Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

BLP article changed to redirect?

I am a bit confused here. A page that I worked on and promoted to main space (Samantha Gorman was just changed into a redirect. The reason given was that the idea to change the page to redirect came up during an AfD discussion on Tender Claws, a video game she worked on (deletion discussion here: [1]). I am confused on two accounts. 1. The AfD about Tender Claws is still open, so why was the related page of Samantha Gorman changed to a redirect? 2. Is it legit to just change the Samantha Gorman page to a redirect without a discussion at Articles for Deletion? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean Yes, it is completely legitimate for another editor to convert an article into a redirect as an alternative to deletion. If you disagree with the redirect then you are free to revert it, if the editor who performed the redirect disagrees with your reversal they should open a discussion (WP:BRD). There is no requirement at all to have any kind of consensus before performing a bold redirect. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I just opened a deletion review for this page, as Samantha Gorman is clearly notable. I hadn't realised I could simply revoke the redirect. Does Czar have a specific reason for the redirect? Lijil (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lijil, yes, my edit summary explained my rationale and without further discovery of sources, it would remain the same. The "deletion review" for Tender Claws is unlikely to result in a change because the consensus was unanimous, no new/missed sources have been presented, and the deletion review doesn't meet the forum's requirements for review. The sourcing was more about The Under Presents than about Tender Claws, hence the direction of the redirect. Gorman's article is unrelated to that "deletion review", since it wasn't the subject of that deletion discussion. To justify a separate article on Gorman, there would need to be significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources (?) about Gorman's life and career. That is not currently present in the article. czar 21:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible content/article dispute

I and Lockejava are having a content/article dispute over whether to disambiguate a currently-bloated article which has a section compliant with WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:OR needs to spin-out to a separate standalone article. What is the dispute, you may ask!

There was this page move by Bianca Anne Martins from "Barbie (film series)" to "Barbie (franchise)" and this page move by TheFallenPower from "Barbie (franchise)" to "Barbie (film franchise)". I invoked a successful requested single-page move back to the second title since this article link already covers the topic's main history and this article link talks about the non-media components related to the topic. I guess I will have to move fast before confusion becomes an edit war because the general "Barbie" topic remained dispute-free before 2017.

I have started an RFC so this will soon enough, I've remedied half of this confusion and I'm requesting assistance for a total wipeout of this dispute because I want this topic not to require any page protection. Thanks. Intrisit (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Intrisit, with very few exceptions, you should not attempt to correct other folks' talk page posts. I've reverted your changes above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Intrisit, I assume no one else has replied because you didn't ask any obvious question. You haven't actually started an RfC anywhere; you requested a move, and the request was subsequently closed. More discussion is taking place further down the talk page, but you haven't participated. I recommend posting in that new discussion and outlining your arguments there if you disagree with the current article title. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I was afraid of even starting any RfC at all anywhere because you or any other Wikipedian will request blocking of my account all in the name of the love I have for that topic. I wasn't expecting any answer to a question I'm unsure now whether I did pose or not. My dispute is with the treatment of the content of that topic. Intrisit (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Biography

I have content ready for a biography of a close friend but unsure how to proceed. I have based the content on a similar page but unsure how to achieve same look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Harvey Is there a template for biography's? Semico1 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semico1, once you have content which is suitable for a Wikipedia article, other editors will be glad to help you format it into a standard Wikipedia "look".

However, as a close friend of Harvey, you have a conflict of interest which needs to be declared before you edit further.

Also (and most important), your article has been based on Harvey's autobiography, which is not a reliable source. You must find reliable, independent, published sources which discuss him in depth. Two or three such sources are required to establish your subject's notability as a musician.

Please also read how to cite your sources as footnotes, so that they will count as the requisite reliable sources. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semico1 I believe Quisqualis misunderstood your initial statement. Is your mention of Richard Harvey meant as an model for your intended new draft? So yes, the sections in that article and other articles about performers are often used. Q's mention of a need to declare your conflict of interest on your Use page is correct. This does not preclude you creating a draft via the guidelines in WP:YFA and then submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. Verify what you know about your friend with references. Keep in mind the need to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Good luck. Ask here is you get stuck.

When looking to how to format your draft, go to any article - such as Richard Harvey - and click on Edit at the top. As you scan down, you will see how section titles are made, and how references are embedded in the text. Those refs are then automatically numbered and out in the References section. David notMD (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi David, this is what I'm working on and not sure if it's being published.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_Harvey_(Drummer) Semico1 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Semico1 There is an article about Richard Harvey, a musician. You wrote a draft about a different musician named Richard Harvey? Ok. I can tell you that writing "at the tender age of 12" and "big acts of the time" and "the likes of" and "kept up his passion for drumming" are not phrases you would find in an encyclopedia. (Why do so many people want to use "the likes of"?)

The draft needs inline citations for every assertion (or every assertion that could possibly be challenged) so that any reader can verify the contents. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Semico1, the other major problem with your draft is that it has zero independent, secondary, reliable sources with significant coverage of drummer Richard Harvey, so it does not demonstrate that he meets WP:NMUSIC. You have one article that's mostly about the Divinyls (with no significant coverage of Harvey), his autobiography (not independent), and a couple of database sites (not significant coverage, and note that discogs is considered generally unreliable because its content is user generated). Unless you can find better sources, your draft will not be accepted. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Semico1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please bear in mind that the layout and appearance of an article, while important, is a superficial matter that can relatively easily be corrected. It is the more-or-less hidden framework underneath - the reliable independent sources - that are the important bit, in the sense that if they are not there, the article will not be accepted. It's a bit like saying "I'm building a house. I've modelled it on that one over there" without surveying the site or building any foundations. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Contributions missing

I made several edits to one page, a biographical one, over the last week. All of those edits were incorporated, as of last night. This morning, none of them are present (they are listed on my contributions page, however). What is going on? Mctaguer (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mctaguer: If you look at your contributions page, or the edit history of the article Lene Rachel Andersen you will see that the contributions were WP:REVERTed as being unsourced. Biographies of living people must follow the guidance at WP:BLP. If you wish to take this further, do so on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:Lene Rachel Andersen. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Michael. Here's the thing I don't understand-- I updated her entry with two books she's subsequently published. No, there are no in-line citations--they were added to the bilbiography. If those are REQUIREMENTS then why are they not present for her earlier books that are already in the page? I made the additions exactly the same as the earlier entries. Also, I don't where on the Talk: Lene Rachel Andersen link I can actually get help/this directly addressed--I went to it, it's a list, and when I clicked on it and got a standard page. Mctaguer (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Mctaguer You did the right thing by going to the Talk Page but the trick is that you need to create a new subsection (a bit like this one in the Teahouse) by clicking on the "New Section" tab at the top. You can write your comments and {{ping}} the editor who reverted you to get a discussion started. This is our standard WP:BRD process, so don't be put off by the revert. Incidentally, you may not be aware as a new editor that your now-deleted contribution is present in the edit history of the article, so is easily retrieved if you can agree by WP:CONSENSUS that it should be included (perhaps with more obvious sourcing). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for all of that. I wasn't so much put off as confused--one of the reverts was a punctuation correction; another was a bibliography entry--neither would seem to require "citation." Mctaguer (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You added two huge blocks of text without references and two minor grammar entries. Tacyarg reverted all for edits as a batch. And here is a problem - there are large blocks of unreferenced text describing her earlier books, so I image it seemed appropriate for you to do the same. A small example of what you added "The first chapter is a concise-but-thorough big history course..." Is that from you, or from a reliable source published review of the book? Only the latter is valid. Tacyard has continued to deleted unreferenced content from the descriptions of the earlier books. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, understand. Are the original entries still available so that I can make edits and add the necessary citations or do I have to start over?

Also, while I can certainly take out what seem to be evaluative statements ("concise-but-thorough," I need a "reliable source" license to write such things?), I think it's pretty obvious the entries are not reviews but summaries--the things I have my 6th grade students do. I'd like to think that if I put in-line citations, this will be sufficient. Please advise. Mctaguer (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mctaguer: With few exceptions, every revision of every page on Wikipedia is recorded and available to view. Here is a permanent link to the revision of Lene Rachel Andersen immediately prior to your contributions being reverted by User:Tacyarg. The history of any page may be seen with the (aptly named) "View History" button in the top right corner.

Regarding your question about the need for reliable sources to write a mere summary: Although I am unfamiliar with the particular guidelines on this subject, a very good general rule about editing Wikipedia is that any substantive addition to an article must provide a reliable source to support it, per WP:Verifiability (even for things that might seem self-evident). This rule is doubly enforced within biographies of living persons. If reviews of Andersen's work exist which draw attention to specific ideas of hers, they might be proper to add. However, this article is already severely lacking in sources, considering that the sections 'The Nordic Secret', 'Metamodernity', and 'Bildung' are completely devoid of citations. It might be more profitable to source statements already present in the article. Shells-shells (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mctaguer, one of the core content policies of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, a neutral point of view. Only looking at the sources can we decide what level of detail about any single book is warranted in the article about an author. If one were to take writing Salinger's biography as a summarisation exercise, for example, one would write roughly equal summaries of all works. But I would imagine that a more NPOV take on the author, once one looks at the literature, would be a paragraph or more about Catcher In the Rye followed by "and he also wrote a bunch of other works nobody cares about." Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Sport kits

How do you draw sports kits on football clubs/season articles? I've seen a few people on WP:FOOTY talking about "drawing" kits, but I'm not quite sure how it works. If there's a page explaining how to do it, then just send the link and I'll learn it. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Crystalpalace6810, welcome to the Teahouse. It can be tricky to get right but see Template:Football kit. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will experiment with it in my sandbox.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ned Bittinger

Hello, I am wondering how I can make my article have more of a neutral point of view. It was recently drafted for sounding promotional and not sounding from a neutral point of view. I have read it over and over and to me, it sounds like it is coming from a neutral point of view. Would you please give me your opinions and tell me what I could change.Draft:Ned Bittinger - Wikipedia thanks Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Spiggotr6 What's your connection to Ned Bittinger? I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC) (added words at 22:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC))

that is the thing. I don't have any. I don't know why he put that tag there. Everything in the article is cited. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I quote:

Between the years 1995 and 2002 Ned's books won the following awards: “Rocking Horse Christmas" written by Mary Pope Osborne was chosen by The American Booksellers as their “Pick of the List"; "The Blue and the Gray" written by Eve Bunting was selected by the international Readers Association as their "Teacher's Choice" and by the children of Indiana for their “Hoosiers Young Readers Award"; “The Matzah that Papa Brought Home" by Fran Manushkin, was awarded the Notable Children's Book award by the American Library Association.

All sourced to (i) this page at "Fine Art and You", and (ii) "SHELDON HOSTS WORKSHOP BY AWARD-WINNING ARTIST". Shelton Chronicle. 1998-06-01. pp. 1–2. He's not "Ned", he's "Bittinger". I don't see how their his books, if they're written by others. (Did he perhaps illustrate them throughout? Or just do their covers?) One source shamelessly offers to promote those who want promotion and is multiply cited in this draft. Having been published as early as 1998, the other predates some of these claims. (And is it about Sheldon, or Shelton?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my laziness. "Shelton". Meanwhile, that other, multiply-cited source says of itself: What you need to do? You need to send us the pictures of your art works and your biography, preferably which should be near about 500 words or more, so that you get a very good response from visitors. We will feature you and your art work once your art work gets approved and ITS ABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE. So what are you waiting for?? Looks like this draft is heavily dependent on blurb Bittinger wrote in response to If You are an Artist/Photographer/Gallery and want to get featured or Advertise and want to get global recognition then you are at right place. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I had overlooked that. So, does that mean I should remove all info I got from that cite? Spiggotr6 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove all references to that website. For every assertion that's now unreferenced, decide if it's worth the effort of referencing. If it isn't, delete it. If it is worth referencing, find a good reference for it. If you try to find a good reference for an assertion but fail, delete the assertion. And check the quality of the other references too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

alright I am working on that now, and thanks so much for your help. Spiggotr6 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Was there anything else that you would have considered to not be in a neutral point of view. Spiggotr6 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, Spiggotr6, I didn't bother to look, and I don't intend to look: I've already devoted enough time to this draft. Other editors are of course most welcome to add comments. Meanwhile, all the best with your reworking of the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Spiggotr6 - You created the draft in April 2022 and moved it to article space in May 2022. It was moved back to draft space by User:DoubleGrazing, but then you moved it to back to article space. It was then moved back to draft space again by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. Did you ask either of the reviewers why they thought it was not ready for article space? MrsSnoozyTurtle tagged it as {{fanpov}} and as {{COI}}. Reviewers often flag a page as having a likely COI if it is blatantly non-neutral, and this was probably such a case. You say that you have no connection with Ned Bittinger. Then you should write as if you are not writing for Ned Bittinger. Sometimes good-faith non-COI writing gets flagged for probably COI simply because inexperienced editors think that they should be enthusiastic about the subject, just like the promotional writing that they have read on commercial web sites. Ask the reviewers why they thought it was not ready for article space, but the issue may have been tone, especially since one of the tags is (correctly) about tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

alright thanks so much for the info, I will be sure to ask them for pointers. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a problem of language, Spiggotr6, but of verifiability. Consider for example the nugget:

Bittinger has been influenced by artists such as John Singer Sargent, Valentin Serov and N.C. Wyeth. Bittinger's former teachers include Daniel Greene and William Woodward.

which is attributed to:

Directory of American portrait artists. Huntington Harbour : The American Portrait Society. 1985. pp. 683–684.

Yes, this backs up what's said about Greene and Woodward. It says "His paintings are marked by a fluid style reminiscent of John Singer Sargent": this isn't the same as saying that JSS had an influence, but let's not nitpick. It doesn't even mention Serov or Wyeth. Not all of the book is visible at archive.org; but, with its pricing info, the piece about Bittinger looks very much like an entry in a trade directory. It's unsigned, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were written by Bittinger himself. (Googling "american portrait society" brings americanportraitsociety.com, but this smells like a later usurping of the name by a single, unscrupulous practitioner: I wouldn't infer anything about the society from it, other than that if there ever was such a society -- if it wasn't merely a device to sell the directory -- then this no longer exists. It's not obvious that there've been any other editions, earlier or later, of the Directory of American Portrait Artists.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

oh yes, I forgot to remove that after I removed the source that we deemed unreliable. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also going to go ahead and remove the directory from my sources and add a more reliable source I found through a newspaper. Spiggotr6 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

https://wiki.alquds.edu/ - what is this? May be a silly question but wish to know from the veterans.

Hi All, I came across https://wiki.alquds.edu/, and don't have the slightest idea what is this. Looks like Wikipedia, but the URL says alquds.edu? This may be a silly question but I am asking as I could not understand it. Jainsh (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I got it. It was really a silly question. The website seems to have added a subdomain wiki which is linking to Wikipedia. Jainsh (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears to just be a redirect by Al-Quds University to their Wikipedia entry by way of a link from their official site. I have not seen such before, but I don't think it is a problem. SVTCobra 00:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jainsh This looks to be a WP:MIRROR copy of Wikipedia. They can be reported and added to the log of which sites take and repeat Wikipedia content. Just follow the link given. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is nothing of the sort. Why are you giving out disinformation? SVTCobra 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra Well, to be honest, I know very little about Mirrors, and have never looked at them. But it looked like one to me, wherein all the wikilinks were modified on mouseover to remain within the wiki.alquds.edu domain. I am happy to be disabused of any misunderstanding and to apologise for any misinformation given out in good faith. Feel free to educate me whenever you wish. Nobody knows everything. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, since you are so kind and neither of us wants to look into a mirror, this is just a story of #REDIRECT
"Mirrors" if this tale has gotten an audience is simply a site that is a copy of Wikipedia. The info is copyright free so anybody can duplicate it. Bye! SVTCobra 23:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

They do attribute the content at the bottom: "The source of this content is Wikipedia and is displayed by Al-Quds University website". Schazjmd (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I need to apologize. I swear that yesterday, the link simply redirected back to Wikipedia. However, when I click on it today, it is clearly a full-on mirror site. I personally apologize to Nick Moyes as my response to him was disrespectful. My only saving grace is if someone else remembers that it was different yesterday. SVTCobra 23:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra No worries - thanks though. We're all learning - and that includes me. This is not any area many of us have much experience of. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a live mirror and could be reported at meta:Live mirrors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

POV and accuracy templates

Is the placement of the {{POV}} and {{accuracy}} templates on Template:Twin towns justified? It is just a template and the question about the method of division was answered in the discussion. The placement of these tags seems to me to be unreasonable and only a disproportionate way to lure into the discussion. Some user already removed it and then me, but a user keeps returning it and I don't know how to behave now. FromCzech (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've wrapped the two templates in a <noinclude> tag, so that they don't show up wherever {{Twin towns}} is transcluded. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 08:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW the documentation for those templates clearly states they should only be used in articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@FromCzech: I went and removed it, as these templates aren't applied to other templates. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Rescuing sources

Sometimes when reviewing a page's edit history, I see someone describing their edit as "rescued # sources" where # is a number. What does rescuing sources mean? Thanks in advance EditMaker Me (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi EditMaker Me Usually these edits will have been made by a bot (often triggered by a human editor) and involve, for example, finding a copy at the Wayback Machine for a URL that's suffered WP:LINKROT. Then # is the actual number of instances found during the check. Note that there can be a wider meaning: see WP:RESCUE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you EditMaker Me (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding film cast.

Hi, how can I add a member of cast to a film if I can't use IMDB as a source? I'm trying to add "Jase Rivers" as the character John in Winnie-The-Pooh: Blood and Honey. I am Jase Rivers, what am I meant to do? There are a number of other cast members also missing on the page. Having worked on the production, I know the cast list on IMDB is accurate. Thanks.

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey Madulagone (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Madulagone, IMDB is not conisdered reliable by Wikipedia as it is user-generated content. A reliable source will be needed to verify the information. See MOS:FILMCAST. Also, you will need to disclose your conflict of interest as per the shared message on your talk page. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The cast list on a Wikipedia article for a film isn't meant to be exhaustive. "Jase Rivers" isn't listed in the cast reveal at We Got This Covered, while the likes of Coming Soon and Collider list you down in the "hey these people are in it too" section. IMO, you're not high enough on the cast list to justify a listing here. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your concise response. The reason the other cast members are not on We Got This Covered, is because additional scenes were filmed, which also brings up the other error on the page, that it was filmed over 12 days, not 10 as stated. Do you know how I can delete my account? There seems little point having it if I can't update inaccurate information.

"IMO, you're not high enough on the cast list to justify a listing here" - Cast listings are listed in order of StarMeter rating or alphabetically, not being "high enough" is irrelevant. Madulagone (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Madulgone Accounts cannot be deleted (its a copyright thing), but you can abandon editing. If you are adamant about it, you can put the word Retired inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top of your User page, and also delete all content on your User page and Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Madulagone, firstly, there is a difference between "incomplete information" and "incorrect information." We certainly don't want the latter, but all included information should be cited to a published Reliable source independent of the subject. IMDb is never regarded as a reliable source (though it can be a handy aid to research) because, like Wikipedia itself (also not a Reliable source) anyone can edit it and insert incorrect information.

Secondly, very few account holders have articles about, or mentioning, themselves: that's not the point. If your only interest in a global encyclopedia with over 6.5 million entries is to tweak articles related to yourself, then abandonment is probably the best idea, since you're not supposed to directly edit such articles anyway. You can, however, suggest edits on articles' Talk pages for other disinterested editors to implement, and you don't need an account to do that. In fact, you don't need an account to do most routine things on Wikipedia – I've been working on it for approaching 20 years without (deliberately) ever having one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.20 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Dispute in presidential election template

Hi, I am @Ku423winz1‬. Recently I tried to edit a presidential election page and was trying to add the election logo in the template. The parameter was there (not undocumented parameters), but after filling it it shows that the parameter is undocumented. How can I resolve this?? Ku423winz1 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ku423winz1, welcome to the Teahouse. There was disagreement at Template talk:Infobox election#Should an election's official logo be included in the infobox? Election logo parameters were only supported for a few hours on 17 April. I will remove them from the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

PrimeHunter I think I was not able to make you realise what I was trying to say, actually I am not talking about reducing the parameter, I was requesting you to make the parameter effective, there are elections which have their own official election logo which are essential to describe and especially represent the election. If any election doesn't have it, then it would remain vacant. Its very simple.Ku423winz1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ku423winz1, you'll need to attempt to gain consensus for the change at the talk page - where I see you've already posted - and then make an edit request if consensus says the parameters should be readded. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@199.208.172.35 ok thanks.Ku423winz1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Born 06 October 1982

This page lists any applications that can use your account. For any such application, the scope of its access is limited by the permissions that you granted to the application when you authorized it to act on your behalf. If you separately authorized an application to access different sister projects on your behalf, then you will see separate configuration for each such project below.

Connected applications access your account by using the OAuth protocol. (Learn more about connected applications)

There are no applications connected to your account. Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa, hello! Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? — 3PPYB6 (public) (talk • contribs • owner's talk page) — 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

yes Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Dharmendra Maurya Mitwa, alright--so, what is your question? — 3PPYB6 (public) (talk • contribs • owner's talk page) — 15:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Music

Who are/were the Comptones? 142.196.40.131 (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any questions related to editing Wikipedia? For factual questions, you might get help at the Reference Desk. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Or just use a web search engine, which gives several hits. Wikipedia has no article on them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

reviving

How do I revive an old discussion? When I went to respond, the discussion was already archived. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You can create a new thread, provide a link to the archived discussion, and discuss. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined because of lack of reliable sources

Attached above is my draft. The reviewer commented that more reliable sources are needed and declined the article. I may need more pointers than that to fix the article. I have drawn most of the sources from famous mainstream sources in China. It is a popular online slogan. Because of the censorship and the nature of Chinese culture that tends to avoid the feminist topic, it is hard to find scholarly articles, and I have done lengthy searches and multiple edits. I am ready to improve the article with more explicit feedback. Wuajp (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Birthday, Marriage, Congratulations Source

Hi , Are sources such as birthdays, weddings, love affairs and congratulations accepted as reliable? PravinGanechari (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PravinGanechari, welcome back to the Teahouse. Your question is a bit unclear - none of those things are sources. They are things that might be written or written about in sources, which in turn might be reliable or unreliable. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi , See Showing some sources example [2] [3] [4] PravinGanechari (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari, based on this list and this list, those sources are not of the best reliability - they might be okay for information on films, but not for celebrity gossip. I'd suggest consulting one or both of those lists if you have questions about reliability in the future, or using the search function here to find past discussions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of both the lists you have given. I just want to know about the above four things (birthdays, weddings, love affairs and congratulations). Importantly, these news are very much in Times of India and Pinkvilla. I am asking because these sources are appearing in many pages. PravinGanechari (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari, those would probably fall under the category of "celebrity gossip". Sourcing for such things should be very good, especially when living persons are involved. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you PravinGanechari (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable IP addresses

Hi, where would be the best place to report an unreliable IP address? I have significant reason to believe that there is one user behind multiple IP addresses editing pages related to zoos and other animal-themed establishments, based on consistent edit summaries and specific editing patterns. I say "unreliable," because I don't know if I can go far enough to call it vandalism. More than likely it is an enthusiastic editor editing in multiple places, assuming good faith. However, the edits always entail unsourced future plans for zoo expansions, and random replacement of featured species with others with no explanation. It's a weird situation, but there are dozens of IP addresses with their respective edits that I am trying to sort through. If someone could just point me in the right direction, that would be great. Until then, I'll be going through their edits and gathering a list of addresses for whom it may concern. TNstingray (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TNstingray. I assume you've at least tried to communicate with this user - I know it can be hard with folks using shifting IPs, but an attempt should be made. After that, if it's not a matter of vandalism, edit warring or sockpuppetry, the next stop is WP:ANI to see if you can get support for a range block. Do provide behavioral evidence and a list of IPs used. You're supposed to notify someone when you bring them up at ANI; it may be tough in this case, but give it your best shot. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response, and for providing the link. In my edit summaries for my reverts, I am going to direct them to the respective talk pages for the articles in question. But that's about all I have been able to do, since there is no user talk page, and no option to "Email this user." I'll probably spend the rest of the day compiling a list and browsing their edits to have a comprehensive case of behavioral evidence as you suggested. Thanks again! TNstingray (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray, all IPs have a user talk page, just like accounts do. It may not have been created yet if no one else has left them a message, though. If you can't catch them while they're active and leave a message on the talk page of that particular IP address while you know they're using it, you may just have to pick the most recently active one from your list. And if they're on mobile, they may not even get an alert that a message has been left for them, and carry on in blithe ignorance. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see that until just now! Thank you for pointing that out. TNstingray (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray You didn't say whether this was an IPv4 or an IPv6 address. If the latter (and I assume it is), then many IPv6 addresses change very dynamically between sessions. So, looking at say, just the contributions of User:2601:846:C200:3558:A17D:223E:4AF2:AAE2 only gives you this single edit. What you need to do is display all the contributions across the entire range of IPv6 addresses that one individual user is likely to have had allocated to them and to have used.

We call this the /64 range. So, just add '/64/ to the url when displaying contributions. Now, their contributions look like THIS. We can see all the edits they have made, whatever their IP address, and I can see that within that set of one person's edits, the IP address for User:2601:846:C200:3558:74CE:CC9B:BB2F:417B was blocked for a month by User:Sergecross73 for block evasion. It seems that they have continued editing and should be fully blocked across the entire /64 range.

However, before I do that, could you check and confirm that these are indeed the troublesome edits you were attempting to follow? Meanwhile I'll check a few out myself and may well extend the block if they're up to no good. Hope this all makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes. That is very helpful, and I'm glad I know to do that for the future. I can confirm that these are mostly the troublesome edits I have been following (I ended up with 11 unique addresses following the 2601:846:C200:3558:- combination). I'm unfamiliar with the specific terminology, but I also have reason to believe that the edits made by User:73.121.73.122 and User:74.93.246.194 are also made by the same User:2601 person (would these be examples of IPv4 addresses?). At this point, I have sent messages to these two as well as to three of the IPv6 addresses, but if one has already been banned for block evasion, I'll probably hold off on the rest for now and save my time. TNstingray (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray Although I'm an admin able to block specific addresses, when justified, what I don't have the skills or authority to do is do checkuser investigations. (Something I'd like to get in to later, perhaps). However if you look at each IPv4 address' contributions, you'll see a link to 'Geolocate' at the bottom. These show us that the IP addresses are all roughly in the same area, and could be the same person. Then you look at their style of editing behaviour and the evidence stacks up. Yes - I think they look the same. So an admin doesn't need to get a CU instigated - they may block on the probability that it it looks, swims and honks like a duck, it's a duck. You can report suspected sockpuppets of blocked users (i.e. of User:Meena Boggs) at WP:SPI and they can be investigated. However, on this occasion, I will act to enforce Sergecross73's block on the other addresses, and they are welcome to unblock any address if they believe I might have interpreted the evidence incorrectly or made a mistake. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Your comments have been incredibly helpful, as I have been pretty unfamiliar with this area in my short time as an established Wikipedia editor. I wasn't aware of the Geolocate link either, but I'm compiling this information on my user page so I can use it in future situations. Thanks for getting to the bottom of the case by finding the original account at User:Meena Boggs. I really appreciate this conversation! TNstingray (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray You're most welcome. If you check out my own userpage you'll see that I have used mine for precisely the same purpose as you. I do tend to forget stuff I don't use often, so my 'Tools' section is really my personal reference library. Go check it out and look for the link to the 'Editor Interaction Utility' - a good way to see which users and IP addresses have edited what pages, and the time between them. A good detective tool in the hunt for block evaders and socks. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

DRV

Let's say an article is deleted at AFD. Someone opens a DRV, which is closed as endorse. Two years later, someone finds sources, some of which were not mentioned in the past discussions, which he believes pushes the topic over the GNG bar. Is that user allowed to open a second DRV or is he supposed to do something else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: if you’re sure the sourcing changes the notability, you could rewrite the article and ping the participants in the deletion discussion on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: If the main deletion arguments for the AfD were want of reliable sources, they could try drafting a new article entirely, no DRV required. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding photos to wikipedia pages

Your caption about the Royal Rumble match can go in here.

Please how can I add pictures to wikipedia that it would just appear at the top right corner. Mine appears very big

Samstringz (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Samstringz. If you view this image on Commons, you can get the text you need to paste into an article by clicking the "Use this File" button next to the 'W' iconi, just as I've done here. They key thing is to ensure you have the command 'thumb' in it, which controls the size. IMages normally go on the right side, though it is possible to add a |left| command if there are other conflicting images in the article. Any user can still click on the thumbnail to then view the larger image. You can control the caption that appears - you don't have to use the default filename.

If you're editing with the Source editor, the text that you insert would be like this:

[[File:Royal Rumble match.jpg|thumb|Royal Rumble match]]. or:

[[File:Royal Rumble match.jpg|thumb|Your caption about the Royal Rumble match can go in here.]].

Alternatively, in our Visual Editor, there's an insert picture button and you simply type the name of the commons image you want to insert.

Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much I am very grateful. Samstringz (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I talk to someone who has read Oliver Heaviside's electromagnetic theory??

It says on the article on Vector Calculus that Heaviside and Gibs invented it. However upon reading electromagnetic theory it is clear that Vectors are derived from Maxwell's equations (and that Heaviside is the sole inventor). Gibs is not known for vector calculus, his major feat is in Thermodynamics. Has anyone read Heaviside and come to the same conclusion? How do I site my sources, when most sources are bias against Heaviside in this regard?

Thanks K00la1dx (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @K00la1dx, welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find a reliable source that backs up your conclusion about the derivation of vectors, then that conclusion cannot be included in the article. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say - if they are all biased against Heaviside, then unfortunately, our article will also be biased. See WP:TRUTH. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If these reliable sources are bias, it means that they are not reliable. That is the definition of primary and ssecondary sources. If a primary source contradicts a secondary source, the primary source wins. I was hoping I could talk to someone who has read Oliver Heaviside's original Electromagnetic Theory. K00la1dx (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

K00la1dx, your understanding of "primary source" and "secondary source" differs from Wikipedia's. If you're not going to accept Wikipedia's definitions and premises, you're wasting your time in Wikipedia. You are of course fully entitled to disagree with all of this, and to publish your disagreement elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are generalists who advise on Wikipedia editing, not areas of expertise. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion: Vector calculus and Oliver Heaviside have had editors (see View history) who claim a math interest on their User pages. Perhaps try starting a discussion with those on their Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If these reliable sources are bias [sic], it means that they are not reliable. That is the definition of primary and ssecondary [sic] sources.
@K00la1dx: That isn't what primary and secondary sources mean. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@K00la1dx But it's your opinion that those sources are biased -- others may disagree. Unless there is consensus that a published source is biased, an individual editor should not unilaterally declare that. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@K00la1dx:, just an explanation on primary and secondary sources: primary sources are the basic information on which everything is founded, but we cannot rely on them directly. A good example from mathematics is the debate about who got there first on calculus, Leibniz or Newton. Of course both wrote stuff, but we can't find a letter from Newton and decide for ourselves he was first. Instead we have to trust later historians of science to sift the various primary sources and sort out what happened, and we reflect them. We don't, on controversial matters, even reflect just one secondary source, because different historians looking at the same data will come to slightly different conclusions. We therefore try to reflect a general consensus view, or if the worst comes to the worst, summarise the main disagreements. The same situation relates to your concerns with Heaviside. If you don't think he got enough credit, the place to go to is the historians, not Heaviside himself. If you can't find someone who backs up your point of view, then you need to become a science historian and write the paper, and get it published somewhere reputable; then we can cite it. Wikipedia is not the place to change views, it's the place to reflect existing ones (even if they're wrong). Elemimele (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who has read Leibniz Discourse on Metaphysics knows he is the inventor of calculus. You cannot fake the catenary curve curve. That is to say that calculus is not a limit, it is an infinitesimal. Liebniz is right, and Newton is wrong. Electromagnetic theory is even more interesting to me. This one also show the catenary curve generated along electric transmission lines. It is very clear that Gibbs is not the creator of vector calculus. He is known for his work in Thermodynamics not Electromagnetism.

If I could just make a rule, to cite primary sources, like Heaviside's book, all these Wikipedia historians will fall flat on their face. That is the source of the hostility. K00la1dx (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@K00la1dx, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources, per WP:PST. We use primary sources only rarely and with extreme caution. I know that may seem counterintuitive, but it's policy here: we actively avoid primary sources. valereee (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@K00la1dx:, there are many things that Wikipedia is not, and one of the things that it is not, is a place to right great wrongs. There are no Wikipedia historians, there are only editors reflecting what historians write, outside Wikipedia. Every time an original piece of research by a Wikipedia editor is found, it is deleted. If you want to change the world view on Heaviside, go out and do it (but not here). It's important that people like you go and research such things; otherwise what could we write about? And how would mistakes get corrected? But I think you're going to get very frustrated doing it here, because we only repeat reliable secondary sources. That is both a strength and a weakness. Elemimele (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Assistance in sourcing a biography Wikipedia page

Who can assist in sourcing a biographical wikipedia page for Nelly Sfeir Gonzalez? Xavier Serif (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Xavier Serif, welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to find people would probably be at the WikiProject called Women in Red - it's dedicated to improving the representation of women on Wikipedia. If you make a post on the talk page, you might find folks willing to help you dig up sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Xavier Serif. So I googled her, and I'm seeing a typical obit for an accomplished professional woman. In general this will not support a Wikipedia article. valereee (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

And copying and pasting that obituary as you did here Draft:Nelly Esther Sfeir de Gonzalez will lead to deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The awards she won might mean she meets the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse editors are here to advise, but not to be co-authors or reference researchers. The Speedy deletion was a consequence of copying content from the obiturary. You can try again via guidelines at WP:YFA. What is essential is finding and then citing published content about her. Listing her books and awards is useful, but does not contribute to what Wikipedia calls notability. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

David notMD, there is no policy, guideline or behavioral norm that prevents Teahouse hosts from acting as "co-authors or reference researchers" if they find the topic interesting. I do it all the time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I confess to doing the same, but in this instance I wanted to convey to the new editor that that level of collaboration was not the norm for Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on the award (I haven't checked) but WP:NACADEMIC is met if The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft Article

I have created a draft page when will it be added to main space? Rejoy2003 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: unsubmitted draft Draft:Savio D'Silva. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Rejoy2003 (Edit conflict) I'm assuming that your draft is Draft:Savio D'Silva. In its current state there is no chance of its being accepted into Mainspace, since it does not demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability of a politician, since he doesn't seem to have won the seat which he contested and (based on what you have written) won't meet the more general alternative notability requirements. As to the mechanics of submitting a draft, please see WP:AFC and H:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem with an article

In the article for the punk band Sham 69, there's an orphan [7] under the Singles box, and I can't find it on the Edit page. Can a code jockey help clean that up? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Pete Best Beatles, pop right up for me as last line when I try and edit singles from mobile. Where should it go? As I am assuming its supporting some/all of that section. Slywriter (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Pete Best Beatles. The code is right where "[7]" is displayed after the table at Sham 69#Singles: <ref name="The Great Rock Discography">{{cite book|first=Martin C.|last=Strong|year=2000|title=The Great Rock Discography|edition=5th|publisher=Mojo Books|location=Edinburgh|page=869|isbn=1-84195-017-3}}</ref> This is sometimes an indication that it's a reference for the whole table but I don't know whether that's the case here. If it is then we often say "Source: [ref code]" PrimeHunter (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying it may or may not be an error, but there's no way to know? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Google book search and this not reliable source confirm Sham69 is mentioned in the book. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It was added by Derek R Bullamore in 2009.[5] That's long ago but he is still active and may be able to say it. It looks like a competent edit so I guess it is a general reference for the table. It should probably say "Source: " to clarify that. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me for not really recalling adding the reference source you are referring to, but it was a long time ago ! However, I still own a copy of Martin C. Strong's publication, and can confirm that it does support all the singles listed in the article's table, at least from "I Don't Wanna" (1977) to "Action Time & Vision" (1993). Does that adequately answer your query ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Derek R Bullamore: Thanks. That sounds good. Somebody has added "Source:". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is there a place Wikipedians can post and view examples of hilarious or outrageous vandalism? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a list of hoaxes, not sure if a vandal one is maintained nor sure if it should be shared on such a visible page if there is. Slywriter (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Silly Things and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Tangentially related might be Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Contributing images

How do I submit photo images for existing articles 166.205.209.28 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Uploading photos is very complicated. I will try to simplify. If you took the photo yourself and it is of a subject that is not copyrighted, and if you are willing to freely license your photo for reuse by anyone anywhere for any purpose without restrictions other than attribution, then upload your photo to Wikimedia Commons. If the photo is 100% copyright free according to evidence that you will provide, or if the copyright has expired, usually because it is over 95 years old, upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If the photo meets the very stringent standards described in Non free content/Images, then upload it here to English Wikipedia, following the instructions scrupulously. If it is some random photo that you found online, forget about it. The vast majority of such photos are restricted by copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I was a photographer at the Formula One race in Dallas TX in 1984. I have many images that would enhance the page at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Dallas_Grand_Prix

. These are my personal photos with no copyright restrictions. I can upload images to Wikipedia commons but I have no account or permissions to add images/links to the wiki page for the race.

 166.205.209.28 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@166.205.209.28: Please read WP:IMAGERELEVANCE; Wikimedia Commons is a repository for images and other media where anyone can find and use images that are donated (I used one on Facebook recently, with appropriate acknowledgement to the uploader). English-language Wikipedia articles such as 1984 Dallas Grand Prix are not intended to be used as a repository of images. Any displayed should (theoretically) only be present to give the reader a better understanding of the context. I am involved in the motorcycle side of Wikipedia, and with the advent of inbuilt zoom lenses, would-be contributors make the mistake of thinking crisp close-ups of bodywork with text, logos and corporate colour schemes (basically advertising) are useful, whereas wider-angle GVs - general views, establishing shots, are often what would be better to understand the context of the race track. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)(I am not a Teahouser)

Understood, and thanks. One of the unique (and unfortunate) aspects of the race was the deteriorating pavement on the track. I was working the corner where this deterioration occurred. I'm including links to two of my images (currently on imgur) that I feel would contribute to the context of this track condition issue:

.

https://imgur.com/UQxr8ON

.

https://imgur.com/Ga2ptc7

. 166.205.209.28 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That looks good and would be relevant - looks to me to be tyre degradation? They call the black pieces marbles - chunks of rubber. Maybe they combined with the road surface. One thing that is imperative is the images must not have been hosted (uploaded, published) anywhere else publicly unless annotated with a specific release. Normally this would be in the form of a recognised licence, such as those which Wikipemedia uses (Creative Commons, Creative Commons license). We've had this before now and I am not familiar with Imgur and I can't see any licencing and can't scroll to the bottom as it keeps loading more images, so I would recommend deletion if you intend to proceed to upload to Commons. As the magnificent Arnie would say...I'll be back (sleep needed).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with marbles from rubber tires but in these images the marbles are the disintegrated asphalt - you can see the ruts in the track where the asphalt has been dislodged.

The images on imgur are linked in a thread I started years ago on a scale modeling website, here:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/276054-formula-1-dallas-grand-prix-1984/

and nowhere else (to my knowledge). I'll have to do some digging to find the scrollable image page on imgur, give me a day or so. Thanks again. 166.205.209.28 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the images are hosted at one venue since 2014 and another since 2019 (additionally with Photobucket at an unknown date) and per my comment above that images should not have been previously published without a release licence, I strongly suspect that this will prevent uploading to Wikimedia Commons for free re-use by anyone. I have opened an enquiry there and will update after response. Commons is entirely separate to En-language Wikipedia. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with template

I "adopted" this WP:TOOSOON draft the day before its subject released. How do you get the episode table to work (because I'm stupid) and should the premise be in blockquotes as it is from promotional material? Thanks, — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: promotional material now removed. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, could you help with the bloated reception section? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 12:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Add new book

How can I add a new book to an author’s list of previously published books? Sportshippo (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The same way that you'd add any other information, Sportshippo. Click on "Edit", observe the markup used for the same purpose (here, adding a list item, italicizing, etc), and increment this for the new book. Click "Show preview", and, if you like what you see, then "Publish". If there's some other problem, do please ask. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary but the ‘books’ section is not visible when I enter ‘edit’ mode Sportshippo (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Sportshippo You have been editing Tony Jacklin, which is where I assume you wish to add the information. However, you have a conflict of interest regarding the book (as evident from your edit summaries). It would be better to propose additions on the Talk page of the article, using the {{edit request}} template. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sportshippo: Tony Jacklin has no Books section. In [6] you said "the list of books at the top of his page". There is no such list. If you aren't talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jacklin (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jacklin in case something changes the link for you) then please link the page you refer to. If it is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jacklin then something at your end, maybe advertising software, may be inserting a book list. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to SPI case

When an SPI case is filed, if the case fails, does it affect the user filing the case? PravinGanechari (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Normally, no. But I imagine that if the filing were vexatious, error-ridden or unusually lazy, the perpetrator would be warned. If disruptive behaviour of any kind continues despite warnings to stop, there can be penalties. Incidentally, I have no idea why you link to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1158#Follow-up_to_Page_Review. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hoary , Ohh, That means it affects the person filing the case. Is there any user from whom I can get this advice for SPI case. So that I will have some practice in the way the evidence should be. Because if there is solid evidence, it will be easy to register the case. (As for the link you are talking about ignore it. it is my mistake) PravinGanechari (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari: If you're looking to file an SPI case, I recommend reading User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI. And yes, Hoary is right. As an SPI clerk, I sometimes warn people for filings totally lacking in evidence, or filings that are made to intimidate someone in a dispute, but I definitely wouldn't take action against someone just because a filing doesn't lead to a block. (In fact I had one of my own filings turn out unrelated just a few weeks ago.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, SPI will not make a case to harass or target anyone. I will try to make the SPI case based on a little evidence. And sir I will definitely take "Blablubbs" sir's advice sir. Thank you sir for your reply PravinGanechari (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari: I'm not a sir, but I'm glad you'll take the advice. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Do editors have a right to delete messages from their talk page?

I sometimes see editors delete critical messages from their talk page in Special:RecentChanges, and was wondering whether this was allowed. Thanks, — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 13:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vortex3427. Yes, editors can freely delete many (but not all) things from their own talk page - see here. 174.21.19.94 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427, see WP:REMOVED. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

creating articls

ho do i make a article 76.122.120.234 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You have to register an account, otherwise you can do it through WP:AFC. Editorkamran (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. You don't have to create an account (though there are advantages in doing so), as long as you use the articles for creation process, as Editorkamran suggests.

Please note that creating a new article from scratch is extremely hard for a new editor. I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles before trying it. We delete hundreds of attempts every day, by people who have plunged in without taking the time to properly understand what Wikipedia is.

When people come new to Wikipedia and want to create an article immediately, it is often because they want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about themselves or their ectivities, but have not understood that promotion of any kind (including for non-commercial activities) is forbidden on Wikipedia.

Please read your first article for more information. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Help editing bio

Hi, I'm a novice at this and could use some reasonable help editing my draft bio. Anyone interested, please contact me with rates. Bobpurvey1 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobpurvey1 : Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Some recommended reading: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. People who try to make WP-articles about themselves (I'm assuming) almost always fail, because they do it wrong, and because most people are not WP:NOTABLE. If WP has an article about you, you will not have control of it's contents. If approved, it will be a summary of what WP:RS independent of you has said about you. Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:GNG.

So: what are the 3-5 best sources you know that are at the same time reliably published, independent of you and about you in some detail? This excludes your websites, blogs, wikis, online bookstores etc etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bobpurvey1, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that the fact that you are even contemplating paying somebody to work on an article indicates that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and what it is for.

Almost all Wikipedia editors are volunteers, who work on what they choose, either because it interests them, or because they want to continue to improve Wikipedia, or both. Paid editors are tolerated but not encouraged, and are required to make a formal disclosure. If somebody takes your money and assures you that they can get an article about you into Wikipedia, they are either ill-informed or lying.

If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there can be an article about you - if you are like most of us then there cannot. An article about you, whoevr writes it, will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Colin, Thanks for sharing your insight. Seems to me taht what I need is to find someone who finds my background and events in my life interesting enough to help me conform my bio so that it meets Wikipedia's standards and practices, which to me seem daunting to figure out. How do I go about appealing to someone who can help me here? bp 2603:8001:9BF0:430:202B:16AF:D20E:F124 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Bobpurvey1 You might find that Everybodywiki (I am not allowed to link to it) is more suited to your purpose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am a beginner here, what is the reason for declining my draft...? and any solution here for publishing my article..

Hi, I am a beginner here, what is the reason for declining my draft...? and any solution here for publishing my article.. Mr appooss (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mr appooss, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that most editors who attempt to create a new article before they have spent a considerable time learning how Wikipedia works have their drafts declined, if not rejected. I would advise you to put aside that project for a few months, and learn about Wikipedia by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles.

Specifically about your draft: it you read about notability, you will see that in order to have an article about something, that something must have written about in several independent reliable sources. Your draft has only one source. and that is based on an interview or press release, so is not independent. (You have given two URLs, but they are to two copies of the same article, so including the second one serves no purpose).

Please read your first article and then go searching for suitable sources. Writing an article without having found reliable, independent, substantial sources is like building a house without surveying the land or building foundations: it will probably fall down. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, creating an article is hard. I joined in November, and submitted an article for review in April. It barely passed, and was marked as a stub (a really small article that needs improvement). And that was after five months of editing. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft at User:Mr appooss/sandbox declined for no references. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to do that properly. David notMD (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Article Incorrectly Deleted Due to Copyright Issue

Dear Someone Helpful,

My son was recently asked by his geology professor to help him create a Wikipedia article about armored mud balls, which he just learned was deleted. His professor, Dr. Richard Little, had had his own entry on the subject deleted previously due to alleged "copyright violations" for citing his own work! So, my son, who is 18, tried to write an article for Dr. Little citing his work.

As a note on the topic, *armored mud balls* are a unique type of sedimentary structure of interest to anyone interested in geology and other earth sciences. Dr. Little, of Easthampton, Massachusetts, has discovered the most well-preserved armored mud balls in the world, located in Western Massachusetts. This scientific, geological information is worthy of its own article, and an expert on it has tried unsuccessfully to create the article. We need some help to remedy this situation and get the article accepted.

Not only is the subject of general educational value, but there is a need to educate the public about the campaign to preserve these high quality geological features due to their getting wrecked by parking lots and other types of construction. Please advise us as to how to get this article established in Wikipedia. It was clearly an error to think that Dr. Richard Little had infringed on his own copyright. Thank you so much in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.165.51 (talk • contribs) 17:57, July 23, 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that even if an editor owns the copyright on an external resource, they must freely license it to be able to post it on Wikipedia. An easy way to do this is to add a statement like The contents of this site are licensed under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>. Or you can donate it using these instructions. I cannot view the article but maybe somebody suspected that the person who pasted the text was not the copyright owner.

Generally using a username similar to the author should be enough to reduce suspicion - we normally trust people unless there's a reason to believe they are lying. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 18:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia text should be neutral and verifiable, so please note that just because the copyright status is compatible doesn't mean it has to be included, although if it is neutral and verifiable, it can be included. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 18:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses a copyright licence that is completely incompatible with standard copyright (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). If content has been published anywhere else and its copyright licence isn't explicitly declared (or it was declared and it isn't compatible) then we cannot use it even if the original author wrote the material on both sites because of this incompatibility. In addition, most of your post does your argument a disservice. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. The basis of creating a WP-article that "sticks" is to gather a few WP:Reliable sources, then to summarize what they say in your own words. Don't WP:COPYPASTE, that is forbidden. You must also learn how to add references correctly, this is essential, see WP:TUTORIAL on how.

That said, per my quick googling, a WP-article on this subject can ABSOLUTELY be written (I can't find an existing one, anyway), there's university press and similar good sources. My advice is start it as a draft via Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts, work on it at your own pace until it's ready for article-space, and then submit it for review. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP. Woah! This looks exciting, and definitely deserving of an article. I'd be happy to kick something off for you. I see we already have some of Prof Little's images on Commons, one of which I've just added here. I can't find any previously deleted articles, so if anyone can help me locate that, I'd be grateful. I've downloaded the original article from JSTO and will take a look through it later when I have a free moment. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I've unearthed the deleted draft at Draft:Armored mud balls. This was a terrible violation of our copyright policies as it was purely a copy/paste job from https://armoredmudballs.rocks/ (which currently has a clear copyright statement on it). There is a clear explanation as to why the draft was deleted, and you can find this at User talk:RDLittle. I would be concerned if your son had taken the name of his professor and used it as his own account name - that is not helpful. (User:RDLittle2000 is the person who uploaded these rather nice pictures to Wikimedia Commons, but they have never registered to edit here on English Wikipedia, so I am left a bit confused as to who is actually who). Anyway, the fact that the website creator would like to see a page here is irrelevant; they simply need to change their content licencing to a CC-BY-SA licence, permitting commercial reuse. Until that happens, their own words cannot be allowed on Wikipedia in that form. All it requires is someone competent to write a draft in their own words, based on Reliable Sources, and there seems to be enough journal papers and articles out there to justify it. However, we don't name articles in the plural, so Armored mud ball would seem the right title to use. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That image, and perhaps more of the ones at commons, are from that website. It's possible they are correctly marked as "own work", but that is unclear, some Commons:Volunteer Response Team bureaucracy may be necessary if they are to be kept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Ok, did you see the "8. Wikipedia Text (proposed)" section at https://armoredmudballs.rocks/? If they published it there first, we can't use it per rulez, unless they license it like you said. However, if it was on WP first, it would be (partly) a Template:Backwards copy. Bit of a mess.

I note that the website states "This project is being organized by Richard D. Little, Prof. Emeritus, Greenfield Community College, the discoverer of these rare features in the 1970's", but this source [7] may disagree with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Armoured Mud Ball and US dime coin.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks. I didn’t see that section, but I’ve no intention of using any text directly from that site. See my sandbox (1st section) for my very early draft. Looks like 1940 (Bell) or someone in 1927 actually observed and named these structures. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Just noted your earlier post about imagery. From what I saw, the uploads were of far greater resolution than the images on the Prof’s website. So to me they’re clearly donated by the copyright owner. So I’m not sure which gung-ho person deleted it on Commons. I fear the Prof, in pushing their subject has made things really messy for us, and I’m not sure know whether I’ve enough free time to push this through. I might drop the prof a direct email and get some answers if I have a spare moment. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The gung-ho person seems to have been @Jimfbleak. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've managed to get the image reinstated on Commons under the rationale that it was of far higher resolution than the public-facing website used, so clearly could not have been taken from there (see here).

@Nick Moyes I looked at User:Nick Moyes/sandbox and the sources clearly says ok for mainspace. On the armoredmudballs campaign website, it makes a good EL, but IMO can probably be avoided as ref since better published ones are available, though it seems usable per WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Any article should be based upon the research papers, keeping the campaign website just as an External Link, rather than using it as a source for referencing. I'm just drafting an emailed the prof to ask if he wants some help from me, so we'll see how that goes. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Image Adding

Good day, Please I just discovered that the images that I tried adding shows this [[ thumb ]] after publishing. How do I get it out. It has made me get 4 reverts today. Thanks Samstringz (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You seemed to have added the image correctly. That image is still there. I don't see a problem with it, at least on my end. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If the thumbnail is different to the image and the image has been changed or swapped for another one then you may need to clear your cache to get it to display correctly on your end. What you're seeing may not be the same as others if you have uploaded an image to replace it. MycoMutant (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I removed the extra text with image so it should be good now. Cmr08 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories

Are categories sometimes used to connect topics even if the article isn't strictly a member of the set defined by the category? i.e., Mouthpiece (woodwind) used to be in the category Woodwind instruments, and someone just removed that, with the logic that a woodwind mouthpiece is not a type of woodwind instrument. I thought that categories were sometimes used to group topics even if the article's topic didn't strictly belong to the set defined by the category. - Special-T (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Special-T Good question! You're getting at the distinction between topic categories, where it would be okay to include mouthpiece in your example, and set categories, where it would not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe the solution in this case is to create a Woodwind Parts & Accessories category & make it a subcat of Musical Instrument Parts&c (as a set category) and also a subcat of Woodwind Instruments (as a topic cat). There's a setup like that for Brass Instruments. - Special-T (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not enough of a category expert to say, but I'd suggest pinging the editor who removed the category to discuss. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I've done that. - Special-T (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Special-T: A large part of Category:Woodwind instruments is not instruments but articles related to the topic, and that seems completely appropriate. Othwerwise we would either get a lot of impractical tiny categories, or many relevant articles wouldn't be findable via categories. "Topics related to woodwind instruments" and so on would be clumsy category names. "related to" is generally implied when there aren't other suitable categories to connect relevant articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Right - that's exactly what I was thinking (topic categories). Thanks for all the help, folks! - Special-T (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

FLAX new study that indicates it can cause drug reactions similar to grapefruit

FLAX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax

A research paper found Flax may cause liver enzyme changes that can affect certain drug levels due to increased CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 expression. 70.30.41.148 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be in reference to the short article Defries D, Shariati S, Blewett H, Aliani M. Expression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes Is Induced by Flaxseed Enterolignans. Curr Dev Nutr. 2021 Jun 7;5(Suppl 2):312. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzab037_022. PMCID: PMC8181327.. This in vitro study does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for medical research (see WP:MEDRS). Therefor, it is premature to add its findings and as a ref to the articles Flax or Flaxseed oil. David notMD (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: not to confuse the issue, but there is no prohibition in mentioning such results on Wikipedia if the article makes it clear that it's an in vitro study and not applicable to humans. See WP:MEDINVITRO. I am not sure about this case, but some in vitro or in vivo studies do get cited in multiple other places and are therefore encyclopedically relevant and worthy of note. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Interlinear glossing

Um... help. Can somebody who knows what interlinear glossing actually is please check my most recent edit at Tokelauan language and see what I've done wrong? I tried to restore a sentence and a half which seems to have accidentally been deleted a while back and it seems something must have changed in the coding, because a warning was shown (but didn't prevent me from saving the edit) saying there was an error in the 'interlinear glossing', about which I know nothing. Thank you in advance. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This has something to do with the template {{interlinear}} which is used in language articles. I've no idea how it is used but maybe if you read the documentation you'll be able to work it out and fix it yourself, Daveosaurus. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Daveosaurus. Don't worry about it: the error was there before your edit. The text in section "Complements" is glossed with parts of speech, but one of them uses an abbreviation that the glossing template doesn't know. ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, it uses the abbreviation 'DIR' which is not in the list in the Interlinear module, so it needs to be specified locally, and {{interlinear}} lists ways of doing that. The problem is that I don't know what it does represent: I guess it's a "directional" element, but would need to consult the source (or a source for the Tokelauan language) to verify that. I'll put a note on the Talk page. ColinFine (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you request deletion of duplicate drafts

Specifically this and this. There's another one with way more substantial content. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vortex3427, thanks for posting a question here. If it is one that you created and the only substantial content is written by you (like Draft:Iron Lung (video game)), use WP:G7 to tag it for deletion, otherwise I believe the only way is to wait for it to expire, drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months can be deleted under WP:G13 Justiyaya 11:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding Categories

I am ready to resubmit the draft on George Ockner.  How can I add categories to the page so it may be seen by editors familiar with the subjects in the article?Draft:George Ockner

Thank you in advance.

Ajo47 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ajo47 See WP:DRAFTCAT. Categorisation is not required on drafts and until they are accepted should be disabled (see link for the way to do this). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but when I click on "Edit" at the top of the draft page to try to insert a colon before "Categories", the Categories box disappears, so I cannot disable the categories. Perhaps they are already disabled? Please advise. Ajo47 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Try clicking on the "Edit Source" tab instead of the "Edit" tab. In the source editor, you will be able to manually type in these categories like this [[:Category:Example]] StartOkayStop (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ajo47 It may be a bit confusing but drafts receive categorisation (e.g. this one has "Category:AfC submissions by date/11 February 2022") that can be seen currently but will not appear when the article is accepted and "disappears" when in edit mode as it is not a cateory describing the subject of the article but one describing the draft itself! Similarly, drafts can already appear in hidden categories, (e.g. this one has "Category:Declined AfC submissions" from its earlier decline). Once accepted as an article, I'd expect the biography to appear in "Category:1916 births" and it is this type where (assuming you wished to add it now) would be done by adding the colon before that standard category, which refers to the subject of the article, placed at the very bottom of the source code. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. So your last sentence means that I can right now add ":Category:1916 births"? I don't understand how to do that since I don't seem to have the capability of editing the Category box. And If it is accepted, may I then add other subject categories after acceptance, such as American classical violinists, 20th century classical violinists, 20th century American musicians, United States Army soldiers (I have seen all of these categories in biographies of his colleagues)? Ajo47 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added a couple into the draft, so if you edit it now and go right to the bottom of the source code, you'll see how it is done. The other categories you suggest will be absolutely fine, either now or after acceptance. I note in looking again at the draft that rateyourmusic.com is a deprecated source and discogs is generally unreliable, so you might like to remove them, Ajo47. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up! Ajo47 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking for some content/page-structure advice

I've been making some edits to the history of the Minnesota Historical Society and I'm wondering if there are any guidelines on whether history sections should be organized chronologically or topically. I still have a lot of work to do, but I'm curious if I should keep all of the information about constructing the Minnesota Historical Society Building as one section, or if I should split that across multiple sections that are listed chronologically.

I tried to find essays/guidelines on how history sections should be structured, but I haven't had any luck. Is this just an editor's choice type of scenario? Thank you!  Ryan Vesey 19:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific guidelines for this, but Comparing to similar articles, the usual format is events listed in chronological order, and broken up into sections covering distinct periods in the history. Looking at the article, I don't think any of the events listed are distinct enough from each other to justify their own sub-section, and the current paragraph breaks are sufficient. WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. There's a lot of information I'm still planning on adding. I was just looking for feedback that could help me plan out how I do the rest of the additions. Ryan Vesey 21:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The article I wrote was rejected

I wrote an article about a jewellery company, which produces very unusual jewelry. It was rejected as it was a kind of advertisement. I tried to write as much as possible adhering to the style of Wikipedia. Maybe the problem was in links added... I'm not enough experienced user, it was my first try. Please advise me what is better to delete or to add? Dumenpro (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the issue is that the article is written like either an advertizement or investor-fishing press release. What is your connexion to BUUNT? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, government documents (such as trademark registrations), paid press, and interviews with company principals are absolutely worthless as sources. We don't care about what the company says or pays others to say about itself, nor anything that merely documents existence. We're looking for evidence it's been written about by unrelated outlets and people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dumenpro: Welcome to the Teahouse. Phrases like united the best jewelers of the country and of the world, giving them the opportunity to realize the most incredible and complicated professional fantasies and [t]he mission of the company is to give its customers the opportunity to surprise not only those around them, but also the most knowledgeable connoisseurs of jewelry art are inappropriate for an encyclopedia (it's something I'd expect to see in ad copy).

Please also cite your sources in-line within the prose. See Easy referencing for beginners if you need help in that respect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'm changing it. Dumenpro (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Several of these elements present in the draft can make it appear like an advertisement:

- Use of opinion adjectives: words like "best", "unique" or "cheap and homogeneous". Unless you phase it as a reliable source giving the opinion, it reads as an advertisement.

- Sentences like "The name of the brand is a combination of two German words that reveal its philosophy." provide no real information by themselves, and only serve to lead on the reader, something more appropriate to advertising than an encyclopedia.

- Lack of in text citations: While not advertising by itself, clumping all the citations at the end makes it hard to verify any individual statement. WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I need help to write a correct article.

I wrote an article and it was deleted because of advertisement reasons. It was about a jewelry company which is about 10 years old, uses an ancient japanese technology in its production. Can I ask someone experienced to check the article before to publish it again? Or to help me with publishing it in a right way. Thank you in advance. Dumenpro (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

In your most version of the justly deleted Draft:BUUNT, there appeared this:

The company's products have been repeatedly published in the most famous world magazines, such as English Tatler, Professional Jeweler, European Touch, L’Officiel, ML Magazine and many others.

If these were really "the most famous world magazines", then readers would not have to be told that they were famous. And I don't know how one can publish a product. If you mean that intelligent, signed articles (not mere advertorials) in these magazines have provided substantive information about Buunt's products, then somebody might base a draft about Buunt on what's said in these articles. A skim-read of your user talk page suggests to me that the creator of the draft should be somebody other than you. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

add main picture

How to add main picture? Wikitrueupdate (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wikitrueupdate, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question isn't very clear, but assuming you mean that you want to add an image to an article, then this is in two stages: uploading the image, and then using it in the article. If an image you want to use it already available in Wikimedia Commons, then it's easy: if you go to its information page in Commons, it will give you the string you have to add to a Wikipedia article. (I think it's even easier in the visual editor, but I don't use that).

If the image you want isn't already in Commons, then you have to upload it, and that is often more difficult: not the uploading itself, but determining the copyright. Most images you find on the internet are not licensed suitably for Commons, and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Please see WP:Uploading images for more information. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing disputes on Sandy Marton

As many of you know, last year Marton's single Camel by Camel saw a massive boost in popularity after 25 years of obscurity. However, seeing as the reason behind its sudden resurgence is...controversial, this has lead to some editing disputes.

A vast majority of these disputes are brought on by a group of IPs that fit within a similar range (often only differing by the last few digits), and often use the same language (assuming bad faith, saying users are out to damage Marton's image, threatening to block users, etc). Because of this, I presume that these edits are made by a single user who hops IPs.

Recently, I made my own edit to the page in which I attempted to add this info in a civilized, neutral manner. I also made it a point to reference reliable sources to back up my claims. However, this still wasn't enough to keep this user from reverting my edit. Shortly afterwards, I made a case on the talk page as to why its inclusion was warranted, clarifying that my edit was not an attempt at vandalism, and providing counterpoints to their some of their arguments. I urged them to visit the talk page and discuss the matter, but they refuse to do so.

I'm hoping that by discussing this properly, we can possibly reach a consensus. However, this user seems unwilling to discuss it via the article's talk page, and I can't reach out to their talk page because they hop IP's, and as such are unlikely to see any comments left there. What should I do? GBURA (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Sandy Marton#Is_the_viral_dance_video_libelous?, showing a relevant discussion in mid October 2021, by editors who had all signed in. It's not clear to me why the discussion needs to be resumed. If it does need to be resumed and people are refusing to discuss, then the matter doesn't belong here but on WP:BLPN. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors from Yemen

Dear Editors, I have been trying to create a page for prominent yemeni journalist Naseh Shaker but since I am not a confirmed editor, I have not been able to create a page.

I have all sources and links for him if you can help. Abdullah Ahmed Shakir (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

edit request

I submitted an edit request [8]. How come there are sources in my edit request? Is the edit request clear enough that someone can follow what I am asking? Thank you! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)