make you money. But should someone ever ask you to create or edit an article about them, you would have to read and follow the policy links given to you by LPS and MLP Fan above, and there is absolutely no guarantee that anything you add will be accepted. If anything you contribute fails to meet these or all our other policies and guidelines, it will be removed by another volunteer editor. That said, do try out The Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of how things work. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox

What happen if I blank the sandbox page? - 139.194.23.247 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to the main Wikipedia sandbox (rather than one under your own username) then you are free to blank it, with the exception of the content above (and including) 'Feel free to try your editing skills below'. If you remove that, then not much will happen except that someone will revert it and, if you persist, you will probably get blocked. Hug^syrup 14:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I see that you have indeed been removing the header. Yeah, please stop doing that as it provides useful information to other users. Generally you can do whatever you like in the sandbox, but persistently blanking it might be seen as disruptive and could lead to a block. Hug^syrup 14:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Paid-contribution disclosure

Hi I'm new to wikipedia and i'd like to get paid by editing articles but i don't know how to disclose with employer. Although I read the "How to disclose" section but I still don't understand. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam1808 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Benham1808:. You should go to your userpage (you can get there by clicking on your username) and paste in this text {{paid|employer=ACME|article=Example}}, editing this to change 'ACME' to the name of your employer and 'example' to the article you are being paid to edit. When you say 'you'd like to get paid for editing articles', though - can I check that you are aware that Wikipedia does not pay for articles, and no one on Wikipedia will pay you for editing. On the contrary, we strongly frown on paid editing and 99% of edits are done by unpaid volunteers. I suggest you read WP:PAID for more info. Hug^syrup 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I did the contribution project on my user page/talk page

What should I do now?

Wait for an employer's request or what?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam1808 (talk • contribs)

I think you've misunderstood this. As I said, no one is going to just offer to pay you because you have inserted the disclaimer into your userpage. The disclaimer is for people who are already being paid to edit Wikipedia, for example because they work for a company and wish to update the page about that company. If you are not currently being paid to edit Wikipedia, then you do not require this disclaimer, and you should not attempt to find a paid writing job through Wikipedia or you risk being blocked. Hug^syrup 14:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

My revised draft has vanished

Hi,

I wrote a draft wikipedia entry for Sue Heilbronner in my sandbox and asked for it to be reviewed. The draft was declined on July 13 but I was allowed to try to revise it. I did revise and resubmit it. Last time I checked on August 5 the second review was still pending. When I checked yesterday the revised draft had vanished and there was no indication what had happened. I looked in the history and there was nothing indicated after July 13. How can I find out what happened to my revised draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bklein61 (talk • contribs)

Your contributions are listed at Special:Contributions/Bklein61. Draft:Sue Heilbronner is still there, and its history confirms that it hasn't been edited since 13 July. If you had edited it subsequently it would be shown in the history. Perhaps you failed to save ("publish", in WMF's wording) your changes. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Best way to add footnotes/inline sources to a table

What is the best way to indicate an inline source is related to a table? For, let's say sport competition results.

I have seen various variants:

Source in headline^[3]

This one is ugly and shows up next to the headline in the TOC! Also complicates linking to a section.

Rank	Name	Points
1	Example	4.00
2	Example	2.00

Lone source floating under headline

^[3]

Rank	Name	Points
1	Example	4.00
2	Example	2.00

Source crammed somewhere into the table

Rank[3]	Name	Points
1	Example	4.00
2	Example	2.00

All of these seem kind of subpar. Is there a better way? --Hecato (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Third one is what I say is best. You could also have a separate column named ‘reference’. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hecato: My gut reaction is to agree to some extent with what Willbb234 says. However, if you're using the same source for each row in a table, it'd look messy repeatedly adding the same one again and again. I'd use that approach if different sources in a table were being used. In no situations should any level of headings or sub-headings ever contain a hyperlink or a reference, so you could either introduce your table with a single line of explanation (immediately followed by the reference), or you could caption your table and include the reference within that caption. Assuming the data in your table relies solely on one reference, I'd say the latter way is by far the best approach. See example 4, below. For more information on captions within tables see this. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Demo 4: Country rankings for 2019^[3]

Rank	Name	Points
1	Japan	4.00
2	New Zealand	2.00

References

The first is certainly wrong, see MOS:HEADINGS. I agree with Willbb234 in preferring either your 3rd option or a separate column. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The third option is preferred if the entire table is based on that source. If there are seperate sources for different lines then a column for refs makes sense. If the columns have different sources put the refs in the column headings. In any case the references should be in the table and never in a section heading as that "breaks" the heading for screen readers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone! --Hecato (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hecato. You shouldn't add citations to section headings per MOS:HEAD (even MOS:PSEUDOHEADings); so, that eliminates Option 1 right off the bat. As for the other two options, a floating citation (i.e. a citation citing "white space") is never really a good idea; you should either add a short explanatory sentence before the table and then add the citation to it, or add the citation directly to the table itself.

You might want to also consider whether its necessary to use MOS:FLAG in the table; I understand lots of articles use them, but most of the time they seem to be just clutter to me (especially for country names). After all, Japan provides the reader with the same essential information as Japan; in fact, but the both icon and Japan are links to the article about Japan which means the table entry is basically no different from Japan Japan or . If you really think it's encyclopedically relevant to for the reader to see the flags, then perhaps it might be better to use {{flag}} instead of {{flagicon}}. Finally, Australia and New Zealand are different countries with different flags which makes {{flagicon|AUS}} [[New Zealand]] look like an error. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference

How should I refer a reliable source...?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiyan Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There are links in the feedback on your user talk page, and on the draft itself. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Raiyan Ibrahim, in case you haven't seen the link to Help:Referencing for beginners yet, that might be the best place to start. All the best › Mortee _talk 16:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

New profile

How do you create a new profile for a public figure or celebrity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niinoinarh (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Niinoinarh: There is no such thing as a ‘profile’ of a person. Instead, we create articles. To learn how to create an article see Your First Article. You need to make sure it meets the Notability guidelines and is suitably Verified by Reliable sources. If you have anymore questions, feel free to ask. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Some Queries!!

Hi Team- Glad to connect. It was my first page on wiki. I have some doubts. As of now, i can see the keyword "user" & "sandbox" on the page title. I am unable to remove. Also, i wanted to use biography template but unable to do so. Need help in this regard. Also, please let me know if any recommendation/suggestion to improve the page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaram Jain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

When it is ready, you can submit your sandbox draft for review. There is, however, no point in submitting it yet as you have included no references. You'll find advice at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Writing about a topic

Dear Sir/Madam. I would like to know if i can write about a particular topic and contribute to wikipedia, what are the requirements for one to be an Active contributing writer on this platform. I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdikadir Noor Aaran (talk • contribs)

There are no formal requirements to edit Wikipedia: As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as you cite your sources and write from a neutral point of view, everyone is more than welcome to edit.

As for a particular topic, the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia are detailed under the General Notability Guideline. In short, if a subject has received non trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources, it is deemed notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Abdikadir Noor Aaran: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for being willing to participate. There aren't really any formal requirements other than a desire to contribute. You may find it helpful to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and how it works. If you want to write a completely new article(which is more difficult than most people think it is), you should read Your First Article as well. You may wish to search Wikipedia to see if the topic you want to write about does not already have an article. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources

I am citing sources only with link between usual ref lines. But I am seeing some more elaborate citations with lot more description, for example: "Barnes, Bart (March 11, 1999). "CIA Official Sidney Gottlieb, 80, Dies". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 15, 2015." There is even link inside that description. Does this happen automatically over time, what is going on? How can I get those big description sources? Polyison (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Polyison, I'll tell you a hack if you promise to keep it a secret. After you copy a link, instead of writing the ref tags, just put your cursor at the place the cite is supposed to go and press "Ctrl+Shitft+K". When the window appears, press "Ctrl+V" to paste and press "Enter" to generate citation. Easy peasy! If the shortcut doesn't work, the "Cite" option at the top of the edit window does the same thing. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 18:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

automatic invites

As far as I can tell, your own documentation sets this criteria for sending an automatic invite thru hostbot:

New editors are eligible to receive automatic invitations to the Teahouse from Hostbot if...

• they created their account within the past 36 hours and have since made at least 10 edits.

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database_reports/Automated_invites#Automatic invites

However, here's an invite [2] to a new user with five (5) edits, as far as I can tell.

What's up? CapnZapp (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... no deleted edits either. (Though I note they've been blocked on it.wiki as a username violation and likely have an undisclosed COI.) @Jtmorgan:? GMG^talk 19:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: Looking at a quick sample of today's invite's, several users invited have less than 10 edits. One of them only had one edit. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, it counts global edits? Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: thanks for the ping! @CapnZapp: the default threshold has actually been 5 edits for the past 4 years or so (I'll update the docs). That said, as RudolfRed and @Usedtobecool: point out there still appears to be a sampling/screening issue occurring (it should never invite someone after one local edit}}. So I'm looking into this and will update the thread with my findings. Thanks all, J-Mo 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: can you point me to the example of someone with one edit being invited? Can't see any traces of that in my logging table. J-Mo 23:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: See User_talk:Basheed_Shaik. RudolfRed (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Can I ask for a bit more context of how the bot's parameters have progressed since it was approved? When was the edit threshold lowered? What was the reason? Who was in on the decision? Just changing the "10" to a "5" in the documentation does not really answer anything. If this is better discussed elsewhere (than here in Teahouse Q&A), I would appreciate a pointer where I can learn more. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: it looks like I made that change about 5 years ago... July 21 2014 according to my logging table. I make small changes to sampling criteria all the time, in order to maintain a steady level of traffic to the Teahouse (the number of good-faith newly registered editors who make at least N edits in their first 24 hours has trended downward over time), and in response to editors reporting problematic false positives. I also run experiments to learn what works best, as you can see from my many BAG approvals. If you want to learn more about HostBot invites, the best place to start is probably this academic paper. Cheers, J-Mo 23:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, my interest wasn't academic - just wanting to make sure some old approval didn't creep into bot spamming, that's all. If your bot approval was based on the number of invites sent out, rather than the specific criteria, then that's good enough for me (especially seeing your prompt documentation upgrades). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A source article was incorrectly translated into English

Edit: My apologies, I just came across this official info: "Initially named Araguaia, its name was changed to "Brasilia" in 1979 - when the project was officially launched." Meaning, the only incorrect information in the current version is essentially the "when", suggesting the CAAA convention is connected to the name change in some fashion.

On the Embraer EMB 120 page, the following line is incorrect:

Araguaia's name was changed to Brasilia in 1979 at the official launching of the project, when at a CAAA (Commuter Airline Association of America) convention at USA several suggestions from prospective operators were collected and incorporated to EMB 120 design.

It should read something more like:

The EMB-120 project was launched in September 1979. At a CAAA (Commuter Airline Association of America) convention in 1980, in the United States, several suggestions from prospective operators were collected and incorporated to EMB-120 design. Prior to being rolled out, the aircraft's name was changed from Araguaia to Brasilia.

Here's a quick translation of the source material (in Portuguese):

The EMB-120 project began in September 1979. In April of the following year a mock-up of the new aircraft was presented during an international congress of Bandeirante operators in Rio de Janeiro, and then sent to the C.A.A.A. (Commuter Airline Association of America) in the United States. During these opportunities several operator suggestions were collected and many incorporated into the aircraft design.

[...] Thus the EMB-120 was born as a totally new aircraft, now renamed Brasilia [...].

The only small issue is that 1980 is not specifically mentioned as the year of the CAAA convention, although the source material shows that the convention occurred after the 1979 launch, thus the name wasn't changed in 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.41.153.82 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This would be best discussed on the article's talk page. If you make your points there, and don't get any responses for two weeks, you could just go ahead and make the changes you advocate. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Getting a jpg undeleted?

I am updating a profile for one of our global leaders and added a PR photo. It was there when I left off work yesterday but since then it was deleted -- I think because I don't have attribution for the photo? It's a publicity photo taken by my company and as a marketing person I have the right to use it. I've tried to get it undeleted but I can't quite figure out if I was able to do it. I also can't figure out how to post if it is undeleted (or where to access it). I used the upload wizard to upload it the first time -- is this where I would go to see if it's been undeleted?

Separately, I wanted to re-upload this photo as I added a caption in the uploading wizard tool not realizing that the person's name is already displayed above the box. I'd like to delete the caption as it looks kind of stupid to have it below and above the photo. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizhenry (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

commons:File:Wade Warren 2.jpg shows that the file was deleted as a copyright violation. If the copyright holder wishes to donate copyrighted material, look at WP:Donating copyrighted material. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, if you are editing on behalf of your employers you need to read about conflict of interest and you need to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elizhenry. You uploaded File:Wade Warren 2.jpg to Wikimedia Commons (or Commons for short). Commons and Wikipedia are both operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, but they are separate WMF projects with their own policies and guidelines. Commons only hosts content which can be verified to be in compliance with c:Commons:Licensing; so, when a file is deleted from Commons it's almost always because there was a problem with its copyright license. Deleted files aren't gone forever; they are just hidden from public view and can be restored once the issue(s) which led to their deletion has been resolved. Commons files, however, can only be resolved on Commons so there's not much more that anyone on Wikipedia can do other than to give you some general information.

You can find out why the file was tagged/nominated for deletion and who tagged/nominated it for deletion by looking at the notification posted on your Commons user talk page (c:User talk:Elizhenry). You can also ask for clarification from the Commons administrator who deleted the file by clicking on the red link above (i.e. the name of the file) and then clicking on the talk page link of the administrator who deleted the file (c:User talk:Didym). Didym deleted the file per Commons speedy deletion criterion F1 and if you think that was done in error, then you should explain why to Didym. In any case, please don't re-upload the same file again because most likely it will only end up being deleted for the same reason. It's OK to make mistakes, but repeating the same mistakes may lead to a Commons adminstrator formally warning you about repeatedly uploading files with problems. The best thing to do is discuss things with Didym; Didym will either restore the file or explain what you need to do to get the file restored. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Soldier Medal Recipients

Your Soldier Medal Recipients page on Wikipedia does not include my name. I was awarded the Soldiers Medal for heroic action in Vietnam. There are many articles supporting this, plus it is on my DD 215. I feel it is important for women to be recognized for our service in Vietnam. How do I get my name included on this list? Thank you. Karen Offutt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:4200:5DAB:D022:968F:8084:BEE2 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There are indeed numerous references to Karen Offutt recieving said medal. However, it appears the referenced article List of Soldier's Medal recipients only lists individuals who have Wikipedia biography articles that have won it. Winning that medal doesn't qualify an individual to have a Wikipedia biography article, so unless you meet some notability standard to have a biography for some other reason, sorry, no, we won't be adding your name to that list.John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Karen, and thank you for your service and heroism. I've posed a question regarding notability at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Karen Offutt. We'll see what sort of feedback is received. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Related Articles on Mobile

When looking at an article on mobile there is a list of three Related Articles at the bottom. For example, when looking at Barack Obama on mobile, Wikipedia lists the following as Related Articles: United States Senate career of Barack Obama, 2000 Illinois's 1st congressional district election, and Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet. These Related Articles don't show up when viewing the article on the computer. Are Related Articles something that can be edited? And if so, how can I edit the list? BadHombres (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@BadHombres: The "Related Articles" section appears to be generated by the MobileFrontend skin using the RelatedArticles extension. I can't dig deeper at the moment, but that should point you in the right direction. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Verifying a source in languages other than english

I am looking to write an biography about someone in mongolian language. The sources of cites and references will be taken from news articles and books in mongolian.

The question is how would wikipedia verify the information?

Further info: The biography is does not exist in english, furthermore I would like to translate the biography to english once the sources have been verified.

Any info on this matter will help greatly.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Буддаа Батнаран (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Буддаа Батнаран. I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want to write an article about someone in Mongolian or do you want to write an article about someone in English based upon sources written in Mongolian? If you want to do the former, then you should probably try doing so at Mongolian Wikipedia; if you want to the latter, then the following may help you.

Alhtough sources written in English are generally preferred over those which aren't, there's no requirement that states that only sources written in English can be used as explained in WP:NOENG. As long as you're able to establish that the subject is Wikipedia notable and the sources you want to use are considered to be reliable sources, it should be OK create the article and use the sources. Sources written in English are easier to verify which means that you should be prepared to explain the source, etc. if it's challenged. Regardless, you should be able to understand the source yourself so as to at least be able to self-assess its reliablity and WP:RSCONTEXT; if you can't read it, do not just assume it is automatically OK to use, but instead try and find someone who can either at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols or at Wikipedia:Translators available.

One last thing, if you want to translate an article found on Mongolian Wikipedia into English for English Wikipedia, please take a close look at WP:TRANSLATE. There are certain things you need to be careful about in order to make sure that your translation is not considered to be a WP:COPYVIO. You should also be aware that non-English Wikipedias don't always have the same standards when it comes to sourcing and notability as English Wikipedia; so, simply because an article exists on Mongolian Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that the same article should exist on English Wikipedia, and simply because a source is cited on Mongolian Wikipedia doesn't mean the same source is OK to cite on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, articles, sources, etc. need to comply with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

1987 Mecca incident#Demonstrations

1987 Mecca incident#Demonstrations has had a factual accuracy section tag since 2011 with discussion on the talk page ending in 2011. Is it appropriate to remove the tag or is there a way to draw attention to it to encourage resolution? should the multiple problems tags be replaced with a single tag like {{Rip}}? There doesn't seem to have been any constructive discussion on the topic. The article doesnt seem to meet quality standards WP:MOS so maybe a {{Cleanup rewrite}} tag is more appropriate?

Because it is a contentious topic, i would expect simply stating the different accounts and positions of the Saudi and Iranian government or any independent investigation as presented through official organizations otherwise you end up with reference bloat with multiple sources recursively and circularly referencing each other but all drawing from the same source. Any peer reviewed journal articles discussing the incident that are published in reputable journals would also be good. It's not about what really happened, it's about what officials and expert accounts describe because nobody really knows what happened except the Saudi security forces. this incident happened around the time of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 and United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Charles Fort referenced in Andre Norton's novel "The Time Traders" in chapter 14

ultra noob here. i have a reference to add to a page referencing Charles Fort and I don't want to screw up. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=edit&section=new sometimes i have trouble concentrating but i wanted to contribute. can you point me towards info to do this right?Freqhertz (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Freqhertz: You would go to the Charles Fort article and probably edit the Charles Fort#Literary influence section. Since the section is already rather long, you'll need to find a place where you can integrate the information with what's already there – you should not just add a sentence (or paragraph) at the end that doesn't "flow" with what's already there. I've put a welcome message on your "talk page" with some info about Wikipedia and pointers to help you become familiar with editing. I removed the leading "/* References */" from this section header since it caused problems with edit summaries (at least). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I DID MY HUNDREDTH EDIT!

YAY I'M SO HAPPY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humorous1234 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Humorous1234: Congratulations. If you have any questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia, you can ask here. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank You!!!!!!

Well done! I've sent over some cookies as a reward. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

epiphone banjos

I noticed no information about epiphone banjos in the article on epiphone ( a division of Gibson ). I own a long neck epiphone campus model made in 1963 ( information I got from the company in the early 1980's ). I was just hoping to find more information about it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teborg.1092 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teborg.1092. Our article Epiphone makes it clear that the company was known as the Epiphone Banjo Company 90 years ago, and still makes banjos. But there is a lack of detail about the banjos they have produced in the article. On the other hand, much of the detail about their guitars is unreferenced, and that is not a good thing. I suggest that you find reliable sources that discuss their banjos in detail, and summarize that content in the article, with references. If you can improve the guitar content, that would be wonderful as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Teborg.1092: You might like to check for images on Wikimedia Commons. If there isn't a good one already there, you could consider photographing yours and uploading an image that anyone can use. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about user Undoing my article edits

Hello Wikipedia!

I'm kinda new here so I just wanted to ask whether the user that undoes my edits is right or not (as I don't want to be involved in some edit-war):

Edit that is in question (removed my added content by user Retimuko): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Coinbase&oldid=911950715

User 'Retimuko' says 'what independent reliable sources noticed this?' are following media considered a reliable source? - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-says-foiled-sophisticated-hacking-090118574.html - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614094/an-attempted-heist-at-coinbase-was-scary-good-even-though-it-failed/ - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/20/coinbase_firefox_zero_day/ - https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-vulnerability-coinbase-ransomware-border-hack/

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypentest (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit appears to me constructive and well-sourced. But I recommend omitting the word "fortunately", as it indicates a point of view (albeit one that most of us share). Maproom (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted! Is there anything I can do to get it published? I don't want to get involved in some flame war with this user. I've left him a message on his talk page but no response yet. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypentest (talk • contribs)

@Henrypentest: When you need to discuss issues with a particular article, it's generally best to do so by adding a new section to the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Coinbase), using {{Ping}} within it (as I've done here) to notify the user(s) that are involved (see the edit history of the article to see the usernames and read the edit summaries for info on what the problem is). I've restored your content and edited it to add the cites you provided and for the other issues the users mentioned – it should be OK now as far as those things are concerned. However, it may still be considered by some to be too trivial to mention (WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTDIARY/WP:INDISCRIMINATE) – I don't know how common this sort of thing is with them, other crypto exchanges, or the net in general. Please sign any posts to talk pages (not articles) with four tildes (~~~~) at the end. This lets people easily see who wrote it and is necessary for the ping template to work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right trolls have hijacked my organisation's page

Hi all,

I work for International Crisis Group, an international NGO dedicated to resolving deadly conflicts around the world. We are widely respected NGO as we have analysts in conflict zones with the aim to understand what is driving these conflicts and how they can be resolved.

Recently, a New York Times article by one of our analysts caught the attention of some trolls who started an online campaign against us. Among the things they did was to change our Wikipedia page, which resulted in a back-and-forth editing war. This led Wikipedia to bar any edits to the page, so the current version is one with edits by these trolls. Now the page has been opened again for editing, but I worry that as soon as we change it, the trolls will appear. I understand that not everyone has the same view as we do of our organisation, and e.g. in our edits we have left the Controversies section as they have edited it - although preferably it would not be right at the top where they moved it to. Wikipedia is not and should not be a promotional page, so I would like to find a balanced way to solve this.

Any advice on how we can stop these trolls from repeatedly changing our organisation's Wikipedia page?

Here is a link to the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crisis_Group

Here is a link to our website: https://www.crisisgroup.org/

I appreciate learning from your expertise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page. As you work for ICG, you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article yourself. As a matter of tact, I recommend you not to describe people as "trolls" just because they disagree with you. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Sidsa. A couple of general things about Wikipedia.

1. A Wikipedia article written about your organization is not the property of your organization as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content; so, in other words, it's not your organization's page and nobody connected to your organization has any final editorial control over article content. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.
2. Since you state you're a member of your organization and editing on it's behalf, you most certainly would be considered to have a conflict of interest about anything written about your organization on Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to learn about ways you can let other editors know about problems you might find in the article. You should also review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure to make sure neither you nor any other members of your organization are also required to comply with it.
3. Please try to remember to be civil when discussing others on Wikipedia. If you notice other editors are editing pages in an inappropriate way, then try and focus on how their edits are not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In some cases, the edits made might actually have been OK and even necessary per relevant policies and guidelines; so, instead of immediately labeling others as this or that, try to discuss the reasons why you feel the edit was incorrect on the relevant article's talk page and see what others think. Most content disputes can be resolved through discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but administrator assistance can be sought out when things go beyond a simple dispute over content and start becoming disruptive. Just from looking at the page history of International Crisis Group, I don't really see any of the disruption you're describing (at least not at the moment) and also can see that the page is no longer protected; so, it can currently be edited by anyone. As long as their edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, there should be no problem.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maproom and Marchjuly,

Thank you for your insightful guidance. I completely agree that the Wikipedia page is not our ownership which is why I highlighted my desire to keep the page balanced and sought out the expertise of this community. Better phrasing on my part would have been that the page for our organisation has been changed to be factually incorrect and sow doubt about our work. I also agree that I am not the best person to edit the page, and I myself have never done so. The page was not created by our Communications department nor have we maintained it specifically, and only started editing the page this summer after we were alerted that the page seemed to have been edited in a non-neutral way at the exact same time as we faced online bombardment following the dispute I mentioned above. As I also stated in my original description, I completely understand and respect that not everyone sees the organisation the same way as I do, and during our edits we have for example left the Controversy section with their edits.

However, as you will see the page currently has negative qualifiers such as: that Crisis Group "advertises itself as carrying out field research", "says it provides detailed analysis" which is not the norm for Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, some of the text under Regional Programs data has been edited in a way that makes it outdated. I don't know why anyone would want to do so but it is unfortunate that the page has been changed so it no longer reflects the latest information.

Thank you again for pointing me to helpful resources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sidsa. Perhaps I could chip in here? You're right that articles saying "it advertises itself as" or "it says it does xyz" is unusual for Wikipedia but, if the only source of information is a reference to the organisation's own website, that seems to be a very fair way to phrase things. However, if the page cited independent reliable reference about your organisation, then that form of wording would't be necessary. Pehaps you could find some better sources to use and suggest them on the talk page? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes ,

Thank you for the explanation. I really appreciate how responsive everyone is and willing to help me find and use the existing avenues to solve this dispute. I have never edited a Wikipedia page before and worry I will do something wrong. On the bright side, I am getting insight into the fascinating world of Wikipedia. Following your recommendation, I will find some external sources that help substantiate the phrasing and see if that helps solve it. Could I get in touch with you again if I find myself lost in this new world?

@Sidsa: Yes, either ask here where anyone can quickly reply to you, or on my own talk page (just follow the link in my signature), though you might not get such a speedy reply as here. Either way, it really hekps if you remember to add your signature at the end on every talk page post. Just type four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). Meanwhile, why not look at some related pages that interest you which need improving. It's a good way to gain editing practice without having any WP:COI. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And don't worry about "doing something wrong". Everyone here has messed up on here at some point. Everything is fixable. Actually breaking things we leave to the developers ;-) - X201 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed some material from the controversies section of the article. One paragraph was about a special issue of a scholarly journal critically examining the role of the ICG, which didn't seem to me to be the source of controversy, and the other was about Gareth Evans, but the sources made no mention of his ICG role, so it's not clear that they are criticising ICG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement Nick Moyes! This feels a bit like learning a new language and while everyone is having elaborate adult conversations I am stuck in the baby-talk stage. Great point on editing other pages, I see that some of our peer organisations do not have elaborate pages so I can help there!

Cordless Larry Thank you for those edits. The comment from Gareth Evans was indeed made when he was Foreign Minister of Australia, not during his time at ICG. It is also interesting that the ones making these edits have highlighted the funding from Qatar (first falsely stated as 23% of Crisis Group's budget as seen in the Edits history) by creating a new paragraph highlighting only this particular funding and separating it from the main paragraph on funding, which explains that 68% of all Crisis Group funding comes from Governments and Foundations. I question what purpose it serves to single out this one government but I am choosing my battles here.

One question, for some reason the text has been changed so the Program Directors mentioned for both Asia and Europe are former staff. However, the only source I have for the new Program Directors is Crisis Group's website. What can I do if this information keeps getting changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidsa (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to cite an organisation's own website for uncontroversial information such as staff lists, Sidsa. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sidsa: I suggest that further discussion specific to that article should be on it's "talk page" – Talk:International Crisis Group. Also, I don't know if you've seen it, but your own talk page (User talk:Sidsa) has a nice welcome message with links to many articles that are useful to newcomers. Thanks again for your attention to all this. It's encouraging when we see newcomers that have your level of concern for what we're trying to do here, and I look forward to your future contributions. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How to delete my draft

Hi there,

I have recently created a draft or two only to find there is already one now I have a draft that is useless and I don't know how to get rid of it.

Could anyone tell me how to delete it? If not or you feel it would be safer to do it yourself then the draft is 1973-74 Leeds United A.F.C. season.

User:2a02:c7f:9616:2800:1c7c:cf3f:2db:9edd (talk)

I've gone ahead and done so as an author request. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9616:2800:1C7C:CF3F:2DB:9EDD (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I move the page?

Hi everyone, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing Richard Wayne Lewis I put in a page move request 7 days ago which can be found on the article's talk page. There have been no objections to the move and one user has supported the move. The request has now been live for 7 days, is it ok if I go ahead and move the page myself as I am having difficulty finding someone to move it for me. Essayist1 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: After the previous discussion at the Teahouse, I think it is safe to say you can. I will take full responsibility in the case that others disagree. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The 7 days doesn't expire until later this afternoon. Leave it until then. Why the hurry? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a very pro-active person. I must say I find it a little confusing when I keep getting mixed responses from different editors like this. Essayist1 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Essayist1: That's the nature of a volunteer project like this without a specific central authority. I would agree with David, though. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done (moved) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone delete my draft?

Hi I need my draft Nathaniel Phillips could someone do it for me?

User:REDMAN 2019 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You can request deletion of your draft by tagging it with {{db-g7}}. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 12:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Douts regarding reference.

Hello, i have some questions regarding referencing the article, can we put blogspot, facebook, twitter, instagram links as a reference for the article. Hamidkhatri (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Since these are user-generated sources, they cannot be used to establish WP:Notability and are not usually considered WP:Reliable sources, but occasionally they might be used for uncontroversial facts. Dbfirs 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hamidkhatri, welcome to the Teahouse. Just adding to what Dbfirs said, you can find some particular guidelines at WP:BLOGS and, just below it, WP:TWITTER. All the best › Mortee _talk 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Hamidkhatri (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

HELP - Terribly confused

First, Wikipedia has always been one of my most important sites...and helped this old man who is simply not that tech savvy! For that I thank all of you who strive to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the website. Second, I believe I clicked the wrong thing one too many times and somehow got myself engaged in a chat that is simply over my head. My intention was to ask if my credentials qualified me to be added to the Wikipedia page which lists notable people from the State of West Virginia. After reviewing the requirements and realizing that I more than adequate validation from reliable news agencies and mainstream network media, I then attempted to copy and paste some of the links to major press releases, network television coverage, local and national network news and local, regional and national media publications specific to my achievements. I must have done something really wrong because the responses I received appeared to be of a disciplinary nature and actually hurt this old man’s feelings - which I’m sure none of you meant to do intentionally. Lastly, if any of you folks with Wikipedia can give me some advice on the proper way to make my inquiry with the right department, on the right forum and not take up any more of your time by having to address my technical shortcomings, please do so when, and only when, responding to me doesn’t interfere and you have a few minutes for me. Thank you so much and again, please forgive me. Sincerely, T. Osborne Inventor & Entrepreneur - ABC’s Hit Reality Show SHARK TANK. President & Chief Operations Officer - BioWALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCIBBInventor (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

CCIBBInventor Your account's edit history indicates that you haven't edited any pages other than the Teahouse and Help Desk. There also hasn't been any recent edits to List of people from West Virginia so I'm wondering if you were editing a different article while logged out? 331dot (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, T.Osborne. If you want your name to be enshrined in the list of notable people you mention, you have to have an article about yourself on Wikipedia. That would be a WP:Autobiography (read the article). You also need to read and understand the articles listed o your Talk page. The distinction of being mentioned in Wikipedia is, in my opinion, vastly overrated.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for trying to help me. Also, to Quisqualis...I appreciate your advice and personally agree with you about the list being overrated. I am losing a parent soon due to tragic illness. I simply wanted and intended to make my name visible on the list, something that we viewed together on many instances, prior to having to say goodbye. At this point, It would seem that divine intervention would be needed for that to be possible...even if it were to be uploaded and made visible for just a few days, just long enough for Mama to see it once...and then, I would ask that it be taken down anyway for the very reasons you describe. Thanks for attempting to help folks...I appreciate you and again, I’m sorry I just don’t have the skills to see this through. It’s just not the sort of thing I want to instruct my executive assistant or my IT team to do for me. You may feel free delete me from the site. CCIBBInventor (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CCIBBInventor: I am sorry to hear of your difficult time. I have seen other requests similar to this before, children stating they have a terminal illness who want to be a Wikipedia administrator before they pass away(for example)- and it's hard to say this, but we have to discount such reasoning in the course of operating this encyclopedia. Just as the Boston Red Sox will not allow someone with a terminal illness to be a starting pitcher for them, we can't consider illness or difficult situations in what edits or content is permitted. Content must meet the relevant notability criteria and other guidelines. Wikipedia really isn't that big a deal, anyway. This is just an encyclopedia.

If you no longer wish to edit Wikipedia, you may simply abandon your account; it is not possible to delete an account. Again, I am sorry to hear about your situation at this difficult time. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

While I completely understand and appreciate your response, I must say it was very inconsiderate and certainly changes the way I feel about Wikipedia. I understand you have to convey the business rules, but using the Baseball story was completely uncalled for. I only hope the the rest of your colleagues who interface with others seeking help are a little more compassionate than you and able to communicate effectively. Shame on you. CCIBBInventor (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CCIBBInventor: It was not my intention to give offense, simply trying to be clear. I unconditionally apologize. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• CCIBBInventor, yes, you are terribly confused! To call out an editor here who was trying to help you here like that. You are the one who should be ashamed imho. --Malerooster (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

331dot - even with my limited internet skills and preference of face-to-face human interaction much more so than though cyberspace, I believe your apology is sincere, that your comments we not intended to be disrespectful, therefore your apology is accepted and I too am sorry for my harsh response. But I think its best that we sever ties at this point and say farewell. Good luck, God bless and Goodbye. ×××× — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCIBBInventor (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Help fixing category page

On the ‘Category:Military–industrial_complex’ page, what needs to be done to put the 3 links preceding the ‘A’ set into their proper place? Thx Humanengr (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Humanengr, hope you're well. Those pages are sorted to the top because they've been given a blank sort key. That's what the pipe is doing in e.g. [[Category:Military–industrial complex| ]] on the main Military–industrial complex article. Because that one's the main article for the category, it's right that it goes there. The other two could be sorted in amongst the other categories by deleting the pipes. Sometimes a general but not main article is best sorted between that and the others, which is done with an asterisk after the pipe. Best, › Mortee _talk 18:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

thx @Mortee, thx for instructions on those intricacies. Regards, Humanengr (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: THe convention for special sort keys is at WP:SORTKEY. This is certainly one of those areas that could be more user-friendly. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Two topics: two user names, and; writing my first article.

Hello,

For reasons I do not remember, I have two user names, DriverSafety, and Pierrot2007. I have made at least 10 combined edits under both names.

Q1. Can I combine my editing history under DriverSafety and then delate Pierrot2007.

Q2. I would like to create my first article that describes the company I work for. I am confident the brief article has Notability (with 15 outside references).

Thanks,--Pierrot2007 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pierrot2007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not possible to combine the edit histories of two accounts, nor is it possible to delete accounts. You can identify your current account as a successor to your other account and abandon the account you don't want to use anymore.

Regarding your other question, creating an article about your employer is highly discouraged as a conflict of interest. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing regarding some required disclosures you need to make and information about contributing in an area where you have a conflict of interest(COI). 331dot (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating An Article

Hello. I would like to know if there is a simpler way to create an article for Wikipedia, as I find the sandbox confusing.

Also, how do you get templates into the sandbox?

Thanks, The Raging Bull 180 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Raging Bull 180 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey The Raging Bull 180. You may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Wikipedia can have a bit of a learning curve, especially if you're not familiar with certain types of common markup used on the internet, but these should help you get a bit more acquainted with the way things work. GMG^talk 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I can help with an article without publishing it?

Can an experienced editor see my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SL2Connect/sandbox

If you can Phase II has only been added and not edited. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by SL2Connect (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Major problem is that most of the references are to the OUR website. What an organization says about itself is not considered a reliable source. What is required are references to content written about OUR Ecovillage by people with no connection to the organization. David notMD (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploading photos

How can I upload photos please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.51.26 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 185.5.51.26. Welcome to the Teahouse! I think that this information page might be what you're looking for. If you have any more questions, I'll try my best to help. Clovermoss (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Help expanding political articles

I fancy myself quite good at political sciences do you have any articles you need expanded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIndia (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi IIndia, welcome to the Teahouse. I've split your question into a section of its own because it seems separate from the photo question above. Thanks for wanting to help Wikipedia! I've added a template with some general links to your talk page that you might find useful. For politics in particular, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. They have a to do list and an automated list of politics-related articles that have been tagged for cleanup. Hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 12:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Does wikipedia host any contest on editing materials?

Does wikipedia host any contest on editing materials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suklav (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Suklav, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there are innumerable editing events held around the world each year, both in real life and/or online. Some are just meetups, others are 'editathons' and a few are target focussed, occasionally with prizes. However, I really think Wikipedians are rubbish at gathering all these events details into one place so as to promote them properly. I would first take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Calendar and the (sadly rarely updated) programme at the bottom of this page: WP:EDITATHON. Our Women in Red project runs monthly themed events to improve articles on women (women are very poorly represented on Wikipedia, both in terms of content and makeup of editors). Anyone can join up to these events, and add their contributions to the event page. Usually 'prizes' are nominal to non-existent - it's the taking part and doing well that counts here. Sometimes you may find more regional information if you visit a relevant wikiproject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject India where events may be promoted. I hope this helps. I'll send you a welcome message to your talk page which includes information on Women in Red. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Template

I've spent a while looking at how to edit properly and use tools, etc, but I cannot figure out how to put a language template on my userpage. Could anybody help? MayodKOR (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@MayodKOR: Do you mean a userbox saying what languages you speak and to what level? You seem to have successfully placed a couple on your userpage, so I'm not sure what else you're after. Can you give a bit more info, or point me to an example of someone else's page that has the template you want? Hug^syrup 08:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: My question was already answered at the help desk, sorry. Should have blanked or removed this section. What I haven't had answered is how to make a collapsible holding box for userboxes in general. Thanks, -MayodKOR (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, this is one reason why we ask people not to post the same question in multiple places at once. You can use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} but that seems only to work across the full width of the page, not the tidy little userbox container that I use, and that you are using right now. There may not be an easy way to achieve what you're after, and I can't remember seeing anyone else who has done this, but if you can point me to any examples it should be fairly easy to work out how it's done. Hug^syrup 09:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@MayodKOR:, And again, you had asked the follow-up at both places, and had already got an answer there. This is why it's a bad idea to ask the same question at different venues concurrently, it wastes volunteer effort needlessly. The helpdesk answer is more specific but to add to the general answer provided here, you can find a list of related templates at Template:Collapsible templates. The easiest way still is to copy code from a userpage that implements what you want and adapt it for your own. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 09:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I'll try to refrain from doing it again. MayodKOR (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When does a new page get accepted for publication?

I have created two pages about two new books which have been published. The pages have been uploaded as drafts. Since I joined Wikipedia community 4 days ago, the pages require approval before they are online. I would like to know how and when does that happen?

The two pages are "Tata Vs Mistry" and "Mind Without Fear" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonononononoon (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome Nonononononoon! Typically, it does not take more than 8-12 weeks for an article to be reviewed by an Articles for Creation reviewer, though some articles get reviewed more quickly. Assuming the article is free of any issues, it will then be published. Otherwise it will be declined and you'll be given feedback on areas for improvement and invited to resubmit it. Note that the preceding are all generalities and individual timelines may vary. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nonononononoon, a draft needs to be submitted for review before it can be reviewed by volunteers at Articles for Creation. You can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft here User:Nonononononoon/sandbox has no sources, please add reliable sources first or it will be declined immediately. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies I see you have a draft here Draft:Mind Without Fear also. Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2019

In MWF, large portions of text, including people being quoted, are without references. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

NOT in category?

Is it technically possible to have a template or link that gives you a random page that is NOT in a category? BEANS X2 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I believe not, but there might be workarounds to whatever it is you actually want to achieve. What is it? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@BEANS X2: You can go to Category:Wikipedia backlog then find the categories on the left titled ‘Articles needing additional categories from (date)’. These categories have articles in that have no/very few categories in them. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, try going to Category:Uncategorized pages then click the bold, blue sentence after the second paragraph. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing semi protected pages

How can I edit semi protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinaJ (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@AlbinaJ: Click on the page you want to edit. Then click on "Submit an edit request" then type what changes you want to make, then click on publish changes. After your request, an editor will shortly review your request.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating company's wikipedia page

How many references or external links are needed to create a new Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendrasalvi (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mahendrasalvi: There is no set number. References are really needed for two reasons (and these overlap). Firstly, you need enough to show the overall notability of the subject. In some cases, a single really good source could be enough for that, for example one source that says someone has won an Oscar will be sufficient because we generally accept that anyone who has won an Oscar is notable. Equally, for a company, notability might be established with just a couple of really good, in-depth articles in well-respected publications like the New York Times or The Guardian. For other companies, it might be a case of lots of articles that reference the company but where it isn't the main topic, so it might take ten to establish notability. Hence why it is impossible to give a fixed number.

And then there is the second reason for sources, which is that every major claim in the article must be backed up with a source. That probably means at least one per paragraph, but sometimes a lot more. Therefore, longer articles will inevitably need lots of references, while shorter ones might need fewer. Hug^syrup 09:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mahendrasalvi I would note that if you are associated with the company you want to write about, you will need to read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID, two important policies. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Need constructive critique, not copy paste dismissal

Hi there,

I am trying to write my first wikipedia article. Its been rejected twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/draft/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Andrew_Evans_(travel_writer)

The reason provided is a copy and paste reads like an advert with no substantive advice on how to improve the article. As a professional editor, I find this frustrating and disrespectful. I am trying to make a contribution because I frankly feel that this personality whom I personally know. He has a ton of TV shows and books and a huge following, and I've followed him from day 1 on his bus ride to antarctica, there are a lot of articles written about him. I believe he is much more notable than many of the other Andrew Evans' on wikipedia, yet there is nothing here on probably the best known one. I havn't spoken to him, about what I'm doing, but I am concerned about the apparent request to eliminate primary sources all together from the article.

I respectfully request some constructive input on how to get this past the gate keepers here, so I don't have to waste a bunch more time on this.

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biologyfishman (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Biologyfishman: - it's not really the place of the reviewers to give lots of advice on how to improve the article, but you will find that the notes they have left include links to a number of policies, which include lots of advice. Have you read all of these? They leave copy-paste replies because they are volunteers giving up their time to review the huge number of articles that people submit. I am sure they find it frustrating and disrespectful when they leave a note giving lots of links to policies and information pages, and then an article is re-submitted that looks as if the author has not read the information given.

One of the points that the reviewer makes is that there is a lack of reliable sources. I agree with that assessment. There are currently a lot that are either: non-reliable blogs, the subject's own work, author bio pages on publications he writes for, etc. I think there is a good chance that the subject is notable, but you need to demonstrate this. Trying to pack the article with as many references as possible, when many are poor quality, actually makes it more likely to be rejected. Instead, read WP:RS and strip out everything that is not a really top-quality reliable source. Everything that is by Evans and not about him, everything that is a blog/website and not a reliable publication, and everything that is a biography or summary and not a journalistic article or book. Then see what you have left, and if it doesn't seem like enough, go and hunt down a couple more sources.

Finally, if you are getting frustrated with the process or feel like you are wasting time then you are, of course, free to simply stop or take a break. No one needs a Wikipedia article, and there is no rush to create one for Evans or anyone else. Hug^syrup 10:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly you have what we call a conflict of interest if you know him. Also there is a problem with the tone, content like "Evans works with destinations to weave a larger epic travel narrative" 'Evans also shares his love of travel" "an avid following on social media through instagram, twitter and Facebook" "landed his first book deal" "establish 'digital travel influencer' as a career path" " built an audience of thousands of twitter fans" " developed a taste for international travel at the age of 16" is not neutral, we just need the dry facts with no embellishment. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I left a more detailed draft-specific answer at AfC Help Desk (before I noticed the double discussion). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing / Vandalism ?

I was working on the page for Jearld Moldenhauer which has been identified as a stub. I added some new biographical content and two new sources and did some basic copy-editing. I was flagged first for unconstructive edits and then disruptive editing, but I don't understand why - I didn't remove anything, but the warning was as follows:

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jearld Moldenhauer, you may be blocked from editing. Please read the notes you've been given - you are repeatedly replacing good, reliable citations with low quality, unreliable sources. Please at least acknowledge reading this before continuing as it's disruptive. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove or replace any citations. The two sources I did add were from a scholarly source. I responded to the user that flagged the edits but got no response. So I don't understand the warning or how to proceed. Michneri (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: GMG^talk 13:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if in one of your edits you copy-pasted a load of content in from a draft, which isn't ideal as it makes it very hard to identify what, exactly, you changed. And you also seem to have pasted in a {{user sandbox}} template along with it which I appreciate was probably accidental, but is also not helpful and would probably have led me to revert your edit as well. However I agree that, as far as I can tell, you didn't remove any citations you only added them. If you give Praxidicae a bit more time, they may reply to your message at their talk page or chip in here to explain further.Hug^syrup 13:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There are several issues here that I found disruptive, the first was that you were replacing books with a website which you are affiliated with and second, you added content which was basically the equivalent of a trip itinerary while placing inappropriate templates, numerous times in both articles. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the sandbox template was a mistake which I did notice and fixed immediately, and I will refrain from copy-pasting in a load of content from drafts in the future. However, I did not replace any books, at most I moved a citation for clarity when I added a sentence. We can disagree over the value of the content I added, though I would argue it was historically significant, however that wasn't what was flagged as a problem. The website, regardless of affiliation, is a digitized and publicly accessible version of a book that's already cited on the page and that I did not write.Michneri (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ref #2 is Moldenhaur's website and ref #4 is dead. Ref #2 is used for some simple factual text, so not a big problem. Ref #4 should be rescued or replaced. As I entered on Talk, surprised that there is no content post-1972. Did JM retreat from activism? David notMD (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ref#4 should be replaced with this new link (the archive has redone their website and the page was moved). He continued to be active past 1972, I had added content from 1974 and was working to add more, but that was when it was reverted. Michneri (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How to review drafts?

Hi I am wondering if I could be of any help with draft review? I have been on Wikipedia several years and although my account is recently created I would like to help. could anyone tell me how to review them perhaps? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:10 23 August 2019 (GMT)

Just FYI, you typed a username in, but the edit history indicates that a IP made this edit. Please remember to log in before posting so your edits are properly attributed to you. Regarding your question, you can find more information about reviewing drafts at the WikiProject for Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the draft review and sorry about the username I will remember to sign in next time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9616:2800:DE6:88C4:8FFB:9810 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, you will need to place a request here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants, but given how new your account is I suspect they may be unlikely to approve you as it will be very difficult for them to assess your previous edits and whether you have a solid understanding of the necessary policies. You might find you need to edit under your new account for a couple of months first, and they will probably want to see some participation in WP:AFD and maybe WP:CSD as a way to show that you understand what makes an article suitable for approval. Hug^syrup 15:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Does interview content disqualify an article as a source?

I've drafted this page, but it's not been approved because of a lack of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Otis_Mensah

The editor says it does not quite satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:AUTHOR.

In WP:MUSICBIO it says 'publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves' may not be suitable. The editor seems to suggest that if a source has interview material in it, it might not be appropriate.

I'm not experienced with Wikipedia, but this doesn't seem quite right.

Can anyone please advise? I don't want to resubmit and have the article rejected!

Many thanks

Mikeysandford (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeysandford: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. An interview is considered a primary source, as it comes from the subject themselves, and as such is not acceptable for establishing notability. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject. If a source is entirely an interview, it would not be acceptable. If a source only contains snippets of an interview, it would depend on what the source says and how much of its content depends on that interview. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What people say about themselves in an interview is not considered a reliable source. Because people might lie. Or inadvertently err. Ditto subject's own website, Facebook, other social media and IMBd. Did you include https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/nov/23/sheffields-first-hip-hop-poet-laureate-gone-are-the-days-of-tradition ? David notMD (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm...not to muddy the waters here, but the waters are a bit muddy here. Yes, interviews are considered a primary source for the informational content of what someone says about themselves. Whether an interview counts toward notability has been the subject of a great deal of debate with fairly strong feelings on both sides. These are generally secondary publications, despite the fact that the content of the interview itself is primary in nature. These may also include a good deal of contextual content written by the source itself that is not simply a reprinting of the transcript of the interview, and this content would generally be considered secondary. GMG^talk 15:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mikeysandford: That particular line in WP:MUSICBIO is a little questionable in my view. The point it is making is that an interview is not really independent, and using what an individual has said about themselves as a source for an encyclopedia is not ideal. So far, fair enough. However, my view is that the fact that a reliable source like the Guardian chooses to profile an artist is a good indicator of notability, and simply the fact that that profile is based on an interview should not lessen that.

However, I think the reviewer's comment that the article is currently borderline and would benefit from one more source is perfectly fair. If you can find that source it seems like you will have no issues with it being rejected again. Other than that, I'm not sure that anyone here can help much - if you disagree, you'd be better of talking to the reviewer directly at their talk page. Hug^syrup 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How to improve my edits?

There are many common methods to improve an edit like use of proper citations, and correct facts. But is there any way we can write about something which is traditional but yet not revealed on the internet but people have the relevant knowledge of that topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delhidutyfrees (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How to correct a page when I am not allowed to edit?

I was reading an article and discovered an error. I tried to edit it, but found out that this particular page requires editors to have made 500 past edits. I know the information on the page is incorrect, how can I get it corrected?