Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

Article verification

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia. Please help me with article verification. It would be great to have it published soon. If I have done something wrong, please write to me Thanks a lot! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SvetlanaManuylova/sandbox?action=edit&veswitched=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvetlanaManuylova (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your question was answered at WP:Help desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as it wastes the time of volunteers to answer a question which has already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Along with this, remember to sign all your talk page entries via the 4 tildes, like so ~~~~ _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 19:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

All content needs to be verified by independent references. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so much for your answers! Unfortunately, I have a question again. Can you please tell me which of the links are not suitable? When choosing these links, I proceeded from the fact that each of them contains important information and can be considered independent. I have read the criteria for this many times, but found no reason to exclude any of the sources. I would be very grateful if you could help me. Also, please clarify about the photos. Ted gave me the right to identify myself as her owner. However, it was just in personal correspondence. Can you please tell me if I can go a different way and cite an outside source for our picture? Or is there some other way to use it? Thank you very much for your help. Have a great day.SvetlanaManuylova (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@SvetlanaManuylova: Please document your conflict of interest on your user page - you can use {{UserboxCOI}} for this. The external links in the "Moving to Canada" and "Interesting Facts" sections are not appropriate per WP:EL. The links in the "External links" section should provide more information on Bobier - those that don't should be changed ore removed (e.g. Manitoba Institute of Trades and Technology). Please provide independent sources per WP:BASIC to demonstrate notability, and use footnotes per Help:Footnotes. For the photos, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, I am very grateful for your help. Second, I worked on the article again: I removed unnecessary sources, removed external links, checked if I had any other independent sources. Unfortunately, no. Please answer me: is what I have enough for the article to be published? I'm afraid I won't have any additional sources in the near future. If the article in this version is not suitable - maybe I should shorten it and make the article as concise as possible, using 2-3 sources? Thank you very much!SvetlanaManuylova (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@SvetlanaManuylova: I see a couple of problems. First, the entire article appears uncourced because you did not use inline citations for verification of any of the claims made in the article. WP:CITE offers some over-complicated guidance; it may be better to look at examples in other articles to see how it's done using citation templates.

Second, you basically have just three sources. Your first one from Filipino Journal is a good one. The second one looks like a social media page and probably wouldn't be considered reliable. The third and fourth sources have identical content; you just need one, and it's useful for verifying personal details but not for establishing notability. Basically just the first source is useful for establishing notability, but we need multiple sources like that.

Making it more concise is a good idea. Otherwise, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject, in which case you can wait for more reliable source coverage to appear, and submit the draft for review after the subject is actually notable. If the draft is deleted because it languished too long (unlikely to happen if it isn't tagged for WP:AFC, which yours isn't), don't worry, it can be restored easily again; see WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Best steps to create page on English Wikipedia that exists in German Wikipedia

I am looking for guidance on the best/proper steps to take when creating a Wikipedia page that exists in German Wikipedia. The person in question (Ulrike Lohmann) will meet criteria #3 of WP:PROF, so I am not concerned about establishing notability. She has a page on the German Wikipedia site de:Ulrike Lohmann.

From reading through the various Wikipedia pages, I found some information at WP:TFOLWP and the information on the template for {{translated page}} for the talk page. Is it acceptable to use a Google Translate version as the first version on the English Wikipedia? Then, as a next step, I think it would make sense to edit the page to get everything into better English and update the article.

Is this an OK plan, or are there other things I should consider?

I recognize that one alternate plan is to make a new page from scratch, but that doesn't seem very efficient. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia, but be sure you know both English and German; machine translation is not allowed on it's own. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: See also Help:Translation#Avoid machine translations. If you want to use Google Translate to produce a rough version, it's best to copy what it produces and emend it in your user space, moving the article to mainspace only whan you're satisfied that its accurately translated into proper idiomatic English and acceptably sourced. Deor (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I do speak some German, so I am comfortable with the translation (thanks also for the link on avoiding machine translations). Once I have the translation set, am I OK if I put the {{translated page}} note on the talk page, or are there other steps I need to take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffodilOcean (talk • contribs)

My comments would be: (1) Google-translate does make mistakes in translation from German, especially with technical language where word-for-word translation leads to incomprehensible stuff that makes no sense in an English-language context. For example, government institutions that don't exist in the English speaking world sound a bit daft without any explanation. Google-translate will also translate people's names, and other things that shouldn't be changed. (2) Yes, it's sufficient to include the template. The point is to acknowledge the original authors, so by pointing at the page that you have translated, you provide a route for a reader to go back and see who wrote the German text. (3) You may encounter pictures that are not in wikicommons. (4) Sometimes it's difficult to know what to translate, and what to leave. The German name of a company might need to be given in original German so that people can search for it by name; but it might be helpful to translate if the name gives an indication of what it actually does. (5) You may need to change some wiki-links into inter-wiki links that point for the moment at the German equivalent, but will automatically point to the English article if someone gets round to writing it. (6) Templates on the German wikipedia often have different parameters, names and formats to their equivalents on the UK wikipedia, so expect to change them all. This includes pictures. The best thing with pictures is to find a suitable bit of format in an English article, and paste the German file links into the English-style picture template, together with translated captions, and then see if the picture looks right, and appears. If it doesn't appear at all, it's not in commons. Good luck!

Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent - I think this gives me all I need. Thanks for the help (and I apologize for forgetting to sign the second question I had). --DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: I've done this once using Google Translate for a German article (Paul Trappen), and it is a painfully slow process, not simply copy-and-paste. I started with the Google translation, then I went through the translation of every cited source to get a better context around a translated sentence from the German Wikipedia article. Once I was confident I understood the gist of it, I rewrote the Google-translated sentence in my own words if necessary. I think my English version of the article came out better than the German original, but it was not an easy task to create an English article "correctly" using Google Translate. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: - OK, thanks for the tip and the link to a page where this has been done. This is helpful. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you purge a Username and start a new account?

How do you purge a Username and start a new account? 2600:6C64:7D3F:A12B:DA3:E10F:9237:60DA (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You cannot delete a username, per Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. You can just abandon it and create a new account (presuming you're not engaging in block evasion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you look above the section that GoingBatty linked you to, you will also see the procedure for renaming your existing account.--Khajidha (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

On Uploading Logos of companies and organizations

Should I recreate a logo/illustration on my own based on the organization's current logo, or that will be a copyright infringement too?  SX3001 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@SX3001: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's no need to recreate a logo. You can upload it as a non-free file using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

SX3001, adding to the answer, if a logo is complex enough to be subject to copyright (not all are), then reproducing it by any means is a copyright violation. Threshold of originality is the relevant legal concept.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thank you for prodiving me with the technical term of such a copyright violation. GoingBatty Thank you too; So I can download the logo from a company/organization's website and then use it in a page thanks to the non-free file disclosure without any problem or the image ending up getting deleted? I've uploaded a logo once and it got deleted on this page—I've downloaded the logo from the company's website and I've uploaded it and credited the work and the sources to their website. SX3001 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

SX3001, the Omeros logo was removed from the article because it had an inadequate non-free use rationale. You should use Template:Non-free use rationale logo and complete all of the relevant fields. The file was later deleted because it was no longer being used in an article. An additional clarification: there are many types of pages on Wikipedia, but use of non-free images is limited only to live encyclopedia articles. They cannot be used in draft articles, for example, and should only be added after a draft is moved to the main space, and only in the specific article specified in the rationale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi SX3001. Just going to add that non-free use of a file isn't automatic and there are ten criteria that need to be satisfied each time you use a non-free file. Non-free logos are generally OK to use per item 2 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone Wikipedia article about whatever the logo represents. So, for example, if you wanted to use the logo of a company in the main infobox of a Wikipedia article about said company, then that's probably OK. Other types of non-free uses or use in other types of articles, however, can be much harder to justify. For example, if you wanted to use an non-free logo for a company in an article about the company's founder, then it would be much harder to justify. In addition, former or historical logos can be particularly hard to justify because they typically are no longer used for primary identification purposes. Generally, such a logo itself needs to have be subjected of sourced critical commentary somehwere within the article as explained here for it to be considered OK to use. It's typically not considered enough just to say an organization changes its branding; rather, there needs to article content specifically corresponding to the change in logo that discusses reasons for the change (e.g. any controversies associated with the change) that not seeing the logo would make the corresponding article content quite hard to understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The above said, uploading a logo is fairly easy. Start at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, chose "Upload a non-free file", > "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." > "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." and follow the other instructions that appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly and Gråbergs Gråa Sång now it is very clear to me, thank you guys for the helpful and guiding comments. SX3001 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

reference

i don't know how to add a reference, please explain Npk482376 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Npk482376! There's guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners, or at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 if you're using VisualEditor. Feel free to let us know if you have any specific questions or want help with a specific page. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I change my Username?

Hi there I'm a new user and struggling on my own for some time now to get started with my own writings to be published. I'm a writer anyway mainly in Bengali, but write in English too. First thing, I need to change my username. How can I do that? Could anybody here kindly help me regarding this? FKTipu (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:Changing username --David Biddulph (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Material rejected because "that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."

Hi!

I have a little trouble posting a material about a person. Material was rejected because it did not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.

Checked for help and it looks like I have not added necessary citations according to Wikipedia articles of Biographies of living persons.

Wanted to know - what citations are necessary and where to ad them (footnote)?

Article itself may be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Juris_Hmelnickis

Hope, somebody can help me with this issue. EgilsDoro (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@EgilsDoro, hello! These should help: WP:REFBEGIN and the parts about referencing at WP:TUTORIAL. If there's stuff you can't cite, like date of birth, delete it, WP:BLP is a strict policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You should also make sure your draft meets the demands at WP:BASIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about articles

Hello! I have a question.

Can articles about a sub category of a bigger topic include information that may already be in another article, or should a Wiki article be linked instead? MD380 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC) MD380 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The same information can absolutely appear in more than one article. Assuming that it is relevant to each article and is not being given undue weight in them. --Khajidha (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@MD380 That's a broad question, hard to give a meaningful answer. Consider, for example, Star Trek/Star Trek: The Original Series. There is some of the same info, but the subarticle has focus on it's own topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Other examples - for some of the minerals which are also essential nutrients, there are articles "_____ in biology" that can be considered as sub-categories of the mineral articles. The biology articles have a link to the mineral articles, but also contain enough content about the minerals so that it is not necessary to go back and forth between the two. (And, the main articles have some content about biology in addition to the link to the biology article.) David notMD (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Level of technical sophistication of mathematical articles?

A couple of editors and I have had an argument about a reading of WP:TECHNICAL that's come to something of a standstill, and I'd like to make sure I'm taking a reasonable position before I commit to it any more deeply. The disagreement is over whether a given mathematical article should be written entirely at an elementary level, e.g. towards an audience of 10th graders in a U.S. high school, given that the subject is covered in sources at that level. My position is that WP:TECHNICAL implies we should try to balance elementary and specialist material to the extent that they differ in our pool of sources, as the subject is also of interest all the way up to professional mathematicians and is covered in sources as far as that level. Like, the article should be broadly accessible to a general reader, but should include specialist material in addition to more elementary material to the extent that they clash, so that it can be useful to both audiences. WP:TERTIARYUSE also seems to indicate to me that the "gold standard" for sources for any mathematical article would be widely-used textbooks at the undergraduate-to-graduate level, which implies to me that the article should be a survey of material around that level. Do I have the right idea or am I misinterpreting these pages? Mesocarp (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The place for discussion is the talk page of the article, Talk:Polynomial in this case. If you fail to reach consensus there, dispute resolution is an option. You might also discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics if you feel that the concern isn't specific to the one article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, so the meaning of policy etc. in that context needs to be hashed out via consensus around the article—like, the larger community doesn't already have some sort of strong guideline to follow in this context? I guess from that angle, my position might be valid, but it depends on consensus there? I think where I'm coming from makes sense, but I am in the minority right now. Mesocarp (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The very general rule is WP:ONEDOWN (a section of WP:TECHNICAL), but of course "write one level below the usual level of education where the topic is studied" can leave place to some interpretation. Take for instance the topic of messenger RNA: most of what can be written about it is highly technical, and if you had asked me in 2019 I would say the target audience should be first-year biology students, for which the current lead is fine (I guess). However, page views have considerably increased, which I guess is due to the apparition of covid19 vaccines based on mRNA delivery - therefore, today, I would say that the lead should be understandable by any adult reader, which it most definitely is not right now.

The problem, of course, is that to write something understandable and that is correct, you need to be an expert of the topic and to be good at pedagogy; either is hard enough that combining the two is taxing. I remember making some edits in articles about thermodynamics that took a good hour to change two short sentences. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

How to handle existing redirect for different person

I am not sure of the protocol here. I have a page ready to move to the mainspace (Draft:Susan Schwartz). The draft I am working on is about a scientist.

In 2011, someone setup a redirect for a different Susan Schwartz that goes to the page for Friends of Five Creeks. Do I delete the existing Susan Schwartz redirect? Do I copy my text onto the existing Susan Schwartz redirect? Do I move the existing redirect to another page that has a title something like 'Susan Schwartz (non-profit leader)'? Some other option?

Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: I looked at all the articles that link to Susan Schwartz, and none of them appeared to be referring to the leader of Friends of Five Creeks. However, many of them referred to the Susan Y. Schwartz in your draft. (I deleted the incorrect links referring to an author/editor, but left the incorrect links to the scientist for now, pending your draft.) You'll first have to look at WP:COMMONNAME and determine what the article should be called. If you choose "Susan Y. Schwartz", then you can change the existing links from Susan Schwartz to Susan Y. Schwartz. If you choose "Susan Schwartz", then I don't see the harm about overwriting the existing redirect. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: - OK, thanks for the help. I am going to use Susan Schwartz. If someone later decides to write a page for the leader of Friends of Five Creeks, that seems like a good time to add more details and whatever disambiguation is needed.

--DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Turned down.

I wrote a Wiki page for a former MMA fighter, its been turned down. I don't understand as there's tons of wiki pages for fighters (mma/boxing). I feel I have provided decent bio material, better than most wiki pages for fighters & the references used are legit interviews with the athelete from a journalist.

I would add his career statistics, but I don't have the knowledge how to create the templates that u see in wiki pages for MMA fighters and boxers. If someone added the template I would fill in the details. 31.111.56.179 (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Your post here is the only edit I see by this IP address. It would be easier to assist you if you linked to the draft you have been working on. There may be articles that don't meet our criteria for notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and your help to improve them would be appreciated. To add the career statistics, you could copy the template from another article, paste it into your draft, and then change the details. But before doing that, make sure that your draft shows how the fighter meets WP:NMMA. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

editing

Due to poor understanding of Wikipedia functions as a newbie, recently I was blocked partially when editing a page.. Is it okay to edit and create pages in the same particular category, being a subject expert? Ifidont (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ifidont, your qualifications aren't really relevant to anything. It's a matter of whether you can abide by Wikipedia's rules. I see that there is a discussion about your conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ifidont and alternative medicine. This is a community discussion that will determine whether it makes sense for your editing to be restricted in some way. People at the Teahouse don't make those decisions. FYI, anything in the "pseudoscience" category (which is construed to include Ayurveda) is subject to the same one-revert restriction. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1 Thanks for letting me know. That happened on the first day of my autoconfirmed editorship.Anyways, will wait for further notifications. I would love to work on my area of interest since I believe I can contribute more to those pages, abiding by the rules of Wikipedia .Ifidont (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ifidont: See also Wikipedia:Expert editors, WP:1RR and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt That was a huge disclosure! Lemme digest it a bit..Thanks! Ifidont (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft awaiting review

Can someone accept my draft, please. Wokipoki (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't read what it says in the brown box on your draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,303 pending submissions waiting for review."? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the Teahouse. Everyone here is a volunteer and while some of us can accept drafts, the majority of us can't. So please, be patient. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

ORIGINE DE LA LANGUE HAOUSSA

JE SUIS DE L'ETHNIE HAOUSSA, JE VIS AU NIGER OU J'Y SUIS NE. LA LANGUE HAOUSSA COMPORTE PLUSIEURS DIALECTES ET LES COMMUNAUTES QUI COMPOSENT CES DIFFERENTS DIALECTES REVENDIQUENT LA PATERNITE DE LA LANGUE HAOUSSA. C'EST POUR ECLAIRER LES UNS ET LES AUTRES QUE JE POSE LA QUESTION DE L'ORIGINE DE LA LANGUE HAOUSSA. 41.203.147.14 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Veuillez cesser de crier. Bienvenue à la Maison de thé. Y a-t-il une question que vous aimeriez poser? Si vous cherchez l'article sur le peuple Hausa, il se trouve ici... Hausa people. L'article sur la langue Hausa se trouve ici... Hausa language. --ARoseWolf 15:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! It appears you are more fluent in French than English. You would probably do better over at the French Wikipedia (and their teahouse if they have one). Someone link to the French Wikipedia Teahouse or it's equivalent Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Google's Translation of their message:

ORIGIN OF THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE

I AM FROM THE HAOUSSA ETHNIC, I LIVE IN NIGER OR I AM BORN. THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE INCLUDES SEVERAL DIALECTS AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT MAKE UP THESE DIFFERENT DIALECTS CLAIM THE PATERNITY OF THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE. IT IS TO ENLIGHTEN THE SOME AND THE OTHERS THAT I ASK THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The French-Wikipedia Teahouse is fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux, 41.203.147.14. @Blaze The Wolf: Many project pages that have other-language equivalents (particular if they are well-known, such as the Teahouse or the Drama board) are linked through Wikidata the same way articles are. You can find links to these other versions right on the page, here (this link only works while viewing this page) Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok thank you! I knew how to do it however I didn't know what it was called over at the French Wikipedia. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to restore a page that has been deleted? The links to it still exist but you get a generic page saying it has been deleted when you click the link.

 147.161.166.179 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@147.161.166.179 Article are deleted for a reason, the reason would normally be included in a red box displayed above the source editor textbox. If you have valid reason for undeletion, you can request for WP:REFUND. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Why was my wiki page rejected?

 InfoMCollinson (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the log, this page was deleted under reason "G3: Blatant hoax" --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

InfoMCollinson, as an administrator, I can read your deleted content. It was utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, consisting of bizarre nonsensical family lore that appears to have been made up by somebody. That type of content is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My Wikipedia page is stuck as a draft, how do I publish it?

Hello, I've written my own Wikipedia page. I realise this isn't ideal, but I've ensured that everything I've included is as objective as possible. It's all backed up with references to ensure that it's credible and all the information can be verified easily. How do I now get this moved forward from being a draft and publish it? I'm very happy for it to be checked, peer-reviewed and to make any required changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sarah_Hyndman All the best, Sarah Sarahmhyndman (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Sarahmhyndman (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahmhyndman: I placed a submission template in your draft. Submit it for review when you feel it is ready. But I have to tell you it would not get published in its current state. It needs further cleanup, such as putting in a proper infobox. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As it's currently a draft all you have to do is click the button "Submit the Draft for review" and it will be put in the queue for another editor to see. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: the submit button is there only because I just now put it there.

@Sarahmhyndman: After looking it over, your draft relies far too much on sources that originate with you. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of you. See Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what we expect. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup I realized that after I posted my comment. Thanks. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank youSarahmhyndman (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahmhyndman: Good luck! I hope you can find more independent sources with good coverage of you and your works. The subject area of your work has always fascinated me. I often find myself struggling with what typeface I should use for different parts of my blog (headings, prose, tables, figure captions, etc.), for a book I'm writing, and so on. 35 years ago when computers used bitmap fonts, I would design my own typefaces because I wasn't satisfied with the defaults. And that was hard work, especially for proportional-spaced fonts. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarahmhyndman you may be interested in reading Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Best wishes on all of your Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarahmhyndman, an acceptable Wikipedia biography is based on what reliable sources completely independent of that person have written about that person. So your own writings are of no value as references. In the case of an author, in depth reviews of several of their books by professional reviewers are a very good start. If only a single book has in depth reviews, then the article should be about the book, not the author. Since autobiographies are strongly discouraged, expect a heightened level of scrutiny for your efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What sources would be good?

Hello! So I've decided that I want to start adding sources to SnowRunner#Gameplay and I'm wanting to know what kind of sources I should be looking for. For example, would a link to the store page for the game be an appropriate source for the mention of DLC. Thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also if this would be more appropriate to ask at WP:RS/N then I'll move my question there. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: WP:VG/S has a list of sources that are considered reliable, and other information about finding and evaluating reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, please use terminology that everyone can understand. When I see DLC, I think Democratic Leadership Council but that acronym has dozens of other meanings. Similarly, I am not 100% sure what you mean by "store page", but I am assuming that it is a website that sells the game. If so, the answer is "no". Such a page is written to promote sales of the game, is therefore inherently promotional, and is inappropriate for any evaluative assessments on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

DLC is short for "downloadable content". If the DLC is notable, it usually gets mentioned in reputable video game sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be spelled out on Wikipedia, Tenryuu, because we do not need to spend money on boxcars of paper and barrels of ink. I live in the Napa Valley, where "CIA" means Culinary Institute of America as commonly as Central Intelligence Agency. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I had it as downloadable content at one point but someone changed it to just be DLC. But alright, I'll see if I can find sources outside of the store page for the game. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind I apparently didn't. That was a fault on my part. I've learned my memory tends to be a bit faulty. I'm working on fixing that now Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 14:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it should be at first mention, Cullen328; I never said it shouldn't. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Saving edits

I haven't been able to find a "save" button so I ended up publishing my revisions a couple different times. I really did read the directions but I haven't found 'save' yet. Thanks ICSCR90 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

ICSCR90 Hello and welcome. "Publish changes" should be interpreted to mean "save changes". It does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save changes, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are visible to the public(even if not part of the encyclopedia). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90: Welcome to the Teahouse. That is how you save your changes, as virtually all wiki pages are public. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to have opinion from people in India and Italy about the collaboration with two countries

 Indoitaly (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This page is for getting help using and editing Wikipedia. I don't perceive a question about that here. Please clarify. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Indoitaly: Welcome to the Teahouse! You might enjoy reading (and improving) the article about India–Italy relations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting blocked

Hi everyone,

I’m just curious about how people get unblocked. Like if someone has autism for example, or if they have a tantrum and beg to be unblocked and they say Wikipedia is the only meaningful part of their life that’s being taken away unfairly, is that a good way to get the sympathy of an admin and avoid discussions about being banned? (Even if there is a long term pattern of disruptive behavior?) Does it help if the editor has a long “length of service”? Just curious. Thanks! Swagcathy (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @Swagcathy: Hi, you the hypothetical editor should definitely request an unblock from your their original account. The guide to appealing blocks has good suggestions on how to do this successfully. The use of sockpuppets, and the evasion of CheckUser, will count against the editor. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I'm fairly sure that the OP here is trolling about the recent debacle with Johnpacklambert ... 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is advice at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

To what extent should you disagree with like…anyone…?

I feel like I'm kind of like…twisting myself into knots thinking about this, like it's really getting to me. In some ways it feels like, if everything on the site is decided by consensus with only a few exceptions, and there are equivalently only a few very specific things that are truly rules as opposed to guidelines, it feels a bit absurd to disagree with any group of people larger than one. Like, if it's just you and one other person, there's no consensus at that point; both of your perspectives have equal weight. However, it sort of feels like if you try to do something, and more than one person stops you, you should just immediately leave, regardless of your viewpoint, unless it's one of the few very grave matters that are not subject to consensus.

I know that's not exactly like, true on paper I guess, to the extent that anything here is really true on paper I guess. But it's hard for me to get over the feeling that it's true, like, "in spirit." There's a sense in which it feels like, out of the dispute resolution mechanisms, the only one that seems sort of like, "unsuspicious" is seeking a third opinion. Like, even if on paper, there's some theoretical larger community consensus that would trump a local one, in practice if a local consensus exists, like if there is more than one person with the same perspective, it feels like you're kind of "messing things up" to disagree with them about anything that isn't like, one of the few very serious non-consensus things.

I feel like, lost as far as the extent to which I should give into this feeling. In some ways it feels like the logical conclusion of it is that you should never change anything, because someone else wanted it the way it is already, and your opinion doesn't matter any more than theirs, whether you're changing something or even just adding something. I argued with two other people earlier over something where I was the odd one out and in some ways I feel like, deeply guilty about it, like I feel almost sick even thinking about it and feel kind of afraid to even look at the talk page the more I think about it. I don't know…reading over the various guidelines and essays and things a lot of them seem to encourage you like, very gently, to just drop it in situations like that and go somewhere else, and in some ways I feel like it was wrong of me to even say anything. I feel terribly embarassed even admitting any of this kind of, but my mind just keeps going in loops about it. I would feel a lot better if I had some sort of like, general guidance about any situation like this, thinking about all the different principles at once…but in some ways it feels suspicious to even ask for guidance about, like I'm just looking for people to try to bolster my case or something. I promise I'm not doing that, I really promise, I just feel really kind of like, confused and distressed. Mesocarp (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Mesocarp (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You can always invite more people into any discussion. After that you can find yourself in a majority. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Teahouse: Welcome to the Teahouse! I can empathize with your feelings, and am sorry you're feeling that way. As Ruslik0 states, sometimes inviting a group to a discussion can be helpful (e.g. posting to a WikiProject talk page asking for people to join in to an article talk page discussion), as long as you recognize that they may not agree with you. It seems to me that it's easier to make multiple small incremental changes than large changes, but even then sometimes collaboration on a talk page is necessary. There are many areas that you can provide valuable impacts to Wikipedia, and hope your next experience goes better. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Listen close: You do not need to apologize or feel bad about trying to improve Wikipedia. Period. There are plenty of independent editors happy to offer their opinion in a Request for Comment, Noticeboard, or Third Opinion. I recommend presenting your case in an RfC. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Awww, well, thanks for the advice+encouragment y'all, I do feel somewhat better. It's totally okay with me if I really am the odd one out, I'm willing to put my views aside if that's what it takes to keep moving; at the same time it's reassuring to hear from people that it is really okay to seek more input. I might step away for the rest of the day just to like let myself calm down more but maybe tomorrow I'll give one of these approaches a try and see how people feel. Mesocarp (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: reagarding "only a few very specific things that are truly rules as opposed to guidelines", that is not true. Wikipedia policies are the rules, and Wikipedia guidelines are the best practices that help us comply with the rules. And there are a lot of rules: see Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines if you want to be overwhelemed. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: You don't realize just how "spot on" you are with your concerns about disputes. The reality is that dispute resolution uses a lot of resources and tends to produce arbitrary results rather than results that are objectively good. It's better described as a disaster than as a useful path to a good resolution. Fabrickator (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp:, people who honestly give a different opinion are valuable. Look at Articles for Deletion debates, where quite often the first person declares "delete, does not meet WP:TENNIS", four copycats say the same thing, and then someone else pops up and says "actually, you do realise this person isn't just an amateur tennis player, they also happen to be a professor with a Nobel prize" and then everyone else looks rather silly. You won't always get your way, but the points you make are probably points someone ought to make - don't feel bad about making them. But for your own mental health, it's a good idea to cultivate a sense of irresponsibility. You are not personally responsible for the final article, for misinformation in WP articles, or anything else on WP, so if you've made your point, and the world chooses to ignore you, walk away with your morals intact. You did your best. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Thanks for this—I'll try really hard to bear this in mind. It's sort of hard for me to get over the feeling that if a given article is in rather poor shape, especially if it's one many people might read day-to-day, it represents a kind of tragedy for the whole English-speaking world that you almost have a moral responsibility to help with. Same with saving an article you support from deletion as you describe or anything like that. If you fail in any sense, even temporarily, that also feels sort of like a moral failure, like you've fallen in trying to fulfill a responsibility that really ought to be fulfilled. Of course, anyone can feel this regardless of their position, which I'm sure is part of why debates here can get so heated. It does seem good to remember that if you really do believe in your position, you're doing a good thing just to voice it, whatever happens after that. Mesocarp (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The reason I said that is because, even if in theory what you say is true, in practice it seems like "creative interpretation" can be used to draw practically whatever conclusions you like from the texts of the policies and guidelines, since their meaning is determined by consensus and consensus is established locally in large part. I've already experienced a situation where I've tried to argue what seemed to me like a straightforward conclusion from a guideline and had someone else immediately use the same guideline to back up the opposite conclusion. It's a bit like everyone is both a lawyer and a judge; you can suggest whatever strange interpretation of the "laws" you like and immediately rubber-stamp it with your own approval in a sense. If no one agrees with you, it doesn't matter much, but someone else may agree with you for their own pragmatic reasons even if your interpretation is quite strained (perhaps this is not so different from the real courts in a way…). As such, I get the impression that the in-practice meaning of any of the policies and guidelines could vary widely depending on where you are and who you're talking to, and there's not a responsible way to say what that might be in general to some extent. You could see how I could quickly come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to disagree with any group of people that outnumbers you, no matter how small—whatever they say goes at that point, no matter how strongly you think your arguments might be based in policy or evidence or anything else. Of course, to the extent that other people can always enter the discussion, there are larger norms to a degree, etc., perhaps a fairly straightforward interpretation of the policies and guidelines will win out in any area over time, or at least you might hope. I think I was underestimating the significance of that yesterday which is a big part of why I got kind of panicked that I had done something wrong. At the same time, it does make it quite difficult to actually argue any sort of point, based on policy, evidence, logic, feeling, whatever, when someone else is determined to disagree with you no matter what and it's just your word and theirs, and it seems that this isn't at all an uncommon circumstance looking around—after all, many people will never back down in any argument just out of fear of losing face. I appreciate better now why it might be so hard to get an article to GA/FA status or the like, as it's not always just a matter of everyone merrily gathering their sources and going to work like you might dream of. Mesocarp (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: In my experience, these disagreements arise for a different reasons. (1) An editor cherry-picks the parts of the policies or guidelines that agree with their viewpoint and ignore the whole. (2) An editor isn't familiar with the applicable policies or guidelines and it's up to others to provide direction. (3) Where the rules are in conflict, consensus is required to determine which rule matters more; for example, there's a proposal right now in Talk:Mahatma Gandhi to rename the article because WP:HONORIFIC prohibits honorifics when referring to subjects in spite of the fact that the guideline specifically calls out "Mahatma" Gandhi as an exception because WP:COMMONNAME overrides WP:HONORIFIC. Finally, if any policy or guideline is unclear, then it should be clarified after discussion on the appropriate talk page. Sadly, few editors bother attempting to get clarifications into the rules. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: Here is my counter-example to the practical effectiveness of dispute discussions:

On 12 July 2021, at User_talk:Paradoctor#revert of Liar Paradox edit adding source from archive.org provided by Internet Archive, I raised an issue regarding an editor who was deleting citations that included a link to copyrighted books available on archive.org, which allows access subject to "electronic access control". Essentially, this allows as many people to concurrently access a book based on the number of copies of each such book that archive.org holds. This function had become available in the last couple of years. A court case regarding this was being litigated (and is still ongoing), and the editor claimed that, based on the possibility that this might be determined to violate copyright, the link to such materials through archive.org should be dropped.

My contention was that deleting the link was unnecessarily harmful. The same effect could be achieved by modifying the cite template to suppress the display of such links, avoiding the need to re-add the content if the court declared such use was permissible.

This discussion moved to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Archive.org hosting of copyrighted material, where it continued for another four or five days, generating substantial volumes of text.

But someone would eventually point out that this issue had previously been addressed in a discussion during the period from June 14, 2020 to July 12, 2020 (28 days!), at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#Stop InternetArchiveBot from linking books. It turns out the issue had already been decided to leave existing links in place, and to allow further links to be manually added, but not allowing such links to be added by a bot.

I don't have a solution, but a war of exhaustion like this is neither an attractive way to resolve disputes, nor is it particularly likely to provide the "best" result. Though both sides will claim these decisions are a matter of principal, it seems like there needs to be a better way. Fabrickator (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Where do I begin?

I've learned in class that Wikipedia is not a community of experts on given topics, but anyone can be able to edit. This is reassuring, but I find that I'm still feeling overwhelmed when I think about editing an article. From citations to grammar checks to finding notable information to add... I just don't know a good, comfortable place/way to start editing. Any recommendations? Alabaw25 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Alabaw25 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you haven't already, try out the The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tutorial. You may want to check out the community portal, which has lists of maintenance backlogs that you may want to check out. Be bold and start small. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: Welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do after the tutorial is start with reading articles about topics you like, whether it's sports or music or history or anything else. As you read, you'll stumble across typos or broken references or outdated information - all opportunities for you to improve an article. It can then help you figure out what you enjoy. Will you want to search for every article with "respecitvely" in it and fix it? Will you want to monitor a maintenance category and help fix those articles? Will you enjoy reading books or journals or the news, and adding to articles? You'll have some success and some stumbles along the way, but eventually you'll figure it out, and we'll be here to help you and encourage you along the way. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: In addition to the above info, while your teacher is not entirely wrong in their definition of Wikipedia, there are some Wikipedians who are subject experts. And while it's also true anyone can edit, sometimes you will have to gain certain permissions before your able to edit specific articles (these articles have been protected which simply reduces the amount of vandalism on the page). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources for pages on notable academics

I’m working on a few academic BLPs. Both people are chaired professors at major academic institutions, so notability should be automatic. However, in many cases, I've been unable to find any sources other than the professors' own CVs to verify their academic work.

What's the preferred solution to this problem? Should I omit unverifiable content entirely, leave the page as a stub? Or do something else?

PS: I've read through several talk threads about this question, all of which have been unhelpful. There appears to be no consensus. I just need to know what specific actions I need to take in order to get these pages published. Calvin Reed (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if a subject meets the definition of notability, they still must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article, as that is primarily what articles are supposed to summarize. If a potential subject does not receive significant coverage in independent sources, they would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. A CV is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Most academics who'll be remembered will be best remembered, and of most interest, not for the posts they held (no matter how much time they spent/wasted on these, or how great their effect was) but for what they published. If what they published rose above the humdrum, it will be commented on, in book reviews in academic journals and elsewhere, the introductory chapters to festschrifts, and the like. (Or of course in obituaries, though of course your subjects won't have these.) Summarize what these say. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

331dot and :Hoary Thank you for the reply, but it seems to contradict the guidelines on this page, which say that any academic who holds a chaired position is automatically eligible for a Wikipedia page. Also, both professors have authored many papers/studies and been cited extensively—that's all verifiable through various independent sources. The main section I'm having trouble with is their work history, which is hard or impossible to independently verify. There seems to be no feasible way to verify that person X worked at university Y in year Z. Does this clarify my question? Calvin Reed (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed I would correct you in that Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. This is a subtle but important distinction. As I said, a person can meet the definition of a notable academic, but if no independent sources write about them, they do not merit an article even if they meet that notability definition. Notability is a test for a topic meriting an article, not a guarantee that an article can exist for anyone that meets notability. Independent reliable sources must still write about them, so the article can summarize them. Articles do not merely list what people have done. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

331dot I see, thank you for clarifying. Calvin Reed (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed, both professors have [...] been cited extensively—that's all verifiable through various independent sources. Good. Then in your place what I'd do is concentrate on this aspect of both, worrying little about their employment/"affiliation". If university X has a page about one, saying that she was previously at university Y, then I believe it's not at all problematic to cite this, as it's unlikely that the university (or prof) would make a mistake, and almost inconceivable that it (or the prof) would knowingly deceive. The resulting article would be disappointingly uninformative about the academic's professional history, but it wouldn't misrepresent her. Later, more events and more detail will be published in reliable, independent sources; and when this happens, the Wikipedia article may be fleshed out accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed, I agree with 331dot most of the time but not this time. Most special notability guidelines are based on the assumption that someone who meets the SNG will also meet the general notability guideline. The notability guideline for academics is an explicit exception to the GNG that exists alongside of it but completely independent of it. The notability of academics is determined by their academic accomplishments which includes prestigious academic positions and especially, how often their peer reviewed research is cited in the published research by other academics. There is no need to rely on "People magazine" style profiles for academics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed If you had to choose someone's advice to go by, I absolutely would say Cullen328 over myself, as he has greater experience than I do. I think that my comment was based on the fact that you said you were simply going by a CV and what Cullen said was in the back of my mind as an assumption but I didn't put that into words- and failing to put that down was a poor decision on my part, for which I apologize. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think both the literal text of 331dot’s reply and Cullen328’s reply are correct, in that (a) NACADEMIC is an explicit exception to notability guidelines, yet (b) notability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article, one needs to be able to write a non-empty article while sourcing it reliably. (b) is rarely a problem because GNG guarantees it, but it comes up in some rare cases. Another example of above-GNG guideline is WP:NGEO.

I remember vaguely a long-ish discussion at AfD about some mythical event in India that was mentioned in various sources, but with different descriptions every time. Consensus finally decided against an article on WP:V grounds; the alternative was a stub "X was an eartquake or a flood or a fire somewhere in India at some point in time" and it did not look very attractive.

In the precise case of an academic, I expect you should be able to write a stub based on university pages (i.e. "X is a [title] at [university] and works on [general topic]"). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

1988 Presidential Election Portrait

Greetings, I was just curious as to why the 1988 election had Michael Dukakis's portrait changed. To my knowledge the previous photo used was and still is under the creative commons license. Gordfather69 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Gordfather69 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will be more likely to get a good answer if you post on the article talk page, Talk:1988 United States presidential election, as the editors that follow that article will see it. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gordfather69. The color photo was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a result of this discussion. There is no freely licensed portrait quality color photo available of him at this time, just a few poorly framed casual shots. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on notability of Draft:Julio Rumbaut

Hello people, I am looking to get some more feedback on a draft's notability Draft:Julio Rumbaut. The creator and I had a discussion here [1] and some newspaper sources provided look very relevant to me. But I thought there is no harm in asking for some second, third, fourth opinions. Tagging the creator Parvenu58. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for removal of - in marriage and partnership status post

Request for removal of - in marriage/partnership/relationships status post.

I've seen a number of posts of ongoing partnerships/marriages start on example the year 2000 and have a succeeding dash(-).

This dash(-) usually insinuates that the partnerships/marriages won't last long and are expected to end in divorce or prematurely or to end due to unforeseen circumstances

I'm proposing that all marriages/partnerships/relationships have a year without the succeeding -

I'm happy to share more info with you if required. Mseroney88 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mseroney88: Welcome to the Teahouse! Feel free to share some examples if you like. You can also be bold and update the format accordingly. I suggest births be handled the same way - you would write "Joe Smith (born 2000)", not "Joe Smith (2000-)". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mseroney88, I'm not aware of any guideline that says such info should come with a dash. As for the notion that the dash "usually insinuates that the partnerships/marriages won't last long and are expected to end in divorce or prematurely or to end due to unforeseen circumstances", my own reaction was "Huh? It does? Really? It doesn't to me." I suppose that some people could take it that way ... but then some people can be found to take many things in various ways. I don't think that we need to worry about the less likely implicatures -- though of course you are free to argue that we should, or that this isn't "less likely". Your suggestion looks at first glance like a suggestion for the "Manual of Style" (MoS), but if you suggest it in the MoS talk page you're likely to be countered by arguments that ending with a dash is a widely accepted convention, or that what you're proposing is "instruction creep". If you really think that this is an important matter, I suggest that you bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (NB Imprecision reduces persuasiveness; "-" is not a dash but a hyphen; the dash that you don't want is "–".) -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mseroney88, to many people (me included) having a dash after a year suggests the relationship is ongoing. Nothing more. If we removed the dash, some people would interpret that as meaning the relationship both started and ended in that single year. Neiltonks (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

An emdash or an endash? ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Trouble finding references

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I Have problems in getting references for the draft:Shri Subudhendra Thirtha Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri: Welcome to the Teahouse! It seems that you wrote the article based on your own knowledge, and now you're trying to find references to support it. If you have a conflict of interest, you must post it on your user page. I suggest you start over, and start small, by following Help:Your first article. Collect your references, and determine if you can demonstrate notability for inclusion. If so, paraphrase/summarize what the references say. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Will Vishal Bhujbal be deleted?

I had created the page Vishal Bhujbal because he is well notable figure. Will this be deleted again? I'm feared. JamesAlfa (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is it that causes you to worry about possible deletion, JamesAlfa? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoary because it has been deleted before because it was created by a Banned user. JamesAlfa (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous history is not part of this version, which you created on 8 September. As you moved it from draft to article in mainspace without submitting to Articles for Creation for a review, it is possible that New Pages Review may decide it is not ready for mainspace, and convert it back to a draft for more work (or even delete it as not notable). You will have to wait and see. My personal opinion is that holding a non-elected committee position does not make him notable. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Arshifakhan61, an LTA who has been globally banned by the WMF. JavaHurricane 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

HAKONE HOT SPRING (Ver 2): Pre-Formatting Content Check

Many thanks for several Teahouse members for their kind feedback on my 1st edit of the "Hakone Hot Spring" entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TNewfields/sandbox. I appreciate the advice and added 28 footnotes. A number of minor grammar and spelling mistakes have also been corrected. The result is no longer an English translation of the Japanese Wikipedia text at https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/箱根温泉 . . . it has become a different article that relies on many parts of the Japanese text.

Before formatting the article, I wanted to get your feedback on the current content. Do I need to make any further changes? After the content looks okay, I will proceed with many formatting issues. Thanks in advance for any feedback! TNewfields (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, all of your footnotes need to become inline references. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

TNewfields, what David notMD said; also, the standard reading of 足柄下 is Ashigarashimo. Go easy on "famous", "splendid", and the like, even if these (or their Japanese near-equivalents) are in your cited sources. The historical aspect of any article on anywhere in Japan that has been any kind of resort -- and of course this is a prime example -- is likely to benefit from a look in A Handbook for Travellers in Japan, by the indefatigable Chamberlain and Mason; your institution's library may well have a copy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

On that last, English Wikipedia has a high standard for NPOV (neutral point of view), so avoid promotional-sounding adjectives. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding Logo to company page

Hi, I am tyring to add a company logo to our company page. Unfortunately, "Do not have permission to upload this file. Limited to users "Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users."

Please kindly assist. Thank you! Winnie.Yeo (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Winnie.Yeo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". You may request help with this by going to Files for Upload(which you must do as logos are non-free images). 331dot (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) If you work for the company, you have a conflict of interest, so you probably shouldn't be editing the company's article anyway. Instead, you should ask on the article's talk-page that someone else carry out the edit for you. If the company's logo is readily available online, they will be able to upload (you could provide a link to a suitable image). BUT (2), and this is a huge BUT, Wikipedia's normal copyright arrangements on images permit anyone, anywhere, to use the image for any purpose, including for-profit. In effect, had you successfully uploaded your company's logo, you might have found you had, on behalf of your employer, given up all rights on the logo, which probably wasn't the intention. Fortunately, low-resolution versions of company logos can be used under fair use terms, but since this is a bit complicated, asking on article's talk-page might again be the easiest option. Here's information about a request-edit template that you can use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Request_edit Elemimele (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wanna make friends

Is there other teenagers who are in Wikipedia? HighStone06 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighStone06 Hello, this is the TeaHouse for asking questions about directly editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking space, though communication and collaboration can sometimes lead to friendships. If you want to chat with like minded Wikipedians, Wikipedia:Discord may be an option. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighStone06: To elaborate a bit more, while there are most likely other teens who edit Wikipedia (such as myself), Shushugah makes a very good point in that Wikipedia is not a social network. Wikipedia's Discord (which Shushugah linked above) is a better option for finding teens who are Wikipedians. In fact, if you do end up using Wikipedia's Discord, you are more than welcome to message me (just please make sure to tell me who you are first). However if you don't want to use Discord then you can definitely make friends on Wikipedia (although if you want to talk about things not related to Wikipedia it would be in your best interest to go elsewhere for that). Hope this helped clarify things! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jorge Washington de Queiroz

I published a small bio of Jorge Washington de Queiroz, a prominent Brazilian Norwegian crisis expert and fighter against corruption and fraud who is also an advanced cancer survivor, who has had five major high risk cancer related medical interventions in 3 years, two of which this year alone. It was taken out by Wikipedia and I would like to add it again since he is a notable man whose contributions to societies have been quite significant. Thank you. PEDERSENBJORNAA (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PEDERSENBJORNAA Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted your draft for review, but if you were to do so, it would be rejected quickly, as you have no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see this page for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House @PEDERSENBJORNAA! The article was moved to Drafts, where you can continue to work on it. Currently it has zero references and is written in a Wikipedia:Promotional tone. Writing Help:Your first article can be one of the hardest things you do, so please take the advice seriously. You can find the Draft here: Draft:Jorge Washington de Queiroz. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template request

Is there a way to request the creation of a simple template? particularly a template for referencing EU judgements. There is already templates for EU laws but not for judgements.
thnx in advance Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested templates. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Vivien Saunders OBE 'Convicted'

Publishing on a living person.

<text deleted>

Can I go ahead or is there someone out there that could do this for me.

The court reference for this is the Case No 35NT1319220 as supplied by the criminal justice system. Theboss246 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Vivien Saunders. First, do you have a personal interest in this new information? I ask because you wrote "...to publish on my behalf on her page." That would be considered a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), meaning that you should not edit the article, but rather propose new content on the Talk page of the article, with a reference. Second, a court reference is not an accepted reference. It needs a publication in a newspaper. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your accusation per our BLP policy. You must provide a reliable source for such a statement. Also since you are talking about a minor offence I would question whether it is appropriate to include in the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox problems

Hi, can someone help me to fix the infobox in 2021-22 NIFL Championship? I fixed some ref parameters, but couldn't find the cause of "Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"" after the "Goals Scored" template in infobox. Thanks in advance. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni it looks like the infobox didn't like that the matches parameter was set to N/A, because it's using the number of matches to calculate the goals per matchm, and so it got confused because N/A is not a number. I changed the matches parameter from N/A to blank, and the error has gone now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 thank you very much. Have a nice day! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I post random short paragraphs on my user page?

 Excellenc1 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless they break Wikipedia regulations, you can't. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Pichemist means "Unless they break Wikipedia regulations, you can", Excellenc1. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's what I meant. My mistake. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 16:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: See WP:UPYES for examples of what is allowed on your user page. Further down there will also be examples of what you cannot have on your user page. Hope that helps. RudolfRed (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it allows "non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters", I guess I can. Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Making a living

How do i get paid wikipedia 41.116.11.167 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally unrelated but Prax!!! O...M...G... I love, love, love your signature! lol Be that beautiful rainbow of colors.🌈 Ok, I'm good now. Very astute response. --ARoseWolf 18:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

_{@ARoseWolf: This probably would've been better to tell them on their talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)}

_{Yeah, you are probably right. Oh well, I make mistakes too. Thanks for pointing it out. --ARoseWolf 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)}

Spot on. Every editor here is a volunteer, and does it for the satisfaction of building a fantastic, free online encyclopaedia that helps educate and inform the world about notable topics. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on Praxidicae's answer, Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project, so no one here gets paid for editing or maintaining Wikipedia. The parent nonprofit organisation that oversees the project, the Wikimedia Organization, has workers that are paid, but they're much less involved with Wikipedia than us volunteers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We might as well establish our very own information spreading website such as the one of this magnitude which will enable people to get paid for any useful content they post, i already have an idea of my own. Anyway thanks

There are websites that pay for content creation. This is not one of those. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing with A Firsthand Source

Hi, I was hoping to edit the article about the village I live in to include the annual festival we hold celebrating our founding, however, my village has nothing I'd be able to cite about this. Is there a way to just include the fact that I live here and it's a thing that happens? KreshieBoBeshie (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

KreshieBoBeshie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; this is necessary for verification purposes. It isn't a place to just list things. Is this festival not written about in any local media? 331dot (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. If anything it would be wise too look for village and home directories based in your country. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I found local newspaper writings about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KreshieBoBeshie (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@KreshieBoBeshie: Welcome! Please note that Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion, called "notability", to determine if a topic is suitable. For festivals, see Wikipedia:Notability (events). Thanks and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Commons category or Template:Sister project auto

as a general rule or practice, if there are image files on commons wiki, is it okay to add Template:Sister project auto or should we add only Template:Commons category on Lisa Roet? চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

references

 Courtesy link: Self-care
Hi, I've been editing a page and just learned that it was archived because "I didn't provide a reliable source'. I've been pasting in references instead of using the 'add a reference' box. Is that not OK? And, how do I get all my work back from the archive to allow me to keep working on the page. I feel quite disheartened to have 2 days of work removed. Sad. ICSCR90 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90 Welcome to the Teahouse. Fret not - none of your work is permanently lost! You can find it in the 'View History' tab of the article on Self care that you were editing. Here they all are in one block, showing what you changed. You can also find any edit you have made to an article (including any that have subsequently been removed for some reason) by looking at your own 'User Contributions' via the links on the left side of the page in desktop 9non-mobile) view.

Whilst it is disheartening to have your work removed, it normally means that another, usually very experienced editor has felt your changes added uncited, promotional or personal opinions. We work collaboratively, so it's fine to ask that editor for a clear rationale for any 'revert' they have made. Starting out on Wikipedia is quite a learning curve, but well done for working through The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great way to learn. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your changes have been reverted. You may want to use the {{In use}} template to let others know the article is being worked on. I would, however, add the references as you're adding content so that it doesn't come off as appearing unsourced to others. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

However, ICSCR90, please be careful when you edit so as not to add claims that are only relevant in one part of the world, and don't add inappropriate external links such as self-care-measures.com. --bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I spread the Good News of Jesus to my Catholic family?

How can I spread the Good News of Jesus to my Catholic family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8600:6a80:2dec:5253:d295:68a2 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor not accepting a govt. report

So I have an issue with another editor. It’s on a controversial topic so I am not hugely surprised. The details are on the Provisional Irish Republican Army Talk page.

The other editor is refusing to accept the findings of the latest government report on whether the organisation has retained weaponry, (the latest report says they do still have weaponry) on the grounds that the report could be false. He will accept a historical report (that states in essence that they only “may”).

There is a bias in this editors submissions on Northern Irish history that has resulted in beliefs being stated as fact. It almost seems as if he has appointed himself the guardian of all Troubles related pages. I would welcome the guidance of any admins who could look at this as I suspect that as I read further into the troubles related articles I will find more examples.

I am attempting to discuss the subject on the talk page with the editor in question but he is rebutting my arguments( which I believe are valid) with throw away statements which do not address my concerns. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Fletcherchristian101 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If discussion fails to resolve a dispute, there are dispute resolution channels available. I can say that government documents are usually considered primary sources. It is better to have an independent reliable source that discusses the content of the report, as we can't analyze it ourselves because that is original research. It is not relevant if the independent reliable source has analyzed the report correctly- which is a judgement call- as any reference to it in an article would (or should) state conclusions are those of those of the source itself. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite

Thank you so much for the invite, much appreciated. Together we would build a strong community of active contributors to the WiKi world  Indoitaly (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse and to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking part and see you around. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I've just been invited to this Teahouse by Hostbot. Just thought I'd say hello.Loymc1 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Did you have an actual question or were you just shooting the breeze? If so please refrain from doing so as it draws the volunteers away from people who actually have questions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Loymc1 Blaze - that was a bit too pointed. One of the standard Welcome to Wikipedia templates invites newbies to TeaHouse ("The Teahouse is a friendly space..."). Also, "don't bite the newbies." David notMD (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

 Gctyler (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gctyler: Hello! Might I ask what you are saying "thank you" for? It doesn't appear that you've asked any other questions on the Teahouse. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gctyler: From Talk pages and contributions, you are clearly editing as User:Gctyler and User:Cgfarren, and with neither account making any useful contributions to Wikipedia. Strongly suggest you continue with only one account, stop the Talk page nonsense, and try to make edits that are not reverted. Elsewise, expect to be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes

Hello Teahouse, I know I've found the answer before, but I need clarification on how to embed/combine two infoboxes. Not looking for a merger of any sorts, just looking for anything to look at when building infoboxes. Specifically trying to combine the Template:infobox football official and Template:infobox person per Byron Moreno. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat, welcome to the TeaHouse, you can try using embedded infobox, see my example here User:Shushugah/documentation#Nested infoboxes ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: doesn't look like those work with the Template:infobox football official, as the template doesn't recognize the module parameter. Any other suggestions? I randomly stumbled across the article and want to try to fix it, and others I run into in the future. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat the order matters. Infobox person does allow embedding, see the example I included below (displayed to the right) and modify as needed. Feel free to tag me on specific talk pages for further assistance or post in the WP:Village Pump (Technical) for further assistance. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone famous
Refereeing career Domestic Years League Role 1988–1991 Serie C2 Referee

Shushugah this totally worked, thanks for the clarification! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

how can I send a private message to α wikipedia user

 Moviebuff000 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moviebuff000 Welcome to TeaHouse! In some cases the only way to contact a user is by posting on their public talk pages, and given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia content, that's usually preferable. Have a look at Wikipedia:Emailing users ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Moviebuff000 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviebuff000 (talk • contribs)

Problems with reliable references

I made an article about a new game with proper refrences, but it got denied. The reason they gave was that it didnt gave any reliable sources in refrences even though i gave the refrences to every refrence i can find and most of them were made by the creator of the game! But still it got denied. I dont know what to do now. Please help. 2405:201:9008:C013:D3C:A712:8D77:E7A4 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. The creator of the game is not an independent source. Sources should be secondary, independent sources that show significant coverage in the media. Does that make sense? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! What article are you talking about? You haven't made any other edits besides you asking this question on this account. Could you please give us the link to it by adding [[ ]] around the name of the article (along with the addition of Draft: if it's a draft). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! You might enjoy reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (video games) to ensure the game meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for a review

My article still hasn’t been looked upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Di_Moze?markasread=227385247&markasreadwiki=enwiki

I made a draft yesterday and I still am waiting on a review. Usually my drafts don’t take that long to be reviewed, with the latest being a couple hours so I am making sure. Thanks Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612 Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Di Moze does not appear to have been submitted. And from your Contributions, does not appear that you have ever submitted a draft to English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? where do I submit it? I typed it on my phone but I also made sure my edits were finalized on my laptop. This is my new account. My old account I forgot my password and email to. Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Visibledurante612. I've added a header to it to allow you to submit it. However, there's no point in doing so at present, since it will not be accepted, since there isn't a single source cited. Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable sources say, not on what a particular editor knows.

You are strongly advised to put a note on your user page explaining that you are the same user as the old account, and why, as this will save you from people being suspicious of it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Appears you submitted it as User:Visibledurante612/sandbox and it was declined (one minute after it was submitted). Continue with only one (draft or sandbox). David notMD (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Collin I added my reference are you able to look at it?

Visibledurante612 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612Visibledurante612 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Visibledurante612, the reference is utterly inadequate. Here's why. And even if it were adequate for its minor purpose, there's no sign that your subject meets any of the notability criteria. I suggest that you forget about your draft for a couple of months, while you make constructive, well-referenced additions to existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Sandbox version now declined twice. I agree there is no potential for this to be an article. Why? Because unlike List of people with surname Jones, you have no people with last name Di Moze who are notable, meaning having existing articles about them. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

lost draft

Hi, I'm sorry but can someone please help me - I created an article and then wanted to save it because I couldn't finish it in one sitting. I read about saving drafts and it suggested I move it into a draft space (I don't remember if this was a draft talk or personal sandbox). I am trying to create wiki entries on notable Australian women. The entry is Helen Foster. I can't find it anywhere. I would be very grateful if someone could locate it for me - I'm worried I've lost it! Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cannot find draft = please help

Hello, I created a draft for the article "Helen Foster." I can't find it anywhere. I would be very grateful for help. I am not sure where it is saved to and I have conducted searches and cannot find it and am worried it may not have been saved. Thank you Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Anthropologist2020 Welcome to the Tea House! I cannot find any such draft! I saw you added a red link to Helen Foster (author) but nothing else. Did you save the draft? It doesn't look like it was deleted either, but I could be mistaken. Also please use section headers. Your comment got mixed up with a previous question, I fixed it for you. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anthropologist2020: Hi there! When editing Wikipedia, be sure you click the "Publish changes" button to save everything you do. You can also copy your text to a word processing program on your computer and save it locally if you want. I wish you better luck with your future editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I (bot) failed to archive

There were 52 discussions, so I set up an archive bot. But, obviously old sections "Sacred geometry" and "Algebra, Popper etc." remained. Is this a case where I can archive manually? See Talk:Euler's identity. SilverMatsu (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: You set minthreadsleft = 5 and there are 5 threads left on that talk page, so I think this is expected. See User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters_explained. Also, the oldest sections seem to have a lot of posts missing signatures, I wonder if that will cause a problem later? RudolfRed (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu and RudolfRed: I added {{UnsignedIP}} to the end of Talk:Euler's identity#Sacred geometry. It appears each section now ends with a signed comment, so they should archive in the future. GoingBatty (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed and GoingBatty: Thank you for advice and signature addition. Also, I temporarily changed minthreadsleft from 5 to 3.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Red Userpage?

Hi, I haven't figured out how to make my user page blue -- it has been red for years. Can someone help me? Thanks.--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Simply click on "C.Tseytlin", write something there, and click on "Publish". The link to it will turn blue. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that before but for some reason it didn't work. I hate I wasted your time!--C.Tseytlin (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gursimran Singh Mand

hey ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gursimran_Singh_Mand help me in this draft ... i added more than 8 reliable source and interview . please see this

thanks in advance 🙏 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft will be reviewed in due course. It says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,366 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wiki97828: Welcome to the Teahouse! While you are waiting for the review, you can continue improving the draft. For example:

• I don't understand the first sentence in the "Political career" section. Please adjust the wording.
• Please carefully check the references, as reFill doesn't always get them correct. For example, the author in reference #2 should not be "DelhiDecember 27, India Today Web Desk New; December 27, 2018UPDATED:; Ist, 2018 13:39".
• Please also add |trans-title= and |language= to reference #12.
• Please add a |date= to each reference (if the web page has a date), and use a consistent date format throughout the draft: either MDY or DMY, but not both in the same draft.

Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

News item to add to "Anonymous"

I do not have permission to edit the page "Anonymous (hacker group)" but there is a new item in the news that is worthy of addition.

I would write

"In response to the Texas law banning abortions that went into effect on September 1, 2021, self-described affiliates of the hactivist group Anonymous launched “Operation Jane,” an initiative targeting those who try to enforce the law, within two days." https://www.dailydot.com/debug/anonymous-hactivists-texas-abortion-ban-operation-jane/

Thanks, this is a significant reappearance of Anonymous. Best, Chuck Stack User:CStack3 06:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi CStack3, and welcome to Wikipedia. The Teahouse isn't the place to request edits to protected pages, that is done with edit requests. You'll see when you try to edit a page, there is a large button to the right saying "Make an edit request" or similar. Click this to start making an edit request. There are more instructions at WP:Edit requests. Hope this helped :) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Kau Ka Pe'a

Aloha! Looking for help moving this draft page Draft:Kau Ka Pe'a into mainspace. Can anyone help assist with this process. Thank you! Sarahalohi (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahalohi: I think the tone is too promotional and essay-like, and the article needs more sourcing to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

On the matter of tone, as a minor example, you should turn "Some of the notable musicians performing on the album include six-time Grammy® Nominee Amy Hānaialiʻi Gilliom [...]" into "The musicians performing on the album include Amy Hānaialiʻi Gilliom [...]". -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Facing an issue in Bing Webmaster

I am trying to index my website pages on Bing but the Bing URL inspection shows that the H1 tag is missing and description is too long in Homepage. While In Google Search Console, it has no error. Can anyone help me in this case? Jasmine14312 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jasmine14312: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunally, we only answer questions about using or editing Wikipedia here. Since Wikipedia is not affilated with Bing, we cannot give you a definitive response, however, you could try and ask at the Computing reference desk. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jasmine14312, before you go to the reference desk, I suggest that you feed your page to W3's HTML validator and correct any errors that this finds. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT TAGS

Which tags should I add to my draft which is of an upcoming television historical series? Golgooo (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)