Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1123

Archive 1120

Archive 1121

Archive 1122

Archive 1123

Archive 1124

Archive 1125

→

Archive 1130

Submission Declined

Hi. My Wikipedia nickname is Abmshinagawa. I want my page to submit to Wikipedia. But, my submission declined from Wikipedia. Could you help me please to submit it to Wikipedia? Abmshinagawa (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

In the feedback, on the draft page and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice. Which parts of that advice don't you understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) If, Abmshinagawa, you mean the content of User:Abmshinagawa/sandbox, just make sure that everything said in it specifies a reliable, independent, published source. Additionally (甲), such verbiage as "a holistic and student-centered approach in an environment that embraces diversity and creativity" is, by itself, no more than vaguely commendable-sounding hot air. According to reliable, independent, published sources, of course, how is it "student-centered", how does it embrace diversity, how does it embrace creativity? Etc etc. (Let's forget "holistic", please.) Additionally (乙), the "shinagawa" within your name and your dedication to this one draft makes me wonder: What is your relationship to the school? Please read and digest Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, declined four times as Draft:Shinagawa International School and twice as your Sandbox. You have been submitting your draft over and over again without addressing the Decline reasons provided by the reviewers. The references continue to fail to establish notability for this middle school. I suggest you abandon this effort and instead apply yourself to improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing My Username

Hello Wikipedians, I would like to change my username to "TurboSpace" instead of using my original name. Please do let me know if this is possible. Thank you, Jocelin Andrea (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Please make a request at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Best to read WP:Changing username first. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

West Gate Tunnel

Is West Gate Tunnel opened to traffic? Mlik point (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mlik point: No. Even the article here says it won't open until 2024. It's still heavily under construction. This is more a general knowledge question you could have asked locals at WP:AWNB rather than seek an answer via the worldwide collective of assistance here. -- Longhair\^talk 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mlik point: as Longhair said, please don't ask general questions like this within the Teahouse. This forum is dedicated to help people who want to get started with Wikipedia editing. _Signed,Benjamin Borg ^(Talk) 13:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to move a draft created using the AfC process to my user space

Even though I am an autoconfirmed user I always use the Article Wizard because I once made a mistake and I published an article instead of saving it as a draft, after I hit the publish button, thinking it will stay in the draft space; that article I created directly by clicking the red link in the requested articles' page.

Now, after I have created multiple drafts, I think it would be a good idea to move some of my drafts into user space so I can publish them myself to the main space when I finish working on them. Also, this would reduce the stress on our fellow Wikipedia reviewers. What do you think? SX3001 (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SX3001. As an autoconfirmed editor, the Articles for Creation process is entirely optional for you. If you are confident about the notability of the topics, and have written well-referenced drafts, then you are free to move your drafts to mainspace whenever you see fit. It does not matter whether the drafts are in draft space or your user space when you move them. What matters is their compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. So, if you are prepared for the "tender mercies" of the New Pages Patrollers, go for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@SX3001, it would depend on whether others have contributed to it. If no one has made any substantial edits, you can take them to userspace. If others have put in their effort, it's best not to, as draft is community space, and by taking it to userspace, you'd be privatising others' contributions, so to speak. Do note that you can continue to work on draftspace and move them to mainspace yourself when ready, without submitting them to AFC; you don't need to take them to the userspace in between. There's WP:G13 which would be a nuisance at worst, as you can always make token edits before a draft gets deleted, or WP:REFUND it if it gets deleted in your absence. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

i want make my biography article

I'm bangladeshi musical artist, so i want make my biography proper article with template MD.AzimKhanOpu (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

MD.AzimKhanOpu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. If you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about you, someone will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. Please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-create the deleted article

 Moreharmonics (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC) hi there, someone recreate the previously deleted article Stephen Zechariah

@Moreharmonics: See Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: Undeletion doesn't apply to articles that were G5 deleted due to being written by a sock puppet of a known spam farm... 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I was answering without checking the reason for deletion.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: Hi, SilverMatsu thanks for your reply. you're kind! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreharmonics (talk • contribs)

why can't I relate my wikipedia account to my google account

I am eager to use wikipedia, but I cannot relate my works in other accounts to wikipedia

I have made different contributions in google maps. Added manymissing places, added many names indicated different place categories. How ever I failed to relate all these contributions to my wikipedia account. Can any one help me to do this? Sulex999 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Google are different websites and there is no relationship of accounts between the two websites. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Generic topic versus specific product

Hi,

Shark attack prevention § Electronic shark deterrents begins like this:

Main article: Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield)

Which is to say, an article or section that's meant to cover a given topic generically begins by linking to an article about one specific company or product, thereby singling it out. Is this acceptable, presuming that the latter article is objectively the one that contains the best coverage of the topic, and/or that this company or product is significantly more notable than its competitors, if any?

To me, this feels like a bad precedent in terms of principle, I suppose, regardless of whether it's a good solution in pragmatic terms. I'm curious about the situation as such rather than the particular instance above. Thoughts?

- 89.183.220.145 (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been added by a user who's entire contributions are related to Ocean guardian Special:Contributions/Arkpro. Might be a case of COI editing? I agree that the main article link is misplaced and doesn't belong there though. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the link. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

How to find the sources listed in an article without a link

How do I find a source with no link, like this one: The Exodus, by Michael Jarvis, in The Bermudian magazine, June 2001. I tried looking it up but I didn't get anywhere. Riverblade (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I recommend asking the editor who added it, which appears to be this editor. They may have used a hard copy of a print issue that isn't digitized. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If possible should there be a link to an online version of the source? The Wikipedia:Citing sources page didn't say so, but it seems pretty useful for other people trying to find the source. Riverblade (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's my understanding that best practices are to include a link if possible, and if not, then the source should be available in libraries, schools, etc., the excerpt should be quoted directly in the reference, the page number of the magazine included, a link to the magazine/publication's Wikipedia article, and other ways to direct readers to the exact source of the data or information. You can read more about that here and here. So that citation should have included more information, yes. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is indeed useful, if one exists, but it's not a requirement. Provided that the necessary bibliographical details are cited (which is a requirement), a local public library – if it did not have a copy – could request a copy, or a photocopy of the article, to be sent to them (since some library somewhere likely has it in their archives), or one might be able to contact the magazine directly (if it's still extant) and request (doubtless for a small fee) either. Even if one had to journey in person to, say, the British Library or the New York Public Library Main Branch in order to consult a copy of the magazine, this counts for Wikipedia purposes as being publicly available. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Riverblade: The relevant policy here is WP:Sourceaccess which states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." - there is no requirement that sources be available online or even easily accessible, you can cite rare books that are only available in a couple of museums worldwide for example. If an online copy of the article is available then adding a link to it is a really helpful thing to do, but it's not required. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bermudian [1] seems to have been running for over a century, so finding a library that holds recent volumes as opposed to ones from 1930s or 1960s may be a challenge. (Cataloguing for non-academic serials is messy.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I made an error in a move can you please fix it

Can you please correct the spelling in the title of Canadian federal election results in the Fraser Valley and the Souther Lower Mainland  Cable10291 (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cable10291: I assume the word "southern" is misspelled? Is that the correction you're seeking? -- Longhair\^talk 22:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Longhair: Yes. Thank you. Cable10291 (talk)

@Cable10291: Fixed. -- Longhair\^talk 22:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

upload photo

Hi - any idea of how long it takes a photo to make it on the page after uploading it? Palisades1 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Palisades1: There's no delay or waiting period associated with uploading photos, but you have to add them to articles manually, they won't appear on their own. I'm assuming you want to add File:Joe Whitty.jpg to Joseph Whitty? if so you need to add [[File:Joe Whitty.jpg|thumb|alt=description of the image for screen readers|write a caption here]] where you want the image to appear replacing the alt text and caption text with appropriate information. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I did finally figure out how to place the photo on the page but there is no information under the photo (his name). I thought I entered Joe Whitty but it dosent show. Any idea how I can fix that? Again, thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisades1 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Palisades1: You see the extra parameters I added after the filename, separated by pipes (these things → |)? They allow you to setup additional parameters when inserting images. The |thumb section tells the software to render the image as a thumbnail inside a grey box, |alt= allows you to give alt text that will be read by people using screen readers, and the last bit before the closing brackets allows you to set a caption that appears under the image. Also, just as a suggestion, the images appear in the article wherever you insert the link to them, I would suggest moving the image of his portrait to the start of the article. hope this helps, 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisades1 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Palisades1: Uploading the file as non-free content was probably a safe thing to do, but in this case it probably wasn't necessary. The photo is probably old enough to be within the public domain per c:COM:United States and c:COM:Ireland; so, try asking about it a c:COM:VPC because someone might be able to help track down the actual provenance of the photo. It's better to upload 100% free or 100% public domain files to Wikimedia Commons because it makes it so much easier for other Wikimedia Foundation projects to use. Files uploaded to English Wikipedia can only be used on English Wikipedia. The file is probably OK as non-free content, but you need to be much more specific about the provenance of the file; the file had to come from somewhere (it didn't just magically appear as a jpeg file on your computer, right?) and you should try to be much more specific information about the source of the file so that it can be properly assessed as non-free content per WP:NFC#Sourcing.

Some other things: please try to remember to sign your talk page posts as explained in WP:SIGN; please also check to make sure that you're not mistakenly marking all of your edits as WP:MINOR because many of your edits wouldn't be considered "minor". -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info I appreciate it all. Ive been having a difficult time trying to get the references correctly formatted and now I can get a photo inserted . I will use your advice when/if I insert a photo in the future. Cheers, Palisades1 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to sound harsh Palisades1, but if you don’t at least try to address the issues associated with the file you uploaded, then it’s possible that it will end up deleted. Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and it’s the responsibility of those uploading and using such files to make sure the files and uses comply with relevant policy. You should at least clarify where you got the photo and add that to the file’s page because it had to come from somewhere. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

u in colour? (US English or British English spelling?)

When editing articles, should the spellings of words such as colour or armour be in British English (with "u") or US English (without "u")? CrazyblocksT (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@CrazyblocksT: The policy here is WP:ENGVAR. Articles with ties to a specific area should be written in the version of English associated with that place, e.g. articles on American towns should be written in American English, but articles on British towns should be written in British English. For articles on subjects not related to a specific country the first editor to write the article gets to chose which version of English to use, which all subsequent editors should follow without changing. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@CrazyblocksT: Welcome to the Teahouse! Some articles also have a hidden template to let you know which version of English should be used (e.g. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission contains {{Use American English}} at the top of the article). Some talk pages have a template to let you know which version of English should be used (e.g. Talk:Animal contains {{British English}} at the top of the page). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Bronwyn Oliver has template:Use British English but the article is about australian

should we update english-language variety tag purely based on nationality? or depending on blp (person) has spent of her/him life in a particular country? if i want to change to some other english-language variety tag, should i go ahead and change the template? in this case to Template:Use Australian English? 28au21 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

On the face of it, that seems a reasonable suggestion. But please don't, and here's why. It's a featured article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's free of problems, but it does mean that a lot of deliberation has gone into it. So instead make your suggestion on Talk:Bronwyn Oliver, and see what reaction it gets. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

/rant on. Frankly, Australian Standard is indistinguishable in writing from Southern British Standard and other formal registers. (Even the pronunciation is almost identical, except for words like cricket and off.) The minor differences in lexis like thongs versus flip-flops, or the fact that swimming attire is called something different in Newcastle NSW vs. Sydney NSW, should be acknowledged, and explained in a way that makes sense to an international audience. In my personal opinion, which many would disagree with, the "Use AU/NZ/ZA/IN/etc. English" templates should all be burnt with fire and replaced with a single "use the international form of English which is not USA spelling". We can't avoid the USA-vs-everyone-else spelling dichotomy, but the whole "hey, my country is important too, let's get it listed at MOS:ENGVAR" is not helpful. Problem is, every time someone tries to change ENGVAR policy or the Use XX templates, we end up with a huge argument and no consensus. /rant off.

@28au21: if the template was called {{Use Commonwealth English}} or something else other than British/Australian, would that be less problematic? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Pelagic, perhaps you would like to post a coolly reasoned version of your rant above to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Meanwhile, 28au21 has posted their proposal to Talk:Bronwyn Oliver; you may wish to comment on it there. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Why my edit is not showing

 Vishalaab (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vishalaab: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! H4MCHTR commented your edits out for the time being because they felt they weren't sourced properly and would be better suited in another article, your work is still there, just not displayed in the final page. They've started a discussion at Talk:2022 Formula Regional Indian Championship, it would be best to discuss your edits with them there. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The material which you added was entirely unsourced, so was commented out in this edit. The editor who did that should have explained it to you. You need to read about Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Who wrote that material, Vishalaab? -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: It looks similar to this National Bulletin article. GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks that way to me too, GoingBatty. Thank you for your sleuthing. Now deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I didnt know the rules before but now it is showing "Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 404)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalaab (talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

[added at 05:32, 5 September 2021 by Vishalaab]

Rules are numerous, and they include: Do not violate copyright. Specify your sources.

What is showing "Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 404)"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

about French mathematical seminars

This page has a list of French mathematical seminars, and I can read some of this list in Numdam, so I added an external link, but Numdam says; It is forbidden to download a substantial volume of articles in order to assemble an entire volume of the paper edition or an author or subject based collection.. Should I write a note about it? SilverMatsu (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: Welcome to the Teahouse! Numdam's download rules would seem notable for an article about Numdam, but not for the general French mathematical seminars article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you your reply. I'm worried that downloading all the seminars listed in the article would violate numdam's Terms of Use.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps not many people try to download all the seminars listed in the article ...--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're worrying unnecessarily. This is just a fair-usage clause, analogous to the old rule about how much of a volume you could photocopy. Basically Numdam are making individual papers available for private study, but what they don't want is someone reconstructing whole volumes or the entire works of one academic as the electronic equivalent of a bound volume. That's not what you are trying to do, and if any individual finds the numdam site via Wikipedia, what they do with it is between them and Numdam. It is certainly helpful to make it possible for readers here to search out odd papers that are of interest to them. Elemimele (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Thank you your reply. I was relieved to hear that.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, this article has a red link Séminaire Cartan and also, redirect Cartan seminar redirects to this article, so it feels like a self-link or double redirects in a sense, should I remove one or the other?--SilverMatsu (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Make an entry for an ecommerce store

Pls let me know how I can create a page for an ecommerce store that sells outdoor patio furniture. Alyiaamir72 (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alyiaamir72: Welcome to the Teahouse. You should read Your first article, and find good reliable sources (three really good ones are what reviewers usually look for) to establish its notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alyiaamir72: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. First you would read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and disclose any conflict on your user page. Then you would read WP:NCORP to determine if the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, then you gather your reliable sources and follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Also, I recommend investing more time improving existing articles before writing a new article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Alyiaamir72, the deleted Draft:Bluu patio furniture was unreferenced, overtly promotional and unacceptable for Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and comply with the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if it applies to you. Attempts to promote a business on Wikipedia will meet a vigorous pushback from experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ii mad

 105.112.211.127 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Gloi

Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, please avoid sending blank messages in the teahouse as it directs volunteer assistance away from those who need it most. If you require any help, feel free to start a new thread. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 08:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

How we can contest unrightful post rejection?

Hi,

We have worked years to gather all the information we have, our clan was closed for over 400 years since it served the Shogunate, now in past years we have opened to public, with information sharing, knowledge management and much more on the warfare arts.

We have made properly argumented post that was rejected by someone who is not even a Japanese person, nor knows anything about true Ninja/Samurai development when he rejected out of no foundation our post here.

Viorel Cosmin Miron 05:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Viorel Cosmin Miron 05:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 柴田バネッサ. You keep talking about "we" and "our". Shared accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia, so you should talk about "me" and "my". Your references are formatted improperly. Take a look at Referencing for Beginners. That's a start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, in violation of the core content policies Verifiability and No original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging SIRavecavec, the one that actually wrote the question. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You are so wrong, I know the people who have individual accounts, again if you had nothing constructive to add, please refrain next time! Viorel Cosmin Miron 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@SIRavecavec: No, Cullen328 was correct. You come across as one account shared by multiple people, and you did not format your references properly. Nothing was "so wrong" about that. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:The Order of Musashi Shinobi Samurai. Personally, I agree that the Rejection was not appropriate. A Decline with guidance would have been better. That said, I recommend removing both galleries and a lot of unreferenced content about what individuals were doing. The article Samurai has links to articles about clans - these may serve as models for your efforts. David notMD (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that outright rejection was inappropriate. I have replaced it with a new submission template. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I would just add that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and may not warrant the same level of detail that a Japanese-language article on the same topic would; particularly since verifiability (for English-speakers) is much easier using English-language sources available on the web or in English-language libraries, and the verifiability of your article hinges entirely, or almost entirely, on Japanese-language sources not readily available to English-speakers elsewhere. This is in no way a critique of the value of the article or its topic. Just pointing out that there's a lot of detail there, and you may find it easier to get an article approved which begins more simply. Also, you need to finish translating or transliterating your References and External Links sections. EVhotrodder (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

EVhotrodder, the language of sources is of absolutely no relevance for either the notability of the subject or the content of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Creating new artist bio

How do I create a new artist bio and add links to it? Is there someone I can pay to do this for Lucyp123 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lucyp123: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you've already started at User:Lucyp123/Sample page. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. First you would read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and disclose any conflict on your user page. Then you would read WP:MUSICBIO to determine if Brooks meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, then you gather your reliable sources and follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Also, I recommend investing time improving existing articles before writing a new article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lucyp123, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if, like many people, you have the misunderstanding that Wikipedia is a place to tell the world about yourself - it is not, and promotion of any kind is forbidden. If you meet the criteria that GoingBatty mentioned, then there could be an article about you: you are discouraged from writing it yourself, but not forbidden. Whoever writes it, it will not belong to you, will not be for your benefit, will not be controlled by you, and will not necessarily say what you want it to say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.

As for paying somebody: I strongly advise against it. You can certainly find somebody who will take your money to do this: many are scam-merchants. I guess some will at least try to give you a good service and stay within Wikipedia's policies: but as I made clear above, they cannot guarantee that an article will be written, or will present you how you want to be presented. You're much better off finding other outlets. --ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Creating new wiki pages

How do i create a wikipedia page and could you run me through the process? Prajnawood (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Prajnawood If you want to try to make a WP-article, make sure you have the sources demanded at WP:GNG, otherwise you are wasting your time. Make sure to use inline references, this is essential. WP:REFBEGIN can help with that. Guidance on article-creating at WP:YFA, and general guidance at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:TWA. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Prajnawood, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid your question (which we get a lot here) is a bit like "How do I build a house and could you run me through the process?" The only sensible answer to that is "First learn the building trade". Writing a Wikipedia article maybe isn't quite as complex a task as building a house, but it is much harder than it looks, and most inexperienced Wikipedia editors who try it have a disappointing and frustrating time. For that reason I always advise spending a few months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before trying it. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Prajnawood, I agree with Colin. Walk before you try running. A few people break that rule and succeed, but fewer than one in a hundred. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on some drafts

After coming across them as part of my college project, I decided to make a few articles on some notable families/people/orgs from my city (Pune, India). Two of them are up for review. I would love some constructive feedback on them and the few others that I have been working on. If these topics are not suitable for Wikipedia, I am happy to db-g7 them at anytime.

In review:

• Draft:Dajikaka Gadgil
• Draft:Sheetal Agashe (reverted to stub, as I was not sure the Marathi books/news sources in print would be acceptable)

Yet to submit:

• Draft:Paranjape Schemes (reverted to stub for the same reason for the bio above, still working on it)
• Draft:Mandar Agashe (kept at length the sources allow, happy to revert to a stub if that is more suitable)
• Draft:P. N. Gadgil Jewellers (got a lot to do, still working on it)

Rejected:

• Draft:Sarvatra Technologies (expanded post rejection with the seemingly reliable sources I had, came here for feedback upon speaking with the reviewer who rejected the draft)

In the month I have been editing, I have already successfully created several articles on similar individuals from Chitpavan brahmin families (my college project topic) and their works, and hope to make more on similar subjects whom I found notable in the course of my studies, if this action is welcome that is (I've been made aware by senior editors that the nature of the subjects I wish to contribute is strictly monitored by the project).

As I have stated in every COI suspicion against me, I am doing this out of my own nerdy interests and on my own time. I'm happy to abandon/delete these drafts if these topics are not suitable for inclusion/have no potential and go back to my real life studies. I am interested in these subjects, but I am not THAT interested to devote so much time editing them as I already have so far. Disrupting the Wiki project is also not something I wish to do. Please guide me on what I should do. Thanks! AngryMushroom (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi AngryMushroom! I went ahead and accepted Dajikaka Gadgil. It looks in exceptionally good shape—the only thing I saw was a very minor MOS:NICKNAME issue, a detail in the Manual of Style that even many veteran editors don't know about.

Assuming the others are similar, I don't think there's anything major you need to worry about in terms of article writing; just always have in mind the notability guidelines, and be aware that if you write about topics that are more borderline notability, they're more likely to run into opposition. This is unfortunately especially true of India-related articles, as many editors don't know Indian languages and other reasons. AfC is also going to be de facto stricter than if you just moved your articles into mainspace yourself and let new page patrol evaluate them.

The main concern that I think you have is that, when veteran editors encounter a newcomer writing articles as good as yours, suspicions of undisclosed paid editing immediately arise. To counter that, I'd suggest filling out your user page with some details about what types of articles you edit and why. I see that some of your past interactions have been stressful—sorry about that. Keep in mind that other Wikipedians are all human, and we're trying to make judgements about things like notability and which editors are UPEs to the best of our abilities, which means we can be wrong. Don't take it personally, and just explain yourself as needed, and if you're coming to it from the right place, things normally eventually work out. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI - Sarvatra Technologies was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected, as the latter indicates that in the eyes of the reviewer, there is no potential to succeed. My general comment is that your drafts, while competent in composition and adherence to Wikipedia style, may be declined for lack of notability. Every person and every business are not necessarily article-worthy. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @David notMD, thanks for pointing that out. I completely understand that not everything is article-worthy, and I will be extra careful in the future when selecting my article subjects. Good day! AngryMushroom (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Sdkb, thanks for your reply. I have left you a message on my talk page. AngryMushroom (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not authorize a wiki page: Dorothy Ruiz Martinez

Hello, how do I report a wiki page? I do not authorize the page, it is using my personal information, and I want to remove it from Wikipedia. The page is Dorothy Ruiz Martinez. I tried to make edits to the page at least to protect my privacy, and to remove inaccurate information, but every time I publish the final edits, it reverts back to the original article. Some user Molly Polly is reverting back the page. I do not authorize any personal information on this page. How do I remove it?

Thank you! Rafaela Mars (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rafaela Mars: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry you're having problems with the Dorothy Ruíz Martínez article. The information at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects might be helpful. It's common for people to find that their edits have been reverted. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it's helpful to share your concerns on the article talk page: Talk:Dorothy Ruíz Martínez (with reliable sources, if possible). Since you have a conflict of interest, I suggest using the {{request edit}} template to ask other editors to help you improve the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! GoingBatty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaela Mars (talk • contribs) 06:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@MollyPollyRolly, please remember to respect the privacy of personal information when dealing with non-public figures. The edit by @Rafaela Mars appears to have removed only unnecessary private information that is not of benefit to the reader, in addition to condensing down some parts that were overly wordy. If you have a problem with their edit, I suggest recovering the portions you don't agree with removing, rather than undoing their entire edit. ––FormalDude talk 06:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: And please remember that when anybody removes references, that constitute usually as a form of vandalism and therefore was in need of being restored. I might be wrong in assuming bad faith of Rafaela Mars, but lets be honest; she didn't introduced herself as Dorothy Ruíz Martínez.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@MollyPollyRolly: Actually it's not a form of vandalism as explained here, particularly when you see an edit summary such as this; it might not have been the correct way for Rafaela Mars to try and approach things, but also automatically assuming that the disputed content automatically needs to be restored is also not automatically correct each and every time per WP:BLPEDIT. These types of situations happen more often then not, and sometimes it's better to try and slow things down a bit and get others involved to try and sort them out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rafaela Mars. Authorization by the subjects of Wikipedia biographies is not required and there is no process for that. Wikipedia contains biographies about people that Wikipedia editors conclude are notable, and we summarize what reliable, published sources say about various people. At this point, we have no way to verify that you are actually Martinez. If you want to verify your identity, you can contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. You are free to leave an edit request at Talk:Dorothy Ruíz Martínez as mentioned above noting inaccuracies in the article or anything that genuinely violates your privacy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Rafaela Mars Much of the disputed information appears to have been sourced to an interview of Martinez, published in Familia in 2014. The reference is still used (#1). Whether any of that information is germane to an article about her life and career can be questioned, but there does appear to be a source. It is very common for articles to have a Personal life section in which spouses are named and number of children provided (but not named). David notMD (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rafaela Mars. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia for more information, but there are ways for the subjects of articles to seek assistance from others when they have concerns about article content. It's also important to understand that Wikipedia articles are written about subjects and not for subjects, and this means that the subjects of articles have no claim of ownership over the article. That doesn't mean that anything goes, but it does mean that article content is going to be assessed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines and not based upon what the subject might want. This is one reason why the subjects of article are typically encouraged to seek assistance from the Wikipedia community at large when they have concerns about what's written about them; the subjects of articles might mean well but they just might not be familiar enough with Wikipedia to successfully correct any problems they think need fixing, which might actually not be problems at all from Wikipedia's viewpoint. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I realize this is meta, but I think Wikipedia mishandles requests to delete BLPs when the subject objects. We seem to want the subject to prove they are not notable, and that's not quite right. It is paramount to respect Privacy here, a human right, and our presumption should lean towards privacy, not away from it. Rklahn (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE gives some support to that, but someone has to (in this case, since the article isn't glaringly awful atm) start the Afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There are circumstances where a subject wants an article deleted because it paints them in an unflattering light due to the sourcing; an example from recent memory is Peter A. McCullough, who'd very much like that the article on him not mention the various COVID-related stuff he's said and (either he or someone working on his behalf) has attempted to get the article deleted in an effort to hide it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There are levels of privacy. The idea that a notable person can object to a biographical encyclopedia article on them existing seems absurd to me. If Pope Francis decided that he didn't want to have an article here, would you suggest that we take it down and completely scrub his existence from our site? Obviously not. And, while this person is not at that level of notability, the principle seems the same. There is, of course, room for legitimate objections to specific material to be included in said article, but if you really don't want an encyclopedia to write about you, you should try to live a non-notable life. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

How do I remove my self from Wikipedia?

I don't want to be apart of this community anymore, How do I remove my self from Wikipedia? (Larryvnash) Larryvnash (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Larryvnash: The simplest way possible: just stop editing here. --CiaPan (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Larryvnash: If you wish to have Draft:Larry Nash deleted, just say so here, and someone will take care of that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

colors

how do i turn white boxes yellow Kcrules (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kcrules: Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you're having some problems working on List of Walt Disney Pictures films. The code that article uses to make table boxes yellow is style="background:#ffff81;". You may wish to review Help:Wikitable and/or post your suggestions on how to improve the article at Talk:List of Walt Disney Pictures films. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The #ffff81 is a hex code for yellow (I presume). ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Esav Marrakech

Hey guys I've been lately improving article that i wrote week ago and i still wonder when submited to review if maybe can accepted or still need some edits if it is help me out guys it really can help. Thanks youHellmuSa (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC) HellmuSa (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@HellmuSa: Well, you asked the same thing a couple of days ago, in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1122#Draft:Esav Marrakech. You got some advice there; were there any parts of that advice that were unclear or hard to understand? The draft is waiting for review, Draft:Esav Marrakech. --bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea i already edited in order of the advise that have been given and i still feel like it missing something so yeah am conviced yet with my edited. thanks HellmuSa (talk) HellmuSa (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

My comment of three days ago: "Needs more content and refs about the school. Documenting that it exists and how it came to exist are not enough." You have done nothing to address this. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, an editor changed the image caption from "View of ESAV school entry..." to "Artistic creation of ESAV school entry..." Is this an edited photograph? Is there a better possible caption? and who is John Ricke, who claims this as own work, uploaded to Commons a week before you created your draft? David notMD (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I changed the caption based on the conversation now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1122#Draft:Esav Marrakech. I'm open to editors using a better caption. GoingBatty (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I just saw that Jhon Ricke is an account of a sockpuppeteer (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asaidmanar), who has probably created HellmuSa. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

HellmuSa denies, but is under scrutiny as a possible sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asaidmanar. User:Jhonricke is a confirmed sock, indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Entry for Stakeholder Capitalism

Hi, one of the editors has made an arbitrary decision that Stakeholder Capitalism is the same as Stakeholder Theory on the basis that they are the same thing, when a simple Google search shows they are not the same, or everyone would be using the terms interchangeably.

https://www.google.com/search?q=stakeholder+capitalism&sxsrf=AOaemvJldTUqIUgvk7nSpI5SlhcuQ-kTMQ%3A1630852325850&source=hp&ei=5dQ0Ya3nMKKx5NoPhd65kA4&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYTTi9fC1kNvvoMIJfFshlkOwnQDytU-i&oq=stake&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIECCMQJzINCAAQgAQQhwIQsQMQFDIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCABDIICC4QgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzoICC4QsQMQgwE6CwguEIAEEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QM6DgguEIAEELEDEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToLCAAQgAQQsQMQyQM6BQgAEJIDOgsILhCABBCxAxCDAVCK1gFYxNoBYLbmAWgAcAB4AIABcogB7wOSAQMzLjKYAQCgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

Someone's attention to this matter would be appreciated.

Bolgerb1953 (talk) Bolgerb1953 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bolgerb1953: Stakeholder capitalism currently redirects to Stakeholder theory. That is a fairly old redirect. The new, capitalized version that you wrote, Stakeholder Capitalism, also redirects there, because we shouldn't have identical titles displaying different things. The reason for redirection was WP:POVFORK; we don't have multiple articles about one subject that represent separate points of view; they should all be in the same article. The guideline WP:COMMONNAME determines how articles should be titled when there interchangeable possibilities for a title and this ngram result clearly shows "stakeholder theory" is most commonly seen in books. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"'Added reference to the emerging concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, which is the more commonly used term today for the same concept.'" MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bolgerb1953 - You have raised this question in at least four places: here; on your talk page, at great length; at the AFC Help Desk; and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, twice. The length of your posts makes it difficult to address the issue. I am willing to try to conduct dispute resolution at DRN if you will agree that is the only place where the issue will be discussed, and if you will first answer a question that you were asked on your talk page, which is whether you have a conflict of interest. You have filibustered rather than answer that question. So: Do you have a conflict of interest, and are you willing to discuss in only one place? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again. Please again understand I am very confused by the difference between these different forums, which are very difficult to navigate even when one has tried to answer the questions. I assume this is the forum for such a discussion.

1. I am not being paid by anyone for this article and my organization nor none of its work is mentioned in it, even though it should be. Again, I cannot figure out where or how to post this information other than here. A. I am a subject matter expert. See my Linked in page. While my organization has an interest in the subject, which makes us experts, we would reap no financial gain even if we were mentioned, no more than E. Freeman reaps a gain by being mentioned in Stakeholder Theory. B. My being an expert in the field of people management is no more a conflict than if I were called in to be an expert witness in a trial. C. My company provides services on human capital reporting, not on Stakeholder Capitalism per se.

A. This is a field being mentioned in the New York Times, Fortune, the Business Roundtable, World Economic Forum, McKinsey, EY, Council for Inclusive Capital, and many other--not one of which makes any mention of Stakeholder Theory.

2. Again, Stakeholder Capitalism encompasses the environment; Stakeholder Theory is one approach to addressing the people management. There are others, such as Enterprise Engagement, which is also in Wikipedia. A. Stakeholder theory is to Stakeholder Capitalism what quantum mechanics is to physics.

Thanks again for your help...I assure you that if I had known how to answer the gentleman's questions about conflict of interest, I would easily do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolgerb1953 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm new here

 Zrogo (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Zrogo Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to edit or create articles, or what to do when someone leaves a message on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zrogo Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have questions about editing, this is the place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a disruption-only account. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Templates of AUshield

What is templates of /////? Mlik point (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Mlik point, you are using the templates in your inscrutable question about them. You can see what they are and what they do as clearly as anyone can. How do they work? Well, as an example, this. But perhaps, so far as I understand your question (which isn't far), I misunderstand it. If so, please rephrase it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We need more templates of AUshield in List of road routes in Victoria. Mlik point (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mlik point Pretty sure this is already answered in #Can you upload files? above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Templates of AUshield (numbers)

What is template of //////? Mlik point (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What kind of information do you want when you ask "What is template of [template]?", Mlik point? -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It's about AUshield. Mlik point (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What is it about AUshield, Mlik point? -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It's example: {{AUshield|N|1}}. Mlik point (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mlik point; precisely what do you want to know about {{AUshield|N|1}}? -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It runs clockwise around Australia (not in Tasmania). Mlik point (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Templates don't run anywhere, Mlik point. And you haven't said what it is that you want to know. -- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Mlik point, are you by any chance asking how to make templates for additional Australian highway shields? I can't answer that myself (because I don't know). But if that's your question, maybe now someone else can answer it. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Does LROCKjn have a question?

 LROCKjn (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Inserted a section title. David notMD (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Categories and Redirects

What policy or guideline discusses the use of categories for redirect pages? I've noticed that stuff like The Verge and Michael Brooks (political commentator) end up in categories like Category:Video podcasts when a magazine or person is clearly not a podcast. I was considering making a redirect for the podcasts and adding those to the category instead. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure for Michael Brooks but for The Verge, they do have multiple audio podcasts as seen here. As for category, maybe it was added wrongly or the editor that added it got confused with the videos that The Verge published frequently on their YouTube. I don't remember The Verge having any video podcasts be it on their website or on YouTube, maybe they have in the past but I'm not certain about that. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hi there! There's lots of information at Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User Anasnadeem2548

Hello! User Anasnadeem2548 (Contributions) is spamer. Examples of his edits: one, two, three four etc all his edits. --Avedon (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not write about this for the 3rd time, if you do not need help in the fight against spammers or vandals - I meant this deletion of my message about this spammer. I don't have time to search for the forum here where my message would be appropriate. --Avedon (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Avedon (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the editor's contributions and at his user talk page you will see that his spam had been reverted and he had been warned. No further action is needed at this stage. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I inderstand. I didn't look. Anasnadeem2548 was blocked forever without notice on Russian Wikipedia - my request about him to administrators. It doesn't make sense to warn such users like he. --Avedon (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your earlier edit was reverted because it was at the wrong place (Wikipedia talk:Help desk rather than Wikipedia:Help desk). For Anasnadeem2548, normal progression is next level warning on Anasnadeem2548 Talk page, and then on to block. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia has different formal rules: 1) the comment written in the erroneous place is transferred to the correct forum; 2) administrators (if they delete normal comments) write the reason of delete in the description of the edits, and are not work silent. I thought so here too. It is not customary to silently roll back normal comments. But I understand. That's all. --Avedon (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Avedon: Thanks for reporting the promotional-only account which I have indefinitely blocked. The advice above is correct in general but it has become customary to block such activity when that is all they are doing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am engaged in the fight against vandalism and spam on the Russian Wikipedia (apart from my other activities in RuWikipedia). Found the vandal and spammer Anasnadeem2548 - he was blocked indefinitely without notice. Also, I found that he made 14 edits in the Eng. Wikipedia. I looked at his edits here. They all contain spam for the one site - real estate agency or something like that. I decided to report this facts here... Thanks for the help. Regards. --Avedon (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Avedon: For cross-wiki spam, also see meta:Wikiproject:Antispam. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Avedon (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive"

Hello! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and I've recently been editing the first table on the page Ali filmography to fit with WP:CHRONO (a first step as part of the guild of copy editors). I've just done a batch of editing and am trying to save my changes and log off, but I keep getting this error - "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing." How do I fix this without having to abandon my changes entirely? Also, is there a better way to do this? Sorry if this is a dumb question haha Karanoia (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You can report this at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. I think this can be bypassed by asking an editor with extended-confirmed rights? ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The attempted edit can be seen at [2]. The cause was probably Idiot (2002 film). Try saving a version without that word, and then request an edit on the talk page or here. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll attempt putting these suggestions to use.--Karanoia (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Railway interchange template

How to create a railway interchange template? For example the railway interchange template for chennai suburban railway is {{rint|chennai|suburban}} or {{…|chennai|s}}. How do I create one for a different system? Footy2000 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Footy2000. Looking at Template:Rail-interchange, I don't think you need to create a new template but rather add a new location code to the existing one. Perhaps you could ask at Template talk:Rail-interchange? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Footy2000 If you asking for missing icons you want for use in an article for different railway system other than the existing Chennai Suburban Railway ones, Template talk:Rail-interchange is better place to discuss about it. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I will. Thank you.Footy2000 (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Unique titles

How do I change the wording of a title? If I write a new article about Bill Jones, and there is already an article called Bill Jones, I would like mine to be "Bill Jones (butcher)" and the older one "Bill Jones (baker)". How do I do that? What happens if someone doesn't like "baker"? Roryjohnston (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Barack Obama is well known. If I want to create an article about Barack Obama (butcher), I do not rename the older one "Barack Obama (politician)". Actually even if he weren't well known I wouldn't do that. If there's just one article, about a baker, or politician, let it keep its name, and have a disambiguating "hatnote" at its head. See for example the top of the article John Bulmer. If this approach threatens to become laborious for the reader, we start a separate "disambiguation" page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Roryjohnston: In the example Hoary provided, President Obama is considered the "primary topic". Other times, there is no primary topic, so Bill Jones is a disambiguation page with links to articles with disambiguators. For more information on this, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. GoingBatty (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

But for a user who has created few articles, Roryjohnston, I would strongly advise using the articles for creation process: this has the added advantage that you don't need to worry about the eventual name of the article, as the reviewer who accepts it will sort that out. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Boris Savinkov

hiya, i was trying to edit a page about a russian revolutionary called Boris Savinkov but it was reverted. see, in the popular Hearts of Iron IV mod Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg, an alternate history scenario where germany wins WW1. Boris Savinkov features prominently, as he can become dictator of Russia within the game. i am a regular in the kaiserreich community, whichis how i know about savinkov, so, as it was a cultural depiction of him, i thought i would put kaiserreich in his popular culture section. i also cited the official wiki for the mod as my source. unfortunately, my edit was removed and im not sure why. i dont think it broke any copyrights and it was verifiable. Chapayev478 (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Boris Savinkov, and the addition to popular culture was reverted by a 'bot (an automated program). Can anyone weigh in on this? David notMD (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chapayev478: Welcome to the Teahouse. You said you cited the official wiki for the mod as [your] source. Unfortunately, wikis are not considered reliable sources as they are user-generated and thus not verifiable. Wikipedia also can't use your personal knowledge, as that would be considered original research. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Did not have the more/move tab when I log in

Hi,

My name is Raymond.

I wanted to change the current title of my page. But cannot do it because I do not have the "more/move" tab needed to execute this change.

Can you advise please? 202.80.43.236 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 202.80.43.236 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You mean, you're Raymond?

Whoever you are, your user page can't be moved. (There is a procedure for being a user and their user page, etc, being renamed.) Or are you asking about the title of an article? -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary For the record: The above IP edit was not done by me. Raymond (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, Raymond. Sorry to have bothered you. (Oh dear: by writing this, I'm bothering you again. Please ignore this message) -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and guess that this IP's name is Raymond and wishes to get a userpage with "Raymond as it's name." _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 14:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You can't move a page until your account is autoconfirmed, which usually happens when your account is 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits. Only logged-in edits count, not posts like this one where you are logged out. You can also request help with the move at WP:RM RudolfRed (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:BLPSELFPUB on Pete Buttigieg article

Dear Teahouse,

This is AndrewPeterT. Although I have had a Wikipedia account for several years, I have not actively edited articles in a while. Moreover, I wanted to ask a question regarding a Wikipedia policy I have not encountered before, namely using an article subject as a self-published source.

I am currently in the process of improving the Wikipedia article for United States Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. My hope is to eventually get his page to Good Article status. Recently, Secretary Buttigieg announced on Twitter the names of the two children he and his husband have adopted: https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1434167993769111552

This is my question: Would citing Tweets like the one above be considered a violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB? In particular, because Buttigieg's Tweet involves a personal detail, I am worried it may be self-serving and therefore violate the first criteria. Also, other editors have already provided information and sources regarding the names of Buttigieg's children. I believe adding this Tweet will complement the references currently present in Buttigieg's article.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much! Hurricane Andrew (444) 18:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT, hello! IMO, adding the tweet is at best harmless here, since NYT is quoting the same tweet, with the names. My personal preference per WP:BLPNAME is to not include the names of the babies at all, but that's up to editorial consensus, the policy allows both "solutions." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT I took the actual given names out. They were just born, and have no inherent notability; there is no compelling reason to publish their names here. See WP:BLPNAME. --- Possibly ☎ 15:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi Sorry I’m new to this. I thought I cited reliable, industry neutral sources for information (magazines, articles, press releases), all cited correctly, however my article has been rejected “This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.” TheSangster (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

TheSangster Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Press releases are not independent reliable sources, because they are put out by the subject itself. The same goes for brief mentions or announcements of routine business activities.

It appears that you have a conflict of interest and are a paid editor. Please read those policies and make the required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheSangster: You are mistaken in thinking that press releases qualify as independent, reliable sources; see Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases. Many of the citations in your draft, like those to "articles" at Recruitment International and Recruiter sites, are clearly to material that was promulgated by the company itself and thus are not independent sources. Wikipedia isn't interested in what the company says, or wants to say, about itself; you need to find sources with no connection at all to Itris. If you want to discuss why the draft was declined further, you can ask the declining reviewer, User:Umakant Bhalerao, for his rationale on his talk page. Deor (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

How to put <ref:name="1"> correctly to avoid getting an error message

Hello, I was editing references in the page about NU'EST, when I noticed that the second and third references are basically the same. After that, I tried to put the ref name 1 template and when I saw the preview of my edit, I saw that there was the message that there was an error in the reference (this is not the first time that when I try to do this type of edits, this warning message appears). How can I add the template successfully? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bloomingbyungchan: "1" is not a valid value for the name="" attribute, as values must not be purely numeric, try using ":1" instead. See WP:REFNAME for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I unfortunately have the same problem. As I mentioned the two sources are the same, the only different thing is the way the publisher of the article is written, also when I look at the preview, the number of the second reference doesn't become the same as the first. This made me think: Is it possible to hide the reference template inside the ref name:1 one? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bloomingbyungchan: I can't see your edits in the page history, could you link to where you're having issues. Reference names cannot be numbers, you either need to add some text or punctuation to them. As a general point it's a good idea to make your reference names somewhat discriptive (e.g. "Billboard interview" ) so that it's easier for other editors to see what they are. Also bear in mind that citation names are case sensitive. Have you read WP:REFNAME? It has some helpful information on how to use named references. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm having problems here. You can't see the edits because I preferred resolving the problem by going here in the Teahouse, rather than publishing edits that ruined a reference. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bloomingbyungchan: is it the Star News ref? The footnote numbers you see when reading the article are automatically generated, so you can't use them in the source code. So you need to invent a useful label add it as a name attribute. The first occurrence could be <ref name="Star News">{{cite news|title=애프터스쿨 ...}}</ref>, or maybe use the author+year name=Park2011. Then the second instance you replace with just <ref name="Star News" /> or <ref name=Park2011 />. Note the extra slash, as /> in place of ></ref>. Hope that helps! If you're inclined to do a bit extra, it'd be nice to update the citations to credit the authors. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: you can't add a name to an existing ref in Visual Editor, only in source mode. Also, see Special:Diff/1042388356 for an example where I added the author and date to another ref (I used VE for that, wanted to confirm that it doesn't auto-add a ref name). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's that reference and I finally managed to fix that issue. Thank you so much for your help and answer! Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear that it worked for you, Bloomingbyungchan! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Confused on deletion.

I moved the article of Shahajas Thekkan (an association football player) to the draft space, as he fails WP:NFOOTY. The draft is here. I don't know what SD tag to be placed to delete Shahajas Thekkan redirect from the mainspace. Will someone help me out? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Hi there! Seems that WP:R2 would work. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply GoingBatty. Someone else did it, but this would help me in future. Cheers! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Is it fair to say someone else did it fastily?  ;-) GoingBatty (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Ha, Yeah. XD. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?}

Signing inline vs. after line break

I have recently been signing my posts after a line break, like so: ...end of comment.<br />~~~~. My rationale is that, on talk pages, it can occasionally be difficult to determine if a paragraph in line with one above it is written by the same author as the above paragraph or by someone different, and it requires visually scanning the last line of the paragraph to determine if there is a signature there. A signature following a line break leaves no doubt that the end of one paragraph is the end of my comment.

However, I have seen an overwhelming majority of users signing their posts inline, such as this: ...end of comment. ~~~~ In fact, this post itself, even though it's written by me, will be signed inline; the signature is hard-coded into the edit form, and I'm intimidated by the all-caps instruction not to edit it enough to follow the instruction.

Are there any good reasons to use inline signatures over line-broken signatures? Is it just an unspoken rule that has become a custom? Am I even allowed to make this decision on my own, or have I overlooked a rule somewhere that expressly forbids or urges against my preference? I'm not overly attached to my method and would certainly change if there is a rule or urging against it, or even if there were a reasonably convincing argument for another method; however, while I appreciate customs and traditions, I feel they should have a better reason than "because that's how it's done".

Funny story: The preview for my edit (on my screen) displays my signature on the next line (like after a line break) due to the length of the sentence preceding it, so I'm writing another sentence to point out it is indeed inline. ~ JDCAce | talk ~ 10:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

JDCAce, the news website to which I pay most attention tells me of global heating, successes in a worldwide war against women's reproductive rights, environmental degradation caused by lithium mining, political and social repression in a large percentage of the nations of the world, and more. Feel free to put your signature in whichever position you prefer, and don't worry about it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@JDCAce: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like Hoary said, you can put your signature in whichever position you prefer, but all of the scripts for commenting that I've come across will auto-sign at the end of the last paragraph. If you'd like another method of viewing posts as discreet blocks, you might want to try Convenient Discussions, which has an option to reformat comments in its settings. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It really is a matter of choice, but please put your sig at the end of the last para,not on a newline of its own, it looks far better, thanks.

-Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree: your example does look pretty bad! Thankfully, the <br /> method retains the paragraph's indentation, like in this comment's signature.
~ JDCAce | talk ~ 21:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

At least the shouty all-caps is working... ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's responses, and especially @Tenryuu:'s suggestion of Convenient Discussions! I'm beginning to lean toward inline style, given its overwhelming preference among the community. I believe I have seen over three months only a single other user employing the <br /> method! ~ JDCAce | talk ~ 21:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Pelagic 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC) ⁓ I've seen wikis where the convention was to sign before the comment. It looks fine when everyone is doing it, reminiscent of IRC or chat clients.

Pelagic ⁓ There may be software tools here which assume the timestamp will be the last element. The format of this paragraph works, but now it looks like I'm @-mentioning myself. 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Creating an article when the title already goes to another article

I would like to do an article about the horror movie A Serial Killer's Guide to Life and when I tried typing that name in the search box it sent me instead to an article about the lead actress, Katie Brayben. At the top it says:

Katie Brayben

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from A Serial Killer's Guide to Life)

At Help:Your first article it says this is a "redirect."

I've been editing for a few months and people have helped me here at the Teahouse and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror. I know how to find reliable sources and cite them and how to write neutrally. Editors have given me a lot of encouragement and positive feedback. So I think I'm ready to start an article. This movie has 92% at Rotten Tomatoes, a notable star (Katie Brayben), and it streams on Showtime, Amazon Prime and Hulu.

Using the Article Wizard at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard I got to the page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/CreateDraft. There's a box to type in the name of the article I would like to write (A Serial Killer's Guide to Life) but I'm worried that if I do that and hit "Create a new article draft" that there will be some sort of technical conflict since that title is currently a redirect.

What should I do? The Horror, The Horror (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, {U|The Horror, The Horror}}, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, that's the best thing to do. It is possible to get to the redirect and edit it into an article, but unless you are experienced enough to create an article in one go that will meet the basic criteria, it's a much better idea to create a draft. When you get the draft in a suitable state and submit it for review, the accepting editor will handle moving it over the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Repinging The Horror, The Horror. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine! So by using the Wizard box, it crates a draft that I can submit for review. I'll try that! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: I updated the Katie Brayben to include A Serial Killer's Guide to Life so readers understand why they were redirected. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, GoingBatty! You've been like my godfather on WIkipedia! I've made the draft but I see there are 1,200 ahead of me! So about 4 weeks from now I may get an answer, it says. Oh, well! I;ve been too busy to even come to Wikipedia in over a week, so the time should go fast. I did see "Warning: The page A Serial Killer's Guide to Life redirects to Katie Brayben. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title." Thank you, everyone! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: Nice job with the draft! Drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Panama Presidents photos

Presidents of Panama new photos.

On Wikipedia Commons, may I upload these photos? . I saw another user upload files from here , and I wanted to make sure every President of Panama has a photo. EducationThruLists (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi EducationThruLists. Those photos are copyrighted- at the bottom of the page, it says "derechos reservados" which means "all rights reserved". Wikimedia Commons only accepts freely licenced images, so these would not be accepted at Commons. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@EducationThruLists: Welcome to the Teahouse! For each person without a photo, I went to the article about them and requested a photo on the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@EducationThruLists: I also requested photos for you on Talk:List of heads of state of Panama. GoingBatty (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And I think why the ones mentioned in the PDF that are on Commons, they look to have been taken around 1945, so maybe the copyright on them has expired (I know nothing about copyright law in Panama). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You could probably check out Copyright law of Panama to make sure. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks all of you EducationThruLists (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Where are the photo requests? EducationThruLists (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@EducationThruLists: On Talk:Daniel Chanis Pinzón, Talk:Alcibíades Arosemena, Talk:José Ramón Guizado, Talk:Ernesto de la Guardia, Talk:Marco Aurelio Robles, Talk:José María Pinilla Fábrega, Talk:Bolívar Urrutia Parrilla, Talk:Jorge Illueca, Talk:Manuel Solís Palma, Talk:Francisco Rodríguez (President of Panama), Talk:Rubén Darío Paredes, and Talk:List of heads of state of Panama. GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

May i create pages which has been deleted before.

May i create articles which has been deleted before with reason (created by a blocked or banner user). I saw many that are eligible but is deleted. I also got requests from person whose articles got deleted because of same reason. As i mentioned above. Thank you JamesAlfa (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JamesAlfa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, if you believe that the people meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you may create articles about them. However, I would caution you:

1. Creating a new encyclopaedia article is much more difficult than it appears, and I always advise new editors to spend a few months improving some of our six million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it;
2. When you do try it, I strongly advise using the articles for creation process and creating a draft; and
3. It's not clear who you have been requested by, but you may very well have a conflict of interest: this doesn't prevent you from working on the articles in question, but you must understand the limitations this may cause, and should nbe open about it. Remember that an article about somebody does not belong to that person, is not in any way for that person's benefit, and should be based on what people unconnected with them have published about them, not on what they or their associates say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sir, ColinFine I'm new to Wikipedia i know, i will get all the knowledge about creation of Wikipedia. I got so many articles that could be created because that Articles are of notable persons, Eg - Shadab Chauhan and Vishal Bhujbal and 2-3 more that could be created. I only want to ask now is that, if i created then i will not be blocked by anyone to do so because i hesitate for doing that. Please check and answer me. Thank you JamesAlfa (talk)

JamesAlfa: you won't get blocked just for recreating a deleted article; but it will be up to you to justify the notability of the subject, which is why I strongly advise you to create a draft and put it through review. Make sure you understand what Wikipedia means by notability, which is not quite the same as it means in normal use. Who is it that has asked you to create these articles? If it is the subjects, or their associates, then you definitely have a conflict of interest. Shadab Chauhan has been deleted twice, once because it was created by a banned user, but before that for being unambiguous promotion or advertising. Make sure your read WP:YFA before you start. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine No sir, i joined Wikipedia to contribute not to earn. I was learning wikipedia since 6-7 years. I got a best platform to know anything about any. No one asked me to create who are associated with Shadab Chauhan of any one. Actually Shadab Chauhan is a Politician from Peace Party of India, he is well notable. That's why i wanted to create his Wikipedia and nothing else. Thank you sir, for sharing such valuable informations to me. JamesAlfa (talk)

@JamesAlfa Please sign your comments properly with 4 tildes ~~~~. Do not use 3. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

QwerfjklOk sir that was my mistake. JamesAlfa (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

unreferenced or blp unsourced on Amanda Robins

recently Template:Unreferenced is added. this is biograghy of living person, so can i replace it with Template:BLP unsourced? 28au21 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@28au21: Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you are correct - you may change {{Unreferenced}} to {{BLP unsourced}} on a biography of a living person. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliabilites

Hello, I was wondering if things such as verified youtube channels and twitter accounts are realiable, and if accounts that are generally accepted as the verified accounts other channels are also reliable. Timothy Darrell (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Timothy Darrell: Welcome to the Teahouse! It depends on what you're trying to do. If WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RSPYT don't answer your question, please provide more specifics. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I'm specifically talking about a minecraft youtuber with a verified checkmark on youtube and twitter and tweets/vids/streams that isn't self-serving. Example: tweets that show their birthday (from an adult youtuber), Streams that show their POV in an event, and videos about an SMP(Survival Multiplayer). Timothy Darrell (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Timothy Darrell: Maybe you're talking about Draft:Technoblade (Youtuber)? Per WP:BASIC, I suggest you focus on finding multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Technoblade, and paraphrase/summarize what they say, to demonstrate that Technoblade meet's Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability", so your draft can be approved. If you haven't done so already, please review the instructions in Help:Your first article. Leave minutia such as their birthday for later. GoingBatty (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

reference

i don't know how to add a reference, please explain Npk482376 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Npk482376! There's guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners, or at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 if you're using VisualEditor. Feel free to let us know if you have any specific questions or want help with a specific page. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I change my Username?

Hi there I'm a new user and struggling on my own for some time now to get started with my own writings to be published. I'm a writer anyway mainly in Bengali, but write in English too. First thing, I need to change my username. How can I do that? Could anybody here kindly help me regarding this? FKTipu (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:Changing username --David Biddulph (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Best steps to create page on English Wikipedia that exists in German Wikipedia

I am looking for guidance on the best/proper steps to take when creating a Wikipedia page that exists in German Wikipedia. The person in question (Ulrike Lohmann) will meet criteria #3 of WP:PROF, so I am not concerned about establishing notability. She has a page on the German Wikipedia site de:Ulrike Lohmann.

From reading through the various Wikipedia pages, I found some information at WP:TFOLWP and the information on the template for {{translated page}} for the talk page. Is it acceptable to use a Google Translate version as the first version on the English Wikipedia? Then, as a next step, I think it would make sense to edit the page to get everything into better English and update the article.

Is this an OK plan, or are there other things I should consider?

I recognize that one alternate plan is to make a new page from scratch, but that doesn't seem very efficient. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia, but be sure you know both English and German; machine translation is not allowed on it's own. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: See also Help:Translation#Avoid machine translations. If you want to use Google Translate to produce a rough version, it's best to copy what it produces and emend it in your user space, moving the article to mainspace only whan you're satisfied that its accurately translated into proper idiomatic English and acceptably sourced. Deor (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I do speak some German, so I am comfortable with the translation (thanks also for the link on avoiding machine translations). Once I have the translation set, am I OK if I put the {{translated page}} note on the talk page, or are there other steps I need to take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffodilOcean (talk • contribs)

My comments would be: (1) Google-translate does make mistakes in translation from German, especially with technical language where word-for-word translation leads to incomprehensible stuff that makes no sense in an English-language context. For example, government institutions that don't exist in the English speaking world sound a bit daft without any explanation. Google-translate will also translate people's names, and other things that shouldn't be changed. (2) Yes, it's sufficient to include the template. The point is to acknowledge the original authors, so by pointing at the page that you have translated, you provide a route for a reader to go back and see who wrote the German text. (3) You may encounter pictures that are not in wikicommons. (4) Sometimes it's difficult to know what to translate, and what to leave. The German name of a company might need to be given in original German so that people can search for it by name; but it might be helpful to translate if the name gives an indication of what it actually does. (5) You may need to change some wiki-links into inter-wiki links that point for the moment at the German equivalent, but will automatically point to the English article if someone gets round to writing it. (6) Templates on the German wikipedia often have different parameters, names and formats to their equivalents on the UK wikipedia, so expect to change them all. This includes pictures. The best thing with pictures is to find a suitable bit of format in an English article, and paste the German file links into the English-style picture template, together with translated captions, and then see if the picture looks right, and appears. If it doesn't appear at all, it's not in commons. Good luck!

Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent - I think this gives me all I need. Thanks for the help (and I apologize for forgetting to sign the second question I had). --DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: I've done this once using Google Translate for a German article (Paul Trappen), and it is a painfully slow process, not simply copy-and-paste. I started with the Google translation, then I went through the translation of every cited source to get a better context around a translated sentence from the German Wikipedia article. Once I was confident I understood the gist of it, I rewrote the Google-translated sentence in my own words if necessary. I think my English version of the article came out better than the German original, but it was not an easy task to create an English article "correctly" using Google Translate. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: - OK, thanks for the tip and the link to a page where this has been done. This is helpful. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Material rejected because "that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations."

Hi!

I have a little trouble posting a material about a person. Material was rejected because it did not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.

Checked for help and it looks like I have not added necessary citations according to Wikipedia articles of Biographies of living persons.

Wanted to know - what citations are necessary and where to ad them (footnote)?

Article itself may be found here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Juris_Hmelnickis

Hope, somebody can help me with this issue. EgilsDoro (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@EgilsDoro, hello! These should help: WP:REFBEGIN and the parts about referencing at WP:TUTORIAL. If there's stuff you can't cite, like date of birth, delete it, WP:BLP is a strict policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You should also make sure your draft meets the demands at WP:BASIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you purge a Username and start a new account?

How do you purge a Username and start a new account? 2600:6C64:7D3F:A12B:DA3:E10F:9237:60DA (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You cannot delete a username, per Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. You can just abandon it and create a new account (presuming you're not engaging in block evasion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you look above the section that GoingBatty linked you to, you will also see the procedure for renaming your existing account.--Khajidha (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about articles

Hello! I have a question.

Can articles about a sub category of a bigger topic include information that may already be in another article, or should a Wiki article be linked instead? MD380 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC) MD380 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The same information can absolutely appear in more than one article. Assuming that it is relevant to each article and is not being given undue weight in them. --Khajidha (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@MD380 That's a broad question, hard to give a meaningful answer. Consider, for example, Star Trek/Star Trek: The Original Series. There is some of the same info, but the subarticle has focus on it's own topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Other examples - for some of the minerals which are also essential nutrients, there are articles "_____ in biology" that can be considered as sub-categories of the mineral articles. The biology articles have a link to the mineral articles, but also contain enough content about the minerals so that it is not necessary to go back and forth between the two. (And, the main articles have some content about biology in addition to the link to the biology article.) David notMD (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Turned down.

I wrote a Wiki page for a former MMA fighter, its been turned down. I don't understand as there's tons of wiki pages for fighters (mma/boxing). I feel I have provided decent bio material, better than most wiki pages for fighters & the references used are legit interviews with the athelete from a journalist.

I would add his career statistics, but I don't have the knowledge how to create the templates that u see in wiki pages for MMA fighters and boxers. If someone added the template I would fill in the details. 31.111.56.179 (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Your post here is the only edit I see by this IP address. It would be easier to assist you if you linked to the draft you have been working on. There may be articles that don't meet our criteria for notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and your help to improve them would be appreciated. To add the career statistics, you could copy the template from another article, paste it into your draft, and then change the details. But before doing that, make sure that your draft shows how the fighter meets WP:NMMA. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How to handle existing redirect for different person

I am not sure of the protocol here. I have a page ready to move to the mainspace (Draft:Susan Schwartz). The draft I am working on is about a scientist.

In 2011, someone setup a redirect for a different Susan Schwartz that goes to the page for Friends of Five Creeks. Do I delete the existing Susan Schwartz redirect? Do I copy my text onto the existing Susan Schwartz redirect? Do I move the existing redirect to another page that has a title something like 'Susan Schwartz (non-profit leader)'? Some other option?

Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: I looked at all the articles that link to Susan Schwartz, and none of them appeared to be referring to the leader of Friends of Five Creeks. However, many of them referred to the Susan Y. Schwartz in your draft. (I deleted the incorrect links referring to an author/editor, but left the incorrect links to the scientist for now, pending your draft.) You'll first have to look at WP:COMMONNAME and determine what the article should be called. If you choose "Susan Y. Schwartz", then you can change the existing links from Susan Schwartz to Susan Y. Schwartz. If you choose "Susan Schwartz", then I don't see the harm about overwriting the existing redirect. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: - OK, thanks for the help. I am going to use Susan Schwartz. If someone later decides to write a page for the leader of Friends of Five Creeks, that seems like a good time to add more details and whatever disambiguation is needed.

--DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft awaiting review

Can someone accept my draft, please. Wokipoki (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't read what it says in the brown box on your draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,303 pending submissions waiting for review."? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the Teahouse. Everyone here is a volunteer and while some of us can accept drafts, the majority of us can't. So please, be patient. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

editing

Due to poor understanding of Wikipedia functions as a newbie, recently I was blocked partially when editing a page.. Is it okay to edit and create pages in the same particular category, being a subject expert? Ifidont (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ifidont, your qualifications aren't really relevant to anything. It's a matter of whether you can abide by Wikipedia's rules. I see that there is a discussion about your conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ifidont and alternative medicine. This is a community discussion that will determine whether it makes sense for your editing to be restricted in some way. People at the Teahouse don't make those decisions. FYI, anything in the "pseudoscience" category (which is construed to include Ayurveda) is subject to the same one-revert restriction. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1 Thanks for letting me know. That happened on the first day of my autoconfirmed editorship.Anyways, will wait for further notifications. I would love to work on my area of interest since I believe I can contribute more to those pages, abiding by the rules of Wikipedia .Ifidont (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ifidont: See also Wikipedia:Expert editors, WP:1RR and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt That was a huge disclosure! Lemme digest it a bit..Thanks! Ifidont (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to restore a page that has been deleted? The links to it still exist but you get a generic page saying it has been deleted when you click the link.

 147.161.166.179 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@147.161.166.179 Article are deleted for a reason, the reason would normally be included in a red box displayed above the source editor textbox. If you have valid reason for undeletion, you can request for WP:REFUND. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

ORIGINE DE LA LANGUE HAOUSSA

JE SUIS DE L'ETHNIE HAOUSSA, JE VIS AU NIGER OU J'Y SUIS NE. LA LANGUE HAOUSSA COMPORTE PLUSIEURS DIALECTES ET LES COMMUNAUTES QUI COMPOSENT CES DIFFERENTS DIALECTES REVENDIQUENT LA PATERNITE DE LA LANGUE HAOUSSA. C'EST POUR ECLAIRER LES UNS ET LES AUTRES QUE JE POSE LA QUESTION DE L'ORIGINE DE LA LANGUE HAOUSSA. 41.203.147.14 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Veuillez cesser de crier. Bienvenue à la Maison de thé. Y a-t-il une question que vous aimeriez poser? Si vous cherchez l'article sur le peuple Hausa, il se trouve ici... Hausa people. L'article sur la langue Hausa se trouve ici... Hausa language. --ARoseWolf 15:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! It appears you are more fluent in French than English. You would probably do better over at the French Wikipedia (and their teahouse if they have one). Someone link to the French Wikipedia Teahouse or it's equivalent Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Google's Translation of their message:

ORIGIN OF THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE

I AM FROM THE HAOUSSA ETHNIC, I LIVE IN NIGER OR I AM BORN. THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE INCLUDES SEVERAL DIALECTS AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT MAKE UP THESE DIFFERENT DIALECTS CLAIM THE PATERNITY OF THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE. IT IS TO ENLIGHTEN THE SOME AND THE OTHERS THAT I ASK THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE HAOUSSA LANGUAGE. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The French-Wikipedia Teahouse is fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux, 41.203.147.14. @Blaze The Wolf: Many project pages that have other-language equivalents (particular if they are well-known, such as the Teahouse or the Drama board) are linked through Wikidata the same way articles are. You can find links to these other versions right on the page, here (this link only works while viewing this page) Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok thank you! I knew how to do it however I didn't know what it was called over at the French Wikipedia. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Saving edits

I haven't been able to find a "save" button so I ended up publishing my revisions a couple different times. I really did read the directions but I haven't found 'save' yet. Thanks ICSCR90 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

ICSCR90 Hello and welcome. "Publish changes" should be interpreted to mean "save changes". It does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save changes, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are visible to the public(even if not part of the encyclopedia). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90: Welcome to the Teahouse. That is how you save your changes, as virtually all wiki pages are public. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Article verification

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia. Please help me with article verification. It would be great to have it published soon. If I have done something wrong, please write to me Thanks a lot! https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:SvetlanaManuylova/sandbox?action=edit&veswitched=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvetlanaManuylova (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your question was answered at WP:Help desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as it wastes the time of volunteers to answer a question which has already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Along with this, remember to sign all your talk page entries via the 4 tildes, like so ~~~~ _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 19:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

All content needs to be verified by independent references. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so much for your answers! Unfortunately, I have a question again. Can you please tell me which of the links are not suitable? When choosing these links, I proceeded from the fact that each of them contains important information and can be considered independent. I have read the criteria for this many times, but found no reason to exclude any of the sources. I would be very grateful if you could help me. Also, please clarify about the photos. Ted gave me the right to identify myself as her owner. However, it was just in personal correspondence. Can you please tell me if I can go a different way and cite an outside source for our picture? Or is there some other way to use it? Thank you very much for your help. Have a great day.SvetlanaManuylova (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@SvetlanaManuylova: Please document your conflict of interest on your user page - you can use {{UserboxCOI}} for this. The external links in the "Moving to Canada" and "Interesting Facts" sections are not appropriate per WP:EL. The links in the "External links" section should provide more information on Bobier - those that don't should be changed ore removed (e.g. Manitoba Institute of Trades and Technology). Please provide independent sources per WP:BASIC to demonstrate notability, and use footnotes per Help:Footnotes. For the photos, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, I am very grateful for your help. Second, I worked on the article again: I removed unnecessary sources, removed external links, checked if I had any other independent sources. Unfortunately, no. Please answer me: is what I have enough for the article to be published? I'm afraid I won't have any additional sources in the near future. If the article in this version is not suitable - maybe I should shorten it and make the article as concise as possible, using 2-3 sources? Thank you very much!SvetlanaManuylova (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@SvetlanaManuylova: I see a couple of problems. First, the entire article appears uncourced because you did not use inline citations for verification of any of the claims made in the article. WP:CITE offers some over-complicated guidance; it may be better to look at examples in other articles to see how it's done using citation templates.

Second, you basically have just three sources. Your first one from Filipino Journal is a good one. The second one looks like a social media page and probably wouldn't be considered reliable. The third and fourth sources have identical content; you just need one, and it's useful for verifying personal details but not for establishing notability. Basically just the first source is useful for establishing notability, but we need multiple sources like that.

Making it more concise is a good idea. Otherwise, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject, in which case you can wait for more reliable source coverage to appear, and submit the draft for review after the subject is actually notable. If the draft is deleted because it languished too long (unlikely to happen if it isn't tagged for WP:AFC, which yours isn't), don't worry, it can be restored easily again; see WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to have opinion from people in India and Italy about the collaboration with two countries

 Indoitaly (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This page is for getting help using and editing Wikipedia. I don't perceive a question about that here. Please clarify. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Indoitaly: Welcome to the Teahouse! You might enjoy reading (and improving) the article about India–Italy relations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting blocked

Hi everyone,

I’m just curious about how people get unblocked. Like if someone has autism for example, or if they have a tantrum and beg to be unblocked and they say Wikipedia is the only meaningful part of their life that’s being taken away unfairly, is that a good way to get the sympathy of an admin and avoid discussions about being banned? (Even if there is a long term pattern of disruptive behavior?) Does it help if the editor has a long “length of service”? Just curious. Thanks! Swagcathy (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @Swagcathy: Hi, you the hypothetical editor should definitely request an unblock from your their original account. The guide to appealing blocks has good suggestions on how to do this successfully. The use of sockpuppets, and the evasion of CheckUser, will count against the editor. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I'm fairly sure that the OP here is trolling about the recent debacle with Johnpacklambert ... 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is advice at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

1988 Presidential Election Portrait

Greetings, I was just curious as to why the 1988 election had Michael Dukakis's portrait changed. To my knowledge the previous photo used was and still is under the creative commons license. Gordfather69 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Gordfather69 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will be more likely to get a good answer if you post on the article talk page, Talk:1988 United States presidential election, as the editors that follow that article will see it. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gordfather69. The color photo was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a result of this discussion. There is no freely licensed portrait quality color photo available of him at this time, just a few poorly framed casual shots. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on notability of Draft:Julio Rumbaut

Hello people, I am looking to get some more feedback on a draft's notability Draft:Julio Rumbaut. The creator and I had a discussion here [3] and some newspaper sources provided look very relevant to me. But I thought there is no harm in asking for some second, third, fourth opinions. Tagging the creator Parvenu58. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Trouble finding references

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I Have problems in getting references for the draft:Shri Subudhendra Thirtha Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri: Welcome to the Teahouse! It seems that you wrote the article based on your own knowledge, and now you're trying to find references to support it. If you have a conflict of interest, you must post it on your user page. I suggest you start over, and start small, by following Help:Your first article. Collect your references, and determine if you can demonstrate notability for inclusion. If so, paraphrase/summarize what the references say. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why was my wiki page rejected?

 InfoMCollinson (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the log, this page was deleted under reason "G3: Blatant hoax" --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

InfoMCollinson, as an administrator, I can read your deleted content. It was utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, consisting of bizarre nonsensical family lore that appears to have been made up by somebody. That type of content is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My Wikipedia page is stuck as a draft, how do I publish it?

Hello, I've written my own Wikipedia page. I realise this isn't ideal, but I've ensured that everything I've included is as objective as possible. It's all backed up with references to ensure that it's credible and all the information can be verified easily. How do I now get this moved forward from being a draft and publish it? I'm very happy for it to be checked, peer-reviewed and to make any required changes. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Sarah_Hyndman All the best, Sarah Sarahmhyndman (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Sarahmhyndman (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahmhyndman: I placed a submission template in your draft. Submit it for review when you feel it is ready. But I have to tell you it would not get published in its current state. It needs further cleanup, such as putting in a proper infobox. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As it's currently a draft all you have to do is click the button "Submit the Draft for review" and it will be put in the queue for another editor to see. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: the submit button is there only because I just now put it there.

@Sarahmhyndman: After looking it over, your draft relies far too much on sources that originate with you. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of you. See Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what we expect. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup I realized that after I posted my comment. Thanks. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank youSarahmhyndman (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahmhyndman: Good luck! I hope you can find more independent sources with good coverage of you and your works. The subject area of your work has always fascinated me. I often find myself struggling with what typeface I should use for different parts of my blog (headings, prose, tables, figure captions, etc.), for a book I'm writing, and so on. 35 years ago when computers used bitmap fonts, I would design my own typefaces because I wasn't satisfied with the defaults. And that was hard work, especially for proportional-spaced fonts. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarahmhyndman you may be interested in reading Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Best wishes on all of your Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sarahmhyndman, an acceptable Wikipedia biography is based on what reliable sources completely independent of that person have written about that person. So your own writings are of no value as references. In the case of an author, in depth reviews of several of their books by professional reviewers are a very good start. If only a single book has in depth reviews, then the article should be about the book, not the author. Since autobiographies are strongly discouraged, expect a heightened level of scrutiny for your efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding Logo to company page

Hi, I am tyring to add a company logo to our company page. Unfortunately, "Do not have permission to upload this file. Limited to users "Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users."

Please kindly assist. Thank you! Winnie.Yeo (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Winnie.Yeo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". You may request help with this by going to Files for Upload(which you must do as logos are non-free images). 331dot (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) If you work for the company, you have a conflict of interest, so you probably shouldn't be editing the company's article anyway. Instead, you should ask on the article's talk-page that someone else carry out the edit for you. If the company's logo is readily available online, they will be able to upload (you could provide a link to a suitable image). BUT (2), and this is a huge BUT, Wikipedia's normal copyright arrangements on images permit anyone, anywhere, to use the image for any purpose, including for-profit. In effect, had you successfully uploaded your company's logo, you might have found you had, on behalf of your employer, given up all rights on the logo, which probably wasn't the intention. Fortunately, low-resolution versions of company logos can be used under fair use terms, but since this is a bit complicated, asking on article's talk-page might again be the easiest option. Here's information about a request-edit template that you can use. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Request_edit Elemimele (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

On Uploading Logos of companies and organizations

Should I recreate a logo/illustration on my own based on the organization's current logo, or that will be a copyright infringement too?  SX3001 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@SX3001: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's no need to recreate a logo. You can upload it as a non-free file using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

SX3001, adding to the answer, if a logo is complex enough to be subject to copyright (not all are), then reproducing it by any means is a copyright violation. Threshold of originality is the relevant legal concept.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thank you for prodiving me with the technical term of such a copyright violation. GoingBatty Thank you too; So I can download the logo from a company/organization's website and then use it in a page thanks to the non-free file disclosure without any problem or the image ending up getting deleted? I've uploaded a logo once and it got deleted on this page—I've downloaded the logo from the company's website and I've uploaded it and credited the work and the sources to their website. SX3001 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

SX3001, the Omeros logo was removed from the article because it had an inadequate non-free use rationale. You should use Template:Non-free use rationale logo and complete all of the relevant fields. The file was later deleted because it was no longer being used in an article. An additional clarification: there are many types of pages on Wikipedia, but use of non-free images is limited only to live encyclopedia articles. They cannot be used in draft articles, for example, and should only be added after a draft is moved to the main space, and only in the specific article specified in the rationale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi SX3001. Just going to add that non-free use of a file isn't automatic and there are ten criteria that need to be satisfied each time you use a non-free file. Non-free logos are generally OK to use per item 2 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone Wikipedia article about whatever the logo represents. So, for example, if you wanted to use the logo of a company in the main infobox of a Wikipedia article about said company, then that's probably OK. Other types of non-free uses or use in other types of articles, however, can be much harder to justify. For example, if you wanted to use an non-free logo for a company in an article about the company's founder, then it would be much harder to justify. In addition, former or historical logos can be particularly hard to justify because they typically are no longer used for primary identification purposes. Generally, such a logo itself needs to have be subjected of sourced critical commentary somehwere within the article as explained here for it to be considered OK to use. It's typically not considered enough just to say an organization changes its branding; rather, there needs to article content specifically corresponding to the change in logo that discusses reasons for the change (e.g. any controversies associated with the change) that not seeing the logo would make the corresponding article content quite hard to understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The above said, uploading a logo is fairly easy. Start at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, chose "Upload a non-free file", > "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." > "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." and follow the other instructions that appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly and Gråbergs Gråa Sång now it is very clear to me, thank you guys for the helpful and guiding comments. SX3001 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jorge Washington de Queiroz

I published a small bio of Jorge Washington de Queiroz, a prominent Brazilian Norwegian crisis expert and fighter against corruption and fraud who is also an advanced cancer survivor, who has had five major high risk cancer related medical interventions in 3 years, two of which this year alone. It was taken out by Wikipedia and I would like to add it again since he is a notable man whose contributions to societies have been quite significant. Thank you. PEDERSENBJORNAA (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PEDERSENBJORNAA Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted your draft for review, but if you were to do so, it would be rejected quickly, as you have no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see this page for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House @PEDERSENBJORNAA! The article was moved to Drafts, where you can continue to work on it. Currently it has zero references and is written in a Wikipedia:Promotional tone. Writing Help:Your first article can be one of the hardest things you do, so please take the advice seriously. You can find the Draft here: Draft:Jorge Washington de Queiroz. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Level of technical sophistication of mathematical articles?

A couple of editors and I have had an argument about a reading of WP:TECHNICAL that's come to something of a standstill, and I'd like to make sure I'm taking a reasonable position before I commit to it any more deeply. The disagreement is over whether a given mathematical article should be written entirely at an elementary level, e.g. towards an audience of 10th graders in a U.S. high school, given that the subject is covered in sources at that level. My position is that WP:TECHNICAL implies we should try to balance elementary and specialist material to the extent that they differ in our pool of sources, as the subject is also of interest all the way up to professional mathematicians and is covered in sources as far as that level. Like, the article should be broadly accessible to a general reader, but should include specialist material in addition to more elementary material to the extent that they clash, so that it can be useful to both audiences. WP:TERTIARYUSE also seems to indicate to me that the "gold standard" for sources for any mathematical article would be widely-used textbooks at the undergraduate-to-graduate level, which implies to me that the article should be a survey of material around that level. Do I have the right idea or am I misinterpreting these pages? Mesocarp (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The place for discussion is the talk page of the article, Talk:Polynomial in this case. If you fail to reach consensus there, dispute resolution is an option. You might also discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics if you feel that the concern isn't specific to the one article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, so the meaning of policy etc. in that context needs to be hashed out via consensus around the article—like, the larger community doesn't already have some sort of strong guideline to follow in this context? I guess from that angle, my position might be valid, but it depends on consensus there? I think where I'm coming from makes sense, but I am in the minority right now. Mesocarp (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The very general rule is WP:ONEDOWN (a section of WP:TECHNICAL), but of course "write one level below the usual level of education where the topic is studied" can leave place to some interpretation. Take for instance the topic of messenger RNA: most of what can be written about it is highly technical, and if you had asked me in 2019 I would say the target audience should be first-year biology students, for which the current lead is fine (I guess). However, page views have considerably increased, which I guess is due to the apparition of covid19 vaccines based on mRNA delivery - therefore, today, I would say that the lead should be understandable by any adult reader, which it most definitely is not right now.

The problem, of course, is that to write something understandable and that is correct, you need to be an expert of the topic and to be good at pedagogy; either is hard enough that combining the two is taxing. I remember making some edits in articles about thermodynamics that took a good hour to change two short sentences. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template request

Is there a way to request the creation of a simple template? particularly a template for referencing EU judgements. There is already templates for EU laws but not for judgements.
thnx in advance Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested templates. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

HAKONE HOT SPRING (Ver 2): Pre-Formatting Content Check

Many thanks for several Teahouse members for their kind feedback on my 1st edit of the "Hakone Hot Spring" entry at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:TNewfields/sandbox. I appreciate the advice and added 28 footnotes. A number of minor grammar and spelling mistakes have also been corrected. The result is no longer an English translation of the Japanese Wikipedia text at https://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/箱根温泉 . . . it has become a different article that relies on many parts of the Japanese text.

Before formatting the article, I wanted to get your feedback on the current content. Do I need to make any further changes? After the content looks okay, I will proceed with many formatting issues. Thanks in advance for any feedback! TNewfields (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, all of your footnotes need to become inline references. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

TNewfields, what David notMD said; also, the standard reading of 足柄下 is Ashigarashimo. Go easy on "famous", "splendid", and the like, even if these (or their Japanese near-equivalents) are in your cited sources. The historical aspect of any article on anywhere in Japan that has been any kind of resort -- and of course this is a prime example -- is likely to benefit from a look in A Handbook for Travellers in Japan, by the indefatigable Chamberlain and Mason; your institution's library may well have a copy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

On that last, English Wikipedia has a high standard for NPOV (neutral point of view), so avoid promotional-sounding adjectives. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Vivien Saunders OBE 'Convicted'

Publishing on a living person.

<text deleted>

Can I go ahead or is there someone out there that could do this for me.

The court reference for this is the Case No 35NT1319220 as supplied by the criminal justice system. Theboss246 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Vivien Saunders. First, do you have a personal interest in this new information? I ask because you wrote "...to publish on my behalf on her page." That would be considered a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), meaning that you should not edit the article, but rather propose new content on the Talk page of the article, with a reference. Second, a court reference is not an accepted reference. It needs a publication in a newspaper. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your accusation per our BLP policy. You must provide a reliable source for such a statement. Also since you are talking about a minor offence I would question whether it is appropriate to include in the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox problems

Hi, can someone help me to fix the infobox in 2021-22 NIFL Championship? I fixed some ref parameters, but couldn't find the cause of "Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"" after the "Goals Scored" template in infobox. Thanks in advance. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni it looks like the infobox didn't like that the matches parameter was set to N/A, because it's using the number of matches to calculate the goals per matchm, and so it got confused because N/A is not a number. I changed the matches parameter from N/A to blank, and the error has gone now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 thank you very much. Have a nice day! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What sources would be good?

Hello! So I've decided that I want to start adding sources to SnowRunner#Gameplay and I'm wanting to know what kind of sources I should be looking for. For example, would a link to the store page for the game be an appropriate source for the mention of DLC. Thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Also if this would be more appropriate to ask at WP:RS/N then I'll move my question there. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: WP:VG/S has a list of sources that are considered reliable, and other information about finding and evaluating reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, please use terminology that everyone can understand. When I see DLC, I think Democratic Leadership Council but that acronym has dozens of other meanings. Similarly, I am not 100% sure what you mean by "store page", but I am assuming that it is a website that sells the game. If so, the answer is "no". Such a page is written to promote sales of the game, is therefore inherently promotional, and is inappropriate for any evaluative assessments on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

DLC is short for "downloadable content". If the DLC is notable, it usually gets mentioned in reputable video game sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be spelled out on Wikipedia, Tenryuu, because we do not need to spend money on boxcars of paper and barrels of ink. I live in the Napa Valley, where "CIA" means Culinary Institute of America as commonly as Central Intelligence Agency. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I had it as downloadable content at one point but someone changed it to just be DLC. But alright, I'll see if I can find sources outside of the store page for the game. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind I apparently didn't. That was a fault on my part. I've learned my memory tends to be a bit faulty. I'm working on fixing that now Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 14:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it should be at first mention, Cullen328; I never said it shouldn't. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Commons category or Template:Sister project auto

as a general rule or practice, if there are image files on commons wiki, is it okay to add Template:Sister project auto or should we add only Template:Commons category on Lisa Roet? চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I spread the Good News of Jesus to my Catholic family?

How can I spread the Good News of Jesus to my Catholic family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8600:6a80:2dec:5253:d295:68a2 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

references

 Courtesy link: Self-care
Hi, I've been editing a page and just learned that it was archived because "I didn't provide a reliable source'. I've been pasting in references instead of using the 'add a reference' box. Is that not OK? And, how do I get all my work back from the archive to allow me to keep working on the page. I feel quite disheartened to have 2 days of work removed. Sad. ICSCR90 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90 Welcome to the Teahouse. Fret not - none of your work is permanently lost! You can find it in the 'View History' tab of the article on Self care that you were editing. Here they all are in one block, showing what you changed. You can also find any edit you have made to an article (including any that have subsequently been removed for some reason) by looking at your own 'User Contributions' via the links on the left side of the page in desktop 9non-mobile) view.

Whilst it is disheartening to have your work removed, it normally means that another, usually very experienced editor has felt your changes added uncited, promotional or personal opinions. We work collaboratively, so it's fine to ask that editor for a clear rationale for any 'revert' they have made. Starting out on Wikipedia is quite a learning curve, but well done for working through The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great way to learn. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ICSCR90: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your changes have been reverted. You may want to use the {{In use}} template to let others know the article is being worked on. I would, however, add the references as you're adding content so that it doesn't come off as appearing unsourced to others. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

However, ICSCR90, please be careful when you edit so as not to add claims that are only relevant in one part of the world, and don't add inappropriate external links such as self-care-measures.com. --bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor not accepting a govt. report

So I have an issue with another editor. It’s on a controversial topic so I am not hugely surprised. The details are on the Provisional Irish Republican Army Talk page.

The other editor is refusing to accept the findings of the latest government report on whether the organisation has retained weaponry, (the latest report says they do still have weaponry) on the grounds that the report could be false. He will accept a historical report (that states in essence that they only “may”).

There is a bias in this editors submissions on Northern Irish history that has resulted in beliefs being stated as fact. It almost seems as if he has appointed himself the guardian of all Troubles related pages. I would welcome the guidance of any admins who could look at this as I suspect that as I read further into the troubles related articles I will find more examples.

I am attempting to discuss the subject on the talk page with the editor in question but he is rebutting my arguments( which I believe are valid) with throw away statements which do not address my concerns. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Fletcherchristian101 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If discussion fails to resolve a dispute, there are dispute resolution channels available. I can say that government documents are usually considered primary sources. It is better to have an independent reliable source that discusses the content of the report, as we can't analyze it ourselves because that is original research. It is not relevant if the independent reliable source has analyzed the report correctly- which is a judgement call- as any reference to it in an article would (or should) state conclusions are those of those of the source itself. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Will Vishal Bhujbal be deleted?

I had created the page Vishal Bhujbal because he is well notable figure. Will this be deleted again? I'm feared. JamesAlfa (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is it that causes you to worry about possible deletion, JamesAlfa? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoary because it has been deleted before because it was created by a Banned user. JamesAlfa (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous history is not part of this version, which you created on 8 September. As you moved it from draft to article in mainspace without submitting to Articles for Creation for a review, it is possible that New Pages Review may decide it is not ready for mainspace, and convert it back to a draft for more work (or even delete it as not notable). You will have to wait and see. My personal opinion is that holding a non-elected committee position does not make him notable. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Arshifakhan61, an LTA who has been globally banned by the WMF. JavaHurricane 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite

Thank you so much for the invite, much appreciated. Together we would build a strong community of active contributors to the WiKi world  Indoitaly (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse and to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking part and see you around. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I post random short paragraphs on my user page?

 Excellenc1 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless they break Wikipedia regulations, you can't. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Pichemist means "Unless they break Wikipedia regulations, you can", Excellenc1. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's what I meant. My mistake. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 16:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: See WP:UPYES for examples of what is allowed on your user page. Further down there will also be examples of what you cannot have on your user page. Hope that helps. RudolfRed (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it allows "non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters", I guess I can. Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wanna make friends

Is there other teenagers who are in Wikipedia? HighStone06 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighStone06 Hello, this is the TeaHouse for asking questions about directly editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking space, though communication and collaboration can sometimes lead to friendships. If you want to chat with like minded Wikipedians, Wikipedia:Discord may be an option. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@HighStone06: To elaborate a bit more, while there are most likely other teens who edit Wikipedia (such as myself), Shushugah makes a very good point in that Wikipedia is not a social network. Wikipedia's Discord (which Shushugah linked above) is a better option for finding teens who are Wikipedians. In fact, if you do end up using Wikipedia's Discord, you are more than welcome to message me (just please make sure to tell me who you are first). However if you don't want to use Discord then you can definitely make friends on Wikipedia (although if you want to talk about things not related to Wikipedia it would be in your best interest to go elsewhere for that). Hope this helped clarify things! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Where do I begin?

I've learned in class that Wikipedia is not a community of experts on given topics, but anyone can be able to edit. This is reassuring, but I find that I'm still feeling overwhelmed when I think about editing an article. From citations to grammar checks to finding notable information to add... I just don't know a good, comfortable place/way to start editing. Any recommendations? Alabaw25 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Alabaw25 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you haven't already, try out the The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tutorial. You may want to check out the community portal, which has lists of maintenance backlogs that you may want to check out. Be bold and start small. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: Welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do after the tutorial is start with reading articles about topics you like, whether it's sports or music or history or anything else. As you read, you'll stumble across typos or broken references or outdated information - all opportunities for you to improve an article. It can then help you figure out what you enjoy. Will you want to search for every article with "respecitvely" in it and fix it? Will you want to monitor a maintenance category and help fix those articles? Will you enjoy reading books or journals or the news, and adding to articles? You'll have some success and some stumbles along the way, but eventually you'll figure it out, and we'll be here to help you and encourage you along the way. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alabaw25: In addition to the above info, while your teacher is not entirely wrong in their definition of Wikipedia, there are some Wikipedians who are subject experts. And while it's also true anyone can edit, sometimes you will have to gain certain permissions before your able to edit specific articles (these articles have been protected which simply reduces the amount of vandalism on the page). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing with A Firsthand Source

Hi, I was hoping to edit the article about the village I live in to include the annual festival we hold celebrating our founding, however, my village has nothing I'd be able to cite about this. Is there a way to just include the fact that I live here and it's a thing that happens? KreshieBoBeshie (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

KreshieBoBeshie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; this is necessary for verification purposes. It isn't a place to just list things. Is this festival not written about in any local media? 331dot (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. If anything it would be wise too look for village and home directories based in your country. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I found local newspaper writings about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KreshieBoBeshie (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@KreshieBoBeshie: Welcome! Please note that Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion, called "notability", to determine if a topic is suitable. For festivals, see Wikipedia:Notability (events). Thanks and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Problems with reliable references

I made an article about a new game with proper refrences, but it got denied. The reason they gave was that it didnt gave any reliable sources in refrences even though i gave the refrences to every refrence i can find and most of them were made by the creator of the game! But still it got denied. I dont know what to do now. Please help. 2405:201:9008:C013:D3C:A712:8D77:E7A4 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. The creator of the game is not an independent source. Sources should be secondary, independent sources that show significant coverage in the media. Does that make sense? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! What article are you talking about? You haven't made any other edits besides you asking this question on this account. Could you please give us the link to it by adding [[ ]] around the name of the article (along with the addition of Draft: if it's a draft). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! You might enjoy reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (video games) to ensure the game meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

how can I send a private message to α wikipedia user

 Moviebuff000 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moviebuff000 Welcome to TeaHouse! In some cases the only way to contact a user is by posting on their public talk pages, and given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia content, that's usually preferable. Have a look at Wikipedia:Emailing users ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Moviebuff000 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviebuff000 (talk • contribs)

Request for removal of - in marriage and partnership status post

Request for removal of - in marriage/partnership/relationships status post.

I've seen a number of posts of ongoing partnerships/marriages start on example the year 2000 and have a succeeding dash(-).

This dash(-) usually insinuates that the partnerships/marriages won't last long and are expected to end in divorce or prematurely or to end due to unforeseen circumstances

I'm proposing that all marriages/partnerships/relationships have a year without the succeeding -

I'm happy to share more info with you if required. Mseroney88 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mseroney88: Welcome to the Teahouse! Feel free to share some examples if you like. You can also be bold and update the format accordingly. I suggest births be handled the same way - you would write "Joe Smith (born 2000)", not "Joe Smith (2000-)". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mseroney88, I'm not aware of any guideline that says such info should come with a dash. As for the notion that the dash "usually insinuates that the partnerships/marriages won't last long and are expected to end in divorce or prematurely or to end due to unforeseen circumstances", my own reaction was "Huh? It does? Really? It doesn't to me." I suppose that some people could take it that way ... but then some people can be found to take many things in various ways. I don't think that we need to worry about the less likely implicatures -- though of course you are free to argue that we should, or that this isn't "less likely". Your suggestion looks at first glance like a suggestion for the "Manual of Style" (MoS), but if you suggest it in the MoS talk page you're likely to be countered by arguments that ending with a dash is a widely accepted convention, or that what you're proposing is "instruction creep". If you really think that this is an important matter, I suggest that you bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (NB Imprecision reduces persuasiveness; "-" is not a dash but a hyphen; the dash that you don't want is "–".) -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mseroney88, to many people (me included) having a dash after a year suggests the relationship is ongoing. Nothing more. If we removed the dash, some people would interpret that as meaning the relationship both started and ended in that single year. Neiltonks (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

An emdash or an endash? ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I've just been invited to this Teahouse by Hostbot. Just thought I'd say hello.Loymc1 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Did you have an actual question or were you just shooting the breeze? If so please refrain from doing so as it draws the volunteers away from people who actually have questions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 17:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Loymc1 Blaze - that was a bit too pointed. One of the standard Welcome to Wikipedia templates invites newbies to TeaHouse ("The Teahouse is a friendly space..."). Also, "don't bite the newbies." David notMD (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

 Gctyler (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gctyler: Hello! Might I ask what you are saying "thank you" for? It doesn't appear that you've asked any other questions on the Teahouse. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gctyler: From Talk pages and contributions, you are clearly editing as User:Gctyler and User:Cgfarren, and with neither account making any useful contributions to Wikipedia. Strongly suggest you continue with only one account, stop the Talk page nonsense, and try to make edits that are not reverted. Elsewise, expect to be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes

Hello Teahouse, I know I've found the answer before, but I need clarification on how to embed/combine two infoboxes. Not looking for a merger of any sorts, just looking for anything to look at when building infoboxes. Specifically trying to combine the Template:infobox football official and Template:infobox person per Byron Moreno. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat, welcome to the TeaHouse, you can try using embedded infobox, see my example here User:Shushugah/documentation#Nested infoboxes ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: doesn't look like those work with the Template:infobox football official, as the template doesn't recognize the module parameter. Any other suggestions? I randomly stumbled across the article and want to try to fix it, and others I run into in the future. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat the order matters. Infobox person does allow embedding, see the example I included below (displayed to the right) and modify as needed. Feel free to tag me on specific talk pages for further assistance or post in the WP:Village Pump (Technical) for further assistance. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone famous
Refereeing career Domestic Years League Role 1988–1991 Serie C2 Referee

Shushugah this totally worked, thanks for the clarification! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

lost draft

Hi, I'm sorry but can someone please help me - I created an article and then wanted to save it because I couldn't finish it in one sitting. I read about saving drafts and it suggested I move it into a draft space (I don't remember if this was a draft talk or personal sandbox). I am trying to create wiki entries on notable Australian women. The entry is Helen Foster. I can't find it anywhere. I would be very grateful if someone could locate it for me - I'm worried I've lost it! Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cannot find draft = please help

Hello, I created a draft for the article "Helen Foster." I can't find it anywhere. I would be very grateful for help. I am not sure where it is saved to and I have conducted searches and cannot find it and am worried it may not have been saved. Thank you Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Anthropologist2020 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Anthropologist2020 Welcome to the Tea House! I cannot find any such draft! I saw you added a red link to Helen Foster (author) but nothing else. Did you save the draft? It doesn't look like it was deleted either, but I could be mistaken. Also please use section headers. Your comment got mixed up with a previous question, I fixed it for you. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anthropologist2020: Hi there! When editing Wikipedia, be sure you click the "Publish changes" button to save everything you do. You can also copy your text to a word processing program on your computer and save it locally if you want. I wish you better luck with your future editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Gursimran Singh Mand

hey ... https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Gursimran_Singh_Mand help me in this draft ... i added more than 8 reliable source and interview . please see this

thanks in advance 🙏 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft will be reviewed in due course. It says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,366 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wiki97828: Welcome to the Teahouse! While you are waiting for the review, you can continue improving the draft. For example:

• I don't understand the first sentence in the "Political career" section. Please adjust the wording.
• Please carefully check the references, as reFill doesn't always get them correct. For example, the author in reference #2 should not be "DelhiDecember 27, India Today Web Desk New; December 27, 2018UPDATED:; Ist, 2018 13:39".
• Please also add |trans-title= and |language= to reference #12.
• Please add a |date= to each reference (if the web page has a date), and use a consistent date format throughout the draft: either MDY or DMY, but not both in the same draft.

Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

News item to add to "Anonymous"

I do not have permission to edit the page "Anonymous (hacker group)" but there is a new item in the news that is worthy of addition.

I would write

"In response to the Texas law banning abortions that went into effect on September 1, 2021, self-described affiliates of the hactivist group Anonymous launched “Operation Jane,” an initiative targeting those who try to enforce the law, within two days." https://www.dailydot.com/debug/anonymous-hactivists-texas-abortion-ban-operation-jane/

Thanks, this is a significant reappearance of Anonymous. Best, Chuck Stack User:CStack3 06:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi CStack3, and welcome to Wikipedia. The Teahouse isn't the place to request edits to protected pages, that is done with edit requests. You'll see when you try to edit a page, there is a large button to the right saying "Make an edit request" or similar. Click this to start making an edit request. There are more instructions at WP:Edit requests. Hope this helped :) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Facing an issue in Bing Webmaster

I am trying to index my website pages on Bing but the Bing URL inspection shows that the H1 tag is missing and description is too long in Homepage. While In Google Search Console, it has no error. Can anyone help me in this case? Jasmine14312 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jasmine14312: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunally, we only answer questions about using or editing Wikipedia here. Since Wikipedia is not affilated with Bing, we cannot give you a definitive response, however, you could try and ask at the Computing reference desk. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jasmine14312, before you go to the reference desk, I suggest that you feed your page to W3's HTML validator and correct any errors that this finds. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Making a living

How do i get paid wikipedia 41.116.11.167 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally unrelated but Prax!!! O...M...G... I love, love, love your signature! lol Be that beautiful rainbow of colors.🌈 Ok, I'm good now. Very astute response. --ARoseWolf 18:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

_{@ARoseWolf: This probably would've been better to tell them on their talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)}

_{Yeah, you are probably right. Oh well, I make mistakes too. Thanks for pointing it out. --ARoseWolf 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)}

Spot on. Every editor here is a volunteer, and does it for the satisfaction of building a fantastic, free online encyclopaedia that helps educate and inform the world about notable topics. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on Praxidicae's answer, Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project, so no one here gets paid for editing or maintaining Wikipedia. The parent nonprofit organisation that oversees the project, the Wikimedia Organization, has workers that are paid, but they're much less involved with Wikipedia than us volunteers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We might as well establish our very own information spreading website such as the one of this magnitude which will enable people to get paid for any useful content they post, i already have an idea of my own. Anyway thanks

There are websites that pay for content creation. This is not one of those. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• You might take a look at our article about Citizendium. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Kau Ka Pe'a

Aloha! Looking for help moving this draft page Draft:Kau Ka Pe'a into mainspace. Can anyone help assist with this process. Thank you! Sarahalohi (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahalohi: I think the tone is too promotional and essay-like, and the article needs more sourcing to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

On the matter of tone, as a minor example, you should turn "Some of the notable musicians performing on the album include six-time Grammy® Nominee Amy Hānaialiʻi Gilliom [...]" into "The musicians performing on the album include Amy Hānaialiʻi Gilliom [...]". -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarahalohi: Welcome to the Teahouse! I did some copyediting, primarily to use quotation marks for song titles instead of italics per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. The draft mentions that two songs are covers, but doesn't mention the original artist or writer. If the songs "When I Fall in Love" by Heyman/Young and "Bring Him Home (Les Misérables)" from Les Misérables, you can link to these articles. Please fix the author on reference #2, as "Friday, West Hawaii Today Staff |; May 21; 2021; A.m, 12:05" is not correct.

Per Help:Your first article#Create your draft: "When you feel that the article is ready, you can submit it for review by an experienced editor. If there isn't already a "Submit for review" button on the draft, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft to submit it. A reviewer will then look at your draft and move it to the main article space or give you feedback on how to improve it. You can always edit the page, even while waiting for a review." Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone Changed all My Edits

Hello! I have been editing Wikipedia Articles for a couple of months and have been using it for a lot longer. Recently I edited an article about Pope Honorius I. A user immediately appeared telling me that what I wrote was not what the source said: even though I quoted it verbatim. He removed my edit. and I spent a few hours looking through all the sources on the topic to make it as unbiased as possible. I know that my form is a work in progress, and I need to tart summarising what my edits actually do, and I am working on it, but this same user accused me of plagiarism and insisted he had to edit it. I did not plagiarise, I referenced every source I used and nor had I ever seen the webpage he accused me of plagiarising from, but I didn't want to press the matter, to cause needless argument. Now after he had finished editing it, I thanked him for pointing out my mistakes and apologised, but it seems like he took that as a green flag to simply remove all sources that were not specifically Catholic, and now the article has become an opinion piece. His supposedly necessary edit was perfectly fine in his revision immediately preceding the one currently online. I don't know why he changed it again afterwards, but I feel that if I press the matter he will just continue to remove it, and accuse me of plagiarism again. A lot of valuable primary source content on the topic is now missing. Is there a way to revert it to his own edit, immediately preceding the one currently online? What do I do? H.A Elysian (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

H.A Elysian, rather than continuing the interplay between User talk:H.A Elysian and User talk:Mechamutoh (and now raising questions here as well), I suggest that you bring the matter up on Talk:Pope Honorius I, inviting Mechamutoh to elaborate on their comment "removing redundancy, possible plagiarism". -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@H.A Elysian: Welcome to the Teahouse! I agree with the suggestion by Hoary, as this is a common part of the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to build consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Entire section removed by H.A Elysian in this edit. No, H.A Elysian, you may not remove material posted here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT TAGS

Which tags should I add to my draft which is of an upcoming television historical series? Golgooo (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Golgooo Welcome to the Tea House! I would highly recommend focusing on high quality sourcing and content writing before worrying about category tags. Once the article is published you can seek feedback from others, or look at similar Articles about related television historical series. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah I have already added authentic references. I just covet to know what type of tags should I add, as the tags I want are not showing up.

Golgooo On second reading, I am unsure what you mean by 'tags'. There are WP:Wikilinks which are prominently visible, and WP:Categories which help with sorting and maintenance. To make it easier for other editors, please link the Draft article you are working on Draft:Selahaddin Eyyubi in this case. For a similar article see Salah Al-deen Al-Ayyobi (TV series) to get some inspiration. Note that while Wikilinks can already be added, regular categories can only be added once it is published. Regards ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah Improving your odds of a speedy review

To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Selahaddin_Eyyubi

• This is what I am talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golgooo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Golgooo: Hi there! The WikiProject tags Television, Pakistan, and Turkey seem appropriate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Golgooo Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Red Userpage?

Hi, I haven't figured out how to make my user page blue -- it has been red for years. Can someone help me? Thanks.--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)--C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) C.Tseytlin (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Simply click on "C.Tseytlin", write something there, and click on "Publish". The link to it will turn blue. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that before but for some reason it didn't work. I hate I wasted your time!--C.Tseytlin (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to put ~~~~ multiple times to sign your signature, you would need to do it once. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Advanced" source code editing

I'm not a new editor. At Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_high_jump#Qualifying_round, is there a way to edit it not manually (not typing them one by one from source PDF)?

I never adding those kind of info because there is always someone who added them. Thanks. Hddty (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hddty: Welcome to the Teahouse! It depends on the format of your source PDF. If it was a table you could copy into Excel (or another spreadsheet), you could then try using one of the tools at Wikipedia:Tools#Excel to convert the spreadsheet to a Wikipedia table. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: If you use the visual editor you can directly copy and paste spreadsheets into wikitables, no conversion required. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Email marketing links question

Hello Team, I am Gourav Bajaj, I am here to inform you that in Email marketing Page (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Email_marketing) you have some Broken links. I just want you to replace it with Email Marketing Strategy and Tips to Drive Conversion (https://samwebstudio.com/blog/post/email-marketing-strategy-and-tips-to-drive-conversion) this source.

Can you Review and replace the URL.

Broken Link: Source Wozniak, Tom (27 June 2018). "What GDPR Means For Email Marketing To EU Customers" 404. Forbes. Retrieved 16 January 2019. GouravSWS (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That reference link in the article isn't broken. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition, samwebstudio.com does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, and it is a type of external link that should not be added to a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Based off their username it appears that the user is associated with samwebstudio.com (SWS = Sam Web Studio). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

They also seem to have the exact same name as the author of the site [4], what a coincidence! 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

GouravSWS indefinitely blocked for removing a legit ref and substituting the samwebstudio ref - written by Gourav - at Search engine optimization. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

I'm curious whether tubefilter is a reliable source. I've come across the website a number of times and was wondering if it contributes to notability or not. For instance, with the current sourcing I would say that Waveform (podcast) probably isn't notable if Tubefilter is unreliable and probably is notable if Tubefilter is considered a reliable source. The website says it's copyrighted by Tubefilter (so I guess there isn't a parent company or anything) and I can't find anything indicating whether there is an editorial board or who the writers for the website are. The about page doesn't provide much detail. It looks like the reliability has been questioned here, here, and here but I'm not super familiar with the process at WP:RSN. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say you could ask at WP:RSN but it appears that it's already been asked there. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: After looking at the most recent one it appears to have been established as reliable, being used by other reliable sources. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Instagram image on Wikipedia

Can I take an image from an actress' official Instagram account and upload it on English Wikipedia? I know it is not allowed to uploaded it on Wikipedia Commons but is it possible to upload it on English Wikipedia by reducing it's resolution. Already an image is there on her article's infobox but it is from 2012. Yesterday one Wikipedia editor requested me to change it but I couldn't find any good images of her licensed under CC. Few images are available on Wikipedia commons but they have watermark on them. Eevee01^(talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If the actress is living, a non-free image is not permitted. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, if freely licenced images of her exist, even if they're worse quality, then any non-free image would fail criterion 1 of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 @David Biddulph Thanks for answering my question. Eevee01^(talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have one more doubt. Is it allowed to use images with watermark on an article's infobox? I have found few images on Wikipedia Commons with watermark on them. Example 1,2. Eevee01^(talk) 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eevee01: Welcome to the Teahouse! I found WP:WATERMARK, but I'm not sure that answers your question. Your example 1 is a full body photo with a watermark, but also has a cropped extracted image more suitable for an infobox. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

I set my talk page to archive monthly. If I wanted to change it would it automatically rearrange the archives to whatever interval I change it to? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hi there! Changing your configuration for archiving your talk page would only impact future sections to be archived, not the existing archives. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: No, it wouldn't. It would start again at archive 1 but leave all of your old monthly archives in place. If you look at some of the archive setups for really old pages (e.g. The Village pump) you can see examples of multiple systems of archiving in use. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Eric Joyce article

I have edited other pages a bit without signing in but signed in to edit this article (after editing another). I want to include in the opening paragraph Joyces attacks on colleagues actually in the UK's parliament, which received worldwide media attention. 3 users keep reverting without discussion. It is ridiculous that there should be no mention in the first para of this guys high profile violence against people in his own famous workplace. I feel like the 3 editors who keep reverting and removing the reference have a Scottish view of some sort and for some reason are trying to keep the violence out of the opening paragraph and relegate it to further down the page. It would be great if an admin could take a look. I will not argue with an admins advice.Traleelad (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Traleelad (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Traleelad: Adding a phrase to a biography of a living person like "physical assaults on multiple people, breaches of the peace and possessing an email which contained child pornography" without citing a reliable source is unacceptable according to WP:BLP policy. The part you tried to add about receiving a prison sentence (the sources seem to be about one, not two) have good sources and might be OK if you proposed just that on the talk page, and not the full unsourced assertions you tried to add.

Also, new material should not be added to the lead section. The lead section should provide a brief overview of what's already in the body text of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Traleelad. I am an administrator but administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. When I express my opinion on content, I am speaking as just another editor. Speaking as an administrator, I will advise you to avoid edit warring behavior, and editing against consensus. Also, when you are engaged in a content dispute while logged in, do not participate while logged out. Do not accuse other editors of lacking neutrality because you guess they may be Scottish. All of that is unacceptable.

On to the content matter. You are trying to add the phrase "who has served two prison sentences" although those were suspended sentences. That is misleading on its face. The lead of that article makes it very clear that this is a very troubled man with a history of violence. If you want to make changes to the lead, then you must propose language that is not misleading and you must gain consensus at Talk: Eric Joyce. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Sangbad Pratidin

Sangbad Pratidin is a reputed reliable print Bengali newspaper started in 1992, created in 2006 in Wikipedia, is already supported by reliable sources. I request to restore it. It looks like it was moved to Draft:Sangbad Pratidin erroneously or by someone who does not understand Bengali topics or about the region. I request to restore it. Please find the weblink to get familiar (https://www.sangbadpratidin.in/) and e-paper link (https://epaper.sangbadpratidin.in/). Thank you. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a piece of page move vandalism - the account that did this did the same thing with Bartaman a couple of days ago. They seem to be on a spree of revenge draftifications because their article wasn't accepted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

pinging @Titodutta and Deepfriedokra:. The editors Andlol17 should be blocked immediately causing vandalism and Sangbad Pratidin should be restored. I pinged you both since you have commented at Andlol17's talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! I decided to be bold and move the article back out of the Draft space. I hope my reasoning is sufficient enough for people to understand why I did it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: thanks for helping. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Hello, indeed, the move does did not make sense, I think. I asked them about the move. The editor has not edited after that and I am waiting for their response. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  The move has since been undone by User:Deepfriedokra with appropriate reasoning. IT will probably be moved back if it should remain out of Draft space. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: You are not helping. This clearly lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not fully understand the situation. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Might I suggest you reread WP:CORP, and if you are not an AfC reviewer, do please leave main spacing drafts to those who are? Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Will do! Reading what was going on I thought it was someone who was making article's drafts for no reason but it appears that the move had valid reasoning. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I disagree with your draftification of the article, it doesn't line up with policy - From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation

If recently created, articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the Wikipedia:Drafts namespace ... Because many drafts are not regularly reviewed, unilaterally moving articles to draft space ("draftifying") should generally be done only for newly created articles (as part of new page review or otherwise) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Incubation is not intended to be a "backdoor route to deletion"

A 15 year old article should not be getting draftified - if you think the sourcing is poor and does not demonstrate notability (which it doesn't - the sources in the article are really poor) then prod it or send it to AFD. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) User:Deepfriedokra, Thanks for your comment. I think the articles passes #3, #4, and possibly more of the notability criteria. I agree that the article needs better demonstration/sourcing. If you search, please use alternative spelling or variants such as "Pratidin", "Pratidin newspaper", "Sambad Pratidin". Example: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (See Google Books). Happy to discuss this further or work on to improve the article collaboratively. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Titodutta and Deepfriedokra: Its really surprising that Andlol17 is doing this because Draft:Ranaghat News was declined. You are letting vandalism to go undetected. I am really sorry for ourselves. For prrofs see @Deepfriedokra: your talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Proof of vandalism reported at User talk:Deepfriedokra
Sangbad Pratidin was not moved by admin Liz. It was done as an act of vandalism. See logs [5]. Andlol17 has done that since Draft:Ranaghat News ‎ was declined (see [6] and [7]) and in revenge. See proof [8] for Bartaman and [9] for Sangbad Pratidin. Also @Titodutta: for views. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone. Hopefully this will get correctly sorted at the ANI thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking for support on my first article

I drafted an article for music artist WOLFE de MÇHLS. It was first rejected but I have addressed the feedback I received. Looking for additional support and assistance getting it approved. Milesdotson (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Milesdotson: The Houston Press reference looks like the only good one there. The Byline Houston one, I don't know what to make of that; it seems to be a blog of some sort. The rest are trivial mentions and can be used only for verification of some factoids, but not for establishing notability. Please have a look at WP:MUSICBIO. Does the subject of your draft meet any of those criteria listed? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Draft:Wolfe De Mçhls Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of your refs are just credit-mentions. What is essential is published content written about him at length. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Notable residents

in order for a notable resident to be listed at the end of an article on a town or village, is it essential that they were born there if they have named something after the village and only lived there for a few years of their life? 84.70.254.246 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC) 84.70.254.246 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP! I'm fairly sure they will have to have been born their in order to be listed as a notable resident of that town. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Generally either could be acceptable, as long as you can justify their inclusion, e.g. if an author wrote a famous book while living in a specific town that would be acceptable thing to add to the town's page. The two main requirements are that a) the person must have a Wikipedia article, and b) their inclusion is supported by sources. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Being born there NOT a requirement. Nor their notable achievements ocurring in the town. There are many examples of professional athletes living in a town for a few years, and being claimed as a notable resident. David notMD (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah that would make sense. I mean, besides that a requirement is that they have to actually be notable. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox clear intervals

Hello! Just wondering but how often is WP:Sandbox cleared and how often does the bot come along and readd the headers that people removed? I would revert edits to the page that remove the header people are specifically told not to remove but I'm not sure if that would be allowed or not. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: The main sandbox is cleared once an hour, the talk page once every 12 hours. There's a bot that automatically reinserts the headers, so you don't need to do it manually. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Ah ok. Would it be alright if I reinserted the header manually anyway or should I wait for the bot to do it? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I mean, you could if you want to, but User:Hazard-Bot is programmed to do it pretty much the instant they are removed. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources for pages on notable academics

I’m working on a few academic BLPs. Both people are chaired professors at major academic institutions, so notability should be automatic. However, in many cases, I've been unable to find any sources other than the professors' own CVs to verify their academic work.

What's the preferred solution to this problem? Should I omit unverifiable content entirely, leave the page as a stub? Or do something else?

PS: I've read through several talk threads about this question, all of which have been unhelpful. There appears to be no consensus. I just need to know what specific actions I need to take in order to get these pages published. Calvin Reed (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Even if a subject meets the definition of notability, they still must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article, as that is primarily what articles are supposed to summarize. If a potential subject does not receive significant coverage in independent sources, they would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. A CV is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Most academics who'll be remembered will be best remembered, and of most interest, not for the posts they held (no matter how much time they spent/wasted on these, or how great their effect was) but for what they published. If what they published rose above the humdrum, it will be commented on, in book reviews in academic journals and elsewhere, the introductory chapters to festschrifts, and the like. (Or of course in obituaries, though of course your subjects won't have these.) Summarize what these say. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

331dot and :Hoary Thank you for the reply, but it seems to contradict the guidelines on this page, which say that any academic who holds a chaired position is automatically eligible for a Wikipedia page. Also, both professors have authored many papers/studies and been cited extensively—that's all verifiable through various independent sources. The main section I'm having trouble with is their work history, which is hard or impossible to independently verify. There seems to be no feasible way to verify that person X worked at university Y in year Z. Does this clarify my question? Calvin Reed (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed I would correct you in that Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. This is a subtle but important distinction. As I said, a person can meet the definition of a notable academic, but if no independent sources write about them, they do not merit an article even if they meet that notability definition. Notability is a test for a topic meriting an article, not a guarantee that an article can exist for anyone that meets notability. Independent reliable sources must still write about them, so the article can summarize them. Articles do not merely list what people have done. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

331dot I see, thank you for clarifying. Calvin Reed (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed, both professors have [...] been cited extensively—that's all verifiable through various independent sources. Good. Then in your place what I'd do is concentrate on this aspect of both, worrying little about their employment/"affiliation". If university X has a page about one, saying that she was previously at university Y, then I believe it's not at all problematic to cite this, as it's unlikely that the university (or prof) would make a mistake, and almost inconceivable that it (or the prof) would knowingly deceive. The resulting article would be disappointingly uninformative about the academic's professional history, but it wouldn't misrepresent her. Later, more events and more detail will be published in reliable, independent sources; and when this happens, the Wikipedia article may be fleshed out accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed, I agree with 331dot most of the time but not this time. Most special notability guidelines are based on the assumption that someone who meets the SNG will also meet the general notability guideline. The notability guideline for academics is an explicit exception to the GNG that exists alongside of it but completely independent of it. The notability of academics is determined by their academic accomplishments which includes prestigious academic positions and especially, how often their peer reviewed research is cited in the published research by other academics. There is no need to rely on "People magazine" style profiles for academics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Calvin Reed If you had to choose someone's advice to go by, I absolutely would say Cullen328 over myself, as he has greater experience than I do. I think that my comment was based on the fact that you said you were simply going by a CV and what Cullen said was in the back of my mind as an assumption but I didn't put that into words- and failing to put that down was a poor decision on my part, for which I apologize. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think both the literal text of 331dot’s reply and Cullen328’s reply are correct, in that (a) NACADEMIC is an explicit exception to notability guidelines, yet (b) notability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article, one needs to be able to write a non-empty article while sourcing it reliably. (b) is rarely a problem because GNG guarantees it, but it comes up in some rare cases. Another example of above-GNG guideline is WP:NGEO.

I remember vaguely a long-ish discussion at AfD about some mythical event in India that was mentioned in various sources, but with different descriptions every time. Consensus finally decided against an article on WP:V grounds; the alternative was a stub "X was an eartquake or a flood or a fire somewhere in India at some point in time" and it did not look very attractive.

In the precise case of an academic, I expect you should be able to write a stub based on university pages (i.e. "X is a [title] at [university] and works on [general topic]"). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think some of the discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics will be helpful. i.e. It will be helpful to read the AfD discussion.--SilverMatsu (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for a review

My article still hasn’t been looked upon. http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Di_Moze?markasread=227385247&markasreadwiki=enwiki

I made a draft yesterday and I still am waiting on a review. Usually my drafts don’t take that long to be reviewed, with the latest being a couple hours so I am making sure. Thanks Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612 Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Di Moze does not appear to have been submitted. And from your Contributions, does not appear that you have ever submitted a draft to English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? where do I submit it? I typed it on my phone but I also made sure my edits were finalized on my laptop. This is my new account. My old account I forgot my password and email to. Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612Visibledurante612 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Visibledurante612. I've added a header to it to allow you to submit it. However, there's no point in doing so at present, since it will not be accepted, since there isn't a single source cited. Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable sources say, not on what a particular editor knows.

You are strongly advised to put a note on your user page explaining that you are the same user as the old account, and why, as this will save you from people being suspicious of it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Appears you submitted it as User:Visibledurante612/sandbox and it was declined (one minute after it was submitted). Continue with only one (draft or sandbox). David notMD (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Collin I added my reference are you able to look at it?

Visibledurante612 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Visibledurante612Visibledurante612 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Visibledurante612, the reference is utterly inadequate. Here's why. And even if it were adequate for its minor purpose, there's no sign that your subject meets any of the notability criteria. I suggest that you forget about your draft for a couple of months, while you make constructive, well-referenced additions to existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Sandbox version now declined twice. I agree there is no potential for this to be an article. Why? Because unlike List of people with surname Jones, you have no people with last name Di Moze who are notable, meaning having existing articles about them. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You were advised to continue only with Draft:Di Moze, which you have submitted. As it states in the yellow box, there is a large backlog of drafts, so this could take weeks. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To what extent should you disagree with like…anyone…?

I feel like I'm kind of like…twisting myself into knots thinking about this, like it's really getting to me. In some ways it feels like, if everything on the site is decided by consensus with only a few exceptions, and there are equivalently only a few very specific things that are truly rules as opposed to guidelines, it feels a bit absurd to disagree with any group of people larger than one. Like, if it's just you and one other person, there's no consensus at that point; both of your perspectives have equal weight. However, it sort of feels like if you try to do something, and more than one person stops you, you should just immediately leave, regardless of your viewpoint, unless it's one of the few very grave matters that are not subject to consensus.

I know that's not exactly like, true on paper I guess, to the extent that anything here is really true on paper I guess. But it's hard for me to get over the feeling that it's true, like, "in spirit." There's a sense in which it feels like, out of the dispute resolution mechanisms, the only one that seems sort of like, "unsuspicious" is seeking a third opinion. Like, even if on paper, there's some theoretical larger community consensus that would trump a local one, in practice if a local consensus exists, like if there is more than one person with the same perspective, it feels like you're kind of "messing things up" to disagree with them about anything that isn't like, one of the few very serious non-consensus things.

I feel like, lost as far as the extent to which I should give into this feeling. In some ways it feels like the logical conclusion of it is that you should never change anything, because someone else wanted it the way it is already, and your opinion doesn't matter any more than theirs, whether you're changing something or even just adding something. I argued with two other people earlier over something where I was the odd one out and in some ways I feel like, deeply guilty about it, like I feel almost sick even thinking about it and feel kind of afraid to even look at the talk page the more I think about it. I don't know…reading over the various guidelines and essays and things a lot of them seem to encourage you like, very gently, to just drop it in situations like that and go somewhere else, and in some ways I feel like it was wrong of me to even say anything. I feel terribly embarassed even admitting any of this kind of, but my mind just keeps going in loops about it. I would feel a lot better if I had some sort of like, general guidance about any situation like this, thinking about all the different principles at once…but in some ways it feels suspicious to even ask for guidance about, like I'm just looking for people to try to bolster my case or something. I promise I'm not doing that, I really promise, I just feel really kind of like, confused and distressed. Mesocarp (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Mesocarp (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You can always invite more people into any discussion. After that you can find yourself in a majority. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Teahouse: Welcome to the Teahouse! I can empathize with your feelings, and am sorry you're feeling that way. As Ruslik0 states, sometimes inviting a group to a discussion can be helpful (e.g. posting to a WikiProject talk page asking for people to join in to an article talk page discussion), as long as you recognize that they may not agree with you. It seems to me that it's easier to make multiple small incremental changes than large changes, but even then sometimes collaboration on a talk page is necessary. There are many areas that you can provide valuable impacts to Wikipedia, and hope your next experience goes better. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Listen close: You do not need to apologize or feel bad about trying to improve Wikipedia. Period. There are plenty of independent editors happy to offer their opinion in a Request for Comment, Noticeboard, or Third Opinion. I recommend presenting your case in an RfC. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Awww, well, thanks for the advice+encouragment y'all, I do feel somewhat better. It's totally okay with me if I really am the odd one out, I'm willing to put my views aside if that's what it takes to keep moving; at the same time it's reassuring to hear from people that it is really okay to seek more input. I might step away for the rest of the day just to like let myself calm down more but maybe tomorrow I'll give one of these approaches a try and see how people feel. Mesocarp (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: reagarding "only a few very specific things that are truly rules as opposed to guidelines", that is not true. Wikipedia policies are the rules, and Wikipedia guidelines are the best practices that help us comply with the rules. And there are a lot of rules: see Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines if you want to be overwhelemed. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: You don't realize just how "spot on" you are with your concerns about disputes. The reality is that dispute resolution uses a lot of resources and tends to produce arbitrary results rather than results that are objectively good. It's better described as a disaster than as a useful path to a good resolution. Fabrickator (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp:, people who honestly give a different opinion are valuable. Look at Articles for Deletion debates, where quite often the first person declares "delete, does not meet WP:TENNIS", four copycats say the same thing, and then someone else pops up and says "actually, you do realise this person isn't just an amateur tennis player, they also happen to be a professor with a Nobel prize" and then everyone else looks rather silly. You won't always get your way, but the points you make are probably points someone ought to make - don't feel bad about making them. But for your own mental health, it's a good idea to cultivate a sense of irresponsibility. You are not personally responsible for the final article, for misinformation in WP articles, or anything else on WP, so if you've made your point, and the world chooses to ignore you, walk away with your morals intact. You did your best. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Thanks for this—I'll try really hard to bear this in mind. It's sort of hard for me to get over the feeling that if a given article is in rather poor shape, especially if it's one many people might read day-to-day, it represents a kind of tragedy for the whole English-speaking world that you almost have a moral responsibility to help with. Same with saving an article you support from deletion as you describe or anything like that. If you fail in any sense, even temporarily, that also feels sort of like a moral failure, like you've fallen in trying to fulfill a responsibility that really ought to be fulfilled. Of course, anyone can feel this regardless of their position, which I'm sure is part of why debates here can get so heated. It does seem good to remember that if you really do believe in your position, you're doing a good thing just to voice it, whatever happens after that. Mesocarp (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The reason I said that is because, even if in theory what you say is true, in practice it seems like "creative interpretation" can be used to draw practically whatever conclusions you like from the texts of the policies and guidelines, since their meaning is determined by consensus and consensus is established locally in large part. I've already experienced a situation where I've tried to argue what seemed to me like a straightforward conclusion from a guideline and had someone else immediately use the same guideline to back up the opposite conclusion. It's a bit like everyone is both a lawyer and a judge; you can suggest whatever strange interpretation of the "laws" you like and immediately rubber-stamp it with your own approval in a sense. If no one agrees with you, it doesn't matter much, but someone else may agree with you for their own pragmatic reasons even if your interpretation is quite strained (perhaps this is not so different from the real courts in a way…). As such, I get the impression that the in-practice meaning of any of the policies and guidelines could vary widely depending on where you are and who you're talking to, and there's not a responsible way to say what that might be in general to some extent. You could see how I could quickly come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to disagree with any group of people that outnumbers you, no matter how small—whatever they say goes at that point, no matter how strongly you think your arguments might be based in policy or evidence or anything else. Of course, to the extent that other people can always enter the discussion, there are larger norms to a degree, etc., perhaps a fairly straightforward interpretation of the policies and guidelines will win out in any area over time, or at least you might hope. I think I was underestimating the significance of that yesterday which is a big part of why I got kind of panicked that I had done something wrong. At the same time, it does make it quite difficult to actually argue any sort of point, based on policy, evidence, logic, feeling, whatever, when someone else is determined to disagree with you no matter what and it's just your word and theirs, and it seems that this isn't at all an uncommon circumstance looking around—after all, many people will never back down in any argument just out of fear of losing face. I appreciate better now why it might be so hard to get an article to GA/FA status or the like, as it's not always just a matter of everyone merrily gathering their sources and going to work like you might dream of. Mesocarp (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: In my experience, these disagreements arise for a different reasons. (1) An editor cherry-picks the parts of the policies or guidelines that agree with their viewpoint and ignore the whole. (2) An editor isn't familiar with the applicable policies or guidelines and it's up to others to provide direction. (3) Where the rules are in conflict, consensus is required to determine which rule matters more; for example, there's a proposal right now in Talk:Mahatma Gandhi to rename the article because WP:HONORIFIC prohibits honorifics when referring to subjects in spite of the fact that the guideline specifically calls out "Mahatma" Gandhi as an exception because WP:COMMONNAME overrides WP:HONORIFIC. Finally, if any policy or guideline is unclear, then it should be clarified after discussion on the appropriate talk page. Sadly, few editors bother attempting to get clarifications into the rules. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: That makes sense, as far as your experience, I would imagine those scenarios would be the most common. I'll keep that in mind so I can set my expectations well. Thanks for the link to that debate over the name of the Gandhi article too as it was enlightening to read over. I guess like, in any case, in a debate, any given editor isn't obligated to agree with you regardless of what points you might raise, even if you might believe they're cherry-picking or misinformed or such. In the case I was describing above, after the other party put forward the opposite point based on the same guideline, I called attention to other parts of the guideline that I thought didn't harmonize with their position, at which point they suddenly said they wouldn't continue to discuss it with me. I can't really stop them from doing that; in fact someone could even do that at the outset the moment anyone presents a viewpoint that conflicts with theirs. I did try asking for clarification on the guideline here afterwards just to make sure I wasn't totally off my rocker about it, but the only response I got was basically "the place to talk about it is on the talk page." Since there was one other person who took the same opposing position without giving a rationale or taking up my argument, at that point I kind of felt like, "I guess I'm wrong by fiat, even if it does seem to me like I have a good case." I understand now that in situations like this it's okay to see if there are other people who want to weigh in, although I'm still not entirely sure about what you would do afterwards if a larger consensus emerged in your favor. It's hard to imagine having a warm and harmonious working relationship with people you've had an interaction like that with—if anything their desire to stand in my way would just be enhanced out of frustration at being overruled. I would so much rather we all just get along…the idea of having to fight two people tooth and nail over every change you'd like to make to an article is kind of sickening, especially if it's a subject you have a lot of enthusiasm for and you wouldn't exactly say they put kindness at a high premium. I feel anxious about starting an RfC or the like just out of concern for what might happen after it's over, even if my position is bolstered. Mesocarp (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: Here is my counter-example to the practical effectiveness of dispute discussions:

On 12 July 2021, at User_talk:Paradoctor#revert of Liar Paradox edit adding source from archive.org provided by Internet Archive, I raised an issue regarding an editor who was deleting citations that included a link to copyrighted books available on archive.org, which allows access subject to "electronic access control". Essentially, this allows as many people to concurrently access a book based on the number of copies of each such book that archive.org holds. This function had become available in the last couple of years. A court case regarding this was being litigated (and is still ongoing), and the editor claimed that, based on the possibility that this might be determined to violate copyright, the link to such materials through archive.org should be dropped.

My contention was that deleting the link was unnecessarily harmful. The same effect could be achieved by modifying the cite template to suppress the display of such links, avoiding the need to re-add the content if the court declared such use was permissible.

This discussion moved to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Archive.org hosting of copyrighted material, where it continued for another four or five days, generating substantial volumes of text.

But someone would eventually point out that this issue had previously been addressed in a discussion during the period from June 14, 2020 to July 12, 2020 (28 days!), at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#Stop InternetArchiveBot from linking books. It turns out the issue had already been decided to leave existing links in place, and to allow further links to be manually added, but not allowing such links to be added by a bot.

I don't have a solution, but a war of exhaustion like this is neither an attractive way to resolve disputes, nor is it particularly likely to provide the "best" result. Though both sides will claim these decisions are a matter of principal, it seems like there needs to be a better way. Fabrickator (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I wonder what a better way would be…? In that particular case, it seems kind of strange to even debate—I understand the position that it's a legal question and it would be silly and perhaps reckless for anyone who isn't a lawyer versed in copyright law to weigh in on. You never know if your comments might get cited in a lawsuit down the road—I'll never forget following the Google v. Oracle case and hearing about random employee emails weighing in on copyright questions showing up in court. It would be nice if the WMF could clarify how their legal team sees a phrase like "reason to believe" when it's a matter of a pending court case; as a layperson you could argue that a reason to believe there's infringement doesn't exist until the case has been decided, or you could argue that the possibility that the case could make something definitively infringing qualifies as a reason, but I wouldn't trust myself to say either without legal counsel. Maybe someday we won't have to worry about questions of copyright at all… Mesocarp (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: On those rare occasions when I find myself getting emotionally stressed about something that happens on Wikipedia, I just walk away. Nothing that goes on here is worth losing sleep. Generally I don't walk, I just assume good faith that those with whom I interact share the goal of improving the encyclopedia, knowing that dispute resolution options are available in the event of an impasse. And I don't mind when I am proven wrong or made aware of a bit of a rule that I hadn't known about; I have no need to be right all the time, but I know that's hard for some people who'd rather just entrench themselves further into their position. My position is, if my voice is heard, and my points are considered, but consensus goes against me, so be it. There are millions of articles here that need work. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I'm glad to hear you say that you rarely feel stressed about things here, that's reassuring—I've been very anxious about my experiences the past few days (which I guess is obvious), to the point that I have woken up prematurely with thoughts about it and things I guess, although this whole thread has been much more pleasant and really rather touching. Sometimes I worry I'm just not like, psychically durable enough to participate much here or something like that, but I also feel very encouraged to keep going by things people have said to me, so I don't want to just slink away. From what you say I hope with experience I'll feel reassured that feeling this way from doing things here isn't the norm day-to-day; I'm sure part of my anxiety just comes from not having enough data to draw on. When I started editing more I think I was kind of hoping it would just be like really fun and pleasant and straightforward, which was maybe a bit naïve, but maybe it is actually like that a lot of the time if you can take the right attitude. Mesocarp (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mesocarp: @Anachronist: In the issue of archive.org copyright infringement, the "unsettled" determination of the prior dispute resolution process had already been established, the result being that bots should not add new links, but existing links should be left alone. Presumably unaware of this resolution, somebody comes along and does their own thing, then we wind up re-litigating the original issue. Had these changes not been objected to, the deletions that had been determined to be impermissible would have been allowed to continue. So I am somewhat vindicated for resisting, but to say the effort involved was excessive is an understatement.

FWIW, I feel there is a certain "sleight of hand" in trying to equate a "suspicion" that one set of web sites, offering no plausible explanation for the legality of their providing access to copyrighted material, with a web site that advances a legal theory that is at least arguably valid. This is a distinction with a difference, and thus the interpretation of "suspicion of infringement" suggests that the treatment should not necessarily be the same. Every asserted claim of infringement cannot be a reasonable cause for deleting the existing links. Fabrickator (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Idea for a new "considered the worst" page

We already have pages for music and film considered the worst, what about creating one for sports teams considered the worst? Some of these teams like the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, a team that signed a local bartender to pitch in a game, were so bad that they live in infamy. The 1899 Spiders fascinate baseball fans the way Ed Wood movies fascinate movie buffs. The 1986-87 L.A. Clippers are another team could make the list. Despite having some talented layers, they stumbled to a .146 win percentage, which to this day if memory serves is the worst in NBA history.

I think there's interest in such a page. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sportsfan1976: There's a place you could propose this idea (i don't remember what that place is), however I suggest you change your signature to include your username, otherwise it can be a bit confusing. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That kind of list would need multiple reliable sources talking about "worst sports teams" as a phenomenon. You could not compile such a list by using some sources that say "The Morristown Coronillas were the worst tiddlywinks team in recorded history" and other sources saying "Among the worst American football teams known to have existed, the Duckburg Dodgers were the worst". Are there sources that discuss "worst sports teams", globally, as a concept? (The examples you mention above appear to be teams from the US.) WP:NLIST is the relevant guideline. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sportsfan1976: Welcome to the Teahouse! To see if there's interest, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, where you might find other editors to help. If you decide to move forward, collect your reliable sources, and follow the instructions at Help:Your first article to create a draft for review. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It would have to be worst within something like a professional or top league. Category:Lists of worsts includes:

• List of worst Major League Baseball season records
• List of Major League Baseball longest losing streaks
• List of National Basketball Association longest losing streaks
• List of National Football League longest losing streaks
• List of winless seasons

The 1899 Cleveland Spiders are mentioned in three of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Determining Changes

JC847966 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Is it possible to see who made changes, and who edited an article I have written? If I do not agree with these changes, can I remove the new edits? Furthermore, can everyone edit any Wikipedia article, or is there a certain status requirement? JC847966 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@JC847966: Welcome to the Teahouse! At the top of each article is a tab called "View history", which allows you to see who made what changes when. Anyone can edit (or revert edits) to any Wikipedia article, except those articles that has some kind of protection - see Wikipedia:Protection policy. As part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can revert someone's changes if the edit does not meet Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but be prepared to discuss the edit and work towards building consensus for the article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@JC847966: What is the article? Your contribution history doesn't show anything you've written that others have edited. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

JC847966, Joe Biden is an example of an article that newcomers cannot edit -- at least for now, and very likely until four years or more after he ceases to be president. Or rather, they can't edit it directly. They can make suggestions for changes on Talk:Joe Biden. However, these suggestions must be precise; if they're not, they won't be considered. -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

How to remove incorrect references

Dear Friends,

I tried to edit a page where the refences were incorrect. How do I delete the incorrect references and how do I delete a page that is not relevant at all as the company has seized to exist. Trulyinsightful (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Trulyinsightful Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I will answer your second question by stating that the company no longer exists is not a reason to delete the article, just as George Washington being decesased is not a reason to delete that article. Now, if the company was acquired by another company, there could be an argument to merge the two articles, which should be discussed on the article talk page(of the article that should remain). If the company did not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable company in the first place, that would be a reason to delete the article, and an Articles for Deletion discussion could be started. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Trulyinsightful your first question is quite complicated. It depends on what's incorrect about the references. If the references do not say what is stated in the sentence they support (e.g. "The company is based in Munich[1]" and reference [1] says it's based in Chicago, then you can, without any worries, change the text to match what the reference actually says. If you think the reference is incorrect, and the text is right, life is a bit more complicated. Really you need to find another reference, indicating that the first is wrong, in which case you can substitute the one for the other (but be aware other editors may disagree, so it's a good idea to explain what you're doing, in the edit summary, and on the talk-page). If you think that the current reference is not only wrong, but unreliable, you can remove it, but again you really must explain what you're doing on the talk-page or edit summary (or both), or you're liable to getting reverted; this can be a controversial situation. It's probably safest to remove the doubtful statement and its reference; if you leave an unsupported statement, a high-risk thing to do, I'd also recommend putting a citation-needed template ({{cn}}) in place of the removed reference. What's really important is this: the truth, as we know it, doesn't matter. We are here to report what secondary sources say, not what we know to be true. So even if the article is definitely wrong, from our viewpoint (no matter how well-informed that viewpoint is), we can't edit to say something different without having a secondary source to back us up. Whatever you finally choose to do, talk about it; other editors can chime in, if they know what you're attempting to achieve. Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a tonne. I will keep all your suggestions in mind while editing the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trulyinsightful (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

writing simple and small effective summary, resources with examples?

is there any cheatsheet with examples for writing edit summaries in our wiki or external website. right now i am using half to more than half 500 character limit. Wikipedia:Edit summary legend and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend/Quick reference, both of them give a head start, but i am looking for webpage or cheatsheet with examples taken directly from enwiki or hypothetical. চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 08:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's your wiki or website, চামুণ্ডা, you can make up your own rules; as for English-language Wikipedia, there's Help:Edit summary. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা Welcome to Tea House! Another idea is to write longer comments on the talk page and reference those in your edit summary, so that others can also discuss/respond to you. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Review draft

Can you review my draft, please? Wokipoki (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wolipoki Your draft was submitted and is pending, please be patient as there are hundreds of drafts waiting for reviews, which are conducted by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wokipoki: While you're patiently waiting for someone to review Draft:Güneş Hayat, could you please add |trans-title= to each Turkish reference? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, Teahouse hosts are not all draft reviewers, and asking at Teahouse does not accelerate a review. If you are asking for an opinion on Draft:Güneş Hayat, mine matches that of the reviewer who declined the first submission on 7 September - her career is not notable, as it appears to be as a supporting actress in several films and TV shows. Most of the references confirm that she had those roles, but are not about her at length. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is a slideshow considered a reliable source?

If there is an online slideshow from a reputable magazine, and each picture has either a caption or a paragraph describing it, does that count as a reliable source or no? Lupine453 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lupine453. If the magazine is a reliable source, then the slideshow is also reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating an article

What's the best way to evaluate an article? Snapple2021 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Snapple2021: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you evaluating an article for notability or content assessment for WikiProject templates or something else? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Need help with possible vandalism

Hello,

This is regarding the page pfSense.

I have noticed constant disruptive editing by an editor, 'Cyrix2k' whose contributions [10] only relate to OPNsense and pfSense. From his contribution, anyone can see that he/she created the account only to defend OPNsense from getting deleted [11] and was even warned by Wikipedia for his apparent COI edits on the page of OPNsense [12]. On the talk page, the editor says 'I am not paid by nor have any affiliation with OPNsense (I don't even use it).' while on the deletion discussion, the editor contradicts his/her statement saying 'I have no affiliation other than being a user of both OPNsense & pfSense.'

He/She is reverting only the edits pertaining to OPNsense on the page of pfSense. This clearly indicates that he/she has some vested interest in OPNsense. It appears Cyrix2k is an advocate for OPNsense and is intent on having the pfSense page be an extension of his feelings toward Netgate, rather than fairly and objectively progressing an unbiased history of pfSense software.

I would request fellow Wikipedians to please block this editor from further harming the page of pfSense. I had removed content with no correct references on the page of pfSense and this editor just keeps adding it back. The content clearly advertises OPNSense and Netgate, which has nothing to do with pfSense. Thank you. Dashmix (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dashmix: You can report the user to WP:AVI, and also request protection on pfSense if they are that persistent. After looking at their contributions they seem to mean well. Instead of reporting them, I would suggest engaging in discussion with them on the talk page of the article and see if you can reach an agreement. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, remember to assume good faith. Instead of thinking the user is trying to be malicious, think that the user is trying to be helpful. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I understand your viewpoint, however, it seems like the user is making additions only relating to OPNsense on the page of pfSense. I had neutralized the page of pfSense making the content easy to understand by readers but, he/she is adamant on keeping their edits. If he/she was trying to be helpful, instead of completely reverting my edits, they would have tweaked it a bit or so. --Dashmix (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dashmix: I have pinged you on the talk page of pfSense so you can hopefully resolve your issues with the other user. Please do not jump to conclusions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dashmix: Actually, looking at the date of their contributions they were from last month, so a report of the user would be denied as the user has not edited for a bit. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Pursue consensus at Talk page of article. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Just thought I'd let you know but the user Dashmix is claiming is a vandal hasn't edited since August. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding photo to a bio of a living person

I writing regarding the Wikipedia page for Deric Washburn. Currently there are no photos included of Washburn and ones that circulating on the internet are not of him. Derick is my neighbor and I'm trying to help get this sorted out. We're hoping that if an accurate image or two is added to his Wikipedia page then hopefully internet image searches for him will be accurate. I'm a novice Wikipedia editor and am also an academic. How do I handle this?

Thanks! Lulusand (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusand: Welcome to the Teahouse! One way to do this is for you to take a photo of him and use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, after reading Wikipedia:Image use policy. You could then post to Talk:Deric Washburn with the {{request edit}} template to ask someone to add the photo to the article. Note that since you have a conflict of interest, you cannot edit the Deric Washburn article yourself. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GoingBatty! To clarify, does it need to be a photo that I personally take, or can he supply a photo or two? (He's already sent me a photo of when he was at Harvard.) Lulusand (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lulusand, you need to have copyright of the photo. If you have taken it, it's fine. However if he has sent a photo, he needs to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That page has a full guide on how to submit a photo for usage on Wikipedia and sister projects. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

But notice, Lulasand that it's probably not Washburn that has to follow those instructions: unless there is a legal document saying otherwise, the copyright in a photo belongs to the photographer, not to the subject. This is why it's easier if you take a photo and upload it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Article verification

Have a great day! I would really appreciate it if you could check out my article again. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:SvetlanaManuylova/sandbox I have shortened it considerably. I have also reduced the number of links, leaving the ones that I find more informative and reliable. Unfortunately, I don't have any other links that would be better. Please tell me if the article can be published in this form or if it needs to be edited? Thank you. Have a nice day.SvetlanaManuylova (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, SvetlanaManylova. First, the references are just general ones at the bottom of the draft, and don't indicate what information in the draft is supported by what reference - articles about living people are hardly ever accepted without inline references. But even more important is that neither of the two sources is independent of Bobier. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. Every single piece of information in the article should be found in a reliable published source, which you should cite; and nearly all of those sources should have no connection with Bobier or his associates. An article starts by finding at least three places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish a significant amount of material about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

sorting in wikitables

suppose i have heading top: row-day of week col-consumed item row 1: wed col 1: milk; row 2: tue col 2: curd; row 3: mon col 3: cream; row 4: sat col 4: tea; row 5: thu col 5: pudding; row 6: wed col 6: apple; row 7: wed col 7: bread. if sorted alphabetically does "wed" with their values? চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 18:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello non-latin username I can't ping! Could you possibly clarify your question? I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're asking and want to give as accurate of an answer as I can. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm going to try and parse what you're asking: If I alphabetically sort the days of the week, will the associated food switch positions to match them? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা: This appears to be your supposed table:

day of week	consumed item
wed	milk
tue	curd
mon	cream
sat	tea
thu	pudding
wed	apple
wed	bread

If you sort alphabetically by day of week then the three "wed" rows will be listed after eachother in the milk, apple, bread order they had right before, and not sorted by the second column. Is that what you were asking? If you first sort by consumed item and then by day of the week then the three "wed" end up sorted by consumed item apple, bread, milk, because they were in that order right before. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: so our wikitable is quite intelligent. yes, i was looking for sorting col 1 (day of week). sorting by consumed item is giving accurate results. i copied wikitable code whuch is quite useful. the issue is resolved. how do i mark this question as completed? -চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 03:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: perhaps my username change was denied becuase it is registered few days back. did not received accepted or rejected email confirmation. -চামুণ্ডা^{[আলাপ]} 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@চামুণ্ডা: If you sort by day of the week then chronological is usually better than alphabetical. This can be done with sort keys like below. See more at Help:Sorting. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah alright. PrimeHunter and Tenryuu seem to have pinged you though so it's all good! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

day of week	consumed item
wed	milk
tue	curd
mon	cream
sat	tea
thu	pudding
wed	apple
wed	bread

@চামুণ্ডা: @Blaze the Wolf: @PrimeHunter: Remember also that wikitables don't support multi-column sorting. That is, if you have sorted the above table by day of week, there is no way to sort the second column so that the "wed" group is sorted alphabetically. The ordering you get when sorting a list with identical values is dependent on the sort algorithm being used, and the ordering of rows having the same key value is essentially random. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: No, I said how it works above. Identical cells keep their order from right before the sorting of that column. If you first sort by the second column and then the first column then identical cells in the first column will remain sorted by the second column. See Help:Sorting#Secondary key. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's true if you do it in multiple steps. There was a difficulty in this, I recall, over at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States when someone proposed a table with a quartile column, and unless you know the trick to multi-column sorting, you would get nonsensical results. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving a category

I can't figure out how to execute a category move, but clearly Category:Obscenity controversies in internet should be moved as in internet is not grammatically correct English, even if all the other categories under Category:Obscenity controversies follow the Obscenity controversies in … template. Possible targets are Category:Internet-related obscenity controversies (which I'd prefer) or Category:Obscenity controversies on the internet. cc Renzo487, who has moved a bunch of pages into this category. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Moving a category takes a lot more work than moving a normal page, so the ability to move them is restricted. To rename a category you need to list it at Categories for discussion, either under one of the speedy criterion (if one applies) or for a full week's discussion otherwise. Once that's finished the actual moving is done by a bot. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.74: Thanks for the help! Tagged C2A. I know many of our policies and procedures but Wikipedia is a very large system. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto I agree a rename is needed. I for example I would have proposed Category:Obscenity controversies online as an even shorter alternative should you raise a discussion at Wikipedia:CfD ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Your target is better, so I updated the speedy request to reflect your idea instead. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto just a small note, this likely would NOT be a valid speedy request, because on the contrary it's breaking away from naming conventions of "Obscenity in..." and isn't a mere typo/obvious fix. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Are you sure? [I]n internet is obviously not grammatically correct English. I read WP:C2A criterion №3 as easily fitting the bill, though I don't plan to make too many of these requests. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto I may be splitting hairs here, since I agree with your ultimate proposal whether in a week or immediately, but WP:C2A to me implies there is an obvious/apparent renaming which there isn't in this case, and it would benefit from more discussion, just as we are/have done so here. I won't opposite it there for that reason, since I'm not trying to be a WikiLawyer 💩 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just adding my opinion here but I think WP:C2A applies as if someone who spoke English read that, they would most likely say, "That doesn't sound right" because it's a grammatical error that's rather obvious. "In internet" is not correct as whenever someone refers to the internet, it's always the internet. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto, how about "Obscenity controversies in cyberspace? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.129.71 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Betsy Rosenberg

URGENT: BETSY ROSENBERG'S WIKAPEDIA PAGE HIJACKED

A unknown and unauthorized user identified as Cassiopeia DELETED edits made to BETSY ROSENBERG's wikipedia page shortly after BESTSY'S assistant (userID: BRassistant) published Betsy's updates ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2021

PLEASE RESTORE BRassistant EDITS

PLEASE BLOCK CASSIOPEIA FROM HAVING EDITING ACCESS TO BETSY ROSENBERG'S PAGE!

(Redacted) 2603:9008:190C:FC00:B977:B7D5:5537:33C0 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A unknown and unauthorized user identified as Cassiopeia DELETED

Courtesy: Betsy Rosenberg. Cassiopeia correctly deleted your addition to the article because you provided no references. All content must be validated by reliable source references. Please do not shout (all caps). As you work for Betsy Rosenberg, you are PROHIBITED (yes, I shouted) from editing the article directly. The only avenue available to you is to declare your paid relationship (see WP:PAID) on your User page, and then, on the Talk page of the article, propose article changes (with references). You then submit an Edit request. A non-involved editor will review and act. Lastly, only edit when signed in to your account, and 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at th end. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, 2603, and welcome to Wikipedia. So, you are operating under a couple of common misconceptions. First of all, Wikipedia pages are not owned or controlled by their subject; for the most part, all Wikipedia pages are open for everyone to edit freely. So, there is no such thing as an "unauthorized user" in this context, and the page certainly was not "hijacked"; this is how Wikipedia works. Second, the edits of BRassistant (whom, for the record, I have blocked as a promotional role account) did not comply with Wikipedia policy; they were extremely promotional, to the point of being spam. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia; Wikipedia strives to be balanced and neutral in its content and tone. It is not a place for advertisement or promotion, but rather a place to summarize what independent, reliable sources say about a subject. (And besides, those edits have been revision-deleted, so they cannot be restored.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it still a violation if the user disclosed their COI? I was under the impression that accounts could exist that are affiliated with an organazation or person, provided they disclose COI. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(will move this to user's talk page Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC))

Right. I'll just add that it was also a copyright violation, which is the reason it has been suppressed (actually not merely revision-deleted). Bishonen | tålk 17:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC).

Pyrrho the Skeptic, It is correct that accounts with a COI can edit if they disclose the COI. However, those edits must fully comply with policy. It is quite common that editors with the COI will find it difficult to avoid running afoul of WP:NPOV, which is why such editors our urge to use the request edit option rather than directly editing. If they cannot comply with policy, as happened in this case than they can be blocked. As a technical point, the block should be due to failure to follow policy, rather than blocked solely because they have a COI. I witnessed hundreds of examples of editors with a COI claiming they can manage to edit without violating neutrality, but it's exceedingly hard, even for good faith editors. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Xurshidbek Jamoldinov

Jamoldinov Xurshidbek. OʻZBEKISTON respublikasi Andijon viloyati Baliqchi tumani Chinobod shaharchasi Taraqqiyot koʻchasi 43 uy yashayman Hozirda maʼlumotim oʻrta Hozirgi maktabda oqiyman XurshidbekJamoldinov (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, XurshidbekJamoldinov. Pehaps you want to try using the Uzbek Wikipedia. Young people are advised to follow WP:YOUNG, which includes not giving out personal information.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I (bot) failed to archive

There were 52 discussions, so I set up an archive bot. But, obviously old sections "Sacred geometry" and "Algebra, Popper etc." remained. Is this a case where I can archive manually? See Talk:Euler's identity. SilverMatsu (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: You set minthreadsleft = 5 and there are 5 threads left on that talk page, so I think this is expected. See User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters_explained. Also, the oldest sections seem to have a lot of posts missing signatures, I wonder if that will cause a problem later? RudolfRed (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu and RudolfRed: I added {{UnsignedIP}} to the end of Talk:Euler's identity#Sacred geometry. It appears each section now ends with a signed comment, so they should archive in the future. GoingBatty (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed and GoingBatty: Thank you for advice and signature addition. Also, I temporarily changed minthreadsleft from 5 to 3.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I know this is unrelated but do I actually have to add the date and time manually when adding the {{UnsignedIP}} template or is there something that does it for me? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I like using User:Anomie/unsignedhelper to add {{Unsigned}} or {{UnsignedIP}}. As with any Wikipedia tool, check what it suggests before saving your edit. For example, the helper didn't provide the correct information for this talk page, because someone else added section headers after the comment was posted. Therefore, I added the template manually. GoingBatty (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok that's cool! Thanks for telling me! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm ... I (bot) can't archive the section "Algebra, Popper etc.". I tried removing "." from the section title and also, changing Aug to August ...--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: I removed the comma from the DMY date. If it's not archived in 48 hours, ping me and I'll do it manually for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

How to tag a IP address user

How to send a message to the IP address user I am unable to do so and whe he/she send a message on my talk page I just get a notification and unable to find what he actually sent. Bharat0078 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bharat0078: You can post on your user talk page and hope the IP editor is watching it, or you could post on the IP editor's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

{{Talkback}} may help. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting more involved...

As someone new to Wikipedia (and slightly, okay very, intimidated by the immense wealth of stuff on the site, just wondering how to best get involved in Wikipedia as a new editor. Reasonable Doubt24 (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Reasonable Doubt24. The answer depends on your personal strengths and weaknesses, and your personal interests and motivations. Look within. I suggest that you take a close look at Wikipedia:Community portal, and you can find enough productive things to do there to keep you busy for a very long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Reasonable Doubt24, Wikipedia:Task Center may also help you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Reasonable Doubt24 Yet another thing you can try: Go to an article on a topic you're interested in and check the category-links on the bottom. Perhaps you'll find something in those that's worth your time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability For Crypto Coins

Hello,

I checked the entire https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, but there is no criteria set for Crypto currencies. Will it for under GNG? Should there be a conensus to add a new criteria? SAMsohot (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GNG would be applicable regardless of whether there was a specific notability guideline (SNG). In fact, GNG and SNGs are an "either/or" situation, in that it need only meet one of them. Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you want to work in a topic area under general sanctions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jéské Couriano (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

SAMsohot Along with WP:GNG which is golden standard, WP:NCOMPANY and and WP:NWEB also exist, I cannot think of other crypto related topics that would benefit from additional guidelines. Do you have specific examples in mind? ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah Na, I was thinking there could be a specific criteria for Crypto Currencies, as they are Money, and not a company? Maybe they qualify as a company too. I was thinking, like if there is so and so much value/assests, then it is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.SAMsohot (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Improve

Hi how can I improve this article Draft:Report Look JagdeshJouno (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@JagdeshJouno: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can find more reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Report Look, and summarize/paraphrase what they say. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Electronic Music of the United Kingdom

I am slowly chipping away at an article about Electonic music of the United Kingdom. Is this a good topic for article? There is an article for German electronic music, though they define it as a an umbrella genre, which I wouldn't say about the UK counterpart. There is an article for Music of the United Kingdom and I could just add a section to that. But I like how the German article has all the info about important events, local scenes and different stages in the development of subgenres, which would likely take up too much space as a subsection of the general article. Anton Shrdlu (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anton Shrdlu: I'd say it's possible to craft an article out, but it'll be hard because there's just so many different movements going on in different cities. Don't consider it one genre, but as many parallel movements with similarities that you should highlight. You'll probably have a hard time finding quality sources online; I suggest going into your local library and see if you can find music history books, which should be more comprehensive in summarizing events and pointing out important trends. The "History" and "Styles" section will be the easiest and should be your starting point; "Characteristics" and "Significance" requires higher-level analysis (this is where those books come in; don't WP:OR). Drop the list of individual artists, which is a bit promo-like. Good luck! I listen to a bit of electronic music too, so hit up my talk page if you have any more questions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Question by JCo0197

I think the question that I really have is what are some good topics of articles to start with when first starting off editing Wikipedia? I'm curious if there are certain topics that are better to start off with than others. JCo0197 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC) JCo0197 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not maintain a list of good topics for new users, however, I can tell you that any of the topics listed here or here aren't good topics to start off with (see Wikipedia:General sanctions for general info about these). Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@JCo0197 Good question. Ignoring topic, I'd recommend you start with stuff that is easy like improving wording/spelling/grammar. Next, master the art of referencing (WP:TUTORIAL), this is essential if you want to edit beyond that. But as for topics. Some requires extra good references like living people and medical stuff. Some has seen a lot of bickering, like American politics (just the last 30 years of it), Israel-Palestine and a few others. Those may be more difficult for a beginner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@JCo0197: Once you are comfortable with editing, formatting, adding sources, and so on, see Wikipedia:Requested articles for a list of thousands of topics that people have requested articles be written about. Find an area of interest and click on it to see the article topics. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Where to Start

The tutorials have been extremely helpful with helping me see what should be done when editing wikipedia page. However if a person were to start a article what would be a good place to start with the actual formulation of the article? JSlater2119 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC) JSlater2119 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JSlater2119. Starting off on the right foot is a great idea. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. So, when beginning an article, I search for sources and copy their URLs into a personal sandbox page. Early on, my draft is just a list of bare URLs. Then, I turn those URLs into complete references with bibliographic information. Then, I start summarizing the most important points from each reference above that reference. The article is now vaguely starting to take shape. Then, I start moving content and references around, creating section headers, and putting things into a logical order. Often but not always, that is chronological order. Now, I revise and rewrite for flow and coherence, and when I think it is ready, I move it to main space. You can find a lot more advice at Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

And please @JSlater2119: Do this in draft space or your sandbox, not main article space. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation to guide you getting started creating a draft and submitting it for review. Also see Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what is expected before an article is acceptable for publication in main article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Can someone help me reinstate a wikipedia that is only in German now?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Katharine Towne

 Ghetobarbie (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ghetobarbie. What was the title of the deleted English Wikipedia article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm guessing it's Katharine Towne as that's the only page they've edited.

@Ghetobarbie: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! unfortunately the draft you have translated cannot be accepted as it is an unsourced biography of a living person. Due to the potential for harm if false or misleading information is added to Wikipedia all biographies of living people are subject to an extra stringent set of sourcing requirements, see the link above for details. To be accepted here you will need to find multiple reliable sources discussing Katharine Towne and write your article based around what they say, you'd be looking for things like newspaper and magazine articles, coverage in books, coverage on news websites etc. It's also worth mentioning that each language project is run completely independently and have their own set of policies and guidelines, having an article on the German Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that she'll qualify for an article here. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, at the time I responded, that draft had not yet been created and their question was their only edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Apologies, I didn't check the timestamps. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem, IP. Here is the deletion debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Towne. That was six years ago. It is possible that she is now notable, but the current draft fails to show that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I have merged the deleted main space article into the draft's contribution history. The content and format of the deleted version is better than the draft, but the sources in the draft are way better than in the deleted article. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

Hello, should images be in the infobox? I've seen some articles with images not on the infobox, mind if I can move the file into it and is it necessary to have one on it? Thanks. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahthga Yram: Welcome to the Teahouse! It depends on the relationship between the image and the topic of the article. If the article is about a person and uses {{Infobox person}}, then an image of the person belongs in the infobox. However, if the image is of artwork the person made or a building where they lived, then the image does not belong in the infobox. We might be able to help further if you let us know which article you're referring to. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Oh, I forgot something, I'm pertaining to the extrasolar planet articles that have no pictures in the infobox but the rendition is in an another section. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 05:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahthga Yram: Could you please give some examples? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I found one example of an exoplanet called Kepler-737b. There are no image in the infobox, yet there is one in the habitability section, an artist's rendition of the said celestial body. Do we need to move the artist's rendition to the top or in the infobox? Thanks. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 08:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

That image is apparently of HD 4308 b. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I got confused, sorry. But anyways, is it required to move one into the infobox if the rendition or any picture related to the article is not in the lead or in the infobox? That'll be my final question, thanks. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 10:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahthga Yram No, an article doesn't have to have a leadimage, see WP:LEADIMAGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Grabergs Graa Sang Okay then. Note: My phone font doesn't support A with a circle on the top of it, sorry. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 10:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahthga Yram and David Biddulph: Should the HD 4308 b image be added to the HD 4308 b article, like it is on several other Wikipedias? Also, I don't know how to type Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but I can copy and paste it. Happy editing everyone! GoingBatty (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahthga Yram: I have moved the image into the infobox of Kepler-737b. Then I realized it's the wrong image, so I put it into HD 4308 b. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Create Wikipedia page?

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

How do you create a Wikipedia page?  506yescope (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@506yescope: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to read Your first article, but it seems you've already started writing in draftspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You have created three drafts, but in none of them are you referencing properly. See Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability for Para Athletes

Hey everyone, do we have something specific for paraathletes? I have been hovering over Draft:Mohd Yasser but not sure if winning a medal at Asian Para Games is sufficient or not. Any feedback would be great. Another one to check Draft:Prem Kumar Ale. Para Athletes deserve equal place at Wiki as others.

 Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: Welcome to the Teahouse! The only mention of paraathletes I find at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is the Paralympics, but I don't think that means only paraathletes that competed at the Paralympics are notable. Keep working to find independent sources and summarize what they say. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey GoingBatty, thanks for the welcome; though I am not new at Tea House (it has been my favorite place to come whenever I get confused). The challenege is that Para-sports isn't as covered - which is unfortunate. I have been thinking to evaluate from a POV of playing at notable international games or those that are organized by notable organisations globally. But yes, nothing better than having actual sources of course! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: Welcome back to the Teahouse, then! (If I welcome you the next time you start a new section, I'm just being friendly.) Since Wikipedia:Notability (sports) doesn't specifically have detailed guidelines for paraathletes, I would think that we'd default to the WP:BASIC notability requirements. GoingBatty (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

First contribution- need help

Hi there TeaHouse! My name is Claudia and (iedit4life) and I’ve been trying to publish an entry for Bryonn Bain for months. Every time I attempt to, it gets flagged for speedy deletion and the reason is that it’s “promotional.” I read through all the guidelines and made sure to use “neutral” language and to only stick to the facts (movies he’s been in, books he’s written etc) but for some reason, I keep failing. I submitted a much shorter version a couple of days ago. From what I can tell, it just hasn’t gone anywhere yet.

If any of y’all are up for it, can you look at my submission and give me feedback on what to change, if anything?

I’d deeply appreciate it! Iedit4life (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Took a glance. It's not terrible, but terms such as "critically acclaimed" and "empowering artists" are generally non-neutral and should be avoided, especially in the lead. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iedit4life: Welcome to the Teahouse! I like your username a lot! I'm looking at User:Iedit4life/sandbox and have some suggestions:

• Please format your section headings per MOS:HEADINGS and do not use <big>...</big>. (I added a "References" section heading for you.)
• "award-winning production" and "theatrical tour de force" seem promotional. Instead, please write neutral factual sentences. Maybe "Lyrics From Lockdown won the ______ award in ____.<ref>...</ref>" and "_______ described Lyrics From Lockdown as a 'theatrical tour de force'.<ref>...</ref>"
• Some would disagree with describing Williams' situation as "Thrown on death row at 17 years old for a crime he did not commit". Note how the source writes more neutrally: "Convicted of capital murder in 1995 and sentenced to death, Williams’ sentence was commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 2005, as he was a minor when the alleged crime occured. Williams has maintained his innocence". You could paraphrase this source to describe the facts.
• Please do not use footnotes in section headings.
• Titles of films and magazines and books should be italicized (not bolded), while titles of magazine articles should be in quotation marks.
• Please fix the |last=/|first= parameters in references #5 & 6.
• More independent sources would be helpful.

Hope this helps. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

When is right to edit?

So as a novice editor I have a few questions. One of my questions is how do most editors overcome the fear of not feeling like they are smart enough to make edits. In addition, is there a list that individual editors go through before they decide to make edits to a page? In essence, what makes you want to go and edit a Wikipedia article? Is it based on topics you like? Is it the importance of spreading information? Is it just a hobby? GERSH.D (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@GERSH.D: The way I started was to propose a change on the talk page of an article, and when someone said it was fine, I made the change. To learn the mechanics of editing, you have a sandbox for you to practice in. Then you will be "smart enough" to make edits. You don't need to be "smart enough" to write about any topic, you just need to make sure that articles convey information that is already published in reliable sources, without violating the copyright of those sources, and make sure that the statements in the Wikipedia articles are representative in proportion to what sources say, if there is a diversity of viewpoints.

As to why we do it? For me it is a pastime that gives me the satisfaction of contributing to a knowledge resource. Everyone has different reasons. Some people are here to push an agenda or use Wikipedia as a publicity platform, but they typically don't last long. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has a guideline that advises be bold in your edits, but if reverted, discuss, either on the Talk page of the article or the Talk page of the editor who reverted your changes. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You can't 'break' an article. All prior edits (excluding copyright infringement or articles that are Speedy deleted) are preserved and can be accessed in View history. If you have good knowledge about the topic of an article, you may be able to add content that is missing, or correct content that is flawed. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

GERSH.D I edit articles on subjects that interest me, for I'm not putting a lot of work into something I don't care about. Mostly I choose stub or start articles that don't satisfy my curiosity about what I wanted to learn. For example, if an article about an old movie has no plot summary I want to add a plot to help out other readers. And if an article doesn't have enough references, I want to show the information is reliable by tracking down good sources.

I started researching and writing in pre-Internet days, and now local libraries no longer have printed encyclopedias, and most of my previous stand-by reference books have gone away because almost no one was using them anymore. I have asked reference librarians where to find certain information, and was told to go online. I feel a responsibility to see that there is reliable online information on the subjects I care about, and believe I'm doing my small part to help preserve history. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Question from Jhagroups

FYI

 – Created section header. GoingBatty (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

i always make a page it gets deleated,why? Jhagroups (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked for a promotional username and promotional edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Organizing an article

Article "flow"

Hey all! I am curious about how one decides to organize the table of contents in an article, and the general "flow." One of the articles I read is Edmund's Husserl page, and it begins with his life and career. The final heading before the bibliography is labeled "influence." I would think that it might make more sense to include Husserl's influences either earlier in the article, or have influences mentioned throughout the article as they become relevant. How do you decide the best way to organize your article?

Emma Adriana (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Emma Adriana (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Emma Adriana: The guideline MOS:LAYOUT may help, although you are more concerned with the body of the article, for which there is no clear guideline. In fact, this guideline actually says about the body section: "Because of the diversity of subjects it covers, Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the names or order of section headings within the body of an article. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles. Contributors should follow the consensus model to establish an order."

So, use your best judgment. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Emma Adriana, what Anachronist said. If you think the article would flow better to place the section earlier or to remove it and integrate its content throughout the article, you're probably right. Go ahead and be bold and do it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Publishing Draft: Draft:Zakkariya K.A.

This query is in connection with the draft titled Zakkariya K.A. The subject is the head and founder of a university department (Wiki page to University: CUSAT) and an elected chairman of a society called Indian Society for Training and Development. As far as my knowledge is concerned, these fufils criteria for academic inclusion in Wikipedia. Kindly help. Sajidnasar4 (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It says "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,365 pending submissions waiting for review." A reviewer will give you feedback in due course. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Publish

Hello How do I publish a draft Thank you BigDrew64 (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Drew Hickey

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that can corroborate the claim. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@BigDrew64: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you are Drew Hickey, please understand that writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged - see WP:AUTO and WP:ABOUTME. If you are not Hickey but have some relationship with him, please see the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. After reading all of that, if you still want to continue, please declare your conflict of interest, gather your reliable sources, and follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

In shorter words, every statement of fact requires verification by a published reference. No references = no article. Usually, a "How do I publish?" request leads to a Teahouse host adding a "Submit" button to a draft, which when clicked on, would submit the draft to the review process. Yours is far away from potentially being an article. David notMD (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

New article collides with old article - beginners question

Hi guys :) The article Democratic Education is a wild mix-up of general aspects to education for a democratic society and specifically Democratic Schools. That's why I decided to write an article "Democratic School" which is here in my sandbox and delete some redundant parts in the old "Democratic Education" article. It's my first article here on Wikipedia, so I don't know how to start. First publish the new "Democratic School" article or first delete the redundant parts or do it basically at the same time? I am afraid if I publish the new article first (which makes more sense to me), reviewers won't accept it, because of redundancy.

I would be very happy for advice. And thanks to all who contribute to this awesome project!!! Altiflash (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Altiflash:! You should probably take a look at WP:your first article for advice on writing an article. Next you should probably open a discussion on the talk page about the changes you'd like to make to see what other editors think of the changes you want to make. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Altiflash your sandbox contributions look like a wonderful addition to the school aspect! I would recommend making a comment as you did here, on the talk page of Democratic education which you can find at Talk:Democratic education. If you're determined to get Democratic schools published (User:Altiflash/sandbox) I would focus more on the inline sourcing/prose quality than on any duplication. How much/little duplication can be fixed overtime, but only with an article that is published. My 2 cents there is to trim the content on Summerhil, for example the alumni of each school can remain in each individual section, instead of making a giant combined list. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You should also read the Talk page discussion for Democratic education, which includes fact that at one time "Democratic school" existed as an article, later merged into Democratic education! My suggestion is to get your draft accepted first. Be clear in the Edit summary that content was copied from Democratic education. (Wikipedia allows copying within W with accrediting the source.) Only then, reduce but not eliminate the schools content from the education article and have a "see Democratic schools" link for that section. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your hints! @Blaze the Wolf: @Shushugah: @David notMD: Of course I have already read the WP:your first article, was it just a general hint or did I overlook something?. I have already announced the new article in the talk section (using the name Tiganitis) two months ago, but there was no reaction. Just now, I specifically explained my plans on the talk page and I pinged people who contributed to the discussion before. I also added links to the Democratic Education article in my article and reduced the copied parts.

On the very top of my article Democratic School it is now written, the article is declined because it looks like an essay and I am asked to be more neutral. Honestly I don't really understand what I should change. Every single information (apart some I copied from "Demcoratic Education" and Im going to erase now) have a linked source and I can't really see where my personal opinion dominates the article. The comment table says furthermore "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists on Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Democratic schools instead." But this article is a "List of democratic schools", which is obviously something else. I don't really know how to react to this. Can you help or explain that to me? --Altiflash (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You find one of the trickier situations on Wikipedia. Currently that page redirects to List of Democratic Schools which you can see here. The advice was just a suggestion/automated, since it "technically" already exists (as a redirect), and I think you can/should continue working on the article, and once it's ready, remove the redirect, or request someone else to do that (since it involves deleting the currently article to make room for the move). I think generally you have ample inline citations. In some cases you include multiple bullet points, and it's unclear what/where you are citing them. Since this article is quite complete, I would request/solicit copyediting assistance on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools and other similar projects. I don't have the time/expertise to help with the content itself, but happy to help with further questions about how to handle migrating this to Article namespace once it is approved. Since it is quite tricky in this case. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The recursion page.

 Cjjjkscratch (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Why can't wikipedia pages have circular links?

Wikipedia requires references to be from reliable sources. Because Wikipedia articles can be editing by anyone (exceptions being protected content), Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references in Wikipedia articles. What you were doing - and reverted for - and warned for - at Recursion was wrong for an entirely different reason. David notMD (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edits at Wikipedia Talk:User access levels and Edit conflict were answered and reverted, respectively, as not contributing. David notMD (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia: Advice?

I am very new to Wikipedia, and I find it very overwhelming for the most part. Specifically, the idea of writing my own article is extremely out of my comfort zone. Even the idea of just editing another article seems like something I am not really ready to do. Does anyone have any tips or advice on where to start, or what helped them get over the fear of contributing? Maryannelindemann (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Maryannelindemann. Do not be afraid. If you make a mistake, it can be corrected easily. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Community portal, where you can find countless easy tasks that need to be done. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Maryannelindemann; welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for reaching out! Yep, the project can definitely feel overwhelming, both because it's so big and because there are so many things that go into editing it. But we have a guideline called Wikipedia:Be bold that speaks exactly to what you're feeling, and I'd very much recommend reading at least the intro section of it.

Beyond that, writing an article is definitely a lot harder than editing an existing one, and some existing articles are a lot easier to edit than others. I would start first by editing articles on more niche topics, as these will more likely have clear errors and shortcomings you can correct. If you have any questions, the tutorial may help, or feel free to ask here. Don't worry about learning every rule—so long as you are editing in good faith, you're free to use common sense. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maryannelindemann Adding one further thing for you to consider: If you are interested in helping to fill the obvious gender gap in articles here on Wikipedia (only 19% of biographies are about women), be aware that we have a very active 'WikiProject' here called Women in Red. It encourages new and experienced editors to work on articles about Notable Women which have not yet have here. So, yes, creating an article from scratch is probably the hardest task you can perform here, but addressing the gender bias is a very productive area to work on. They maintain huge lists of women (arranged by region and by profession, and lots of advice to new editors.) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Image.

Page involved is this one.

I'm about to edit and remove the picture in the top of the infobox as there is a more clear image or schematic of the rocket. However in the revision history the edit summary that added the picture is:

"#WPWP #WPWPARK".

That edit history is of from the Arusha Wikimedia community under the #WPWP campaign. (See Meta: Guide on how to use WPWP Campaign hashtags).

The addition of the photo (File;CZ 1.jpg) happened on July 24. Should I proceed to delete it or move to an another (existing) section? Thanks. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 12:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ahthga Yram. There are two possible issues here: one related to image context and one related to image copyright. So, my suggestion to you is to be WP:CAUTIOUS in this case, and start a discussion about the image at Talk:Long March 1. Explain why you think the image should be changed and what you'd like to replace it with. If possible, provide a link to the image that you want to use (if it's OK to do so) so that others can compare the two. I don't suggest you try and upload any new image yet because there might be copyright issues involved that would need to be resolved first. If you're unsure about the copyright status of the image you want to use, then try asking for help at WP:MCQ. Even if the image you think should be used is better than the one currently being used, it might not be possible to use it if it needs to be licensed as non-free content for the reasons given here. In addition to starting a discussion about this on the article's talk page, you can also seek input from the WikiProjects listed at the very top of the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of #WPWP specifically, Ahthga Yram, just ignore these tags and this campaign altogether when assessing whether the edit was good or bad. We have had a huge amount of trouble from this project, which was organised without our involvement (I believe by someone who's actually banned from the English Wikipedia) and incentivised a lot of speedy but low-quality image additions. — Bilorv (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Having an undisclosed “alternate” account

abuse or trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey everyone, I was just curious how the community views a case where someone who has operated an additional undisclosed account with a dissimilar username “retired” but has continued editing on the alternate account. Would this be considered to be acceptable conduct if discovered for a comparatively newer editor with less of an established track record in the community? I’m also curious in regards to how such a revelation might be viewed if the editor went on to make a second request for adminship (where in the first, the alternate account was not disclosed). Thanks! 71.12.143.34 (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Welcome to the Teahouse. The policy is explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.--Shantavira|feed me 09:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. I know about the sockpuppetry policy, and that’s why I’m asking. The situation I’m thinking of would be, for example, a long term editor who has perhaps operated the other account for 6 years. @TonyBallioni, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Anachronist, and Cabayi:, please look into this IP. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Follow up on: Need advice/suggestions to improve my article

--Replying to [Need advice/suggestions to improve my article]

Dear Hoary and Robert McClenon,

Thanks for your prompt response. I am grateful for your detailed feedback. I am not a professional Wikipedia editor & I don't earn out of it. I am not even personally related to Niraj Gera. I happened to attend his Motivational speech once & in my quest to know more about him I realised that despite his presence on media articles, he is not there on wiki. I felt that he deserved to be on the wiki. Most of the information(including photographs) that I have gathered is from his news articles and the profile which he shared with the organizer of that event.

I totally understand that my language could have been non-neutral or maybe violating Wikipedia policy since I am not experienced in this. Now I will go through the wiki guidelines again & work on its language. I will resubmit after that.

Once again, grateful to you for helping me evolve as a wiki contributor.

Regards Jain chakshu (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Jain chakshu - When your edits are only about one person, and then they read promotionally, maybe you are not neutral and may have difficulty in editing neutrally. A good-faith assumption is that you are an ultra, an enthusiastic fan, of a motivational speaker rather than of a sports team.

If you want to evolve as a Wikipedia contributor, maybe you should work in an area where you are neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jain chakshu: Thank you for stating that the picture you uploaded for Draft:Niraj Gera was not your own work. I have nominated c:File:Geraniraj.jpg as a copyright violation. GoingBatty (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Question

I'm trying to make good edits, but I can't find good pages to edit. I heard there's this bot that posts what pages need to be improved. How do we make the bots post the pages that need to be improved on my talk page? Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 14:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your interest in helping out. There are many thousands of articles that need editing, and one of the easiest ways to start making improvements is to visit the community portal and pick something. Happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DinosaurTrexXX33 Please do not have a Wikilink to an article embedded in your signature. Standard practice is name, talk page, contributions. You have name, article, talk page. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The bot you are referring to is User:SuggestBot - instructions should be on that page or one of the subpages. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

How do I add a “citation needed” Tag on a article

How do I add a “citation needed” Tag on a article Teertrevo (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Teertrevo: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can add the template to the end of a sentence by typing {{citation needed}} (a shortcut template is {{cn}}). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Teertrevo: If you're using the visual editor type two curly brackets ( {{ ) at the location you want to insert the template and a popup menu will appear. In that menu search for "citation needed" then click the template, finally click "insert" in the top right. If you're using the source editor then add the code tenryuu gives into the article where you want the tag to appear. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Teertrevo To add the tag with a date, which is better practice, substitute it e.g. {{subst:cn}}. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing and Providing Information in articles

 Nootiebeans (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

As someone who relatively struggles with scholarly writing, I have a tendency to struggle with sounding concise and coherent. As I read well-established Wikipedia articles, the tone of the texts seems to be written by experts who know exactly what words to write, and I have been struggling with how to go about phrasing things as well as knowing what information should and should not be included in an article. As experienced Wikipedia editors, what are some tips you have on how to paraphrase information into a Wikipedia article without it sounding too redundant, vague, or informal?

@Nootiebeans: Writing on Wikipedia is not that different from writing a high school level research paper. Purdue Owl gives a couple of tips that you may find helpful. Other than that, I'd say read a lot of text that are in an academic tone, and you'll learn by osmosis. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What do these commands mean?

I basically have no idea what any of the commands on Wikipedia do and how they work. Is there a place I can find out more about it? IFvoltronwasadragon... (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@IFvoltronwasadragon...: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out Help:Cheatsheet. There is also the WP:ADVENTURE, an interactive learning game. RudolfRed (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Stub articles and Mergers.

As part of a class, I have been looking at lots of stub-class articles to see how they can be improved. Many of them are severely underdeveloped to the point where they only contain one or two lines. Some of them haven't been edited in years! There has to be a point when an article is so inactive and underdeveloped that something needs to be done. At this point, how do you know what to do? How do you figure out if you should expand the article or merge it with a larger one? Printy13 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Printy13: Welcome to the Teahouse! This would take some research to determine how many reliable sources provide significant coverage about the topic, and is more of an art than a science. Another alternative is to request deletion if there aren't enough independent sources to demonstrate the topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Printy13 Welcome to the Teahouse. Without you giving us links to articles, it is very hard to comment. It is quite OK to have stub articles on notable topics of just a sentence or two. The thing to do then, if you're interested, is to find sources that allow you expand those articles. Merging stubs for no good reason would be pointless. But without examples, its hard to suggest what course of action is best. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

How do I join Wiki Project Women?

OK, here is my question: how do I join WikiProject Women? Tootsie Rolls (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@TootsieRollsAddict welcome to Tea House, read the instructions and click participate on the following Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Happy editing! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@TootsieRollsAddict: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Members if you would like to join that project. The link in the above answer from @Shushugah: is to a different project, but you may be interested in that one also. RudolfRed (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

When and when not to use references in lead

Hi!

I am wondering if someone can point me to a source for understanding best practices for using citations in an article lead.

I have noticed that some articles omit references in the opening sections, particularly in cases where the information shows up later in the article (at which point it is given a reference). I also have observed that simple facts (like the proverbial "the sky is blue") don't need to have references in most cases.

But then I've also noticed lead paragraphs that have plenty of references, even in cases of articles of totally non-controversial subject matter.

What are the customs around this? And how does one determine which leads need references and which ones do not?

Thank you so much. I look forward to learning more about all of this so that I can contribute effectively -- Wikipedia sure is an exciting frontier.

-J JQGRAY (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@JQGRAY, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, to understand sourcing which is more of an art than a science you begin with reading WP:RS, now a lede section is present as a mechanism that tries to summarize the entirety of an article. You are allowed to source any claim, even more important is when making extraordinary claims, for any serious claim made, you need to substantiate it no matter where it is made in the article. See WP:REDFLAG. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007,

Thank you so much for your reply and resources. I see what you mean about the point that sourcing is more of an art than a science, and can imagine that the combination of reading, observing, and getting some experience contributing will help me start to see the subtleties of it. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond so quickly.--JQGRAY (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@JQGRAY, thank you, it’s an honor to be of service to you if you have any more questions don’t hesitate to ask. Goodluck mate. Celestina007 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I'm a little concerned that this advice, in particular:

you need to substantiate it no matter where it is made in the article.

could be misunderstood. You do need to source claims, but as noted in the helpful summary provided by going batty, it is not necessary to substantiate it wherever it appears in the article. A careful parsing will indeed reveal that the claim in the body of the article properly sourced, does not also have to be sourced in the lead section, but my first reading of the claim was that you needed to reference everywhere it is made. You correctly observed that some claims appearing in the lead section are referenced while others are not. In some cases, if the claim appears both in the lead in in the main article both are referenced, but many editors feel that it is good practice to include the reference in the main part of the article and not necessarily repeat that reference in the lead section. If you look at featured articles you will often find that the lead section does not contain references, but you will note that anything contained in the lead section will also appear in the main section and it will be reference ther S Philbrick(Talk) 23:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, thank you for the ping. You are right Philbrick, it indeed can be misunderstood, it did not “come out” in the manner it sounded in my head. Thanks to GoingBatty, who helped out. Thank you once again for drawing my attention to this. Celestina007 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, Thanks for the response. I initially read it a little too quickly and the response I was forming in my head was more along the line of "that's not true", but I decided to give it more thought, and recognizing that you are a very experienced editor, realize that it was literally true but I was concerned that if I could initially misread it, others might as well, and it would be worth a little bit of discussion. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@JQGRAY: Hi there! you may be interested in reading WP:CREATELEAD, specifically the "References in the lead?" section. There's also a Lead Improvement Team you can reach out to. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty,

Thanks for responding. This is a great resource to know about -- I had no idea there was a Lead Improvement Team. I'll keep them in mind. What an important job that is!

Thank you again.

--JQGRAY (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

JQGRAY, At the risk of being pedantic, while I would agree that some claims do not need referencing I wouldn't include is the sky blue among them. The sky isn't blue. It sometimes appears blue, but roughly half the time it appears closer to black, and even in daylight hours it can appear white or gray if the day is cloudy, and on a clear day it can appear red near sunset, so I don't feel this is a good example of a statement not requiring referencing. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick,

Thanks for your quick response. I totally agree that this is not the best example for the reasons you've stated. I'm actually referencing Wikipedia's own project page "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" which discusses the topic at hand. Even if it's not the most perfect idiom, it is the most common expression for a fact which everyone knows, is accepted as fundamentally true, and does not need further explanation or proof.

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, and thanks for the thoughts. No need to apologize for a touch of pedantry in this case -- it can make for interesting conversations.

--JQGRAY (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

JQGRAY, I have seen that essay before and been tempted to respond but haven't taken the time. If it was an offhand comment in the middle of the discussion I might've responded but one that's the whole title of the essay, I just didn't have the bandwidth to take on the discussion that might ensue. I do agree with the concept but just think this is an unfortunate choice of example. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead Section

I am an information literacy student and I have a question about wikilinks in the lead section. Idaquial (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Idaquial, you might also take a glance at the discussion two sections immediately above (here), which goes into the issue in a little more detail. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

How much wikilcnks is too much? It seems to me like there is a page for most relevant words--should I strive to link all of them? Idaquial (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Idaquial: Welcome to the Teahouse! Think about the reader, and wikilink terms that they might want to learn more about based on their visit to the article where you're considering putting the link. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking has lots of details about what should and should not be linked. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

In particular, see MOS:OVERLINK Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Katharine Towne

Is someone else able to reinstate a wikipedia on Katharine Towne or get a bio page approved. She's a notable actress with over 40 credits and comes from a famous acting family. This page was mistakenly deleted six years ago. I am new to wikipedia and I would like to figure out how to get her page approved.  Ghetobarbie (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ghetobarbie: You have been given ample advice on your talk page. Improve the draft and resubmit it. What, specifically, about the feedback you've been given do you need help understanding? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ghetobarbie: If it helps, I have merged all the revisions from the deleted article into your draft. You can view them by clicking the History tab. In particular this revision may have some material you can use to expand the article. Keep in mind, however, that the article was deleted because the subject was deemed not notable, so you need to retain any sources you had that would prove notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ghetobarbie:, you may be confused by Wikipedia's special use of the word "notable." Please read that linked essay carefully, but in brief it does not mean "worthy of being noted" (as it does in ordinary English): in Wikipedia jargon it means "has already been the subject of several substantial pieces of writing (not just passing mentions or inclusions in lists) by people unconnected in any way to the subject (so not interviews with the subject, press releases by their management, material from their own social media, etc.) and published in Reliable sources that exercise good editorial control (so no websites that contain user-written content, such as the IMDB or indeed Wikipedia itself)."

The contents of a Wikipedia article should be mainly based on such pieces and contain inline citations to them. Minor and uncontrovertial facts can sometimes be cited to "non-reliable sources" but cannot contribute to the subject's notability. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding the table of contents for the Geneva Bible (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Geneva_Bible)

Limited time and resources but I would like to see the table of contents included in this article. Can point me to guidance for that.. GENEVA BIBLE psalmuel (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone.. I would like to see the table of contents (the list of books) contained in the Geneva Bible - included in the wikipedia article. I think if we are talking about a "book".. this is something basic that should be included for any and all books. This is the article here:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Geneva_Bible

This is the list of books - can someone help guide me on approach to that. Meantime I will read up more on the process, my last attempts at updates did not go well at all.

OLD TESTAMENT:

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

NEW TESTAMENT: Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

@Psalmuel: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article#Headers and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels don't agree with your view that a table of contents should be included for any and all books. Focusing on your specific suggestion for the Geneva Bible article, I suggest you post a request on the article's talk page - Talk:Geneva Bible - with an explanation of why you think the table of contents would improve the article. Would you also suggest adding a wikilink for each entry? (e.g. Genesis). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this quick and helpful feedback GoingBatty and yes.. I would take an adjustment.. that a TOC is NOT always required. Best regards. psalmuel (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalmuel (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits Edward George Honey

FYI

 – Cleaned up section header. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry to say I've made editing errors on this page https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Edward_George_Honey&action=edit&section=4. Are you able to revert the content to how it was while I work out how to insert citations correctly? This is an important topic and I don't want to compromise your cite. I have researched E G Honey for many years so I can add value when I edit correctly. Chhers Anne

Anne Louise Thompson (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anne Louise Thompson: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you're still working on the Edward George Honey article, so I don't think you really want us to revert all your additions. Instead, I fixed the reference errors. You can revert your own edits (and mine) by clicking on the "View history", selecting the edit(s) you want to revert, and clicking on the "undo" link. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anne Louise Thompson: You might also be interested in reading Help:Referencing for beginners, and using the "Show preview" button before clicking "Publish changes" (which I sometimes forget to do). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I create references in my Sandbox before pasting those into articles. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A policy

I remember there is a policy that nutshelled as: "If it meets the notability policy, it doesn't always need to be written" or something like that, so even though it meets the policy, doesn't mean it should be included in the project. Anyone have ideas on what policy is that? Thanks 36.83.140.236 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That would seem an odd policy to have. If a subject can be shown to be notable, but no-one has created an article about it, then any competent editor is permitted to create an article, but no-one is obliged to. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably not what you're thinking of, but WP:WEIGHT can be read as "Just beacuse it has an RS, doesn't mean it must be included." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That's close enough of a policy, I swear I once heard that guideline somewhere. But thanks! Also, since when entering the IP sig triggers a captcha? 36.83.140.236 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe also WP:NOTEVERYTHING? A typical case where that is relevant is when people who are enthusiastic about a topic, for instance fans of a singer or actor, come to Wikipedia and add facts like "she was reportedly considered for the part of [x] in the film [y], but the part went to [other actor]". It might be true, and it might be mentioned in a reliable source, but it's still not necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia article. (Can't help with the captcha question, I'm afraid.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you are using "policy" to mean both policies and guidelines, WP:NOPAGE covers not necessarily creating articles for certain topics even if they are notable and can have standalone articles. WP:ONUS, WP:DUE cover not including certain content within existing articles even if they are true and verifiable. WP:NOT covers the kind of material that should not be included in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not everything is encyclopedic. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If "policy" can be stretched to mean essay. We've got Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, and there is also WP:BLUESKY about verifiability, which has a similar nutshell to the one quoted. - X201 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a question about WikiProjects

My question is how do I create a WikiProject? I want to make a WikiProject called WikiProject Painting, relating to paintings created with paint, and also street painting. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You could revive the existing but defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Painting.   Maproom (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@CyclonicStormYutu Your aims are laudable, and @Maproom's advice is right. However, please don't attempt to restart something if you can't see it through. You only have 24 mainspace edits in total, all of which were in 2020. Nor have you made any edits to articles related to these topics. So (cards on the table) I honestly don't see you as the right person for the job to do this. Do you genuinely feel you have the commitment or interest to see things through, as well as the support of other interested editors? I can speak from personal experience how much effort one has to put in to even keep a WikiProject going which has low level of activity, let alone singlehandedly restart a WikiProject that has been inactive for 13 years. You would need a serious plan of aims and objectives to achieve all the work necessary to get others involved, and keep the Project running. I personally feel you should go no further than posting on the Talk page of the Project and seeing what responses you get there over the next 6 months. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And just in case you were thinking about a portal page, rather than a WikiProject, see Portal:Painting. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Chhor Denge

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Everyone at Teahouse, Actually i have a question in my mind, day before yesterday I created an article named as Chhor Denge but the article didn't went for review. In fact it was directly moved to the article space. so here my question is that will the article index in Google Searches?

Please solve my query as soon as possible. Regards Seriamair (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Seriamair: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per Wikipedia:New pages patrol#The purpose of reviewing new pages, a group of editors review new articles, and unpatrolled pages are not indexed by Google or other search engines for 90 days. While you're waiting, you can continue to improve the article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty so now the page is created unpatrolled so can I submit it now for review if yes then how?

Hello everyone at teahouse, my article Chhor Denge is unpatrolled but still showing up in the main article space is there any way that i can submit it for Patrolling. Seriamair (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Seriamair: it no longer exists in main space. It has been merged with Draft:Chhor Denge. It was not ready for publication as the sources were far from adequate to demonstrate notability of the subject. Please improve it and submit it for review, but don't put it in main space yourself. Let a reviewer decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The draft was twice declined (by different reviewers) today, but without any improvement the OP moved it to mainspace despite the advice above. I've moved it back to draft. The behaviour by the OP might be regarded as tendentious editing. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Seriamair: why have you copied and pasted @GoingBatty:'s userpage onto your userpags? It's full of claims that obviously do not apply to you? You have not made 500,000 edits, have not been here 10 years, do not have rollback or pending changes reviewer rights, and you did not help promote Antoine Ephrem Cartier to GA status. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Question from Tikiridunuwila

how to edit a page Tikiridunuwila (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read this guide to editing. It should answer your question. Happy editing and see you around. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Newbie to adding images to Wikipedia Articles

Hello,

I would like to add an image to Harriet Glazebrook wikipedia article but I've not done an image before and want to make sure I understand the rules and the process.

My first concern was with copyright so I consulted with "British History Online" about the image, itself, and got this reply and recommendation:

"...Secondly, as the rights to the illustration in volume 5 of Cardiff Records are unclear, may I suggest you use the Internet Archive's copy, and presume that the volume being over 100 years old, and the produce of an organization and not an individual author, that the image is out of copyright? https://archive.org/details/cardiffrecordsbe05card/page/n539/mode/2up"

Based on Mr Levin's recommendation, is it safe to assume that the image, being of an organization and not an individual author, free to use publicly, meaning I can add it to the article?

If so, next I'd like to see if my understanding of the process is correct. As best as I understand my first task is to add the image to Wikimedia commons, then, so long as I can defend the copyright status, I use the Wikipedia wizard to upload the image to the article. I'm sure, once I get into the process I will find additional details about the steps but, does it, at least, sound like I'm on the right track?

Thank you. Tchula65 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Tchula65 Most Wikipedia illustrations are done through Wikimedia Commons, so I suggest you go to commons.wikimedia.org and click on their Community Portal to ask a question at the Help Desk. They are very cautious about violating copyright laws, and someone there may be able to give you some guidance. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. Much Appreciated. Tchula65 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Creation of page on Wikipedia

Hello Team, I am a social worker and I am working in a different organization that is working for Peace, Education, and Humanity. I want to create an organization page with the name "HElp For Human Organization. I have already tried but I failed to create I need your support and help in this regard. I will be thankful to you all.

Thanks and Regards: Kashif Baloch Vice President Help For Human Organization (Registered) Emai: (Redacted)  175.107.235.77 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there. Before you begin, review Wikipedia:Golden rule (and WP:CORP goes into much greater detail). If you cannot comply with those requirements, the organization cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Good luck. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kashif! Wikipedia does not encourage writing about an organization when you have a conflict of interest (COI). If you choose to do so, you must declare your COI on your user page - see WP:DISCLOSE (or WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE if you are paid by the organization). GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kashif, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your choice of words suggests to me that you are making a (very common) mistake and thinking that Wikipedia is a kind of social media, where your organisation can tell the world about itself. It is not. If Wikipedia at some point has an encyclopaedia article about your organisation (rather than "a page for it") the article will not belong to your organisation, will not be controlled by it, will not be for its benefit, will not necessarily say what you would like it to say, and shold be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with your organiation have chosen to publish about it, not on what you or the organisation (or its associates) say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Help to make it neutral?

Hello, an inexperienced reviewer declined my Draft saying it sounds like an advertisement, which I don't think it does. Can anyone make it sound neutral? Riteboke, the reviewer, is a new reviewer. One of his accepted article was nominated for deletion, so I don't trust him completely. He could be right, but if someone can make it neutral, I would really appreciate it.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Jessica_Cordova_Kramer Lostfornowever (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Riteboke can explain further.

Looking at it myself, there are a few unnecessary adjectives that could be removed to neutralize the language, but that isn't a big problem. The whole thing comes across as a profile to be published for publicity purposes. I suggest toning down the storytelling in the career section (not delving into motivations and feelings even if sourced) and just state facts. In particular, don't rely on interviews. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jessica Cordova Kramer has been declined twice, the second time after you increased length by nearly 4X. David notMD (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lostfornowever: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you ensure every reference has a |website= or |publisher= parameter, and check the |last=/|first= parameters for errors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Riteboke did not have a created article nominated for deletion. As clarified on Talk, R had worked on improving the article, but was not the creator. David notMD (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lostfornowever. Phrases like "flagship podcast" and "moonlighting on pro bono domestic violence and refugee cases" and "has announced that she plans to double her network’s slate in 2021" are overtly promotional and simply do not belong in a neutrally written encyclopedia article. These may be the most overt examples but the entire draft reeks of the "look how great this person is!" tone. The neutral point of view is a core content policy, and Wikipedia is not a platform to promote someone's career. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328AnachronistDavid notMDGoingBatty I am talking about this article: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jeff_Saviano, he accepted it, but an experienced editor nominated it for deletion. This means he is not yet a pro. There are other articles too. But anyway, I am going to make some changes and resubmit it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostfornowever (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lostfornowever: It is not a sign of incompetence by the AfC reviewer that an article they approved is nominated for deletion, and "not yet a pro" is an odd thing to say. None of us is a pro. I agree with the reviewer's assessment of the draft you submitted, and I am about to decline it again; the writing has only been minimally revised and is still promotional, and the draft is overloaded with poor sources but lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Lostfornowever, please focus on the action, not the actor. If you disagree with something another editor has said or done, then open a discussion with them - if you don't understand the reasons, politely ask them. But don't impugn their good faith or their competence without very good reason. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How to "talk" on style manual for movies???

I cannot decipher the Wikipedia site structure, for making comments or suggestions on the style manual for movies. It is extremely frustrating that words are used improperly -- for a website that presents itself to be a source of reference (unless the new "reference" is semi-literacy).

E.g., there is no such thing as a "plot summary" since the plot is the most concise summary. I STRONGLY disagree with the current "guidelines" for PLOT [4.7], that actually describes an abridged story of 700 words, which by definition is not the plot or overall storyline -- which should be far less than 100 words.

OED: plot - 6. The plan or scheme of a literary or dramatic work; the main events of a play, novel, film, opera, etc., considered or presented as an interrelated sequence; a storyline. 1759 O. Goldsmith in Crit. Rev. Aug. 102, "The whole plot of these five cantos is no more than a young lady happening to prick her finger with a needle."

And by the way, a moving picture is no longer film. NotacusTomer (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Please remember that if you'd like changes to be made, you should say so in the respective talk page for the article that contains this issue. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 12:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi NotacusTomer, welcome to the Teahouse. Please link pages you refer to. If your post is about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film then you can make suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. If it's about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction then Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Another point, NotacusTomer: please remember that Wikipedia works by consensus at pretty well all levels. Others have told you that the talk page is the place to open a discussion. But if you choose to do so, what you need to be aiming to do is to enrol other editors to supporting your view. Stating a fact can be part of this, no doubt; but (especially when the fact is about what a dictionary says about the meaning of certain words) you may find it necessary to make an argument about why it is important for Wikipedia that such and such a change must be made. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

RM

When to start a new RM when the previous one falis to achieve a consensus? Peter Ormond 💬 18:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say at least six months after. And it helps if new sources to base arguments on have appeared. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel stupid but what's a RM? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: See WP:RM. Requested Move. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh I understand now. THanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do certain articles go years without any edits?

It's rather interesting to me that some articles don't seem to have a single edit, or any posts in the talk section, in many, many years. Within just a few days I have been able to find numerous articles that have not been touched since 2004. Is there no feature implemented to alert users when a question as gone a decade without an answer or fix? Some even seem quite simple fixes, such as punctuation changes or adjusting spelling/grammar. I feel like this sort of feature may be efficient/useful when clearing up simple errors such as typos. (I guess maybe the user could've spent those 60 seconds in 2004 fixing the type rather than just pointing it out.) Justin Spinach (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Justin Spinach (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Justin Spinach: Welcome to the Teahouse! As volunteer editors, everyone edits what the articles where they have interest. You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:Typo Team to help out with those simple errors. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Justin Spinach, by the very nature of an encyclopedia, some articles get heavy viewership and frequent editing. Other articles on more obscure topics get little attention. An article watched by few or no active editors is not likely to have ongoing talk page discussion. With well over six million articles and no ability to determine if a random talk page comment is just someone's opinion or an actionable request, there is no way for a patrolling editor to detect these other than the type of random searching that you are doing. There is a solution for editors who know about it. The Edit request process calls attention to a specific actionable request, and an experienced editor will probably take a look at the request in a reasonable period of time, because there are editors who enjoy patrolling these requests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Justin Spinach it's a great question and recently WP:WikiProject Sweep was created to discuss patrolling the oldest articles to see if they’d still be notable by modern policy standards. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

For any article, clicking on View history (top menu) and then Page views will show how many people per day visit the article (can also be set as per month). Obscure articles are less likely to attract editors who feel moved to make improvements. Seeing few/no viewers also suggests that improving those articles would be a waste of time compared to improving higher traffic articles. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"Waste of time", David? I tend to think (or perhaps hope) that the occasional reader who might be enlightened by a seldom-visited article like, say, Thomas Blackburn (entomologist) is closer to our intended audience than the horde who flock to Donald Trump, for instance. Deor (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to put my comment here, the reason certain articles go years without edits is because they get very few page views, so low to the point that basically the only page views it gets are from it appearing when people click Random on the sidebar. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, some articles don't get any edits because they're well-written, on subjects where nothing much has changed, and no one feels the urge to try to improve on what is already about as good as it's going to get. And yes, I'd agree about ignoring page-views. Most subjects may be interesting to only a very small percentage of people, but the thing that makes Wikipedia interesting to a large percentage of people is that whatever you want to know, Wikipedia can help. So keep editing those low-hit pages! 18th C explorers and scholars made the world we live in today - perhaps more so than blinged-up DJs and detailed plot-summaries of soon-to-be-obscure romantic comedies. I'm here in hopes someone cares! Elemimele (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Justin Spinach: For a list of articles that haven't been edited in a long time have a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. In terms of why we don't have a system for alerting users to talk page messages: it's technically complicated and the noise to signal ratio would be enormous. Firstly you have to remember that there's no structure or format to talk pages, it's just raw wikitext - the structures that exist (like starting your new question in a new section and indenting replies) only exist because of social constructs in the wikipedia community - there's nothing in software that enforces them and a lot of messages don't follow them. Not every edit to a talk page is a comment, not every comment is a question or suggestion, and not every question or suggestion needs follow up - a lot of the obvious rubbish is just ignored without response. There have been attempts to create a structured way of giving feedback on articles e.g. the WP:Article Feedback Tool but that was a disaster for the most part. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Fallout 4

Hi, I wanted to edit a few lines of the Fallout 4 Wiki page but I can't without a source. But the information I want to add is to help the new player read certain facts about their companions. For example, with John Hancock, it only states that he is the mayor of Goodneighbor, I wanted to add that he is also a man who seeks justice and chems so then the reader/player can see what they are getting into. How can I add this in without it being deleted. Lfraser5312 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lfraser5312: if a reliable source does not state this information then it should not be added. Wikipedia is not a place for info that is not in reliable sources. IF something can be seen ingame then it will depend on what the info is on whether or not it can be added. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not for describing games to people who are potentially wanting to buy it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lfraser5312: Welcome to the Teahouse. That level of detail would be considered fancruft, and would probably be better suited for another wiki, like the FANDOM wiki for Fallout. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"Fancruft" Love that word. David notMD (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How to remove a posting

Good Afternoon - We would like to remove the posting for The Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper. The article is very outdated and it seems we cannot edit the post. Good Afternoon - We would like to remove the posting for The Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper. The article is very outdated and it seems we cannot edit the post. SFNM2021+ (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

SFNM2021+ Please see your user talk page for important information about your username and other things, which will answer some of your questions. You will also need to declare as a paid editor. Part of the problem is that your edits were highly promotional in nature, even if you didn't intend them to be. While you should not directly edit the article about your newspaper, you are permitted and encouraged to make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:The Santa Fe New Mexican, detailing changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, not what it might want to say about itself, but if there are errors or you have additional information, we want to know about it once the other issues are addressed. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The account has been blocked for making purely promotional edits. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 20:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no way under the sun that The Santa Fe New Mexican will be deleted. It will also not be transformed into a promotional piece jammed with bragging and advertising language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Information about a new ideology

New ideology Im making Hello and a good day for those reading

Im writing a book about a new ideology Im making and I need to know if Im allowed to make an article explaining it when I publish the book so it can have some form of recognition as a real ideology

Thank you for your time Kira Lumin (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kira Lumin In short, absolutely not. WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:COI come to mind. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome the the Teahouse. The short answer is no. Articles should never be written by their subjects, and should only be written once there is sufficient media coverage to be notable. Good luck on your project, and feel free to ask any further questions you might have. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kira Lumin: No, your ideology would not qualify for an article until it has been covered in reliable independent sources. See WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. An article on this ideology would qualify for speedy deletion under criteria WP:A11. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The relevant policy is No original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

How to nominate multiple articles for deletion together via Twinkle? Peter Ormond 💬 21:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Found it by myself. Peter Ormond 💬 22:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

When to go to someone's talk page

Hi! I'm fairly new to editing, and I have just been watching the Recent Changes page and undoing bad edits. I've noticed that some talk pages will have an explanation of why their vandalism or unconstructive editing was reverted. When should I be going to talk pages and letting people know why I've reverted changes? Is there a specific format that should be used when doing this? Thanks in advance for any help! ^-^ Plutobutbigger :) (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plutobutbigger: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would recommend using the Twinkle gadget to do this. It's fairly easy for users of all experience levels to install and operate-- I use it all the time. All you have to do to install it is to log in to your account and click the button called "Preferences" at the top of the page; it'll open up a settings menu. Click on the "Gadgets" section and scroll down until you find it, then hit the check button and it's yours. I hope I've been of help to you. If you have any questions about how to use Twinkle, don't hesitate to message me. Happy editing! Helen(💬📖) 00:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

question about distinguishing between a theme and a paper/book

If I wanted to distinguish between a book such as "Ideas of the Phenomenological" and the concept, " Ideas of the Phenomenological", how would I be able to make that clear to my readers? I have noticed that there are a lot of times that the author of a certain article won't make it clear that the wiki article is actually about a journal or a book as opposed to the idea or theme I searched upJcalle00 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC). Jcalle00 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Jcalle00, a book title is italicized; and (without getting into fastidious details) certain elements within it are normally capitalized: Ideas of the Phenomenological. Concepts are not, therefore ideas of the phenomenological (although this sounds to me like no more than a very strained way to say phenomenological ideas). -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jcalle00, welcome to the Teahouse. If an article is about a journal or book then the opening sentence should say it. There will usually also be an infobox to make it clear, often with a cover image. Italics can be added to the title with {{italic title}} or by using an infobox for that type of work. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Jcalle00, journal titles are treated like book titles: The Philosophical Review. Journal article titles go in double quotation marks, either (A) "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" or (B) "What is it like to be a bat?" (but, please, not (C) "What Is It Like To Be A Bat?"). Wikipedia articles are often rather sloppy about this; it's common for an article to cite some articles in (A) style and some in (B) style (and not rare for citations in (C) style too). Few Wikipedia articles are about articles; but when they are, their titles don't include the quotation marks: thus What Is It Like to Be a Bat? (not "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"). -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding WP:ELMINOFFICIAL

Does including Template:IMDb and Template:HanCinema person/Template:HanCinema drama in addition to Official website (for instance, actor agency profile or the television series website) considered as violating WP:ELMINOFFICIAL? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll I'm not familiar with the template, but an actors imdb-page is not an ELOFFICIAL, even if they fiddle with it to some extent they don't control it. Per my knowledge, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I also have the same thoughts but not certain if its violates WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Any idea if there are other venue that I can further confirm my concern? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)