Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, 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

Reference issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name change and disambiguation

Hannah Elsy is a retired British rower, now a sports sponsorship consultant with the surname Burkitt (from Hannah Burkitt (née Elsy) in LinkedIn).

Hannah Elsy (Producer) is a theatrical producer based in London and active since 2014. I recently created the Hannah Elsy (Producer) page, and I have added notes at the top of each 'Hannah Elsy' page to link to the other.

The Hannah Elsy rower page is sparse and marked 'This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification ...'. There is no page for Hannah Burkitt.

Google searches for 'Hannah Elsy' currently mix bio details for Hannah Elsy (the rower) with photos of Hannah Elsy (the producer) and social media links for Hannah Elsy (the producer) in the knowledge panel at the top of search results.

The current situation - the pages for Hannah Elsy and Hannah Elsy (Producer) have links to each other - works to a point but as the rower page looks moribund and the rower is now active with a different name, is there a better way forward? If so, what?

If I were to move the rower Hannah Elsy to a new page, what would the best new name be? Hannah Burkitt? With birth_name=Elsy added in an infobox? (I would contact Hannah Burkitt first. I just want to be confident in what I suggest.)

If a move like that went ahead, would the original address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Elsy have to auto-redirect to the new page, or could it become a disambiguation page? Or could Hannah Elsy (Producer) be moved to it (as she is the only 'active' Hannah Elsy)?

I know I have asked several questions. Thanks for your patience, and thanks in advance for any advice. Grantem2000 (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Grantem2000. I'd honestly leave them where they are. The rower appears better known by her maiden name, and is arguably the primary topic compared to the producer, whose notability is debatable at best. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zindor: Many thanks. In the meantime the page for the producer has been moved back to draft. Should it be published again I will follow your advice and just leave the 2 pages with links to each other. Regards, Grantem2000 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that Draft:Hannah_Elsy_(Producer) is draft, will be draft for some time, and may never be published, what options are there to clarify that Hannah Elsy, who retired from rowing in 2008, is not Hannah Elsy, the active theatrical producer? What would be allowable on the page for Hannah Elsy the rower to cover this? Regards, Grantem2000 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You could add the WP:HATNOTE template {{About}} or {{Distinguish}} to the top of the article if you believe there's a real concern that some readers might mix the two Elsy's up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding an interactive map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, agreed. More:

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

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

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

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

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

Very broad questions about Wikipedia and about your experience as Wikipedians.

Hello Wikipedians,

I'm gathering information for a school assignment. It would be tremendously helpful as many of you as possible would answer some or all of the following questions.

Your role

• What exactly do you do (most specific user group)?
• How long have you been an editor/admin/user of Wikipedia?
• How active are you in that capacity?
• Do you consider this your primary occupation or only a hobby (regardless of pay)?

Your thoughts

• What do you think of Wikipedia as a project?
• What do you see in the future for the site?
• How might the subjects covered by Wikipedia be expanded?

Your experience

• What have you seen, do you have any stories?
• How big a problem is vandalism?
• How easily is vandalism dealt with?

Please direct your answers to User:Timbktoo/Survey thank you! -Timothy Baker Timbktoo (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Timbktoo: I took the liberty of fixing your bullet points for easier readability. Per Wikipedia:About, "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay." You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Books (compiling articles, which may be similar to your idea about "courses") and Wikipedia:Vandalism. GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Timbktoo, you're right, there are some very broad questions here! I wonder if there's a better place to collate the answers than directly at the Teahouse, since it could get very long. Perhaps you could make a sub-page of your userpage (User:Timbktoo/Survey, maybe) and ask for people to respond there? If there's one question you're particularly interested in, that might also help to get more people replying. Wikipedia is big and complicated, so it might be difficult for people to answer such a comprehensive set of questions in anything shorter than a small book! All the best with your assignment › Mortee _talk 01:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Timbktoo: Do you know if your instructor is going thru WP:School and university projects for this course? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: I don't believe that they are, I chose Wikipedia as a topic.Timbktoo (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mortee: I've done as you suggested and created a page for responses. Any responses should go there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbktoo (talk • contribs) 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How to be the owner of a Software that is not yet developed? And how to be the developer of that software?

And I'm a programmer I'm busy working with the Tox Protocol, So Please I need your assistance to put the name Tox, as a developer of this software, on the Tox developer side!  Gkmw (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gkmw: Hi there! The Teahouse is a "friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia". We can't help you with software creation or development, but let us know if you have a question about Wikipedia. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please, put the name Tox? As a developer of this software. On the Tox Protocol? If possible thanks so much. Gkmw (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gkmw: If you have a suggestion for the Tox (protocol) article, you can post it on the article's talk page, Talk:Tox (protocol), with a reliable source that can be used as a reference. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Edid, Tox Protocol

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I edid that page? Please I need your assistance! Gkmw (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gkmw: Please don't create a new section header to continue the same conversation. To learn how to edit, you may be interested in Help:Introduction to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. GoingBatty (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gkmw: If you're a programmer busy working with the Tox Protocol, you should refrain from directly editing the article, as you would have a conflict of interest. You can go to the article's talk page and submit an edit request with a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Aare you saying that there is a person named Tox, and that this information belongs in the History section of the article? Is there a reference to confirm that? David notMD (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gkmw, and welcome to the Teahouse. If your software is not yet developed, then it is almost certainly TOOSOON, and probably does not, at present, belong anywhere in Wikipedia. If you are trying to get your name (or the name of your software) into Wikipedia, then you are engaging in promotion, which is not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Citations

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

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

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

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

Album missing

Return to forever album missing. 1975 Electric Lady. https://www.discogs.com/Return-To-Forever-Electric-Lady-Studio-NYC-June-1975/release/7248631 please add 2601:644:0:F330:CCE:C48B:8961:9EBE (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to Return to Forever, you are more than welcome to add the information yourself to the article. If you need help with referencing, you may want to see WP:EASYREFBEGIN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, after checking the list of perennial reliable sources, do you have any other source that has this information? Discogs' content is user-generated and thus unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It might not be included because Discogs lists it as an "Unofficial Release". You may want to discuss it at the article's talk page: Talk:Return to Forever. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References changing between read view and edit view

Hello! I am wondering if anyone would have insight as to why the numbers on citations would change when switching from read view to edit view on an article? I would like to suggest the removal of a source on the Peloton (company) page because the source is not accessible without a paid subscription (sidebar: is this a rule about sources?). The source is number 45 in the read view of the article, out of 46 total references, but when I switch to edit view the number changes to 43. Also, in edit view there are still 46 total references in the references section, but the highest number is 44 in the body of the article. Any reason for this discrepancy? Thanks! Let me know if further clarification is needed. Mcooley509 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mcooley509. Just for reference, as long as a source is considered to be reliable, is published and is used in proper context, it can still be cited in an article even if it requires a paid subscription to view it; so, you shouldn't simply remove the source for that reason alone. As for the rest of your question, the references aren't changing per se; the same number are being cited in both view modes. It's just that some of them are formatted as WP:REFNAME; so, if you search the edit mode for "<ref>" using Ctrl+f, you're only going to find the references that are formatted that way; try searching "<ref" or "</ref>" instead and see if the numbers don't match up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Mcooley509 (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mcooley509: Basically ignore the numbers. They are assigned automatically by possibly different software between preview and read mode, which may process them in a different order. They will routinely change with edits that add or move refs, or even changes to templates that are transcluded by an article, which may add their own references. Refs are also numbered differently if you edit and preview just a section instead of the whole article (or even emit an "error" if the ref is defined outside the section). So, if you want to mention a cite on a discussion page, you generally have to give the title or something else unique about it instead of the number. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mcooley509: You use VisualEditor and most experienced editors don't so the previous posters couldn't see what you refer to. You have spotted a bug in VisualEditor. After two references in the infobox parameters of Peloton (company), VisualEditor starts over the count at 1 in the article body, so reference number 3 to 46 are incorrectly numbered 1 to 44. VisualEditor displays the correct number in the references section so the bug is confusing. I don't know whether the bug has been reported somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Users

Hello, I am a new user to wikipedia, and I had a question about new users registering. Does wikipedia automatically send an new registered user an message in there talk page when they have registered, just an question. Thanks. 10-Is-Lucky (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't. I see you started going through The Wikipedia Adventure, which auto-generates a message on your user talk page, but other than that, welcome messages are given by volunteers who take it upon themselves to welcome new users. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuuu: Thanks, I'll welcome users. Lucky10 🧊 Userpage 🦜Talk 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits made using WP:Twinkle

I've been trying to see if there is a way to change the "tag: twinkle" that is affixed to any edit made using twinkle, but it doesn't seem that's possible. Is there any way to change or remove that? —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 08:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Imo, WT:Twinkle is better place to ask the question since the developer are there. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 08:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox syntax

Is it okay for the infobox to have no spaces and each parameter not on new line? Imo, it isn't okay even though it still render fine but it's horrible to look at when editing, however I'm not sure which guidelines it's violating. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 08:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: While other types of templates usually have their parms inline, the typical infobox has a much larger number of parms, so editors have pretty much universally adopted the "vertical" layout for readability in edit mode. I doubt there is (or even should be) a specific policy or guideline – it's a matter of playing nice with others in this project that relies on collaboration. I suppose it could be regarded as disruptive. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Hi, thanks for the reply. Understood. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 10:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(c) for photo from books

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

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

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

Hi Arminden.

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

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

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

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

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

How can I make my site Reliable

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

Please give me my question;

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

2) What steps will I have to take?

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

4) What thing I have to remove from my site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help with creating a good article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another subpage

How to get another subpage to my userpage? I would like to have another sandbox (whatever you them). Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Peter, welcome to the Teahouse. You can create new subpages by appending a text string after your user page.

For example, if you're doing it in your browser's address bar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenryuu/Example

or as a wikilink: [[User:Tenryuu/Example]] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks dude. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New User Template

I have added New User Template on my account. However I am unable to write anything in that. Would request someone to explain me how it works and how to use it. Thank you. Stanford113 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Stanford113, welcome to the Teahouse. {{New user}} only asks for an image (which is optional) in its parameters. Anything you add after it will appear under the "About me" section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Yu-Chen Wang Submission declined

Dear Teahouse Unfortunately my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yu-Chen_Wang has not been accepted. I can't see why it wouldn't not show enough significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There is still more to be written about this artist, of course, but I thought there were enough references to proof they qualify for a Wikipedia article. What is missing? Kind regards, thanks for your help! Sabine Hagmann (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabine Hagmann, welcome to the Teahouse. I did not a review bc I am personally not confident with WP:NARTIST but I saw directly for example given sources like Facebook which are none at all - you can also ask the Reviewer directly what their reasons might have been MurielMary. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Young_In_Hong Submission declined

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

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

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

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

Article has an advisory saying it reads like an advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

write new article - specific topic's notability, copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

KCTU-LD's Affiliation with MeTV

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

Biography for Cubanlynk

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

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cubanlynk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use transparency on small font sample or use white background?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

help frommy talk page

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

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

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

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

Edits to Susan Lontine

Hello,

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

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

Wikipedia Thesis Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiona Graham

Under the court case section...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uploading Pictures and Documets

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

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

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

Can't request an article for Norm Architects

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

How to published a draft

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

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

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

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

Editors Abuse is permitted by wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Ornalik of Zaram Band

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Draft:Olšina (Ralsko)

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

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

Thank you for your time and efforts.

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

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

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

Citing a book

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Inconsistency in some Chemistry articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting page

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

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

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

You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) to be blocked from further editing. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (easily remembered by the shortcut WP:WARN). Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself.Template:Z36--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

blue colored links

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

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

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

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

What Makes Quality Sources?

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

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

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

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

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

Mexican State Flags

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

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

finding citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing query...

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

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

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

How to make wikipedia agile and collaborative?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about judging notability of current events

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

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

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

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

Person I know page editing

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

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

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

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

Accusation of child abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Draft has wrong name

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

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

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

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

Stub for Horlah Oladeji

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

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

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

Table weird bold

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

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

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

Maximilian Acevedo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Reliable Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corporate Notability

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cubix (company)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request review for someone else's edits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a reliable source, or too biased?

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

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

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

Where should I write this piece

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

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

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

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

How do you make a page?

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

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

Editing pages on Wikipedia

Hi

Why can I not edit on Wikipedia anymore?

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

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

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

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

Deleted notable links

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

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

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

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

UI for creating new articles

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

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

Create account but the captcha security code does not show up

Trying to create a account and the captcha security code does not show up I need to known how to get it solved as captcha works on other websites but not Wikipedia Email me at ksmith2001@yahoo.com 64.222.180.90 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Error in a link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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