Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

My page has been declined

Hello, Yesterday I created a page, and it was declined as supposedly being a duplicate of another page. My page is certainly not a duplicate, but I would like to explain the situation: it was created as an answer to an assignment (and English language contest), so each contestant would create their own page. I thought this might be a problem, but that was the task given by the organizers. If it's possible, I would like to ask to keep this draft until the end of the year, while the works are being reviewed. Thank you. Timur Strong (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Timur Strong, you seem to be talking about Draft:The 75th Anniversary of the Great Victory. This draft has a number of comments. On 8 November, AngusWOOF wrote "Please note: if you are creating drafts of this event for a class, please use your sandbox or the class page". I (or somebody else) would be happy to move it for you. Where would you like it moved? If there's a misunderstanding, perhaps you could invite one of the "organizers" to explain. -- Hoary (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Timur Strong. I am sorry, but the answer is no. Wikipedia will not keep a non-compliant article or draft just because it is part of a school assignment. This is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a project to help students with their school assignments. If you can write content that meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then that is fine. Otherwise, no. If you have selected a topic that does not deserve a freestanding article, then please select a more notable topic and go with that. As Hoary points out, the content can be moved to a personal sandbox page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Timur Strong. I moved your page to User:Timur Strong/75th Anniversary of the Great Victory in Russia reverting the submission. If it was for an assignment, it was a mistake to submit it. —teb728 t c 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there a test wiki where pages that are never intended to be part of the live enwiki should be created instead? Is the environment similar enough to enwiki to be suitable for learning how to edit here (if that's the purpose)? It seems like we're getting more of these types of users and pages that are primarily here for school/teacher/student benefit instead of being useful to the encyclopedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: You are thinking about https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page but as it says, it is meant to test editing in a wiki environment (either by yourself or by a bot), not to store actual content. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Timur Strong: Please point your instructor(s) to Wikipedia:Education_program/Educators. While your own draft was kept (for now), I would not be surprised if others are deleted per the rules against web hosting, if the whole program is not cleared up beforehand. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For now, I am recommending that students create their own drafts in their sandbox spaces, such as Special:Mypage/The 75th Anniversary of the Great Victory and then let the instructor know the link so they can grade or feedback to them. None of these should be considered real drafts. If the instructor has figured out the Educators section and sets up a class page then that can be used to pool assignments. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem of leaving those assignments in draft space is that they are more open for anyone to edit than those in the user's sandbox space. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means you don't really own any of the content you put in the article, and that anyone can go in and edit your draft. They may even completely change it to some form that you don't recognize, and your instructors wouldn't be able to evaluate it as your work anymore, let alone consider it for a "contest". This is why I considered it a duplicate article with the other 75th Anniversary drafts and attempted to merge all the writeups into one draft. There should really be only one draft on that topic, with everyone editing towards making that single draft notable for mainspace consideration. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Characters of Halo

Where is Sierra-118? He was an Easter Egg is the Halo Series, and was one of the only SPARTAN Commandos in the series. He is mentioned very briefly in Halo Wars, Halo Reach and Halo 4. SCP AGENT 1987 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SCP AGENT 1987. This type of question—seemingly an involved issue about some granular detail of a specific Wikipedia's article's content—is unlikely to be something that can be acted on here, but should be raised at the talk page of the article, which, in this case, looks like it would be Talk:Halo (franchise) (or possibly another Halo-related article's talk page – I'm too ignorant on this subject to be sure).

I note though that all content in articles, if it is to be added, must be verifiable in reliable sources (usually, best that they be secondary and independent ones), and any talk page post is unlikely to be acted upon unless you actually can and do point out what sources verify a proposed addition. If this character was only "mentioned" and "very briefly", then no mention in the article may be warranted. In that regard, please also be aware that, per our neutral point of view policy, article content should include [only] "...fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis added). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you this was very helpful. Have an awesome day!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCP AGENT 1987 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@SCP AGENT 1987: As someone who is relatively familiar with Halo and frequents the video game project, I couldn't find a mention of such a character, so that's probably why. If they are in the series, they are definitely too minor to mention on Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Style assistance matter

Hello Teahouse hosts. The matter of sherd or shard has been brought up regarding the New Albion article--it is a WP:GA. On November 15, I reverted a November 14 edit, the type I think of as a drive by edit, one in which someone not invested in an article sees an item which displeases them and makes an unconsidered edit. This red link editor changed one instance of the word shard to sherd and left all other instances of shards as they were originally used. I reverted the edit and fortunately, no edit war has ensued. He did, however, explain why the change in the editing summary. I explained my thoughts HERE.

I have found no consensus anywhere about the use of sherd or shard, even on a Wikipedia discussion (which I am unable to re-locate so please excuse my lack of providing a link for your view convenience). Clearly sherd is preferred by archaeologists but this is not a clear rule of style. Even the Merriam Webster Dictionary is not entirely clear: read the definition and scroll down to the examples HERE and you will see an excerpt from The Smithsonian discussing ancient Greek pottery fragments as shards.

I use shards through the New Albion article to maintain consistency with the Los Angeles Times reference and the Point Reyes National Seashore museum usage, and I still believe this is correct. I wonder, however, if a footnote about the matter might be useful. An example of this type of explanation, which is used on a scholarly website, may be viewed HERE and may provide a model. I believe grammatist.com (you may see their site HERE) is a reliable source, even they note that that the words can be confusing and speak of their usage in terms of usually.

So, how do you suggest I proceed? Do I make such a footnote, leave matters as they are, change to sherd and ignore consistency, or make some other edit? Should I request a Rfc or seek a WP:THIRD?

Also know that when I write this, there has been no response to the New Albion talk page. Additionally, I am working diligently to keep this article from being hacked as it took much effort to achieve good article recognition, so I really wish for this to be addressed in a very accurate matter. I am considering another large editing effort for myself, and it may be to make this a WP:FA, so this would be a step toward that effort.

I look forward to hearing from you and kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Hu Nhu (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hu Nhu it seems from Talk:Sherd that the "sherd" spelling is more common in archaeological literature. It does not appear to be an WP:ENGVAR difference. Perhaps WP:WikiProject Archaeology might have some guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hu Nhu. The footnote idea is similar in principal to the method suggested at MOS:JARGON, although writing 'one level down' is also a consideration. Regards, Zindor (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Zindor for your direction. I did read the MOS:JARGON and one level down. After reading it, I believe a footnote explaining the useage would very well be editing as one level down. I will check with the archaeology project. Thank you for your kind attention.Hu Nhu (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hu Nhu, you're welcome. I'm glad I could help. Just a note, pings don't work unless added to a new line of text, and it's good etiquette not to edit other's post. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome Zindor and apologies regarding the clumsy editing--it was thoroughly, entirely inadvertent and remains most embarrassing.Hu Nhu (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Idea for a Wikipedia feature

Hello, I think it'd be really neat if, when hovering over a link that redirects to a Wiktionary entry, a pop up is displayed that defines the hovered-over word. This would look and function very similarly to how hovering over Wikipedia links works.

Where can I see if this idea has already been had and/or defined and/or rejected? Where can I see if there are any efforts to create this? How can I learn more about creating/programming this feature for Wikipedia? Brytonsf (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO this has not yet been implemented. Its also kind of hard because of the cross-site-scripting stuff. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Brytonsf. I think, like Victor, that this would be difficult. But Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) need volunteer programmers as well as editors. The place to start is VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, I believe I know where to start looking & talking to people. Brytonsf (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing a Wikipedia article for a relative

At the end of last week, I was creating a wikipedia page for a relative. Over the weekend, this page was deleted because it used "copyrighted material" from her personal website. Would it be possible to restore this page? I'm more than willing to rewrite the copyrighted material. I want to keep the work I did creating her info-box on the right-hand side. AysarGha (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@AysarGha: If you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and enter "Draft:Cleotilde Gonzalez" (without quotes) into the box, and create an entry and explain that you just want the infobox, an administrator should be able to help you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But do bear in mind, AysarGha, that it is likely that very little material from her website will be relevant to a Wikipedia article about her. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject. As with any Wikipedia article, you need to start by finding those independent reliable sources, and then forget everything you know about your cousin and write solely from what those independent sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Linking a PDF for a magazine as a source

Magazine PDF as sources User:ResolutionsPerMinute has argued that using a PDF of a magazine such as Billboard would constitute a reliable source, while User:Gen. Quon argues that this would violate WP:COPYVIO. Would this violate WP:COPYVIO or is it considered reliable? 2603:8081:160A:BE2A:BC32:2EC5:83C5:B878 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi I.P, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem it seems is that worldradiohistory.com might be hosting/publishing the content without the permission of Billboard Magazine. Providing links to such illegally published content is a copyright violation in itself.

While the copyvio situation could be avoided by not linking the pdf, a question would remain about the integrity of the information in the pdf. Is it a true copy of the magazine page or has it been doctored or altered? Chances are low that it's been messed with, but the reliability/trustability of worldradiohistory.com is now a factor here. Zindor (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi person editing from ...B878. The copyright violation would come from copying and pasting too long (unattributed) excerpts (or too-closely paraphrased) in the article from the PDF source, such that they would not meet the doctrine of minimal use for fair use purposes. Linking to a PDF that is being used as a citation that verifies information content, so that the PDF can be accessed and downloaded is in no way a copyright violation or copyright issue—so long as that source is not itself a copyright violation (for example if you link to a BBC news story at YouTube, from BBC's official YouTube account – no problem; if you link to that video being illegally posted to YouTube by some random YouTube user named RandomInfringingYouTubeUser, then that's a problem. See WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER. When that is the case, find the original source of the PDF (even if paper only), and provide a well-attributed citation to that original. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems that it is an archival website. I believe some of them are in public domain. Is there a list where we can add this site if it is reliable/unreliable?2603:8081:160A:BE2A:BDFF:CB2C:E914:D727 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems the rub issue here is not reliability but whether the use is a copyright problem. If you can determine the public domain status of the original, then a post to the talk page, directed at the copyright issue would seem in order.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Agreed, copyright is the issue at hand. IP just ignore my musings about reliability, i'd litigate water out of a stone if given half a chance. Zindor (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. The PDFs I've seen have been of Billboard magazines from the 1990s and 2000s; I cannot imagine that they would be in the public domain, as they're not that old. My concern here was that the citation was linking to a illegally-hosted copy of the magazine. I think this is likely the case. That said, the information gleaned from the PDFs can likely be included if it is cited properly in the article(s), sans the offending URL.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Google legitimately (I think) hosts full copies of Billboard from Vol. 54, No. 1, January 3, 1942, through Vol. 124, No. 11, March 31, 2012. (Later archives combine multiple issues in the same "book"). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It's probably still under copyright, and not OK to copy in whole or in part (other than short quotes, like any other copyright publication), just available to cite and avoid having to go through physical stacks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The way I see it, when a PDF link is added to an article, we're copying just a small fact of information (i.e. release date, a paraphrased critical review, chart peaks). I think it would be a violation if we copied and pasted a whole passage from the magazines into an article without changing anything. Furthermore, if these were blatant violations, the links would have been removed from good/featured articles in music, such as Smells Like Teen Spirit and Spice Up Your Life, because good/featured articles are forbidden from having copyright violations. I assume this would have been taken care of by now if this were the case, but those links have been there since before I made my first edits on those pages (2018 and 2020, respectively). ResPM ^{come to my window} 12:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Copy Edits

When to mark articles are no longer needing copy edits or categorization After I improve articles within All_articles_needing_copy_edit or Category:All uncategorized pages, when does it get removed from those lists subsequently? Should I be the one doing that, and if so, how do I know objectively and it's of the right standard? WikiVillager (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi WikiVillager. Have you clicked on the link in the maintenance templates posted to the various pages needing cleanup (it's the templates, almost always, that places the pages in those cleanup categories), that says "(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)"? That message is a link to a page I wrote, Help:Maintenance template removal, that is focused on this issue and I hope will answer your question in detail. If after visiting there, you still have any questions, please do follow-up here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit I never noticed that page link before in the copy edit template. Good job. I'm not sure it's clear from that page though that adding templates automatically adds their articles to categories such as Category:All articles needing copy edit, and removing the template removes the article from the category, which was part of the question above. Maybe that info could be added? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Tim. Thanks! While I don't think many people will end up at that help page because they saw the category (a user would have to already know that the template is causing the category placement, in order to realize clicking the link in the maintenance template would ever lead to information about templates placing categories--sort of a cart/horse—chicken/egg issue), I do think that telling people about the categories might independently deserve mention. I'll think about where to shoe it in there, hopefully seamlessly. Best--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit I've helped out with Guild of Copy Editor drives and have been on the site for ten years, yet would have trouble finding pages listing flagged articles needing cleanup. The more places one can find them, the better. Good work! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Querry how to publish

my article is in sandbox. How do i publish it? Can i get it proofchecked before submitting ? as i am trying to publish for 1st time? Prachi.chopade (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Prachi.chopade, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to User:Prachi.chopade/sandbox with a button that will allow you to submit it for review. But I advise that first you sort out your citations: some of them are bare URLs; others are to journals and books with no page numbers - please see REFB. (I have not looked at the text, just spotted the problem with the citations_. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New Article

How do I get my article published? it is in sandbox and I have it ready I just do not know how to request it to be published. Toak2004 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Toak2004 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are attempting to write about yourself; that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. What you have written is essentially a resume. We need sources that go beyond profiles and announcements of routine business transactions. If you truly meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, someone will eventually take note of you in independent reliable sources and choose to write about you. Also be aware that a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Toak2004,

I recommend visiting Wikipedia:Articles for creation and following their instructions for submitting your draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Toak2004 has denied that the draft at User:Toak2004/sandbox is about self. Raises the question of how Toak2004 knows Tim, and whether this constitutes a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). My own opinion is that the references do not establish that Tim meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but Toak2004 should be allowed the option of this being a draft and submitting it to articles for creation. David notMD (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Userbox templates

Hello, I recently have started making userboxes. Does anyone know how I can make a template for my existing userboxes so I can make userboxes upon request? Thanks! Jackalope 10 01:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jackalope 10. You might be able to find out more information about userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes or by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes. However, while userboxes can be kind of cool and fun to make, there's a lot more to Wikipedia than userboxes. Your account seems fairly new and lots of new (or newish) editors seem to fall in love with editing in the user namespace (I know I did), but there are over six million articles, many of which need improving. So far, 96+% of your edits have been made in the user namespace which is not the end of the world per se, but it might indicate a shift in focus is needed if you truly want other editors to look at you as being someone who is WP:HERE instead of as being someone who is WP:NOTHERE. The best way to learn about editing Wikipedia is to actually be WP:BOLD and try and improve articles; even if you make a mistake it will be OK as long as you do so in good faith and learn from them. So, instead of making userboxes like this, maybe try helping out at a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and help to improve content in the WP:MAINSPACE for awhile and then maybe go back to working on userboxes every now and then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Capital?

I know I'm dense, but I'm just not understanding this despite the many attempts to explain it to me on the Talk Page. So I hope someone here can better explain it to me without simply referencing me to MOS:CT. Why is All in the Family lower case but F Is for Family upper case? especially when the "is" in the visual lower case? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Maineartists, Well, the article talks about... hm hm... yadadada... uh huh - okay, a lot of confusing grammar. Point is, "is" is a verb, and should be capitalized. "for" and "in" are prepositions, and shouldn't be capitalized. "the" is never capitalized because everyone thinks they're stupid.

Even though in the title its lowercase, Wikipedia follows these standards with a manual of style; A general policy of how to format articles so they stay in the same format and look all across the website.

There is reasons for why these words are capitalized in these situations, and the article linked explains why. You can look into it further if you're curious. Le Panini ^Talk 02:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This Is being discussed on the article talk page, which Is the appropriate place to make your case.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at the Help Desk. Please don't start discussions in two different places. RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Query regarding new article

Requirements for new article?

There is a chef in India who has become fairly popular. I have some reliable sources for this chef as well as enough information to make a good article (probably a stub). Should I make one? SenatorLEVI (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SenatorLEVI. If feel the chef meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), then you can try creating an article; however, once you do, it will be fair game for anyone who disagrees with your assessment to nominate, propose or otherwise tag for WP:DELETION. So, if you're asking whether you should create an article about this person at the Teahouse, then (no offense) you would probably be better off first creating a draft and then submitting it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC) for review. This will at least give an experienced AfC reviewer the chance to look over the draft and assess it.

AfC is optional for the most part, but articles accepted via it seem to have a better chance of surving since AfC reveiwers typically don't approve drafts that don't meet (or at least come really close to meeting) Wikipedia's notability guidelines; in other words, they don't approve drafts that are almost certain to end up deleted fairly quickly. Finally, since this person is Indian, maybe try asking about at this at WT:INDIA; perhaps one of WikiProject India's members can help you assess the chef's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello MarchJuly . Thank you for answering this question.SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mark Juncaj

I recently wrote a draft on someone i know from AA groups whom many have come to admire. His name is Mark Juncaj. I wrote a draft with several references that was not accepted. The person wrote that Instagram and youtube are not acceptable. While those were mentioned, i much much more referenced actual articles about this individual who is blowing up the internet because others gravitate to him. I wrote the article as Non judgemental as I could. Can someone please help me re write the article so it is accepted? I need help cuz this guy deserves it.

Can someone help with this

Thank you Jasonsmiley23 (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dan arndt can you help me re write this page?

 Jasonsmiley23 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jasonsmiley23. It sounds like Juncaj is a pretty special person who has affected the lives of many others; however, and this might seem a bit harsh, it also seems as if (at least at first glance) that he doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) which means it's going to be hard justify that a Wikipedia article being created about him at least at this time. While you might feel that creating an article a person is warranted because he deserves it, there are lots of great organizations and great people doing wonderful things around the world who simply don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

There's can also be some disadvantages to trying to create a Wikipedia article about a person that aren't always immediately evident; subjects of articles don't have any real control over the article content, which means information may start getting added that they don't like. As long as article content (positive or negative) is in compliance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's unlikely going to be allowed to be removed without a really good Wikipedia policy based reason and even then it might take quite a bit of discussion among members of the Wikipedia community to reach a consensus on what to do.

Now having said all of that, you can continue to work on Draft:Mark Juncaj if you want; however, how well the article is written is not going to make a difference, if you're not able to find the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that clearly establish his Wikipedia notability. According to the draft, Juncaj is scheduled to release his first book fairly soon; perhaps that book will become such a smash hit and it will lead to more significant coverage of him in mainstream media sources and thus push him over the threshold deemed necessary for a Wikipedia article about him to be written.

I just want to clarify some things about primary sources like social media accounts; they may be OK to use in support of certain types of personal content as explained in WP:BLPPRIMARY, but they are not helpful at all in establishing Wikipedia notability because Wikipedia is, for the most part, more concerned with reliable sources unconnected to the subject are saying about the subject than what the subject is saying about themselves. So, look for sources like major newspapers, magazines or other publication that have reputations for strong editorial control that discuss Juncaj in more than a cursory way or in a promotional way. Then, try and write the article based upon what those sources say. The three sources you've cited in the draft that aren't primary sources look promising, but they were all dated on the same day which might be an indication that they were part of some kind of promotional campaign related to the upcoming release of his book. They don't seem to show any enduring or sustanined coverage of Juncaj which makes it hard to assess his Wikipedia notability.

Anyway, I've posted a message at User talk:Dan arndt letting him know about your post here; perhaps, Dan will further clarify the reasons he declined the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Jasonsmiley23 unfortunately I do not have the time to re-write the draft on your behalf. I do concur with Marchjuly's comments in that based on a quick search that there are currently no reliable independent secondary sources that support his notability. Maybe the situation may change in the future but I wouldn't be that sure. Dan arndt (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Jasonsmiley23 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dan Arndt is paying for an article to be written ok? Is that spmething you are interested in or do you have a name so i can contact them to do so?Jasonsmiley23 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys. Thank you so much for the feedback. How far into a google search did you go? Ive counted 15 articles about him. I also did a search on his last name and i can tell you there is a published company there with much less stuff then mark juncaj has. This is were i would say that if those articles are published about those individuals, why would Marks not meet the criteria? Do you want me to gather all of the articles on him? Also, I get what you said about the negative stuff. People could of course edit and write the bad also. I think hes way past all of that and though there may be some of that, hes got enough support to push through it and gain more positive. LMK your thoughts Dan arndt marchjuly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonsmiley23 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Jasonsmiley23. Your above question about paid editing seems to have been addressed to Dan arndt, but I just want to point out that all Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and that there are staff editors working for the the Wikimedia Foundation whose job is to create Wikipedia articles. Now, if you Google "Wikipedia editing services" or something similar, you might find some people out there offering to create articles for a fee; such people, however, are no different than you and me and are just basically charging you for their time and energy regardless of whether they are ultimately able to create an article. Moreover, such editors are required to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure which places quite a lot of restrictions on what they are able to do. All content regardless of who creates it or regardless of how much much you're paying them to create it is going to be assessed in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, if you come across someone who guarantees that they can create a Wikipedia article about Mark Juncaj that will never ever be challenged or even deleted, then they either know zilch about how Wikipedia works or they actually know quite a lot and aren't being totally honest with you. It's your money though and you can spend it any way you please, but any agreement you enter into with a third party to create an article will have nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, and neither of the two will be bound to honor such an agreement.

Now, the fact that you're even offering to pay some to try and create an article about Juncaj kind of indicates that you might not really understand some important stuff about Wikipedia. It might also indicate that you have some kind of connection to Juncaj that is more than casual. People who want to "buy" a Wikipedia article about a particular subject tend to have a vested interest that might not be in harmony with Wikipedia's interests, and this is something that often leads to problems. Whether this is true in your case is unclear, but you should be as transparent about it as possible if it is because it will make it easier for others to want to try and help you.

Wikipedia has over six million articles. Many of them are quite good, but many of them are also quite bad. Given the way the project was originally set up, there have been lots of articles added over the years that probably shouldn't have been added in the first place. Sometimes they were created by people whose intentions were good and meant no harm, but still the articles shouldn't have been created. There are way more articles than there currently are editors, and more and more articles are being added each day. So, such articles often fly under the radar (sometimes even for years) before someone stumbles across them, assesses them, and then works out whether they should be deleted or can be improved. Bascially, there's lots of other stuff that exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean new stuff should be created if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

You don't have to stop trying to improve the draft you're working on just because it was declined. A draft can be re-submitted for another review as long as you're not simply resubmitting the same declined version over and over again. So, if you believe you can find more reliable sources that siginificantly cover Juncaj and want to try and incorporate the information contained into the draft, then feel free to do so. However, the quality of the sources, not the number of sources, being cited which matters and in many cases more isn't automatically better when it comes to citations. Maybe you'll find this guide created by a Wikipedia administrator named Ian.thomson helpful and maybe try looking at Help:Your first article as well, but it's makes no difference who tries to create an article about a subject if the subject isn't considered to be Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

help needed to understand criticism that "this article has multiple issues...."

I recently contributed my first article - a biography of a living person. After posting the article "T. Mark Harrison", I received the following feedback.

This article has multiple issues:

• This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (November 2020)
• This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (November 2020)

These requirements seem to me to be contradictory. How can something rely too much on references to primary sources and yet still need additional citations for verification? Can anyone with more experience please clarify and suggest a remedy? Thanks so much. East84street (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link T. Mark Harrison. The first issue means there is some information in the article that is not backed up by a reference. The other issue is unrelated to the first, it means that the only references are there to verify info, and that there aren’t enough secondary references written by reliable sources unconnected to the subject to show notability. In future, I would suggest creating draft articles through the Articles for creation process, and submitting them for review. SK2242 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello East84street. The first issue is that Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on reliable, published secondary sources; see WP:PSTS. The second issue is that the Education and Academic life sections are not verified by any inline sources at all. —teb728 t c 06:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both (teb728 and SK2242). I have tried to follow your advice. I fixed a bad citation for the Norman L. Bowen award and added 2 citations to the Academic Life section. Notability is demonstrated by the number and significance of listed Awards, including membership in the National Academy of Science which is among the highest honors accorded an American scientist. Are the problems resolved; is the article passable now? East84street (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sachini Wickramasinghe Page Approval

Hey I think I'm almost there to getting my page accepted but they are asking for more references. I have given an article about this actress. Do I need to put more articles ? Would be great if you could help sir. CeylonShare (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Sachini Wickramasinghe. They aren't asking for more references, they are asking for better references. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Query related to tags

I accidentally used a deprecated source as a reference for a recent edit. Realizing my mistake I found other reliable sources and removed the deprecated ones. Will the 'use of deprecated sources' tag disappear or be removed now? SenatorLEVI (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you fixed the issue, then the tag can be removed, of course. Ruslik_Zero 08:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ruslik0I have fixed the issue, can you tell me how I can remove the tag?SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the article? Ruslik_Zero 12:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Dominion

When searching Dominion voting systems, Wiki says false claims were made towards the Trump election and that’s not the truth . It’s neither true or false until it goes to court and a judgement is made. Also it said last edited 15 days ago and this wasn’t even Election Day yet. So clearly Wiki doesn’t mind telling people false information or if paid Wiki will put whatever you want ! Trust me , y’all ain’t even able to clean this corruption up so if I was Wiki , I’d stay as far away as possible. 2600:1003:B446:8F49:4CA6:CD04:7FEB:971D (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first edit at Wikipedia. This page is for questions about Wikipedia. If you have a comment about how to improve the article about Dominion Voting Systems (edited ten times in the few hours just before your comment), please go to Talk:Dominion Voting Systems, and add it there. Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not necessarily what is official or legal, and we don't wait for formalities like a court making a determination about a legal question; Wikipedia makes no claim as to whether something is true or not, as truth is in the eye of the beholder; Wikipedia is only concerned with verifiability. If you are here to push a conservative or pro-Trump viewpoint, you are going to have a difficult time here. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where we all work together to achieve a consensus as to what an article should say- we do this regardless of political views. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paid to contain content. With rare exceptions, editors are not paid to add or subtract content. Those who accept payment to edit are required to state so on their User pages. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Submitting Work

Whenever I submit pictures on a wiki, and reload, it immediately deletes it in the blink of an eye. For example, for the Commodore Vic-20 wiki, I added a splash screen and reloading it makes it go away almost immediately. How is my artwork going away? StickyChannel92 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears like the edits are reverted by other editors, for example by Chaheel Riens here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I included the following edit summary "not a very good image. Why would you intentionally make the image worse, and draw attention to it?", and also left a welcome template on StickyChannel92's talk page. I'm pretty sure I reverted a few other similar edits as well - Commodore 128[1] springs to mind, because it wasn't even a genuine screenshot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have submitted an article, 'Sara Radstone', which has been flagged for speedy deletion. As she is an eminent artist with no existing Wikipedia page, I have responded fully to contest speedy deletion. How soon will this be reviewed and what happens next? Thanks RSLLX (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@RSLLX: you got lucky, it only got moved to Draft:Sara Radstone. You can improve it there. Things I have noticed:

• Thhe page currently uses plain external links in the body text, while it shouldn't do. Either convert them to inline citations or remove them.
• I am not sure if the page complys with WP:NPOV.
• Please see Help:Wikitext for Wikipedia syntax, for example headings. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RSLLX. Please remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows; and it is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish in reliable sources. Writing an article begins with finding these independent sources, and continues with putting in the article only information and views from these sources. Only if a truly independent reliable source has described the subject as "one of the leading" anything can a Wikipedia article use such evaluative language (quoting the source directly). Please see YFA. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• RSLLX, there does seem to be some chance that Radstone is eligible for a page based on our notability guidelines; I just added two references to the page to help establish that. You still need to do a lot of cleanup to boost your odds of getting it approved, though. Once you've done that, submit it for review using the button I added to the top of Draft:Sara Radstone, and a reviewer will give it a look. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Spelling correction (and move) of a category

I just happened to notice when I was cleaning up articles of Judges of the Maryland Court of Appeals that a bot had moved Category:Maryland Court of Appeals judges to Category:Judgs of the Maryland Court of Appeals; however it's misspelled. It should be Category:Judges of the Maryland Court of Appeals which doesn't exist but can be rectified by a simple spelling correction. But only page movers and admins can do a category move, of which I am neither. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: Done– thanks for bringing this up for attention. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Linking other articles

If I'm making an edit to an article and I want to link another Wikipedia article, I understand that I have to put two brackets around the article name. But what if I want the words displayed to be different from the name of the linked article? For example, if I wanted to have the words "when he was elected" in an article and link it to the "2016 United States presidential election" article, how would I do that? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mrytzkalmyr. Inside the brackets, simply place a pipe symbol "|" after the title, and place what you want to display on the right hand side. So, for example, If I wanted to link to this page, the "Wikipedia:Teahouse", but wanted it to just display as "Teahouse", I would type [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]] (and if I wanted it to link to this internal section, I would type: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Linking other articles|Teahouse]]). See more at Wikipedia:Piped link and Help:Link. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Want to publish and edit articles on chefs

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I work for a public relations company that works with chefs and restaurants. I have updated information on old clients that already have pages. We represent a chef that was a contestant on Top Chef, Sara Bradley. She is mentioned on several Top Chef pages but doesn't have her own page. She was a runner-up. I would like to create a page for her. I do not know if I should list myself as being paid to edit. The more I read, the more confused I become. I use Wikipedia a lot and would like to contribute. I feel in this case I would be adding to information that might be of interest. JulieKB1953 (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

JulieKB1953 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are editing for clients, or otherwise are paid to edit, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy by declaring that status for any clients you have edited for. You should also review conflict of interest. I will post this information on your user page as well. Please understand that Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", it has articles. You are welcome to submit a draft article using Articles for Creation once you have made the appropriate declaration. You should avoid directly editing articles about your clients in most cases, though you are welcome to submit formal edit requests(click for instructions) on article talk pages. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thank you. I am not sure I am answering this correctly. I have not edited current client articles, only past client articles. I understand conflict of interest. I am a former legal secretary so I have respect for full disclosure. I will add paid user to my page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieKB1953 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Point of Inquiry regarding translation.

So if there is a article in another language and I want it written in english, is it possible to translate it myself and get it accepted? MoustafaNassar (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, MoustafaNassar, it certainly is. But there are a couple of things to be careful of: one is that making a translation of material anywhere in any Wikipedia is permitted provided you attribute the source. Secondly, do not assume that an article in another edition of Wikipedia will necessarily be directly acceptable in the English Wikipedia: it may do, but different Wikipedias have different rules and standards, and articles in some editions do not have enough reliable independent references to be acceptable as they stand in English Wikipedia. I recommend treating it as a new article, part of which you are writing by translating from another edition. See Translation for more information on all these points. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi MoustafaNassar. Sure. Please see Wikipedia:Translation. A few things things to note: There's quite a bit of material on the linked paqe; one thing described there that, in my view is very important, is that you comply with the mandatory copyright attribution instructions provided (see also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects). As to acceptance, Wikipedia operates on reliable sourcing to meet all our core policies and guidelines. The mere fact that another language Wikipedia article exists does not mean:

• i) that the foreign language Wikipedia article has been well vetted there – it could be, for example, that it does not meet their [analogue] requirements for verifiability of the information content, and notability of the topic, but hasn't yet had action taken, such as deletion there, or proper editing to make it conform with policy and guideline; and
• ii) other language Wikipedia's may, in any event, have lower standards.

So, I would place at number one on any list for assessing whether to translate a particular article, that you determine for yourself that the topic is notable and the content verifiable, and for that purpose (and to make it easy on yourself), it's probably best to choose an article for translation that is well-sourced and developed.

On that issue, you might look at Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages to see if there are any that don't already have articles here, and I have also found rich picking by going to another language Wikipedia's equivalent (if it has it) of Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@MoustafaNassar:, quick answer (as others have already said): yes, you can do your own translation from other language Wikipedias. I do a lot of translations, so feel free to ask on my Talk page if you have specific questions. Meanwhile, if you need ideas of what to translate, there's a tool that can help you find articles, for example:

• 100 History articles in Bengali Wikipedia, for which English Wikipedia does not yet have an article
• 100 articles about Politics in Kannada Wikipedia, for which en-wiki has no article.

Before starting an article here (whether as a translation, or brand new topic), please make sure that an article doesn't already exist (possibly under some other spelling, or another, related name), or that the topic isn't already included as part of an article on a more general topic, which you could add to.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you accept my article?

Courtesy link and header supplied by third party: Draft:How to prevent the spread of the Flu

Can you accept my article? Jake E Schmidt (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jake E Schmidt. Unfortunately I can't see any scenario where the draft would be acceptable. Consider expanding the prose at the Influenza article. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jake E Schmidt. Please read What Wikipedia is not, which says "an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for some advice on my article

Hi there,

I have made edits to articles in the past, but have never uploaded a new article until today. I followed the tutorial and thought I had done everything right, but maybe not. Please could someone take a look for me at both the content of the (short) article, and the way I have submitted it, and let me know if I have done it right?

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

Many, many thanks in advance,

Tara Kate Turkington (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tara Kate Turkington: Please see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kate Turkington, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem I see with your draft is a complete lack of independent sources: even the newspaper article is words from the subject. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. The first step in writing an article, before writing a single word of it, should be finding such sources, because if they don't exist, then the subject is not notable, and any work put into the article will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Warm Welcome!

Thank you for the warm welcome! I will be sure to look into the Teahouse. Greengrass11 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Greengrass11, thanks for dropping by. If you ever need assistance with editing just let us know; we look forward to helping you out. Good luck with your course. All the best, Zindor (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Text not received at I phone 11

I have tried to install the system on my new I11 Apple: when I fill out all the info it askes me to enter an authentication code from a text. the text never arrives. I have tried 8 times or so... ?? Help Grahare Grahare (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Grahare, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm unsure how your question relates to Wikipedia. Are you trying to download the Wikipedia app? This is a public forum so please don't post your phone number, scammers will add it to call lists and it compromises your anonymity. Zindor (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with cleaning a page!

Hello everyone, is there any experienced editor that would like to help clean this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josef_Yohannes

Many thanks! Seetmoon (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The draft was created and later edited by editors since blocked for being sockpuppets. Also, the image you added is in the process of being deleted from Commons because it is a copyright violation. The draft was submitted to Articles for Creation, but that was reverted because the submitting editor was blocked as sockpuppet. Not clear who would submit it, now. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that there should not be an article about Josef, only that this draft has a troubled history. In passing, Seetmoon, what is your connection to Josef, as your attempt to add an image and your Teahouse question are your only edits to date? David notMD (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello David notMD (talk), I am a friend of his. Is that a problem, I only added a pic, I don't want to edit and I don't know how to submit it through AFC. Can you please do that? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seetmoon (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding disruptive behaviour

Hello. On List of most-streamed artists on Spotify user Thatslit 4356774 has a history of disruptive editing. That includes inserting wrong info and poorly sourced content, and even altering sources for no reason. The user has been warned and reverted but nothing has changed. Looking at their contributions list and the article's history this behaviour is constant. I don't know if that's enough to ask for a block. What should I do? Ïvana (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ïvana, I filed a request on your behalf at WP:AIV here. I'm not an anti-vandalism expert, so I can't guarantee it'll be actioned, though. If it's denied and the user continues disrupting, give them {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} on their talk page, and then report them to AIV again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Plot summary question

I am watching this page and I realized that someone changed the plot so I went back and copying the old plot and pasted it there. It that okay? Would I get in any trouble. I took the old plot and pasted it. Can someone please respond as soon as possible please.  AppleAKB (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just left a response on your Talk page regarding the page in question, Pavitra Bhagya. Csgir (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi AppleAKB. It appears you're asking about Pavitra Bhagya. While you're unlikely going to get into any trouble, you might want to take a look at MOS:PLOT for some relevant information on how such summaries are generally expected to be re-written. It appears that another editor named Csgir has reverted your changes; so, perhaps the thing for you to do know would be to discuss them at Talk:Pavitra Bhagya and see if there's some way to incoporate some additional information into the plot summary in a way that is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Hi, already left a message on AppleAKB's talk page as to why I reverted the edits. The editor copy-pasted the old plot which was tagged for fancruft. I had summarized the old plot into a synopsis. Csgir (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Referencing systems

I've been trying to improve the article on the Eureka Flag and I wanted to know from some more experienced editors what would be the best referencing system to use in this case? Robbiegibbons (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons! That page is already decently well-developed. Per WP:CITEVAR, at that point, we typically follow whatever referencing system has already been established. For that page, it's Citation style 1, which is the most common (and arguably best) citation style on Wikipedia. There's also a bibliography, which might be ideally converted into inline references so that it's clear which specific pieces of information each source is supporting, but that's not a huge deal. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons. Perhaps the thing to do would be to start a discussion about this at Talk:Eureka Flag to see what some others interested in the article might think. I did some very minor clean up, but there's probably still stuff to be done. I wouldn't say the article is completely a pure "Citation style 1" article since there's a mixture of template and non-template formatting being used, but there are ways to work around that and even format non-template citations so that they appear the same as the template ones. The huge bibliography for the article actual makes it seems as if a WP:CITESHORT style could be implemented, but this would be a major change that probably should be discussed first. Other than that, there are a few WP:BAREURLs that probably could be cleaned up without much disagreement per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful and perhaps some additional cleanup per WP:REFNAME for citations cited more than once. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So for example in relation to newspaper articles that have no author or title you just make them appear like template citations as much as you can?Robbiegibbons (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons. It's really the responsibility of the person adding a citation to an article to provide as much information as they can about it per WP:CITEHOW to enable others to verify not only the reliability of the source cited, but also the WP:RSCONTEXT. Ideally, that would mean providing more than simply just the name of a newspaper. However, not everyone either knows enough to do that or wants to take the time to do that, which means others can try and flesh-out a citation if they want.

In most cases like this, simply providing the name of the paper being cited isn't really sufficient and such a citation should be probably replaced with a better one if possible if more information about it can't be found. One would assume that the editor who adds such a citation has actually read the source and verified the relevant content in it per WP:SAYWHERE; so, they would be able to provide something more than just a name. Sometimes though editors simply copy citations they find used on other external websites without actually verifying where they originally came from or whether they support what they're supposed to support. When you come across something like this and you're not able to verify the source yourself, you can sometimes find someone at WP:RX who's able to track down the original source and verify it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The only other thing I need to know for now is if you are using citation method 1 how do you deal with sources quoted within other sources such as the one below?

Anne Beggs-Sunter, "Contesting the Flag: the mixed messages of the Eureka Flag" (paper presented at Eureka Seminar, University of Melbourne History Department, December 1, 2004), in Eureka: reappraising an Australian Legend, ed. Alan Mayne (Perth: Network Books, 2007), 56.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Cropping of text in pdf files

hi, have tried printing a .pdf file of a Wikipedia biography, from Chrome mobile. however, seems like the table with date of birth, spouse, issue etc info, at top of the articles, is appearing along the right margin, in the .pdf files. problem is, text in the table within the .pdf files is being cropped..would it be possible to resolve this issue, and if so, how ? many thanks.. Gfigs (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Gfigs, could you tell us which article you're trying to do this with so we can check out what's happening? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Sdkb, thanks, seems to be happening with many pages. printing .pdf on ISO A1 Letter Size. hope this reply is formatted ok. please check Anne, Princess Royal Gfigs (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Gfigs, hmm, when I try to download that page (by clicking the "download as PDF" link in the left sidebar), it won't even render, returning an error. Could someone else try and see if they can replicate the issue? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also found that the Anne, Princess Royal article had problems. It downloaded (as an 863 kb file) but would not open in Adobe Reader. The problem is not general to all articles, as another one I tried worked perfectly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

---

thanks, seems like there is a rendering problem with tables, in larger pdf page sizes (A0-A3)..tables are being placed in a second column, on the right, that is being cropped.. Gfigs (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Translation or New Article

Sabaton Open Air has on official Wikipedia page, however it is in Swedish. Since I don't know Swedish I cannot transalate it. I stumbled across this while researching about the Sabaton Open Air. I have sufficient information to make a new article for Sabaton Open Air in English. Originally I planned on making a new section for the festival on the official Sabaton (band) page. Should I wait for someone to translate this article or should I make a new section/article in English?SenatorLEVI (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC) SenatorLEVI (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI, I just took a quick look at sv:Sabaton open air. It doesn't seem like the highest-quality article, as it has some maintenance tags, but you could try translating it via Google translate. Swedish Wikipedia has different notability policies than English Wikipedia, though, so it's not guaranteed that a page here would survive just because there's a page there. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, where editors with more subject expertise might be able to give you an idea about whether a separate page or section of an existing page would be best. Often, topics with borderline notability begin as sections of other pages, and get spun off into their own pages only once there's enough editing interest that they can no longer fit on the parent page; that may be what it makes sense to do here. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI, you say that Sabaton Open Air has an "official Wikipedia page"; what do you mean by the latter? -- Hoary (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I see, then I'll ask this question on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal], thank you for answering my question.SenatorLEVI (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: I did not understand your question, what part of my message are you talking about when you say latter?SenatorLEVI (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI, what is "official" about the article sv:Sabaton open air? -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoary Sorry, I mentioned that accidentally, there isn't anything official about it.SenatorLEVI (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI, thank you for the reassurance! -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoary You're welcome!SenatorLEVI (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

New wikipedia editor here

Hi everyone, I am new to wikipedia editing and I would like to improve wikipedia by adding references to articles here about computers and websites. Unfortunately, my first edit was rejected by a more experienced editor and I would like to edit wikipedia productively. Wziki421 (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wziki421 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial and read about citing sources in order to learn more about doing so, first. Another editor reverted your contribution because it just seemed to be letters and numbers, and not an actual citation. If it was an actual citation, I think that you just need to learn more about the process. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Three editors reverted your changes to Internet Protocol and you properly left a message on the Talk page of one of them asking for advice. Many (many!) new editors stumble in their early attempts to create references. Persevere. David notMD (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wziki421: In case you haven't seen it, we have a beginners guide to adding reference. You can find it with this shortcut: WP:REFBEGIN. Should you struggle with it, I made another guide at this shortcut: WP:ERB. I will add that when I began here some years ago it was understanding how to add the all-important references that I found hardest to get my head around. You certainly aren't alone! Always cite properly published works, rather than blogs, social media feeds or personal websites. Those rarely get regarded as 'reliable. See this shortcut (WP:RELIABLE SOURCES) for more information on that topic. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the kind advices, the rules seem pretty daunting, can someone please point me in a direction of a computing group where people with knowledge in computing sources can review my submissions before I make them? Wziki421 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wziki421: There's a list at WP:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science#Computing. Alternatively, you can use the talk pages of the articles which interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull: Thanks for your help :)

Popular article such as Internet Protocol (~1,400 views per day) likely have editors who watch and make frequent edits to. Look at View history to see chronological list of edits and editor User names. You could ask a question on an editor's Talk page rather than here. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Failed verification" template

When do you use the template failed verification an how do you verify a source? THANK YOU :) HotTomatoe (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) HotTomatoe (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi HotTomatoe. The template Template:Failed verification is used when a piece of information in an article has a citation marker (a footnote pointing to a source), but the source doesn't include that information. For instance, if an article about a person says "He was born on 27 April 1733" and the source says "He was born in 1733", that would fail to verify the "27 April" part. Adding the failed verification template is not always the best choice; in some cases it would be better to remove the information from the Wikipedia article (that is often the case if the information is about a living person, per WP:BLP), and if the source contradicts the information (for instance if it says "He was born on 27 August 1733") it should of course be corrected instead. If the information in the article looks like it is probably true, it might be possible to find a source that does verify it – but of course we don't always have the time to do that immediately, and then the failed verification template comes in handy. Adding an explanation in a hidden note after the template is very helpful to editors who come to the article later (so they don't have to guess what it is that wasn't verified, or why the source was left in), but it is of course not mandatory. Hope this makes sense! --bonadea contributions talk 10:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Another thing: it might seem strange that it's sometimes OK to leave a source in if it doesn't verify the information! But often, the source supports part of the information, just not all of it, or it is a reliable source that shows that the subject is notable so it makes sense to use it in the article even if it isn't relevant for the place it was added. If the source doesn't support the info, and it's not a particularly reliable or useful source that adds anything to what the other sources in the article say, it is better to remove the reference and add a citation needed template instead. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Hello Bonadea! I had the idea that failed verification meant you had to use a tool in order to know! I just didn't understand how that template is supposed to be used. But your explanation was so informative and helpful, thanks so much. HotTomatoe (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I have tried to nominate an article for deletion after reading the instructions. However this is not working, can anyone explain it to me or show me how to nominate an article for deletion?SenatorLEVI (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC) SenatorLEVI (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any edits in your history where you attempted to mark an article for deletion. Which article are you talking about? 331dot (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Before you nominate an article for deletion, you should makes sure to do a sufficient WP:BEFORE check, possibly including even the asking for second opinions at any WikiProjects whose scope the concerned article might fall under. It's OK to nominate an article for deletion if you truly think it doesn't satisfy WP:N, but try and remember things like WP:NEXIST because AfD discussions can often sometimes become quite heated, especially when the editor nominating the article for deletion does seem to have tried to consider whether there are any options other than deletion which might be acceptable instead. You should also check the article's talk page to see whether it has been previously been nominated for deletion, and read the previous AfD discussion if it has to see if the concerns you might have about the article were previously discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

331dot I have figured out how to nominate an article for deletion, the problem no longer exists.SenatorLEVI (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly Yes of course. I doubt the discussion will get heated if the editor can make changes in the wording and segregation of the article. Those are not the only flaws however. The article hasn't been nominated for deletion before. But thank you for the advice!SenatorLEVI (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Submission received box re ‘Sara Radstone’

I am RSLLX and have submitted a draft article ( following other drafts and guidance from Sdkb, ColinFine, Victor Schmidt, Iridescent and Moonythedwarf) on ‘Sara Radstone’ it says ‘submission received box will appear’ and it hasn’t- does it take some time?, will it 2A00:23C6:9E0C:6201:60DF:9699:7890:249F (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You said you submitted it but I don't see any signs that you have submitted it. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation for the instructions specifically that you add {{subst:submit}} which you haven't done. I see that you've added a template three times purpose I don't follow but that isn't how you do a submission. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also note that you will get a notification of a response if you are logged in and sign your post S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RSLLX: Draft:Sara Radstone (which was moved to draft from the main encyclopaedia a few days ago) has a box at the top containing a blue button for you to submit the article for review, when ready. It is not quite at that stage yet, I fear. You did right by removing the external links from the text, but the other not very well-cited ceramic review magazines could be improved. It's important that not only can you easily demonstrate that this particular ceramicist meets our 'Notability criteria' defines at WP:NBIO or at WP:NARTIST, but also that the citations allow others to easily verify the information. (See this page for guidance on how to use the 'Cite' button within the editing tool you're using to add good quality sources: Help:Referencing for beginners.) As a lover of contemporary ceramics myself, I am bothered that this article currently only really shows that she is, indeed, a contemporary and well-established artist who has had her work exhibited in numerous places, as many artists also have. It's just being able to jump easily over the general bar of notability that's now required, so well-cited sources outside of the immediate ceramics profession would be most helpful to meet the criteria laid out at WP:NARTIST. Whilst sources do not have to be online, they do need to be sufficiently complete to allow for verification. Page numbers would certainly help. Long lists of uncited exhibition venues aren't of much use, though the most significant ones should be supported with an inline reference. National media coverage of her work in mainstream news outlets (beyond Ceramics Review) might also be welcome. Hope this helps you take this forward. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

From RSLLX, Various Wiki people have raised questions re my article headed Sara Radstone. In terms of WP: Nartist/ WP Author. I note that Radstone has introduced ‘new techniques- see the images provided that I have got together from some recent work. Also Radstone must be considered a reasonably important ceramic figure since she is the subject of dissertations and she has been the sole speaker at prestigious events including The Henry Hammond Memorial Lecture Event 2020 ( just before ‘lockdown’) and she is represented in permanent collections in several very well known galleries including V&A ( almost a whole wall space on 6th floor), Birmingham, York, LA etc. Also she has gained critical attention and been a significant part of significant exhibitions. 2A00:23C6:9E0C:6201:9899:1CD3:6C35:8E7C (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Please log in before asking questions or commenting here at Teahouse. This allows volunteers here to see your contributions as User:RSLLX. Otherwise you show up as an IP address with no edits shown for Radstone. As it exists, it will be Declined, as the great majority of the content is not supported by references. David notMD (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Actor Profile Submission (New)

Dear Teahouse,

I have done some minor edits in the past on the site. I am also a (small $ amount) contributor.

I was a copywriter long ago at Ogilvy & Mather. I have been asked by a talent agent to write and submit to Wikipedia a brief profile of an actor who has done enough professional work that she now feels the time is right for an entry on your site. I have not written anything yet, but will be meeting the actor later today. Can someone point me in the right direction for the protocols for this type of submission? I can see from other entries, that a format is clearly indicated. I'm just not sure how, where, and what I do once I've written the profile.

Please send any instructions to my alerts or notices, or if you have my email address (which I presume you do), feel free to use that as well. I am using a PC.

Sincerely,

Hugh G McCormack Hugh G McCormack (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hugh G McCormack: lets start with WP:PAID. Please be aware that Wikipedia does not contain "profiles", Wikipedia contains articles.

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hugh G McCormack: I'm fixing Victor's failed 'ping' so you get notified of his reply above, and also to point you towards WP:NACTOR for our notability criteria for such people. One further bit of advice: please, please take a camera with you to your meeting. Take their picture and upload it yourself to Wikimedia Commons. Don't upload some press photo that a third party has taken of them - we need to be sure that the uploader owns the copyright and thus has the legal right to release it for commercial re-use themselves. Even if the actor is not currently notable (i.e. it's WP:TOOSOON in their career for an article here, it may be that they will be in the future. Having a nice mugshot all ready to go can be helpful in creating a nice-looking article when and if the time comes. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hi, I have recently started to revert vandal edits. But how would I warn the vandals like you all do? Kajjul (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Check out this article: Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to warn vandalizing users. Le Panini ^Talk 14:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kajjul. What that link fails to explain is that, if you enable WP:TWINKLE in your Preferences, you have access to tools to revert, warn and then maybe to report persistent vandals. Please do not warn a problem editor and then immediately report them to WP:AIV, as I might be the one to ping you back with a message saying you're not doing it right. Warn vandals up to level 4 and then, if they go beyond that, that's the time to report them. I usually keep a tab open on a bad-faith editor and refresh the contributions page after half an hour to see if they've been up to more mischief. For IPv6 editors, check out the contributions made by that account, but also check for the edits made by the many other IPv6 address they might unknowingly have been using in the /64 range. (Just add /64 to the end of the browser url to see all their Contributions and check for any talk page warnings at other addresses) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for helping me out!Kajjul (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why?

Why is my draft getting declined?&anonymous;24.96.151.11 (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@IP does the big pink box at Draft:YNW Bslime not help you? Anything blue in the message are links that you can click Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the teahouse. As just mentioned above, the reason is explained at the top of your draft about Draft:YNW Bslime, and clearly shows you have a lot more work still to do before your draft page about this young person can be accepted on Wikipedia. You will need to find at least three in depth, detailed sources that talk about this person and which show that the world at large has taken notice of and written about this person, or evidence of chart success. (Download counts aren't sufficient in their own right, I'm afraid) If you can't find them, it may simply be (as we call it here) WP:TOOSOON. The rejection note states: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." A further recent comment by a reviewer also points out that "Allmusic.com is not a reliable independent source". An explanation of what makes a good quality, reliable source can be found via this shortcut: WP:RS. The essential criteria for acceptance (called 'Notability') can be found at this shortcut, relating to musicians: WP:NMUSIC. Hope this helps, and good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Notability

Hello. I want to create two articles about living people that have had coverage by reputable media, but I'm not entirely sure if they are "notable" enough for Wikipedia. They are Jim Isabella, a radio talk show host in Northeast Ohio and sports reporter, and Chuck Sincere, the current superintendent of Springfield Local School District in Summit County, Ohio. I would appreciate any guidance on what to do here. Springfield2020 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Springfield2020 You may always create new articles about whichever topic you like. However, make sure you meet the requirements for notability, the link can be found here. Make sure you have enough information from reliable sources. Too less information can cause the article to be rejected. The article needs to have enough information about the personalities you mentioned. Additionally take a look at people who work in similar fields or occupations like the ones you have mentioned to get some clarity on this. Any other questions can be posted or asked here.SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@SenatorLEVI: I'll do that, then. Thank you for the advice! Springfield2020 (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

General advice is develop experience editing existing articles before attempting a new article. When you are ready for the latter, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. David notMD (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi,Springfield2020. What SenatorLEVI meant was that you may always submit a draft, which will be subject to review, and may not be admitted into Wikipedia. Your first priority at the moment is to collect your sources of information for each article, and to assess whether they are independent of their subjects, published in reliable sources, and neutral. But, as David notMD states, it will be a tough slog for you if you haven't first gained experience editing articles on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I better understand the process now. Thank you to you all! Springfield2020 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Springfield2020 You're welcome.

Undermining "The Azande People"

Hello, Is it a crime to edit or add what are relevant to what a person know are relevant to certain tribe especially being from that particular tribe? Azandeintellec (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Azandeintellec: welcome to the Teahouse! It is not a "crime", but it is against Wikipedia's basic policies to add information that is known to ourselves, unless reliable secondary sources have also published the information. That can sound strange, but if you keep in mind the fact that nobody knows who anybody else is on the Internet, you might see why that policy is necessary. The source you have added to Zande people, and which has been removed a couple of times, is housed at Wordpress.com; such websites are almost never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia, because again, anybody can create a Wordpress site. I looked at the web page you linked, which is here, and although that site in itself should not be used as a source, the page contains several other sources that looks like they could definitely be useful here. So what you need to do is go to those sources and extract information from them, which you can add to the Wikipedia article. Important: Please do not copy any text straight from any source. It looks like a couple of your previous edits included text that was copied straight from the Wordpress site. For copyright reasons, Wikipedia articles cannot include any text that has been copied from copyrighted sources, so please make sure that you write up the information in your own words. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the article written in "Equatotia People's Alliance" were originally collectively written by our individual intellectuals across the 3 nations and we owned the article. As you can see under "Religion and Azande Believe" paragraph 3 and 4, you'll see that we put our name there. https://epauf.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/azande-post/ So doesn't sound like we copy and paste someone's work and yes we understood the Equatorian People's Alliance" do use WordPress which is not relevant and Wikipedia doesn't accept it as source of information. But publishing it in Equatoria People's Alliance doesn't mean it ain't in our own words. If needed, we or Equatoria People's Alliance can prove it to you as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azandeintellec (talk • contribs) 16:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I may have been unclear – sorry about that. What I meant was that when you edited the Wikipedia article Zande people, you added text to that article that was word-for-word identical to parts of the source article from Equatoria People's Alliance. That violates the copyright of the Equatoria People's Alliance website. Concerning the reliability of the source, you could ask about that at the Reliable sources noticeboard. That a website is hosted on Wordpress is not necessarily a guarantee that it cannot be used as a source, but it would be much better to use the sources from that website and base your additions on those. Not all of the sources there are reliable, for instance, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as sources in other Wikipedia articles.

I notice that you use the pronoun "we", and want to make you aware of the fact that Wikipedia user accounts must only be used by one individual, they cannot be shared. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Using "we" word doesn't reflect to the person using account in here. The word "We" was used to referred to the article published in Equatoria People's Alliance and which was collectively written by various Azande individuals within the 3 countries.

I believe, it wouldn't sound well if I use the word "I" while referring to that particular article yet there were many people who tirelessly contributed their perceptions into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azandeintellec (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Azandeintellec, please note that when you recently stated, "Hello, We think it's unfair for you removing the added articles we think are the right relevant information on the Azande. Please re-add back what we had added and here is the source of our information we added about the Azande people." (emphasis added), you were using those pronouns in a way that implies a shared account. Wikipedia is not for the purpose of righting great wrongs.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating an article about people

 TheRealSocialDuchess (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)how do i create an article about people?

@TheRealSocialDuchess: Try follow these steps:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Band member history timeline questions

I normally believe that touring musicians shouldn't be on the timeline, like when a band has one guitarist who records all the guitar tracks in the studio, but has a touring guitarist for live performances. However, I believe exceptions should be made when a band has instrumental vacancies. Chicago only had a touring guitarist from Chicago XIV to Chicago 16. Paramore only had a touring drummer from 2010 to 2017. Paramore currently only has a touring bassist. I feel that adding touring musicians in these special cases is appropriate. Kart2401real (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kart2401real, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss that is on the talk pages of the relevant articles; or, if you feel there is a general principle, on WT:WikiProject Musicians. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm not new but...

I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a bit over 10+ years. Though as I've gone through my contributions, I've noticed I'm less of an "editor" and I'm more attached to Wikipedia-space or project-space, such as WP:ITN. I realize that as far as being a good editor, this doesn't cut muster. Sometimes I just feel like I'm blowing smoke without actually contributing. But I'm also unsure as to how to contribute to areas that I'm interested in, since it seems like most of the obvious details have been hashed out already. What can I do to improve myself as an editor and be a better contributor? WaltCip-(talk) 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WaltCip, and welcome. You are an editor. I've been editing for over fifteen years, but less than 25% of my edits are to article space. I still believe that I bring value to Wikipedia. For you: Does anything at Community Portal (scroll down to "Help out") grab your interest? --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@WaltCip: I agree with Colin: you have made over 6,000 contributions here, albeit in areas that many editors don't contribute to. But that's no bad thing, and you've been doing your bit for the hundreds of thousands of visitors to the Main Page in that time. But if you are feeling a little bit jaded (and we all get that at times) it is certainly worth doing what you're doing now, and seeking new ways to maintain your interest and develop as an editor.

You do, certainly, have a surprisingly low edit count into article mainspace, but it sounds like you want to start contributing there more. You didn't say what your subject interests are, but there is an extremely good way to find articles that need improving on topics that you're interested in. Simply find a page on a subject of interest, then go to its talk pages and follow links to the relevant WikiProjects. Most of these Projects have Quality Assessment tables - multicoloured things that I ignored as too complicated for years, but then discovered they are a great way of finding important topics that need improving. Every article that has been tagged as falling under that topic is likely to have been given an 'Importance' rating and a 'Quality' rating from Stub to Featured Article. See a live example below: This one comes my pet area: WP:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps:

The Lenzspitze - an important mountain in the Swiss Alps, but still only a 'Stub' Class article.

Mountains of the Alps articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
GA	1	1					2
B	7	3	3	1			14
C	12	24	26	41		2	105
Start	5	82	231	394		2	714
Stub		22	213	2,010		2	2,247
List		1	4			1	6
Category					50		50
File					6		6
Portal					2		2
Project					2		2
Template					5		5
NA	1			3	5		9
Assessed	26	133	477	2,449	70	7	3,162
Total	26	133	477	2,449	70	7	3,162
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 17,518			Ω = 5.68

• The vertical columns show the assessed importance of the articles (Top, High, Mid, Low & Unassessed)
• The horizontal rows allow you to see how many articles of each Quality Assessment fall into each Importance grouping. By clicking on any number, you get a list of all those corresponding articles

So (assuming that you actually like snowy mountains!), either Stub or Start class articles that are of Top or High importance would be ideal targets for your attention. They are often the easiest to improve and, being assessed as highest priority, are likely to get the greatest traffic. Thus I see there are 12 articles currently deemed of Top importance that are 'Start' class, and 67 'Stub' articles of 'High' importance. I click the number and find these 12 articles that might interest me. Admittedly, the assessment is very subjective (see Wikipedia:Content assessment), but we have lots of WikiProjects who have these tables, and they can be a great place to look for ideas to work on.

The other side of the coin is that improving very heavily viewed articles means that any change you make will be seen by lots of people (see example for Covid-19 Pandemic), though probably the individual impact of your one single edit there might be a lot less. If you'd like to tell us a little more about what subjects interest you, we might be able to offer some additional pointers.

I hope this helps a bit. Let us know how you get on! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and ColinFine: Thank you both for your input and advice! This is extremely helpful.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Musicians & Bands

I was curious what the standard formatting conventions for articles on musicians and bands was. I've made a few articles for smaller artists, but I've come across a few different formats.

The most common format I've seen is:

1. Introduction + Infobox
2. Early life
3. Career
4. Personal life
5. Discography
   1. Studio albums
   2. Mixtapes
   3. Extended plays
   4. Singles
   5. Guest appearances
   6. Compilation appearances
6. Concerts, tours, festivals, and other live performances
   1. Headlining
   2. Co-headlining
   3. Supporting
7. See also
8. References
9. Further reading
10. External links
    1. Official Website
    2. ArtistName discography at Discogs

I'm mostly curious about the outliers though and whether it's okay to do them or how to do them. For instance, I've seen sections dedicated to a list of music videos. If I want to include a list of music videos should it be under a header or should it be included in the External links list at the end of the article (or should it not be done at all)?

I've also seen people use AllMusic instead of Discogs. I'm curious which one is the recommended choice or whether including both is appropriate. I'm also curious about the formatting for the external link to the website if their music is distributed on BandCamp; should it be "Official Website at BandCamp", "Official BandCamp Account", or just "Official Website"?

Is there a standard location for including "Awards", "Achievements", "Honors", etc. and is there a standard wording for the header of the Awards section or the Concerts section because the two seem to be the most inconsistent naming-wise? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. This would be within the purview of WP:WikiProject Musicians. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User Page

Hi, I have a question, how can I make a box on the right side of my user page that I can put userboxes here?Thanks you. Larryzhao|Talk|Contrib 17:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If you put Userboxtop before your list of userboxes and Userboxbottom at the end, each inside double curly brackets {{ }} it should stack your userboxes on right side. David notMD (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 21:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bernice Gera article

Bernice Gera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Wikipeople and thank you for all you do! Reading the Bernice Gera (first professional female umpire)article-it fails to mention that upon stepping on the field in front of thousands for her first professional game, one of the owners (I'll check) forcefully grabbed her and kissed her without her permission during "introductions". (Nora Ephron-Crazy Salad). I am new to joining Wikipedia and I am writing to ask how to add this info to the article. Whats my next step?

Thankyouthankyouthankyoutha... KWOKKA (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@KWOKKA:, as a new user, you will probably want to familiarize yourself with the Core Content Policies. Anything we mention needs to be verifiable via a source that is referenced so we'd need something that relayed this incident. I think that's what you're trying to do by mentioning Nora Ephron's Crazy Salad but we'd need at least a page number and edition date to verify it. I'll also leave you some links on your user talk page that you may find interesting and helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

How To Reply to Comments on my Query

Several people have offered detailed responses to my Teahouse query on new article submission. It is not clear to me how to respond to each commenter. I tried the 'talk' button, but was only able to reach one commenter. Generally, how do I reach someone who is commenting on my question? Is there a set protocol? Hugh G McCormack (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Every editor has their own Talk page. You already left a message on one, and had a reply. You also confirmed your situation is paid, so please add that to your User page using the instructions provided. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hugh G McCormack. You can reply to an individual editor on their own user talk page; but I prefer to keep a discussion in one place. I have replied to this question of yours by:

• Picking "edit" on the particular section of the Teahouse
• Indenting my reply one step by starting each paragraph with one colon (I've done some other things with asterisks for a list, but you don't need to worry about that).
• Pinged you by putting {{U|Hugh G McCormack}} in my message (as you see here, not as you can see it if you edit the source of my reply). Other people use different templates such as {{ping}} or {{re}} rather than my {{U}} but they are all roughly the same.
• Signing my posting with four tildes (~~~~) - if you don't sign it, the ping won't work.

You should receive a notification from my ping, which will direct you here. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

contribution hidden

I contributed the below missing lyrics a few years back, I was telling a Traditional Jazz band member but we could not find them at the time Has been removed and replaced by some info on a performer

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=I_Wouldn%27t_Leave_My_Little_Wooden_Hut_for_You&oldid=578879278 Awopbopa (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Awopbopa and Welcome to the Teahouse. It is rarely appropriate to put lyrics in a Wikipedia article: see NOTLYRICS. An article about a song should summarise what independent writers have said about the song in reliably published sources - history, reception, prominent performances etc), and if there are not enough of these sources, then the song does not merit an article about it. In this case, it has been redirected to an artist who was presumably associated with the song, (but since it doesn't mention the song, that doesn't make much sense, and it would be better to delete the article about the song). --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bernard Baruch#Presidential adviser: First World War

 Courtesy link: Bernard Baruch § Presidential adviser: First World War

A citation dated 1921, uses the phrase "World War I". I think that phrase was not coined until there was a "World War II". KKMI1740 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem odd, KKMI1740. The citation is not cited to a source, and it is not clear when it was made - presumably it was 1921, when "World War I" would be anachronistic. But Talk:Bernard Baruch is the place to bring this up. --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph was added by an IP user in 2014, so we can't ask them about it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Taxon changes.

Dear Teahouse,

Hello. I use iNaturalist, and I flagged the taxon Biston betularia to include multiple subspecies. However, some of these subspecies are not included in the taxonomy section in Wikipedia. I tried to add Biston betularia alexandrina under the subspecies heading, but the text did not format correctly. I am assuming this is because the subspecies is not included in the cited text for the subspecies section. How would I add additional sources that include this subspecies, or other subspecies, without causing formatting problems in already established subspecies section?

Thank you for reading this message.

Kind Regards,

Haemocyanin11 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Haemocyanin11, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your problem. You've successfully added photos of more subspecies to Peppered moth, so I presume the problem was in added subspecies to the Taxobox; but there is no attempt by you to edit the taxobox in the history. I guess this means that you previewed your change and then abandoned it, but that means we can't see what you tried, so can't help you with the problem. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I fixed the problem on my own. All I needed to do was add double apostrophes instead of quotes for the formatting of the newly added subspecies. Thank you for respoding.

Kind Regads,

Haemocyanin11 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Referencing

How do I add a reference in my article? Ameliarose07 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ameliarose07, Try checking out Wikipedia:Citing sources, a policy page. Le Panini ^Talk 00:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Beaney

How do we put a image for a person? AirCrow (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

AirCrow, see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/All if you are using the source editor, or Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1 if you are using the visual editor. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

list of female classical conductors

How do I add the name and credentials of a female conductor that was a pioneer in this field? 70.187.195.164 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are you looking to add them? If you want to create a page, see Help:Your first page. If you want to add them to List of female classical conductors, just edit the page and add them (preferably with a reference—if they don't have a Wikipedia page, you'll probably need two high-quality references to establish notability). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

How do they determine someone is paid to make an entry?

I am not paid to write Wikipedia articles, but I often think of articles that I would like to see in here, so I attempt to write them. I tend to use code examples from pages that seem to work and have been up a while, since I am not technically inclined - I just change details and use existing structure. This made one of my drafts get flagged as paid. I wish I got paid to do this, but I dont get a penny. What can I do to prove this and let my pages move forward? MoviesAndMusicFan (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

MoviesAndMusicFan Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. One cannot prove a negative, so if you are not paid, simply say so. Do you have any conflict of interest with the subject? 331dot (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

MoviesAndMusicFan, whether an editor is paid or not is ultimately partly on the honor system, but we do have methods to catch undisclosed paid editors. Paid editors tend to have a specific editing style that makes them spottable.

Sometimes articles are tagged by mistake, though. If that's happened to one of yours, the first thing to do is make sure that there's not any unwarranted promotional language. Then just message the editor who added the tag, tell them you're not a paid editor, and they'll likely trust you. As far as moving the pages forward, that depends on where they are currently, but just continue following the process. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for responding!! Oooh maybe the code I drew from was from someone who was paid - that makes sense... it was well done. All I want to do is start an article that winds up online. My roommate is in the music industry so I hear stuff and then I want other fans to know - is that a conflict of interest? I usually dont even tell her I post it.MoviesAndMusicFan (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello MoviesAndMusicFan. You cannot add anything that you learned from conversations with your roommate. That is original research which is forbidden by policy. You can only add content that summarizes what published, reliable sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh I just know what to look up because of what I hear. I never do things without references. I will hit you on your page if that is ok - I really just want to make an entry that is done right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoviesAndMusicFan (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between non-constructive and disruptive?

I frequent the recent changes page to help catch vandals, people trying to disrupt the workflow, and others who might not have known better. During this, I like to use RedWarn to rollback issues made. However, I came across an edit which made me contemplate what the difference between a "non-constructive edit" and a "disruptive edit". The edit consisted of a random garbled mess, but didn't really delete anything. It was just as if someone found the edit feature, and decided to spam random keystrokes.

Of course, navigating Wikipedia for editing documentation for such a thing is almost impossible. The search built into Wikipedia only returns pages that contain "non" in the title, and nothing about editing. I tried Google, but Google returns the disruptive edits page, and nothing talking about what non-constructive edits mean.

Can someone please explain to me what the difference between the two is, and maybe give me some tips on how to: search better, find better places to look, and/or give me good resources, so that I possibly won't have a need to ask questions on Teahouse anymore? JMVR1 (Communicate) (Validate my actions (for my ego, ofc)) (Email me) :) 04:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@JMVR1: I use Huggle, so forgive me if I'm missing something. Basically, an edit has to be an effort to improve Wikipedia (whether or not it actually does isn't the point). "Non-constructive" generally falls under WP:NOTHERE and is pretty generic: anything that shows that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia falls under that category. "Disruptive" falls under WP:DISRUPT, where their actions are actively undermining Wikipedia and its processes. However, they're really, really similar, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. When you see a bad edit (like keyboard mashing), just revert it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I must be stupid

I have tried really hard to be respectful and constructive on WP. Mainly I have tinkered around the edges, removing very obvious vandalism, simple copy-editing, and what I believed to be uncontroversial updates.

It's in this last category that I seemed to have gone awry in the last few months. I tried this edit, immediately reverted without explanation, and again.

Although it's only a couple of words, I thought it was important. To discuss my case for changing, I went to Talk page and asked for reasoning behind the reversion. I found the reply unconvincing. However, I am an inexperienced editor, and also did not want to do anything to be a nuisance, so added more to my arguments on Talk page. (I accept that I may not be right, but I must say I found the retort of "POV edit" highly dubious and without merit! A specific counter-argument would have been appreciated. Instead, I think a WP "no-no" was used as sledgehammer to, seemingly, smother another perspective.)

Nothing came of that attempt to have others discuss, and today I thought I might gently try again. As a prelude, I looked at what I had written earlier and thought: "I made the proverbial wall-of-text. No-one would wade through all that!" So I re-arranged my earlier comments, only to reduce the length, not to hide anything. Much to my surprise, my re-jigging was reverted 20 minutes later, without explanation - specific edit summary.

Is it because I am an unregistered User? I understand that my viewpoint is not necessarily the one that's adopted. I am completely on board with the consensus process, but these responses seem a bit haphazard or automatic. I am doing my utmost to comply with both the letter and spirit of WP processes and policies. Am I missing something?

Perhaps it's not worth this much effort?

Can you offer advice, please? 180.216.180.68 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In theory all editors are equal, but in practice given how often IPs are unconstructive, many editors tend to revert them a little quicker than registered editors. You always have the option to create an account if you want to, though. From the history, it looks like you restoring your modification stuck, so just continue discussing the issue, and if needed, seek dispute resolution. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I read your discussion and actually agree with you also about using extermination versus euthanasia. I also think you should unblock the text - it's not overly long, but I didn't want to be rude and reformat your comments. I think you also need to get other uninvolved editors involved. Please consider starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I left a comment at Talk. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll also be joining the discussion there shortly, but I'll try to read up a bit on the issue first. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Images, emojis query

How do I make an image look like a letter or emoji character? NonPopularPerson (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@NonPopularPerson: I'm not following the question. An emoji is an image. Can you provide more info? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SMILEY may have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion

How do I add Transclusion to a chart? Rubiex (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rubiex. Please explain more clearly what you are trying to do. You transclude by including the pagename between double curly brackets {{ }}, and if it doesn't start with a namespace, Template: is assumed. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Name Change

Hi - I'm just starting on this escapade!

I've started a page for a mountain in Hong Kong, and I'd like to change the name away from the Jyutping spelling to the more common form.

Can someone kindly point me in the direction of how to edit a page title?

Many thanks,

Duncan Vespasianus Maximus (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page as part of another reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Which form of Cantonese Romanization does Wikipedia use as Standard?

Dear all,

I'm wanting to create and overhaul some pages about mountains in Hong Kong. It's a nightmare and there are links that take you to pages not yet created. Some mountains are nigh-on impossible to find in Google. This is partly because of huge confusion over the standard way to portray Cantonese names in the Roman Alphabet, and there are many systems, meaning that a word may start with a G, a K or even others.

So, my question is - what is the standard for Cantonese Romanisation?

Any answers gratefully received!

Duncan Vespasianus Maximus (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Saving changes before a change is ready to publish

How do I save changes to new material in an existing article, when i am half way through and not ready to press the publish button? Im using opera and android 10 for my browser. Garboard Strake (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Garboard Strake. I can appreciate your concerns. There are four main ways you could approach this:

1. Publish the half-completed edit, leaving a clear Edit Summary explaining further edits will follow imminently, especially if you've still to add supporting citations (see WP:EDITSUMMARY)
2. Add an 'in use' template to the top of the page. This won't stop others editing or reverting if they really want to, but it's a good way of politely requesting others not to edit for a short while. It should be quickly removed after editing is complete. See Template:In use
3. Work on one section at a time, saving after each section is edited, before moving on to another section. (Again, leave clear edit summaries as you go)
4. Copy a single section of an article to your sandbox (noting in an edit summary where it came from so that attribution is understood). Make changes to that section in your sandbox, and paste back in to original article. Do not attempt to do a major restructure of an entire article this way, as it will make it hard to determine who has edited what in the past. If you feel this is is only way forward, you could ask on the article talk page for people to look at your sandbox reworked version and attempt to gain consensus for it being used as a replacement.

Do any of these approaches appeal? I would always advise to edit in small steps, giving clear, helpful edit summaries. That way, if anyone takes exception to one element of your editing, but feels the others are fine, they will be able to find and revert just that bit, rather than reverting your entire set of edits. Looking at the article you've been editing (but not commenting directly on the contents you've added) I would make two important suggestions. Firstly, don't mark any edit as 'minor' unless it is literally a typofix or grammar change. Single words added or taken away can seriously impact on an article's meaning, so avoid tagging even that as 'minor' (See WP:MINOREDIT for more guidance). Secondly (and this is partly the fault of past editors, as well as yourself: avoid adding repeating citations in a way that makes them appear two, three or four times in the references section, when all that has changed is the individual page number. This really needs cleaning up, and there is a simple way around this...

...To reuse a reference, you simply give the reference a name, then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to re-enter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation. You can then use the {{rp}} template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this: First fact found on page 29 of a book. Second fact found on page 114 from the same book.

Hope this all makes sense Nick Moyes (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Hello, Garboard Strake. The only way to save material anywhere within Wikipedia is to use the "Publish" button: it was renamed this from "Save" to remind people that as soon as you save it, it can be seen by anybody.

In general, I would advise making many small changes to an article rather than few large changes; but if that is unavoidable and you need to stop half way, the best thing is to copy the relevant part of the article (of the source, of course) into a User sandbox. You can edit it there and "publish" your changes - they will be visible to anybody, but your sandbox won't be indexed, and nobody is likely to find it unless they go looking. When you have it in the form you like, you can copy it back to the article. Have a look at copying within Wikipedia to make sure you are working consistently with the licence. You might want to put the {{in use}} template on the section while you are working, but read the Template page before you do. --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predeterminism

Looking to add/clarify a point as follows: The essence of Predetermined is that it is INHERENT in the potential of Language (letters, symbols, numbers and shapes). Anagrams are quite important in this regard. None more so than “The Eyes <>They See” but for WWII fans “Mother in Law <> Woman Hitler” is .... well 😂 (Obv not worthless as the article states). This is quite distinct from Predestined which is the will of a divine entity. Robin 1972 09 10 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for the article Predeterminism, feel free to make it at Talk:Predeterminism. Be sure to the cite authoritative sources on which you are basing what you write. -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Town of Stoughton

Our Mayor has changed and so has the population. 142.165.255.83 (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to specify which Stoughton, as there are many different ones. The best place to discuss would be the talkpage of the article. Populations are usually taken from the latest country wide census. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Judging by their IP address, this will be Stoughton, Saskatchewan. Published, reliable sources to show name and population changes will definitely be needed. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Genocide

Why aren't Native Americans listed under the "List of Genocides by Death Toll". 8 or 9 million just from the initial Spanish invasion, 55+ million before being "protected" & isolated on reservations. 47.219.21.68 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)