Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg

For starters, it's pretty acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Landsmannschaft_Zaringia_Heidelberg Could you remove the word "draft" please. Wname1 (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether Draft:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg meets en:Wikipedia's standard of notability, as I don't have access to any of the sources cited (and I know very little German). But the translation needs some work. E.g. "Fuchsband", "Vandal-Band", "couleur", "percussion", "rippon", "Bursche", "beat", "Mensur", "hit", "Diemerei". "Mensur" and "percussion" are wikilinked, but apparently to different senses of those words. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is your third attempt to create an article, and the other two, while accepted, still have tags indicating quality problems, I recommend you submit this draft to AfC and see what a reviewer thinks. Because of backlog of drafts, could be months before reviewed. Work on improving the draft. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible on Wikipedia to use a short Mensur video even though you don't know who made the Mensur video? Wname1 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be copyright infringement. And, do not bold comments. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the current article acceptable? Wname1 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wname1 I am not a reviewer. The next step is to submit the draft. There is a backlog of thousands of drafts waiting for review. It is not a queue, so could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before it is reviewed. If Declined, the reviewer will provide reasons why. Fix those, then submit again. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In comparison, these articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsmannschaft_Schottland and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_Saxo-Borussia_Heidelberg were probably simply accepted quickly. Although the Draft: Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg already looks sufficient for the start in the comparison of the 2 other articles. Wname1 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the article Draft: Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg now acceptable for removal from the Draft: Now? Wname1 (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wname1 The draft has been submitted to Articles for Creation, for review by a Reviewer. I strongly recommend letting this process go forward. Given backlog, it can be days, weeks or (sadly) months for a review (the system is not a queue). Do not remove Comments. If Declined, do not remove the Declined notice before resubmitting. You have an option of by-passing AfC and converting this to an article directly. I recommend against this choice. All such are reviewed by New Pages Patrol, a separate group of reviewers. Their options are accept, return to draft, nominate for deletion (AfD) and Speedy Deletion. Lastly, the fact that other stuff exists does not guarantee acceptance. Among the millions of articles, there are tens of thousands that do not meet current standards. The examples you gave were created years ago, without having gone through AfC. That said, I believe Zaringia is notable, but the draft needs more work. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the used terms are explained under Couleur. "Perkussion" is a metal thread woven into the sides of the ribbon/band. Kallewirsch (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I had replaced "percussion" with "mantling" on a guess. Should be fixed. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Upper band with perkussion in silver

I think that doesn´t hit the point. I placed a photo for example with two ribbons. The upper one has silver perkussion and is worn by normal members (Bursche), the lower one is without and worn by newbies (Fuchs).Kallewirsch (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Perkussion" is not defined in the Couleur article. David notMD (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats why I explained it here. In the german version of the couleur article there is some more information. Not too long to use it for mechanical translation. Kallewirsch (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

See if perkussion now used correctly in article. David notMD (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Very good. The perkussion is the reason for the small stripes shown on images of the colours, have a look at this list. Most of these terms are rarely used outside the community or if, with a different meaning. Maybe a glossary or a list of these as an article at WP would be helpful. Kallewirsch (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to show a video from year 1913 on Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg page. This is a Sabre Mensur between Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg and Cheruskia. Do you know a video expert person on wikipedia? I tried it on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard, unfortunately it doesn't work. Thanks, Wname1 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability Doubt

Those members of parliament or other state or national legislative bodies that are appointed by president – are they included in WP:NPOL? It says “Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels”. So it doesn’t discriminate between elected or appointed members. But want to confirm again. Fishandnotchips (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Elected or appointed - the barrier for notability is, as always, sources. Someone could be elected to Parliament, but if no-one has written about them, they're far less notable than potentially someone "lower" than them who's been written about far more. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Fishandnotchips! No it does not discriminate between the two. We want to have biographies of all members of national and sub-national parliaments, present, past and future; we don't think we ever need to care/consider/evaluate/worry-about whether or not they meet WP:GNG. If you read the adjoining footnote on NPOL, we want to have complete coverage on the MPs regardless of whether we can find WP:SIGCOV on them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've come across something that *kind of* violates usepage policy?

I was bouncing around [[:Category:Geishas]] and editing the article Sada Abe, and I came across the userpage of Japan Writer 64 in the process.

Their userpage reads like a resume, but as far as I can tell, it's meant to have been a draft - it has draft categories, and the edit summaries seem to support this. It's not actually the worst self-promoting draft I've seen; it seems like the user took the time to understand what a draft should be, even if it's not sourced correctly. That's basically Christmas for self-promoting articles.

The user hasn't edited since April, and only has 4 edits, but it does seem a violation of WP:UPNOT, or at least, something that should've been placed in a Draft space. I don't feel able to help out - I can barely find my own draft article, to be honest - but it feels like something that would need action taking, or at least some gentle guidance. Any help? (Thanks!) Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ineffablebookkeeper! The userpage in question seems to be have been speedy deleted under WP:U5. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Need to change a picture on the Betty and Barney Hill page, star map is a fake Zeta Reticuli overlay of Betty Hill' star map, its been confirmed that Zeta Reticuli has no planets

 Steven3951 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie Fish's interpretation of Betty Hill's purported alien star map, with "Sol" (upper right) being the Latin name for the Sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven3951 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Barney_and_Betty_Hill § Analyzing_the_star_map.   Maproom (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Steven3951, welcome to Wikipedia! Yours seems like a proposition for the subject matter experts who would edit that article. I am not sure I even understand what the issue is. Please post your concerns and proposals regarding the article to its talk page, Talk:Barney and Betty Hill, where it may be further discussed among editors of that article. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My page

Hello, I want to know if my page has been posted to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Cervantes Marcorubiocali (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marcorubiocali, no it hasn't, and it won't be - as clearly stated in the text you deleted "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." - Arjayay (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I made a whole new page. The person is known actor. Please review the page for me. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcorubiocali (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A) Teahouse hosts are not reviewers. B) The draft has been nominated for Speedy deletion, meaning it will be gone soon. C) Your attempt to create an article about him under his professional name Draft:George The Matchmaker was speedy deleted last week. Nothing in the drafts established or even hinted at the level of reliable-source notability required to be an article. Persist in this pursuit and you will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Marcorubiocali, I can not see your drafts since they have already been deleted, but please note that actor biographies need to meet the notability criterion at WP:GNG or failing that one of the criteria at WP:NACTOR. You need to find independent, secondary, reliable sources demonstrating that the notability criteria are met. And then, you need to write a draft in a dispassionate neutral language. Don't exaggerate. Don't write what a great actor the subject is; rather, write about his work, and what critics have said about his work, and let the reader decide whether and how great he is. Since you don't have any other edits, I assume you have an interest in only promoting that subject. You need to disclose any conflict of interests you have in wanting to promote this subject, per WP:COI. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for promotion, so if you continue to write promotional drafts and promotional drafts only, you will be considered to have been here to hinder the encyclopedia not build it, and you will be blocked from participating in the project. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review

I was recently doing a GA review for the article Peking Man, and I put the review on hold to give the nominator some time to clear up some confusing/unnecessarily dense language. However, they have said that they don't see what the problem is with the writing and don't want to change it. I'm not quite sure what to do because I feel like the article is very close to GA quality, but some of the sections are very confusing and there are only 2 days left of the hold. Am I allowed to make edits myself to the article in this situation? Or alternatively, does someone mind looking at my comments under the "well-written" section on the review page to see if I am being to strict? Thanks, Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a balance. If the word fits and the sentence scans well, the the big words might be okay if they are being used correctly. The way the editor has used "preponderance" isn't quite right in two of the three instances in the article. I added a comment on the GA thread to note that. —Carter (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Carter: Thank you! Where do you think I should draw the line, then, before the article is ready to be promoted to GA? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Kokopelli7309, I'd probably not fail it for being a little overwritten in a few places, so long as the words were being used correctly. If a reader hits a word they don't know, they're likely will look it up in the dictionary. If there's a casual usage that kinda of fits, but doesn't fully align with the formal definition, then the reader's going to have a problem. That's what we'd want to avoid. —Carter (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kokopelli7309: I would agree with Tcr25. Technical subjects do sometimes need to use technical terms, but avoiding overuse of complex phraseology is also important, especially where simpler words or terms are available. But a simple diet of plain English can be like plain food - it serves its purpose but becomes dull and uninteresting after a while. At a very quick skim read, I don't see an issue with the complexity of the wording. But are there specific words or phrases you would like us to look at?

Although Carter felt the following was OK: "...French archaeologist Henri Breuil suggested the preponderance of skulls compared to body remains is conspicuous, and hypothesised the remains represent the trophies of cannibalistic headhunters,...", I found it to be a bit clumsy, and would suggest the following subtle change: "...French archaeologist Henri Breuil noted the obvious presence of many skulls compared to other animal and human remains, and hypothesised that they represented the trophies of cannibalistic headhunters,...". I certainly would not wish to see a GA being refused on the grounds of 'long words' being used - providing, that is, they are deployed in the right way. Hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. To be clear, the sentence can benefit from some cleaning up, as you showed; I was just pointing to that as the one instance where preponderance was used correctly. —Carter (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tcr25 OK, thanks. My mistake - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Kokopelli7309! Speaking from zero personal experience nominating or reviewing GAs (so salt per your taste), I would advise against making any substantial edits, especially ones that you have disagreement over with the article's author. Because then, you become one of the authors and lose the standing of an independent reviewer. Some editors think minor edits are fine; many don't even correct minor typos, instead pointing them out in the review. If you are not sure, you can ask for a second opinion per review instructions at WP:GAN/I#2O. You may want to go over the FAQ at WT:GAN and ask your questions on that page when you don't find answers you are looking for. You are far more likely to find editors with GAN experience there, than here. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you all for the advice! In the end, I negotiated some of the wording changes with the reviewer and promoted the article. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Image

Claire matt

Is this image acceptable to use on Wikipedia? Peter Ormond 💬 02:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: The license is appropriate. If you want to add it to an article, you could start a discussion on that article's talk page to get other editor's input. RudolfRed (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Or you could just be WP:BOLD and add it, expecting to react politely if anyone objects, as per WP:BRD Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an overall editor in chief?

I’ve tried to edit entries relating to family members, only for someone to remove my corrections! Where do I go to request they’re reinstated, please? Phili64 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Phili64 Welcome to Teahouse, everyone is allowed to edit on Wikipedia as long as they follow the guidelines and policies. I believe you're referring to this this edit, as mentioned by the Sumanuil whom reverted your edit via the edit summary. You changed the image name as well, which means the image would not be displayed because the file name is incorrect which is highly likely why your edit was reverted. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no "Editor in Chief" here, though the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the ability to intervene in certain, very rare cases, being reverted is not upon them. I would say, you could start by talking to Sumanuil about this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Phili64: Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no editor-in-chief on Wikipedia, as it is a volunteer effort. Directly editing articles of family members is frowned upon, as you would have a conflict of interest. The best thing to do would be to create edit requests on the articles' talk pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Phili64: since you have a conflict of interest, the thing to do is ask for changes to the article at the article's talk page. I see you have been trying to change the spelling of one ancestor's name from Peter Paul Dobree to Peter Paul Dobrée. I left a few links on the talk page that show both spellings have been used for about the last two centuries. Discussing the proposed changes on the article talk page will leave a record of the name issue for future readers. --- Possibly ☎ 07:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Being a volunteer organization in no way precludes having an overall editor in chief. Kdammers (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How might I cite a downloaded PDF?

I do apologize if this comes off as trivial, but I am wondering how I would cite a downloaded PDF. To provide some background information, I contacted the California Secretary of State for some old election data an they provided a 216 page PDF with every detail imaginable for me to download. Normally one could simply link to the document in their citation, but from a preliminary glance it seems the document is not available unless you specifically ask the state for it. I have only been editing for a week or so so I do not know the protocol for how one would approach this issue, as I would like an easily accessible sources to back up what I write. SunsetSon (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid but you cannot cite it because it has never been published anywhere. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This is correct. If this information has never been published then it's unusable as a source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

SunsetSon, why can't it be published online? If that could be done (on the government website) it could then be cited. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@SunsetSon:, if they responded to you once before, maybe they will again: try writing back, and ask if they are willing to add a download link to one of the pages on their website that would allow anyone viewing the page to download the pdf they sent you. If they do that, then you will be able to cite the pdf. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was able to find an archive.org link of a PDF of photos of the relevant information. Thank you for the help. SunsetSon (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@SunsetSon: Just for reference, the information doesn't need to be available online as long as it has been published in someway and is reasonably accessible. So, that is indeed one issue that needs to be resolved. Another issue has to do with nature of the source itself since a bunch of data in a report is likely going to be considered a WP:PRIMARY source and may have little use. Any interpretations of the data would need to be made by WP:SECONDARY sources and it seems that adding a bunch of data to articles without any supporting interpretation might be a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING or WP:NOTDATABASE. My suggestion to you might be to start a discussion about this at WP:RSN. Explain what the source is as best as you can and then explain how you want to use it as specifically as you can (e.g. in which articles). Perhaps by knowing the details, the editors who typically hang out at RSN will be able to give you some more specific advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this type of thing but in principle you should be able to upload the .pdf to Commons. It seems to me that it is within scope (see Commons:Project scope) and, as the work of the US government, should be OK from a copyright point of view. You could ask about this at the Commons:Help desk, SunsetSon, and this would set a useful precedent if it is OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested information

My contribution was not accepted for a couple reasons but one was confusing. It said “ We also need to see that others considered this important and wrote about it in reliable sources.” Which makes me think there wasn’t sufficient interests but I was reading another Wikipedia entry and noticed that the title Musicae Sacrae was in red and when I clicked on it there was no entry and Wikipedia itself requested that I write one. So I researched for 4 hours and wrote three drafts before publishing. What more could I have done? Tzagin (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tzagin: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at Draft:Musicae Sacrae, I see only one (misformatted) reference to a primary source. Per Wikipedia's general notability guide, we're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You may add more references and continue working on the draft, and submit it again when it meets this criteria. Help:Your first article also has lots of good information for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Note, Tzagin that any search you do in Wikipedia for specific words that are not the name of an existing article or redirect will take you to a page of results which says You may create the page "Search term goes here", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.. Note the use of the word "may": this is not a plea for you to create the page but merely stating that such a creation would be allowed. When I search for "Musicae Sacrae" currently, the nearest hit is to a Section in the existing article Church Music Association of America#Consociatio Internationalis Musicae Sacrae, so maybe some new information could go there, or in other articles that already mention these words. Similarly, if you click on a redlink to any item that is not yet an article, the edit window will open to allow you to start an article with that title but that is just showing this is allowed, not requesting you write it. In this case, someone linked Musicae Sacrae but couldn't be bothered to start such an article themselves. Now, as you have found out, it may be that such an article is difficult to write owing to lack of reliable WP:Secondary sources that establish notability of the topic. In passing, it is worth noting that clicking on this redlink now will point out that your Draft exists. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you teach me how to deal with the situation on North-South divide in Taiwan? Thank you!

I have tried to protect Wikipedia:Purpose and followed steps in WP:RUCD except the last resort -- filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Special:Diff/1031172078, Special:Diff/1031173909, Special:Diff/1031174083). Does there still exist any method other than the last resort that can restore the possibility of having meaningful discussion in order to advance Wikipedia:Purpose? I sincerely hope that Wikipedians can engage with each other peacefully. Thanks alot. Taiwanese will not repress Taiwanese (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Taiwanese will not repress Taiwanese (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

When I see a statement followed by a dozen references, as in that article, I have a strong suspicion that something fishy is going on. That article needs work by unbiased, non-Taiwanese, editors. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you know any other editor who is committed to improving North-South divide in Taiwan? Actually, I think I am not biased because I am open to free and open debate and strongly disapprove of any kind of silencing. As for nationality, meta:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text#2_–_Expected_behaviour: In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field. Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement. Hence, nationality shouldn't be an issue here. Taiwanese will not repress Taiwanese (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Taiwanese will not repress Taiwanese! The editor you are in dispute with is sure that you are a sockpuppet created to evade block on your previous account. As such, they refuse to engage with you. You can either wait for the verdict on whether you are a sockpuppet, at which point, you will either be blocked, thus eliminating the need for you to worry about anything Wikipedia, or you will be exonerated, after which they won't have any excuse to not engage with you on the article's talk page, or you can post to WP:ANI which will again hasten the process of resolving whether you are a sockpuppet, with identical end results, except maybe if you are exonerated after posting to ANI, the other editor will be admonished for dismissing you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Taiwanese will not repress Taiwanese (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it really a promotional content ?

Hi, recently I came across a government organised internship by Law Enforcement Agencies of India , which is being conducted for past 9 years on cyber security. But unfortunately the article has been deleted and the reason stated was promotional/advertising content. Can anyone please help me on that, as i don't find it a promotional/advertising stuff. Here is my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rapturemania (talk) Rapturemania (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rapturemania: welcome to the Teahouse. Do you remember the page title or, failing that, the name of the internship? Without that, I cant attempt to find the deletion discusion or look at the deleted content. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Not an article, but perhaps Draft:Gurugram Police Cyber Security Summer Internship? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeh that's correct, it's Draft:Gurugram Police Cyber Security Summer Internship only. Would request if you can save this page as i am new here, I am struggling to learn protocols of wikipedia. Rapturemania (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Rapturemania, A number of new editors raise queries related to promotional/advertising that leaves the impression they think advertising is a limited concept, and only applies to pages that say something along the lines of "please buy our widgets". The concept is much broader, and covers material that is not neutral in tone and is biased in favor of the subject. This is not at all unusual in the Internet — the vast preponderance of all websites produced by an organization or company are attempting to put their best foot forward and could be viewed as promotional or advertising. There are a few counterexamples, but they are fairly rare. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

contributing a new Wikipedia page for a client

Hi Teahouse,

BACKGROUND I am an electrical engineer and patent attorney. I have spent much of my professional life writing explanatory materials for others, including making complex subjects easy to understand. Starting our life as an engineer, it was a huge shock, working as a patent attorney, to discover that I was almost illiterate, despite 5 years of university study. I then spent the next 3 years with dictionary in one hand and pen in the other (yes this was last millennium when people used pen and paper and a dictionary - haha). I then turned writing and the English language into my strength. Over the last 35 years my writings have included: patents, technical/legal arguments with patent examination officers, company annual reports, user guides and manuals, technical articles, promotional materials, business plans, government grant applications, and tens of thousands of letters to clients.

MY QUESTION #1 I have a client who is a manufacturer to complex tools used in underground applications in various industries including mining, construction, water wells, geotechnical and oil and gas applications. They have asked me to write a Wikipedia page describing their company and what they do. Two somewhat similar companies, although much larger, are Weatherford International [[1]] and TAM International [[2]].

QUESTION #2 There is a technical field that my client works in - Hydraulic Fracturing. There is an existing Wiki page that refers only to the oilfield applications of this technology [[3]], but does not extend to the many other parts of this field, some of which my client works in. My client is an expert in these areas of hydraulic fracturing and regularly delivers scientific papers to peers at international conferences.

This is a very politically and emotionally charged field and so I am proceeding very cautiously. How do I go about expanding this Wiki page to cover the other parts of the field?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST I understand that since I am being paid to do this I have a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed (and I note there are a heap of Wiki pages on CoI).

I am seeking to understand how I should produce the Wiki page for review. The advice I have read on this leaves me a bit confused. So, do I write the Wiki page and then make my conflict of interest known in the author tab for that page, once I have published the Wiki page for review? Or is there some other way I should proceed with this matter?

I am aware that it is not idea for a Wiki page to be written by someone linked to the organisation that the Wiki page will be about. And I can say right now that the directors of the company in question (who are themselves experts in these fields of technology) will review the Wiki page before it is sent for publication. Nevertheless, this is a private company with global operations, and so there is no one better placed to write a Wiki page to describe the company and what it does.

Awaiting your guidance.

Thanks and kind regards, Cl2nt2n (should I use my real name here?) Cl2nt2n (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Cl2nt2n! No, you don't need to disclose your real name; it's undesirable for most people. You need to disclose your conflict at your userpage, which you can reach by clicking your username that's displayed in red. Instructions are at WP:UPE. It's basically a template that you need to fill up; its documentation can be reached by clicking it. Organisations have stricter notability requirements than most other topics. See WP:NORG. First make sure the topic is notable, then, disclose your COI, then create a draft. Wikipedia:Your first article has guidance as well as step-by-step instructions on creating a new draft. You also need to disclose your COI with regards to articles that already exist that you want to edit. You should propose edits on the article's talk page rather than editing them directly, using the edit request template, {{request edit}}. WP:ERW is a wizard that can help you make your first edit requests. After you learn the format, you can do it manually. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cl2nt2n: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for being open about your situation. Beyond what Usedtobecool said, you and your client need to be aware that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. You may of course ask your client to approve your draft, but from Wikipedia's point of view their approval is completely irrelevant. And if uninvolved editors add some material which is critical of your client, then assuming such material is supported by reliable sources and is otherwise in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, you and your client will have no way of getting it removed. --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In reply to your Question #2: The existing article Hydraulic fracturing has a Uses section with a subsection that addresses other than oilfield uses of fracturing. Although it skirts your paid/COI, it may be plausible for you to directly edit that section of the article. I would strongly suggest that if at all possible, find references other than your client's publications. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Special pages

Why isn't the 'main page' listed as a special page?

Also, how do I raise an issue about a featured article? 79.134.37.73 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

# Because it doesn't satisfy the definition at Help:Special page.

Then I suggest either the definition be expanded, or some other way be set up to let PEOPLE know that 'special' has a special meaning here at Wikipedia. In common parlance, the main page certainly qualifies as a special page. 79.134.37.73 (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

# On the article's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of specialized terms have meanings that might not exactly match the definition used in common parlance. This is hardly unusual, jargon exists in almost every field and endeavor and it would be surprising if it did not exist here. The link defines the term and the main page doesn't qualify so I don't see any need to modify the definition. In fact while the main page may be more heavily trafficked than other pages, in many respects it qualifies as an ordinary page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello dears I'm new here and I need help to BLP :)

hi guys, how are you doing?

I've been having problems with publishing two articles regarding two biographies of people currently alive.

I was told that there were too few citations, and as a result of this event:

-In the first case I have added a fair amount of citations and am waiting to be confirmed or declined, and in the second case I would like to understand why...

This is the page for the first case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Desiderio_Sanzi

-In the second case, which is the last article I created and also the reason why I am writing to you at this point, I understand that I have added only 4 citations, but they are very important as I have linked a video with 27 million and a half views and an article by cyptonomist that talks about him, anyway I have other references to add, but I don't understand well:

How many are needed? Can I link to social when I talk about the same? Are these considered good citations to show that the artist is still active and alive?

I don't understand what I need to do to avoid that every time I write something it ends up in the drafts, I understand the quotes thing, but I don't know... is there some sort of minimum number to reach?

The article is not very big, so I don't understand what sources I should still cite in the proposed article, I would need some help please, maybe some indication :)

This is the page of the second case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simon_Dee_(artist)

I thank you in advance for your answers, wikipedia offers an incredible service that I have been using for more than 10 years, I thank you in advance for the possibility of being able to improve your platform with some articles that do not yet exist, regarding topics that are known and close to me.

I've written two biographies of contemporary artists since I'm a recently born crypto-artist, and these articles I'm proposing are by two people I greatly respect and who are quite a few years ahead of me. Nscent (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

For Draft:Desiderio_Sanzi, the problem is not the number of references, it's their quality. The first one simply lists "Desiderio" and says nothing about him; the other next two don't even mention him. (I haven't checked the others.) You need to find and cite sources with with extensive discussion of the subject (and remove all those with no relevant content).

Draft:Simon_Dee_(artist) cites four sources. One merely lists his name, the other three report what he says himself, and so aren't independent. So there's no evidence of notability there. Maproom (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nscent. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you all for the responses! I wanted to write here in the tea-house just to better understand and learn how to be helpful in creating articles on topics I know about. I understand very well what you were explaining to me, also about the reliability of a source and the quality of it, that you are not interested in your own impressions but an objective point on the matter. Where possibly the main topic of the article cited in that source is discussed and not just mentioned.

I put a lot of effort into editing the first draft today after your responses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Desiderio_Sanzi

Trying to make it as compliant as possible to your standards. It's not a matter of knowledge or collaboration: the sources I cited, are super good and quality, like the ones I found and used in that article currently.

There are no interviews where the author is "self-referential" but they are all outside people writing something about the artist in question.

I mentioned: americasquarterly, GRANMA.CU, ilgiornale.it, comune.terni.it, ansa.it, espoarte.net

I believe that most of the references are institutional sites so they are really of quality, like granma.cu

I'm waiting for more information to understand if I did something wrong and how I can improve the article to make it a real page and not a draft.

Best regards!

Nscent (talk) 30 June 2021 (UTC)

website link to company’s page

Hi,I am new to wikipedia.I have a query. Can company’s official website link use as reference in company’s page/article? Will it help for notability? Maygha19 (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it can be cited for uncontroversial information about the company. No, it's not an independent source and so contributes nothing to establishing notability. Maproom (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

IUPAC Name of Heyneanine article isn't working/displaying

IUPAC name of heyneanine isnt working. I tried IUPACName and IUPAC_NAME but its not displaying Machinexa (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed | IUPACName belongs in the main part of the chembox, not in one of the later subordinate sections. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

etiquette about comments on draft

I have been working on Draft:Bette Otto-Bliesner and I think the article is close to being ready for the main space. DGG placed a comment at the top of the page, and I have asked for clarification. Can I remove the comments(s) and otherwise ready the article for the mainspace? Or, do I need to wait until my question is answered? Or, should the comment remain when I move the article to the mainspace?

I know the steps needed to remove the comment. However, I am just not sure of the etiquette associated with comments placed at the top of a page rather than a discussion started at the talk page.

Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Welcome to the Teahouse. The draft seems to be coming on pretty well but I'd leave the comment in place for now as it will help the experienced editor who will (hopefully) accept it into Main Space. You need to click on the "submit for review" link when you are ready to have it formally submitted. You can still work on it after that as it may take some time to be reviewed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In looking at your article history, clear that early on you submitted drafts to AfC, but as time went by with a high success rate, you become comfortable in deciding when to convert a draft to an article. I don't see that you have had articles kicked back to draft, or AfD'd (with the exception of an award article). Still, given the comment, I suggest waiting on DGG. My own concern about the Otto-Bliesner draft is that the very large majority of the citations are to her journal articles. Are there refs that establish her notability, i.e., are ABOUT her? Meanwhile, kudos on focusing on creating articles about women scientists. David notMD (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will wait on DGG to comment. As to the question of notability, this is a case of WP:SNG, in particular WP:PROF. From those guidelines I understand that she is "measured by her academic achievements" (to quote the top of the page on WP:PROF) which is why most of the citations are on her journal articles. There are articles about her research (i.e., citations 25, 30, 41, and 42) which are examples of cases where people have commented on her research. Furthermore, she meets criteria #3 of WP:PROF because she is a fellow of two scholarly societies (the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society). Both of these are cited in the article in the awards section.

I should note that I had the 'draft article' at the top because I find the links to books/news/newspapers/and so on useful. You are right that I have felt comfortable moving articles into the mainspace when I feel they are ready. Honestly, I do not have a good handle on whether it is best to use userspace drafts or drafts in a sandbox or drafts in draft space. I have tried reading various pages on Wikipedia about this, and I get more confused. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DaffodilOcean. First of all, the Articles for Creation process is entirely optional. You are also free to use either draft space or your personal sandbox space to develop new articles as you see fit. One limitation of draft space is that drafts can be deleted if you put a project on the back burner for over six months. Personally, I develop articles in sandbox space and have for twelve years, but that's just my own preference. I think that Otto-Bliesner meets WP:NPROF and as far as I am concerned, you should move it to main space when you think it is ready. As for DGG's comment, you have replied in detail and if he has nothing further to say about it, I would not let that slow the process. Remove the discussion immediately before moving the draft to main space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

DGG obviously went into it from the perspective of an AFC reviewer. Reviews and comments by reviewers should be left alone while you are in the AFC process. But if you never intended to use the AFC process, you do not need to wait on DGG. You can just remove the comment and move it to mainspace. If DGG disagrees, he'll come back later to nominate it for deletion. For courtesy, you can leave DGG a message about his comment and your reply to it at his talk page, before removing the comment from the draft. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

OK - thanks for everyone's comments. I appreciate the insight into the etiquette about comments, drafting, and AfC. Cheers. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC is a difficult , cumbersome, and greatly overloaded process, and it is only manageable at all because there's a standardized procedure. Therefore, I personally, I get somewhat annoyed when people move their own drafts to mainspace. There are a number of tracking categories, and to get them right, it's necessary to follow the old manual process as described the afc page, which is a thorough nuisance. It's very difficult keeping up with the new drafts and those that need review or deletion , or rescuing from deletion; I and the other people who work at afc all have our own established routines, and going out of the usual process tends to get things confused.

Because of the immense backlog, there's a long delay -- sometimes months-- before reviewing. To partially deal with it, I and a few other of the reviewers make a special effort to give reviews or at least comments within a few days of creation to some drafts in our field which either are clearly very notable, or which seem quite important, but have correctable problems. I've done so with this draft, and I made a preliminary comment, not a full review. I did not decline to accept the paper, I merely commented ; DaffodilOcean replied, and I was considering her response. I need a little time to get to things, and then a little time to think about them. Coming here only 2 days after my comment without waiting for a further response from me was not helpful. I consider it in the nature of a request for special treatment, and like most reviewers who are trying desperately to keep up with the work here, I do not like this, for it is adding a more personal pressure to the pressure we already feel, and it is unfair to the majority of contributors, who wait their turn.

The notability standard for WP:PROF is normally satisfied by someone's research being influential, and the normal way of showing it is by the extent of citations to their work, as measured by Google Scholar or Scopus or WebofScience. The provisions of WP:GNG does not apply, though it remains as an alternate. There is no need for substantial 3rd party reliable published sources--the papers are confirmed by their publication in a third party source, and the citations similarly. Any reliable source, usually a university web page, is enough for the miscellaneous facts of the career, tho it is much better is secific major accomplishments do have specific 3rd party documentation. .

In her case there's a special problem, which is that her highest citation papers are citation to a famous climate report, for which there are hundreds of authors. However, there are a number of other highly cited articles, although almost all are to multi-author papers, as is appropriate in their areas. The contributor pointed out that the subject is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, which might meet the provision in WP:PROF for notability of fellows of some particularly distinguished societies; possibly the AGU should be one of them, but I do not recall having dealt with that particular question before. I do not like to make snap judgments when unsure, and I was checking a number of other bios of other fellows and seeing how we handled them. I've done that, and I think it should be enough. (I'm less certain about fellow of the American Meteorological Society).

So I was going to accept the article. But I see now that the contributor moved it themselves, and I had postponed several other important projects to work on this over several days.

In any case I have two requests of the contributor, who is writing a number of such papers. First, always list the 4 or 5 most cited papers with the number of citations. Second, do not make references to all of the subjects papers to document their work--this the role of a CV, and we do not publish CVs--select the most important. But I do agree that there's no need for the contributor to use AfC--almost all of her work seems quite acceptable, doing what WPedians working on women scientists ought to do, working from the top, not just a list of names of varying importance. My next step is to recheck any of her drafts that were not accepted, to see if they should be. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG I shall keep these comments in mind. One comment though - be cautious about assuming gender as you have done in the final paragraph. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I think that DGG is an excellent editor and AFC reviewer. I am sure that he agrees that AFC is is an optional process that no autoconfirmed editor is obligated to go through. Sometimes, it seems like AFC reviewers think that anybody who accidentally or without full understanding clicks the "review" button has given up the right to move the draft to main space on their own. I do not share this perspective. AFC is entirely optional which to me means that any autoconfirmed editor can choose the main space path if they so choose. Their new articles may be reviewed by new pages patrollers and nominated for deletion. So be it. Each autoconfirmed editor can freely choose their own gauntlet, and any advice offered by experienced editors is just that . . . friendly advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

When Cullen328 said this ('...it seems like AFC reviewers think that anybody who accidentally or without full understanding clicks the "review" button has given up the right to move the draft to main space on their own'), I have a related question. I have three draft articles that I submitted for review before I was able to move things to the mainspace on my own. I do not have a COI that would require me to use AfC. Can I move them to the mainspace myself? Or, would that cause even more problems at AfC? --DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

agreed. In general I think it better for autoconfirmed editors to use mainspace (unless they have a coi that requires them to use AfC.) It avoid clogging up the alfready overloaded AfC system;

AfC is busy enough. And in my field of academic bios, I try to at lease look at any incoming new article , especially from an editor I don't recognize as having proven experience. Not every NPP checks reviewed articles, but I try to do so at least selectively I miss some, but the workgroups in this field do a pretty good job of catching them in the sciences/ This is less likely in the humanities, and I'lll generally concentrate on them. But I still feel that once one decides to use AfC, one should use the regular procedure. For one thing, it avoid suspicion--about 1/3 of the ones that move themselves to main space are high quality articles, like here, but 2/3 are promotion and paid editing, so it always attracts skeptical attention/ And FWIW, this is true also of people who insist on a quick review--some are just pushing a little, but some are undeclared paid editors who want their money. I think things would be much helped if we doubled the level to reach autopatrolled, but that;s a discussion for elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I now have a related question. Did I put the article on Otto-Bliesner into the AfC process simply by using the {{draft article}} at the top of the draft? I never intended to submit the article to AfC, but I like the set of tools that {{draft article}} puts at the top of the page. Is there a different template that has a list of sources but does not put the article into the queue for AfC? DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Preborn Articles

Articles awaiting to be written

Hi, Teahouse.

I was wondering if there any articles which need to be written down. Like are there any red text articles that wait to be written with more information about the subject? I have been a resident of Tasmania and Canberra and I specialise in most of the things pertaining to those countries. Any information about any 'preborn' (a word I have coined for not yet written articles) article which needs to be written would be extremely helpful.

}} It'sBirdy (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@It'sBirdy: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can look under Wikipedia:Requested articles for article requests, they are sorted by topic. Please be advised that just because they are on the requested articles that does not mean we actually want an article on that topic. Your first article should guide you along the way. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@It'sBirdy:. Many new editors who have expertise in specific areas find it helpful to join Projects. Those relating to the geography near you can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Oceania. They are likely to have "to-do" lists including relatively simple expansion of existing articles. Creating new articles from scratch is very difficult until you have gained some experience. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CREATE AN ARTICLE OR WHERE TO GO IF I WANT TO CREATE ONE…

 Sparklestern (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sparklestern Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't yell(use all capital letters). Be advised that successfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia. Diving right in without some knowledge and experience often leads to disappointment, frustration, and hurt feelings as your work is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. To avoid that, please spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's a good idea to use the new user tutorial as well.

New users cannot directly create articles, but may create and submit a draft using Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Lord of Little Stambridge Hall

Hi there! Im looking for any advise and or help with regards to improving the chances of my article being published. any help and or advise would be much appreciated.

article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lord_of_Little_Stambridge_Hall FredBensen (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FredBensen, Zindor already wrote: Non-notability of topic explained at length to creator. Fred stop trying to submit this, it's pure synthesis and the topic isn't notable. That seems very clear. If a subject (or non-subject) isn't notable, the best advice is: stop. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, I understand this but the fact multiple other people have aided me in the spelling and arrangement sense, it would leave me to believe other people would disagree with what Zindor has said otherwise they wouldn't have wasted there time.

I am unable to get on board with this part of wikipedia where one individuals belief of the notability of the subject could halt the creation of a much needed page. may i draw your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_barony_of_Launceston which is similar to the page i have created but yet it warrants its own article? Many Thanks, FredBensen (talk)

This has nothing to do with one individual's belief – the draft has been declined multiple times by different reviewers, and rejected twice (after it had been rejected the first time, you asked for the draft to be deleted, only to create it again a couple of days later). The article title was protected against creation last autumn, and that is something that only happens when an article is created repeatedly to the point of disruption. There were also several people who tried to explain to you back in February that this topic is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and nothing has changed since then. Editors making minor or automated fixes to a draft doesn't actually mean that they endorse the topic. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

bonadea, As i explained on your talk page I asked the creator of the old draft EvWills (i think) to delete the draft as he didn't seem to contribute as much as he did and had expressed to me that he was no longer fussed about an article after which i recreated it. I would be greatfull if you could explain to me why, exactly its not notable. FredBensen (talk)

@FredBensen: Just because editors kindly help fix errors in a draft doesn't necessarily mean that they have invested the necessary time to determine whether the draft demonstrates notability. GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi FredBensen. It makes no difference how beautifully written or formatted a draft might be if it's unable to meet the most basic guidelines of Wikipedia notability as explained here. This for reference, there are WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia which have less restrictive policies and guidelines where you'll probably be able to be find a home for something such as this. You might find that one of these alternatives even will allow you to have more control over content than Wikipedia because you might be able to place restrictions on who can edited whatever page you create. FWIW, I don't know much about this subject matter and I can't say whether Feudal barony of Launceston should've been created, but I do know that Wikipedia has over six million articles, and this includes quite a number that shouldn't have been created in the first place. It can sometimes take awhile (even years) for these articles to be found, but the fact that such articles exist isn't really a justification that other similar articles should also be created. If you've got some genuine concerns about the Launceston article, then maybe you should seek input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall to see what some members of that WikiProject might think. If they share your concerns, then perhaps the article will end up nominated for deletion. If they just really think that the article is in need of improvement, then perhaps that's what they will do. You might want to try Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia to see if you can find someone familiar with the subject you're trying to create an article about who can perhaps offer some advice on the that particular subject. At some point though, you may just have to let the draft go if your unable to establish a consensus that it has some kind of chance of someday being upgraded to article status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, my myopia may be more serious than I realize, but I see no reason why Feudal barony of Launceston should exist. If there were more hours in my day, I'd do something about this. FredBensen, please see the explanation that may be concisely and amicably referred to as WP:OTHERCRAP. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly many thanks for your reply, i shall go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia I greatly appreciate a more human response on Wikipedia.

@FredBensen: I don't think my response was any more or less human than the ones you've received from other editors, and I don't think it was really appropriate for you to imply as much. I get that you're probably feeling a bit frustrated, but everyone who has commented about the draft you're working on so far seems to be quite WP:HERE and trying to advise you in good faith. You might not agree with their assessment of things, but that doesn't mean they're acting out of spite or have some personal agenda. There are lots of things that people around the world wish they could add to Wikipedia, but that's one of the reason why there's Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I don't know enough about the subject matter to say that you can't try and create an article about this, but at some point a draft is going to be expected to have a realistic chance of someday becoming an article. If the community at large feels that there's no such chance, then maybe it's time to move on to something else. There are, after all, lots of ways to try and WP:CONTRIBUTE positively to Wikipedia other than trying to create an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, when looking at WP:OTHERCRAP I see there are obvious flaws with Wikipedias set up that will hinder its aim, and by continueing to edit and append my Draft, i see noone thats it affects. so with Constant bombardment from some Users for a personal gripe it quickly becomes idiotic. eg the comment left on the Draft by Zindor which immediately places an impression on anyone before taking in what else has been written. many Thanks FredBensen (talk)

FredBensen, I find this hard to understand. However, you do seem to be sure that some users -- Zindor, me, others? -- are acting from personal gripes. You are imagining these gripes. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Date edit

I made an edit to the name of the former head coach of the black stars and the edit has been undone. may I have assistance please Delali Phrank (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In which edit did you do this? In this edit, you asserted that a page at L'Équipe says that James Kwesi Appiah was born on 9 August 1960. L'Équipe says no such thing; what it does say is "30 juin 1960". Is L'Équipe wrong? If so, what more authoritative source do you have for saying 9 August? -- Hoary (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your unsourced edit contradicts 2 cited references. Why did the reversion surprise you? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The 30 June date also confirmed here. GiantSnowman 13:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Willis

Coincidental...or Not? Mosby'sMusings (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Mosby'sMusings, I'm afraid this is not the right forum for such things. Teahouse is about struggles in editing Wikipedia. Why not try Reddit? GeraldWL 15:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In the 1995 film, "12 Monkeys" Willis' character said to Madeleine Stowe, "All I see is dead people." Four years later, Haley Joel Osment whispered to Bruce Willis, "I see dead people." Strange but true!

Search Wikipedia Question

None of the subjects I ever search for in wikipedia are ever listed in the search wikipedia window regardless of how many searches I do. However there is a list of search items that comes up but they are items I have searched for outside of wikipedia. Where can I delete this phantom list and why doesnt wikipedia remember my last search? Ive wanted to know this for years. Jeedawg (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a phantom but a list stored in your browser, so nothing to do with Wikipedia. You should be able to remove individual items by hovering over them and clicking on the "trash" icon which should appear. However, others are likely to come back later. As to the second part of your question, yes I think it would be a good idea in principle but I suspect is that it isn't done because many people access this website without logging on to an account, so lots of space would be taken saving IP addresses + search terms that could change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but the Wikipedia Android app does remember your recent searches. Just touch "Search Wikipedia" and you will see a list of your search terms, going back a long way, with the most recent ones first. There is also a "trash" icon which will clear the list. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Jeedawg, may depend on your browser. Firefox in its search history also includes Wikipedia searches and they stay forever if that's what you want. If you are wanting to search subject text rather than subject title then need to format the search differently. Neils51 (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD problems

I would like to know if I suggest an article for deletion ({{subst:afd1}}), why does it carry on being deleted? Have I done something wrong? How do I add text to explain it?Disturb995 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Disturb995: It looks like you nominated an article for deletion twice, and the nomination was reverted. There are some related comments on your talk page. You can also discuss with the reverting editors. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Disturb995. To propose an article for deletion, please carefully follow the procedure laid down at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Disturb995, I'm not sure I understand your question.

I presume this is related to Murder of Louise Smith.

Someone, not logged in, nominated it for deletion. Was that you? That nomination was not formed correctly so it was removed.

Then while logged in you try to nominated for deletion but it appears you did not fill out the form correctly so an experienced editor removed it. You tried again, and failed to do it successfully so it was removed again.

As a brand-new editor with virtually no experience is puzzling to see you propose an article for deletion is normally done by more experienced editors. What is your rationale? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't matter but I just thought it doesn't need an article. Yes that logged out person was me. I had an account a few months ago but I can't get back into it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disturb995 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Disturb995: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. With regard to the article in question, nominating an article for deletion via WP:AFD is a multi-step process, and merely tagging the article is but step one. As noted above, the steps are laid out in full at WP:AFDHOWTO. Further, there are experienced editors who are perfectly happy to assist with the process (Anonymous IPs can initiate these discussions, but it requires the assistance of someone editing under a confirmed account to create the actual discussion page. As before, this is in the instructions. I have assisted anonymous editors in this way quite a number of times). But what I had been looking for here in following these efforts was a rationale based on Wikipedia policy justifying the deletion. "I just thought it doesn't need an article" is not really a sufficient justification. I would suggest reading up on policies and following other AfD discussions (listed on daily log pages like this one as a semi-random example) before deciding whether to continue to pursue the matter. Thanks again, and feel free to keep asking questions. --Finngall ^talk 18:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How do edited the title of the published article "Lockheed YO-3"

 Ringingo (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ringingo: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. When you become autoconfirmed (make at least ten edits and stick around for four days), you'll be able to use a tool called Twinkle that will allow you to change the title of the article. Until then, what you can do is ask an autoconfirmed user to change it for you. I'm one. If you like, you can pop me a message about what you'd like to change it to and I'll do it for you. Helen (let’s talk) 19:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, it is not necessary to use Twinkle in order to move articles or other pages. I do not use Twinkle because I prefer to edit manually, and I have moved many pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Publishing my first article in the main space

After I have been autoconfirmed, can I now publish an article on the main space? Lord Klukpui (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not if you are referring to this draft Draft:Amma Frimpomaa Dwumah which has no sources and would be speedy deleted in main space. Articles about people need to pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Until you are more experienced, the recommendation would be that you use the AFC process, see the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lord Klukpui: Being 'autoconfirmed' does not give you the right to publish an unsubstantiated statement into mainspace. That one-sentence draft fits that description perfectly, and would be immediately deleted. Fix the issue of no citations that demonstrate WP:NBIO; if you cannot do that, your efforts will be in vain. This is a serious encyclopaedia. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC). Thanks for the feedback @Nick Moyes. I will defitnitely make the changes to the draft.Lord Klukpui (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair Use Photo for Notable Person

Hi there, I'm a new editor. Please be gentle. I'm editing Indiana articles and also searching for fair use photos for a draft of a notable individual from our state. I do not own personal photos of them, but photos have been taken of them by major news outlets. What's currently best method to use photos for a draft if we as editors do not own the copyright or have license for said pics? I uploaded a news outlet photo with photo credit but that did not work. I've searched the Teahouse for 2021 methods but no luck yet. Any help appreciated. Thanks. Member of WikiProject Indiana, article Draft:Dana Trent Ukd2wixdp6ccmx56 (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If the individual is still alive, the answer is a resounding "no". And as regards drafts, the answer is also "no" because images are irrelevant during the drafting phase and nine times out of ten are far more trouble than they're worth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

--Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukd2wixdp6ccmx56 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How can I publish in the main namespace an entry that is both in my Sandbox and in Draft?

After creating the Gianfranco Continenza entry in my User:Max Peltuinum/sandbox, as suggested to me, I moved it to Draft:Gianfranco Continenza. Since I think it is a good entry, how can I go about publishing it on the main namespace? Should I move the Sandbox or the Draft? Thank you.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Max Peltuinum (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems Draft:Gianfranco Continenza is waiting for a review. I suggest working on something else until a reviewer gets to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thanks for answering me. But I noticed that the counter in the Draft, since March 2021, continues to warn me that it will take 5 months or more because there are (still today) 4,151 submissions, even if about 4 months have already passed! I don't want to shorten the time, but I don't think it's right to have to wait indefinitely.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you say you "moved it to" draft, but you didn't, you copied it to draft. So there are now two rival versions of it. Having two versions of the same draft can lead to confusion – of anyone who wants to help improve it, of a reviewer, even of yourself. I would encourage you to delete, or at least blank, the version in your user space. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Perfect. Thank you! I thought I had done the "move" operation correctly. I cleared the sandbox. Can I do something to publish the Draft in the main namespace?--Max Peltuinum (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, in answer to your last question: I am not surprised that the draft has remained unreviewed for four months. and can advise you on how to make a review more likely. This is not "official" advice, it is based on my understanding of how things work.

Reviewing drafts is done by volunteer editors. It is a dull and thankless task. I would not be willing to do it myself; but I have great respect for those who do help Wikipedia in this way.

Imagine yourself in the position of a reviewer. The main issue with almost all submissions is whether the subject is notable; so she will need to check that there are several reliable independent sources with significant discussion of the subject.

• She finds a submission with no references. That's a quick fail.
• A submission with ten references. She starts checking them. Four of the first five are to sources which help to establish notability. Unless there's something else seriously wrong, that's an accept.
• A submission with five references. Only one of them helps to establish notability. That's a fail.
• A submission with 100 references. Four of the first six help with notability. That's an accept.
• A submission with 72 references. Some of the sources are inaccessible to her, of the first six that she can check, most are mere listings with no discussion and one is based on an interview with the subject and so not independent. She could wade through the rest of the references looking for evidence of notability; but she's not an automaton, she's a human being, and most likely she throws the submission back in the waiting list and finds a more productive use of her time.

You could encourage a faster review of your draft by making it easier for a reviewer to find the sources that establish notability (if there are any in there). You could do this by removing most or all of the references which have no discussion, or are not independent, or are to unreliable sources. Maproom (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Thanks so much for the tip. I think I have deleted all the references that the "checklinks utility" reported in blue (connection issue). No dead, suspicious, status or warn results. Can I move the draft to the main namespace? Anyone who wishes can contribute on the main namespace. I don't understand why the entry, of good quality, has to remain in draft to be revised almost exclusively by bots (I don't see many humans in the revision history). I fully understand that proofreading is long and tedious, which is why anyone can contribute anywhere, not just on drafts.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you've removed 6 references, and retained 66. That will have very little effect. If you actually have some good sources, and are serious about wanting the draft to be reviewed soon, I suggest you remove another 60. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:First of all, thanks for reporting. I had entered all those references because this was suggested to me by the helpdesk on March 12, 2021 when I asked for help before moving the sandbox to the draft (I had actually only copied, thinking instead of having moved it). Then I even added others because there was a reviewer who did not find in the sources the confirmation of an assertion (but, in reality, the sources I cited already confirmed the assertion). I have now deleted half of the references. I am afraid to delete them all because there may be a reviewer who again disputes the absence of sources on some specific assertion. Anyone who deems it appropriate will be able to clean up, but I dare not undress my entry for the above reasons. Do you think that's enough to move the entry to the main namespace?--Max Peltuinum (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you request for protection?

This article is being vandalized by anonymous users and I forgot how to request for protection. StayingClean (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

StayingClean Please go to WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@StayingClean: My impression of visiting the history of that page is that any vandalism has resulted in blocks of specific IP addresses. At this moment, I don't see an unmanageable situation myself, and am surprised you haven't participated in the management of that page by reverting any bad faith edits yourself. I appreciate that it's a hot topic (no pun intended) but page protection is for pages where there aren't enough eyes to manage it, and it is suffering as a result - that doesn't seem to be the case here, I feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

After scrolling through the edits in the last 36 hours, I saw a lot of really obnoxious vandalism. Yes, it was mostly reverted promptly, but in my judgment, the amount was sufficient for semi-protection, which I have placed for 72 hours. Any administrator who disagrees can unprotect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, won't disagree. Protecting the encyclopaedia from harm and disruption is a high priority. If I misjudged the situation, I'm perfectly happy to see the page protected from harm. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Review of my Article: Haniya Nafisa

Hi there!!!

My Draft Haniya Nafisa was reviewed Yesterday (In my Timezone) and it was said that it lacks notability. But I think there are enough resources for it and it passes WP:MUSICBIO. Kindly let me know If I am wrong in this. Thanks in Advance!!!

Wish you all a Happy Beginning on the Month of July!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jocelin Andrea. Please explain precisely (with sources) why you think draft meets WP:MUSICBIO, rather than ask us to determine that for you. My feeling is that sources in the article aren't detailed/in depth enough to yet warrant an article, and that it's maybe simply WP:TOOSOON, albeit not too far away. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Nick Moyes, I think this reference is a good one and the References of Indian Express are good too and I believe that they make the article qualify for WP:MUSICBIO. Thanks, Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: Thank you. Which specific point(s) of WP:MUSICBIO do you believe this meets so that we can judge your source against the exact published criteria? There are twelve points you can justify it against. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

So, @User:Nick Moyes, I believe that she qualifies the points 1,4,6,10 & 12 Respectively. Kindly ensure that from your side too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelin Andrea (talk • contribs) 04:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: I don't see how any one of those points is met. She has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" (point 1). You mention two sources above, where one is borderline acceptable as independent, but is not in-depth and is based on an interview with her. The second source you mention is just a quote by her in a very short piece about upcoming musicians performing online. There is nothing in either of those sources (nor in the draft) about her being part of an ensamble (point 6), or about an international or nationwide tour (point 4), or about being "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network" (point 12). The sources you mention also don't discuss her performing in "a work of media that is notable" (point 10); the draft says she has recorded a playback song for an upcoming film, but that in itself doesn't make a musician meet WP:MUSICBIO. I believe it is simply too soon for an article about her. --bonadea contributions talk 09:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Need some help to clean this up

Hi everyone, I'm drafting a page about an Indonesian gaming company that has had some news coverage, as I believe it is notable enough (due to its large userbase, and being Indonesia's first gaming company to go international). It was declined with feedback about the Controversy section reading as a one off event, and not enough secondary sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fantech

Could anyone please provide some tips on how to improve the article? I was thinking about removing the controversy section and making it part of the company history, however it was controversy done by a popular streamer which made headlines, towards the company brand, rather than from the company itself.

Thanks! LythPython (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd start by removing , with AMPLFY officially stating on their Facebook page, "After careful review of the video uploaded last December 30, 2020 regarding Mika Daime, management has decided to terminate her AMPLFY partnership. We understand that gamers have the tendency to be expressive with their comments when the game gets competitive, but we also need to know where to draw the line. Let this be a lesson to us all that we should help spread positivity instead of negativity in the gaming community, as it's just polite corporate waffle. Her sponsorship was ended: that's all the reader needs to know. Also, ignore corporate capitalization: for example, when you read about "TOP BRAND FOR TEENS INDEX", render this as "Top Brand for Teens index". And cut promotional wording: for example, you now have The grand opening event was attended by notable local esports athletes such as Nessa Miko, Seirra Chan and Annabela (my emphases), but I don't suppose any minor opening on any other day would have been an "event", so you can cut "grand"; and whether these people are notable is something that readers can decide for themselves (unless perhaps you provide reliable, independent, published sources for their notability). -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated! I'll do exactly that! I was just trying to make note of everything that occured, but now I understand that over-specific information, doesn't actually add the benefit, as it can be explained using much simpler terms without any corporate fluff. Thanks! LythPython (talk)

@LythPython: The lists of redlinked founders and other key people lead me to wonder if you have any conflict of interest. If you do, please disclose it on your user page, preferably by adding {{UserboxCOI|Draft:Fantech}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I just went to their About Us page and copied what they're key people are, whom are also mentioned in the sources. I'll remove the redlinking, wasn't sure if it was good to leave them red as to inspire others to write about them. Thanks for the heads up! LythPython (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How to propose a site-wide change to Wikipedia?

I want to propose a site-wide UI change. How can I go about that?

How can I propose a site-wide change on Wikipedia? 207.172.131.14 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

By writing it up persuasively at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If you tell the proposal then we can give more precise advice. Maybe it has already been proposed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How to add title on the page. I am a beginner. Plz help.

I dont know why my created page does not feature the title Dr. ShadBano Ahmad. I am new please help me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shamz_oh/Sample_page This is the page link. Also it is not coming at internet Thanks Shamz oh Shamz oh (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Because you created it in your userspace. It would never be accepted in the state it is in anyways; we need to see evidence that she is notable per Wikipedia's definition. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Does a Wikipedia page on an academic book meet the notability criterion?

I would like to write an article on a scholarly book whose subject is an explanation of the Rwandan genocide. The book is new but ground-breaking. Is this notable enough? Mwalimu-ubuntu (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably not as it may not have been noted as it is new. You need to have sources that say the book is notable.--Bduke (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NBOOK. If you want WP to say a book is groundbreaking, you have to have independent WP:RS that says the book is groundbreaking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mwalimu-ubuntu, a little addition to what Gråbergs Gråa Sång writes: NB a blurb (comment on the cover of the book or similar), even by a respected expert, saying that a book is "ground-breaking", "pioneering", "courageous", "epochal", etc, can't be cited. Even otherwise respectable academics can be overgenerous in the comments they make on the work of their own ex-students and others when invited to make comments. Instead, look for reviews in scholarly journals and perhaps also in newspaper and magazines. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Publish my information

I want to publish all my up-to-date data and activities on Wikiepedia. How do I proceed? Thank you. Paul Ghenter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.ghenter (talk • contribs)

Paul.ghenter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do not post your contact information in this public forum, for your protection. Wikipedia is not a place to do what you are asking, this is not social media, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with signficant coverage have chosen on their own to say about topics that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Check a draft

"Tehran International Short Film Festival Awards" is the most important and largest short film festival in Iran in all years. please correct this Draft so that this event also has an English page . --Bizdik3 (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Bizdik3, in order to be notable, Tehran International Short Film Festival Awards doesn't (don't) have to be the most important and largest short film festival in Iran. But if it is (if they are), then this could be pointed out in the draft. The way to do this is not simply to assert it. Instead, you have to persuade the reader of it, by citing reliable, independent, published sources that say it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

What was the rule that tells to cite the original article instead of yahoo, msn article(like for reuters)

On this talk page with Yae4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tor_Phone Greatder (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: Welcome to the Teahouse! I think WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT might be applicable. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive web

Is there any easiest way to add archived web into a citation? Is there any gadget for that in our preferences? Please let me know if there is a simpler way to do it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: you need to add |archiveurl= |archivedate= into the {{cite web}} that is being used. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No Mjroots. I'm was not asking about how to add archived web to a citation one by one. I was asking if there is a way we can add archive web and date to all citations in just one click. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't think there is a way to do that. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: If you would like to add Web Archive links to all citations, you might be looking for the IABot tool. From any page, click on "View history", then click on "Fix dead links" — this will bring you to the IABot management interface. Select the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" checkbox and then click "Analyze". DanCherek (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you DanCherek. This would be so helpful. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Visual Editor Gone.

My Editor has gone out of Visual Editor Mode. How can I fix this problem? Thank You. DGAAustin (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@DGAAustin: Please check your preferences, under "editing", that "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is not checked, and that "editing mode" is set to "Show me both editor tabs". After that, you should find two edit buttons on a page, one for the visual editor and one for the source editor. You will also be able to switch between editors by clicking on the pencil icon on the right in the respective toolbar. The visual Editor is not enabled in all namespaces, for example, in the Wikipedia: namespace it isn't enabled. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the coverage used on my article sufficient?

Hello, I've created an article (Draft: YesWeHack) a few months ago, and its submission has been declined recently, because there was a lack of significant coverage, apparently. I've rewritten the article to try to improve it and added new references. Could someone have a look and give me an opinion? Unfortunately, as the company I'm writing about is French, most of the significant coverage on it (full articles) is written in French - should I add some? Or the references should only be in English? Thanks for your answer. Mathbsnd (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mathbsnd, it wasn't more references your draft needed, it was better references. Which four references (English or French) do you think do most to establish the subject as notable?   Maproom (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Guide to new user

I am new to wiki so i need help can anyone pls guide to edit articles and cite them as i am new i don't know much about wiki so i will also require some basic knowledge so if anyone can help me i would be very grateful

i am User:Stobene45

thankyou Stobene45 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, all users I am User:Stobene45/Stobene45 and I am a new user of Wikipedia so I require someone's help to proceed with editing the article so if I could receive some help I would be very grateful. And pls forgive me if my format is wrong.Thank you! Stobene45 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Stobene45 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, Stobene45! You might like to try "The Wikipedia Adventure". Also, please read and think about the little message that I posted on your own user talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for jail/ prison

Hello, As per my knowledge jail or prison of a place may have a wikipedia page as a village or a populated place. Please guide.I love to be honest (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@HariSinghw are you trying to ask whether you can create an article on a prison? I'm slightly confused. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@HariSinghw. Please see the many messages and links on your talk page about your attempts to create articles about Indian prisons.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to tell here that the pages on jail or prison deserve wikipedia pages. I love to be honest (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read the information users are providing in multiple places including WP:ANI, your talk page and the deletion discussions. Reviewing Speedy Keep criteria would also be helpful along with WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 13:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Per what I wrote at "ANI Notice" on your Talk page, you have a practice of creating very short, under-referenced articles that are then almost all subjected to AfD or Speedy deletion. This includes your attempts to create articles about jails and prisons that do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. My own opinion is that villages quality by Wikipedia norms, jails and prisons, not. David notMD (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

David notMD unfortunately he took your advice and made a long article, which wasn't any more suitable for the encyclopedia than the short ones. I agree though that villages (may?) meet WP:GEOLAND whereas jails would need to meet WP:ORG, subject to the usual GNG out, of course. Star Mississippi 15:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Jails and prisons in other countries may have reliable source references. Does not appear to be true for many (all?) of the articles about same in India, now at AfD. David notMD (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How to retrieve sandbox data

 Alok.fiji (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alok.fiji: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unless the sandbox page is deleted or revisions have been deleted (usually as a result of copyright violation), you should be able to retrieve your wanted revisions in the article's history. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Improvements made

Hi, thank you all for the responses! I wanted to write here in the tea-house just to better understand and learn how to be helpful in creating articles on topics I know about. I understand very well what you were explaining to me, also about the reliability of a source and the quality of it, that you are not interested in your own impressions but an objective point on the matter. Where possibly the main topic of the article cited in that source is discussed and not just mentioned.

I put a lot of effort into editing the first draft today after your responses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Desiderio_Sanzi

Trying to make it as compliant as possible to your standards. It's not a matter of knowledge or collaboration: the sources I cited, are super good and quality, like the ones I found and used in that article currently.

There are no interviews where the author is "self-referential" but they are all outside people writing something about the artist in question.

I mentioned: americasquarterly, GRANMA.CU, ilgiornale.it, comune.terni.it, ansa.it, espoarte.net

I believe that most of the references are institutional sites so they are really of quality, like granma.cu

I'm waiting for more information to understand if I did something wrong and how I can improve the article to make it a real page and not a draft.

Best regards! Nscent (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It was declined for no references. You have added refs, but the majority of the content is still without references. I recommend deleting the entire Awards, festivals section, as it appears he was winner of only one of the listed items, and this is not referenced, nor a notable award. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

When we should do a sandbox after creating a draft article?

If there are many draft articles for using a sandbox, and to experiment, how could I know if we can follow the Article wizard or Sandbox? --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Diegopeter2013: The article wizard suggests you practice using your sandbox before trying to create an article using the wizard. Be prepared that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do here. Even editors who have written over 100 articles over the past ten years still have to defend their contributions from time to time. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello everyone! i am a new Wikipedia user Stobene45 and I need help in understanding the basics of Wikipedia edits like the difference between visual edit and source edit etc. I would appreciate any kind of help or references. Thank you!Stobene45 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Stobene45 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Asked and answered above when you asked for help just a few hours ago. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Stobene45, the difference between using the "visual editor" and editing the "source" is that the former insulates you from the markup code used by MediaWiki. People who'd read that and think, "Eww, code!" are perhaps better off using the visual editor; less timid people are definitely better off editing the "source". You appear to be editing the "source". I suggest that you continue to do so. Just click on "Show preview" and see that everything looks OK before you click on "Publish changes". -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Question on Notability

I am currently interning for a professor at my university. She has asked that I put together a Wikipedia page for her if at all possible. The professor has a number of publications and has been involved with multiple different universities and organizations, as well as received several awards for her writings. I plan to mention all of these things in the article, but I'm worried it may not be enough to be considered "notable" by the website's standards. I might just put up a preliminary article to see if it gets taken down before I invest too much time. Does anyone have any experience with writing articles for local professors? And by extension, any tips? Thanks! Waffleyacht (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Waffleyacht: the inclusion criteria you would be looking at is WP:NPROF, if if cannot be proven they meet any of the criteria then it will be difficult to get an acceptable article. I would recommend the WP:AFC process for any article you do work on. Do be warned that it is highly discouraged that anyone with a conflict of interest such as you from editing or creating articles about subject which they have conflict. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Waffleyacht, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid it sounds as if your professor has a (very common) misapprehension that a Wikipedia article is in any way for the benefit of its subject. Often it is, of course, but this is no part of the purpose of Wikipedia. If an article is written about her (presuming that she meets NPROF, as Mcmatter says), then the article will not belong to her, will not be under her control, and may not contain what she would like it to. See WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And a little more recommended reading, Waffleyacht: WP:YOURSELF. -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

need help updating a page

Hello !! Can someone assist in updating a page for High School Football National Championships? I was able to add a Selector and even updated some teams that were already listed. My problem is, I do not know code, and have attempted to "copy" some examples but the preview did not look good.

If someone can help, I can provide specific details that I'm trying to add.

Thanks !! The Real Misterfootball (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Real Misterfootball:  Courtesy link: High School Football National Championship Try posting this on the talk page, where others familiar with the table syntax AND the subject matter can help you.. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why some Wikipedia articles is outdated even the most recent in some Wikipedia articles.

 Centrosaurus (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Centrosaurus: Welcome to Wikipedia. All articles are maintained by volunteer editors who work on whatever interests them. If you see something that needs improvement, you can start a discussion on that article's talk page or you can be WP:BOLD and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I download visualeditor…?

I really need help understanding how to activate Visualeditor… Sparklestern (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern To enable VisualEditor, go to Special:Preferences > go to Editing > uncheck "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" if it's checked > go to Beta > tick "New Wikitext mode" > click Save at the bottom. Afterwards, hold Ctrl + Shift + R to purge the cache. Then go to the user page, click Edit > click the pencil icon at the top right corner of editor toolbar (beside the publish changes) > click the eye icon > it should automatically switch to the visual editor. Alternative, you can check out Help:VisualEditor for further information. FYI – This is how I enable the feature, not sure if it varies for other editor but it is worth giving a try. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: Welcome to the Teahouse. The visual editor can be enabled by unchecking Preferences → Editing → Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta. Just be aware that it doesn't work in some namespaces, like Talk: or Wikipedia:. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I add another discussion on my talk page?

The button "add discussion" on my talk page won't work.What should I do? Sparklestern (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: Edit the bottom section, start new discussion with a level two header - == Title == . Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with posting

I don’t understand how to use this system but I do have a very important topic that I would like to document it’s all about saving lives in the water and reducing death by drowning working with dogs very proud of the work we do at my nonprofit and would like to get us featured on Wikipedia just don’t know how to do it Mariagray123 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mariagray123: It seems like you want to write an article about your organization. Unfortunately, writing about something that you have a close connection with is considered conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged because it's unlikely that you can stay in a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and if an article is created, you cannot own the article content. That means that other editors may come and add information that you may not find appealing, but if they are within Wikipedia's guidelines, there is very little that you can do about it. If you would like to promote your organization, there are other means of social media to try. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mariagray123. While I agree with all that Ganbaruby says, there is another consideration: apart from your organisation, you clearly think that the activity that your organisation does is so important that information should be spread about it. I'm afraid that that is explicitly not what Wikipedia is for, however laudable the purpose: see NOTADVOCACY. If the world has already taken note of the subject - i.e. there are enough independent reliable sources that discuss it to ground an article on the subject, then Wikipedia could have an article summarising what those sources say; but if (for example) all the available sources originate from your organisation and its staff, then the subject will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Subpages on WP

Hello Teahouse! How many subpages (User) can i create on WP. Are there any restrictions for creating subpages.  Siddartha897 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Siddartha897: Wikipedia:User pages documents a lot of guidelines regarding pages in your userspace. I don't think there's a hard limit on how many subpages you may have. However, I advise you to keep your userspace mostly Wikipedia-related; other forms of social media are better suited for expressing yourself. Do not use Wikipedia as a web host. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

When we should add reliable sources to Wikipedia...

These citations are reliable sources are referencing to their entries above, and we should read to WP:CITE. It is known to believe to remain a reliable source on Wikipedia. (Note: Biographies of living persons are making to just need using citing sources (references) to any entry, instead of people or family of course of this.) --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Diegopeter2013, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but while the header makes sense to me, the rest of your posting is completely incomprehensible. To answer the question in the header: Wikipedia's policies say that you should include reliable sources whenever a claim has been challenged or is likely to be; but in practice, most reviewers will insist that everything in an article is cited, especially in a BLP. My personal answer is that in an ideal world nobody should ever add a reliable source because nothing should ever ever ever be inserted into a Wikipedia article without citing a reliable source from the beginning. But we don't live in an ideal world ;-) . --ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your complement. And I am just still reading about reliable sources with citations, but for now anyway. --Diegopeter2013 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why am I blocked from being a host at the teahouse?

Have I done something wrong? Do I need to apologize to Wikipedia? Do I need to publish more edits? And(sadly)I still can't add a discussion to my talk page.How do I send a feedback?How do I know if I've done something wrong,and what should I do about my talk page?

                        (  Also,does playmedia on Wikipedia work on Amazon Kindle …?) Sparklestern (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: Welcome to the Teahouse!

1. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start lists the requirements for being a host, which include around 500 mainspace edits to articles. Looking at your contributions, it appears you haven't edited any articles yet.
2. You can send feedback here at the Teahouse or an appropriate talk page, but it's not common to add a new discussion to your own talk page. Could you please provide more info?
3. I don't know what "playmedia on Wikipedia" is, and it's been a long time since I've used Wikipedia on a Kindle. Could you please provide an example? GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: I see several different discussion sections on your talk page. If you're logged in, simply click on the New section tab at top. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: if by "playmedia on Wikipedia" you mean the short audio clips that are found in some articles, yes they can be played on a Kindle. The Franklin D. Roosevelt article has a 45 second sample of the "Nothing to Fear" speech in the First and second terms (1933-1941) section. Using my Kindle I tapped on the little triangular shaped play button in the audio "rectangle" and the speech clip began. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding a subject's date of birth and age

Hello everyone! I'm new to this so please excuse any newbie errors.

I have a general question, but with a specific example. The following page is the example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalanda_Young

While doing research for a story, I noticed that this subject has no date of birth listed. Upon further research, I found that none of the subject's bios from other sources included a date of birth or age either. However, I ultimately found this information by using the search tool, MyLife (a people finder site I have a membership with).

My question is actually two questions. First, are sites such as MyLife, Whitepages, PeopleFinder, etc. acceptable sources of information here (especially in cases where there are no alternatives)? Finally, if it is acceptable to update the subject's page with that information, how do I do so?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. I couldn't include the specific MyLife link because apparently it's not allowed. I'm not sure why. YankeeTheRebel (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

DoB/DoD/age should be treated as contentious and thus need stronger sourcing than a Whitepages listing or PeopleFinder profile. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@YankeeTheRebel: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#MyLife. GoingBatty (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Am I correct in surmising that Wikipedia's stance is that no dob information is better than information from a people finder site (even if it's accurate)?

Correct. (This is in part because of the tendency for actors/actresses to lie about/dispute their age due to ageism within the industry.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

YankeeTheRebel It may not help you in this case, but a confirmed social media account (they have a checkmark), like a tweet that says "I'm 35 today!" can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

talk:Karenthewriter|talk]]) 03:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• @YankeeTheRebel: The problem of sourcing was addressed above, but in addition, there are privacy considerations. Per WP:DOB: Wikipedia includes (...) dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If (...) the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. If you have to hunt for more than five minutes to find even the year, I would say it is not "widely published by reliable sources". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to the information not being widely published by reliable sources, it's kind of funny to think that once I submit the story I'm working on, that will no longer be considered the case and the subject's Wikipedia page will likely be updated (not by me) using my story as a reference. I have a feeling that this type of situation (repackaging) is a common occurrence. In any case, I understand that it is how it is here and I appreciate you all letting me know how it is lol. Thanks again!

Daphna Kastner

I am curious how a page like Daphna Kastner remains with no references or notability? Unfortunately, those who are new to editing Wiki see this and get confused how they are declined... 2600:6C60:5300:F4BF:3991:9460:333B:2682 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have marked the article with a maintenance template for attention. Thanks for pointing it out. As there are six million plus articles here, it is possible to get problematic content by us. We can only address what we know about, and need help identifying such articles. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That article has been virtually unchanged in 13 years. It survives because she's directed and starred in a few barely notable films (they barely have articles themselves), thus barely meeting WP:NACTOR. Hopefully the tagging and this newfound attention will get it improved. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Added a ref (copied from the Harvey Keitel article). The article about Daphna gets ~ 250 views a day, probably because of to whom she is married, as HK gets >3,000 views/day. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

PearPop

Hello! I came across a company called PearPop recently that has some pretty major investors like Alexis Ohanian and Guy Oseary. I was considering working on a draft for them but wanted to see if the community here agrees that it passes the notability guideline for companies? They have been written about in TechCrunch, Billboard, Fast Company and others. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Grimothy29 (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Grimothy29 (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would double-check your "TechCrunch" link. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

TechCrunch and Rolling Stone also look good. I'd give it a shot, but maybe keep the first version somewhat simple and avoid promotional material. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton and Jéské Couriano: Oops - here is the correct TechCrunch link. And thank you for the input, Tim. I agree. A lot of what I was able to find mentions some promotional information but I'll attempt a draft that avoids that. Thank you. Grimothy29 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft have a problem?

Does this draft have a problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Univision_Now ItsJustdancefan (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For one thing, the prose is impenetrable. Designed as a standalone offering that does not require an existing pay television subscription in order to access, the service is initially available via a dedicated website [...]. Does that perhaps just mean Accessing the service does not require payment; it is initially available via its own website [...].? -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone can help me to edit the page ? Thank you

Hi friends , someone can help how to edit the page ? I have 100% proved about some edit but I don’t know how to do to get approved. Thank You Tim.1944.Au (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tim.1944.Au: I think perhaps you meant to post at Wikipedia:Teahouse? This talk page is for discussions about the article Teahouse, and Wikipedia:Teahouse is a help forum for new editors. --bonadea contributions talk 18:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've moved this from Talk:Teahouse. I assume this question is related to User talk:BlameRuiner#Alessandro Venezia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Tim.1944.Au As BlameRuiner has explained to you several times, you knowing something to be true is not sufficient for that information to be in a Wikipedia article. W requires what it calls reliable source references. Since early June, several IP addresses (hopefully not you, not logged in) and you from your account have been adding information to the article about Alessandro Venezia, all reverted as not verified. The article has been short-term semi-protected to stop the IP postings. The right place to take this dispute is to the Talk page of the article, i.e., not BaameRuiner's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Song Pages

Can you add the lyrics of a song to the song page? Nothing specific just general question. IFvoltronwasadragon... (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)IFvoltronwasadragon...

Hello @IFvoltronwasadragon..., and welcome! Song lyrics are usually under copyright. Even when they are not, it's rarely included in full. If the song/poem is in public domain and super short, it could be. Otherwise, you only quote the bits that need to be discussed, such as the bits that critics might have quoted when reviewing the song or album. See WP:NOTLYRICS. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Video citation

Can I cite some parts of my draft with a French video, provided that it gives the needed info? (Click here for the vide? Excellenc1 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, the language that the video is in is not an issue. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, per WP:NOENG, if you can, add a translation of the relevant bit to the cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: So does that mean I can add a translated transcript of the video (which I have created)? Excellenc1 (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 I'm going to assume you don't mean a 53 min transcript, that'd pass MOS:QUOTE and go into WP:COPYVIO.

I'd cite it like this (it will look "normal" in non-talk space) , and don't forget to add time (as in when in video). Use the quote parameter for relevant quote, in English or both. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Review of My article : Haniya Nafisa (2)

Hi there, I just would like to get a reply from my question which I posted Yesterday. The question was to let a reveiewer know from which Points of WP:MUSICBIO does my Draft qualify and I stated the points from where she qualifies. Since then, I have not got a reply.

Secondly, there are two reviewers discussing within themselves for the approval of the Draft: Haniya Nafisa in it's Talk page. So, can I suggest them anything? Or can I leave them discussing?

Also, can anyone explain me what they were speaking of? Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: It is easier to keep the discussion focused if it is kept in one section – please don't start new sections about the same topic. I just responded in the discussion above. (I modified the heading to this section to make it possible to link to the previous one.) Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue prevention

Madam/Sir, I want to add some photos to Wikipedia article- 2021 ICC World Test Championship Final. Those photos include New Zealand cricket team lifting the ICC World Test Championship Mace. These photos are available on various internet sites. So, how can I add those photos to Wikipedia without violating the copyright law? RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NFCC? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, now I have read it. Thank You @Jéské Couriano: RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheese in Bangladesh

 Saadullah Tutu (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What about it, Saadullah Tutu? -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle?

What is twinkle? Who can use it? Is it used to edit automatically. Siddartha897 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a semi-automated tool used by autoconfirmed users to perform certain actions more quickly. See Wikipedia:Twinkle. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"the citation requirements of Wikipedia"

Let me start by saying I have written many different forms of papers and articles, so there was an expectation of drafting and editing to be done here.

I have several sets of revisions now from those colleagues still able to contribute and mentioned in these articles. Such is the interest to maintain these important pieces of digital history.

Having re read the articles looking at the citations used, whilst many are from Wikipedia itself there are others independent references used.

In this context, its virtually impossible to meet the citation requirements of Wikipedia.

If someone explains practically how this can be achieved then we will listen?

regards Sophietwice (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have titled this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you are writing about Draft:A Mechanism for the Perpetual Preservation of Electronic Records of Value. Yes, its referencing is utterly inadequate. For one thing, Wikipedia is not usable as a source. (There are other major problems with this draft too.) If it is indeed impossible to meet the citation requirements of Wikipedia for part of a draft, then that part must be deleted; if it is impossible for the whole draft, then that draft must be abandoned: no article can be constructed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is an existing article, say for example Kenneth Thibodeau, then putting double brackets [[ ]] creates a Wikilink, but this does not count as a reference. Also, given that you have had two drafts declined, specify which you are asking questions about. For the "A Mechanism..." draft, it appears to be an effort to document a 1996-97 project that culminated in an unpublished technical report about a proposed system that was never implemented. In my opinion, there is no potential for this becoming a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Separately, the User:Sophietwice Has "SophieTwice is a publication Avatar for Business Compass in St Lo, Manche, France, business registration number:8313534016" This is therefor a non-allowed name. Either go through a name-change process, or else stop using that account and start a new account with a User name that is only for you as an individual. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding to that, if you want a username that includes the orgname, something like ""Kim at Sophietwice" is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Request edits

 88.97.62.209 (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, IP user. Please read WP:EDITREQUEST for advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor

 2A00:23C6:6087:8300:7C1D:E2DA:AB5A:E45 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Princess Persnickety (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How to report someone who is adding various misrepresentative statements with references that cannot be checked

There is a person whom I've been interacting with repeatedly who continuously keeps adding content (regarding Islam) that promotes his own personal beliefs (as checked from his user page) with shady references that cannot be easily checked. For example, he keeps intentionally adding the idea of Iblis being a fallen angel as being a part of Islamic beliefs at the very top of a list with a reference from some French book without any ISBN or online link. The overwhelming of the 1.6 billion Muslims alive do not believe in this. He does not add clarifications as to which sect believes in this and does not make distinctions between the sects. The article Dajjal is a very good article in this regard which clarifies the beliefs of the different sects whereas the article Iblis is the exact opposite. The ideas are so convoluted that a reader will not be able to understand which sect believes in what clearly. Wikipedia is one of the most widely used encyclopaedia websites if not the most widely used one. Is it supposed to be some platform for self-promotion of such individuals? Such absurd mix-up will confuse people. Furthermore, he does not even seem to understand the English language when he is opposed but can clearly make legible edits on Wikipedia. I am a Sunni Muslim and such ideas are misrepresenting us! He keeps claiming that I am influenced by Salafism while he himself seems to promote what would be considered as clear-cut heretical ideas to Sunni Muslims. I am frustrated to such an extent that I cannot express it in words... Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: welcome to the Teahouse. The first and primary place to discuss the content of an article is that article's talk page, in this case Talk:Iblis. Please remember to assume good faith, that it, assume that editors who don't agree with you are nevertheless here to improve the encyclopedia. Your posts to Talk:Shaitan#images are a bit too confrontational and focus on the other editor and (what you assume to be) that editor's personal beliefs and opinions, rather than on whether specific sources or content meets Wikipedia's policies. If you are not able to reach a consensus on the article talk page, there are other venues to request third opinions or dispute resolution, but you can't do that before even trying to discuss it on the article talk page. Remember that there is no requirement that a source be available online, and that in itself does not make a source "shady"; also remember that ISBN is a relatively modern feature, and a book published before the 1970s will probably not have an ISBN. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Help create a page for Mark Hill, Hairdresser

Would anybody please help create a page for Mark Hill, Hairdresser? I have all of the information but I am finding it difficult. Thank you. Gdatky (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is mysterious. I see no trace of the earlier draft. Anyway, I suggest that you first get some experience editing articles that already exist, and then start your draft at Draft:Mark Hill (hairdresser). -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Draft:Mark Hill was undeleted, but has nothing to do with your desire to create an article about the hairdresser Mark Hill. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with an enormous number of dead links at once

Hi, I'm wondering what we should do, when we come across an article that has an enormous number of problems. The article that's triggered this is Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam. It has a vast number of references, but loads of them are either completely broken (404), or link to pages that probably once reflected the subject of the article, but have since moved on and are no longer relevant. I know there's a tag for dead-links, but I don't know if it's helpful to test every reference one by one and add umpteen tags. On top of that, almost none of them look like independent, reliable sources, so I'd like to add a citations-needed tag, but not with the aim at getting more; I'd like to see quality rather than quantity. The article has just had an enormous deletion followed by an enormous reversion, probably because of citation issues and the fact it looks a bit promotional (but I'm only guessing the motivation; there was no edit-summary for deletion). The talk-page has an ages-old argument against deletion, so I'm guessing issues have arisen in the past. The subject is probably a jolly good person and may be very notable, but this article really needs someone who knows about him to do some proper referencing. How should a case like this be tagged in a way likely to generate constructive contribution? Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You, or a bot, or somebody can look up the dead pages at the Wayback Machine (as has already been done, successfully, for a lot of the links). -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Tagged with essay template. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One bot you can use to run this is IA Bot- you can access it by going to an article, clicking "View History", then "Fix dead links". That bot also gives you an option to add archives for non-dead links too. I ran it on that page and it found and added 15 archive URLs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that; I will remember it for next time. Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for a Second Opinion

I have spent a considerable amount of time over the past four months working on an entry for an innovation expert called Uday Phadke who has recently developed an insightful innovation framework that many startup companies have found very useful, and which readers of Wikipedia might benefit from. I worked with this person briefly about twenty years ago, which is how I know him. The innovation framework is one of a number of approaches I have taught to my undergraduates and MBA students as a business school professor. In spite of multiple revisions, extra references,etc. the reviewer I have been in dialogue with has rejected the article. Currently we have hit an impasse because the reviewer wants to treat Phadke as an academic, which he is not, even though for several years he was the Entrepreneur in Residence at the Judge Business School in Cambridge. Instead, Phadke is a highly regarded practitioner with some academic experience - what in American business school would be called an Adjunct Professor. I believe the standard of the contribution is higher than that of a number of other entries which I have easily found and shown to the reviewer. What I would like is for someone else to take a look at the entry, and give me a second opinion. The entry is at Draft:Uday Phadke. Jeter1956talk Jeter1956 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink to Draft:Uday Phadke. Declined twice (not rejected). You had a dialogue with the second reviewer, on that reviewer's Talk page, and got some advice. My opinion is that the article cannot be accepted as written. The entire Triple-chasm innovation section needs to be deleted. The article is supposed to be about Phadke, not an in-depth expounding on his business theory. Oh, and delete all the 'refs' that are no more than mentions of his having been speaker at a conference (for example 22 & 23). If you get this down to half as long and half as many refs, there is a change it can be accepted. Lastly, there are a lot of bad and weak articles at Wikipedia (see WP:Other stuff exists). Mentioning such is not justification for your draft. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeter1956: It suffers from being too verbose. A large part of the article is about triple scale up, and if that content was notable enough on its own, you could do what is called a “content fork” and create an article just on that. Then, the triple scale up section in his article would only be a few sentences with a link to the main article. It’s also a bit jargony, making it sonewhat inaccessible to laymen. I think if you shortened it considerably, and rewrote it in clearer language, while keeping the sources, you would have a better chance of getting it accepted. One way to do this would be to remove anything that’s not sourced, even if that leaves the article with narrative holes. And I know it’s nitpicky, but I found the capitalization of Vector to be annoying. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

/* 2011 Oddbods */

")!! ^££^"(^ (2011 Oddbods) YougurtDoggy2005 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@YougurtDoggy2005: Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on moving copyright-free images to Wikimedia

Are there any good guides that step through (1) what images no longer fall under Copyright restrictions (i.e., they were made before this year and are no longer bound by copyright restrictions); (2) where to find these images - Library of Congress, Flickr, etc.; (3) general guidance on uploading to Wikimedia?

I've experienced the Flickr -> Wikimedia bot, and it's nice that it automates the process for me, but I'd like to be able to us other tools besides FIST and CC Search to find more images, but am a bit restricted on the cloudy world of copyright. Engineerchange (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Engineerchange: There’s some general information here wikipedia:Copyrights. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Engineerchange: Answering (1): commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart plus WP:URAA are my go-to table for copyright terms. Of course, there are exceptions on top of exceptions (the common traps are WP:FOP for buildings/outside sculptures and the country-dependent threshold of originality for company logos).

I cannot help much about (2). For (3), Help:Files#Uploading_files and the Commons pages it links to is a good start, unless you want something more detailed? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Can administrators block each other?

Can administrators block each other? --Crocusfleur (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Crocusfleur (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes if necessary. It has also happened by accident. ϢereSpielChequers 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Transair Flight 810

I hear a Trans Executive Airlines Boeing 737-200, registered as N810TA makes emergency water landing on coast off Honolulu after pilots reported engine trouble. The plane ditch into the off coast Honolulu, but both pilots rescued and survived. Please someone edit it? Lkas123 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Incident is now in Trans Executive Airlines with a citation. Could be added to the list of 737 incidents. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My pending new pages: Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr and Dr. Cyril O Spann Medical Office (a National Register of Historic Places site)

Hello everyone! So pleased to be invited to this group, with the successful submission of two pages for review last night. I am glad that it has gotten somewhat easier to create these pages.

I hope I don't have to wait five months for my pages to be approved!

For the page I've created for my artist friend - he sent me some images that its ok for me to add. I'm wondering if I can add to a page once it has been submitted for review.

For the historic site page, I'd like to add the map, coordinates and additional information that the other national register site pages have, but I'm using the visual editor as the easy way to create pages, and I don't know how to add this information to the page.

Open to suggestions and tutoring!

ProfessorKaiFlai ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProfessorKaiFlai On images: "he sent me some images that its ok for me to add" is not good enough, WP is very picky about copyright. Assuming the person who sent them to you owns the copyright, which usually means they took them themselves with their own camera, the simple solution is that they upload it themself with the process that starts here. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr. does not show that it has been submitted. The other has been submitted. Yes, you can continue to edit drafts while waiting for a review. IMPORTANT: You state here that RWB is your "artist friend", meaning that you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) which you need to declare on your User page. And FYI - the review system is not a queue. Reviewers look at the list and select what they want to review. So, could be days, weeks or months. David notMD (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - I used 'artist friend' as a figure of speech, we have never even met! He is an artist I follow on FB and he asked me if I would help him with his page. I am doing so uncompensated. 19:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

The other article appears to be more about Cyril O. Spann than about his medical office, even though the latter has a National Registry listing (http://schpr.sc.gov/index.php/Detail/properties/55476). David notMD (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - how can I find my draft article to make corrections?ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)ProfessorKaiFlai

Adding an image to an article

I tried to insert an image but it seems I have to do some thing before that? Any comment? Awtar-Pal (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Awtar-Pal, WP:IMAGE is a place to start. If the image is on [Wikimedia Commons] it's pretty easy, but any image must satisfy WP/Commons strict rules abou copyright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Seeking review for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lokesh_Chugh

I have created a page about lokesh chugh an eminent politician who is known for raising student matters, posted reference links too. kindly approve the page, followed all the guidelines that were required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lokesh_Chugh, this is the page link for reference--Muskaan sachdeva (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Muskaan sachdeva (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Muskaan sachdeva The draft Draft:Lokesh Chugh has not been submitted for formal review. If you submit it in its present state it will not be accepted. The reverences need to be embedded in the text, after the sentences they factually verify. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

False positive

Why the bot has reverted my edit?? --Freeklane (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Freeklane: An error, which happens. You can report the false positive here: Wikipedia:CBFP, which may help improve Cluebot's future work. RudolfRed (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed:  Done, thank you.--Freeklane (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about template (idea?)

Good day. Is there a template where I can see my most recent contribution? I want to specifically put one on my user page. -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 17:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: I don't know of a template, but you could put a link to your contribution history Special:Contributions/SsSsSølarRadia_-75. You could also propose it if you have more detailed thoughts of just how the edit would display. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: Possibly {{UserContribs2}}, but it is a little confusing to me. RudolfRed (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Probably not that but thanks for a suggestion. Close, but not really of what I was looking for. Here is what I got in mind as a template doesn't exist. A box, border thing that surrounds what is inside. The template would automatically show the user's most recent contribution in the template, with a link to that contribution. The words that make up the link would be the contribution's reason.

Procedure

When going back after several days to revise a sentence in a discussion, should I sign the end of that sentence or should I write that the sentence has been revised? I'm trying to bring clarity, but I want to be open about it. Thanks! The Kingfisher (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Kingfisher: You could use the strike code <s></s> to strike through the old content, and show the new revised comment next to it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Thanks, TimTempleton! The Kingfisher (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Making a comparison to an artist in the past

I'd like to source an article from the New York Times but not sure of the words "somewhat like John J. Audubon" would be considered worthy of comparison. Here is the excerpt: Although he assembles and finishes his work back home in Cornwall, England, he is, somewhat like John J. Audubon, a naturalist who must sketch and paint at the site to achieve the authenticity that suits him.

Thanks! Views4Days (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Views4Days: It doesn't really sound like a comparison that would be quoted in a Wikipedia article. If the painter's work had been compared to that of Audubon it would have been a different matter, since Audubon is one of the best-known bird painters of all time, but comparing their modes of working in this way doesn't seem all that relevant. That is my take on it, and others might differ. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've uploaded pictures - now where is my pending submission?

I would like to add the pictures I just uploaded to my submission that's under review. What's the easiest way to find it? ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Linking copyrighted materials on Internet Archive

Recently, I had nominated Mariner 1 for G.A. and the reviewer recommended changing several of the citations to include links to copyrighted materials on the Internet Archive (and, indeed, commercially available material). I have trouble with this practice as IA is rather liberal with what it puts online, and though they are great organization (to whom I've donated quite a lot), I have trouble endorsing their abuse of Fair Use.

Has there been any consensus on this? --Neopeius (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

which came first the chicken or the egg

 Josh168mcfc (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Josh168mcfc, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a forum for asking for help about using and editing Wikipedia, not for questions unrelated to those topics. That said, the egg came first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. I asked Siri and he noted that there are egg timers, but no chicken timers. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:565:D9B3:211B:F1CD (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Vicki_Sue_Robinson / Wilton CT.

suggestion.....adding Vicki Sue Robinson (70's disco singer) to notable people that lived in Wilton CT. page. Thank you.... 104.175.72.82 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What the?

Why when I reverted this IP users edit it gave me the longest edit summary ever? 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure I did not accidentally add the extra zeros yourself? That seems like Anton.bersh (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)