Wikipedia:Teahouse

David Biddulph, 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

Sources in drafts: Part II

I have seen that my thread about drafts was archived almost a month ago. I have some doubts that are still unsolved, but I will start with the tweets. I have found two tweets that might be useful: this one might help to verify André's cameo on Red's Dream (although the user misnamed André by the bee's name instead of his actual name, which it is derived from a Greek word meaning "man") and the other one might verify the existence of a Christmas card featuring André and Wally B., as well as the Stained Glass Knight from Young Sherlock Holmes.

Whilst Twitter is included in the list of sources which are unacceptable, I have seen that there is a template about using tweets as references. In brief, I have had to ask about the use of these tweets before including them in the Pixar-themed draft, as I do not know that these tweets are reliable or not.--André the Android^(talk) 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, André the Android. I'm afraid not. The only circumstances in which a user-generated source like Twitter can be used are 1) when the subject of an article tweets from their verified Twitter account, in which case information can be used in the limited ways allowed for Self-published sources; or 2) in theory, if the tweet is from the verified account of a recognised expert in the field (this exception is occasionally used for blogs; I've never heard of it being used for Tweets). A tweet by a random person on the internet is never acceptable as a source. (See WP:TWITTER and WP:TWITTERREF.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about the tweets' reliability, it is clear that unverified accounts make more mistakes (and even misspellings) than verified ones. According to this wiki's rules, I would add one of them (about André's first and only cameo) to the draft I created before and the list of Pixar film references if Pixar's official Twitter account was more aware of earlier short films Pixar has produced like The Adventures of André & Wally B. However, all Pixar films (including Luca, which it is my least favourite Pixar film to date) are overhyped so it is impossible to find reliable sources to help verify it.

I have another question related to books as sources: a few days ago I received a copy of The Art of Pixar Short Films (an art book from The Art of... series which was written by Amid Amidi and was published by Chronicle Books) as a Christmas present and I think this book is not only useful, but it can also be reliable. For example, I discovered that the fictional character is not only named after one of the protagonists of My Dinner with André, but also his name has the same prefix as the "android" term. That is why I think this book may help to verify information.--André the Android^(talk) 14:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And one more thing: I tried searching in Wikipedia if there is an article in mainspace with any book from The Art of... series which were published by Chronicle Books (but not including any mentioned) and I find nothing more than unrelated articles (including political ones and San Francisco Chronicle). Then I tried again using the name of an art book about a feature film as an example and it only appeared in the feature film's article's "Further reading" section instead of the "References" one. It is clear that an art book like The Art of Pixar Short Films can be included in the "Further reading" section of any article, but what I still don't know is if these can be used as references, so I need to know if it is reliable enough to be included in the "References" section.--André the Android^(talk) 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@André the Android: We have an article for Chronicle Books that briefly mentions the series. Does the book have endnotes with sources? That can be an indicator that a book has been well researched (though conversely its absence doesn’t mean the book is unreliable). Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:21 Thu 31, AEDT) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

With what you had answered, it sounds like you had answered differently although I asked a different question. But I have reread the two last sentences of your answer a few times and it seems that any installment of this series of art books is reliable according to what you have said.

Besides, I'm doubting if entries published on Animation World Network's blog section like this one counts as a reliable source. I have tried searching in Wikipedia any article that contains a blog post (from Animation World Network) for reference, but I can't find it anywhere.--André the Android^(talk) 17:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear about the book, André, I meant that reliability is something that you might judge from the book itself, rather than our coverage of it. But the fact we have an article about the series (which you uncovered) could help convince people that it's a serious work and not some vanity publication.

For the AWN review: Even though they call it a "blog" on the site, it's not that different from a recurring column in a magazine. Given Rick DeMott's credentials as a former content director there, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it. Personally, I feel that it depends on what kind of assertion you are trying to support. BLPs and controversial topics need impeccable sources; non-controversial statements not so much. Others may disagree with me, of course. If you can source the same fact from both AWN and the book, even better. But sources supporting facts is different from sources establishing notability. The AWN piece only describes André within the context of the short film's plot.

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:15 Thu 31, AEDT) 01:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic: As this book's name suggests, the book I mentioned is notable in itself and forms part of The Art of... series. I was very surprised that this book was not mentioned anywhere in the article about this series of art books, so I will add it later.

And about the two sources, I have planned to add The Art of Pixar Short Films and the blog post from Animation World Network to the draft as references. The art book will be added as a reference in the draft's "Concept and creation" section, whereas the blog post may be included as a reference in its "Physical appearance" subsection. For the latter case, the reason is because the "Description" section is mostly unreferenced.--André the Android^(talk) 16:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Text Layer on svg images being changed by wikipedia

Text on svg images I have created are being edited once shown on the page. I see the font hs changed, and that seems to be it. Not sure why, and is there anything I can do to stop this? I wasn't expecting it, and due to this, once I uploaded the file, it looked all messed up. I'll show the file if you need it, but I bet this has happened to a lot of people, so there's probably an easy explanation Xiphactinus A (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xiphactinus A: Please provide an example. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xiphactinus A: there are some issues around fonts used in SVG images, and it depends on how the file was saved – with fonts set to use the system default, with just the name of the font and the font expected to be present elsewhere, with full outlines (but some fonts are copyright and should not be exported in this way), etc. So as AlanM1 says we need to see an example. It's not specifically due to Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: this vs. this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiphactinus A (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xiphactinus A: I took a look at the raw .svg file after download from Commons. It uses "font family = Serif" for the text, so I guess that means that it gets rendered with some arbitrary Serif font that may be different when seen in your browser and via Wikipedia. You could probably redo the file with a specific font supported by Wikipedia. You can seek out more specialist help at WP:SVG_help. They have helped me in the past. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnball: well thanks for that. Xiphactinus A (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Pinging Michael D. Turnbull) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Who was the youngest WP administrator? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 21:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi LightningComplexFire. We don't know. Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors advices to not give out age. Administrators are not required to reveal their age or identity. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: Noting your signature, I need just to comment to you that it is up to you to add pages to your watchlist if you have posted there and want to be aware of replies. Expecting others to ping you is not always reasonable, and just comes across as laziness to me. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps changing "always" to "please" would soften the tone. Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:40 Wed 30, AEDT) 12:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, hahaha, I forgot to ping @LightningComplexFire ... I swear that wasn’t intentionally pointy! Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:42 Wed 30, AEDT) 12:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

LightningComplexFire, obviously we can't tell IRL, but by account creation date, the youngest active human (not bot) account is GeneralNotability, which was created on November 28th 2018. A list of admins sorted by tenure is available here. Giraffer ^{(Merry·Christmas)} 08:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and Pelagic: The sig doesn't mean you must ping me it just says I like it better than looking through my contributions --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 14:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, LightningComplexFire: "always/must" is precisely how I read it, and I find it a quite presumptive of you. We all know to ping people when replying, so seeing this in your signature makes me not want to bother (which is why I intentionally didn't bother pinging you when you posted your later question here, and probably won't in future, either, when I see it) . You're welcome to keep it in your signature if you really wish to, but I suggest you do think about altering it so something a little less irritating to other users, as Pelagic suggested above. (But feel free to ignore my advice as being that of a grumpy old curmudgeon. I don't mind either way!) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

updated information and biography

Hello, I am attempting to update the Wikipedia entry for Felicity Abbott Production Designer. I am Felicity Abbott. This page was written by a third party and is 10 years out of date. It contains dead links and outdated information. All attempts at updating this page have been undone by Kemalcan, who has sent me a message saying that I will be blocked the next time I "vandalize Wikipedia". I'm simply trying to update an existing page with current information. How can I go about this? ANTIPODEANFA (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ANTIPODEANFA. Unfortunately we cannot accept updates without reliable published sources, as we have no way of telling who your are. Please see WP:ABOUTYOU for ways to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you would want to delete mention of earlier achievements, ANTIPODEANFA, but if you describe your concerns at Talk:Felicity Abbott then your note will stay on the record associated with the article. Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:36 Wed 30, AEDT) 12:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Schwarz triangle

I have tried to create a template to produce a Schwarz triangle (Template:Schwarz Triangle), but it does not seem to work—see the documentation. Is anyone able to help? DBoffey (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you using {{Schwarz Triangle}} which does not exist or {{Schwarz triangle}} which is the correct name? Template names are case sensitive. RudolfRed (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

forgot to ping @DBoffey: RudolfRed (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In Template:Schwarz triangle/doc you say {{Schwarz|...}} which doesn't exist either. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There was a further problem with my example, namely, I was using the pipe symbol in the data, which, no doubt, Wikipedia translated as a field separator. DBoffey (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have amended the template Template:Schwarz triangle, but I am still having problems trying to get the text overlaid. Also, the image always appears on the right of the page, whereas I would like to control its placement. Any help much appreciated. DBoffey (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@DBoffey: {{Annotated image}} has a float parameter for placement. You can just say |float = {{{float|}}} to pass it on. {{Schwarz triangle/line}} calls the non-existing {{Annotate}}. Maybe you want {{Annotation}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Past Wikipedia "financial" contributions credit before I set up Wikipedia account

Took the the time to set up a Wikipedia account, then realized that I had contributed in the past. Is it possible to associate my name/email with those contributions? Flexsoman (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flexsoman. I don’t think there’s any way to merge two accounts into one since each account needs to be properly attributed for the edits it has made. I think the best you can do is pick the one that you want to use from here on and then add a link to the other account to the user page of the one you keep. You may be able to use the template {{User previous account}} to do that or you can just add a link manually. A better option, however, might be to simply stop using this account if you’re still able to access the older one. You’ve only made one edit with this account and nobody will know or care that you created it as long as you don’t make any more edits with it. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flexsoman: You changed the heading of this thread with this edit after I had already responded which completely changes the context of your question and my response. Please try to avoid doing such a thing in the future. If you want to clarify something, then it’s better to do by simply posting in the thread itself per WP:REDACT. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flexsoman in the heading you mention financial contributions, they are completely irrelevant and intentionally not connected to your username. There is a (legally required?) wall between the business activities of the WMF and the content creation process on Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Flexsoman You are welcome to tell people that you have made donations to Wikipedia, and as editors we thank you, but whether you donated or not is not something that you are required to share with us. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, not us editors. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice

 Courtesy link: Draft:Hector Carlos Lora

Hi! So I wrote a draft to an article recently but the person on whom I the article about was placed as a redirect. So now I am seeking to have the redirect replaced by my draft. Is there any specific advice you could offer me as to how I could achieve this? Anything you are able to tell me will be of immense help. Thank you for your time, LMPAJ (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide the link to draft and/or the redirect? SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

LMPAJ, welcome to the Teahouse. Before you consider moving it into mainspace, I suggest pinging the reviewers on the talk page to receive input. From what I can tell there has been a problem with promotional language used on both the draft and article before the latter was turned into a redirect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt reply. The link to the redirect is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaic,_New_Jersey#Government and the link to the draft was pasted above. The promotional language was erased, but then one of the later editors told me that my next step should be to have appeal the draft article to be published instead of the redirect, which is why I am asking for advice on how to do that. I don't know how to convince them properly or what even my next step should be to achieve such a task. Thank you, LMPAJ (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft

Hello! I wrote an acticle about a Tunisian actor Mohamed Mrad in English Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia. My article is translated from French Wikipedia I'm just a fan and a writer. I don't know him personally. There are Arabic and French wikipedia and I cited several notable sources like Kapitalis, Mosaïque FM, Africultures, Tuniscope, Assabah News and others. The Draft is declined and an editor has requested deletion of my article in simple English. They believe it is spam or advice . Help --ChrisMat2020 (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ChrisMat2020 (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi ChrisMat2020 in my opinion the rejection (not decline) of the draft is not justified. Even with my very limited understanding of French I could pick up that at least some of the sources appear to be mainstream media. I wonder if the reviewer even looked at the sources or has significant knowledge of the languages concerned (French and Arabic). In my (not so humble) opinion a Rejection at AFC must be held to the same standard as a deletion nomination at AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ChrisMat2020 I suggest you go to the Talk page of the reviewer who Rejected the draft User:ImprovedWikiImprovment and ask to reconsider. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisMat2020, Dodger67, and David notMD: Oh dear. I meant to decline the draft, not reject it. I had read the sources on the article, and deemed them to be insufficient at this time, but I don't think it was correct to reject it entirely. I apologise. I have self-reverted and declined the draft instead. --IWI (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article about myself

 Dr Prasun Chatterjee (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dr Prasun Chatterjee please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for some valuable advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr Prasun Chatterjee: Please see your talk page (User talk:Dr Prasun Chatterjee), where messages have been left about your draft being declined three times, primarily for the same reason – that the references you have provided are not sufficient to demonstrate notability, which is required in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about you. Of the many billions of people that have existed in the history of the world, a very small percentage are notable enough to have an article in this encyclopedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Apparently about 107 Billion!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for that. Interesting read. So if we have a million bio articles, that's 0.001% (10 notable people per million). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating an article about fictional hurricanes in 2100

f3eijfuis i want to make a winkipedia site it wont let me 823062Robert (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(Created a title for this question) The editor has created User:823062Robert/sandbox about fictional hurricanes. Has also created speculative Draft:Hurricanes and the West Coast (not submitted). David notMD (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

823062Robert Wikipedia never publishes arbitrary topics someone just made up. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@823062Robert: this topic is unsiutable for Wikipedia until at least December 2099, when we could start to get reliable sources could start to talk about hurricanes in 2100, based on meterologic data. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

SOMEONE CREATED MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS AND TRIED EDITING MY CLIENT’S PAGE RESULTING TO BLOCK IT

Hello, this is Mehek, manager of cine actor Rohit KaduDeshmukh (Pls google his name). It came to our notice that someone has created multiple accounts and tried editing the subject page resulting it in blocking the creation of “Rohit KaduDeshmukh” sir. I wasn’t using Wikipedia ever before, but to bring this to your notice I had to create an account to seek help. Because of this nuisance of some random guy, no one is able to create Rohit sir’s article for Wikipedia. Pls suggest what should we do? Creating Wikipedia page of Rohit sir isn’t priority for us, but the fans who wish to know about Rohit sir or other editors who wish to create page about him aren’t able to create due to this issue. For reference; Pls google “Rohit KaduDeshmukh” also check news about him, he is been flashed in big news channels. Hope we get appropriate help! Thank You! Meheksethi123 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: The page Rohit KaduDeshmukh has been WP:SALTed and full-protected.

I suggest asking the blocking admins (TonyBallioni or Bbb23) about unblocking it, but it would be helpful to draft and article and provide reliable, independent sources. As you are associated with KaduDeshmukh, please follow the guidelines outlined at WP:PAID and declare your paid relationship on your user page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 08:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Meheksethi123 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, if you are representing a client, you must make the required paid editing disclosure on your user page; that's a Terms of Use requirement.

If someone wishes to create a legitimate article about your client, they may use the Articles for Creation process to do so. Your client will need to be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable actor; not every actor merits a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, (TonyBallioni or Bbb23) are showing retired on their page so not able to contact them. Secondly, we personally don’t want to create it. But the fans or other editors who wish to create aren’t able to create. Also, Rohit KaduDeshmukh sir is well published and notable actor. So if googled his name, there are many news articles about him in big newspapers. The whole idea of this is that his fans might be in search of his article on Wikipedia and might get disappointed for not finding it because no editor is able to create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meheksethi123 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There are ways that people can draft an article about your client, such as Articles for Creation as I noted. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And @TonyBallioni: is still active according to his recent contributions --Maresa63 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note: OP is blocked. More at Special:Permalink/996970586 (DFO's talk page). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just to also note, in case this comes up again, that Draft:Rohit KaduDeshmukh is also protected from creation, not just the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oiyaa! I gave in to temptation and Googled (actually, "Ducked") Rohit sir. A good 2⁄3 of the hits on the SERP page are the same copypasta inserted into multiple web sites — "...born in an Elite Marathi Family as his grandmother, Usha Chavan is a prolific Marathi Actress..." Spam on toast, with extra salt. Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:05 Wed 30, AEDT) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to post on Teahouse. Please help me.

I can't find my old conversations. I posted a question on 23rd December 2020, but now that seems to be history. How do I reply to the replies? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Arctic Gazelle! Threads on pages like this (with a lot of traffic) gets archived a few days after the latest comment. Your Teahouse question is archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1088#Is_is_civil_to_imply_that_another_editor_may_not_edit_something?, but we don't continue discussions on the archived pages. If you have more questions, start a new discussion like you just did. You reply by adding new text under the text you're replying to, like I did now. You can see all your edits at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Should I just copy and paste my question, or the whole discussion so far? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The following is copied from my user contributions page:" 10:06, 29 December 2020 diff hist +321‎ Wikipedia:Teahouse ‎ →‎I can't figure out how to post on Teahouse. Please help me.: new section " and I am wondering what is the meaning of "+321" ? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC);

Hello, Arctic Gazelle. To answer your last question first: "+321" means that that edit added 321 bytes to the page, that's all. For your first question: don't copy and paste the text from the archived section unless there is a really good reason to do so. Start a new section, and link it (either in the title, or at the beginning of the text) to the archived section. You can use the link that Gråbergs Gråa Sång quoted directly, or it is common to use a piped link, so

Follow up to [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1088#Is_is_civil_to_imply_that_another_editor_may_not_edit_something?|Is it civil to imply that another editor may not edit something?]]

appears as

Follow up to Is it civil to imply that another editor may not edit something?

--ColinFine (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Publish

Hi, I have written my first Wikipedia page in my sandbox. I think I have submitted it for review. I am not sure of the process now. What happens next? Crosbym52 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Crosbym52! User:Crosbym52/sandbox is not yet submitted, use the blue button with the text "Submit your draft for review!". When you do, the template with change to include new info. You may want to take a look at WP:GNG and WP:BAND, I don't think your draft will pass as currently written. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

George Barwood

Hello, why is George Barwood blocked from Wikipedia? 165.16.173.211 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about a WP-editor, an article topic, or something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! If you're referring to George Barwood, it was speedily deleted back in 2015 because it was not judged to have any meaningful content. This likely indicates that it didn't have proper references or other indications of meeting the biographical notability standard. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact, it had no content whatsoever, except for a "References" heading and a {{reflist}} template. Deor (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Assistance with a book cover

Hi there! I've been around for a few months now, have a few GAs under my belt, and I've decided to take my first swing at making a new article. But I'm really struggling to find the first edition cover or title page for it. Does anyone have any advice? I'm trawled The British Library site, sales websites, nothing. The book is The Blood of the Vampire (1897) by Florence Marryat, published by Hutchinson & Co.

Any advice would be appreciated. I tried WP:COVERS, but it seems to be defunct, and it told me to check in here. Please ping me if you reply! ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, found it. GeraldWL 11:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerald: Hi! None of those are the first edition cover. There's a modern reprint from 2010 there (introduction by Greta Depledge), but not the original cover that I can see. ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, hmm.. does book covers really need to be the first edition? GeraldWL 11:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis: For a book this old, yeah, a first edition front cover (or, preferably, the title page) is better than one of the—potentially dozens of—modern reprints. They usually look quite bad (that one does!). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, well you can buy the book and scan the cover. It takes time, so you could probably just have the searchable cover up temporarily, then switching it to the first edition as you favor. The temporary cover would later be orphaned and deleted. GeraldWL 11:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis: While looking up to try and show you that first editions usually cost somewhere between £800-£1300, I found it! So... thank you, hehe! Glad I posted. ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha! GeraldWL 11:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: If you want the cover as well as the title page, there's an image at L. W. Currey's site. Deor (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deor: Thanks so much for this! Will be using it. ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No wifi

I dont have wifi. So I can't play the game. What should I do if I was invited to the game? Wtfridge (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk, possibly the Entertainment or Science sections, describing the game you are trying to access. My immediate reaction would be to suggest that you get wi-fi. Britmax (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Howdy Wtfridge. If you are referring to The_Wikipedia_Adventure ("I can't play the game"), you should be able to access the adventure the same way you posted this question. wherever you were at that time. Note that the instructions there explain that the game is "not supported on tablets and smaller mobile devices." azwaldo (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

creating a profile page of an individual which is linked to a football association

hi, need help to create a new page as a profile of our technical director at the football association CHARLIE JACKSON1 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CHARLIE JACKSON1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you (and probably your technical director) have a (very common) misunderstanding of Wikipedia. It is not a site for people to post profiles: in fact, it does not contain any profiles: not one. What it is is an encyclopaedia: it contains neutrally written articles, based mostly on independent reliable sources.

If your technical director meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - broadly, that several people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish material about them in reliable sources - then we could have an article about them. It will not be a profile, because it will not belong to them, it will not necessarily say what they would want it to say, and they and their associates will have no control over it.

As an associate, you are discouraged from writing the article, but not forbidden. Please be aware that successfully writing a new article is the hardest task there is for an inexperienced editor, and it is made even harder if the editor in question has a conflict of interest. What you would need to do is:

1. Read about editing conflict of interest, and make a declaration on your user page. If you are in any way employed (even as a volunteer) to do this, you must familiarise yourself with paid editing, and make that declaration.
2. Read about notability and find at least three reliably published sources where people who have no connection with your TD or with the FA have chosen to write about them, giving significant coverage. Interviews, and articles based on press releases, don't count. If you can't find these, then give up: no article on them will be accepted at present.
3. If you can find them, read your first article, and use the articles for creation process to create your draft.
4. Forget every single thing you know about your director, and write a draft article based entirely on what those independent sources say.

Do you see why I say it is hard for you to do this? --ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Just FYI volunteers are no longer considered to be paid editors (though interns are). 331dot (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, 331dot, I didn't realise that. --ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

hello ColinFine maybe i used the wrong term and its not a profile , but i se other pages with very similar ideas to what i was hoping to create https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_Falopa as an example please provide further clarification— Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLIE JACKSON1 (talk • contribs)

@CHARLIE JACKSON1: Please see WP:OSE. We currently have 6,924,952 articles, most of which could need editing. If you have a specific problem with a particular page such as Marcos Falopa, please indicate the problem so we can look into it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

CHARLIE JACKSON1 Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected, even for years. That does not mean other inappropriate content can be permitted. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, CHARLIE JACKSON. People can mean different things by "profile", but most people would assume that a profile was written by or for its subject, or at least with the subject's approval. None of those are true for Wikipedia articles - they are occasionally written by the subject (though this is strongly discouraged) but we work hard to get them neutral, and this sometimes means including material that the subject definitely does not want aired, or suppressing material that the subject wants to say. That's why I reacted to your word "profile".

As 331dot's and Victor Schmidt's replies indicate, we often get people wanting to justify submitting substandard work by pointing to existing articles, and this is not a useful argument unless the article in question is a featured article or good article. Those two replies may have given the impression that there is something wrong with our article Marcos Falopa; but it appears to me to be well referenced - nearly every paragraph has a cite, and looking at their titles and sites, it looks as if several of the references are reliable and independent, though I confess I haven't looked at the sources themself to check that. The article has been worked on by at least ten editors, and looks to be neutrally written and not promotional. If you can get a draft to that level, it would be accepted readily. --ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GAR

I've been going through the GAR process for Stephen Fry's Podgrams and we've arrived at a disagreement, but we've only had three people comment. We've reached out to WT:GAR and WT:GAN for additional review, but it's been a few days without any responses and I was wondering whether anyone here at the Teahouse would be willing to comment. Thank you in advance. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look and chime in tomorrow, TipsyElephant. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Neologisms & Recognizability

I recently started contributing to the Podcasting Wikiproject and began working on some of the top importance articles. I've most recently been working on Godcasting and I thought the page should be moved to something like "Religion and spirituality podcasts" because "Godcasting" is an old neologism that doesn't appear to really have taken off and because when I started editing the page it was implied that the article was a dictionary entry for the word as opposed to the genre it describes. I was hoping for someone to weigh in on whether the article should be moved to a different name or not on the talk page Talk:Godcasting. Thank you in advance. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, TipsyElephant, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to solicit other opinions for this would be to formally propose the page move. This will list the discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions where it will be seen by many active editors. Instructions for doing so are at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting a single page move. CThomas³ (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Why interlanguage links are red? And why dont the "normal" references lead to the relevant webpage?

When I put in interlaguage links they become red. Why is this and is there any way or necessary to change it? For ex. Laila Mikkelsen [no]. Laila Mikkelsen turns red, the no is blue and links to the Norwegian page about her: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laila_Mikkelsen

Another question is why these kinds of references "example of reference”[55], lead to the References list and not directly to relevant the website? And is it possible to change this?

Thanks in advance!

- May MaySundAnd (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MaySundAnd. It sounds as if the ILL you are talking about is generated by the template {{ill}}: the direct link is red because the article does not exist in en-wiki, but the "(no)" link is blue because it does exist in no-wiki. If somebody creates the English article Laila Mikkelsen, the template will stop displaying the Norwegian link entirely, and appear as a normal wikilink. It is perfectly possible to write a direct Wikilink to another edition ([[:no:Leila Mikkelson|]] appears as Leila Mikkelson) but it is generally considered a bad idea to link to an article in another language without indicating this, as many readers may not be interested in following such a link.

As to your second question, I suspect the answer is "because the developers decided to do it that way"; but I think it was a good decision. With a properly formatted refernce, you can see a lot about it (title, date, author, where it was published) from the citation, and that may tell you enough about it without going to the trouble of opening it. If you think it would be desirable to have the ability to open the link from where the reference is used, you could suggest it on VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To add to that. There are two possible markups to get a foreign language link to work, The simplest is [[:no:Laila_Mikkelsen]] which renders as no:Laila_Mikkelsen so that the language is seen by the reader as part of the link. The alternative is to use a pipe character to hide the language part, so [[:no:Laila_Mikkelsen|Laila_Mikkelsen]] renders as Laila_Mikkelsen. As to your other question, it is an agreed norm that references don't go straight to websites but only to the reflist at the foot of the article. On talk pages you can insert them in single brackets to do that, as here with Google [2] Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine's [[:no:Leila Mikkelson|]] uses something called the pipe trick to automatically transform to [[:no:Laila Mikkelsen|Laila Mikkelsen]] when the page is saved. Please use spaces in all wikilinks [[...]] and not underscores like Mike Turnbull, except in rare cases where the subject is normally written with underscores. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, PrimeHunter which came about because I copy-pasted part of the the OP's link rather than typing in the target page's name! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Is is civil to imply that another editor may not edit something?

Follow up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1088#Is_is_civil_to_imply_that_another_editor_may_not_edit_something? So how should I respond to this kind of speech that some call 'a little bit bossy'? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no blanket answer to that question, and no way of knowing whether it was "bossy" or not when there is no context. Could you let us know what page you refer to? There are a dozen different reasons why the phrase you reacted to would be perfectly fine to use. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Arctic Gazelle, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you question is a bit unclear. If you are asking how you should reply to Cullen328 who replied to you back on 23rd December, it is now too late to edit or respond directly to that thread. Like all threads here at the Teahouse (which is a busy place), it gets archived after 3 days of inactivity/no follow-ups. We should never edit archived discussions. If you have a follow-up question for Cullen, you could do so on their talk page, or you could start a new thread here. (Note: my inclusion of their name in this thread means that they will receive an automatic notification that they have been mentioned. So if you would like to clarify what it is that you're asking, there is a good chance they will see it here. But looking at your contributions, I can't see any other discussion you've had or linked to with with other editors at all, so I assume your original question was a hypothetical one? - but I'm really not sure. My general feeling is that if I see anyone telling another editor that they should not edit something is to assume that the person giving that instruction has both experience and competence on their side, and are perhaps firmly advising another (newish?) editor not to make changes to something asking that they deem to already be in good shape. This might be especially important if the article in question is a Good Article or Featured Article, both of which have gone through a review process and all future changes should always retain high quality content. But if you or anyone else felt that an improvement could still be made, the sensible approach is to engage with that editor, explain what you would like to do, then discuss and gain consensus for such a change. We use article talk pages mostly for that purpose, as other interested editors will also be able to see the suggestions being made and any resistance to it. But nobody has any specific authority over any article - as explained further at WP:OWN. Does this make sense? Maybe next time you could provide a link or WP:DIFF to any given comment so that we can appreciate the context in which it is made and respond accordingly. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't hypothetical, but it was months or years ago. I think in one case I was being addressed, while in the other more recent case I simply observed it on a talk page. I look at talk pages a lot just to get extra information when reading Wikipedia. I cannot remember what the topics were, only that it seemed very bossy in both cases. I may have seen it more than twice, but I'm not sure. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. But as Bonadea says above, there's no way we can answer such a vague question without having context. Glad to be of some help, anyway. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

What was the longest an pending AfC submission took to be declined/accepted? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 15:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I have no idea, and don't plan to try to find an exact answer for you, though you might try searching the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation to find out for yourself, or ask there if you really feel the need to get an answer. But note that the bottom of the page at WP:AFC currently says there are 242 submissions that are three months old, and none older than that. But there is a category for 'very old' so presumably some awkward articles do rumble on for 6 months or more being finally either being accepted or declined. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, i was just wondering --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 15:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally triggering edit filters

Hi! In the past few days, two of my edits inadvertently triggered an edit filter: one for "persistent sockpuppetry" (Special:Diff/996648441) and one for "Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP" (Special:Diff/995853504). Importantly, these were minor constructive edits that were not disallowed, just flagged, so I'm not super concerned about these. My question is whether I should do anything about these appearing in my edit filter log and see if there's a way to get them unflagged, or if I should just continue on with editing as usual. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey DanCherek. I wouldn't worry about it (and yes, continue editing as normal). Someone more sophisticated than me at reading the two edit filters' code could target exactly what conditions resulted in the false-positives, but for reasons that are obvious (e.g. WP:BEANS), revealing exact details of the edit filters would not be prudent. Suffice it to say, these do appear to be false-positives, and what was flagged are only minor circumstantial evidence of the tripped conditions. Accordingly, only someone who actually was a sockpuppet/long term abuser would have to worry, because examining their other edits, and finding real evidence of the flagged conditions, would be required to confirm the weak connection implied by tripping the edit filter. By contrast, examining a constructive editor's edit history would just keep turning up better and better evidence of just how false the false-positives really were. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Edit filter logs are permanent and don't have flags to change status but just ignore it. It will not be held against you. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I wanna change my username

Hey! I am 13 Eleven 2004, but I don't like this username anymore I want to change it. Is it possible to change? What I need to do? 13 Eleven 2004 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, 13 Eleven 2004. See Wikipedia:Changing username for your options. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP, potentially controversial subject matter

I've started watching an article that has a history of the addition of (in my opinion) unrelated information. These edits are usually small and read like an editorial opinion of the subject.

1. What kind of controversial activity by a living person warrants inclusion on WP:BLP?
2. If activity by a subject is included per question 1, what is required of sources on the same? (Specifically, if the source is WP:BLPSPS and WP:YOUTUBE, is this okay?)
3. For either 1 or 2, is there an existing policy that exactly addresses this kind of scenario that I've missed?

Here's my gut feeling, with no citations of Wikipedia policies or rules that state exactly what I think.

1. Use your best judgement on if such content is encyclopedic. Obviously, WP:BLP must be met, but what else? Is specific guidance on this question really possible?
2. If controversial activity by a subject is encyclopedic, then surely a source that isn't WP:SPS must exist. WP:SPS shouldn't be used for the sole source of controversial activity by an article's subject. Jdphenix (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Listing books as sources

How would i add a book as a source? should i just but the title in the citations? Mekeit (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mekeit. The best way is to use the {{cite book}} template, explained at Template:Cite_book. If you use the citation expander (see WP:Citation_expander), all you need is the ISBN and all will be done for you.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mekeit: You can use {{cite book}} for that purpose. Please use as many parameters as available. Absolutely required would be title, publisher, page number (Nobody is going to read a 1000 page book yust for verifying a single statement) and, if existing, ISBN. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mekeit: If you want to cite different pages of one book in different places in an article, you only need to add the citation once. To reuse a reference you give the reference a name, then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to reenter 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. And so on...

References

Let us know if you need any further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull: That Citation Expander tool is really neat. @Mekeit:. One other option. If you find the book through Google Books, I have found the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books invaluable over the years. Unfortunately, please note that Google Books has made a relatively recent change and the urls for specific page view found in the new interface ("Welcome to the new Google Books") no longer work. You have to go to "Back to classic Google Books" to get a workable url. Once you do, just drop it into the tool, click Load, and it will do its best to fill in other fields. (All these tools' output needs checking by a human though; I almost always add more fields than it provides, and tweak its default output).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Help getting WIkipedia article approved

 Courtesy link: Draft:All Good Things (band)

Can someone help edit the article for the band All Good Things please? This is a band with millions of fans, hundreds of millions of streams and views, and many years of online reviews and articles but still I have issues getting the Wikipedia approved.

Any help is much appreciated. Deedee4465 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deedee4465: neither Spotify nor Youtube are reliable sources. The subject's Youtube Videos/ Spotify Songs aren't independent with respect to WP:GNG. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Deedee4465:, as the reviewer previously said on your draft, it does not seem to be written in neutral point of view. Additionally, it does not seem to have many independent and reliable sources (I would recommend reading that link for help on finding better sources). SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 17:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deedee4465: You need to add more citations to reliable sources. Spotify and YouTube don't count. RudolfRed (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deedee4465. I have done a quick copyedit to make the tone more neutral. Further on to the above, as far as I can tell, every single source in the article is a primary one, none of which assist with demonstrating notability (see also Wikipedia:Notability (music)), and are not what article content should primarily be based upon. When a proposed article is filled up with such sources, they actually help hide any good reliable, independent, secondary sources from being seen, when they are present in the mix or are later added. Please see also Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). If the right type of sources don't exist (they either do or don't), no article will be possible, so look for those sources to determine whether you wish to spend any more time on this. A quick search didn't turn up much, but I did find this article (in German). which might have some use (of course you might use Google translate or similar if you don't speak German – I do not, and am not very clear on their reliability, but at least it looks at first blush like an independent secondary source). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Question by Tech306

Block evasion by promotion-only editor ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I submitted the article below from a different page (which now is deleted since the name North Star Systems Inc. didn’t meet Wikipedia requirements: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:North_Star_Systems_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1) and it got declined due to these reasons: "1. This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 2. Blatant advertising and copy-pasting of mission statements including trademark symbols" Please provide any specific feedback you can to improve this article so it hopefully doesn't get declined again. 1. If I don't have to include trademarks, I won't. I just thought I had to since their product is trademarked. 2. I also tried to change a lot of words so its not copy-paste but there are some words I just can't change because it will change the whole sentence and might also misinterpret what this company believes in.. 3. I provided all possible references that exist about this company to back up the information I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia. Your help is appreciated. Sincerely, Tech306 @Deedee4465: I have removed the draft's copy from here. Draft:North Star Systems Inc. wasn't deleted for beign an ilegal name, but because the articles content were demed promotional. Note that the definition of promotion is not limited to selling something explicitely. I am not an administrator and therefore cannot give you advice on the draft's content, but there is one thing I can say you: Never, ever copy something from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. Even if we could get the legal stuff resolved, 99% of the texts not written for WIkipedia's purpose is also unsiutable for Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC) As for TM and likewise, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks covers this at length. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Pinging Tech306 instead, as Deedee4465 didn't ask this question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC) (e/c twice now!) Hello @Tech306:, and welcome to the teahouse! I'm not an admin so can't see the contents of the deleted page, but it looks like your draft was deleted under G11 of the speedy deletion criteria. This means that an editor believed the sole purpose of the draft was to advertise the company, and an admin agreed. Reason 2 of the decline gives me the impression that this was a pretty blatant case of advertising. Please take time to read our policies on conflict of interest editing and paid editing, as it appears you are affiliated with the company. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Note that User talk:North Star Systems Inc. was blocked in September for an unacceptable user name, and then User talk:North Star Systems was blocked for promotion as well as an unacceptable user name in October, and their draft deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Please do not post here and at Help Desk, as that wastes editors' time. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I find random articles that need tidying?

Hello world, When I first registered as a user, I was given the option to go to a random page that needed spelling/grammar/minor edits. I'm not sure where to find that function or option now... could someone help me with that? Abaloknee (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Abaloknee. Wikipedia:Community portal has links to lists of articles that need various kinds of work. Wikipedia:Random explains how to find random articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Abaloknee This page Wikipedia:Task Center has some useful ideas too. Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Abaloknee. Of course, the <remove links and text pointing at places already suggested above> and see also User:SuggestBot. Anyway, to access that feature, please copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true Now, navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing URL → paste the copied code → hit enter. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the (very) helpful suggestions! Abaloknee (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Abaloknee: See Wikipedia:GettingStarted for more about the feature and a link to try it on Random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding articles without a short description

How can I find all the articles that don't have short descriptions? I normally find them by browsing the random article section but I would like to find a faster way. UnguidedEmperor (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey UnguidedEmperor. I looked at the project page and the Wikiproject and was surprised to not find suggestions for targeting such pages. Though it's a bit outside of my wheelhouse, I am taking a stab (there's probably a more rigorous/elegant solution). Anyway, it occurs to me that a search for the letter "e" (the most common letter in English), that excludes pages with the short description template, and its redirects, would seem to provide the facility you're looking for, so:

Search of article mainspace for <e NOT "Short description" NOT "Shortdesc" NOT "Short desc" NOT "Brief description">

--Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, as I expected:-) See below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@UnguidedEmperor: Check out the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Short_descriptions. If you don't see a "todo" list there, ask at the project's talk page, which seems active. You will probably get some hints and tips for finding pages to work on. RudolfRed (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi UnguidedEmperor, welcome to the Teahouse. The search -hastemplate:"short description" finds 3.45 million pages. You can also try it with sort=random. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

awards shows

Context here and here.

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, The question I have, is with ho i should talk to?, to discus an award show credibility to give awards to an artist so that those awards would be considered notible enough by Wikipedia. ITIRIKBP (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

ITIRIKBP, you are already talking to two different editors, who have both given you the same answer. Forum shopping is not allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but you did not answer my question, but rather continued the talk on the previous converstation. My question was to whom I should talk to, to discuss an award show credibility? not an award it self or a lack of sources for an award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITIRIKBP (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

...You’re already talking to me as well as Paper9oll. You are talking to both of us, and we have both said that the sources you have provided are not reliable. If you want to talk to someone else, a courtesy notice would have been nice, since I spent a good half hour reading through the sources you gave me. D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How can I have outdated (factual) information corrected efficiently if am considered with a COI?

Dear Sir/Madam, I had a bit of a bad day :-) To make a long story short, some of my edits were reverted and a new page I created was deleted by one of your administrators because of an undeclared (according to him) COI, even though on my user page I did actually make a declaration.

Who am I? I work in simulation-based engineering for manufacturing industries since 20 years (as a professional engineer). About 8 years ago, Siemens Digital Industries Software became my employer, after acquiring the company I was working for (LMS International). Now (well actually since quite a while), I noticed that in this broader area (all that is related to mechanical engineering and related commercial software packages, finite elements, CFD, Digital Twins etc.) a lot of information is either incomplete, or outdated, or unbalanced. That is of course because this is an area that is currently evolving enormously fast, with the rise of IoT, smart products and more. But especially where Siemens products are mentioned, the current representation no longer reflects the reality. One of the reasons for that is probably that the Siemens offering for those applications is one that originates from numerous acquisitions of smaller companies, that no longer exist, but had (and still have) their own Wikipedia presence (along with their competitors). I am trying to correct that, but then I am perceived a 'paid advocate' who is here for promotional purposes, which is actually not the case.

Do you have any advise for me on how I can initiate such a cleaning operation? We came to a point that e.g. on pages where we are listed between competitors, all our products are mentioned with either an outdated name, or a wrong name, or referring to a page of a company that no longer exists. Even if Siemens is my employer, I don't think I am violating any neutrality principle by applying such kinds of corrections? I am probably even better placed than anyone else...

Also the new page I created, was intended to be a product description page that would include these corrections. I understand that this is in terms of COI more sensitive. But I am a bit disappointed that it has simply been deleted after all the work I have done, and all the effort to take a neutral tone of voice. I refrained from any type of qualitative statement, competitive benefits, or uniqueness claims or whatever, and made sure all the information was well referenced. I was very sure it was way more compliant than many other articles I have been reading (even some in the same field). And on top of that, I disclosed upfront that I potentially had a COI.

So I am a bit puzzled here (and demotivated). Can I get some advise?

Kind regards BartVanLierde (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi BartVanLierde. I do not have time right now to respond to you in any depth. I just wanted to clear something up. The page you are referring to, Simcenter, has not been deleted – "deleted" has a special meaning here, referring to removal entirely, including its page history, so it cannot be directly accessed nor easily reanimated. Given what you wrote on your talk page, that is actually what you (appear to) think is what happened. However the page has only been redirected (← read that link) and is entirely accessible Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks! I already feel (a little bit) better now ;-). I look forward to your more extensive response. Kind regards, Bart — Preceding unsigned comment added by BartVanLierde (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello BartVanLierde. The best way for an editor with a conflict of interest to improve an article is to make an edit request on the article's talk page. Be sure to back up your proposed changes with references to reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cullen³²⁸ Thanks for your response. But what if you think a serious reorganization of content (in that specific area) is required to reflect today's reality? And what is the violation in terms of neutrality if I am not fundamentally changing descriptions, but rather actualizing names? I could probably source everything with press releases or articles on tech sites. But in the end, I am at the source... It's a bit of an awkward situation BartVanLierde (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BartVanLierde, I do not know what you mean by "actualizing names". That sounds like corporate marketing jargon to me, and we want to keep that type of language out of the encyclopedia. I do not see what the awkward situation is. You have been advised to follow the standard procedures for editors with a COI. Wikipedia does not just reflect "today's reality". Our articles ought to summarize the entire history of the topic. The place for you to propose a serious reorganization of content is the talk page of the article in question. Editors without a COI can then decide whether or not to implement your changes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You tagged your User page with COI, but from your comments, is not WP:PAID the right way to go? David notMD (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi David notMD, well... that is honestly speaking a bit of a stretch, I think... I am having still a bit difficulties to understand the difference between working for an employer, and writing/editing about a related topic, and actually getting paid for making edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BartVanLierde (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BartVanLierde, the main difference is that if there is money involved (paid editing), people may have an incentive to produce more content and write it in a promotional way. However if you have a conflict-of-interest, i.e. being related to the subject of that article, you may write it promotionally, but generally you aren't going to try to. We try to separate the two (PAID vs COI) because it helps us determine whether (hypothetically) a user is indirectly changing the POV, or is being paid to. If you are being paid to edit, WP:PAID is the way. If you have a close connection to the subject, WP:COI is the correct template.

I'm not sure if it's a great explanation, but hopefully it helps. Regards, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Giraffer, yes that definitely helps, and also corresponds to my natural understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BartVanLierde (talk • contribs) 17:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

How can i create an article using wiki makeup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijin William Deng (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thijin William Deng: Its not clear what you are asking. You can follow the steps at WP:YFA to create an article. What do you mean by "wiki makeup"? RudolfRed (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thijin William Deng. Perhaps you mean "wiki markup" also known as wikitext. If so, take a look at Help:Cheatsheet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Help in my sandbox

I copied an entire article into my sandbox2 to see if I could insert a tall, skinny image to the right of an array of I Ching hexagrams. If you go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Juvon/sandbox2#Dual_hexagrams , my new image is on top of the hexagrams. I would appreciate some help in depreciating the white space. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This looks like it has been resolved; please let us know if not or if there is any further trouble. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Charles Juvon. It's generally not a good idea to copy entire articles into your user sandbox, but if you do you probably should follow WP:ATTREQ and at least provide the name of the source article as an edit summary when you do. Wikipedia's licensing allows its article to be freely re-used, but proper attribution is necessary in most cases. There are also other problems in copying entire articles into sandboxes that in that any images in the article might be fine for the article namespace, but they might not be fine for the user namespace. Categories reserved for articles shouldn't also be used in the user namespace per WP:USERNOCAT. Finally, another problems is that people who tend to copy-and-paste entire articles into their sandboxes also seem to try to do the reverse when they've finished fixing whatever they've been fixing. This can cause problems because the version they copied might not be the same version their pasting over when they re-add the content (other editors might've edited the article in the meantime), which in turn can be an unintentional revert of other editors. So, you need to be very careful when you do this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those points on copying articles. Someone did try to insert the image, but the hexagrams are now split. Could someone try again? You might need to revert the last change to see how the hexagrams were originally laid out. Charles Juvon (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Becoming a moderator/administrator

How do i become a moderater/administrator and is there a difference Snowycake (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Snowycake. Please read Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship, and feel free to ask follow-up questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Snowycake. Wikipedia does have editors who have been given the user right of "administrator" and you can find out more them at Wikipedia:Administrators or Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. As for "moderators", all editors are "moderators" in a sense because they can add, remove, create, delete content that they feel either is either is or isn't in accordance with one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by being WP:BOLD; in other words, the Wikipedia community does, for the most part, try to self-moderate article content through bold editing, or through discussion and consensus when there are disagreements; administrators generally are only asked to step in as a last resort when their are serious problems (e.g. behavioral issues) or perhaps technical matters that require special user rights to resolve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Snowycake: To add on that, there are formal requirements for being able to start a Request for Adminship (RfA), mainly having an account for 30 days and having at least 500 edits, however, with yust the basics criteria, it is unlikely that an RfA will be sucessfull. The folks over there will expect that you have gathered experience in all the areas admins might infer into. One skill I often see is required is the ability to act calm when the situation gets hot. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think a better question would be how can you avoid it. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are some subjects/topics not on Wikipedia?

Why are some subjects/topics not on Wikipedia? I have noticed that some people might be the central focus of a major book, news story, or movie but not have a wiki page. At the same time, a person might be that person who got their "15 minutes of fame" and there will be an extensive article about them. Can people remove, or pay to have their topic removed? I have heard that to be on Wikipedia, a topic must be multifaceted with the subject having multiple reasons to be on Wikipedia, but come on, when Robert Matthew Van Winkle has a page, who is known for precisely one thing, that argument sort of falls apart. Really just interested in how this works--can't find anything. 2603:8000:6F40:1A00:D461:75BE:DC7:D6F8 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The character in question needs to first have someone interested in writing an article about them, and then the reliable sources to support an article about them, usually sources that discuss the character in isolation to establish their notability. Is there a specific character / subject in question? Koncorde (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. In order to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, the topic must be the subject of significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources. There is no requirement that the topic be multifaceted or have multiple reasons to be on Wikipedia. What are the multiple reasons that a species of butterfly or an asteroid or a mathematical concept deserve an article? One good reason is enough. As for the reasons that Robert Matthew Van Winkle, better known as Vanilla Ice, has a Wikipedia article, there are 146 reasons; namely, the 146 references to reliable sources in that article. You may not like him and I am not a fan, but he is easily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

But my point regarding Vanilla Ice is that there are people/topics that have so many more "references" but are just non-existent on Wikipedia. I am not asking about a specific person or topic, just the fact that it exists. Mods don't deny it, but just throw the same excuses at the question. I give up because I know I won't get a straight answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6F40:1A00:403D:304F:39CB:4A77 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Everyone here is a volunteer. If you want to write an article, go ahead, but the reason notable topics don't have an article is simply because nobody decided to make them. Zoozaz1 talk 04:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There's also the WP:VOLUNTEER aspect of the encyclopedia. People writing about subjects that interest them isn't strange. Even if someone is, by Wikipedia's standards, notable, they won't appear on here if no one is bold enough to create or draft an article about them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 04:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, IP editor, there are many notable topics that do not yet have articles, and you can start writing them now. You write "Mods don't deny it, but just throw the same excuses at the question." I am a mod (administrator) and I have written over 100 new articles and expanded many hundreds more. Nobody is making any excuses but instead are pointing out that this is a volunteer project and that you can start writing articles instead of complaining about Vanilla Ice. That's a fact, not an excuse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A subject does not have to be "multifaceted" to get a biography. Maybe you have heard a badly distorted version of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, or of the requirement for multiple sources in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Vanilla Ice is an odd example. The article has 146 references but there are thousands of other potential references in reliable sources. There must be very few people who are more notable but don't have a Wikipedia biography. References don't have to be in English or online but I doubt you can find a single person with more English online references in reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

revive old conversation?

What is the best way to revive an "old" conversation (ie, from last week)?

Some people replied to my original question, but I did not have a chance to respond. Now that I go to respond, I see that I cannot. Dw861 (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dw861, I'm assuming that by you being unable to respond, you mean that the conversation has since been archived. You can start a new conversation and reference the old one by wikilinking to it. If there is anything you want to quote in particular, there are templates like {{tq}} to facilitate doing that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dw861: In this case, you'll want to create a new section entitled something like "Followup to new article pointers" and start with something like "At [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1088#new article pointers]], I asked blah and {{U|SomeUser}} replied {{Tq|something SomeUser wrote}}. I think blah.". By using the {{U}} template to refer to the user, they will receive a notification pointing to the new section. I found that link to the archived section by using the archive search box below the table of contents starting near the top of the right side of this page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to both Tenryuu 🐲 and AlanM1. This is such a complicated system, I've been finding it exhausting trying to get anything accomplished. One small step at a time... Dw861 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Logistics of getting permission to use an image on Wikipedia

Hi there. I'm not new to Wikipedia, but I honestly know nothing about using images beyond just using what's on Commons. I recently expanded the article 50th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment, and the Wisconsin Historical Society has an image of a soldier from this regiment. The 'rights and permissions' for the image reads, in part: "Use of the image requires written permission from the staff of the Collections Division. It may not be sold or redistributed, copied or distributed as a photograph, electronic file, or any other media."

What I'd like to know is if I were to contact them to grant written permission (I feel given the educational, preservationist nature of the society, they'd probably be willing to grant permission for educational purposes, though the wording "copied as an electronic file" makes me a bit hesitant), what would I ask to make sure I actually get the type of permission I need? "Hello, I'm such-and-such from Wikipedia. I would like to use your image of Michael Stutzman in the article '50th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment', and I was hoping I could get your written permission. It would only be used on this specific article unless otherwise permitted and would be attributed to the Wisconsin Historical Society with a link to your page containing the image." Moreover, say I do get adequate written permission: how would I go about using this image and crediting it properly on Wikipedia? Sorry if this isn't the place to ask; like I said, I'm very new to images.

Update: never mind with this particular instance, as there's a "permission fee". However, for future reference, how would I go about this? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, TheTechnician27, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you encounter a situation like this in the future, take a look at c:Commons:Email templates over at Wikimedia Commons. The easiest thing to do is to have the copyright holder use the interactive release generator there to upload the image themselves and provide the licensing information. CThomas³ (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi TheTechnician27. Wikipedia pretty much follows Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:Commons:Licensing when it comes to image licensing; in other words, the copyright holder's consent is, for the most part, needed for a copyrighted work to be uploaded to either when the file isn't considered to be within the public domain for some reason. So, the only types of "free licenses" that are basically accepted are those in which the copyright holder pretty much agrees to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at any time and use for any purpose. Licenses that place any restrictions on commercial or derivative use, or which are "for educational use only" or "for Wikipedia use only", etc. types of licenses aren't going to be accepted. The big difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is that the former does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, while the latter doesn't accept any such content at all.

Regarding the image you've linked to above, you might want to ask about it at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions because it seems highly unlikely that an image of a Civil War soldier is still protected by copyright and the Wisconsin Historical Society is trying (like many others do) to claim copyright over an image when they can't really do so. (See also c:Commons:License laundering for other ways in which this is sometimes done.) Anyway, The WHS might be be under the misconception that the digitalization of the photo makes it a WP:Derivative work of some kind, but I think this would be a case of c:Commons:2D copying where a new copyright wasn't established because the new version is simply a slavish reproduction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly – Thanks. That's sort of what I was thinking too with the copyright, but I didn't know before if digitizing an image could constitute some sort of renewed copyright for that digital copy. At any rate, I'll ask over at the village pump and see what they have to say, since I think you're right here about it being public domain. Moreover, I already contacted the MHS to inquire about the image, so I might wait to hear back before trying to do anything with the image, just to see how it pans out. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, You might want to look at COM:PDARTREUSE for your first point. Zoozaz1 talk 17:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 Thanks for the resource; I took a look through the sections pertaining to US law. As it turns out, Marchjuly was right on the money, as the email I received back states: "You are not able to use this image without permission and payment," meaning they're ostensibly trying to claim works that are in the public domain. With that, I'll head over to the village pump and ask. On the one hand, the image wouldn't have been online had they not uploaded it, and non-profit historical societies provide really valuable resources, so I don't feel great about it, but on the other hand, I'd feel bad sacrificing the quality of the project over what essentially seems like license laundering of a public domain image. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Computer Art

As I am familiar with the work of artist Leonel Moura, a recognized pioneer in the use of robotics and artificial intelligence in art, I believe he should be mention, at least under Robot painting. However, all my contributions have been denied... why? since the approach is totally different from previous artists as his robots build autonomously their own composition Also, his Symbiotic Art Manifesto, published in 2003, which talks for the first time about creative machines and nonhuman art made by machines was refused on the Art Manifesto page Hence, my question is about content Madalena77 (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Appears your issue is not edits to the Moura article, but Declines to your Draft:Nonhuman art. The other issue, additions to the Art manifesto article, is that you attempted to add a manifesto that does not yet have its own article. David notMD (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Madalena77. Wikipedia does not, in general, care whether a subject is new, old, groundbreaking, popular, vile, important, trivial, disgusting, wonderful, boring, hackneyed, biassed, saintly, innovative, ingenious, imaginary, criminal, or any other quality: all it cares about is whether several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources . If this condition is met, then an article can be written, based almost entirely on those independent sources. If not, then no article will be accepted. Of course, there is sometimes disagreement about whether a subject meets these criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment from LauraWilks

 Courtesy link: Gracey (singer)

WHY ALL MY EDITS ON GRACEY (SINGER) HAVE BEEN DELETED??????? LauraWilks (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

LauraWilks, welcome to the teahouse! Looking at the page, your edits were reverted here by Victor Schmidt, who added the comment unsourced: What are those 24 attempts meant to be? Victor may be able to explain his rationale further, and you may have more luck getting your edits to stick if you follow the advice at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor. For now, they are recorded in the page history. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the edits were sourced and then there was this (self-reverted in the next edit. I understand that editing is not easy, however, Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident- Please make sure that you cite your sources and use the page preview, if you are not using the visual editor. Also, please dont write IN ALL CAPS. It is considered shouting, is harder to read and will not help your cause.Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting that LauraWilks's, edits removed categories and templates from the article - which is something that you should avoid doing without good cause. Removing anything (without a reason for doing so) is pretty much always considered disruptive. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Laura, don't be discouraged: you’ll get on top of the editing technicalities. Like Victor, I recommend liberal use of Preview while you work.

However, when adding facts about living people, we really need to include supporting references. It might be true, but I couldn’t find a good source saying that her middle name is Elizabeth, for example. Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:30 Thu 31, AEDT) 21:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Article about a NGO

Hi, I'm very new here and looking to create an article on an NGO in Malaysia. Would like to request assistance to verify its notability and the references that I found, also regarding COI issues. Thanks in advance! Yingying at MPS (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yingying at MPS. Please take a look at WP:NORG and WP:NOBLE since they deal with Wikipedia notability as it pertains to organizations like the one you want to create an article about. Please also take a look at WP:COI and WP:PAID since they are related to COI editing. If after reading those pages you still have questions, feel free to ask them and a Teahouse host will try and help you out. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

On editing phase

I am working on this one with sufficient citation. SO can you please give more time. Manishthapa1981 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rajendra Kumar Khetan Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Manishthapa1981. It's not clear from your question what you're referring to, but all of your edits so far have been to Draft:Rajendra Kumar Khetan. You can continue working on that draft at your own pace if you like as long as you don't leave it unedited for six months or more. You can also submit your draft for another WP:AFC review whenever you think it's ready. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) because that explains the kinds of people generally considered to be good candidates to try and create Wikipedia articles about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Status: Declined, references added, resubmitted. Question to Manishthapa1981: Given that this is the only article you are editing - one you created - what, if any, is your connection to Rajendra? Is this a person you know personally? Are being paid or otherwise compensated for attempting to create this article? David notMD (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing query

Two questions:

1. I'm adding references from the 6th and 9th centuries to an article. Should these be referenced as the author, or the translator/editor?

2. One of my sources was organised into numbered sections (in the 9th century), but the only translation I can find doesn't have the section numbers (ie, it just has the translated text, with breaks that don't always correspond to the sections). I've managed to put a number to most of these sections by looking at a commentary from 1980. I'm citing the translation, but if I add the (deduced) section numbers, no-one accessing the source will see these numbers (because they're not there). If this makes any sense, I'd be grateful if someone could advise on the way forward.

ThanksMaryanne Cunningham (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Maryanne Cunningham, to answer your question best, it'd be helpful to know what type of editor you use (source editor or VisualEditor?) and what reference format you're using in the article (i.e. are you using {{Cite book}} and similar?).

For your first question, there are parameters for listing the translator separate from the author, and ideally you should use those; the documentation (if you're using citation style 1, which you probably are) is at Template:Citation#Authors.

For your second question, you can use |at= to specify an in-source location that is not a page number; see documentation here. But unless you're trying to bring a page to featured status, I wouldn't really worry about it (or the translator/editor distinction) overly much. The most important role of references is to support verifiability by enabling someone who wants to go to the source of a piece of information to do so. So long as your references allow that, getting the formatting perfect is a much more minor concern. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm blocked? Seemingly not

Hey all, hope a Teahouse host asking on Teahouse isn't weird! Anyways, I was tryna archive references at an article, but it failed because "you were blocked from editing." I tried editing an article to see if I am, but it is publishable. There's also no notifs on my Talk. Is this a common error or what? GeraldWL 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: - Nothing on your block log, nothing on filter log. Probably just an isolated incident? Pahunkat (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I tried the auto-archive again, and it still claims I'm blocked. Maybe it's just an error, or an isolated incident like you said. But gosh, so f*king scary to got a block news. GeraldWL 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, wait a sec - check the URL you were trying to add. Can you add it elsewhere? Maybe on this thread? I just remembered that yesterday I was trying to add an external link for an article idea but my edit was disallowed by a filter, but there's also nothing in my log about it. Pahunkat (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Pahunkat, sure: I was tryna archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_You_in_the_Cosmos using https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle GeraldWL 16:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I've been startled by 'you're blocked' messages whilst using an anonymising browser like Puffin Browser or Opera, but this sounds like a matter to query at WP:VPT, as sounds like a specific toolforge issue. There's nothing very recent in your abuse log, though you do appear to been trying to add quite a few YouTube links which got caught. But I've done that kind of thing, too. So nothing to worry about on that score. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, I've had this issue before. Don't worry, it fixes itself and you should be able to archive again eventually. Le Panini ^[🥪] 18:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, this is very likely an issue with the Toolforge application. My guess would be that it tried to do some action as part of the archiving, encountered an error and failed, and wrongly concluded from the fact that it failed that you must be blocked. I'd contact the developers if you can find where to do so, or open a VPT thread to let the folks there sleuth it out if not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Le Panini, Nick Moyes, thanks all! I'll start a VPT thread if I have the time to. Happy New Year for y'all! GeraldWL 07:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I just got the same message... Definitely something going on here. Pahunkat (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Future copyright/publishing questions for future works re Wikipedia contributions made today

The article about my profession is a mess. If I fix it, and later write a book on the subject, it's inevitable I would repeat myself here and there. Would there be copyright issues or concerns from a future publisher? Dogsgopher (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If you edit Wikipedia, and then use the same content in a book, Wikipedia won't mind, you will have granted the user of the material to anyone for use in any way so long as they acknowledge the source. Your future publisher may mind. I would expect them not to care, as (I assume) what you write for them will contain plenty of new content as well as what you've donated to Wikipedia, and no-one's going to think "I won't buy this book, as I can read a portion of its content for free on Wikipedia". But some companies are unreasonably fussy about IP issues. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Everything published in Wikipedia is subject to a Creative Commons license, (CC BY-SA 3.0) as seen below the edit window when an editor "publishes" their edit. The terms of this license means the material may be used later by anyone, provided that Wikipedia is acknowledged and that the license of the new work is no more restrictive. What that would mean for a book would depend how much had been lifted straight from Wikipedia's articles. Note that there are cases where authors have not attributed their subsequent copying to Wikipedia, as currently being discussed at WT:WikiProject_Chemistry#Plagiarism_in_Elsevier_book. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Dogsgopher, this is a dilemma I’ve had with photography instead of writing. What if I wanted to use the picture elsewhere under my real name? Would I be outing myself? If I put it someplace as NC-ND, but it's already here as BY-SA? Release now pseudonymously under a generous license, or hold on to it "just in case, maybe some day"?

Fiction authors will often change pseudonyms to separate their early work from their more mature work. They may also republish early works under their later, more famous name (Stephen King comes to mind). But you can’t have both a separation and a continuity of credit. Either you say "this other person is also me" or you cite the other as if they are a completely different person. Though when citing Wikipedia, you credit "Wikipedia editors" not "Soandso on Wikipedia".

Perhaps this might be a case where an alternate account could be justified, to separate your edit history on a specific topic from other topics. Wikipedia:VALIDALT doesn’t explicitly mention that use case. If you only write about Music Therapy and never make forays into, say, Pokémon or Middle Eastern politics, then there may be no need.

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:39 Thu 31, AEDT) 23:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

adding content

Why doesn't the editing screen view flow as the article is seen on wiki, how am I suppose to know where to add information and where to add source? Wheatandtares (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wheatandtares, WP:TUTORIAL may help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wheatandtares, if you're not already, you may be interested in using the visual editor (VE). Go to your Preferences, navigate to the Editing tab, and make sure that "Temporarily disable visual editor while it is in beta" is unchecked. That should change the editor to VE when you click "Edit". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 19:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BLPCRIME?

There's this guy Nithyananda. He's an Indian godman. He fled India last year after accusations of abduction. Was the lead that I wrote justified? Or is the current lead better? Here's the current lead, which is a manual revert of the lead I added: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nithyananda&diff=997242197&oldid=997239282&diffmode=source. The reason cited for the manual revert was BLPCRIME...

Please ping when replying. Thanks in advance. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 17:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 102.123.161.246 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems there is extensive discussion of this and similar issues on the talk Page of that article and that's probably the best place to air your concerns. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

popples

Can i have a ciatation there ever was a live action popples pilot by Shelly Duvall Please? 2601:1C0:CF01:C720:20BD:FD60:1560:CD94 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This page is for how to use or edit Wikipedia. General questions like yours can be asked at WP:RDE. RudolfRed (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject:Games

WP:Games; what is up with it? Hey all! Is WP:Games dead? Education-over-easy (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Education-over-easy, it does appear to be inactive. If you're looking for a similar WikiProject, you may be interested in WP:VIDEOGAMES. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 20:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Improve Submission

I would like help improving my submission. I am not sure how to write my biography in a way that meets the expectations for Wikipedia. I had a professional writer write my first draft which was declined. Tips would be helpful. Thanks. Juliuskissinger (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Juliuskissinger Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please keep in mind that while not forbidden, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia per the autobiography policy. This is in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. It is also hard for people to write in an encyclopedic style about themselves. To succeed in writing a Wikipedia article about yourself, you in essence need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. This is extremely difficult to do; I have never seen it done in my years here, though it is technically possible. If you truly meet the definition of a notable person and have the sources to support it, eventually an independent editor will take note of your life and choose to write about you. That's how most articles are written.

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not like social media, and as such a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; any article about you would not be under your exclusive control; you could not prevent others from editing it, or lock the text to what you might want to say about yourself. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable sources and is not defamatory. See this page for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there tips to getting a biography approved with notable published sources? Juliuskissinger (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't start a new section, Julius Kissinger, but edit the existing section to add more comments or questions. I have removed the new header. You basically had your answer just above, but to spell it out: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . You need to find sources of that nature, then forget everything you know about yourself, and write a draft entirely based on what those sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Repinging Juliuskissinger. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Juliuskissinger, you would need published sources to support statements about Julius Kissinger's medical conditions, sexual orientation, etc. You might know first-hand, but imagine if someone rocked up here pretending to be you and wrote a hatchet-piece? Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:31 Thu 31, AEDT) 22:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Restored two AfC Declines and AfC Comments that JK had removed from Draft:Julius Kissinger. Even if an editor believes the reasons for a Decline have been addressed, the Decline must remain as part of the history of the draft. David notMD (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with sandbox article

 Courtesy link: User:Blacephalon/sandbox

I want to do an article on Sirfetch'd, but I don't know what i'm doing. Can someone help? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Blacephalon. The long-standing convention here is that only some Pokémon (e.g. Pikachu) are notable enough for their own articles. There was probably some intense debate about that, way back when. Sirfetch'd currently redirects to List of generation VIII Pokémon. You could treat writing up Sirfetch'd as a good practice exercise, but promoting it to main article space is unlikely to get support. Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:41 Thu 31, AEDT) 22:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic and Blacephalon, there was indeed a big debate about that question, so much so that there's now an essay named after it. See Wikipedia:Pokémon test. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Question from Timofeib

How to get started with Wikipedia code How can I learn the code for wikipedia? Is it already written in something like html, or is different? Is there a page for it? Thank you. As you can see I don't fare well with formatting. Timofeib (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Timofeib, and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need html for most things, just simple Wikimarkup: there is a CHEATSHEET, but I recommend working through The Wikipedia Adventure to learn not just the mechanics of editing, but how Wikipedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Before it gets archived

Can someone reply here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#New topic barnstar before it gets archived? I don't have a good editing software to make my own barnstar. --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 22:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 22:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: Because you took on board my earlier suggestion about your signature, I've replied there with a rough suggestion for you to develop. And I note that a helpful IP editor has further improved it for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo displayed below references

For Madison-Ridgeland_Academy, the photo is part of the Facilities section, but is displayed below the References section? Is this due to a syntax error? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BillHPike, it seems to insist of displaying the picture below the end of the rather long infobox. I can't figure out why it does that or how to tell it not to. I've moved the picture to inside the infobox, but I'm aware that that's not what you asked for, so please undo my edit if you don't think it's an improvement. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: using Timeless skin on a tablet, the article looks fine in portrait orientation (all boxes and images are forced to full-width), but turn the tablet sideways to landscape and there is all kinds of weird stuff happening with the references overlapping the Athletics table. Suggest removing the float:right from that table. In "legacy Vector", refs overlap the infobox also. Anyone know how to put a clear:all type element before a section heading? Not sure why the campus photo, when floated left, wants to clear the infobox but not the table. Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:04 Thu 31, AEDT) 00:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Found {{clear}} per help:Pictures#Forcing a break. That still doesn’t fix the image being pushed below the bottom of the infobox, though. Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:17 Thu 31, AEDT) 00:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic and BillHPike, it looks like the photos have been removed as WP:COPYVIOs, but to answer your question, the template you were looking for is likely {{stack}}, which can help resolve the WP:MFOP issue you were facing.

Regarding the images, courtesy pinging TuckerTVG, the original uploader: you probably can't do anything to get the aerial photo back unless you can establish that it has a free license, but you can restore the seal and wordmark by uploading them as fair use. Go to WP:File Upload Wizard, and actually follow the instructions this time instead of just adding an incorrect license and hoping we won't delete. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

wss directory

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

---

Does anyone know what wss means in the url https://www.apple.com/wss/fonts?families=SF+Pro,v3%7CSF+Pro+Icons,v3 ? 88.130.61.101 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You also asked this at WP:RDC, which is the right place for it. RudolfRed (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

yes but I'm not patient 88.130.61.101 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

(ec) Much as I am loath to reward impatience, I answered at the reference desk. At least IP is open about their motivation! Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:34 Thu 31, AEDT) 00:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Google indexing

How do you index an article on Wikipedia or how long does it take for Google to index them? I've noticed on some new articles, they do not show up in Google right away. I was going to ask on my main account but I'm in the process of recovering my email address. Thank you! 2600:1702:D70:19F0:213A:D1C9:6C6A:484B (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! All new pages go through a review process; see WP:NPP. It can sometimes take a few weeks or longer, and during that the time, the page will not be indexed by Google. I hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. In most cases, new articles are automatically given a Noindex tag, which is hidden and cannot be removed by ordinary editors. In due time, the article is reviewed by the New Pages Patrol as described above, and if there are no glaring errors, the noindex tag is removed and Google quickly indexes the article and adds it to relevant search results. Some trusted editors with a long record of creating good, problem-free articles have a user right called Autopatrolled, and their newly created articles do not get the noindex tag. I have this user right and have often seen the impact. I add a new article to the encyclopedia, continue Google searching to inprove the article, and see my own new article show up as the #1 or #2 Google search result within a minute or two. That indicates how powerful the Google search engine really is, and the high value that Google assigns to well written Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb and Cullen328: thank you so much for the information! This makes sense. 2600:1702:D70:19F0:213A:D1C9:6C6A:484B (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Should pages whose copyright problems haven't been resolved within one week be tagged for speedy deletion?

I recently found an article that was listed at WP:CP whose problems hadn't been resolved in almost two months, and whose entire content was a copyvio notice, and I tagged it for G12 speedy deletion. I came here to ask if I should've done that (the article was Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017)). JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, when you see a copyvio notice like that it means that there was come copyvio in the article however some parts of it may be salvageable. As a result, I think G12 will probably be declined. Pahunkat (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

How do I nominate a draft article for deletion? Cwater1 (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cwater1. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy for all the details. It is always a good idea to provide some details for context. Which draft? For what reason? If you are the only substantive contributor to the draft, then WP:G7 is the process that results in deletion very quickly. If it is someone else's draft, the process is a bit more complex. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Norm for publishing new articles?

Hi there - I'm hoping for some clarification as to what the norm is for publishing new articles as an autoconfirmed user. It seems to be that the available options are (1) go through AfC, which is quite slow and (in my experience) frustrating, or (2) just put the thing into mainspace.

I ask because I've just written a new article (would be my third). I've spent a lot of time editing articles recently, and I feel like it's good to go - meets notability requirements IMO, many refs, careful tone, etc. But I was burned before: after publishing a previous draft that I moved to mainspace a couple months ago, it was flagged for speedy deletion, and I was told "you can move [an article] to article space without review - you have the ability to do so - but that doesn't make it a sensible thing for an inexperienced user to do."

Basically - at what point is it acceptable for users to publish directly to article space, versus going through AfC? Will the admins smite me down?

Thank you! Lamacha9617 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lamacha9617, if you can create an article that is acceptable by Wikipedia standards from the get-go, you shouldn't encounter any problems from other editors. It can be a little aggravating to wait for a reviewer to review your draft, but there are other things to work on while waiting for a review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks for responding. To clarify - are you saying that I should always be submitting through AfC? Lamacha9617 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lamacha9617, let me put it this way; an article going through the AfC process (and draftspace) is going to be reviewed with constructive observations that will help it match article standards. An article going directly into the main articlespace does not have this support, and are usually either moved to draftspace or nominated for deletion. As Cullen328 pointed out below, it is possible to start an article in mainspace and keep it there if you know most (if not all) of the policies and guidelines before starting your article. I would also suggest that if you're embarking on such an endeavour, that you do it in one edit, as passing editors will consider it to be "not ready" and are most likely to move it to draftspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Lamacha9617. I have written about 100 new articles, and have never once gone through the AfC process, and have never once had an article I wrote get deleted. That's because I studied the policies and guidelines for months before beginning to edit. In fairness, AfC came along later, but it is optional for all but the newest editors. AfC is much slower, but it gives less experienced editors reasonable chances to correct obvious errors. The alternative is placing your new article before the tender mercies of the New pages patrol, who can be abrupt in their response to articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines. So the question is how thoroughly you understand the policies and guidelines, and how scrupulous you are in following them. Only you can decide, and I would never tell anyone but a paid editor that they must use AfC. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Followup to "new article pointers"

Courtesy link: Terry A. Simmons

At Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1088#new article pointers, I asked the speedy deletion of my draft and Tenryuu suggested that I use a draftspace to begin composing new articles. I just wanted to thank you for this tip.

Victor Schmidt also provided some pointers. Thank you. I'm not sure that I understood all aspects, but I will go back to them in time.

Cullen328 wrote that they have been creating and expanding biographies of Sierra Club leaders and have done quite a bit of work on these articles over the years. I joined the Sierra Club in 1976. After reading this article, I am unsure this person is notable. The references are very poorly formatted and it is difficult for me to zero in on the sources that devote the type of significant biographical coverage that would clearly establish notability..

Sorry about the poor reference formatting. Those initial references were done by somebody else. The same user who marked the article for instant deletion. In any event, I don't know what the wikipedia defn of "notable" is, but Terry A. Simmons founded the local BC instance of the Sierra Club. Perhaps he was more notable as participating in the early days of Greenpeace.

For both Sdkb and Cullen328, who asked for three references, here are a few:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/book-sierra-club-history-1.5287779

Simmons is listed here as being on the first voyage of the "Phyllis Cormack", or "Greenpeace". You will have to press "more" to see this content, partway down the page. https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/the-birth-of-greenpeace

Finally, here is a Greenpeace photo of Simmons on that voyage. https://media.greenpeace.org/asset-management/27MZIFLBTOGB?FR_=1&W=1280&H=868

Dw861 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Dw861, it looks like after our comments on the 23rd, a reviewer marked the page as patrolled (you would've gotten a notification), so your original concern about the page appearing on Google should be remedied.

Regarding notability, our general standard is at WP:GNG. Of those three sources, I'm not sure any of those would count, since the first two are just passing mentions, not significant coverage, and the last one is not a secondary source since it comes from Greenpeace. From the first article, though, I'd assume that the book Passion and Persistence: Fifty Years of the Sierra Club in British Columbia would count, and the reviewer must have found a second qualifying source since they marked the page as patrolled.

Feel free to let us know if you have any further questions, and best of luck with your editing! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dw861. The first CBC coverage mentions Simmons only briefly without detail about Simmons. The second CBC source is a passing mention of Simmons in a list. What is needed is significant coverage of Simmons, such as detailed articles describing where and when be was born, his education, his other employment, why he became an activist, his personal life such as a spouse or children and so on. Not all these boxes need to be checked but I am trying to indicate the type of coverage that counts as "significant". As for "Passion and Persistence: Fifty Years of the Sierra Club in British Columbia", that is a book written by a longtime Sierra Club activist. It may be useful in some ways but is not independent for the purposes of establishing the notability of Sierra Club leaders. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As for how Wikipedia determines the notability of a person, please read and study Wikipedia:Notability (people). Read all of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that the article Greenpeace has a lot of content about the very early days of that group's early history about 50 years ago in British Columbia. Many founders and early activists are mentioned, but not Simmons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Refrences and editing

So for sometime I am having problems with articles I mean about references. I change or remove an incorrect line from an article with providing the source but it gets removes eventually. What is my mistake? Jeanvaljean039 (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jeanvaljean039: Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you saying that you're removing what you believe to be incorrect information from a cited sentence or that you're removing the information and have a source to back up that removal? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 08:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

At Rixos Hotels, which appears to be the article in question, you are in an edit war. Wikipedia advises "BRD," meaning be Bold in making changes, but if Reverted, go to the Talk page to discuss. The proper step is to start a discussion on the Talk page, providing supporting references there rather than in your Edit summaries. You can invite the editors who reverted you to the discussion. Ideally, a consensus can be reached, and the article amended without further debate. David notMD (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing username

I wanna change my username to Aidb, but I dont know how to do it.Can any of you suggest me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actina (talk • contribs) 08:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Actina, welcome to the Teahouse. Special:CentralAuth/Aidb shows the name is taken but has no edits. You can try requesting a usurpation at meta:Steward requests/Username changes. It may take a while. meta:Steward requests/Username changes#Requests involving merges, usurps or other complications says: "Per standard procedure, accounts with valid edits are not usurped, and the target account must be notified by renamer at least one month before usurpation". PrimeHunter (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Actina Consider Aidb-1 or Aidb-X, etc. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Actina: Assuming that you are not dead set on trying to 'usurp' the name Aidb as explained above, I would advise you simply to just abandon your account and create a new one, never editing with the old name again. You have only made 2 edits under this account name, and it's simply not worth asking an admin making the necessary changes. Just create a new account of your choice. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Improper AfD

Not something I've done myself, but looking at Yayuan Liu the process for nominating an article for AfD doesn't seem to have been followed, and I wasn't sure what should be done about it. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, I've fixed the AfD page. Best. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

TheAafi Thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding content to lists on "Today's Date"

My experience is, that everything I add to the English Wikipedia is immediately removed. Anyway, perhaps someone can add the actor Colin Morgan and the musician Grandmaster Flash to the Today's List of Births on 1 January. It seems citations etc. are required to be on that list. Sadly, I have no confidence in my own abilities to do that correctly. But, maybe others have better luck. Cheers and Happy New Year to you all :) Kmilling (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kmilling:, Grandmaster Flash is already there and I don't see why you shouldn't be able to add another person. The page is Pending-Changes Protected but that just means you've got to wait a few minutes for an addition to be waved through. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kmilling: Colin Morgan already had a reference I have copied.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Two articles

There are two articles about the same person, Draft:Ishu yadav and Draft:Shivam Yadav. Is this allowed? Happy New Year! Vamsi20 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Vamsi20, given that these are drafts rather than articles it isn't too much of an issue. Both have been tagged for G11 anyway. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but will this result in a block for the person who did this?

Vamsi20 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a warning. Both created by same person, one months ago, one recently. Now, both declined and both up for Speedy. A look at the User page of the creating editor suggests writing about self. In the best of possible worlds, the editor may decide to become a useful contributor by editing existing articles. However, the more common path for thwarted autobiographers is that they abandon their accounts. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: it is not unusual for new users to create several drafts about the same topic, because they don't know that a title can redirect (so they think they have to make sure that the topic can be found under several relevant headings). That is not a blocking offense as long as it is done in good faith, and probably not even if it isn't. If a user systematically creates lots of identical draft pages after they have been asked to stop, it might become disruptive, but one isolated incident is not that. --bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser

User:Thegooduser is a nonexistent user, but the Teahouse still lists him as a host. Is Thegooduser a real user, or nonexistent, or did he have an account and remove everything? Vamsi20 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: Looks like they've been renamed. Either Oshwah (see where edit notice leads) or つがる. I'll have to follow up on this one, unless an older host knows who this is. Pahunkat (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: he got renamed to User:つがる. Probbably someone needs to update the host list... 16:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: fix ping. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Modifying tables

Hi everybody, i've some problems in modifying tables layout Fogna23 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

uploading images to wiki commons

It has been awhile since I've uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons. I received permission by email from the copyright holder of the photograph. When I try to upload using the "Upload Wizard" it asks for the proper copyright code. Not sure what this is in this case... thanks! Ella Dawn 17:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nailea Devora

Hi there! I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines but I wasn't sure about this creator - Nailea Devora. She has over 5M followers across platforms and collaborates frequently with creators such as Larray, Charli D'Amelio, and James Charles. The only press she's really gotten to date though has been a quote in the NY Times. I assume she's not notable enough for an article, but just figured I'd check in since WP:GNG's requirements are updated sometimes and can also be a bit broad for interpretation. Thank you. Grimothy29 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Grimothy29 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)