Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, 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

Citing Pages in a Multi-Page Document vs. Only Including Said Pages in a Subset Document

I have an instance where an outside source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promessa_Organic) has suggested including a cover letter and only certain pages (Page 77 and 79) in a .pdf file documenting a 'Proof of Concept' test relating to promession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession), and I am questioning the validity of that approach, as opposed to citing those pages in the reference in the (existing) WP article, but including the whole document in a .pdf. The whole document is currently of undetermined length (I just haven't asked how long it is) and was written by an external company to the outside source. The .pdf document (whether the 3-pager or the whole thing) would be stored by Promessa and referenced by a URL in the WP article. The problems with their approach, as I see it, include:

• The pages in the current short .pdf document mainly contain images of a test result, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of other images that may give conflicting test results.
• WP users wanting to validate information relating to the test can't see any (unknown) context around the test that may or may not be in Pages 1-76, 78 and 80-end.

Basically, I think the whole document - currently only in paper form as I understand it - should be converted to a .pdf and included by Promessa. BrettA343 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly's response from Archive added by BrettA343.

Hi BrettA343. Your question seems to be a mix of multiple questions involving various policies and guidelines, so I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or where to start. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles need to meet WP:RS and not be WP:UNDUE. If a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, all that it needs to be is published and accessible so that anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the source can do so. The source doesn't need to be readily available online and it can even be behind a WP:PAYWALL or otherwise cost a fee to see as long as it can be verified by someone who wants to do so; so, there's no need to upload an entire document or link to an entire document for verification purposes as long as it's possible to verify in other ways as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. Being available online and in its entirety certainly makes a source easier to assess, but it's not something that's required. Finally, official documents, etc. often fall under WP:PRIMARY and although they can sometimes be cited, there are limitations to how they can be used. So, the first thing you might need to do is assess the reliability of the source itself and determine whether it's a PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source based on the the way its being used. The place to discuss such a thing would be on the relevant article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Once it's be determined whether the source is reliable, then perhaps the next thing to figure out would be to how best cite it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the confusion @Marchjuly:, I thought I was clear. It wasn't meant to be a mix of multiple questions, just, as the Subject line states: A vs. B... i.e. Citing Pages in a Document vs. Including Only Those Pages in a Subset. And in the body, I just switched A and B and had: B as opposed to A... i.e. Including only 3 pages as opposed to citing those pages in the whole document. And there were no other questions that I see, just my choice of including the whole document. As a newbie, what would really help me perhaps to clarify my writing and save time for everyone in the long term, is for you to list the mix of multiple questions you got from my post - I still only see one. TIA.

Anyway, it's now been just over two weeks since I last emailed Promessa and I'm wondering if they're still interested - I've heard nothing from them. I'll probably let this thread get archived if they don't answer in time, but I thank you for all the WP links you provided - they did help me. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I thought what I thought when I posted my original reply, but I don't think it matters now. Since that time, it appears that others have tried to help you out; so, perhaps they were better able to understand what you were asking. If not and you still have some questions, you can always start another Teahouse discussion and ask them again. If you'd like to refer to this thread in any further discussions, all you really need to do is provide a link to it for reference; you don't need to copy-and-paste comments from it into the new discussion. If fact, you should probably avoid doing the latter because it may just make things confusing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Has the document been published by a reputable publisher, BrettA343? If not, the article probably shouldn't be citing it at all. It doesn't matter whether a resource is online or not: what matters is that it has been published, so that in principle (eg via a major library) a reader could obtain a copy.

Certain information can come from the subject's own website (see PRIMARY), but it doesn't sound as if the information in question is appropriately sourced, from your description. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, @ColinFine:, I don't know (and you don't say, though I wish you would) just what in my description gives you the idea that it isn't appropriately sourced. I'm still waiting for more than the 3 pages I got on 14 May (as I intimated, even I don't think they're appropriate for a variety of reasons), but you seem to take a harder stance than I get from reading WP:RS and the like. For instance, it states:

"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources.", and

"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources."

"It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

The first quote is self-explanatory, I think, and note that the second quote says both 'online' and 'reputable party', not 'reputable publisher'. It's my understanding that the party conducting the 'Proof of Concept' tests for Promessa is indeed reliable and reputable with usable source, and definitely a third-party / independent party not affiliated with Promessa except for these tests. I'm still unclear on the exact relationship between the two, but have asked those questions. The third quote indicates to me that - as at least I would expect - online access is preferable to "a major library" (though both would be ideal), not only because many people can't readily get to a major library, but it's got to be awfully major to hold every test and report conducted in every country around the world... Sweden, in this case.

You seem to shoot them down prematurely, IMHO, while I'm just waiting to find out answers and hopefully see the whole document so I can, as WP:RS says, "use my judgement" (plus I'm writing snippets of responses timed so that my 48 hour limit doesn't run out). BrettA343 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, BrettA343. I wasn't clear, because your description leaves unstated various points. It is not clear to me whether or not the PDF in question has been published - which, as you point out, is not necessarily clearcut. It is now common for materials to circulate on the internet whose provenance is unclear, and in some cases in varying versions: when have such things been published?

If the report is available only from the subject of the article, it is at best self-published. If the subject and not the originator publishes the report, there is no way for a reader to tell whether the subject might have altered or (for example) cherry picked the document. I know nothing of Promessa, and have no reason to doubt their good faith; but in general this is a concern. But I am happy to wait and see how it looks when you have the document and have decided how to reference it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine:. Well, of course my "description leaves unstated (a great many) various points". It wasn't meant to be a question dealing with all aspects of publishing and sourcing, just, as the Subject line states: A vs. B... Citing Pages in a Document vs. Including Only Those Pages. Being a relative newbie, however, I don't mind being pointed to areas that need consideration and your note on cherry-picking is relevant here. Indeed, I asked Promessa, back on May 14, if there there was missing context in the 3-pager: "Are there any writings that discusses these pictures or perhaps gives some caveats to them in the rest of the document?", plus about a dozen other questions. And of course, I have yet to decide whether to reference it - how to reference it is not yet under consideration! So I'm pleased that you're now 'happy to wait' as there isn't much other choice. Cheers! BrettA343 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

FYI

 – breaking this out as a separate subsection for ease of reading. If you don't like this reorganization, please revert this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: What a complete and utter waste of time Wikipedia's archiving bot (Munninbot) makes of this Teahouse sometimes. It archived my question (above) "because there was no discussion for a few days" when I entered it on May 14 and it's only May 16 now (i.e. a "couple of days" is not "a few days"). I'm dealing with a company in Sweden re this matter and am waiting on a related response to an email I sent to them on the 14th, Marchjuly's first response gave me lots to look up, I'm not full time on this and I sleep sometimes. And why is MY question archived anyway? I see questions that have been dormant since May 10!

What's the hurry re archiving after only 2 days (or even "a few days" when the last response has questions)? Timing of this bot should be corrected. BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: It appears that the bot that archives this page is Lowercase sigmabot III. It looks at the User:MiszaBot/config at the top of the Teahouse code, which is set to archive after 48 hours of inactivity. You mentioned that there are discussions that haven't had activity since 10 May that haven't been archived. I think part of the issue is that the #Deletion of file section was not signed properly. I've added {{unsigned}} to that post, in the hopes that the bot will archive a lot of the old discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: The discussions last updated on 10 May have now been archived. Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: You're welcome about 'bringing the problem to your attention', but can I also suggest you change the message from "a few days" to "48 hours"? Or even better, archive after a few days (please specify how many days you've chosen)? I find myself having to pace my responses so the 48 hours doesn't 'catch me' again because I'm still waiting for Promessa's reply to my email (it's another time-waster). BrettA343 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: The top of this page states "Completed questions are archived within 3 days." The bot runs once a day and archives everything with no response for more than 48 hours, so I believe this statement is accurate. Could you please mention exactly where you see the verbiage "a few days"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @GoingBatty:, I've been getting the quote to which I refer ever since I started here - it's from Muninnbot and is part of the archive process under a heading Your thread has been archived. It states: "Hi BrettA343! You created a thread called < NAME OF THREAD >. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread". No mention of the 48-hour limit. BrettA343 (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: Ah, now I understand. You're referring to the messages that are being left on your user talk page. That message is a template located at User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. You're welcome to make a proposal for different wording at User talk:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification or a new section here at the Teahouse that isn't buried inside this other discussion. Thank you for helping me understand. GoingBatty (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Diverse Photos Added to DC-3 Article on 17 May Deleted This AM; Other Opinions, Please?

My photo edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3 done on May 17 was deleted today because "Those images do not aid understanding of the subject" and I disagree. I can see deleting some, as there were a number added, but as I said in the edit comments:

• Most photos went to the lower right, where there was adequate (wasted) white space,
• Photos were more diverse than the rest (one from astern, one close in chopping the wings so the fuselage shows better, one fueling, etc.),
• They were often cropped 16:9, so they can be used as Apple Wallpaper or PC Background (admittedly a minor point).

Additionally:

• My photos showed DC-3s actually doing something - supporting skydiving - surely that's 'aiding to understand',
• The first photo, placed to contrast the first pic below the infobox - an interior empty except for seats/aisle - better shows the scale of a DC-3's interior.

I've had my photos undone a couple of times and saw the point of view of the editor, but this time I disagree - they do aid understanding of the subject, IMHO, and they make the article more interesting, seeing photos rather than empty white space. In summary, Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject? And I suggest my photos aid understanding at least as much, if not more than, any of the existing photos. If there is an objection to the number of shots, I can reduce them. This is my first instance where I disagree with an editor and am unclear if this is even the best place to object, but I assume someone will tell me if I should do something differently. BrettA343 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343 and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you and the editor had a discussion on these images? That is what I usually recommend first so you can both understand and see each others point of view? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: As Galendalia kindly mentioned, discussion is a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend that you have the discussion at the article talk page - Talk:Douglas DC-3 - in the hopes that multiple knowledgeable editors can be involved and come to a consensus as to which photos to use. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Galendalia: and @GoingBatty:, I'll try the editor first and then the talk page. Note that I've added a bolded summation question above, for thought about the DC-3 article (plus as a general argument for other articles) and will refer to this Teahouse question to both editor and talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: You want to keep this question here? Ok:

Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject?

Whether the photos are replacing "white space" or not depends on how the article is rendered. Wikipedia content can be rendered in a variety of ways. Obviously, this changes when you resize your window, it might be rendered in "mobile" mode, it can be rendered on various Wikipedia replicas.

While we don't focus heavily on the download size of a page, we should not completely ignore it. We also shouldn't ignore that additional "elements" in a page have all sorts of overhead, e.g. they make editing a page incrementally more complicated. But additional content should provide more than a "scintilla" of improvement (not necessarily a lot more than a scintilla, but a little more).

A lot of people like to go to rules (though I actually like to point out the rule that there aren't any "hard and fast" rules, but I'll offer the rule anyay). Here it is: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not. Refer to the section on media files.

Even though I do not feel so strongly about this particular rule, I shall continue. This article had 21 images, your change increased it to 28. But why stop there? There are literally thousands of DC-3 images available that could make this page more interesting or perhaps even more enlightening. How would you know where to stop?

To get on my soapbox, there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken. My perspective, though not a common one, is that we should be discouraging changes that aren't fixing significant problems, or alternatively, implementing solutions to reduce maintenance requirements (e.g. articles that will necessarily require edits due simply to the passage of time). So IMO, I would ask people not to spend their time on "subjective" improvements to articles. Making such changes may give editors a greater sense of satisfaction, but they really do not serve WP very well. Fabrickator (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fujairah Airlines Douglas DC-3 Wheatley

Air India DC-3 at Heathrow

DC-3 in SoAfrica

Hi, @Fabrickator:... Thanks for your response. I note that while you re-posted my bolded question, there was no attempt at a direct answer, so I'll give you my take on it:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

About your related point that "white space" depends on rendering, you've made a good point regarding smartphones. I submit, however, that on today's desktops, laptops and even tablets, resizing windows is largely beside the point. Sure, one can make windows so small that rendering becomes an issue (and then it's an issue for the 21 existing pics, too), but do we develop for all possible uses or what people generally do (and I suggest that that the norm is to browse Wikipedia with a reasonable-sized window, though I don't have a cite for that). I also don't know about Wikipedia replicas, except that Wikiredia renders my matrix photo galleries in left-justified columns, about 5 or 6 times the scrolling length of Wikipedia - do we really care what replicas do or don't do (it seems counter-productive as it creates another bonus for using WP.)?

Re Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not and media files, can I assume your point is that my file descriptions leave something to be desired. My descriptions are usually more informative (see my mountain photos) and I hope to have better descriptions for my DC-3 photos as of June 4 or so, when asked-for reference sources should arrive from my home to where I'm staying. I will note, however, that my descriptions are as good or better than many in Wikipedia, and even some in the DC-3 article (though again, mine will improve). If there are other objections, please specify. TIA.

I've got to say that I find your next paragraph - "How would you know when to stop?" - a tad silly in the context of my photos in this DC-3 article. No one's suggesting adding thousands except for your implication. All my photos have been deleted and your argument would be like me saying: "There are 21 photos up... maybe you should remove all of them. But how would you know when to stop? (Presumably when they're all down.)" Having no photos up is as silly as having thousands up, IMHO. Are you seriously suggesting someone might want "literally thousands of DC-3 images" on a page? If not, as I would hope, what are you trying to say, please? For context, you state that I added 7, but I also said that if there are too many (not an argument by the editor who took my photos down, of course), I can reduce the number of photos - how about 4 of mine and deleting 3 of the existing "DC-3 sitting on a tarmac" photos? Is that a doable compromise? I don't want thousands, I just wanted to add some photos to aid understanding of skydiving support and give a better 'feel' for the interior size than a totally empty plane gives. And heck, maybe add a little colour and people using a DC-3.

So I'll suggest that in light of this new criticism that 28 photos may be too many, I'm including photos on the right that I think are 'candidates for deletion' - a change is sometimes good to keep articles 'fresh' and different. Like mine (temporarily), these photos have little in the photo description, and I think unlike mine, they are more repetitive - too similar to each other and many of the existing images - DC-3s just sitting on the tarmac, doing nothing. The photo with multiple photographers in the article is to me, another candidate for deletion. What do you think?

Re you 'soapbox paragraph' and "there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken", I did not know that. Is there a list somewhere? I hope you're having an OK time fixing them, but I know my strengths and desires won't have me fixing them at least until I run out of photos (and I don't think adding photos complicates editing much, either). And in contrast to you, I think my photos do serve WP well and I know others who agree with me. If the consensus at WP, however, agree with you, I'm likely out of here. I'm here to serve WP because it's a worthwhile project, IMO.

Finally, I get the sense that keeping the question here was a problem for you... I gave the question to the editor who deleted the photos almost 3 days ago and he hasn't responded - at this point I don't know if he will. Had he answered on his talk page, I likely would have responded to him there, but barring that, I thought there was context here, and here at least I got a response. Next time, I'll contact the editor first. BrettA343 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: @YSSYguy: ... BrettA343 wrote:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

I found this whole point you're making, comparing the value of your content to white space, to be so very strange. While I use a laptop, I don't normally maximize my windows. Of course, one cannot dispute your claim that, in some renderings, these additional images display in areas that would otherwise just be white space. But this is still just a "better than nothing" argument.

As to the idea of compromising about replacing some of the existing pictures with ones you have chosen, that would really just change this to a claim that "my content is better than the existing content", which is still just a subjective claim.

I am not amused by your determination to be the arbiter of the debate, e.g. you presume to have overcome my objection on this one point, and in the absence of responses to each of your other points, you claim victory. While I'd like to be able to save everybody some trouble and convince you that the objections made to your changes are valid, I suspect such an effort would be futile.

You should consider one of the various dispute resolution methods, though it's not really as though this results in somebody else arbitrating the dispute, but it's less disruptive than an edit war. Fabrickator (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, @Fabrickator: & @YSSYguy:. I have five points about your opening sentence and what you find "so very strange"...

1. I wonder if this is another instance of your perception and how it might not be a common one (I wish others would chip in with comments).

2. I wasn't the one who raised the point about 'aiding understanding' (the only reason for me to compare whitespace/photos). That was YSSYguy.

3. Another editor noted to me that "we have some guidance that recommends avoiding excessive whitespace" and he "always removes excess whitespace".

4. I don't know your experience level and you don't seem to have a user page, but have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Whitespace ?

5. I'd be interested in knowing, specifically, just what you find so very strange. Because I don't find it strange at all.

I find your second sentence misleading because I see an implication that I brought up maximizing my windows - I did not. I almost never maximize mine, and I only talked about "reasonable-sized windows" when "browsing Wikipedia". And photos are better than whitespace is exactly a "better than nothing" argument, because whitespace is nothing. What's wrong with that argument in this context, please?

As to your compromising paragraph, I'd gladly let others decide if mine are better or not than the top two I noted before (one of which is visually cluttered and missing an engine and the other is indistinct with poor lighting and slanted by about 4⁰). Note that based on your points, I've kept in the third pic. And please note that I didn't initially look at replacing those two photos - they were there in my edit. It was only when you raised this (new) issue of too many photos that I thought, well, I've alreadye suggested removing some of mine and no one commented, so how about deleting some existing ones? I tried to resolve the "debate" (I had thought of it as a discussion until now) by presenting other options - to me, that's a good way to resolve things - otherwise we're stuck at you wanting no change and me wanting my initial change and we go around in circles. Let's try moving forward. If you recall, I was the first to suggest - twice - that my photo count could be lowered, even before anyone, including you, raised it.

Also, I'm not "claiming victory" (though thus far, you leave my arguments largely uncontested) and I'm not here to amuse you or not amuse you. You seem to think this is all about you. I'm just trying to suggest alternatives to come to a peaceable resolution for making a better DC-3 article, and I honestly think my changes make it better. By all means, try to convince me that objections are valid, but don't keep moving goalposts and please don't just ignore my points and then take it personally only when I elaborate and make more concrete suggestions to address your late-stated issues. Trust me, I'm a reasonable guy. I don't know if you two are the only ones who object to my photos or not, but I've asked others on the DC-3 talk page to get involved.

And I object to your portrayal of efforts being futile. In the opening post, I noted a couple of times where an edit of mine was undone (photos moved or deleted) and one had a good reason while the other gave no reason. Neither of those cases were "futile" and to my knowledge, those are the only undos I've experienced until May 24. What's futile from my perspective is your debating skills. You rarely address my points - sometimes picking on only one which you repeat, and then don't directly address that point - and when I address your rebuttal, you bring up something else. It's difficult to debate a moving target. This started with a single point, that my photos "didn't aid understanding of the subject"; I think I've addressed that and have twice asked YSSYguy for his input, first on May 25 and then on May27. I'm not sure what else I can do.

And with the blow back I've received from you, I'm sure not about to consider a dispute reolution without changing my initial edit to address your points as best I can, so please have a look at the DC-3 article now (changes instigated also due to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold). The top two photos noted in my previous post have been commented out and I've added 4 of my own photos. And this won't escalate into an 'edit war' (especially if you let it stay up for a few days so people can see it), but if it goes to a dispute resolution I want the points you've already raised, addressedi. And feel free to uncomment the two photos I removed (like I had in my initial edit)... there's lots of whitespace near the bottom right that could contain other photos, instead ;-).

The same editor noted above also wrote: "Photos are generally a good thing in articles, as they bring the subject to life and aid reader understanding. I think that they just make the articles more interesting and appealing." And another person suggested that the sameness of the existing DC-3 photos made it boring. He also said: "Brett, your DC-3 photos are absolutely terrific... vivid, vital and fun." I don't know about 'fun', but I think a different context and various angles and perspectives, with a few people involved in DC-3 usage, are good things. I even think you'll get to appreciate these photos. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

First point - this discussion should be taking place at WT:AIR, not here as guidelines vary by project.

Second, images must add something constructive to the article, not merely fill space. Wikipedia is not a book attempting to stretch some text out to fill a certain number of pages. On an article with an enormous selection of images such as the DC-3, that means paring down the number of images to those that best clarify points in the article, and it is nice if there is at least one image in each section large enough to justify one, and covering all major versions, at least some of the major or notable operators (with an emphasis on those mentioned in the text), aircraft involved in major incidents (which again should already be in the text), as well as images of the most notable survivors, which means back stories. Personally (although not everyone follows it), I like to see a drawing, if one is available in the specifications section. None of the images should be there that are not connected to something in the text next to them. We do have a link to the wikimedia photo collection, so including images for the sake of including them is discouraged, and that includes galleries.

Within each category one should select based on clarity (minimum background clutter or unrelated aircraft or equipment), quality (in focus, not pixelated etc), colour/vs b&w, flying vs being on the ground and angle (to provide variety). Generally, unless there is only a small number of operators, no more than one image belonging to a particular operator should be used to avoid providing disproportionate coverage.

Third, and this came up earlier, doing the 23rd rewrite on a decent article (anything B or above) is a waste of effort that would better be aimed at the tens of thousands of stubs and C class pages out there, particularly as any change you make as a new-ish editor will likely go against norms that have been arrived at with considerable discussion on <<all>> of the merits either way. That includes things like images, or the "see also" section. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC) ps - One shot of the interior is fine, two is overkill. Multiple shots of the same aircraft when thousands were built is wildly inappropriate, moreso when neither of them adds anything significant to the page. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about requesting a change to an article image

Hi, please forgive me but this is the first time I'm using Wikpedia in this way, and it can get quite confusing & complicated so again please forgive me for any errors or doing something wrong

My question is in regards to the Wikipedia Article about King Henry VII of England - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England

Several years ago, in the talk section, I suggested changing the main image of King Henry the VII to, what I believe, to be a much better image, more specially this one - Better quality picture

Now I did get a reply from someone, giving their opinion on the suggested change, but they preferred the image that's currently being used, and it's kinda been left at that with no further editor replies

So my question is, what can I do to get more/request more opinions on this suggested change? Since I really do believe the suggested new image is, by far, a superior one than the current image being used & I'd like to get a 3rd, maybe 4th opinion on the matter. Though if multiple editors do agree the current image is better, then I will happily accept the decision not to replace the image.

Again, I apologise for the lack of knowledge of how things work on here, hence this question I am asking!

Thanks 2A02:C7F:40D6:400:E569:C2C9:6C5D:121F (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. I see that this image is found on a website like SellingAntiques, which means it is very likely copyrighted. Do you know if it would stand up to Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE criteria? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply.

My father actually discovered & owns that picture, and is more than happy to allow Wikipedia free use of the image indefinitely, should it be decided that the image in the should be replaced.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:40D6:400:E569:C2C9:6C5D:121F (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Determining which painting of a man who lived 500 years ago is "far superior" is a highly subjective exercise. I see that you are commenting at Talk: Henry VII of England, and that is good. But you are commenting on an old section so I suggest that you start a new talk page section instead. You may want to sign up for a Wikipedia account and begin a Request for comment which will draw in uninvolved editors. You should upload the painting you like to Wikimedia Commons so that the actual image instead of a link can be evaluated side by side with the current painting.

Here are factors that lead me to believe that the current painting is preferable: Most important, the current painting was created when Henry VII was alive, and the king almost certainly sat for the portrait. The painting by Holbein the Younger must have been painted long after the death of the king who died in 1509 when the painter was a child, and he did not come to England until 1526. So, the likeness of the painting now in the article is probably superior. Also, the current painting focuses tightly on the king's face, while the Holbein painting shows 3/4 of his body. Portrait style photos or paintings emphasizing the face are best for biographies, in my opinion. Other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 2A02:A03F:651C:B100:3CB1:DAED:A956:ECF9 (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, you should know that allowing Wikipedia use of the image isn't enough; images used here can be taken and used on other sites. Commons:Email templates has an interactive release generator that can guide you should you wish to release the image to the Wikimedia foundation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, thanks for making your WP:COI clear. I have replied again at the article talk. Frankly this is all nonsense. User:Cullen328, it is wildly premature to suggest an RFC. Holbein's original was destroyed in a fire in the 1680's, as is well known - this is a copy of that, probably later still. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me that the current image is better, Johnbod, and educating me about the provenance of the proposed replacement. I also appreciate you highlighting the conflict of interest. As for the idea of an RFC, that is the type of process that new editors who read Teahouse posts may find useful. I was not recommending it as much as making it known. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

So to Wikipedia standards, the suggested image is not a better candidate that the current main image, from the size to style, and I accept this judgement.

However, would Wikipedia editors consider including the image somewhere further down in the article as a secondary image?

The painting is 15th century, in the Studio of Hans Holbein.

We also believe there's a chance/possibility that this painting is a surviving part of the original Tudor mural that was destroyed in a fire, hence one side of the painting being completely black & repainted, and we're currently making preparations & arrangements to have the painting fully investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:40D6:400:3843:B54A:9B21:1D7B (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Assuming the painting is as old as it seems, then copyright is not an issue. You can upload images of the picture to commons.wikimedia.org.

It's clear that this is a painting of much interest to both the art world and to historians, I look forward to seeing images of the painting before and after cleaning and/or restoration. Any tomography etc. would also be potentially useful. If this transpires to be part of the Holbein work, unlikely as that may seem, it might very well be worth creating an article about. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

changing my global username

without much thought i have created account on meta w/username: vishnuvardhan52452. however, i would like to rename my username. should i deactivate on meta or create rename my existing username to : vishnuvardhan 52452. please advice. Leela52452 (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leela52452, welcome to the Teahouse. Please have a close look at Wikipedia:Changing_username, the necessary procedures are described into detail. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You should be able to simply use the account you want to preserve everywhere. It's a good idea to stop using the discarded one altogether though, as people sometimes get a little antsy about these things. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

DMY or MDY?

Resolved

 – By convention, first format used is kept per MOS:DATERETAIN in general circumstances. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

On Journey to the Savage Planet: The developer is from Canada which uses MDY, but the publisher is from Italy which uses DMY. Anyone know which prevails in this case? SK2242 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SK2242. Unless it's a clear case of MOS:DATETIES (which I'm not sure it is just based on the info you've provided), then probably MOS:DATERETAIN is a good thing to follow. You can always start a discussion about this at Talk:Journey to the Savage Planet to see what others think and see if there's a consensus to retain or change the existing format. You can even ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games to see if the same thing has come up before with respect to other video games. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. SK2242 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that Canada is treated as using both MDY and DMY. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Assistance in completing the article, " Dr. Prabhat Das foundation".

Hello, I am Suman nath thakur and need your assistance in completing this article on Dr. Prabhat Das foundation. Your valuable inputs would be of great help to get my maiden article published. Please share the Do's and Don't for future guidance too.

With Regards  Sumanathakur (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You're asking about Draft:Dr Prabhat Das Foundation. For all I know, an article may be justified. If so, I can hardly believe that it could be derived from this draft, which reads like a PR release. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

... except that PR releases generally make it clear what they're promoting. I've read the first two paragraphs of the draft, and I have no idea at all what the Prabhat Das Foundation is. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues, but a draft

Clearly this has "multiple issues". However, I'm surprised that Drm310 has marked it as an article with multiple issues. It's not an article (and its history doesn't show that it has ever been one). Is it proper to use this template, or its ingredients, for what are mere drafts? -- Hoary (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

PhD thesis citation error

Resolved

 – OP pointed to appropriate help page to resolve group refs without references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, An editor just left a note the page "PET for bone imaging" that differential equations need citations. I added my PhD thesis; however, the page shows an error in red colour as "Cite error: There are <ref group=PhD Thesis> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a

template (see the help page)."

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

In that error message, the words "help page" are in blue, indicating that they are a wikilink, in this case to Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks, David. Earthianyogi (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Earthianyogi, just in case you are not aware, WP:SELFCITE has a guideline on adding your own work as citations. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

... and another editor has removed the "reference", as an unpublished work does not meet the requirement for verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool and :David Biddulph, thanks to both of you. I cited my thesis because another editor asked for citation for the solution to the differential equations, and I thought my thesis would be the most accessible reference. However, I am not aware of a paper where they may have solved it as it is quite basic. I leave to others to find a reference and cite here if they think it needs one. My thesis was published in 5 parts as papers, but not as a whole book. I think it does not qualify as a reference. So citing my thesis was a mistake. Thanks for directing me in the right direction. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthianyogi (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Note Solutions to DEs outside maths articles probably don't need cites, since they should be checkable by anyone. On the flip side it is quite right that theses are generally best avoided. WP:MEDRS places more onerous requirements on citations, though they apply in a specific way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, thank you. Earthianyogi (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Request removal of maintenance template "major contributor close connection"

Resolved

 – Maintenance template {{COI}} can be potentially removed if article is cleaned up by uninvolved editors and COI editor suggests edits via WP:EDITREQ. COI declared on talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As I am the major contributor in question, it looks like another editor must remove this template from the Beryl Bernay article. Could someone please review and do so, and/or if I am mistaken, please lmk. Thank you. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Carol Berney Gonzalez: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems someone believes that you may have a conflict of interest with creating an article on this subject. What kind of relationship do you have with Beryl Bernay, if any? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's probably the shared name; but it's best to ask the tagger who's likely to be more intimately familiar and often to have additional insights. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Carol Berney Gonzalez! Please discuss this with Melcous, first and foremost. As the one who added it, they are in the best position to explain what their concerns are and whether they have been allayed. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Carol Berney Gonzalez, since (at the time of writing) you're responsible for over 80% of the text and you literally declared the conflict of interest yourself, I'm not sure which part of "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" you're disputing. You're not banned from writing about your own family, but experience has shown it's virtually impossible for people to write neutrally about people they're close to in real life since a neutral article requires due recognition of negative aspects as well as positive; Melcous has acted correctly in notifying readers that there's a potential (no more than that) that this article may be biased. ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Carol Berney Gonzalez, your declaration has been noted on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tenryuu 🐲, Usedtobecool ☎️ and Iridescent for your prompt and helpful responses. Though all Iridescent writes is correct, I thought perhaps after reviewing the article to make sure it meets all appropriate criteria, the template would be removed? It now sounds that the template will be permanent. Am i understanding correctly? Thanks to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Carol Berney Gonzalez: I suppose the template could be removed if other editors clean the article up and you refrain from directly editing it. You may contribute via edit requests on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! It can be removed once an independent editor chooses to assess it, cleans it up as necessary, is satisfied it is neutral enough and feels confident that removing it would be a positive. But all editors are volunteers, and none is obligated to do so, certainly not on any schedule. If you continue to edit, it might never happen. There are far too many articles needing attention and comparatively very few editors; and speaking for myself, I don't get motivated to clean any article where my work is likely to be undone again, especially if the state of the article is unlikely to have substantial impact in the real world. Speculating further, I think if you started making WP:Edit Requests as advised above instead of editing it directly, the chances that the tag will be removed soon, improve. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Tenryuu 🐲 and Usedtobecool ☎️. If and when I would ever want to edit this article, WP:Edit Requests will be my go to. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of life span (other than the subject's) in a biography

Resolved

 – Birth/death years not provided unless contextually relevant. (MOS:BIRTHDATE) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding whether to include in a biography the birth and death years of people other than the subject of the article? An example is "Her English father, Reginald Michael Bloxam Hallward (known as Michael Hallward; 1889-1982) was an architect and author; her Scottish mother, Jean (or Jeanne) McDougall, who used the stage name Jean Grahame (1890-1984), was a British stage actress and acting teacher.[3] The couple had an older daughter, Joy Hallward (1911–2003), ..." (from Gloria Grahame#Early life).

I know that we are not supposed to post a question in more than one place, but this one has had no response since I posted it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography on May 1. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Teblick: MOS:BIRTHDATE states "birth and death details are not included after a name except in a case of special contextual relevance". It's perfectly find to post the same question somewhere else if you haven't received a response in weeks. GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty, Thanks for pointing me to that part of the Manual of Style. I'm glad to have a point of reference, and I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

New article submitted

 Courtesy link: Draft:Anup Kumar Prashar

Hi, Can someone help me edit my current article on wikipedia. It is due for approval. Himanshuaroraa (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Himanshuaroraa: Your draft is currently in the review backlog. If there are any interested editors they will contribute. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you had any recent interactions with the Wikipedia editor Itsanupkumar?--Quisqualis (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Goodwin Family

 Courtesy link: Draft:The Goodwin Family

Hello wikipedians, ive only been a wikipedia user for less than 3 months and just have a question about the Article that i have submitted but was rejected due to the following reasons:

The Article submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and WP is not the place for memorials.

The Article i have created was about the Draft:Goodwin Family and they are famous for boarding the Titanic as 3rd class passengers and unfortunately all died during the sinking. I have referenced and cited sources that are reliable, if not more than efficient enough to support this statement but however, i seem to have been greeted with disappointment as my article has been rejected due to the reasons that i have previously mentioned. I investigated and searched for the error that i have made leading to the rejection of the article. I have found the WP:NOTMEMORIAL shortcut page when i was visiting the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not article on WP. I searched deeper to the true reason why my article was rejected. Then i looked up the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, in which i tried to find the reason why my article submission was contrary to the pourpose of Wikipedia. I didnt use my opinions on the page and i certainly did not use the Family's demise to memorialize or disrespect them in any possible way, although i did mention that there was a location in which theres a memorial sight of the family but ive also used reliable sources to prove that there is a certain location in which there was a memorial sight for the family, and again, i did not use my opinions as the primary data. I repeat, i did not use the familys death to share my original thoughts, and point of view, and did not use my opinions and feelings as the original statement. Sorry if i was wrong on my objection as these articles are my first ones that i have ever created, but please feel free to correct me if you find the true error. The Goodwin Family are truly one of the famous families of the Titanic as they were the passengers that boarded there. Benedict2005 (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Being on the Titanic does not be itself make people notable. If you look at Passengers of the RMS Titanic - where the Goodwins are listed - some people in first class, and fewer in second class, have articles about them. Very, very few for third class. There are also weaknesses in what you wrote (for each family member you named the other family members), but the major reason is the complete lack of notability other than having perished on the Titanic. The exception is the youngest member of the family, as his recovered body was buried as The Unknown Child. The Goodwin family is described, with photograph, there. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I retrieve the data of my speedy deleted article?

I want to retrieve the data of my speedy deleted article Neelkanth Patang - The Revolving Restaurant. I want to improve it and publish through AfC (If it fits in Wikipedia guidelines). Please read this previous conversation with deleting administrator. बृहस्पति (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, बृहस्पति. Had I seen that you put a considerable amount of work into the draft that Seraphimblade deleted, I might have felt there could be justification to email you a copy of your draft. But, honestly, it's was four-sentence stub that anybody could rewrite in a few moments from the two references you used. ("Limca Book of Records: India at Her Best" and this online source: www.hcp.co.in/project/chinubhai-centre-and-patang-hotel) The coordinates you used were 23.026188 72.572188. I think Seraphimblade's point was that they hope you do not just rewrite those four sentences and submit through WP:AFC, but base anything in future on better and much more detailed sources. See this notability guideline for companies and organisations to get a sense of what is and is not likely to be accepted into Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Expanding Article

Blocked

 – OP blocked for block evasion and disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

-Contents deleted by adminstrator- Aryashahnaughty6p (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This editor has been adding this self-infobox to Wikipedia Reference Desks, own User page, own Talk page, here at Teahouse, elsewhere. Warned on Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See the deleted post at the Language reference desk. The article "Arya Shah" cannot be created because it has been salted (stated to be because the subject is not notable). 80.44.94.173 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have wrapped the post in <nowiki> and <pre> tags so the infobox doesn’t appear here. Brianjd (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And I have deleted their user page and have removed their demo Infobox here. No need for a minor to post their details. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And this minor's disruptive editing has now caused them to be blocked per WP:NOTHERE— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs)

Turns out it was block evasion this whole time, looks like some sort of LTA from other projects. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes- I've just been looking back through their various personae and came to the same conclusion. Different user info each time, but will keep an eye out for any user page entries for 'Aryashah' or 'Arya shah' in future. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Aryashahnaught, User:Aryashahnaughty, User:Aryashahnaughtyyyy are 3 others who have been globally blocked, as has User:Kbshah6p. Obviously a serial offender. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Has my draft been improved enough?

My draft was declined because I had stated she was both a dancer and an actress. However, reflecting on that I have removed “actress” because 1) she is a qualified ballet dancer 2) she has starred in quite a few few films and videos, but in a few of them she was not credited.

Although she is most known for being David Bowie’s girlfriend in the late 1960s, she also influenced a few of his songs, she was in a band (with Bowie), she has had independent notability by starring in a few films in her own right and not just Bowie’s music videos. She is a trained ballet dancer and was a member of Lindsay Kemp’s theatre. Also, she is cited on the British Theatre Institute (BFI) website for her roles in films. A quick Google search shows that she’s clearly more notable than just simply one of Bowie’s exes and the French Wikipedia has an article about her.

I have used a wide variety of sources. Can anyone check out my draft and tell me if it’s acceptable to resubmit now? EsotericJoe (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

EsotericJoe, I would caution that notability is not inherited. Lovers, siblings, parents, etc. of famous people are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In this case, I note that every single one of the sources is in the context of David Bowie. Still, you have improved the article since your last submission, so you could submit it again. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Granted that the sources cited to her involvement with Bowie’s music videos, the band he and she were involved in for a short while are predominantly also referring to Bowie, but that is almost impossible to avoid since he was also the main focus (his music videos, his songs, and she was once upon a time his girlfriend). But, I have also cited sources with regards to her career in films.--EsotericJoe (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Yakahiro Toshikawa

Hey, I tried to create a new article in The English name space about a Japanese pianist ( Takahiro Yoshikawa) residing in Italy after I saw a performance. As the Japanese article was a stub, I figured I could start with a well documented English article and then translate it into Italian and leave a comment in the Japanese namespace for somebody to rescue the local version.

So, given that my first new article has brought me a fair share of trouble (accusations of COI, automatic deletion, manual PFD, let’s say a very mixed experience), I tried to be a good citizen and beefed it up with references and everything and I feel it’s a good article now.

Wikipedia deletion process states: If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases, the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page. It is also desirable to add {{old prod}}, or {{old prod full}} which can display more details, at the top of the article's talk page (or beneath WikiProject banners).

So can I now delete the deletion tag? I hear very mixed voices about that ranging from no (only admins can) to yes (be bold) including the midway alley (don’t intervene with the discussion process. It’s a little bit confusing!!! What should I do? }} Fthobe (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fthobe. There’s a difference between a article being proposed or prodded for deletion and an article being nominated for deletion. An article that is prodded for deletion can be WP:DEPRODded by simply removing the {{proposed deletion}} template from the article. Once that’s done (even if done in bad faith), the proposed deletion is considered contentious and the article cannot be prodded again. At this point, anyone who still feels the article should be deleted will need to nominate it for deletion so that the community can discuss whether it should be deleted. That’s where things are at with respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takahiro Yoshikawa and it will be the consensus established via that discussion which will determine what to do. So, no you shouldn’t remove the deletion template from the article. It will be removed by the administrator or editor you closes the discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You are reading the wrong part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. This isn't a "Proposed deletion" (prod); it is a "Deletion discussion" (AFD). It clearly states in the notice on the article: "... this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." --David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Which websites are reliable for Wikipedia

Is Quora, Blogger, or WordPress reliable for Wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TubeYouTokTik (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@TubeYouTokTik: Welcome to the Teahouse. Honestly, none of them are generally reliable due to most of its content being user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So which websites are reliable for Wikipedia. TubeYouTokTik (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

see wp:RSP for some examples of both RS and not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also see wp:RS --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has been checkuser blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding italicized items to category pages

I noticed that on the page for 2017 live albums (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2017_live_albums), there are some items that are italicized (such as Jane Live). How can I add an italicized item to this page? Thanks. 108.18.151.170 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The italicized items are redirects. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.151.170 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what a redirect is? See WP:Redirect. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand what a redirect is. Perhaps you didn't understand my first two questions? I will try to be as clear as possible. Carrie Underwood has a live album called Carrie Underwood: The Storyteller Tour - Stories in the Round. There is no Wikipedia page for that live album, but the live album is mentioned on the page for Storyteller Tour: Stories in the Round (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storyteller_Tour:_Stories_in_the_Round). I would like to create a redirect page for the live album similar to this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jane_Live&redirect=no) so I can add the live album by Carrie Underwood to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2017_live_albums). Does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.151.170 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To learn how to make a redirect, please see Help:Redirect. (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.) GoingBatty (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I find an editor particularly rude. I am trying to ignore, but what else can I do?

Resolved

 – Editors may not be tactful at all times, but generally mean well. Assume good faith until blatantly proven otherwise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:British Nuclear Medicine Society

Hi, I find an editor particularly rude. I am trying to ignore them, what else can I do? I am not sure why they keep posting messages like these?

For example, they said:

1. "we do not list address in lede. You can get a website if you want to publish practical information" - I do not need any random person to tell me what I should and should not do! I have a personal and professional website of my own. I have also published numerous peer-reviewed scientific paper, etc.. I can go on but what is the point. I am just new to Wikipedia. If someone has a problem with it, they are free to ignore me and move on.

2. "we are not here to publish announcements for your organizaiton"- This is not my organisation, or I do not work for it! I am just trying to publish information that I believe it worth it for an organisation which has been in this particular field for about 60 years!

Any suggestions Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take note of these helpful pointers, which are not "messages" but edit summaries, designed to let other editors understand why the edits were made. Since many newer users are not always clear on what does and does not belong in Wikipedia, pointers like these are usually necessary. The user in question is clearly trying to improve the draft, so that it may get closer to being moved to the main encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea Thanks, I agree. But the tone can be polite! Earthianyogi (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Some editors are not hampered by an excess of tact. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Earthianyogi My comments are there to try to help you make a better article. Many of your edits were quite poor (adding the physical address of the organization to the lede, for example) or promotional. Sorry if you find them rude, but they are by and large accurate. The best thing you could do is to learn why the edits aren't acceptable. You could also ask me directly on my talk page! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Earthianyogi: might I make a comment or two here? It can be a difficult transition from academia to editing Wikipedia, where experts and non-experts alike have to work together to create encyclopaedic content. One editor I am currently supporting is a retired Professor of Marine Geophysics, and it took some while to steer them away from the conventions of academic writing, (crediting everyone in a research team; adding external links to relevant organisations in the body of the article etc, avoiding over-technical language, or making assumptions of prior knowledge) so that they could share their expertise in a way that matches Wikipedia's requirements and house style. The problem is, experienced and helpful editors here tend to encounter so many people on a daily basis who believe they can use Wikipedia to promote their own interest, business or organisation that it can seem like a constant battle to keep Wikipedia running smoothly, and to support the genuine editors, too. Quite often, that lack of tact, as you see it, comes from the fact that we have just a few words in a short edit summary in which to communicate an error in content creation before we have to move on to the next 'apparent problem', and the next, and the next. Yesterday, I dedicated over two hours to help clean up one editor's efforts to create a new article so that it conformed to our encyclopaedia's style. We all try to be tactful, but sometimes, you know, it simply ain't possible! The work to keep well over 6 million articles in good condition can, quite literally, seem a never ending and utterly overwhelming task. Oftentimes, being short and succinct is the only way to keep things moving, and I can assure you that those who want to help people like you to improve their work rarely actually want to come over as rude or tactless. Finding the balance between being forceful and being nurturing to new editors is never easy. Good luck on your journey to contribute to Wikipedia in your sphere of knowledge. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)      

I'll leave a thought here about this. Here at the Teahouse we get many questions that are similar ("my article just got declined/rejected/deleted wat do"), and that's to be expected; article declinations and the like are usually accompanied by a bot that directs editors here. I will confess there have been times where I did not conduct myself to my standards and considered drafting templated responses for questions with no thought put into them. There's only so many spoons much emotional energy I can spend on multiple questions that have the same answer. The more effort is put into crafting a question (especially with spelling and grammar) the happier I am with answering it. Do I feel that some portions of Wikipedia are too acerbic and exploit WP:CIVIL? Yes. Do I think that some unpopular proposals get shut down too quickly when unwarranted? Yes. Do some respected editors' attitudes to situations rub me the wrong way? Many times. Is this worth spending my time and emotional energy on? Usually not. Best advice I can give you is assume good faith in most situations. My two cents. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I will assume assume good faith and move on. I read many recent posts on Wikipedia talking about rudeness among editors, and maybe there is a pattern? I welcome all criticism, but I do not appreciate impolite words. If it continues, it is only going to deter me from contributing here. Thanks for the help once again. Earthianyogi (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you think these requests and comments were "rude"? How would you have worded them? There's a corps of volunteers here deeply committed to objectivity. I don't view any of these comments as "impolite" in the least. "Blunt" and "impolite" aren't synonymous. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why page Created was deleted

Why the page I created was deleted Ashiskhemka007 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ashiskhemka007: The reason User:Ashiskhemka007 was deleted is given on your talk page in the message that you responded to: the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was one type of encyclopedia and we can give the details what is the use if it is chargeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashiskhemka007 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ashiskhemka007. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Help me improve my Draft: Ahmed Emara

Dear All, Its glad to be here at the teahouse. I need some help in improving my draft Draft:Ahmed Emara. I would appreciate if you all can help regarding it.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Terminatorwil. My question is (because I don't read Arabic}, are any of the sources places where independent commentators have written at length about Emara? The ones in English are not: the report of the RheinBruecke prize looks independent, but does not say anything about him other than that he won it. The other English ones are all clearly his words (in press releases or interviews). Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves (whether directly in their own publications, or in interviews or press releases): it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them; and if there is not enough such reliably published material, then the subject fails to meet the criteria of Notability. --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. Its so glad to see someone respond. Most of his articles and Arabic and some in english. He is a well known person in the Arab world as psychologist. Here are some of his articles in English. 

1. https://destinationksa.com/the-inspiring-ahmed-emara-a-motivational-lecturer-speaker-and-writer/ 2. https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/588192/BUSINESS/Addicted-to-Success-course-inspires-a-throng-of-followers

won't it be possible for the editor to look into his article by using google translate.

Thank YouTerminatorwil (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Terminatorwil. His publications do not contribute to his notability. As I said above, Wikipedia is not really interested in anything the subject has said, done, or published, except insofar as independent writers have written about his saying, doing, or publishing.

As for the Arabic sources: no doubt a reviewer will use Google translate, if they don't read Arabic. I didn't choose to spend any more time helping you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. Is it possible that you can have a look at the Arabic Interviews by using google translate. Atleast I would be able to correct the article.Terminatorwil (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi protection and accuracy of information

Are articles that are semi protected or protected of a even higher level less likely to have inaccurate information about the subject of the article in question? 47.152.145.95 (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

They may be less likely to be inaccurate because they are less likely to be vandalized. Inaccuracy due to good faith non-vandal edits could still exist. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

While articles with protection are edited less frequently than their unprotected counterparts, the talk pages are still available to editors who don't have the rights to edit said pages. These editors can leave edit requests on the talk page that with what they want to specifically add/change and a source (if required, which is most of the time). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How to respond to help answer

Previous discussion : #Need help adding information box to page

Hi,

I am new here and a totally new learner. I have asked a question and received a response, and thought I had replied. However, my response does not show up so I obviously did not reply right.

Here is my prior question and response to my question; Need help adding information box to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

And here is the Wiki page my question was regarding; NewsTalkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TiBUchon/sandbox

I would truly appreciate it if someone could instruct me how to respond to the answers to my questions here.

Thank you. TiBUchon (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC) TiBUchon (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Your previous question, and the answer to it, can be found in the section #Need help adding information box to page above. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You can respond to answers by using the "Edit" link at the top of the section. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging TiBUchon. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete Account

Hello I wanted to add some content about my historic home on the historic registry for Seattle and include some pictures, so I created an account. I am in way over my head! I would still like to submit some content or images, but I really want to delete my account for JeffreyDesigns. I can't figure out how to do that. Can you help please? Thank you Jeffrey JeffreyDesigns (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@JeffreyDesigns: Wikipedia accounts don't get deleted, though there's nothing stopping you from abandoning the account or getting a WP:RENAME. The latter object is global, so your username would change in projects like WikiBooks and Wikiquotes as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

why did you undo my stuff?

 2601:14D:4002:86F0:7C53:5D0E:C98:7410 (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We undo all stupid edits! Diff. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, WP:INSULT Ed6767 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, Nick Moyes did not insult the OP, he characterised an edit that the OP had made, quite accurately in my view. AGF does not prohibit us from calling a spade a spade. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.72.102 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Because what you added to an article was stupid: "and he actually discovered aliens species on the moon. He also could turn into different animals like an animangus which is in the movie harry potter." David notMD (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

May you join voting to save new article about situation with disabled rights in Russia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

May you join voting to save new article about situation with disabled rights in Russia May you guys join voting to save new article re disabled rights in Russia Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled. I written new article, but all want to delete this because they say there is necessity on Wikipedia to write about the disabled in Russia, also title ridiculous and too long. Thanks a lot. PoetVeches (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC) PoetVeches (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @PoetVeches: Welcome to Wikipedia. You may mean well, but you should not be soliciting input to keep the article. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. It is ok to let people know about the deletion discussion, but not in a way that encourages support for one side or the other. RudolfRed (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @RudolfRed: But then you may choose "delete", of course, that's precisely what I meant. But when I am author, I may yet promote my new article, I suppose. How can I say please help "delete" my article? :)) PoetVeches (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @RudolfRed: It's not soliciting, to say precisely, I am a bit puzzled the desire to delete article about Russian disabled without any criteria, in all, it's strange to delete article without criteria, that what I wanted to say also. It's even strange. If in your country, example Kenya, dozens people died from COVID-19 in care home, and you decide to write about it, but administiring users would say: there is no necessity about it, - you suspected it somehow connected with Kenya Government, that what I wanted to say: or you call clear criteria for deletion, or you not put deletion template, or it's Kenyan officials filtering Wikipedia on censorship point of view, because they believe all Tutsi or Huti tribes must die as sacrifice for Woodoo-Hoodoo. PoetVeches (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @PoetVeches: The point I need to get through to you - bluntly if needs be- is that hundreds of articles are put up for a deletion discussion every day, and we simply cannot allow the Teahouse to be buried with requests from you and every other every editor to comment on their article's deletion proposal. There is already a perfectly good way for people to watch what articles are flagged up. That place is at WP:AFD, and not here. So please don't do that again, OK? And going to any forum/Project page etc and saying "go save my article" is also definitely not OK. The fact of a deletion discussion happening can be mentioned there in a neutral manner, and the place to discuss criteria is at that deletion discussion. If you are puzzled, go and discuss it there, please, and not here. (You will by now have seen that I have copy edited your article to improve its English just a little bit, but then commented at the WP:AFD discussion that I think your article should be merged into another pre-existing one, and yours draftified to be worked on in the months ahead, if necessary. It is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone page.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)   @Nick Moyes: No, I think it's OK to waffle on tea house every topic. I say thank you for opinion that you think it's not OK to waffle here. You have your opinion, I have my own. Our opinions are different. Because we enjoy democracy. PoetVeches (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC) @PoetVeches:, Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. It's an encyclopedia project. What do you mean by "waffle"? Do you mean "canvass"? The rules of Wikipedia do not permit canvassing, and if you think that is undemocratic, so be it. Wikipedia uses WP:consensus, rather than a numerical vote, to make decisions. We editors are entitled to our opinions, but must respect the rules we agreed to when we made our accounts or else work to change them. Clearly, any material you have on the subject of Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled is more useful being added to the article on COVID-19 in Russia.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)Hi PoetVeches. Please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTFREESPEECH for reference when it comes to Wikipedia, but the Teahouse is not really intended as a place for asking others to participate in a WP:AFD discussion. Informing others about an AfD discussion isn't forbidden, but it needs to be done carefully to avoid being seen as WP:CANVASSing. Please see WP:APPNOTE for some suggestions on how to let others know about the AfD discussion without running afoul of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Now, if you have a question about the AfD process in general or about Wikipedia in general that falls within the scope of the Teahouse, then you can ask it here and someone will try and help you. Any specific comments about the article being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled, however, should be made in that discussion because that is where any WP:CONSENSUS regarding the article is going to be established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acceptable Username and what can you use the sandbox for?

Resolved

 – Proposed username should be fine, purpose of sandbox explained. (H:SAND) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw on someone's page that it said they were banned for pejorative in their username. Is Fearless Lede'r acceptable? I think it is but just checking?

What's the general use of the sandbox? As in are there any sort of unspoken rules I should know about? 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:E4AA:7A70:7855:2F6B (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. While I will leave the appropriateness of "Fearless Lede'r" for someone who has more experience with usernames to determine, the sandbox is a place for you to test things. Draft content, references, testing templates out, what have you. Almost everything is allowed so long as it's not a copyright violation. More information can be found at H:SAND. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouswe. "Fearless Lede'r" should be an acceptable user name, unless it or something close to it is already taken -- I haven't checked that. Only rather blatantly offensive names are rejected for that reason. However, names of companies are not allowed, as that is considered promotional. Also names that say or imply group use are not allowed, because a Wikipedia account should be for only one person, never shared. There are many custo9ms and practices here, too many to list in this response. A few big ones:

• Don't try to use Wikipedia to promote or praise anyone or anything, including yourself.
• Don't use your user page to write something like an article about yourself.
• Don't copy content found on the net to Wikipedia. It is almost never acceptable.
• If someone reverts (undoes) an edit of yours, do ask why, but don't yell or assume it is ill-intentioned.
• Do come back the the Teahouse with any questions. Don't YELL.

About5 a sandbox. It can be used to practice edits, simple or complex ones. It can also mbe used to start work on new articles,but there are other ways to do that.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Does seem complicated, but it does help. Thank you for the replies.2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:4CA:C3EA:84F7:403 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I use my Sandbox to work on text and referencing content before inserting that into articles. Some new editors put social media type information or essay type information on their User pages, Talk pages and Sandbox. Not appropriate. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Red Supergiants

 Deferred to WP:RD, WP:SPACE, and a list article

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am interested in making a catalogue of stars above 300 solar radii, do you know any places where I can find solar radii of stars like such? PNSMurthy (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, the Teahouse is more oriented towards orienting new users in using and editing Wikipedia better. Questions like yours are better answered at the reference desk. Alternatively, WP:SPACE is a WikiProject that covers a lot of stuff in our starry skies, so they may have links to solar radii. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ThanksPNSMurthy (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: See List of largest stars maybe it has the info you are looking for. RudolfRed (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Inconsisted descriptions of American News Organizations

Why is Fox News described in the very first sentence as 'conservative' when ABC/NBC/CBS and even MSNBC contain no such description? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News

Surely this is a matter of opinion. I am a new member to Wikipedia and would like learn how such decisions are made. It seems contrary to Wikipedia's stated aims.

Thanks for any help. Who's reality (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Who's reality: All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Neutrality doesn't mean creating false balance between differing claims but giving them weight in proportion to what is found in sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Who's reality: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can also read the discussions on the articles' talk pages (e.g. Talk:Fox News, Talk:MSNBC), where editors should consider everything Ian.thomson mentioned to make suggestions and work towards consensus. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Lotte Giants

¿Podrian agregar más informacion al articulo? He estado investigando sobre este equipo de Baseball de corea y me he dado cuenta de que los jugadores y sus números estan equivocados o no son los jugadores actuales y quisiera saber si alguien podria actualizarlos dejo el link del sitio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotte_Giants DanyJk (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hola DanyJk y bienvenido a Wikipedia Teahouse. Aunque esta es la versión inglesa de Wikipedia, responderé en español por una vez. Puedes hacer cambios en el artículo tú mismo si puedes citar las fuentes relevantes. Si su inglés no es lo suficientemente bueno para esto, escríbame los cambios deseados (con indicación de las fuentes) y con gusto los insertaré por ti. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How to request the removal of a category page ?

Hello,
How to request the removal of a category page ?
The page is empty and all information has been transferred to the new page.
The page is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:EMLYON_Business_School_alumni
Thanks for your feedback.
Regards.
 WKPDA3 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@WKPDA3: GB fan declined the speedy delete and I don't think they have been active since you responded to their message on your talk page, so give them a chance to respond. I suspect it's related to ambiguity about the correct name for the article and the category, based on a quick look at their website, the alumni website, and the article (at Emlyon Business School). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi WKPDA3, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you created Category:EM Lyon Business School alumni and transferred all pages from Category:EMLYON Business School alumni without discussion. This is not allowed by Wikipedia:Categorization which says: "For proposals to delete, merge, or rename categories, follow the instructions at Categories for discussion. Please use it before undertaking any complicated re-categorization of existing categories or mass creation of new categories." The official site [1] says "emlyon business school", our article is called Emlyon Business School (after five renames), and it says: "The final name, emlyon business school, was chosen in 2005." This all means your name is likely to be controversial and the pages may have to be transferred again. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(another ec :) ) @WKPDA3: BTW, when you want to ping someone, it only works if you sign your message. Please sign your messages on talk pages by adding a space and four tildes to the end of the last line of your message, like this:

This is the last line of the message. ~~~~

The four tildes will be automatically converted to a signature that contains your linked username and a timestamp, which helps keep conversations organized.. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@WKPDA3:, The category redirect that you want to delete matches the name of the article it supports better than the category it redirects to. There is a good possibility that someone will add this category to pages. The redirect serves a purpose at this point and should not be deleted. The question about what the title of the category should be should be discussed along with the title of the article and one spelling should be used for both. ~ GB fan 13:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I submit my sandbox article for AfC?

I want to submit my article(which I write in my sandbox) for AfC. Should I directly submit my article in sandbox for AfC or I have to move it to WP:DRAFTS?? Is there any pros and cons??बृहस्पति (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You may submit your draft directly from your sandbox. Add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft when you are ready to add it to the list for review. RudolfRed (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@बृहस्पति: You can keep articles you are working on for as long as you like in your sandbox - many years if you wish, whereas a rejected draft that stays unedited for over 6 months is very likely to be deleted. Sometimes people move AfC submissions from an editors sandbox into Drafts. Other editors wouldn't change your sandbox (unless you invited them), whereas it is more acceptable (though not all that common) for others to work on a Draft article. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask on Tea House if I think administrator abuse his office? Or it will be canvassing?

@Marchjuly: @John from Idegon: Can I ask on Tea House if I think administrator abuse his office? Or it will be a Wikipedia:Canvassing? Because I think administrator before putting template to delete new article must explain criteria (if it's spam or no source), but if not explain, then it will be abuse of his office. May I ask how can I apply request to strip administrator his office of administering? Please, answer me. Or if it's canvassing then you may try to block me (Re discussion about Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled where I was said that Tea House is not place for discussion about it ([[2]]) PoetVeches (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Teahouse is not the place to discuss an administrator's conduct. WP:ANI is the place for such discussions, but you need to be aware that your own conduct will be scrutinised too, and that boomerang might apply. As you were told previously, the Teahouse is not the place to discuss article deletion, but (in case you are confused) the editor who tagged the article for discussion is not an administrator. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi PoetVeches. It was not nominated by an administrator so there is no "office of administering" which could be stripped. The nominator gave the reason for the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled. It is correctly linked on "this article's entry" in the deletion template at Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled. The nominator also notified you at User talk:PoetVeches#Nomination of Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled for deletion which also links the discussion. The nominator followed all procedures correctly. Even if they had been an administrator and had not followed the procedures so accurately, stripping administrator rights over one detail like that would be absurd. Administrators usually have tens of thousands of edits. Please stop your false and pointless complaints. There are other deletion processes which do not have a discussion page. Nominations at those processes should state the reason in the deletion template but it's not done for Articles for deletion where it could give a wrong impression of the actual discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PoetVeches: Your failure to understand how this site works is not administrator abuse. Your feelings aren't policy.

What you should have done here at the Teahouse was ask how to save the article, at which point someone could have explained how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted (I've actually written a page on that as part of a much larger guide). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: My opinion, Tea House is place where may drink tea and ask everything, except common human things that United Nations prohibit, like facsism, or harassment, or like that. You try to impose on Tea House new censorship, what is my opinion, because you say "Please stop your false and pointless complaints", that is no present rule on Wikipedia. You says I have "false complaints", the same says Donald Trump everyday. But Twitter soon block him, I suppose. PoetVeches (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is free to block him because they are a private entity with their own rights. So is Wikipedia. This is not your home. You can join this community but you must agree to abide by its standards, which includes reading notices, not asking for votes at a deletion discussion, and generally not acting entitled. Also, three different users (not just me) have explained in a variety of ways how you're wrong here -- please actually read content before responding to it instead of trying to assert dictatorial control over the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I read your opinion. Thanks all for you for your opinions. To say true your opinions were vague to understand, but I appreciate all that anyway. Thanks a lot all people. If you need help with Russian language, you may ask anytime. I thinks Wikipedia and Tea House is my House, so I so like to chat with people here :) PoetVeches (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PoetVeches: This is a place for volunteers (like me) to help people contribute productively and helpfully to Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a reduced-drama zone. Can we at least try, for a while, to make it so? Doesn't anyone have a question about a fine point of citations, punctuation, etc. any more? Talk about revoking adminship of an imaginary admin over a single, imaginary slight is, simply, not. That is the consensus of this community. There are plenty of places here, and on the internet at large, for you discuss how much you hate pretty much anything. Use them.

(ObAnecdote: Yesterday, while people were trying to quickly get their groceries without catching coronavirus, a local ignorant witch of a person starts going off, loudly, at the in-store bank teller, about Soros and globalization and conspiracies and who-know-what-else. I'm sure there are places where her type of speech is welcome. This market was not one of them. Fortunately, she abided by the quickly-demonstrated consensus of her fellow shoppers and chose to leave the environment before things got uglier than she was.) </rant> (apologies in advance) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Paid Editing = Notability?

Hi,

I have recently been asked by my employer to create a series of Wikipedia articles for his companies/brands. I have looked through WP:Paid and understand the protocols in place. However, it doesn't say anything of notability- does this still apply or does it not due to payment being issued? Thanks in advance, Harry. --Hazza9976 (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Hazza9976 (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The notability criterion still applies. Paid editing does not allow non-notable subjects to be included, and indeed there is a tendency for articles to be scrutinised more carefully where conflict of interest applies. I suggest that you tell your employer that Wikipedia is not the place for promotion; use the company website for that. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hazza9976: You've got two unrelated issues mixed up:

First, you must disclose your employment per WP:COI and WP:PAID, and should do so before making any edits relating to your employer or his businesses. This is true if even if the attempted articles are not accepted.

Second, notability just means that there's in-depth coverage from a variety of independent reliable sources. The recommendation I usually give is to get three or more professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not connected to, affiliated with, nor dependent upon it. If notability is not demonstrated, the subject does not get an article (no matter who started the article). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you decline this request by your employer, unless you are an expert Wikipedia user with at least a years experience in editing, you are almost guaranteed to fail. Theroadislong (talk)

User:Theroadislong User:Ian.thomson User:David Biddulph - I don't think that the OP is combining two issues. I think that the OP's boss is combining two problems for the OP. The principle is the same. You can also be asked by your employer to fly a Cessna 172 to the moon. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit [3] by them is curious. Theroadislong (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How well oversighted are edits really?

Let's say I create a fork of the whole database of Wikipedia and give myself all rights on that forked wiki. Will I then be able to see the "deleted" edits that I cannot on this wiki? Also, that rouge template "why an old page which was active for some years in subject to deletion?" section seems to be causing some problems. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, I really shouldn't be saying what I don't explicitly know, but there's no way anything that's not public can be forked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

TryKid Deleted and suppressed revisions are not included in the database dumps. See m:Data dumps/What the dumps are not. the wub "?!" 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah that's what I was looking for. Thanks for the help cool and wub. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for daily updating the Pune Covid-19 statistics and graphs available on this site. Whom to contact or ask for help?

Dear Editors of this website. I am the regular user of the statistics and graphs of Pune and Maharashtra Covid-19 trackers. Why the graphs cannot be updated on daily basis??? No updating reduces the credibility of website. Many people from Pune, like me are interested in these updates on daily basis. Its a shameful thing that graphs are not updated from 21st May and the statistical data of Pune, Pimpri-Chinchwad and Pune Gramin is not updated from 5th of May. There are all HR people from all kind of industries require this data and graphs on daily basis. Especially all MNCs are very much interested. Please do the needful om daily basis. Thanks and regards, Sampat Phadtare Nigdi, Pune. Working as HR Manager in a Japanese MNC 202.136.69.225 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, I'm sure there are many news sites that offer that kind of frequent update. Wikipedia does not aspire to be a news website, and the really important thing is that all information has a reliable published source. That means that until it has been published somewhere else it can't be published here... and so it would make more sense to go to those more rapidly updating sources to find the information you are after. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, editors aren't paid (by Wikimedia) to keep articles updated; virtually everyone is a volunteer that has to abide by Wikipedia's policies, one of which is WP:RS. One thing to keep in mind is Wikipedia is a tertiary source: think of it like a "knowledge aggregator"; it gathers information from reliable sources and presents it in the form of an article. The point I'm trying to make is if there are no sources that regularly update the situation in Pune and Maharashtra, the information on here becomes outdated quickly, and that's a symptom from the outside. The best way to remedy this is:

• someone volunteering to keep those pages up to date
• finding a source that regularly updates itself

If you need help looking for a source, you may want to leave a discussion on the article's talk page or ask the folks over at WP:COVID-19 if they have any suggestions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about a user's behaviour

 Deferred to WP:ANI

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise if this isn't the right place to ask this, and I also apologise if I'm making a mountain out of a particularly small molehill, but there's a certain user whose behaviour I'm finding increasingly concerning (I'm kind of reluctant to say who they are, since this whole thing might just be me seriously overreacting, but you might be able to figure it out anyway; I also appreciate I may HAVE to say who it is to get advice). They mainly work on reverting vandalism, which they honestly do an impressive amount of, and I'd say they're pretty damn good at it, but their behaviour is honestly starting to concern me.

To begin with, they had a really bad habit of going straight to level 3 and level 4 warnings almost every single time, even for edits that weren't actually vandalism at all. It took at least half a dozen people bringing this up on their talk page, all of whom they completely ignored, before they finally stopped doing it. They've also been called out a couple of times for jumping straight to a level 3 warning for users who trigger the edit filter; they ignored that as well and I believe they're still doing this. They seem to use rollback for everything, even changes where they really ought to assume good faith, which is in violation of WP:ROLLBACKUSE (though, to be fair, I'm not sure if anyone's pulled them up on that one). They have quite a lot of false positives, and while I don't THINK the amount is disproportionate considering how much vandalism they revert, I am yet to ever see them remove a falsely given warning, or even acknowledge they've made a mistake, let alone apologise for it, no matter who calls them out on it, or how serious their mistake. They even failed to acknowledge their mistake in at least two cases where they gave a user an immediate Level 4 vandalism warning on a completely legitimate edit. But what made me think they might have gone too far is that, twice in the last week, they've not only ignored users raising legitimate queries on their talk page, but have deleted those messages completely. In one case, they were (yet again) being questioned about a false positive, and questioned very politely at that. In the other, which was the one that finally brought me to raise my concerns, they'd rollbacked a new IP editor, who had made a flawed, but genuinely good-faith edit (which also happens to be a particularly clear misuse of Rollback). When the IP very politely asked them on their talk page what exactly they'd done wrong, the certain user not only ignored them, but deleted their question, thus depriving them the chance of getting an answer from anyone else (as it happens, the same IP was reverted by another user; the IP asked them exactly the same question, and got an answer and an apology). I can provide links to everything I've mentioned here if need be.

Ordinarily, I would bring this up with them on their talk page, but since they ignore almost every single message they ever get, especially those suggesting they may have done something wrong, there seemed little point. My question is basically, am I just seriously overreacting, or should something be done, and if so, what?

Thank you in advance. Thegreatluigi (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thegreatluigi: Welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to hear that an incident like this is happening, but we are not the best venue to bring this to. I suggest heading over to WP:ANI to state your case. Make sure you have all the diffs you need (and be sure to notify the offending party). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I really wasn't sure where exactly to take it, so thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Thegreatluigi (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thegreatluigi: No worries; that's what we're here for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I change something that doesn't give me the option to edit. Like the first page of the article?

I do not agree with this translation of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Cabin_Module. Where it claims that "天和" literally translates to "Harmony of the Heavens". This is not what it translates to. "天" Does mean heaven or the heavens, but "和" in this situation actually means joining or to join or come together. So a more literal translation, and better one, would be Joining of the Heavens or Unification of the Heavens. But I am unable to change that part of the page. How do I contact someone to let them know? Henryhe43 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Henryhe43: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, the page isn't protected and you should be able to edit it; if you're using the VisualEditor, it's likely because it's in a template and you would have to edit the parameters after clicking on the phrase. 和 by itself means "and", and depending on what other character it's bound to its meaning can change. Easiest way to solve? Find what the inventor had in mind when they named it. In any case, it's best to bring this up on the article's talk page before making a change like that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Henryhe43. By default the lead of an article (before the first header) does not have an "edit" button; but you can still edit it. Either you can pick the "edit" from the top of the article (between "Read" and "History") to edit the whole article; or you can go to your Preferences -> Gadgets, and check "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I added this:

 212.143.144.4 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not know how to include a foot note as a proof of the evolution of the law

FYI

 – Section merged with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 212.143.144.4 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor. You have question titles but not content (especially with nothing added after "I added this". What did you add? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As Tenryuu says, your question is quite vague, but to add a foot note, or a "citation", find a reliable source and follow the steps here. Hillelfrei ^talk 15:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

At Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples you added text to the article without a reference. It was deleted for that reason, you added it again, deleted again. Proper next step is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article and make a case for what you want to add, with reference(s). In addition, the Edit summary is to add a SHORT description of the changes you made; it is not a place to paste in the full content of your change. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Syncing Muninnbot's Message With Reality: Archiving Not in "a few days" but within "48 hours."

As part of the Teahouse thread archive process, Muninnbot sends me messages under a heading Your thread has been archived. Messages state: "Hi BrettA343! You created a thread called < NAME OF THREAD > at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days". I'm referring to the messages that are being left on Teahouse User's talk pages and the message is a template located at User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. I suggest one of two approaches:

1. Change the archive process to be initiated after a few days, say 3 or 4 (and change the message to specify how many days).

2. Change Muninnbot's message to say "for 48 hours" or "for at least 48 hours" or "within 3 days" (or whatever).

There's a wrinkle here that those making the change will likely know about that I'm not clear on, and that's the precise wording that should exist. I've given three options for Point 2, and those more knowledgeable than I, will know what's best for wording. "A few days" is too ambiguous to really be useful in some situations - do they mean 3, 5, 7 or what? nbsp;BrettA343 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hellom BrettA343.

• First of all, this kind of suggestion about how the operation of the Teahouse might be improved should really be made on the talk page of the Teahouse (Wikipedia talk:Teahouse), Raqther than on the main question page, which is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia.
• Secondly, The message is not intended to be exact. Since Muninnbot only runs once per day, and the archive bot also runs only once per day, there can be considerable variation in how long after the last edit to a section it is archived, and how long after that a message is sent.
• Thirdly, the archive timing can be and sometimes is changed depending on the recent traffic levels here. The object is not to allow the page to get so large that it is awkward for users, especially new users, to use or too slow to load. We don't want to change the notice template every ti8me such an adjustment is made. Still the wording could perhaps be improved a bit.

In short, i don't favor trying to achieve the degree of precision you suggest. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, however, make this change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries @DESiegel:, I was just doing what GoingBatty recommended with his suggestion for me re: "a proposal for different wording at User talk:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification or a new section here at the Teahouse that isn't buried inside this other discussion." (still at the top of the Teahouse). It seems there are no hard and fast rules where suggestions should be made (I had 3 suggestions for my last point, too), and I won't push this one. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: Apologies for pointing you in the wrong direction. I agree with DESiegel about using the talk page for suggestions about the Teahouse. GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I just now caught the change you did make - that's perfect from my POV (I just didn't know what, exactly to write) - thanks! And no problem @GoingBatty:, apologies not necessary... Cheers! BrettA343 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wayback machine save page archiving and redirect walls

I was trying to save an url ( https://www.branca.com.ar/institucional/ ) for a more reliable archiving and apparently it gets stuck at "Accept you're 18+ y/o" redirect wall. Is there a way to work around this? Brand pages change all the time and I wanted to keep a snapshot of today's information. 2bam (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

2bam, Welcome, but I don't see how this question relates to Wikipedia. Am I missing something?S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It relates in the sense that there are a ton of missing references in articles because after a couple of years website pages change, urls change (even reliable sources' ones) and the article can no longer withstand a robust citation check. That's one reason Wayback machine was created and was wondering if there was an alternative way to archive links to avoid loss of references, or if there was a workaround for the issue mentioned for the only tool that I know. 2bam (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

2bam Do note that https://www.branca.com.ar/institucional/ has been archived by IA over 100 times, including earlier this month. So it is on the list to be regularly crawled by the IA. There are also other archive sites. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, I see the issue that 2bam has: it's not that the archiving website isn't working, it's that it is stuck on the "confirm if you are 18+" page before it redirects to the page with content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Tenryuu I ran into that also. There may be a way around it, but I don't know it if it exists. But my point is that even if 2bam is not able to force the page to be archived today, it has been archived fairly recently and no doubt will be again, so there is not a major problem in this particular case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing unit template?

Resolved

 – {{Clarify span}} used to point out missing currency unit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am currently going through pig racing, which needs a good deal of cleanup. I've been adding a bunch of needed {{convert}} templates, and I've come across one instance where a dollar amount is given, but it doesn't specify which unit of currency. Although it could be assumed to be GBP, I can't know for sure and can't find a source, so I've been looking for a template to denote the missing unit. Does such a template exist, and if not, what should I use? Thanks, Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pupsterlove02: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't know which unit it is, there are a few things you can do:

• Wrap the dollar amount with {{clarify span}} and in the reason parameter, add something to the effect of "Unclear currency unit".
• Ask on the article's talk page to see if someone can clarify. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks, I'll probably use {{clarify span}}. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 19:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing vs Vandalism

Hello there, I don't know if i qualify as a new user(150 edits), but after reading wp:de and wp:VD, I still can't figure out what are the differences. I like to do a lot of rc patrolling and using Wikiloop. Thank you very much! The creeper2007^Talk! 19:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the project, whereas disruptive isn't. Edits can be made in good faith and still be disruptive. Adam9007 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

However, The creeper2007, both are undesirable and for either the editor should usually be warned/notified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case, what is the difference between good faith edits and Disruptive edits? Do I have to warn user on the revert of good faith edits? The creeper2007^Talk! 19:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Good faith edits are those made with the intention of improving Wikipedia. Disruptive edits are those which disrupt the process of improving Wikipedia. An edit can be both. If you find an editor who habitually makes disruptive edits in good faith, it would be helpful to try to explain to them that their actions have been disruptive. Maproom (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Maproom is correct, The creeper2007 I would add that you do not ever have to warn of reverts. It is when an editor does something harmful, either on purpose (vandalism) or in good faith but disruptively that you warn, whether you revert or not. Note that an edit you may think not helpful but seems made in good faith and that does not significantly hurt the article nor the encyclopedia's processes is not usually considered disruptive. It is a judgement call. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating a a page as a fan

Hello, I wanted to ask if there are any restrictions on creating pages if you are a fan of a social media influencer, musician, actor, etc. Or are there any disclosures required for doing so? I see a few popular and notable Pakistani celebrities do not have pages. Given I am a fan, I understand compliance with NPOV is very important but is there anything else that I need to keep in mind before I submit the articles? NotJuggerNot (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Merely being a fan of someone isn't a problem if you want to write about them- many people write about subjects they like or follow. Be advised that being a "celebrity" and meriting an article are not necessarily the same thing. A person merits a Wikipedia article if they receive sigificant coverage in independent reliable sources(coverage that is not routine or just basic announcements), showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. There are also more specific criteria for certain fields(like actors, athletes, musicians). There are not specific criteria for "social media influencers", so the general notable person definition would apply. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia; if you go into it without an understanding of the process, and without having edited existing articles first, it may not go well. You should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit drafts for other editors to review before they are formally placed in the encyclopedia, so you find out any problems first. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, thank you for the prompt response. I understand your concern and would like to bring it to your knowledge that I understand the basic complexities in creating new articles. While my edit counter is still not on the higher side, most of my time is spent on reading policies whatever I can get my hands on in discussions and talk pages. And I will be creating these pages through AFC for the same reason. Thanks for the help. Really appreciate it! NotJuggerNot (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot, Pakistani actors happen to be one of my main topic areas of interest, so don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need help. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

IXL Learning

Currently, I'm writing an article about IXL Learning. I have written a summary, its history, and the company's subdivisions, and I was wondering what else to add. Is there requirements for an education company article, or does it vary?

 Le Panini (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! That sounds like a good start for an article, however one thing to be aware of is that not all companies warrant an article on Wikipedia. A company may warrant an article if they receive significant coverage in independent, reliable sources showing that they meet the notability guideline for companies. Creating an article can be hard; I would strongly suggest reading Your First Article if you have not already done so. I'd also suggest checking whether you may have a Conflict of Interest in relation to the things you are writing about, as Wikipedia has some specific requirements for editors with a conflict of interest. Good luck, and happy editing! -- Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

jaques pepin death

 83.84.38.249 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that you updated the Jacques Pépin article with death information, which was reverted. As part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can start a discussion on the article talk page - Talk:Jacques Pépin - and provide a reliable source for his death. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Expertise Review: Anti-Defamation League

Having visited this article after a long while, I've noticed that the article has been "cleaned up" in a manner that is very WP:SOAPBOX like. Going through the TOC box, you wouldn't notice or realize the spying and surveillance scandal/case the ADL was involved in 1992.

Here is an older version of the article, dated 20 December 2019: [4]

Things have been removed and things have been moved from the Controversies section's subsection titled "Spying controversy" (and its sub-subsections) and merged with the higher-above Goals section's subsection "Tracking extremists", and what remains in the former spying sections' place is a "Arab American and African American lawsuit against ADL" which in turn is void of much of its former context.

The former headers and sections have been removed and the context has been largely lost when it comes to the topic of controversy regarding the article's subject on that matter.

Perhaps editors who are experienced with political articles can look into this. It is really disappointing to see just how much of the objectivity in presenting information seems to have been toned down or conveniently edited.

I clicked on the talk page, and someone brought it up and that too was met with a dismissive response from one editor as "just another conspiracy theorist rant." - DA1 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC) DA1 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DA1: Your details of sections being moved around means nothing to someone unfamiliar with the article or its history (i.e. most people at the Teahouse). That's why discussion about particular articles belong on the article's talk page, where those interested in it discuss how to improve it. The other "complaint" you saw was two sentences, one of which accused Wikipedia of being "more corrupt than [they] thought". That will get exactly the response it got. Anyone who wants to engage in rational, thoughtful conversation about the article being incorrectly edited, having an unbalanced POV, missing important notable facts, etc., and how to fix it, should be able to do so if that is their aim, as opposed to just venting about the subject. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Automatic DS alerts

Hi, I recently alerted two editors of discretionary sanctions relating to WP:ARBIPA and noticed that Twinkle doesn't seem to include this functionality.

Is there any other semi-automated method which I can use to post these alerts, or must I do so manually? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of Wikipedia (Update)

@Nick Moyes, Dodger67, Liz, REDMAN 2019, Timtempleton, Sdkb, and Galendalia:

Yes guys! I tagged you all because I have some exciting news for us Wikipedia/Academic nerds. The other week we all were involved in a discussion entitled "Philosophy of Wikipedia," regarding a question of if there were actually a name for our philosophy of Neutrality/Verifiability/Reliably.

Everyone in the discussion agreed that it would be very useful to have a name for this 'philosophy.'

Well, there actually is a name. It's simply called the Scholarly Method which is a parent category for other methods like the Scientific Method and Historical Method.

I've known about the Scientific and Historical Methods, but never knew there was a parent category that encompased everything.

Perhaps we can even use the term "Encyclopedic Method?" Maybe other fields could create the Journalistic Method?

I know I'm a nerd, but it's a bit exciting to actually have a name to call this by.

Anyway, hope you find this term useful. – Chrisvacc - ✆ 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC) – Chrisvacc - ✆ 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

NSFW heading?

Disclaimer: no idea how to write these things, forgive me if im doing it wrong or something. but is there a NSFW heading that we can put on certain articles like the grammer error things? Thompson8964 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thompson8964: Something like that has often been proposed and debated, but there is significant opposition, expressed at pages like WP:NOTCENSORED. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Thompson8964: I'm not sure why grammar articles require NSFW headings, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Unless you meant something else, like hiding content? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, I think that Thompson8964 was asking if there was a warning message that could be put at the top of such articles, similar in form to grammar warning,s warnings about lack of sources, contested notability, and the like. The answer is that there is not, and if any such template were created, it would be speedy deleted as a template in violation of policy under WP:CSD#T2, which mentions as an example of the things to be deleted under it disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles as per WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Obtaining consensus to overturn these would require a large project-wide RfC, and I would be amazed if such consensus was obtained. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Thompson8964 DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks for clearing that up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Americanasoul

Americanasoul is Where everybody lives, On July 29, 2015, the canadian world opened until November 18,2015, Canada of 2015 (Two-Thousand-Fifteen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.207.201 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question on how to edit Wikipedia, unregistered editor? Wikipedia is not for promoting anything. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Back Market/2

In the answer to the Draft:Back Market/2 submission, I received advice to ask for help here. Can you give some tips or ideas?. Thanks in advance. BoldLuis (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BoldLuis, and welcome to the Teahouse. I was expecting to write another variation on a comment I have often written before, on how some of the sources were interviews or otherwise not independent, and others were not in much depth. But on looking at several of the sources, I think perhaps Robert McClenon who does generally high-quality AfC reviews and quite a few of them, has made one of his rare mistakes. Looking and the Forbes, Fast Company, and The Inventory sources in particular, I( think there may be enough to write a valid Wikipedia article here. The WSJ item is behind a paywall, so I can't see enough of it to know if it is more than a passing mention, and the builtinnyc and EU-Startups items read as if they were based on the same Press Release, although they may have some independent reporting too. VentureBeat. is unfortunately known to recycle PR in some of its pieces, so I tend to discount it a bit. Robert McClenon is IMO correct that the tone of the piece needs to be made a bit more neutral. Also the article could be fleshed out a bit more from what is already in the cited sources. But I think this might merit a decline instead of a reject. One more source comparable to the first three and I would be inclined to accept, myself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel: I am going to try to find another one. I rewrote the original draft (not written by me) deleting the text I thought was in excess. Thank you a lot!!.BoldLuis (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DESiegel, User:BoldLuis - I will explain. I wasn't providing a thorough review, because I was annoyed. It is true that perhaps I was allowing my annoyance to influence my review more than I should have, but I think that my annoyance was entirely justified. The way that the two drafts on Back Market, Draft:Back Market and Draft:Back Market/2, were presented, asking the reviewer to use templates to indicate what portions of the draft were promotional, was asking the reviewer to rewrite the article so that the reviewer would be doing the work for the submitter. I don't know whether the templates were the idea of User:BoldLuis or of User:AlexMegon. I don't consider them to be an appropriate way to shift responsibility from the submitter to the reviewer. It was a game, a way of gaming the system, and I did not intend to play that game; I did not intend to be asked to do the work of writing the article. Reviewers are people too, and do not like to be played with. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That is fair enough, Robert McClenon. I overlooked that aspect, simply checking the sources. While a reviewer may choose to give some examples of overly promotional text, asking for substitutes is to make the reviewer an author, which is not a reasonable request. I do think that there is enough here that Back Market is quite probably notable, but a drafter (BoldLuis here I suppose) must still write the draft.I would advise striking the request to use templates to highlight the promotional aspects. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

What happens if you get blocked because you have a username against Wikipedia policy and then request to change it and then blocked because your user page supposedly has advertising content and are wrongly accused of being paid to edit. Then you request to be unblocked if you delete the wrongly interpreted user page and try to convince the person that you are a serious editor (which you are). You appeal to both the administrator who blocked you indefinitely (which is unencouraging to a new editor) and also appeal your block. However, no one responds and you are unable to edit for a while due to a misunderstanding. Anyone know what to do? 2601:8A:4102:B3A0:1591:65A5:4692:51E (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What you should not do is evade the block by editing while not logged in or by making another account, even to appeal the block. You can instead post another unblock appeal on your user talk page, pinging an uninvolvbed admin to ask for review, or email arbcom. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What happens if you get blocked because you have a username against Wikipedia policy and then request to change it and then blocked because your user page supposedly has advertising content and are wrongly accused of being paid to edit. Then you request to be unblocked if you delete the wrongly interpreted user page and try to convince the person that you are a serious editor (which you are). You appeal to both the administrator who blocked you indefinitely (which is unencouraging to a new editor) and also appeal your block. However, no one responds and you are unable to edit for a while due to a misunderstanding. Anyone know what to do?

This was my previous post and I knew that someone would delete it due to sock puppetry. Once again, I am not an advertiser and am just requesting help on the tea house. I have not made a new account and I’ve used this IP to only request some assistance, not make further edits. I would state on my user page that I have an IP address but I can’t even access that. I was blocked indefinitely, so will I never be able to edit Wikipedia again because of a mistake? What can I do? Is there anything? I really need help from those who know how to help. 2600:1002:B115:35C6:54FC:11D5:37A6:44B1 (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. If you have access to your user talk page, then submit a new unblock request explaining your future editing intentions in detail. If you do not have access to your user talk page, please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Also, stop editing logged out. That hurts your efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Poster, I must agree with Cullen328 here. The Unblock Ticket Request System is the way to go if you do n0ot have talk page access. Please do not post here again until (unless) yo0u are unblocked. Note that no9 one has deleted your post, and that an "indefinate" block need not mean forever -- it just means there is no set end date. it can always be reviewed and changed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I think they're just (over-anxiously; at least 5 times in the last two days at least 9 posts to their talk page in a day and a half since the last admin post) trying to get a review of their unblock request, which I'm assuming is User talk:Wjrz nj forecast#Unblock request 4. @Wjrz nj forecast: I'd suggest removing the repeated unblock requests and leaving just one. If a week goes by (i.e. next Saturday) without a response, then go looking for help with a single request for a review at WP:AN. We are all volunteers here and people allocate their time as they see fit. Expecting responses to anything within minutes/hours is unrealistic. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do about user canvassing on an external site?

I recently discovered that an editor party to an ongoing dispute on Talk:Space Launch System#SLS Launch Cost had apparently linked to the dispute on an online forum. I'm fairly certain this behavior is in contravention of Wikipedia:Canvassing, but I'm uncertain what my next action should be. What should I do about this? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That editor’s actions would be canvassing if some people from the forum did register and voice their opinions. I have seen the discussion and the editor has not explicitly asked people to side with him. However, he/she has asked for help (presumably regarding the disputed information), so I think the best course of action would be to wait and see if any newbies come by and enter the discussion. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 07:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"We Got Next"

I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

How can I make this article accepted to be officially on wikipedia?

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A music article I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

How can I make this article fit the qualifications that are accepted by the reviewers?

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DominicanWikiEdit1996, welcome to the Teahouse! You say "there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time" which makes it pretty clear that you can't make an acceptable WP-article about this album, see WP:NALBUM. Not enough coverage = no WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DominicanWikiEdit1996 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If this album does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit an article at this time. The sources you have offered are not independent reliable sources with significant coverage. No amount of editing can confer notability(what you call "notoriety") on an article subject, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This draft was declined five times (!) and then DominicanWikiEdit1996 moved it to main space anyway. Rather than redraftify, suggest someone start an AfD. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Logging in problem

Hi, I am trying to log in to my account but I forgot my password. I entered my email and username correctly, but it didn't send me anything. I tried this yesterday and today and nothing was sent even though I am sure that both my email and username were entered correctly. What should I do about this? 5.30.178.218 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 5.30.178.218 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you certain that you associated the email address with your account? 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know but I know that I put my username and email in the appropriate boxes and I had done this before on the same email so I do not know why it is not working. 5.30.178.218 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying that you have successfully reset your password with the same email before, then the only other thing I can think of based on what you have said is that there is a technical problem with the system. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if this is stating the obvious, but have you checked your email spam folder (if any)? -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on AfC

Hello,

In my sandbox I have drafted an article on an EDM artist called CURBI. I am far from publishing the article ( it has no citations or detail yet) and I would say that the subject meets WP:N but I was wondering in general about notability.

The subject has an article on the German Wikipedia but is no more notable in Germany than anywhere else, which leads me to the question that:

In future, if an article has been created on another language Wikipedia, but is not of special notability in that/those country/countries, does that qualify as notable for creation on the English Wikipedia?

Sorry if this is confusing...

Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Giraffer, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, No, the existence of an article in another Wikipedia does not confer notability in any way: many other-language Wikipedias have less stringent requirements than en-wiki, and even en-wiki has thousands of articles which, if somebody created them today, would get declined or rejected. You need to treat every article as a new project, and establish notability. In my opinion, that is the first thing you should do, before you even create a draft, because if you cannot establish that the subject is notable, then any other work you do on it will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks

Giraffer (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My unusual centralized article

Hi, everyone. Sorry to bother you all again. I faced an unusual issue recently, which you can literally see my issue at my userpage. My "cntributions to wikipedia" page's words keeps being centralized. I tried to undo this issue, but i can't. (⊙_⊙)？:-) pLZ HELP ME TO RESOLVE MY PROBLEM... and get my article into the way that it shoud be. tHANKS, FELLOW Wikipedians.:) Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hypersonic man 11. I haven't looked closely, but as far as I can see you have a

<table style="float: right; background: #FAFAFA; border: solid #003399 3px; padding: 0;" cellspacing="2"><tr><td valign="top">
<div style="background: #003399;text-align: center;

early on your page, and no corresponding </table> to close it. I have no idea what the effect is of mixing Markup tables and HTML tables, (I didn't know you could do it) but I presume that the property which I bolded above lasts to the end of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11 Also, on the "Contributions to Wikipedia" section, you're using {{Div col}} without specifying a number of columns. So it's defaulting to one column centralised. If you remove the {{Div col}}, then the "Contributions to Wikipedia" section will switch back to left aligned. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. So, can you guys help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Your userpage has probably the worst layout I've ever seen, and hardly worth spending ages on. But I've fixed the problem you complained about. Revert if you don't like it. Consider that having a Table of Content half way down the page is, itself, rather daft as, indeed, is having three sets of userboxes. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How may I help

WELL .HOW MAY I HELP YOU.?Hwang Jihyun 7 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Hwang Jihyun 7 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hwang Jihyun 7: Hello, and welcome. The Teahouse is a friendly help forum for anyone needing assistance in editing Wikipedia. So if you need help yourself, just ask. Ideally, please link to any page you need help with. Try The Wikipedia Adventure and collect 15 different badges as you go, or read Help:Introduction to Wikipedia to learn more. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article: How to link Japanese language article of the same content to the English article

Deleted article

The article I wrote was deleted due to various reasons mentioned. My article in Japanese was approved and is currently on Wikipedia. I basically translated this article into English and uploaded onto my page. My question is: Can the Japanese version be linked to my English article? Will the publication of the Japanese article be an evidence that the English article is true and respecting all the rules of Wikipedia?

(Oneasia2011 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)) Oneasia2011 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: George Kunihiro: (See here) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oneasia2011: You've got it wrong. What you need to establish an article on the English Wikipedia is at least three independent reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. This will show notability for the subject. Wikipedia (and any site with "Wiki" in the name) is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it.

The usual advice I give is to get at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not affiliated with or connected to it and summarize those. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oneasia2011. See my answer to #Question on AfC two sections above. --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oneasia2011: In addition to what other editors have already said: The article Kunihiro George was deleted as a copyright violation. That means it can't be restored – more information about that here. You have a draft article in your sandbox (it looks like it has been restored a couple of times at your request), which you have not worked on since it was last rejected. Have a look at the comments from the editor who reviewed it then, and work on finding and adding secondary sources, and to remove promotional wording. If you have any connection to the person you are writing about, you will also read this information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ancient history articles

When editing ancient history articles, are translations of ancient authors (Livy et al) free to insert, or do they come under some editing restriction? Thanks in advance. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

HalfdanRagnarsson, to some extent. A WP-article should never be mostly based on sources like Livy directly, though something like "According to 1st century BCE historian Livy..." can have a place. Try to reference modern historians using Livy where possible, to get a sense of relevance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: this will be about my reversion here.[5] Could you take a look at these and comment so that Halfdan has a 2nd opinion? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox for universities

In Catalan Wikipedia most of the universities have already been changed to a wikidata infobox. Don't you think it would be easier to have it this way? This way if someone changes something in another language it would be shown directly instead of having to wait till someone changes it for all the languages? Afernandez.52 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on the composers you've just put infoboxes on have been reverted. Cassianto^Talk 11:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of Wikidata makes vandalism a hell of a lot easier, given how few watchers there are there. Given much of the information there is unsupported or uncited and the "data" it unthinkingly dumps into articles goes against many of the guidelines we have; it also includes the bloody stupid pencil icon at each line. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem with Wikidata is that anyone can put whatever unsourced content they want on there, and if we're using Wikidata infoboxes, that unsourced content comes onto here too. Especially as most other language Wikipedias have lower sourcing requirements than English Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we anyone have two Wiki accounts?

Can a user have two different user names (with the same email-id) on Wikipedia? If yes, are their any advantages? If no, will any disciplinary action be taken? Can one delete the new account? I have read the username policy, but it didn't help me with my issue. Brillianc1 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brillianc1: The part you needed to have read was WP:MULTIACCOUNT, which makes it clear it is allowed, but only for certain limited circumstances. If you have a valid reason to have two, you should declare the connection between both of the accounts, and only use the 2nd account for editing under those special circumstances. Failing to do that could have repercussions of it were clear an editor was somehow 'gaming the system' by editing from both accounts at once, whilst appearing to be two different users. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Proper tagging

There is a tag to be used for promotional articles, but is there a tag to be used specifically for articles that seem to have been edited exclusively to give a negative opinion of the subject? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: You're probably thinking of {{POV}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

12:14:49, 1 June 2020 review of submission by VidhyadhariK

I want to know why the article submission was declined, can you please help me so that, I can improve my article and resubmit it again.

• VidhyadhariK (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

 VidhyadhariK (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Chaithra Rai

Hi, VidhyadhariK, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft clearly has the explanation as to why the draft wasn’t accepted; it does not show how the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. For that, you will have to find some news reports writing about mainly this person. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References that only describe the plot and characters of roles she has starred do not contribute to her notability as a person. David notMD (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Commandment transcriptions

Can anybody transcribe the Hebrew vesion of the Commandments? Also,I'm looking foward to actually writing the Hebrew. Regards. Dandro08 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) A kind thanks to all who were willing do transcribe the commandments.May God thy Lord be with you all. Dandro08 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are asking, but you did get an answer to the same question (albeit with different spelling) here. Did that not suffice? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dandro08: I should add that Wikipedia collates existing, published sources, rather than doing original research and translations. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand about the notability policy. I would like to write an article about a person. What is criteria that i should check before writting the article about that person?

 Solai Alagappan (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Solai Alagappan: The general notability guidelines can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

can you cite books as sources?

Hello! I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and was curious if you could use books as sources. I have seen books used as sources, but those books are available to read on the internet, and as the book I am looking at citing from doesn't even have a google books page I wanted to make sure whether I could still use it as a source. Can I do that? If you're curious the book is 'Whalebacks: Wrecked, Scrapped, Lost & Forgotten' By Neel Zoss. Bowtiesarecool06 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)