Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZZ Digital Solution (talk | contribs) at 12:45, 18 February 2020 (→Page publishing: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Teahouse protected

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

jmcgnh, a Teahouse host

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

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Questions about quoting sources

I'm reading the Wikipedia guidelines but I'd like to know what is the general opinion regarding frequent quoting of sources that support the statement of a given Wiki page and giving an as complete as possible information about the cited source (pages, dates, quotes, url, isbn, etc.). Is it bad if the majority of the citations in a given Wiki article also contain quotes and their respective pages from the source? Is it generally seen as a citation overkill? Does it violate certain Wikipedia policies? Can someone be banned for opting for full citations with quotes?

You can find general guidance about adding quotations here Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines. I am not quite sure what you mean about a citation 'containing' a quote though? I certainly don't think that a quote should appear every time a citation appears, that would be over-use of quotes, not necessarily citation overkill. Citations should be used frequently and are more or less mandatory, especially for controversial information. Quotes should be used sparingly and are optional, only for when inserting one will improve the article or help the reader's understanding. As for your last question, in theory one can be banned for doing anything disruptive if you do it persisently and after multiple warnings, but I think you would be very unlikely to get banned (or blocked, which is a different thing) for using a few too many quotes, as long as you stop and discuss if anyone objects. Hugsyrup 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About "citations containing a quote", I'm thinking more about the referencing style of an article like this. The references appear to be "full citations", with all the possible information available regarding the cited source itself, the page that supports the statement if possible, and the quote that supports the written statement in an article. Stricnina (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see! Sorry, I misunderstood. I haven't seen that style much, but it is perfectly legitimate. See here under 'additional annotation' for some guidance on this. Essentially, it's fine, it can be very useful, it's not mandatory. I wouldn't recommend (not that you were going to, I'm sure!) going around and adding quotes to existing citations all over the place unless there is a good reason for it, but there is certainly no problem with this approach in principle. Does that help? Hugsyrup 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very very much for the answer. Yes, this helps. Stricnina (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stricnina: One suggested use for quotes is to provide translation to English of a foreign source, which would be useful there, instead of (or in addition to) reproducing the non-English source. I would probably have used the two-step approach, with quotes in the footnotes that in turn reference the sources (to avoid repeating the whole source citation many times). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1 and @Hugsyrup, is frequent quoting of sources constitutes WP:COPYVIO or WP:ILCLUTTER? Like in the references section of this page? I don't want to violate Wikipedia policies so I need input. Someone suggested that frequent quoting of the sources like in that case constitute WP:COPYVIO. Stricnina (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1 and possibly @Hugsyrup Also, I am trying to make a footnote containing a quote, and inside the footnote there is also the reference in "ref name" format but it gives me an error when embedding a citation format inside a footnote. How do I resolve it? Stricnina (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stricnina: This is the approach I was thinking of: 

This is some article prose{{Efn|1="Some quoted text from page 3"{{R|Smith-2020|p=3}}}}
and more article prose{{Efn|1="Some quoted text from page 27"{{R|Smith-2020|p=27}}}}
and also article prose.{{Efn|1="The only quote from Jones"<ref name="Jones-2013" />}}

=== Notes ===
{{Notelist}}

=== References ===
{{Reflist |refs=
<ref name="Smith-2020">{{Cite book |last1=Smith |first1=John |title=My life |date=2020 }}</ref>
<ref name="Jones-2013">{{Cite book |last1=Jones |first1=Bob |title=Some title |date=2013 |page=55}}</ref>
}}

It produces the following:

This is some article prose[a] and more article prose[b] and also article prose.[c]

Notes

  1. ^ "Some quoted text from page 3"[1]: 3 
  2. ^ "Some quoted text from page 27"[1]: 27 
  3. ^ "The only quote from Jones"[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Smith, John (2020). My life.
  2. ^ Jones, Bob (2013). Some title. p. 55.

Note that {{R|Smith-2020|p=3}} is a short substitute for <ref name="Smith-2020" />{{Rp|3}}.

(For some reason, I didn't get alerts from the mentions you made with @{{u|AlanM1}}. I suggest using {{Re|AlanM1}} instead.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @AlanM1:! That would really reduce the clutter. Stricnina (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to make Archive on my Talk Page?

Hi Everyone,

Can anyone help me to setup an 'Archive" on my Talk Page? I want to make it separate Year wise. I have tried to add but failed. DMySon 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMySon, you need a way to archive it, typically a bot is used. I personally use User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis.
You can add this to your talk page, and the bot will do the archiving for you.
I personally have it set up like {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:OxonAlex/Archives/ |format=%%i |archivebox=yes |archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} |maxarchsize=140700 |age=145 }}
Which archives discussions that haven't been edited in 6 days (145 hours), into numbered suppages of User talk:OxonAlex/Archives/. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other ways, and you don't have to use a bot, but this has the advantage that it can be set and forgotten with no input from the user. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Dear friend User:Alex Noble, Thank you for very well explaining.DMySon 05:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, currently archives older than 10 days (240 hours), but you can increase that number by changing the "age" parameter (counted in hours). – Thjarkur (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My Dear friend User:Þjarkur, Thank you for doing this for me.DMySon 05:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person notable enough for an article? Also, do I have a conflict of interest in writing it?

Hello,

I'm interesting writing an article on Joseph Matthew Sullivan (1871-1918). He wrote three editions of a dictionary entitled "Criminal Slang" in 1908 and a related journal article in 1918 by the same name. His limited published output plays an important role in documenting American slang. He merits 69 citations in Green’s Dictionary of Slang, extended discussion in [A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries], and numerous references in both volumes of the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and mentions in other standard reference works. Other publications also reference Sullivan, including Feminism in Women's Detective Fiction, by Glenwood Irons, 1995 and Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths: Essays.... by Michael G. Cornelius, ‎Melanie E. Gregg, 2008, for example. To me, these references constitute more than three quality sources.

In terms of conflict of interest, I'm working to publish an annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms and definitions, which will for the first time present everything in a single authoritative source. It's possible I will publish commercially on Amazon, but I may also make the publication available for free on my website. There is currently no comprehensive biographical source for Sullivan (that I can find).

Given all the above, can I (should I?) publish a Wikipedia article on the man?

Thanks.

Bixly777 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Bill, I'm also a user. The subject seems notable if the sources you have are reliable, you might want to check Wikipedia:Notability.
The following information has been taken from Wikipedia:Notability:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
Also, I don't think that you have any conflict of interest since your work on an "annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms" has not been published yet. You could check Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia just to be sure.
So you technically could write an article about this individual if your sources are reliable.
I hope I've answered your questions. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean when you say "My opinion is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Just too obscure." David notMD? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Joseph Matthew Sullivan as the possible topic of a biography article is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. A quick search at Google on his name yielded no content about him, i.e., no one who has written about him. People referencing his slang dictionary and his 1918 article does not contribute to him being notable. P.S. Put stuff in quotes, not in bold, when you are quoting something. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually people have written about Sullivan (search Google for "Joseph M. Sullivan" "slang") and you'll find that people have written about him. See the 2013 Boston Globe ("How to talk like Whitey Bulger Mobster lingo gets its day in court"), The U of Arkansas "Female Detectives, Authority, and Fiction from 1864 to the 1930s." Most significantly check A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries: Volume III from OUP--there are 3+ pages about the man and his work--not just citations.

Having said that, what about the idea of an article on Sullivan's book, as noted above? Thanks.Bixly777 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I've said before, you can write about it if you have reliable sources and if it's a notable subject. Writing about the individual is a better option in my opinion. If he isn't that notable and there aren't many sources about him, then there is little to no chance that your draft will get accepted. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​I would still say that the sourcing is too weak for an article about him. The sources for the book are also fairly weak but it might possibly scrape by, it is difficult to write more than a stub article when you're only working from short mentions. Your only conflict of interest would be if you are going to cite your own work (which you can if it is published by a publishing house, but not if it is self-published on Amazon), going through Articles for creation is recommended then. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries states that Sullivan copied more than half of his definitions from other sources, which does not bode well for him or the book being notable. David notMD (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to follow David notMD's reasoning here; plagiarism has no impact on notability; if later sources refer to the Sullivan book rather than the other sources, it is notable. For a historical example: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are (for the most part) lifted from The Dialogue in Hell..., but the former is much more notable than the latter. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​You wouldn't have any conflict of interest if you haven't published work yet . You could write about him if you really wanted to but I wouldn't recommend it, he doesn't seem very notable and there's little chance that your draft would get accepted. Your sources also don't provide that much information, I'd be surprised if you could write a stub about him. It's your choice, I just don't reccomend it. (Writing about his book also isn't a great idea.)

Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like this recipe is not okay?

The Wikimedia/Wikibooks Cookbook seems like a potentially invaluable resource, but there's at least one recipe in there that is maybe not okay: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Placenta_with_Broccoli

I don't claim to know whether or not cooking and eating placenta is culturally okay somehere in the world, but to me this feels like it was written as a joke?

“This is a tasty dish that the whole family will love.”

“You'll need about 1/2 the placenta of a 6.2 pound baby, or 1/3 the placenta of a 9.3 pound baby.”

I mean... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B126:AA2C:B8C1:DE23:854:862F (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. The Teahouse provides information only about editing the English Wikipedia. You will have to take your concerns to the Wikibooks project. We cannot help you here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The correct place to ask would be either that article's talk page or maybe wikibooks:WB:HELP. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this topic notable enough for an article?

Could I write an article about the decrease of the usage of public transportation in london? I have some reliable sources and the topic seems notable. Can I or should I write about it? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Valequez, I've had a brief look at what sources are available, and it does seem to be notable enough for an article here. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 12:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. I'll get started soon. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember, Rodrigo Valequez, that your article should summarise what the sources say. It should not contain any opinions, arguments, or conclusions that are not taken from one of your sources - not even a conclusion from combining two sources. That would be original research. --ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rodrigo Valequez, you can certainly say things like "John Smith argues/suggests/concludes that .... .(reference). Mary Jones argues that ... (reference)". But even if these directly contradict each other, you must not try to resolve the question or draw a conclusion (unless you can show that Smith's view is a minority and most sources agree with Jones, in which case you should indicate the different weights given to the views). It's also best to avoid editorialising words and phrases like "however" or "on the other hand". --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to my bio of the life is rejected will you help me thanks

hello wikipedia. i dont know how to create a page properly i am new here could you please or anyone help me to make or create my page with hard singh rapper name here on wikipedia worldwide. i am rapper, i am gamer also i want to disclose my life bio here so everyone know me from wikipedia. ( i am not here for socialism )

if anyone can help me with this please email me thanks or tell me how to or how can i make my page exposed worldwide like other artist does. thanks help me or i need assistant who can create my page and expose there anything like that thanks help me asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hard Singh Rapper (talk • contribs) 10:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the replies which you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#my bio of the life is rejected will you help me thanks, or the links which you were asked to read, don't you understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hard Singh Rapper, most people aren't notable. Unless you have received significant coverage in reliable sources, you are not notable. Please do not try to write an article about yourself; it will be quickly deleted. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editor now blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About a new Wikipedia editor copy-and-pasting same content to different articles

I don't know anything if it is legitimate or not, but I'm just concerned about a certain editor copy-pasting the same (or almost the same) contribution to different Wikipedia articles. Examples:

Should this be reported or not? Stricnina (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that User:HKongbott has created referenced content about the Anitist religion in the above articles. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, is that really an issue or not? References are just copy-pasted (including the reference names, thus giving errors), and when read, may not even align with what exactly the sources say. The sources in ethics of anitism for example might not even have the keyword "ethics" at all. Stricnina (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add that the issues here are that User:HKongbott has created referenced content about the Anitism religion/cultural practices in the above (and other) articles. This raises two possible issues: 1) if Hkongbott copied content written by others in one article and pasted it into other articles, should have included an attribution in Edit summary, but not required if content created by Hkongbott; 2) this may be more content than is appropriate in the listed articles, especially if articles are not about the Philippines where Anitism is/was prevalent; and 3) if there are errors in added content those will need to be corrected in multiple articles. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HKongbott since identified as sockpuppet, so blanket revert of contributions. Possible that some of the content about Anitism was valid, and appropriate for article about religion in Philippines, but that will have to come from someone else. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have a question. If all my sources are in one website, could I just use the website as a source and put that as a link or would I have to give separate links? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Valequez, you can reuse references multiple times in the same article - see WP:REFNAME. However, if it is different pages on the same website they need to all be done individually. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)l[reply]
  • Oh no, does that mean I have to add 24 sources linking to Ankara, Çubuk's cencus data. I thought I could put a link to the Turkish Statistical Institude and be done with it. Well, guess I'll have to do it sometime. Regards Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodrigo Valequez: That's actually one of the prime examples of why it's necessary. I've routinely been frustrated by trying to verify a statistic sourced to just a census data main page. Unless you are very familiar with the topic, and the particular country's data, and their particular website's way of presenting it, it's near impossible to find one particular data point in any reasonable amount of time. You can use {{Rp}} (or even easier, {{R}}) to avoid repeating the full citation if only the page number is different (e.g., if, as is sometimes the case, multiple tables are combined into one PDF document). I hope this helps, and thanks for the question. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about CL Qualification

Hi I on my sandbox I have made a Positions by round table for the 2019–20 Premier League. but Man City have just been banned from all European competitions until 2022 by UEFA how do I add that into it? I can't move the Champions League qualification section from 2-4 to 3-5 because Man city have been as low as 4th this season any help? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: User:Sandbox:PoR 2018–19 and User:Sandbox:PoR 2019-20 were misnamed and deleted. Your user subpages should start with "User:REDMAN 2019/". Would you like the latter or both pages restored in your userspace? The pages used Module:sports rbr table which does not have a feature for what you want. You could request it at Module talk:Sports rbr table but I don't know whether it would be done for such rare cases. You may just have to add a footnote about it, similar to Template:2019–20 Premier League table. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yes please I would like them to be restored. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@REDMAN 2019: I have restored them and moved them to User:REDMAN 2019/PoR 2018–19 and User:REDMAN 2019/PoR 2019-20 without leaving redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch in the revision history system?

On my watchlist I get:

diffhist Jabberwocky‎ [pending revisions] 08:18 +92‎ ‎86.21.217.229 talk‎ →‎Possible interpretations of words

When I go to rhe revision comparison page for this I get the left source page saying that this is the accepted revision and attributing this revision to me, AlainV. But the content of this revision is a series of words that I never wrote: "In the above old image it has four legs and also"

My last revision to the page was really putting in the inline citation to the Muppet Show production with info straight from the talk page.

I am bemused.--AlainV (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlainV. Please link pages you refer to. Are you referring to [1]? It shows which changes the IP made, not what you changed. The text "In the above old image it has four legs and also" was in the page after your edit but not after the IP edit. That's all the diff means. It does not imply that you added the text. It had been there for a long time. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am referring to the page you linked to. Also, I just noticed in my watchlist that the text about two pending revisions disappeared. --AlainV (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Gamewardens

Resolved
 – 20:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The captioned PBR along the left hand margin of the "Operations" section is mislabeled. It is a Mark II PBR - there are differences in their appearance. And - the machine gun on the back of the boat is a .50 Caliber same as the guns on the forward deck. I know because I served on a PBR in the Delta 1969-70. Thank you for having someone correct these errors. 

 Ralph Richason veteran of USN PBR River Division 515  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.142.48 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the forward guns on a PBR are twin .50 caliber - not a single. Thank you.

Ralph Richason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.142.48 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Operation Game Warden & File:PBR Mk I.jpg —2606:A000:1126:28D:B5B6:B7C1:7A7:18D0 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC) ... I'll go ahead and make the corrections since they do correspond to specs listed in the Patrol Boat, River article for MK II PBR[reply]

Locating the move page option

Greetings, I created a new page and I do not see the move page option to make the page public. Can you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Litz (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Litz, to be able to move articles, you are required to have made more than 10 edits, at which point you are added to the autoconfirmed user group.
We recommend users that don't meet this to submit their drafts to wp:articles for creation, where a reviewer will review the draft then move it. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sarah Litz. The draft in question is Draft:Erika Hardison. This draft is not yet ready for the encyclopedia for several reasons. There are external links in the body of the article which goes against the content guideline Wikipedia:External links. Some of the language is not written in an encyclopedic style, such as "300 black nerds, or blerds, as they call themselves gathered to celebrate Afrofuturism together". Checking the references, I discovered that is a direct quote from Black Enterprise, but the quote is not in quotation marks and is unattributed. That's a copyright policy violation. Reading further in the Black Enterprise source, I learned that the article was generated by a press release issued by Hardison. That makes this reference worthless for establishing Hardison's notability, because it is not independent of her. A minor point is that you wikilinked "blerds". As a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blerd, that term redirects to nerd, which does not even discuss "blerd", so that link isn't very useful. The Washington Post reference looked promising until I read it and discovered it was only a two sentence quote from Hardison, with no significant coverage of her at all. That's what is called a passing mention and does not establish notability. What you really need are references to reliable, independent sources with no connection to Hardison which devote significant coverage to her as a person. The article content should summarize those sources, and should be written from the neutral point of view with no promotional language. If such sources do not yet exist, then neither should a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Litz Even if you were able to move the page yourself to the main encyclopedia, it is advised that you not do so until you have much greater experience in article creation. You should use Articles for Creation as advised regardless. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

about sources

Hi dear friends. I post info about artist/music producer and gave 5-6 link sources about his works and music but sistem sent me this- Better sources than blogs and social media are needed.Whick sources should be?

https://dancepromo.wordpress.com/2019/06/22/saturday-night-mr-f-presents-mr-p-aka-c-block-here-we-go-2019/ (official site about eurodance music)

https://dancepromo.wordpress.com/2019/06/22/saturday-night-mr-f-presents-mr-p-aka-c-block-here-we-go-2019/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Block (official page)

https://m.facebook.com/EuroRapMusic/posts/2490797204305208 (T-Music's official page)

https://www.eurodancemag.ga/search/label/here%20we%20go?&max-results=5&m=1 (official site about eurodance music)

https://www.reddit.com/r/eurodance4ever/comments/c290hx/mrf_presents_mrp_aka_cblock_here_we_go_2019/

https://youtube.com/Vv6Rg2dcKrg

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funt Sterling (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Funt Sterling. An acceptable Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic, and you should provide properly formatted references to those sources. Other Wikipedia articles are never acceptable as references. The vast majority of blogs are not acceptable. A Facebook page is not acceptable for establishing notability. A website called "Dancepromo" is obviously promotional and not a reliable source. Reddit is user edited and is not a reliable source for establishing notability. Random YouTube videos do not establish notability. Acceptable sources have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Funt Sterling: I’m afraid none of those are suitable. A wordpress blog is self-published and therefore not reliable. Reddit and YouTube are social media, also not reliable sources. And of course Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source. ‘Eurodance mag’ might be an ok source, although I question its editorial standards, but the link you have provided seems to be a search results list and not an article page. Please read WP:RS for more guidance on what constitutes a reliable source. Hugsyrup 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

mention MIT text-generating tool in wp?

Stumbled across the above, article seems to belong in wp, somewhere. X1\ (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X1\, see Wikipedia:Press coverage 2020. If you like, you can post a "hey look at this" at Jimbos talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where's "Jimbo's talkpage"? 2606:A000:1126:28D:B5B6:B7C1:7A7:18D0 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- I took the liberty, although I'm not the original poster -- hope that's okay. 2606:A000:1126:28D:B5B6:B7C1:7A7:18D0 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody,

I am adding an external link to an article related to dialectic methodology. I do not think I am violating any rule regarding copyright as the article is written by me mainly by reading Hegel's writings including Science of Logic and Phenomenology of Spirit (Mind).

My article's are free to be published but in Wikipedia I am only adding an external link.

Is there any specific and concrete reason why the link has been removed?

Thanks, Madjid Madjidsalehi (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Madjidsalehi. Links to external websites can be added to the "External links" section of article if they qualify per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE and are not the types of links listed under WP:ELNO. The link you added to Dialectic was removed by an editor named Billinghurst with this edit. Billinghurst left a edit summary stating "rm link spam" which means that he felt the link was WP:SPAM and not suitable for adding to the article. Another possible reason the link was removed may have to do with WP:NONENGEL in that external links to non-English websites are sometimes allowed but not always depending upon the specifics of the link. Anyway, if you disagree with Billinghurst's assessment or want further clarification, you start a discussion about the link at Talk:Dialectic and explain why how the link meets WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Perhaps you will be able to clarify things enough to convince others that the link is OK to re-add to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Madjidsalehi: Please read reliable sources and conflict of interest. If you feel the article is lacking information then please add that information and cite it, with the citation being to Hegel's writings, rather than yours. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Which language is old Hindi or Urdu

Which language is oldest Hindi or Urdu, I want to prove that Hindustani is an hindi Dialect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogstar (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fogstar Please ask at the Language Reference Desk. The Teahouse is for asking how to edit Wikipedia, we do not handle content questions here. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fogstar: We are an encyclopaedia that reflects the sum of knowledge and existing scholarly, we are not researchers trying to prove a point nor undertake our own research. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fix unclear citation style warning

Hi, I am working on a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Black and have an unclear citation style warning and that "...{{citation style..." has been added to the page. I have looked through the page, and all citations are the same (format) all using "...{{Cite web|..." ... I'm not sure what I'm missing :) Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntoTheFuture1402 (talk • contribs)

@IntoTheFuture1402: the tag was added by Atlantic306 so it might be better to approach them for clarification. However, I note that none of the cites contain any information beyond a URL and a title, and this in itself is somewhat unclear, particularly because in some cases it makes it unclear whether it is the webpage that is being cited, or the academic thesis detailed on the webpage. The first cite is a good example of that - I am going to work on the assumption that it is the academic thesis that is being cited, and I have therefore changed the cite template from 'web' to 'journal' and introduced the additional fields available from that link. This is, you will see, now much clearer. The same needs to be done to the other cites. Hugsyrup 09:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I HATE User:Sinebot

IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN STOP THIS BOT FROM SIGNING MY POSTS ON TALK PAGES AS IT IS GETTING ANNOYING AND I DO NOT NEED SECOND HAND REMINDERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Dinah (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott Dinah: Yes there is - simply sign your own posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ after your post. Signing posts is a courtesy to other users so that they know who is speaking, and when the post was made, and it is a requirement for collegiate editing on Wikipedia. If you do not do so, SineBot will continue to do it for you. Hugsyrup 10:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there are opt-out instructions as well. But I agree, simply signing your posts is a lot easier. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to sign all the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Dinah (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott Dinah: You really do. It is very difficult to read a conversation on one of these pages if there is no indication of who typed what (and when). Signing also provides a useful link to your user page and talk page, which other editors find convenient. As I say, it is a well-establish custom on Wikipedia and a courtesy to other users, and it takes no time at all to type four tildes or click the button at the bottom of the edit window to insert them in one click, so it would be nice if you could do so. Hugsyrup 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hugsyrup and Scott Dinah. And, something that they haven't pointed out — if you contribute to discussions without adding a signature, and after arranging that Sinebot doesn't do it for you, people will wonder where these unattributed messages are coming from and assume that the person responsible has something to hide. Maproom (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: I don't think you meant to say you agreed with the OP (now blocked as a sock of some other disrupter), did you? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I miscopied the OP's name instead of Primefac's. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pepper spray reference 20 is clear ads leading to Fox lab shop

But when i edit and give a genuine link to a content why it's called ads and removed ? Please don't be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenrights.in (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets clarify. Yes you removed something... BUT... you also added material that was a direct copy from an external website. That is a copyright violation and will/must be removed on sight. - X201 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you changed now and telling a new story. biased people must be bribed to keep 20 reference in pepper spray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenrights.in (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your attempt to correct a wrong you committed a second wrong (copyright infringement). David notMD (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Womenrights.in - you have not uncovered a cabal of corrupt editors taking bribes to keep advertising for an alternative brand of pepper spray on Wikipedia. I agree with your assessment that the link to the Fox lab online shop was inappropriate, and I have removed it. Please remember that two wrongs do not make a right - the correct response to discovering covert advertisement on Wikipedia is to remove it, not to add advertisements for a competitor (especially not when it's done in breach of copyright policy). GirthSummit (blether) 12:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

good job thanks a lot.. we all need to be on equal plane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenrights.in (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vintage View Master gift pack

I have a View Master gift pack (probably from the late 1950s) in good condition in original box. Included are 9 reels. I was wondering the value of it. I can't find anything exactly like it on the internet. Would this be something you would be interested in purchasing, or could you tell me what I should ask.

Thank you.

Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.0.136 (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, I think you may be confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a website for buying and selling items, nor for assessing the value of something. You could always try selling it on eBay. Hugsyrup 13:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to notify Wikipedia of important missing content

Hi, i am the founder of www.marinadelray.co ( not marina del rey which is in California) the Marina is the first Port of entry into Indonesia that has a western standard marina. It is a vital piece of Infrastructure for Yachts traveling around the world and crossing the between the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

it is the first time in Indonesia that the country has opened up its sovereignty to allow the expansion of its emerging Maritime economy.

Before now Indonesia had no Marinas.

i want to know of someone would write a independent report on the business please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondLaFontaine (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaymondLaFontaine: Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. See WP:NOTPROMO. shoy (reactions) 14:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just completed revision--unsure about see also, external links & botanical matters

Hello all:

I just published a fairly substantial revision to the article about Judge Addison Brown. I attempted to retain the See Also, External Links, etc., as well as botanical references but feel someone more knowledgeable might find errors, particularly in these areas.

Thanks--Riverbend Trail (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Riverbend Trail: I don't see any clear issues with your edits (although I haven't checked through them line-by-line). We have a policy here called 'bold, revert, discuss' which essentially means that you are free to 'boldly' make edits (as long as you do so with care and good faith) and if anyone has a problem, they will revert them. So, if no one reverts your edits, you can presume they are probably ok, and you don't need to check in here! That said, one tip I would give you is not to make such a large edit in one go. This is for a couple of reasons: firstly, if one small part of the edit is problematic, you might find that someone undoes the whole thing which would be a shame. Secondly, if your browser crashes or something, while you are writing, all you work could be lost. Whereas if you publish regularly, it is effectively saved. Finally, you should write an edit summary for each edit, and it is easier to explain your changes if each one is fairly small - that makes it clearer to someone watching the article what you have changed and why. Just a tip for the future though - I see no problem with what you've done. Hugsyrup 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions seem to me excellent – indeed, so much so that I didn't read to the end, as there appeared to be nothing I might question, apart from the apparent inconsistency between "donated the initial $25,000" and "single largest charitable bequest ... worth $21,750". Maproom (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, @Hugsyrup: and @Maproom:. In the future I will edit in smaller sections and I did attempt to clarify Judge Brown's 1891 $25K donation vs. $21.75K bequest after his death. Appreciate your advice! Riverbend Trail (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a protected page.

Hello,

I am hoping that someone can assist me. I would like to know how to edit a factual error, that is located on a "protected" page.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarboLaughs (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GarboLaughs: you can post on the talk page of the article and request an edit. Or if you explain here what the error is, someone here might be happy to help. Hugsyrup 15:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GarboLaughs, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, you can't edit a protected article now, but if you find factual error, you can leave a edit request on the talk page of that article. So make sure you have a source to support the claim though. I can help you now if you can tell me the name of the article? (Please do sign your posts) Thanks, Puddleglum 2.0 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

review process and time frame

I have contributed in creating two pages: Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection Theory (IPARTheory) and International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection. However, they are still not reviewed. It has been since November 2019 that no one reviewed to be approved. Can anyone help me find out how long does it take to get it reviewed after publishing and before it goes live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ali.shaila: I assume that for 'Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection Theory' you are referring to User:Ali.shaila/sandbox? And the other page is International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection. So, the second one (International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection) is already in the mainspace so is already 'live'. It hasn't yet been reviewed, but that is a final step that you don't really need to worry about. It's difficult to review because so many of the sources are offline, so that may have something to do with it.
As for User:Ali.shaila/sandbox, this hasn't yet been submitted for review, so you would need to do that first. You can do so by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top. Articles For Creation reviews can take several weeks, and this one is likely to take some time as it includes 37 sources, all of which are offline, so most reviewers will find this a challenge to review unfortunately. I would also say that it reads more like an academic paper than an encyclopedia article - so this might need work if it is to be accepted. Hugsyrup 15:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, For a prompt reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's in IP user?

I was following some edits and this came up under User contributions:

"This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users."

So, I'm curious.

Thanks Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maryanne Cunningham: It refers to a user who has not registered an account, and so is identified only by their IP address. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RudolfRed. What difference does that make (if it makes any)? Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Maryanne Cunningham. In theory, it makes very little difference: there are a few things that you can do only after you have created an account and made a certain number of edits. But it is harder for other editors to communicate with them, because they don't have their own User Talk pages. IP addresses can have user talk pages, but, as it says in the message you quoted, a particular user's IP address may change and then they will no longer see communications on their old User Talk page unless they go looking for them. In practice, some editors treat an IP user's work less seriously than that of a logged in user: this isn't supposed to happen, but sometimes it does. See WP:ACCOUNT for further information. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ColinFine Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to define and update counters?

Hi. I'm wondering how to define a 'number counter'. For example, there is currently a counter for the number of launches by SpaceX's Falcon 9 Full Thrust rocket; the call is given by double curly parantheses around the statement Falcon rocket statistics|F9FTlaunch and it currently gives the following result: 402. How and where is this counter defined and how is it updated?

Thanks, and cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty's Friend (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The double curly brackets tell you that it's a template, so it's Template:Falcon rocket statistics. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David Biddulph! -- Spotty's Friend —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this allowed?

I edited the Wikipedia page for 13 (number) so that one of the subsections that lists the properties of 13 reads:

"a lucky number (ironically)."

Is this allowed, or too unprofessional/not Wikipedia-like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F390:2A00:C6F:1C75:1BCF:7104 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This comes under the heading of editorializing, i.e. it is leading the user to think a certain way about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the son of person has name close to the parent. wikipedia creates an automatic link from the son's name (listed under "children") to the son's grandfather's article (an established wikipedia article).

how _remove_ the link, so the son is listed, but not with an incorrect hyperlink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsnyder40 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wsnyder40: are you referring to Giorgi Shengelaia? It’s always easier if you’re specific about the article rather than leaving us to guess... So, currently Nikoloz Shengelaya is a redirect to Nikoloz Shengelaia, which seems logical for the time being. If the son is notable in his own right then you can go to the redirect page, remove the redirect, and turn it into a new article. However, he probably isn’t notable enough so I do not recommend that. Instead, why not simply remove the square brackets around the son’s name in the info box and leave it in black text? There is no particular benefit to having a red link (I.e a link to a non-existent page) for all of the children. Hugsyrup 22:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsyrup, thank you! I found an external link to disambiguate the son (from the son's grandfather), and appreciate your bonus recommendations: have taken out brackets so no red ink (wondered where it came from...), and yes, the entry edits are about Georgian filmmaker Giorgi Shengelaia (who just died)...good idea to include when asking a question (wasn't sure). So quick and on target--thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsnyder40 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section in the Merlin page called: Modern Fiction, and here it is:

Modern fiction

Main article: Fiction featuring Merlin

"The subject of Merlin has continued to be popular through the Renaissance and afterwards, especially since the renewed interest in the legend of Arthur in modern times. According to Arthurian scholar Alan Lupack, "numerous novels, poems and plays center around Merlin. (I've removed the citation for clarity) In American literature and popular culture, Merlin is perhaps the most frequently portrayed Arthurian character." Sometimes Merlin is a villain, such as in Mark Twain's satire of the legend, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1889).

One entry, and a redirect to another page.

I'm wondering if that section should be in there at all, given there's a main article on the topic (of fiction involving Merlin). And if it should be there, it certainly needs more than a single reference to a (no longer very modern) writer. How much detail is expected of a section like this?

Grateful for thoughts from experienced editors, thanks! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is good for a lead-in into the subject of modern fiction featuring Merlin; otherwise people who want to know about Merlin in media would have to search for articles with keywords like "Merlin," "fiction," and/or "media" to hopefully find an article on the topic as opposed to clicking on a given link, saving time. I think that one or two more examples would be nice. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 22:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Tenryuu. (So much to learn...) Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maryanne Cunningham: No worries. If you want to ping someone you can choose between {{User}}, {{Ping}}, or {{Re}} (click on the links for more info). --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 01:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need a little help to get my defunct software page to be accepted

My youtube downloader page sandbox got rejected, but honestly I understand my sandboxes do kinda suck now because im not so experienced. but plz help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredmBrooks (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JaredmBrooks: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission is nowhere close to be accepted as a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are based on sources that are reliable, independent, and discuss the topic in detail. I hope this helps a little bit. Interstellarity (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

What is citation and how do you use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreenkhan988 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Noreenkhan988: The short answer is: a citation is a reference from a source for article content. Wikipedia asks that they be reliable published sources. More information can be found at WP:RS and WP:Citing sources. Basically, use these to support writing the article. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 06:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Anxiety

There are already some articles about anxiety. Do you think a separate article about helping people deal with anxiety would be helpful? I created a draft called "help with Anxiety" but it was declined. Buttersongs2 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buttersongs2 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was just a list of tips in dealing with anxiety, and not prose about the subject; it also did not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a how to guide and cannot give medical advice(which includes mental/psychological help). Article coverage must be in the context of what reliable sources are saying.
I would suggest that you first propose changes on the article talk page of the anxiety article, perhaps for the Treatment section- if there is a consensus for your proposed changes, it can then be decided if they warrant a separate article. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this paraphrased enough?

Is this paraphrased enough?: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some girls from affluent Hindu families, run away with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages are short lived. The family links are severed and these females are then co-erced to marry some other Muslim man or are exploited by marriage agents.[1]
According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, a cleric accused of forced conversions, many Hindu girls are abducted and kept as sex slaves, but they are not converted.[1]
Most of these females have either lost their husbands or are extremely poor. According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, the government is supposed to look after all Hindus and others, but they approach him when they do not get government help.[1]—Spasiba5 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Sindh's Stolen Brides". Outlook. 23 January 2006. Retrieved 14 February 2020.

Natasha Moraga

Can only the person who put a tag on an article take it off? This article was tagged and I made corrections. (I am not the subject or connected to the subject). I asked the reviewer to check my changes but I havent gotten any response. Thank you --HicksW (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HicksW, anyone can remove a tag, but since you wrote the article it might be better for an uninvolved person to review it. It was placed there by QuiteUnusual - they might be willing to give it another read through. GirthSummit (blether) 10:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can anyone help me with "wikifying" this table?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almaty/sandbox

Hello! I haven't asked here for help in a very long time, but I also surprised myself on how I managed to use the bar graph wiki code to make a table that I'm interested in. It is in use in a high volume page.

I know that others make templates and others use external programs or websites, but due to the daily updated nature of the graph I'd like to keep it "easily" editable and updatable. But also - like right aligned, in a box, like we're meant to and others seem to be able to do quite easily... Can anyone teach me how to do this? Cos if tis not that hard I may make more for new subpages or the like down the line. Thankyou! --Almaty (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Does this work? The image frame can be made with {{image frame}}. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source's source

I've seen how to do this somewhere, but I can't remember how!

I want to cite this webpage: http://thepeerage.com/p41917.htm#i419169 . That's easy enough with the cite web template, but the problem is that thepeerage.com isn't really a reliable source in itself. The reliable source is the one it cites - Burkes Peerage 2003 (which I can't check directly). So I need a way to cite "Burkes Peerage as used in thepeerage.com" or "thepeerage.com citing Burkes Peerage." I've seen this done in the past, I've done it myself, but I'm having a brain fade today.

By the way, thepeerage.com, reliable or not, is quite widely used in Wikipedia. It'd be great if someone could come up with a template for it that manages this double citation problem. Chuntuk (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, of course I found it myself as soon as I'd posted here. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT for how to do this. You can see what I've done for William Unwin Heygate. My suggestion about a template stands though. Chuntuk (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page publishing

I want to know about how can I do a better edit and how I publish a page ?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=941412207"