Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1084

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1080

←

Archive 1082

→

How to make userbox call bracket thing?

Hello, @Sandy14156: was kind enough to make me a userbox to show that the user that displays it has an IP VPN exception. I read a bit on Wikipedia:Userboxes, but I still can't understand how I take the userbox and make a userbox code (I think that's the right term) that lets me embed it in my userpage. Here is the [[1]] if anyone wants to use it. I'm talking about the userbox text inside the curly brackets. Thank you to anyone who can help. Sorry if my lack of Wikipedia knowledge confuses you. SmileyTrek (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SmileyTrek. You can do one of two things:

Take the name of the userpage where it was created and call it to your userpage by surrounding that page title in curly brackets, i.e., template call markup. So, post where you want the userbox to display: {{User:Sandy14156/Userboxes/IP block}}; or
Take the raw code from the userbox page, and post that to where you want the userbox to display. So, copy and paste this to your userpage:

{{Userbox
| border-c = #FFD700
| id       = IP
| id-c     = red
| id-fc    = #000000
| id-s     = 14
| info     = This user has an VPN IP block exemption.
| info-c   = gold
| info-fc  = black
| info-s   = 8
}}

One advantage of using the raw code is that if the userbox ever gets deleted, modified, or vandalized, that won't affect your userpage display. (There's even a third option, which is to substitute the template call in (1) above to your userpage, which will have the same affect as (2) above, but I thought that limiting the options might be best.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Population spread

Hey everyone, I'm very new at this so thank you in advance for helping me out.

I was looking at the page for my hometown Edmeston, New York and I noticed there was a red link to a page for "population spread," which does not exist on Wikipedia.

I looked around at other towns in the county to see what they put for population spread and it looks like they just do not link it to a page at all. Is this something that I should switch to plain text or is there another suggested page to link to?

Thank you! Otsegomaniac (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

If there isn't a link it should be redirected to, chances are you should just leave it. The red link guideline says, 'Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic'. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Otsegomaniac and SnazzyInfinity I got curious so I Googled "population spread" - the first few pages of results mostly wrre about the management of invasive alien plants, none were about humans or cities at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Number of Wikipedia articles

How many Wikipedia articles are there? I lost count 😉 Jenerusmonkeyman426 (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

On the CreateAccount page, it says there are 6,190,094 articles. 14:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Eyebeller (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} and {{NUMBEROFPAGES}} WP:Magic words will give you the current numbers (6,919,650 and 61,959,714 respectively). ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Jenerusmonkeyman426, the number of articles is also on the Main Page, in the banner at the top. It's not an exact number but updates frequently. —valereee (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"President-elect"

Discuss at Talk:President-elect of the United States

YOUR PRESIDENT-ELECT PUBLICATION CONTRIDICTS ITSELF. IT SAYS BIDEN AND HARRIS ARE PRESIDENT/VP ELECTS, HOWEVER, REFER TO FIRST AND LAST SENTENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ....THE 'ELECTS' ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, AND NO ONE HAS BEEN ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE YET. MIGHT FEEL GOOD TO CONSIDER THE ARE PRESIDENT AND VP-ELECT, FOR PROPAGANDA REASONS, BUT VERY UNTRUE, AND ALL OTHER THINGS OUT THERE ARE UNTRUE.

READ THE LAW READ THE LAW READ THE LAW 70.126.151.105 (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't yell. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. Almost all reliable sources have determined who the winner is. If you disagree with what they say, you will need to take that up with them. Good luck with that. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Projecting" is the better word. We have to be careful with RS-es, though, since their biases have gotten more robust. Gerald WL 10:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple IP addresses, new accounts, and sleeper accounts have been popping up in various places to make poorly stated complaints of this type in the past few days. I think that there may be external canvassing. In any case, they have a right to pop up and make their statements, and the community has a right to state that Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources have reported. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Question by Humpin04

Can I please Become a writer not an editor Humpin04 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Humpin04. Editor is simply a generic term that is used to refer to Wikipedia users. It doesn't restrict you to "editing" - you can write article content too (providing you follow the rules, of course). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to tell someone that they need a source without undoing an edit?

I see a lot of edits that add new info without sources/citations. Is there a way to tell the user that they need citations without reverting their edit?

As a related question, can I make a draft-like edit that other people can revise, check, add citations, etc. without making it part of the actual page instantly? Eridian314 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Eridian314, Well, talk pages might be the answer here. If you want to tell someone about their edits, leave a message on their talk page. You can also suggest what you want to add on the articles' talk page if you want opinions from other editors.

Additionally, you can mark the statement that needs citation with a {{Citation needed}} template, which looks like this:

"sentence in an article that needs citation."^{[citation needed]}

Le Panini ^Talk 17:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eridian314. If someone is adding unsourced info to an article I advise you to just revert it, and if you have WP:TW post the relevant notice on their talk page. CN tags are often ignored. SK2242 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Or you can just search for a source yourself, if it's something which should be relatively easy to search for a source for. Try typing in the relevant keywords followed by "-wikipedia" on Google as a good place to start. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

new article question by Poopas1994

Hello I am writing in regards to a subject and i was told i am trying to praise the subject what can i do to sound neutral this is the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poopas1994/sandbox --Poopas1994 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Poopas1994 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Poopas1994, sounds like you're being paid to make it. Note that being paid doesn't mean you get money, it simply means you're being told or coerced into doing so. If you're told to "praise the subject," you probably won't be able to make it neutral under the command of the one telling you to make the article. But if you really want to contribute to this encyclopedia and not care about that paid edit, I can help you with that. Gerald WL 16:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis I think that the OP was saying a reviewer told them they were praising the subject, not that they were instructed to praise it. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Poopas1994: adding the same reference over and over is not going to help your case. I will generate a source assesment according to WP:GNG in about half an hour. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol okay. Could you tell me how I can make it better? The invention is notable and I found links to its publishing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopas1994 (talk • contribs)

@Poopas1994: Judging from the images you uploaded to Commons, which are of a far higher resolution and originality than is used by the subject on her Facebook and her website pages, and also because you seem to have access to all her patent documents, it suggests to me that you probably have a very close relationship with the designer, Christine Kato. If that is the case, you must declare that connection before you attempt to edit further. Instructions how to do that are at this page on Conflict of Interest and this page on paid editing. I have left similar advice for you on your talk page. Please also read PROMOTION and AUTOBIOGRAPHY to understand why trying to write about oneself or a close colleague is not a good idea. I would also add that if the 'Breast handbag' is itself notable and meets our notability criteria, then the article should be about that, and not about its creator. The overkill of images in Draft:Christine Kato suggests there is a dual purpose in trying to create this article, explained further here. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh okay that's true. I will change it to The Breast Handbag Design also from Website,FB,IG and google photos high resolution can be downloaded. --Poopas1994 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ouch, source assesment took a while. Here we go:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://guardian.ng/sunday-magazine/kato-ingenious-bag-designer-with-unusual-touch/	~ In large parts the subject's own words	appears to be reliable	about 3 pages if I were to print this excluding the ads	~ Partial
https://guardian.ng/guardian-woman/i-want-to-use-my-breast-bag-design-to-create-more-awareness-for-cancer-christine-kato/	Interview	~ Generally a reliable source, but Interviews are WP:PRIMARY	some coverage, howewer, still not independent	✘ No
http://www.eregistration.copyright.gov.ng/search/application?id=pSzmvc95sME=	~ Patent entry	~ Probbably reliable, but WP:PRIMARY again	directory entry	✘ No
http://www.alexreports.info/2019/01/boobs-i-want-to-use-my-breast-bag.html?m=1	Dead link	Dead link	Dead link	✘ No
www.christinekato.com	Subject's website	~ Subject's website, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY	Interesting animation, but virtually no coverage.	✘ No
https://www.nigerianwomendiary.com/2019/04/a-unique-breast-bag-by-house-of-christine-art-and-designs/	? Could not be deterimed	Blog post	No coverage of Christine Kato, but rather on her campaing	✘ No
https://www.newswatch.ng/checkout-a-unique-artworks-created-by-house-of-christine-art-and-designs/	Dead link	Dead link	Dead link	✘ No
RPD/RD/2016/495	? No source location could be determined.	? No source location could be determined.	? No source location could be determined.	? Unknown
NG/P/2018/89	? No source location could be determined.	? No source location could be determined.	? No source location could be determined.	? Unknown
NO AW0140	? No source location could be determined.	? No source location could be determined.	? No source location could be determined.	? Unknown
https://www.nigerianngo.com/blog/house-of-christine-is-raising-awareness-for-breast-cancer-through-fashion	guardian source	blog, WP:SELFPUB	this is sourced to the second ref examined	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/lifestyle/fashion/my-staff-have-been-told-to-cut-ties-with-me-says-ceo-of-house-of-christine-art-and/mb1k30v	interview	probbably reliable	about a lengthely page	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaOtlS98r6k	Interview	~ Interview, also WP:RSPYT	~ 4:20 interview	✘ No
https://twmagazine.net/tw-opinion/the-scourge-of-breast-ironing	~ Possibly depending on interview contents not publicly available	possibly reliable	One short opinated paragraph probbably from itnerview	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/news/rising-dragons-christine-kato-house-of-christine/eqs4826	~ largely interview-like content	~ News probbably reliable, interview contents definitely not	~ Not much coverage apart from subject's own words	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Assesed revision: this one Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference Not Existing

Draft:Bad Time Simulator

I am trying to add references to a page, and I found a reference. I put the reference in the page, and it didn't have a link. I have typed the URL correctly. D4135t 19:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@D4135t: it didn't work because you ommited the http:// protocol, which is required for the software to turn something into a clickable link. I have added it for you this time. Note that I am not so sure if this topic meets WP:GNG resp. the source WP:SELFPUB. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@D4135t: A link is actually among the less important things in a proper citation, the purpose of which is to provide the reader with enough information to find the source if they want to verify it. Generally, the title, author, publisher, and date are the important parts. What you have included there is often called a "naked link". Please see WP:ERB for a quick tutorial on using the citation tool to generate more robust cites. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:User zh-yue-3

{{User zh-yue-3}}

For that template above, does it state that you can speak Cantonese, and not read it? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: I doubt it. I don't believe the "Babel" templates are meant to draw a distinction among speaking, reading, or writing. Google Translate says that template says "This user can communicate in proficient Cantonese", FWIW. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, Because I can only speak it, and not read it much. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I need help with an error message.

Hello,

While I was playing around in my own Sandbox page, I got an error in a citation:

3. ^Dombroskie, Jason J. (November 14, 2020). "A Matrix Key to Families, Subfamilies, and Tribes of Lepidoptera of Canada" (PDF). Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification. No. 17 (July 2011): 1–129 – via doi:10.3752/cjai.2011.17. line feed character in |title= at position 39.

I am trying to follow the error message, but I cannot seem to find anything wrong. I also went to the help page, but I cannot seem to find the error. Maybe I need an expert's eyes to find it.

Thank you for reading this message.

Kind Regards,

Haemocyanin11 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahuse Haemocyanin11. Some how a blank space had been inserted into the title line separating it into two sections. I fixed it with this edit. Sometimes it is a copy paste error but other things can cause that as well. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Image on website; can I use it?

This website has a picture of a coal mine toward the bottom of the page. At the extreme bottom of the page is the note"© 2020 City of Carterville, ILPhotography Credit to Devin Miller". Can I use this image in a Wikpedia article, with attribution? NoPatriarchy (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Need to Correct Historical Injustice

Can one of the editors correct the information regarding the origin of rice? Due to China's usual behavior of masking and altering their history, making people across the globe believe their lies about the origins of rice, let alone the fact that they have 0 increased cases of COVID-19, people are growing up stupid, thinking that China was the origin of rice when South Korea was. See BBC News link that was created with information sent from the science faculty of a South Korean University a decade or two ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3207552.stm

I am tired of China attempting to steal and conceal Korea's culture, including the recent incident where a Chinese mobile game and Youtuber claimed that the traditional Korean clothing 'hanbok' was theirs. It is no different from historical injustice and I wish to correct people's misunderstandings about the world. TruthFinderxx (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We are emphatically not interested in your agenda. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@TruthFinderxx: Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Having said that, you might want to discuss the subject with other editors at Talk:Rice, since the article's origin section could perhaps benefit from expansion. Just be sure to leave all the (anti-)propaganda stuff out; you'll get a much better response. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence for Korean origin is already in the article under subsection "Other hypotheses." If there are more refs in support, add there. After, start a discussion on the Talk page about origin. The article as written already covers a China or India first dispute. David notMD (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

SPEEDY DELETION

Why is BricknBolt page getting deleted? I have provided citations whic cover the content and have written the page from a non biased point? Please give me some pointers from the page which can be edited so that the page is not deleted.

Thank You NitinBnB (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't up for speedy deletion, it's at a deletion debate. Read the AfD. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is here. (I see that you refer above to the company as "BricknBolt", while the article variously uses "Brick&Bolt", "Brick & Bolt", and "BrickBolt".) Maproom (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick&Bolt, all the refs you used are derived from press releases about the company receiving some start-up funding. At least three independent refs are needed. Separately, you have been asked to declare your presumed paid relationship on your User page. David notMD (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hijacking article

This page K. Annamalai has a history of hijacking to a police officer with a same name who joined a political party recently. Lipute17 is doing it again. Please someone remove it, this is not the police officer annamalai. 2409:4072:391:41F7:3CAB:3AE2:CAB8:31D3 (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Wow, there really is a long history of confusion between two people with same name. The existing article is a Stub with one (broken) ref, so easy to understand why people acting in good faith believe they are adding content in the right place. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

List of music memes

I remember there was a page, I think it might've been a category page, that listed a bunch of "music memes" such as PPAP, Baby Shark, and Shooting Stars to name a few. I can not find this page. If anyone knows where it is, or whether it is still up or not, please notify me as soon as you can. Thanks. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC) TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Reply to message above) Nevermind, I found it. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For those who need to know, I'm guessing they found Category:Music memes. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Entry

How do you make a entry FHS Racing (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Can you please clarify what you mean by an "entry"? Do you mean an article? Eyebeller (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

FHS Racing I recommend learning to edit first. Check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Adventure TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Question by Krobbyzw

Hello! I was wondering if Wikipedia keeps any record of historically controversial topics such as the actions of John Lionel Blakiston. I recently created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krobbyzw/John_Lionel_Blakiston with support from Encyclopedia Rhodesia. I understand that the Mugabe administration has been vilifying the "Pioneer Column" and I have not encountered the Mnangagwa Administration's views on the subject yet.

Many thanks for your time :-) Krobbyzw (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Krobbyzw (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hellom Krobbyzw. Nobody else has answered you, so I'll give it a go. Wikipedia doesn't care whether topics are good or bad, commercial or non-commercial, controversial or not. All that matters is that there is enough reliably published secondary material about the issue. It should summarise all the mainstream points of view in those sources; but if a particular view has not (yet) been the subject of reliable secondary sources, then it will not feature. Take care that Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. WikiProject Zimbabwe appears to be semi-active, so you might find collaborators there. WikiProject Africa is more active, I think. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Submission error

have got an error like this This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. hope refrencing has done correctly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raghu_Shastry AjKa180 (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The draft you created has 15 refs. You could ask the declining reviewer why those were not considered reliable. David notMD (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

AjKa180 I would review your draft again, and let you know that why I declined it earlier. Please wait until some hours. I'll leave you a message on your talk page. Thank you. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (^talk) 21:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Politics vs. Culture

I'm editing articles about a town in Germany. Would I put a subsection about "crest, flag, and banner" under the "Politics" or "Culture" section? What about a subsection about "twin/sister cities"?

Any help is appreciated; thanks! Kuupanyu (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Kuupanyu, there's not strict standardization on Wikipedia, so it's up to your judgement. There are two places you can look for precedent, though. The first is a layout instruction page, in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure. The second is examples of Featured city/town articles—just choose one from the list (preferably one that was promoted more recently, as those tend to be most in line with best practices) and see what it does and follow that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Article being spammed

Hi there is an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furus it is being spammed by someone. the content is gibberish. How do i stop it? Mudassarsunge (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Furus

@Mudassarsunge: You can request page protection at WP:RFPP if there is ongoing vandalism RudolfRed (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mudassarsunge: I can see that this is one or more users causing problems from multiple IP addresses over quite a long period. I have semi-protected the article for 3 months to avoid further disruption. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Create page

Hello I need help on creating a page how do you create a page i am on the wikepideia app on phone Ezzpin (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Ezzpin: Your userpage says you used to have another account, and have made over 62,000 edits on it, which is even more than me, so you must undoubtedly know the basics of editing already. I've never used the Wikipedia app you speak of, so can't directly help you. But I manage fine on a tiny iPhone screen in desktop mode in an ordinary web browser. So give that a try, and you should be just fine. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with translation

Hi, i'm translating Street_newspaper in another language. I'm having difficulties with one line. From Street_newspaper#Modern_street_newspapers "Modern street newspapers began to emerge in the United States in the late 1980s in response to increasing levels of homelessness and homeless advocates' dissatisfaction with the mainstream media's portrayals of the homeless". What does "homeless advocates'" mean here? does it mean Advocate who are homeless? Could someone help me understand or simplify the line. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It means someone who engages in Advocacy for the homeless. RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed, your link for "Advocacy" redirects to an article about advocates, as the term is used standardly but for a meaning that I believe is different from that intended here. (Its opening sentence is "An advocate is a professional in the field of law.") আফতাবুজ্জামান, perhaps: Modern street newspapers began to emerge in the United States in the late 1980s in response to (i) increasing levels of homelessness and (ii) dissatisfaction {among [people working to help the homeless]} with the way that the mainstream media portrayed the homeless. (I've {[bracketed]} in an attempt to show the structure.) Don't take my "working to help" to mean "employed and paid to help"; instead, it's "exerting efforts to help". These efforts may well have included housing and providing food and other materials/services; however, "advocacy" instead rather suggests pushing housing-related institutions to carry out the work (of housing) that they were supposed to do, agitating for and against homelessness-related legislation and budget changes, and so forth. A minority of the people described may have had paralegal or legal qualifications; however, there's no implication that they would have been advocates in the sense described in the Wikipedia article "Advocate". -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

My link to Advocacy does not redirect anywhere, so not sure what you are referring to. The advocate link for legal profession term was used the by OP. RudolfRed (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

However I do see that maybe it is not as useful as it could be. Apologies to the OP for any confusion. RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, RudolfRed: when I wrote that, I must have been sleepier than I realized. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep getting messages about edits I didn't make

Hi there

I keep getting messages when I go on Wikipedia that my IP address has made edits to the page. I can guarantee no one in my family has been making these edits.

Is there any way that I can get it to stop? 197.229.142.65 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

create an account. Unfortunally, because of the nature of Ip adresses, this is the only option. Remember so choose an appropiate username, see the username policy. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 197.229.142.65. You can see all of the edits being made by the IP address here. There have only been three made so far (unless some others have been deleted): the one you made when posting here at the Teahouse and two others made to the article Raw material. There's no way to tell who made those two edits, and the best that anyone looking at the account's edit history can say is that they were made using the same IP address. Since IP accounts don't require a password to use, one benefit of creating an account would be that, in principle, only you would be able to use it; in other words, edits made by others using the same IP address would not be attributed to your account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This is fairly hypothetical—might or might not work depending on your particular setup—but for me, if I unplug my modem, wait at least thirty seconds, and then reconnect, my IP address is usually reassigned.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That does not work on some systems (Spectrum/Charter in SoCal, for example), which try to re-assign the same IP that was last used by a given MAC address, with a timeout of at least several hours IIRC. Other systems, expecially wireless systems (e.g. Verizon) re-assign addresses on each connection, which could occur just by navigating to another page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Latest stable software release templates

Why the most software versions in category are not updated to the last versions? It is not best solution to centralize all versions on Wikidata? --37.116.102.74 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone else (you?) asked this a couple of days ago with no reply. If you don't get a reply this time, try WP:VPI to float your idea. RudolfRed (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an up-to-the-minute repository of data like that (see WP:NOTCHANGELOG). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hyliion

Would it be okay if I were to continue editing the draft for the company Hyliion (See Draft:Hyliion) even if I am not the original author? I would like to improve the article so that it may meet the criteria for publication on Wikipedia. It is a publicly listed company that one can find reputable sources for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiwang7 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Leiwang7. Yes, providing you can find reliable sources to support Notability, then it will be OK for you to continue editing that draft. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read my draft that you just reviewed, I made changes.

Aau101 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The advice you need to follow, Aau101, is at the top of the page at Draft:Matt Davis (Basketball). In essence, it needs much better sources to meet our notability criteria for sportspeople. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Help creating a Nav Box

Hello, I am working on Lagos University Teaching Hospital and I would like to inclde a Nav box on this page but i am unsure how to do so. Please could someone take me through how I can do this? Any other suggestions to improve the article would be amazing. Thank you! Creatorhj244 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Creatorhj244 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Creatorhj244, WP:NAV should have your answer. Le Panini ^Talk 02:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about creating a "deep link" to a section of an article

Hello, I have tried to create a deep link following guidance on this Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Linking_to_Wikipedia, but I am not sure what have I done wrong because the link I tried to create directs me to the title of the other Wikipedia page, rather than to the particular section of that page. I appreciate if anyone could please provide me some guidance on how to do this appropriately? Thank you! --Chubbylilrabbit (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Carrolquadrio

Hi Chubbylilrabbit . I would be able to tell you exactly what is going on if you pointed out the page where you tried to do this, provided a diff, or attempted to place the link here, so I could assess the actual issue and thus tailor an answer. In the absence of that specificity, a link to an internal section is made by placing the base page name first, followed by a hash tag and then the exact name of a section header (or anchored term), all enclosed within doubled brackets, viz, this section, "deep" within this page is linked like this: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Question about creating a "deep link" to a section of an article]]. Based on what you've said, one possibility is that you're trying to link to a page that has been redirected. If none of that helps, can you please provide the specificity I was referring to previously? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings, Chubbylilrabbit, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing you are referring to your sandbox? It looks like you have reversed the two parts of the internal link. You have

[[Cross-sectional study|Cross-sectional_study#Weaknesses_of_aggregated_data]]

However, internal links are formed by [[Target | display text]], so if you wish to link to the subsection, the context is put on the left side, like this:

[[Cross-sectional study#Weaknesses of aggregated data|Weaknesses of aggregated data]]

This renders as Weaknesses of aggregated data. Note that there are some short-hand templates that may be of use, such as as {{Main}} or {{Further}} to do this as well:

{{Further|Cross-sectional study#Weaknesses of aggregated data}}

This renders on a new line like so: I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Ah, I looked harder; you did it backwards; you typed:

[[Cross-sectional study|Cross-sectional_study#Weaknesses_of_aggregated_data]]

when it's properly:

[[Cross-sectional_study#Weaknesses_of_aggregated_data|Cross-sectional study]].

Note that you do not need the underscores (which in URLs, take the place of spaces), so [[Cross-sectional study#Weaknesses of aggregated data|Cross-sectional study]] works exactly the same, and when not piping the link to a different display, is not as "aesthetic". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit and Cthomas3, thank you so much for your guidance! They really helped me to solve my problem! Regards, --Chubbylilrabbit (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Help Getting Started to Contributing Article on Wikipedia

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to read my message. I am new to Wikipedia as a user. My username is Article75. I am attempting to publish a notable contribution about the topic, "Zemi Slushy Drink". and help people learn about this forgotten product. I though it was available nationwide in the 1970s; however, it seems to only have been offered in Oklahoma.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Article75/sandbox and let me know what I should do next. I am a PhD student at the University of North Texas, and this contribution is part of an assignment for a project.

Thank you! 2600:1700:D870:21F0:E9EE:4AA3:758F:593A (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know about the policy on logged-out editing. See your talk page. Cheers! Firestar464 (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please carefully read and digest WP:YFA. But if you don't think you'll find reliable, independent, published information about this product, then please don't proceed any further: if you attempted to create an article without these sources, you'd just be wasting your time (and perhaps others' time too). -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Article75. Please log in before editing. Normally, I am quite polite with new editors but you claim to be a PhD student and therefore should be familiar with the rules of the game on Wikipedia. I will be frank and direct. Your draft is utterly unacceptable because it is unreferenced and is nowhere close to meeting Wikipedia's standards. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize what published, reliable sources say about the topic, and include references to those reliable sources. No more and no less. Your draft says "A common internet search for this drink proves to be useless. Almost as if the product never existed. " That type of language never belongs in a Wikipedia article. If you cannot find coverage in internet searches, then perhaps paper sources can be found in Oklahoma libraries. But unreferenced assertions are never acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Please read Your first article and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

regarding resubmitting the draft due to some issue.

Yesterday, I have written an article about genuine person who really working in Bollywood Film industry now. and today i got some message about resubmitting draft due to some issue please resolve my issue i really want to publish this person's details on article space. Please help he ASAP.. Thanks! Nazarbandh2020 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nazarbandh2020. Please read every word in the notices at the top of Draft:Rahul Singh Rana, click on all of the links, and follow all of the advice and guidance you find there. It is up to you to resolve the issues. If you have a specific question, please feel free to ask. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nazarbandh2020. Please read WP:COI. And if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of him or his film, you must comply with WP:PAID. —teb728 t c 05:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've also just had to remove portions lifted wholesale from the cited sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Amrita Devi Bishnoi National Award

Anybody interested in reviewing my draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huzaifa abedeen (talk • contribs) 07:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Huzaifa abedeen. You have submitted your draft for review, so a reviewer will get to it in due time. In the meantime, you can keep working on the draft – one thing you will need to do is add footnotes showing which part(s) of the text each reference supports. You have a list of references, but no indication of which of them you have used for which information. Help:Referencing for beginners has more information about what to do. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I create page by copying all its content from wikishia website

Can I create page in wikipedia by copying all its content from wikishia website https://en.wikishia.net/view/Main_Page , or its not allowed for copyright. I don't know. Such as this page in wikishia https://en.wikishia.net/view/Al-Sayyid_'Abd_Allah_Shubbar . It not exist in wikipedia. Can I copy it as it and create page in same its name and contents? Amrahlawymasry (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amrahlawymasry! No per WP:COPYPASTE, and see also WP:USERG, in short wikis are almost always not sources that should be used on WP. What you can do is to try to determine if any of the refs in your wikishia article are WP:RS, if so they may be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Amrahlawymasry (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Fear of Being Blocked from Editing

Dear Administrators, My name is Meaghan Brown, and I know that everyone can edit Wikipedia. I am very scared because I do not like harsh criticism and I fear being blocked from editing Wikipedia because I have a right to edit as much as everyone does. Please do not block me from editing. I am only trying to help Wikipedia by adding more info for readers to learn about, and this is based on Wikipedia pages in other languages, as well as Google search pages templates and mylife.com. I do not like the thought of being blocked as indefinite punishment for trying to add more information to pages of female figure skaters so that readers can learn more about them. Could you please give me gentle advice? I do not sit well with harsh criticism. --Signed: Meaghan Brown, Holliston, MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.100.163 (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages (in any language) and mylife.com are not acceptable as sources: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I don't know what you mean by "Google search pages templates", but it's not acceptable to say such things as "Google/Yahoo/Duckduckgo/Bing shows many results for" whatever. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. One piece of advice I'd give is: Create a user ID, and only edit while logged in with that user ID. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Meaghan—based on your talk page, I see you've had a fairly rough time getting started, and I'm sorry it's been scary or stressful. To put it simply, what the warnings are communicating is that, when you add information, it needs to be done with a reference to a reliable source such as a newspaper article. You can learn how to do that at Help:Referencing for beginners, and you may want to check out the rest of the introductory tutorial as well. If you do that, you are unlikely to encounter further trouble. I second Hoary's advice to create an account (which will give you a clean start of sorts), and their note that blocks are not punitive (despite how they might seem). Basically, the one thing we care about here is building an encyclopedia, and so long as you contribute toward that goal, you will do alright. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I will also second the points made above. A statement being true is not enough. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, requires verification in the form of references that meet the standard of reliable sources. The warnings you have received are standard wording (not personal). The warning system escalates if an editor continues to make the same mistake. Many new editors have a rough start because the rules are not visible until your break one! David notMD (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

What type of grammar (ie. American or British?) is encouraged in the English version of Wikipedia? Is the use of the Oxford comma encouraged or discouraged? Jheodoretacob (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jheodoretacob the guidance on use of different varieties of English is at WP:ENGVAR. The short version: If the subject is related to a country where a particular variety of English is official or widely used, then write in that variety, for example Sydney Opera House is written in Australian English, British Airways is in British English while Nelson Mandela uses South African English. If the topic has no connection to any particular English variety the first substantial contributor gets to decide which to use. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jheodoretacob: The use of "Oxford commas" is also up to the first major contributor to decide, and, like the variety of English and date format, should be consistent within an article (see MOS:OXFORDCOMMA). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

New article

I am new to this mega forum and enthusiastic to learn more. I want to know what are the prerequisite to write and publish new article. Aa.arrow (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aa.arrow. Please read and study Your first article and the links there. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Be sure you understand. Then get started. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

New editor and create new article are often incompatible. Advise you build experience editing existing articles before attempting to create one. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

At a practical level, you can start working on a draft in your Sandbox while you are also learning more about Wikipedia. Do not develop content at your User page (a common beginner's error). David notMD (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

who is the mother of Nle choppa daughter

Thatiana campbell (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thatiana campbell: This page is for questions about using or editing Wikipedia. I'd first suggest you try searching for the answer to your question. You can also try asking at the Reference desk. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

source

When to remove a source that is a press release? Thanks. AlphonseOop (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC) AlphonseOop (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

AlphonseOop, you mean a press release link that is already dead? You can probably try finding archives of it. If you have another source better than the press release, feel free to change it, but as far as I'm concerned, press releases are fine. Gerald WL 10:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, that's not really correct. A press release is an affiliated source, which can be an appropriate source for adding noncontroversial detail to an article -- the date a corporation announced whatever the press release was announcing, say -- but it's not sufficient for proving notability, showing noteworthiness, or proving anything that could possibly be considered contentious. If there's an unaffiliated reliable source for the same information, in general it's best to use that and remove the press release altogether. —valereee (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Valeree, I'm talking about citing presses in a regular article— that is, an article that has proven its notability via reliable independent sources. If you wanna make an article out of just presses, then yes, presses don't show notability. Gerald WL 01:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, it also doesn't prove noteworthiness -- whether the information should even be in the article. A press release announcing P&G's newest global initiative isn't good enough support for us to include a mention of that initiative in Procter & Gamble. We'd need an unaffiliated RS talking about it. If we have that, we probably don't need the press release except to provide trivial detail such as the exact date of the announcement. If no unaffiliated RS is talking about it, the press release is pure corporate promotion. So no, in general, information in an article that is cited to a press release at minimum should be tagged as better source needed, and if it's the only support for an assertion that is even slightly iffy, the content probably needs to go. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Valeree, there are emergency times when a press release is needed, to support a claim until a reliable source can be found. If an airline went bankrupt and the only source available is a press release, there's no way we keep pretending like it is still alive. Then when an RS talks bout it, we can replace it and maybe add more info. Also knowing that there is Template:Cite press release, in a nutshell, press releases are allowed. Gerald WL 12:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, nothing on WP is an emergency, and even in the case you describe, we'd still want to tag it for a better source. I'm not trying to bust your chops, I'm just worried about the statement to a new user that as far as I'm concerned, press releases are fine. They really aren't, in 99% of cases, and in the 1%, they probably need to be replaced as soon as we reasonably can. There are three eee's at the end of valereee (yeah, I know, bad decision); your pings are failing because of that. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the users' responses. I've read the thread and I do understand what both sides are saying, I got the idea of when to use and when not use press releases. AlphonseOop (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source

Are these three books reliable to make changes in Udal of Mahoba:-

1.A Critical Survey of Hindi Literature[2]

2.Hindi Literature[3]

3.The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000[4] Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Sumit banaphar. You should ask at the page Talk:Udal of Mahoba.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Sumit banaphar. You should ask at the page Talk:Udal of Mahoba.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

At least the third one looks like a decent source, and since I could largely access it I can have an opinion on it. The question then becomes "What does it say about Udal of Mahoba and what content do you want to add to the article based on it?" And that is a discussion for Talk:Udal of Mahoba. Or WP:RSN, but talkpages are the place to start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, The article Udal of Mahoba currently includes the text

They were of mixed Ahir and Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan.

And I want to change it to "They were of Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan of Rajputs" by using the reference of the book which may be you consider reliable. And for checking the source here is the link of the exact page i want to use as a reference:-

The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit banaphar (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, please take specific questions about a specific article to the article talk page, or to WP:RSN where you have also posted before to ask about sources. However, this particular question is one you have been raising many times, and it is becoming clear that you are more interested in trying to remove content that goes against your personal conviction than in making sure that Wikipedia presents information that is based on what reliable secondary sources actually say. If reliable secondary sources disagree about a fact (which is not the case here, to be clear!) then the Wikipedia article can reflect that disagreement, but Wikipedia editors can't remove one well-sourced piece of information because they find another source that doesn't mention that info. Regarding the article about Udal, the existing source for the statement "They were of mixed Ahir and Rajput descent" has not been contradicted by any of the sources you have provided (including The Last Hindu Emperor).

Please note that we can't use Wikipedia to right great wrongs, and your failure to listen to what people have told you here and here and Talk:Udal of Mahoba is becoming disruptive. This is not similar to a situation where somebody has misspelt a name and the name's bearer is the best authority on how to spell it. I know I am being blunt here, but when somebody won't stop repeating the same argument, it can lead to sanctions to stop them from wasting other editors' time. --bonadea contributions talk 11:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@bonadea,The source is clearly saying about what I'm claiming. And yeah I also think that I'm wasting others administrators time but I never ask for help from you and no, only that person can tell to how to speak his / her name. But it's okay I ask for help from a good administrator.

Review of Quality Scale

Hello, please could an editor review the quailty scale preiovusly asigned to the Lagos University Teaching Hospital and advise me on how to move to the next grade? I am completing this as part of a project for university, so improving the quality rating would assist me greatly! Thank you Creatorhj244 (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Creatorhj244 (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Creatorhj244. Those quality ratings are the domain of WikiProjects, so the best place to ask is WT:WikiProject Hospitals. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Submission error

This page was got approved & it got deleted she appears in all notable news papers have individual sources but content is getting rejected. all her movies is also released & movie pages is also there. kindly help me in getting it approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anusha_(actress) AjKa180 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi AjKa180—the page Anusha (actress) already exists. Please contribute there rather than trying to start a duplicate page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is about the subject of Anusha Rai (actress), that mainspace article was deleted under WP:G4. —teb728 t c 06:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

teb728, The draft is also create protected. See Draft:Anusha Rai. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for ur response here is the page link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anusharai_(actress)

~~AjKa180 But is it about the subject of the existing article, or is it about Anusha Rai? —teb728 t c 07:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)~~ Sorry, I misread the new url.

User Status

Hello. I made a user status page and put the text "school" there. However, my status won't show on my user page. Does anyone know how to fix this? Jackalope 10 16:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

On your userpage you put {{UserStatus|User:Jackalope 10/school}}. It should be {{UserStatus|User:Jackalope10/status}}. Cheers! Use {{re|PorkchopGMX}} to ping (Push to talk) 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the help! Jackalope 10 01:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Jackalope 10

No problem, but if you’re replying to a talk page message, make sure to indent your comments. Use {{re|PorkchopGMX}} to ping (Push to talk) 14:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Advice on notability

I have been asked by my client to create a wiki page on her as a person. I am unsure about whether she counts as 'notable'. Her name is Angela Terry and she is an environmental scientist in the UK. She has a website: https://www.angela-terry.com. She is the founder of climate action website One Home: https://onehome.org.uk. She is a media commentator and frequently appears on national radio and TV. She also appears in national and regional media talking about the actions people can take against climate change. One Home is a founding partner of a new international initiative called Count Us In: https://www.count-us-in.org, which aims to inspire 1 billion citizens to take action against climate change. It's a global project organised by TED and Future Stewards that launched in October 2020. I'd appreciate your advice on whether you think Angela would qualify for a Wikipedia entry before I start the article creation process. There are plenty of independent third party articles from news outlets that quote Angela but I'm not clear if this is enough. Please reply in mobile view. Gubbins79 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gubbins79. Wikipedia appreciates you asking about this first instead of just rushing into trying to create an article. Before you go any further, I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Then. you might want to ask Ms. Terry to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences. Many people misunderstand the role of Wikipedia and see it as another place online where they can promote or otherwise inform others about themselves and their activities; just as many, however, come to understand too late that articles are not written for or on behalf of them, but rather about them and that all article content needs to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gubbins79: The typical way to meet notability guidelines for activists is (like 99% of our biographies) via press articles covering them or their work in significant depth. This excludes interviews (which are not critical coverage) and is (intentionally) a high bar to pass, higher than "frequently invited on TV/radio". From my cursory web search, I doubt Angela Terry passes it - she appears to say a few words here or there as a topic expert but that is it.

There is a special criteria for academics based on the idea that if you are prominent in a niche field, you may be "notable" even if you do not receive mainstream media attention. However, my GoogleScholar-searching is filled with homonyms (the only thing on the first two pages that I am reasonably confident is the same Angela Terry is this) which is a bad sign.

You might want to read, or point your client to, the following essay: Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

me and my group of friends would like to write on one of our friends that has a briliant record - how we do that? is it possible to others to change/add, how? thank you so mauch!!!

82.81.71.215 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, my IP friend, WP:COI and WP:PAID may apply to you. cheerx Gerald WL 15:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You and your friends are very welcome to join us in creating the world's greatest encyclopaedia; but starting with an article about your friend: not so much. To start with, writing a new article is the most difficult task there is for a new editor: it's like playing a piano concerto in a public concert when you've had just one piano lesson. Secondly, if you write an article for anybody or anything other than for Wikipedia, you're doing it wrong: an article about somebody is not at all for that person's benefit. (Of course, many people do get benefit from there being an article about them; but others are permanently unhappy about it: either way, it's Wikipedia's call, not theirs). If you try to write an article about your friend and it turns out that they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so the article is not accepted, think how you will all feel. And if you succeed in getting the article written (which will require you forgetting everything you know about your friend and writing just what is in independent published sources) anybody in the world can then edit it, and all you and your friend can do is ask for particular changes. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

However, it your friend can just barely escape the notability guidelines, conflicts of interests, significant coverage, WP:NOT and WP:FAMOUS, use the Article Wizard. Le Panini ^Talk 15:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Are your friend's achievements/accomplishments so impressive that people are publishing articles about that person? In publications that meet Wikipedia's idea of reliable sources? If not, no justification for an article. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

How to insert images?

I tried inserting an image and added the link which i copied from the images available at safari. The system took the command but the picture was not uploaded. So, please tell me the proper manner I would be grateful. Ibaadat (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaadat: Its not possible for both technicall and legal reasons to insert images from random domains. All images that are supposed to be used must be either uploaded locally or to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. Not all images are accepted. Our sister project only accepts images under certain free licenses. The english Wikipedia accepts an image, if it either could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, or it satisfys all of the non-free content criteria. After the image has been uploaded, it can be transcluded into an article. The local image policy is at WP:IMAGEPOL. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi from DaniHart

Just wanted to say, keep up the great work everybody! Love you all so much :) DaniHart08 (Talk). 16:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DaniHart08. Any time you need editing help (or just a cup of tea) do drop in and ask. Just be aware we don't use this forum as a general place to chat or make announcements. Take care. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am trying to edit more but I have so much school work (It really sucks) And I only have chances to get on here once and a while.

DaniHart08 (Talk). 17:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Script to update redirected article or template names

Hi all, following my highly successful earlier questions (thanks collectively for your help) I have another one:

I often edit templates and navboxes and occasionally stumble on a list such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Lists of pages/Templates where it would be very useful to have a script that will update the page with the new titles of the current templates, as, often, article or template titles have been moved and it's quite cumbersome to manually correct them.

I thought this is probably a fairly standard problem and would like to ask if anyone knows a script that could do this? I currently have the very useful link analysis script which is related but not entirely what I am looking for

Thanks, and would you mind pinging me in your response, Tom (LT) (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Tom (LT). "Cleaning up" after a template move is generally a cosmetic edit that has no effect on the rendered page. As such, it is generally not done by a script or bot due to restrictions on bots making solely cosmetic edits. It's certainly possible that there is an approved bot that can do this along with other substantive bot edits; you might consider asking at WT:BRFA. CThomas³ (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Technical problem with timeline

I've been struggling with a strange problem with the timeline in Yes (band)#Timeline. You can see the broken version in the Band members/Timeline section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yes_(band)&oldid=988248258. I've fiddled around with it and it seems that small and seemingly irrelevant changes flip it between working and broken. For example, if the date of the last album is set to any date between July 1, 2014 and July 20, 2014, it works EXCEPT for the four specific dates 7/8, 7/13, 7/16 and 7/17. Using one of those "bad" dates, if the ImageSize width is set to 1001 instead of 1000, it works. If the name of the line color is changed from "studio" to "studioalbum", it works. This is all very baffling to me. So two questions: can anyone explain this behavior? And if not, where would be an appropriate place to raise this question where someone technically knowledgable about the timeline extension would see it? CodeTalker (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Telekom Srbija

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your comments at my Draft:Telekom Srbija. Can you help me, what kind of information is an encyclopedia article for wiki? I tried to rewrite article that have only statistic information that can find in independent references. Can you see this draft again and give me advice on these blocks? The section on Corporate Social Responsibility I made a translation from the Serbian version of Wikipedia. What kind of information must be in this section? Couse I soo some articles who have this section but didnt understand where was the problem in text or in references?

Thanks a lot for your help and answer. Marija W Marinkovic (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Marija W Marinkovic. The problem is that none of the references is to sources which are independent of ST and contain significant coverage of it. The ekapija one is the closest to being acceptable, but it does not contain much material about the company, and I don't know whether or not it is actually independent, or based on a press release. The thing to bear in mind is that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything which the subject, or the subject's associates, say or want to say about it: that includes in press releases. It is only interested in places where people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to write at length about the subject, and been published in reliable places. Most of your references should be to that kind of source, and nearly the whole article should be based on what that kind of source says.

I notice you say you translated a section from the Serbian Wikipedia: there are two problems with that. One is that anybody may reuse or alter (eg translate) almost anything from any Wikipedia freely, provided they give proper attribution. By translating without giving attribution, you are violating the licence under which the material was released in sr-wiki. (See Translation). Secondly, each eedition of Wikipedia has its own rules and policies, and just because something is acceptable in one edition does not mean that it will automatically be acceptable in another. (In fact, en-wiki has tens or hundreds of thousands of articles which are seriously substandard, and copying material or basing sections on them in a new article will not necessarily produce an acceptable article).

Finally, I see that you have not replied to the questions about whether you are a paid editor. If you are, please make the necessary declarations. If you are not, please say so, and that will avoid further suspicion. --ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that the section on Corporate Social Responsibility, which I said was an advertisement, has been removed, as has other puffery. This is a case that I sometimes see where, when a large amount of non-neutral text is removed, not much is left. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Marija W Marinkovic. The section you mentioned was removed due to the previous editors comment. The text which is available now is simply a beginning, we are planning to broaden it once we have acquired more independent resources from the National Library of Serbia. Once again, we would like to make it clear that we receive no compensation for content creation for this Wikipedia page, nor will we seek compensation for it. --Marija W Marinkovic

Personal research

I did my own research on a topic in order to get information. How can I cite or prove that this information is true since I technically don't have a source to cite or reference? (This research was on a video game that I play and did my research by playing the actual game) JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@JPaul Getty ptoductions: I'm afraid your own research will serve yourself only. Wikipedia can't benefit from it – see the relevant policy at Wikipedia:No original research. --CiaPan (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I was having trouble figuring out if I could do that. I also have a follow-up question about citing sources that may not be totally reliable, but are all that I can find that cover the topic and information about the topic that I'm researching. This is mainly about websites like Fandom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JPaul Getty ptoductions. I'm afraid that if you cannot find reliable sources, then by definition the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the words, and no article on it will be accepted. Non-independent sources can be cited for a limited range of kinds of material (though they cannot contribute to notability) but self-published sources can hardly ever be cited. --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Why am i not allowed to publish by an editor

I tried to edit and publish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kachari_people&redirect=no , which redirect to a related page but for different purpose. My edits are verifiable and well known in society. KPAhmed (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@KPAhmed: You're better off adding your info to Bodo-Kachari people#Kachari, which is where Kachari redirects now. Just make sure it's properly written and sourced, but not to another encyclopedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing of discussions by involved editors

Suppose an editor proposes moving a page, and in the ensuing discussion there are 3 people in favor of the move (including the original proposer) and 1 against. The discussion is mostly stable for several weeks and the arguments of the sole opposing voice are not very good or convincing. Is the move proposer entitled to then close the discussion and move the page? WP:CLD technically allows for involved editors to close uncontroversial discussions but does not quite clarify the extent to which this is permitted. I'm aware that requests for closure can be submitted at WP:RFCLOSE, but it takes an unbelievably long time for someone to respond in most cases. Avis11 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Avis11. In this case there are more direct guideline on the issue than the general WP:CLD – under which such a close is definitively improper. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Closing a requested move ("Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request" (emphasis added), and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Who can close requested moves ("An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request..." etc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks. When WP:RFCLOSE says "The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days", does it simply mean that others will usually wait 30 days before assessing a closing request? More than two weeks ago I submitted there a request to close a 22-day-old (as of now) discussion, and to this moment nobody has responded. A few other requests seem to have been responded to in a very short time, however. Avis11 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Avis11: Yes, 30 days is the normal minimum for formal RfCs. However, requests are closed early, usually explicitly or not, under the snowball clause. Because of the volunteer nature of Wikipedia, once 30 days have elapsed, the close can happen immediately, but it can take significantly longer and the usual advice is that you "just need to be patient". Of course, on average, the sheer length of discussion and high degree of complexity, controversiality and tendentiousness will all result in longer waits for closure than will the average for closure of more straightforward discussions – which is essentially the reason Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure exists – where most of the discussions listed there are already subject to closure under the normal processes of the project area they are attached to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit for the replies. Avis11 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations

I have just published an article headed HANLEY HIGH SCHOOL, STOKE-ON-TRENT. I have used three paper sources from 1970 or prior to that date. One comment I have received points out there are no citations, but I am not sure there are any. The document referred to in the first reference (edited by Howie) was simply printed at the time (i.e.1970) and distributed to pupils at the school. It has never been put on line. Similarly with copies of the school magazine, and obviously the old school log book will probably be in the SoT LEA archives - possibly in the basement guarded by a tiger:) So any suggestions with what I can do with the references would be much appreciated? Gallagher1965p (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Gallagher1965p (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Gallagher1965p, You've listed a total of three references in the References section in Hanley High School, Stoke-on-Trent. All these are not independent of the subject, and are cited incompletely as well. This thing is not what is meant in the "maintenance template" added at the top of article which says, This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Inline citations is what this article is missing. You need to source each statement with a source which has mentioned the same statement. Please see WP:IC. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Gallagher1965p, to put it simply: say you claim "In 1902 the ‘higher’ section of the school was renamed the ‘Day Secondary School’." Where did you get that from? Cite the source there. Just click the "Cite" button, go to "Manual," and click either "newspaper" or "magazine," etc. There will be parameters you are required/or suggested to fill in. Fill it. Boom, you have an inline citation. Do that for the rest of the article. Gerald WL 14:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gallagher1965p: Before you do that, though, you need to find reliable sources that are independent of the school (and students, staff, etc.), with significant coverage (not just passing mentions). That is the kind of source that is needed to demonstrate notability, as well as provide reliable information that can be used to build an encyclopedic article that summarizes what those source say. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

How does edit count work?

As of yesterday, I had, as far as I know, two edits made in my name (Both on Donald Trump's article), but I got a notification saying that I had ten. How does the edit count work? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mrytzkalmyr: the software does only count your total amount of edits on enwiki, whenever they might have been. These notifications coming after certain edit counts are called milestones, they appear imo for the 1st, 10th, 100th, 1.000th and 1.000.000 edits. AFAIK you can turn them off somewhere in your preferences. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mrytzkalmyr:. Hi. You can view exactly what the software was counting at Special:Contributions/Mrytzkalmyr. (In some cases, the number of edits seen in one's contributions page will not include deleted contributions, or certain logged actions, that some edit counters may pick up, but you have none of either.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

searching for discussions within the Wikipedian community

Hey everyone! I'm searching for discussion about how Wikipedians have approached writing about a particular subject (namely, the US government's treaties with peoples Native to this land.) My question (at least for this forum) is less about the best practices for organizing information & pages on that subject relative to each other, but rather about how to (if its possible) search through Wikipedian discussions on how others have approached the topic. I have an instinct to find page clusters on the subject that I think are well organized and link to each other comprehensively, and to look through their talk pages for discussion on how the community arrived at that structure, but I'm also curious if there's are more subject-specific forums, or if I can search for the sort of discussion I'm looking for somewhere. I know this community discusses things rigorously and I want to build on previous conversations on this matter. Thank you in advance for your advice! Eharris33 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eharris33. Yours is an excellent question, but I am afraid I have no easy answer. You can start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, but in my experience, most WikiProjects are inactive in recent years. The most promising possibility may be list articles, such as List of United States treaties, and categories, such as Category:Treaties of indigenous peoples of North America and Category:United States and Native American treaties. You may find some summary articles in that list and those categories, and you can try to initiate discussion on the talk pages of those articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these initial thoughts, Cullen328! Eharris33 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I need help regarding possible vandalism!

Hello Teahouse, I need help for this page: Johan Staël von Holstein

It seems like people are reverting genuine content backed up by good sources with content backed up by YouTube videos of an unofficial channel.

>>>ICT Group, CEO Staël von Holstein is the CEO of ICT group, the parent company of Crowd1, where he worked as a consultant.[15][16] Crowd1 is a multi-level marketing company that aims, ostensibly, to develop an online entertainment industry.[17]<<< This paragraph is sourced by good references.

The reference #15 - “Och Johan Staël von Holstein, en gång i tiden grundare av Icon Medielab, mannen som blev portalfigur för Sveriges snabba internetutveckling, ska ha varit VD för koncernen som sägs vara moderbolag till Crowd1.” This translates to "And Johan Staël von Holstein, once the founder of Icon Medielab, the man who became a portal figure for Sweden's rapid internet development, is said to have been the CEO for the group, which is said to be the parent company of hasta Crowd1".

>>>Crowd1, CEO Staël von Holstein was CEO of this company in 2019.[15][16][17] Crowd1 is a multi-level marketing company that aims, ostensibly, to develop an online entertainment industry. The company is based in Spain where it trades as Impact Crowd Technology S.L.[18]<<< This is poorly sourced. Unofficial YouTube channel is used with misleading titles, in the entire video, there's not a single sentence which states him the CEO of Crowd1.

Also, when the page is about the subject, then why the company's history is discussed in details, shouldn't it have its own page? Ablasaur (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ablasaur: YouTube is not considered a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube. If the information is not available in any other source, then it may be removed. You should discuss this on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ablasaur: No sign of vandalism, and this is not the place to discuss content issues about a specific article. I will comment on the article talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to expand on RR's comment slightly, YouTube has reliablity equal to the creating source for content that is published by a verified/official account of that creator. E.g., a video posted by CBSNewsOnline has the same reliability as if it were coming from cbsnews.com – the only difference is the distribution channel. An unofficial YouTube channel is unreliable, just as are other self-published sources. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Newspaper references pre-1985

I am writing a Wikipedia entry about a movie I made in 1983 called "Music in Monk Time". I want to quote movie reviews from the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers, but the articles are only available through a paid website, newspapers.com. I can cite the date and page in the newspapers, but I believe any link I create will require the viewer to subscribe to the archival service. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thedevoutcatalyst: Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for citing your sources. Cite the newspaper as you normally would. It is not a problem that the source is behind a paywall, see WP:PAYWALL. Also, with old newspapers, if someone has all the info from the cite, they can look up the paper another way, such as from a library's archives. RudolfRed (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Aye. We allow cites to dead-tree sources as long as enough information is available to look things up in an archive. (For newspapers this is, at minimum: Paper name, paper edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and the page(s) the article is on.) See Template:Cite news. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thedevoutcatalyst: Additionally, if you have access to newspapers.com, you can "clip" the articles on their site to get a publicly-shareable link that will be readable without a subscription. If you don't have access, and it's a reasonable number of clippings, give me the details (date, page, title) at User talk:AlanM1 and I can clip them for you. I assume this is for the draft in your sandbox? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Kkjfnsdjofneofnoesnfsoe (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kkjfnsdjofneofnoesnfsoe, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Zindor (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yukon Jack (liqueur)

I've been working on this article for a university project, I would like to know if my article is still rated as a stub class, or if it could be changed?

11Bush (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: link is Yukon Jack (liqueur). David notMD (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello 11Bush and welcome to the teahouse. The article (through your and other editors work) has far outgrown the stub designation and I have removed those templates. Thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 05:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff needs to be changed! Everything about Leroy, also the recipes for cocktails, need to be deleted. Also a lot of other content that is either unreferenced or not relevant to the beverage, for example Yukon prohibition, gold rush, images, etc. If I were your teacher for this project, you would get a failing grade. David notMD (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a more in depth look David notMD. As my day is winding down, I only focused on the size of the article. I accept my failing grade for this mistake :-( MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New Article

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

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

Hello, Toak2004,

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

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

Query regarding new article

Requirements for new article?

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

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

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

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

Userbox templates

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

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

Sachini Wickramasinghe Page Approval

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

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

Writing a Wikipedia article for a relative

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

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

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

Querry how to publish

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

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

Dominion

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

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

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

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

Idea for a Wikipedia feature

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

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

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

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

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

Style assistance matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My page has been declined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitting Work

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

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

For the record, I included the following edit summary "not a very good image. Why would you intentionally make the image worse, and draw attention to it?", and also left a welcome template on StickyChannel92's talk page. I'm pretty sure I reverted a few other similar edits as well - Commodore 128[6] springs to mind, because it wasn't even a genuine screenshot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Spelling correction (and move) of a category

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

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

Want to publish and edit articles on chefs

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

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

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

Linking other articles

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

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

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

Capital?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you accept my article?

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

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

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

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

Looking for some advice on my article

Hi there,

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

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

Many, many thanks in advance,

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

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

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

Copy Edits

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

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

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

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

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

Point of Inquiry regarding translation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warm Welcome!

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

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

Text not received at I phone 11

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

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

Speedy deletion

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Juncaj

Draft:Mark Juncaj

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

Can someone help with this

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

Dan arndt can you help me re write this page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question regarding disruptive behaviour

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

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

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

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

This article has multiple issues:

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

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

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

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

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

Plot summary question

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

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

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

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

Translation or New Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

Query related to tags

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

Actor Profile Submission (New)

Dear Teahouse,

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

Warning vandals

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

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

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

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

Creating an article about people

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

@TheRealSocialDuchess: Try follow these steps:

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

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

New wikipedia editor here

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mike Turnbull: Thanks for your help :)

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

Submission received box re ‘Sara Radstone’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernice Gera article

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

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

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

Band member history timeline questions

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

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

Musicians & Bands

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

The most common format I've seen is:

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

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

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

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

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

Undermining "The Azande People"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Reply to Comments on my Query

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

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

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

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

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

User Page

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

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

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

contribution hidden

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

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

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

Bernard Baruch#Presidential adviser: First World War

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

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

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

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

Article Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Springfield2020 You're welcome.

Taxon changes.

Dear Teahouse,

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

Thank you for reading this message.

Kind Regards,

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

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

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

Kind Regads,

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

Referencing

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

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

list of female classical conductors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cropping of text in pdf files

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

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

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

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

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

thanks.. Gfigs (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

have posted a follow-up to this on Village Pump (Technical) here. and Phabricator task T271288, that is now closed. the Template display issue has been transferred to the Template talk:Infobox page.

"Failed verification" template

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

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

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

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

Images, emojis query

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

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

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

I must be stupid

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps it's not worth this much effort?

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

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

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

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

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

Admittedly I'm not new but...

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

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

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

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

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

Mountains of the Alps articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
GA	1	1					2
B	7	3	3	1			14
C	12	24	26	41		2	105
Start	5	82	231	393		2	713
Stub		22	213	2,010		2	2,247
List		1	4			1	6
Category					50		50
File					6		6
Portal					2		2
Project					2		2
Template					5		5
NA	1			3	5		9
Assessed	26	133	477	2,448	70	7	3,161
Total	26	133	477	2,448	70	7	3,161
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 17,513			Ω = 5.68

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the page Predeterminism

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

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

Transclusion

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

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

Saving changes before a change is ready to publish

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

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

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

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

...To reuse a reference, you simply give the reference a name, then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to re-enter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation. You can then use the {{rp}} template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this: First fact found on page 29 of a book.^[1]^: 29 Second fact found on page 114 from the same book.^[1]^: 114

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

References

^ ^a ^b Willmot, A.; Moyes, N. (2015). The Flora of Derbyshire. Pisces Publications. ISBN 978-1-874357-65-0.

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

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

New Page Name Change

Hi - I'm just starting on this escapade!

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

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

Many thanks,

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

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

Town of Stoughton

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

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

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

Genocide

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

Sources, probably. You can join the discussion at Talk:List_of_genocides_by_death_toll#Genocide_of_Native_Americans. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Which form of Cantonese Romanization does Wikipedia use as Standard?

Dear all,

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

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

Any answers gratefully received!

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

@Vespasianus Maximus: We have a fairly detailed page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Unfortunately, I have no idea whether it can be meaningfully applied to Cantonese. You might want to ask at WP:HK if it does not answer your query. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Updating a Definition to include trademark ownership

Updating a trademark reference? How we can request a correction be made to the Spandex definition? Specifically, the reference to LYCRA. LYCRA is a Federally registered trademark in the United States and in numerous countries around the world. Is it possible to update the defintion to indicate LYCRA(R) is a registered trademark and a brand name for spandex and elastane fiber? Additionally, ELASPAN is now made by The LYCRA Company and is also a registered trademark (now owned by The LYCRA Company), see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandex

Thanks! BrandMaven20 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! There is extensive discussion of trademarks at WP:MOSTM. Note that in Wikipedia, the use of a capital letter is all that usually shows something is a trademark: the R-in-a-circle is rarely used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

BrandMaven20. You may request a specific change to a specific Wikipedia article by placing an edit request on that article's talk page. If you want to add or replace information, please include a reference to a reliable published source for the new information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

How do I quote wikitext in the square box-y thing so I can show someone what a tilde looks like? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: You can use the <nowiki>....</nowiki> tags and put the tilde between them.
Example: <nowiki>~</nowiki>
Result: ~
--CiaPan (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!! Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: Or you can use {{tildes}}, which renders as: ~~~~

Or you can use {{please}} at the end of a post to them, which renders as this sentence in brackets and small font: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Hope they might be of use, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: If you want to explain a tilde key-press, e.g., when talking about keyboard shortcuts, you can use the {{Key press}} template (or its shortcut {{Key}}). Example: 'Press the {{key|~}} key.' results in: 'Press the ~ key.'
Or, if you just want to present a graphical symbol 'tilde' to someone, then simply show them our Tilde article.

CiaPan (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC) --CiaPan (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone!! Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Image

(added header, new topic -Maresa63 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC))

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

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

I need your help! Dear Experienced editors.

The article I created (Draft:Clare Omatseye, but later 'deleted' to the draft box, which I tried submitted for review as a draft recently got declined for use of 'informal tone' and unencyclopedic language usage. I would really appreciate your a hand or more to put article in shape. Secondly, I am pleading for a quick review of the article I created (Draft:Memry Savanhu) as part of my creations for the Wiki AfroCine project ending December 1, 2020. Please, help me out. Thanks in anticipation! Kambai Akau (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kambai Akau, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia cares about the quality of its content, not about external deadlines. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who work on what they choose, when they choose. There are thousands of drafts waiting for review, and there is no particular order in which they get reviewed. If you can get a reviewer interested enough to pick up your draft, that may help, but there is no sure way to do so, and talking about a deadline, not to mention an external reason for the article, is not very enrolling to most editors. (Remember: a Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of its subject. Often they will get some benefit from it, though not always; but writing an article with that in mind is Promotion, which is not allowed). It is possible that if you posted at WikiProject Film, or WikiProject Nigeria you might get somebody interested; but you need to be very careful how you invite them, so as not to appear to be trying to game the system, or jump the queue (even though it isn't a queue).

For what it's worth (I am not a reviewer), Draft:Memry Savanhu looks reasonably good to me, though you should remove references to unreliable sources such as iMDB. --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, wow! @ColinFine: Thanks indeed for your kind advice. I have learned something here! I will try do something about the sources. Kambai Akau (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Kambai Akau, check where it says "Improving your odds of a speedy review" in the template at the bottom of the draft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Okay, I will. Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Linking this page

Hello! I was wondering how do I insert this link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_concept_vehicles_(2000–2009) The reason why I am asking is because when I use the insert link tool, it says that the page can not be posted because it uses %. How would I link to this page? Right now, I am doing this, but I don't think it is correct. (you have you click edit on my post to see how I linked it). Thanks!DestinationFearFan (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

JorgeGiu1990 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@JorgeGiu1990: The way you are doing it is not that wrong, is is nessesary as soon as page titles contain question marks (?). Note that in nealy all other cases, you can simply use the unescaped version (Toyota concept vehicles (2000–2009) and let the software behind Wikipedia handle things for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@DestinationFearFan: Ok, thank you very much! DestinationFearFan (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@DestinationFearFan: [[Toyota concept vehicles (2000–2009)]] correctly produces Toyota concept vehicles (2000–2009) (the – is the UTF-8 encoding of the en dash (–).

Question

How can I tell if an article is start, C, B, A, good enough, or able to be featured? I am trying to know if Silverado Fire is start, C, B or A a gd fan (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: You can read about the quality scales here Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Assessment#Quality scale. The talk page shows the current grade. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: So how do you nominate it for good article status? --a gd fan (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: This should help Wikipedia:Good article nominations TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Donation

I'd like to donate by check. Where can I send it? I don't want to open an account or log in to anything. Please make it easy for me to donate. 162.211.38.203 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your generosity to help bring knowledge to the world. Visit [[7]] for donation info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Title/new page

I was wondering how to add a new page, and also just basic editing/creating tips. Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Scalyhawk121534, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is a very difficult task - possibly the hardest task there is for new editors - and editors who attempt it before they have learnt how Wikipedia works tend to have a miserable and frustrating experience. But have a look at your first article. I see you've created a draft for a disambiguation page: they're somewhat easier, but their content is more tightly constrained: see MOS:DAB. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Scalyhawk121534, for general editing tips, I'd recommend Help:Introduction. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New Disambiguation

Hello everyone, I was wondering how to make a disambiguation page. I made one... draft:Qibli (disambiguation) Sort of. I think it will work but can you give me some pointers? 🐉

Thanks,

Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Scalyhawk121534: If you just have two items, it's better to put a disambiguation hatnote on the top of both pages, if even that is appropriate.

An example of the code to do this is {{Redirect|Achilleus|the Emperor with this name|Achilleus (emperor)|other uses|Achilles (disambiguation)}} which causes the following text to display:

"Achilleus" redirects here. For the Emperor with this name, see Achilleus (emperor). For other uses, see Achilles (disambiguation).

You'd be better off looking for other uses of the term Qibli and adding them. Here's a place to start - I did a search for Qibli. [[8]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

separating, or changing redirect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Asphalt_Plant "Asphalt Green" is more than the facility cited in this redirect to "Municipal Asphalt Plant": 1) there's another facility downtown; 2) they run youth and adult sports programs - swimming, soccer, fitness/gyms, martial arts... 3) they have a summer day camp for children.

How would i suggest edits (or page creation) so that the reference to the original uptown physical facility is there, but that Asphalt Green is properly represented? For reference, this is their site https://www.asphaltgreen.org/ues

thanks Firstgenamerican (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Firstgenamerican, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you think that there is enough independent published material to make Asphalt Green meet Wikipedia's criteria for Notability (their own website doesn't contribute, because it is not independent), then I would advise creating a draft of a new article, using the article wizard: when the draft is submitted for review and accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirection. I must warn you, though that creating an article is difficult: see Your first article.

Another possibility would be adding a paragraph or two about Asphalt Green to the Municipal Asphalt Plant article: it would still need independent sourcing. Discuss this on Talk:Municipal Asphalt Plant before trying it, though. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Carrying on from this, @JMVR1, I treat "non-constructive" somewhat a catch all - if it doesn't contribute to the page, and assuming good faith, it's just not constructive. I can then use a level 1 warning template to better describe the issue to the editor in question. Ed talk! 23:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Referencing systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some WP:CS1 (e.g. {{cite book}}) templates have parameters like |quote=, |others= or |via= and perhaps these might be useful; some also have parameters such as |chapter= or |section= which might also be capable of being tweaked for something like you seem to be describing. Sometimes if you're a bit lucky, you might find an example of what you're trying to cite given in the template's documentation. For your specific example, perhaps the following would work.

{{cite book|last=Beggs-Sunter|first=Anne|editor-last=Mayne|editor-first=Alan|title=Eureka: reappraising an Australian Legend|chapter=Contesting the Flag: the mixed messages of the Eureka Flag|year=2007|page=56|publisher=Network Books|location=Perth, Australia|others=Paper originally presented at Eureka Seminar, University of Melbourne History Department, December 1, 2004}}

Which would look like as follows.

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

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Weeknd

Why does every The Weeknd song have a typo in the infobox? I edited a couple of them and then stopped as I realized nearly every song I checked had this typo. Is this an on-purpose thing? TrevortniDesserpedx 01:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trevortnidesserped. Try checking the article histories to see if you can pin down why the change was made. Was it always like that or did someone change it at some point? My guess is that this probably is just a misunderstanding in that someone assumes that the artist's name is the "Weeknd" and not "The Weeknd"; so, they don't think the "t" in "the" needs to be capitalized. There could also be a MOS:NICKNAMETHE reason as well. Perhaps whoever made the change left an edit summary explaining why. Often these types of changes are made by a single editor who notices an "error" and fixes in one article, but then goes on to fix the same "error" in other related articles as well. Most of the time this type was just done in good faith by someone who thinks they found a mistake; so, even though it was probably done on-purpose, it probably wasn't done to try and disrupt things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with cleaning a page!

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

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

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

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

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

@David notMD: Hello. Seetmoon (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Seetmoon As a friend you should be declaring a conflict of interest, but as you contributions so far are so small (an image, one that may deleted anyway as a copyright violation), don't bother. I am not going to submit because it is not my draft, and I have no knowledge of the person. For you to submit, put subst:submit inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the very top of the draft. This will create a large yellow-tinted rectangle stating that it has been submitted. A reviewer will get to it with days to months. If accepted, it's an article. If not, you can attempt to fix it (first declaring COI on your User page), or abandon it. Drafts with no editing ongoing get deleted in about six months. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Seetmoon (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you mean it's okay to submit it? As a COI, it won't affect? And is the draft in a neutral tone as suggested?

I deleted the AfC submission. It belongs at the draft, not here at Teahouse. You can submit it. If you decide to, I suggest you state on your User page that you know and are a friend of Josef. That will not prejudice a reviewer, especially if you add that you did not create or substantially edit the draft. I am making no judgement on the quality of the draft. David notMD (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josef_Yohannes

@David notMD: Thank you. Seetmoon (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have submitted it. I am going to post on here too!

AFC Help!

Hello,

I have submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josef_Yohannes to AFC. Can anyone help me get it reviewed or improved? Thank you! Seetmoon (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Seetmoon (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Reviewers are a separate group of people from Teahouse hosts (although a few do both). Once submitted, can be days to months before a reviewer decides to review. The waiting list is not a queue. David notMD (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

deleted

ramkrishna das nadrang my small article is deleted, seek help Nadrang (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Youruser page was deleted, because its content did not appear to support the purposes of Wikipedia, as the note on your |Talk page stated. Whenever a message to you contains a blue link, the pages the link represents should be read, as they are important information.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Creation for Sattyakee D'com Bhuyan

ee I wanted to know if it would be possible to create a page for Sattyakee D'com Bhuyan. Subject (Theatre and the Arts) 103.103.54.147 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be an actor, so they'd be subject to the notability guideline for entertainers. If there is not significant media coverage of them, they are unlikely to be kept. If you do decide to go ahead, I'd strongly suggest reading Help:Your first article—creating new pages is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

lack of response on talk pages

Hi! I'm having trouble getting people to respond to my talk page requests? A lot of it is just about formatting, overall article improvement, etc. but no editors seem to respond. Is there any way I can remedy this? It's a bit frustrating. Thanks! Bettydaisies (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bettydaisies. Some articles are more heavily watched than others; so, when you post something on such an article's talk page, you tend to get a fairly quick response. Some articles, on the other hand, may only be being watched by a few editors (perhaps the editor who created the article or an editor who tried to improve the article), and those editors might simply not have noticed your post or did notice it just didn't feel like responding.

If it's just a basic formatting fix or otherwise WP:MINOR edit you want to make and you only posted on the talk page as a courtesy, then you probably can just be WP:BOLD and go ahead make the change even if nobody responded to you. Often nobody responds to a talk page post when it seems like an obvious improvement, but they do respond when they see actual edits being made to an article. So, if you make an edit and it's reverted or fixed, then you'll know at least somebody is watching; similarly, if you make an edit and nobody reverts it, then you can just assume WP:SILENCE up until someone does.

Now, if things are a bit more complicated than a simple change and you still would rather be WP:CAUTIOUS than BOLD, try scrolling to the top of the talk page and checking for WikiProject banners. You can then go the relevant WikiProject talk pages and seek assistance or feedback. There's usually no need to repeat everything you posted on th article's talk page on the WikiProject talk page; you can use a template like {{Please see}} or simply post a short message and a link to the article talk page asking for help. Sometimes this works, but again all editors are just WP:VOLUNTEERs and not all WikiProjects are very active.

If that doesn't work, then you can try a more general noticeboard which has been set up to handle specific types of issues, or maybe even the talk page of the policy or guideline you trying to apply. It's best to try and keep all relevant discussion in one place (usually the article talk page), but you can post links on other talk pages to try and get others more involved in a discussion as long as you follow the guidance given in Wikipedia:Canvassing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, you can see how many people are watching a page and how many of those viewed recent edits by going to the left sidebar (on desktop) and clicking on "page information" within the tools section. If it says <30, it's very unlikely you'll get a response. Ditto if the most recent post above yours was from months or years ago and didn't get a response itself.

In those sorts of situations, the {{Please see}} template is useful. Find a relevant WikiProject or two as suggested above (although be careful, as many of those are quite dead, too) and put the notice there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, another question :I

Is uploading images exclusively for sandboxes allowed? If so, how could I do that? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Another question, does the sandbox have to have information that is 100% correct and serious, or can it be pretty much anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevortnidesserped (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trevortnidesserped. In response to your question about images, a sandbox is considered to be part of the username space which means that only images appropriate for that namespace may be used (i.e. "displayed"); For more on this, see Wikipedia:User pages#Non-free files.

As to what type of content you may add to your sandbox, generally a sandbox is considered to be a good place to try and work out things that you intend to later on add to an actual article; it can also be a place to work on drafts for future articles. Once again, however, a sandbox is going to be subject to Wikipedia:User pages, which means that if you try to use your sandbox for any of the things mentioned here or here, your sandbox is likely going to end up flagged for review and possibly even deletion. In other words, it's not a free-for-all in which anything goes because your sandbox is not really technically yours per se. Your sandbox will be expected to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including some important ones like Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, just like any other page.

Editors are given a bit of leeway when it comes to their user pages and user sandboxes and for the most part will be left alone as long as they don't start doing something they shouldn't be doing. Depending upon the type of problem, an editor might be given a warning about their sandbox and asked to any problematic content, but in other cases the problem may be so serious or so obvious that an adminstrator will delete the sandbox without warning or fix the problem themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello TrevortniDesserpedx. Any image used in a sandbox must have an acceptable free license allowing use, with attribution, by anyone for any purpose. So, it is not possible to restrict usage of images to sandbox pages. No, it is not necessary that sandbox pages be 100% correct and serious. But the purpose of the sandbox is testing and development related to improving the encyclopedia. You cannot host promotional content, hoaxes, personal attacks, copyright violations or any other content unrelated to building an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A page that I was working on was deleted

I recently created my first page which was deleted with the following information. "A tag has been placed on TenX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia." I can't quite figure out how to get it restored and/or add a 'work-in-progress' flag. I tried to ensure that it had all the same information as other businesses but it was deleted with the note "because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant". I didn't have time to contest the nomination before the page was deleted.

How do I get this restored & adding the flag that it is still being updated? Is there a way to have it as a draft whilst still working on it. (I'm not as fast as some of the other people here obviously) Eoghaniam (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Eoghaniam, I see you recreated the page at TenX. If you plan on developing it further, I'd suggest moving it to Draft:TenX, where it will be given more space; it's unlikely to survive in the encyclopedia proper in its current state very long. To move it, go to the "more" menu at the top right and select the "move" option, and then choose "draft" rather than "article".

For improving the page, the number one thing you need to do is demonstrate notability through significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. See WP:NORG for more information, and Help:Your first article for general tips. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Adminship

My question is how to be an Admin in English Wikipedia? 47.8.231.137 (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to register and have a LOT of experience before you request admin. Your message on your talk page seems suspicious though--a gd fan (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Begin with a complete and total change in the attitude displayed on your talk page, set up an account, and spend a very long time as a productive and helpful editor, displaying a strong knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about NPOV and WEIGHT

Hello,
There is an article on the Baha'i Faith in the United States. This article does not have any mention of the Orthodox Baha'i community, I tried to add this sentence to the article : "In 2010, there were around 50 Orthodox Baháʼís in the United States"^[1] for NPOV, as the article is totally one-sided. There is no mention of any sect or at least the major sect which declared its membership as "50 members" in 2010. The Baha'i editor "Cuñado" has removed my edit giving the reason WP:WEIGHT.
There are Orthodox Baha'is in the US, there is a wikipedia article on them, they have good presence on the internet and there have been court cases against them by the mainstream Baha'i community.
I would like to know the opinions of other wikipedians if I am wrong in adding the sentence or is the Baha'i editor ‎"Cuñado" incorrect in removing the sentence?
Thank you Serv181920 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Serv181920, I would suggest opening a discussion on the talk page and pinging the editor who reverted you by using the code {{re|editorname}}. If, after discussing the issue, you can't come to an agreement, you could list the issue at WP:3O to get a third opinion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Tribune, Chicago. "Judge: Baha'i believers can call themselves Baha'i". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2020-11-18.

Created Article

Why was my created article not published in Wikipedia? Swastk Pandey (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Swastk Pandey, are you referring to Draft:Mohit Pandey BJP? That article needs a ton of work before it'd be ready for publication. See Help:Your first article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't created any article. You have created Draft:Mohit Pandey BJP. This will be published if (i) you submit it for publication and (ii) the reviewer believes that it meets standards for publication. If you submit it, the reviewer can do any of three things: accept it, decline it, and reject it. If I reviewed it now, I'd reject it, because there's no hint that the person written about is "notable" as Wikipedia understands the word. Even if you believe that Pandey is notable, pause work on your draft. Read and digest WP:YFA. Also, read and digest the comment about conflict of interest that's on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

How to edit the title

How do I edit the main title in Wikipedia Shasha85 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Shasha85, to change the title of a page directly, your account must be four days old and you need to have made at least ten edits. See Help:How to move a page for instructions on what to do at that point. If you'd like to move it before then, you can tell us the name of the page and we can look at it, or you can go to WP:Requested moves. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Shasha85 Also, if WP:Conflict of interest applies to you, follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Shasha85 If you are trying to move Markit to IHS Markit, the latter article already exists. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must read and comply with WP:PAID —teb728 t c 09:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Shasha85 If you would like to propose changes to the article about the pre-merger company, discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Markit, giving reference to a reliable source. —teb728 t c 09:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Post from Pricegeorge212

I'm going to Sandyballs next year after i leave Gocreate.

And merry christmas from George. Pricegeorge212 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Would that be Sandy Balls? If so, I'm sure you'll have a nice time. I attended an excellent Real Ale and Jazz festival there some years ago. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.5 (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Account Status

Hello there, My Question is that How to check my full account status in Wikipedia? Hruth Ruchir(talk • contribs)04:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hruth Ruchir, you may want to click the link "Page information", in the sidebar on left of your user page, in the "tools" group.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank You. Hruth Ruchir(talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse Hruth Ruchir. The answer by Quisqualis gives info about your user page. There is more info at Special:Contributions/Hruth Ruchir. It lists all your contribution, and the grey box at the bottom has links to other pages about you. —teb728 t c 11:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Account Deletion

How do i Delete My Old Account i don't want anymore? 47.9.92.182 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, for technical and legal reasons(as all edits must be attributable to someone). If you no longer will use your account, simply abandon it. If you are in good standing and intend to never return, a courtesy vanishing may be possible. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Need Help for an article

Hello respected Wikipedia members. I just created an article Apparel Group and unfortunately it is tagged for deletion for promotion. Though i am not very much aware of Wikipedia deletion policy but i have tried to trimmed the promotional content. I really appreciate, If anyone could help me to trimmed the promotional content. Thank You. Jeni Shef (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeni Shef Hello and welcome. Your draft just told about the company and things that it did. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions, brief mentions, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please review Your First Article for more information.

If you work for Apparel Group, you must review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Frozen sandbox

I have somehow frozen my sandbox so that only a fragment of newly added text appears in the preview section. Horrifying. Please help.TBR-qed (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse! The last saved copy of your sandbox looks OK to me, so the explanation is probably that you have added a new <ref> tag without the corresponding </ref> end-tag. When you do that, the preview is likely to omit all the text up until the next end-tag. I make that mistake all the time! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey TBR-qed . Great prognostication Mike. Yes, I fixed two errors in your sandbox; one was a missing closing ref tag (</ref>). The other was a named reference but the defined name used "smart quotes", where the multiple later invocations of that named cite used regular quotes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: A useful tip to avoid some of these problems is to switch on "Syntax highlighting" in the source editor (icon just to the left of the word "advanced") and then use the "Reference" icon two to the left of that when adding references. This places both tags into your edit and colours the new part so it is less likely you'll make that sort of mistake. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Proveit not working?

Is there something wrong with WP:ProveIt at the moment or is it just me? I tried using ProveIt for references but the little box in the corner was missing so I had to do it the old fashioned way. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Javascript Error

Hello, I have a editing problem today. Everytime I want to create a page ( not edit ) it says " Script Error - Javascript Error". I'm using 2017 wiki text editor now.Do anyone know how to fix it? (I can stil create the page, but I think there is something wrong.) Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 00:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Larryzhao123, hmm, I'm not sure about that. Looking at your contributions, you have a little bit in your .js file. I'd try disabling the line you added at User:Larryzhao123/vector.js and seeing if that resolves anything. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And nowadays you can enable Twinkle in your user preferences: you don't have to fiddle with Javascript. --ColinFine (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It works! Thank you very much. Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 15:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing a article

Anothando Tswele (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Anothando Tswele: try to follow these steps:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL

Hello,
Please help me to determine if this person/article qualifies WP:NFOOTBALL ?
Thank you. Serv181920 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

NoIndexed pages

Hello, I have a problem here, there are some pages which were originally drafts, which I assume is always noindexed, but when they get moved to Article, they don't appear in Google search results, and there's no _NOINDEX_. Help! a gd fan (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello GeometryDashFan12. New articles are not indexed until they are reviewed by a member of the New pages patrol, or until 90 days goes by. This is a quality control measure. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for more details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No Title

What is the smallest asteroid known? 173.61.223.214 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This is for Wikipedia questions, not questions about science, etc. a gd fan (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Please try the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please Help: Adding List of Publications

Hello! I am writing an entry for a living person in the field of medicine. Is it appropriate to add a section listing some of their scientific/peer-reviewed publications? And if so, is there a rule of thumb for how many I can list? Thank you for any guidance! Jcollinsycc (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

First Page Created; What's Next?

I have created my first page! I am sure it's under review. Is the code correct for the references? 602Dexter (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello 602Dexter. It looks like you have written a draft article on your user page, which is a common error that new editors make. It is not under review. It really should be in a sandbox page or a draft page. Also, your references are formatted in an unconventional way. I suggest that you read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to bother you again, but this might be something interesting. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Trevortnidesserped. There is a strong consensus that buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places are notable and ought to have Wikipedia articles. You can go to the NRHP website and download a PDF of all the documentation that resulted in the House at 36 Aegean Avenue being listed. You can summarize material in that document to expand and improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Image process

Hello members of WP:Teahouse! I am here once more to bother you about help with Draft:Matthew Kulke. I have found a quite a few images of Kulke, but I am quite unfamiliar with the image process. If someone could either upload an image themselves or walk me through it that would be wonderful, thank you. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: The subject is living, so any image must be under a free license such as CC-BY-SA or GNU or GPL or CC-BY or likewise. Very few of the images found on the internet are under such a siutable license. If you have a particular file in mind, please give the URL of it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm not quite sure what you mean but this image: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu/typo3temp/_processed_/csm_526_1601785087_591da831dd.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu/insider/member-detail/member/matthew-h-kulke-md/&tbnid=aciu3WcT5PNF9M&vet=12ahUKEwjbwfXZ2JHtAhXFHjQIHaEdDH0QMygBegQIARBt..i&docid=3xdL0BoYMyK8_M&w=262&h=262&q=matthew kulke&ved=2ahUKEwjbwfXZ2JHtAhXFHjQIHaEdDH0QMygBegQIARBt appears to look very official, and this image appears to be more recent: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://i1.wp.com/www.carcinoid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Matthew-Kulke-MD-2018.jpg?fit=3648%2C3648&ssl=1&imgrefurl=https://www.carcinoid.org/doctor/matthew-kulke-md-mmsc-medical-oncology/&tbnid=DvWOvr2yW69nVM&vet=12ahUKEwjbwfXZ2JHtAhXFHjQIHaEdDH0QMygAegQIARBr..i&docid=E0LgdwuunfNkaM&w=3648&h=3648&q=matthew kulke&ved=2ahUKEwjbwfXZ2JHtAhXFHjQIHaEdDH0QMygAegQIARBr. How would I figure out is an image is under a free license? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Regulary, opening the links to the origin website and reading their terms of service/page footer is sufficient. Note that Wikipedia considers content copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Lets llok into that:

The first image appears to come from there. That website is copyrighted, at least I cannot find information to te contrary.
The second Image appears to come from there. That site has a "copyright information site", available there. According to that, only noncommercial reuse is permitted, which makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy.

You can still try and see if the respective copyright holders are willign to release it under a free license according to WP:DCM, but that is sometimes hard. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I might continue looking for images, if I do find more would teahouse still be the place to ask? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, looks like this image https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/files/2019/01/kulke_circle.png from this page https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2019/01/15/bu-bmc-cancer-center-announces-co-directors/ does not mention copyright anywhere in the page. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, anything published in recent years is automatically subject to copyright restrictions, whether or not it has a copyright notice. You must find an image that is clearly labeled as under an acceptable free license, most commonly an acceptable Creative Commons license. Wikipedia is very strict about copyright, and non free images of living people are never permitted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating my own Wikipedia Page

My Own Wiki Page Different sources have told creating my own Wikipedia Page will probably end up being deleted. Is this true? And they also say that my Wiki Account needs to be at least 4 days old and thta I need to have 10 edits before I can create a Wikipedia Article. Is this true? If yes, why? Jtot102 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Because we have strict policies on sourced content, copyright and other stuff. You might consider getting adopted by an experienced user if you want to learn more about wikipedia. Welcome! --a gd fan (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, from what I've seen on your talk page, you need to add reliable resources by using <ref></ref> tags, because Wikipedia cannot have false information. There were also controversies about new users making hoax articles, which is why IPs and new users may not create articles themselves. Articles may not be promotional either (no advertising). a gd fan (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jtot102. If you are thinking about writing about yourself, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you are asking about the song in your sandbox, songs seldom merit articles on Wikipedia; if the project has an article, that article might mention the song. —teb728 t c 19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

First NFL pass caught in the end zone

Who was the first wide receiver in the NFL to catch a pass in the end zone on national television? 2603:8090:301:E300:EDC8:A02D:FD27:ABEF (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You can ask questions like yours at WP:RDE RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I was wondering how you join a WikiProject? Thanks, Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ex-Borg Seven of Nine: When you go to the Wikiproject's page, it will have a page you can add your name to and that's how you join. There will also usually be a todo list so you can see what the Project is working on, and discussion or talk page where you can discuss things related to the project RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you! Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Special my language thing

How do I use the Special:MyLanguage/ thing on my user page? NonPopularPerson (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, NonPopularPerson. Special:MyLanguage seems to exist, as your link doesn't give an error. But I can't find any information about what it is or what it is for, either on Wikipedia or on Meta. I have no idea what it is for. Where did you find out about it? --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't read enough in order to summarize the feature's use with any clarity but, for example, I find the mediawiki URL for "How to contribute" in the source code for my userpage attaches Special:MyLanguage – so I'm guessing is does something like: when a page at mediawiki has multiple translations, and you are accessing that page through some wikilink, it recognizes you're coming from the English Wikipedia and so sends you to the English language version. Something like that. Anyway, see mw:Topic:T309ediwdcwhm1nn, mw:Topic:R1c7zi8ozwc1p7du and T68762 and then tell me how wrong I got it:-) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I find about it is at Help:SpecialPages#M, where it says just “MyLanguage, Main page” Experimenting, I find wikt:Special:MyLanguage and de:Special:MyLanguage go respectively to the main pages of Wiktionary of the language you are in and the German language version of the project you are in. —teb728 t c 01:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Article ratings: Are editors allowed to rate articles they created?

Question: Are editors allowed to rate (on the talkpage banners) articles that they themselves created? (I'm not referring to GA and FA, obviously.)

I'm asking because in a person's automatically generated "Articles created" list/link, the rating of each article is shown along with its title. It seems like rating one's own article creations, whether or not they have been contributed to by others, might be "stacking the deck". What is the consensus, and why can I find no clear guidance on this? Softlavender (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Wow, I was expecting to find some direct guidance at Wikipedia:Content assessment but you're right, nada. The gist of that page is that this type of aseesment is not any kind of official process; it's really just for internal Wikiproject maintenance. That is in keeping with not having it be so obviously subject to conflict of interest concerns. So I suppose it defaults to allowed then (with the same qualifier; GA and FA are are off the table b/c of what they are). Ah, here's some small discussion: Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Question about something I never really thought about. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I'd just like to add that If I create an article that's obviously a stub, I'll just rate it as such to decrease the backlog of unrated articles. If I write a longer article, however, I always leave it unrated so I can get a second pair of eyes on my work. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 23:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

When I write articles, I go with the WP:RATER ORES prediction and others are free to adjust or update accordingly. TJMSmith (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I believe my own approach after creating a new article is to leave it to others to rate the article if it's anything above an obvious Stub or Start class article. If, after some months, nobody rates it, I attempt to give it a fair assessment. As suggested above, this not only helps reduce the backlog of unassessed articles, but also helps complete the WikiProject assessment tables (see above). I do use WP:RATER, but hadn't thought to apply that to my own, rather sparse creations. I might try that next time. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I use common sense. If it's "obvious" and B or lower, I rate it. Otherwise I'll either "rate low" (Start instead of C, for example), or leave it unrated. On the other hand, I would say inexperienced editors probably should not be rating articles at all, their own or others, until they get a sense of things. But that's not an enforceable "rule" as much as an "expectation that even new editors will edit with maturity and know their intellectual limits" (fantasy, I know, sigh). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons community remove watermarks as a service?

I have a number of photos that have watermarks from a decade ago and I'm wondering if anybody in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons community have software and spare time to remove them (probably about 10-12 shots out of ~130 that I've donated)? Is there a better place to ask this question? Cheers, Brett. BrettA343 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t removal of a watermark something you do with a photo that you don’t own? Isn’t a watermark something you add to your image to prevent theft? The owner retains privately, and may sell, the image without watermark. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at an image with a watermark that was uploaded to the Commons by this user, the watermark is a claim of copyright by a person of the same first name as above account's name, so there's an inference here that these photos are actually by this user, who had them watermarked years ago himself, and thus owns the copyright and has the authority to release them (it's so often otherwise though, when we see a question in this arena).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Surely if they are his own photos he has copies without the watermark? BrettA343, where are your originals? Why would you deface your own photos without keeping clean copies? Just upload a clean copy using the "Upload a new version of this file" link in the "File History" section of the file page. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I understand what you're saying but disagree with your use of "surely". It seems perfectly plausible that someone in say 1990 (i.e. pre-digital camera revolution), who is a photo hobbyist, used a service to develop their film, and digitize them with watermarks to proclaim their copyright ownership, or physically had them added, later uploaded them, and has, in the intervening 30 years, no freaking clue where the negatives are, nor the original digital files, sans watermarks, if they ever had digital versions without (or they were destroyed in a fire; or by their three years old; or their cat; or they're from New Orleans and Katrina intervened, etc. ad infinitum), or does have them, but they're unlabeled among thousands and finding them would take gobs of time, or a million other possibilities.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest WP:Graphics Lab. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The photos are old, and belong to a consistent theme. I expect that the unwatermarked originals are lost, they were stored somewhere obscure that was meant to be safe. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

why deleted my editing from wikipedia?

NurIslamShihab (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

NurIslamShihab Please link or specify your contribution. SenatorLEVI (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi NurIslamShihab. Please read the edit summaries accompanying the reverts in the page history, and then please see the talk page post addressed to the issue at Talk:Bangladesh national cricket team#Records. The article is now protected because of the brewing edit war. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Why No Article on " Google Genius of India " ???

Wikipedia Not Created Articles on Google Genius of India

Google Genius of India 2401:4900:513D:3991:0:0:A29:FEA0 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles don't exist on many subjects, for various reasons. Most commonly, it's because the subject isn't notable. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Medicare question

What is the cost for a monthly premium for care source on a 74 year old man that only has medicare part A. The coronavirus made it necessary for me to leave my job after 20 years and had to give up mu united health major medical. I have applied for Medicare part B but is has been two weeks and no word from social security.. If I get signed up for part B, and I have part A, I should be able to get an advantage place to cover prescriptions.

I am afraid that I will not get my part b before the deadline and then I will be unable to get an advantage plan with prescription coverage. What should I do. A formal application was submitted by mail to the local social security office but they will not meet with you. What do I do????

Gary J Sontag 2600:1700:8820:7D00:B42F:C130:6AF3:78E3 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The Teahouse is a place to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia. I am sorry, but Wikipedia editors cannot offer legal advice. Our article Medicare (United States) has a section about Part B. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated Imaged

Hello, how do I update an image to a newer picture? Scoony11 (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scoony11. The mechanics of it are easy but the issue is fraught with copyright concerns. What is the image you want to update? What is the image you want to replace it with and where is it from? What is its copyright status? How do you know?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, image is old and very dated. Want to replace with IMDB main image which is newer, cleaner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoony11 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In that case, it is extremely unikely the image is under a suitably free copyright license (or has been released into the public domain), and so it can't be used here. If you provide the specifics, though, we can be more concrete. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

He's talking about Glenn Hetrick, and wants to update the infobox image to [9]. Understandable, but Scoony11 you cannot do that because that is a professional, copyrighted photograph. Photos uploaded to Wikipedia must not have copyright restrictions. If you are a "close relative", then ask him to upload a selfie, or take a pic yourself and upload it yourself, at [10]. Please note that whoever took the photo needs to authorize its public-domain release, so it's best if whoever took the photo uploads it. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Horse breeding

Hi i want to know about horses? How do you get different breeds? Idon'twishtoknow (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Idon'twishtoknow. Typically here we answer questions about editing Wikipedia, whereas other questions are best asked at either the reference desk or by typing into a search engine like Google. To find out about a subject follow the blue links in the main article. So from Horse you might end up at List of Horse Breeds, Horse breeding, selective breeding and many more articles. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: User is blocked. Zindor (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

How do I put a citation needed thingy in? I tried in Crowd but I did it wrong and had to fix it because I accidentally published it. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. You needed to use curly brackets and add a date. Optionally you can add a reason. Like this: {{Citation needed|date=November 2020|reason=Your explanation here}}. If possible find a reference instead of tagging. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Information removed from text

Deleted information

Can you help,please. I have done some small edits and corrections to an article recently accepted, and submitted the final draft. Some of the information has been deleted and I cannot retrieve it. Everything else appears to be there. RSLLX (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RSLLX. Information is hardly ever permanently deleted from Wikipedia (and only with a strong reason). In the normal case, all previous versions or an article are still available, and information can be retrieved from them if appropriate. Look in the History of the article. If this is about Sara Radstone , several editors have been busy in the last couple of days, and I suspect the edit by Ceoil with the edit summary "cut pending verification, which I don't doubt" may be what you are talking about. In general, if another editor makes an edit you are not happy with, the best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, and ping that editor. (I have already pinged Ceoil here). --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing the signature

I am unable to change my signature. I visited Wikipedia:Signatures, but could not understand the steps. Please help me.--Assassin77177 (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Your current signature, "Assassin77177 (talk)", is legible ~~and understandable, and has a commendable lack of gimmickry. Keep it as it is!~~ -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Duh! amended -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoary But the user's name is actuallyUser:Atlantis77177 isn't it misleading for it to say Assassin77177 instead? Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Well excuse me, Theroadislong, it must have been a "senior moment". As an explanation (though not a justification), I'll say that I was glancing at Wikipedia in little breaks during an unusually tiresome bullshit job; it did my brain in. ¶ Atlantis77177, your default signature would be best. Distinguish yourself via your contributions, not your costume. -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Linking a PDF for a magazine as a source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick update: I looked at the disclaimer under WorldRadioHistory and it says that it uses the magazines provided for "educational and historical purposes only" and that it is covered under Fair Use. Regardless, I think it would be more convenient to cite one or two pages rather than upload the entire edition.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:4D2:1BCC:E19D:1838 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above, but there is no exception in fair use law that makes it okay to infringe on copyrights just since you're doing it for educational/historical purposes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The purpose matters in terms of fair use law. World Radio History has a notice on the bottom that says if they are violating copyright, they will take it down.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:2CB3:72B:6DEE:3CB9 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC) https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

We shouldn't be linking even with that fair use notice. We need to be circumspect when it comes to copyright – and citing the original of a work, instead of a possible copyright infringement is not difficult. Why not just do that here? Yes, it's nice to be able to provide a link in a citation, but we absolutely allow citation to paper sources that cannot be accessed online. So if there's no link for online access to the original, again, cite it without a link and thereby avoid linking to a possible copyright violation. Sure, a website using material under fair use could take linking to it out of the shadow of WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER. But the problem is that fair use is a legal doctrine of exception; use by a non-owner/licensee is infringement unless it's fair use; it's always just a claim of fair use; and whether a particular use is "fair"—whether the doctrine is actually met—always requires analysis. That's just too fraught with ambiguity to not avoid such linking. This particular claim of fair use proves the point well because this fair use claim appears to be on-its-face invalid (*entire Billboard articles?* – unlikely to meet the doctrine's requirement of minimal use).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

how to find information on the sinking of s.s. empire progress in 1942

86.20.44.121 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi person editing from ...121. This page is for questions about using or editing Wikipedia. Knowledge questions belong at an appropriate section of the reference desk. Nevertheless, maybe this will be of help: this is a link to a Google Books search for "empire progress" "1942". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sara Radstone ‘ article ‘

Not a question but a thanks!... and a sense of relief that after all the hard work- including by all the Wikipedia mentors and guidance people , that my ‘article’ ‘Sara Radstone’ has been accepted and it is out there as a Wikipedia page. Absolutely wonderful! 2A00:23C6:9E0C:6201:987:47B1:9119:A664 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contribution to the encyclopedia. Are you possibly User:RSLLX? If so, please remember to log in before editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Have addressed this with the editor on their talk page. It's a notable artist, finding their wiki feet. Their article has gathered a lot of supportive attention from Visual Arts project and WomenInRed people. All is well. Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Best Browser

what is best browser to use on Android, and the internet. and on Wikipedia..? Gfigs (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Whatever browser you like and prefer. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes... this will make a fine addition to my collection... Le Panini ^Talk 04:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gfigs, welcome to the Teahouse. Since its inception Internet Explorer has been the bane of web developers; even after some standardisation a few years back you're more likely to face render issues when using that browser.

I personally use Mozilla Firefox and have had no problems on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with Chrome but it's easy to find yourself connected to a web of other Google products, which is efficient but also rather entrapping. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Chrome is ok, I guess Gfigs (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you'll be just fine editing with Chrome. Zindor (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating New Articles

If a Wikipedia page redirects to a heading, but that section is incomplete (e.g. a new TV show, or a character on a TV show), and assuming the TV show meets AfC and I happen to know a little on the subject, should I create the page? DotCampbell (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

DotCampbell, if you believe that there is enough content for its own article, then you could submit it through the Articles for Creation process and have someone review it. However, please bear in mind personal knowledge shouldn't be used as it is a violation of our original research guidelines, and in general, it might be better to simply expand on the section, instead of creating a new article. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

When and how a article would be assessed and approved to publish?

Dear all, I have been trying to write my first article about a researcher, as the first draft was deleted, I have re-wrote and improved the article with reliable references. I would like to ask, how and where I can apply for a assessment (or review) and proceed to publish the article. Thank you. Xuexiujia (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Xuexiujia: It looks like another editor added the submit button to Draft:Jiří_Jaromír_Klemeš. Click that button to submit the draft for review, which may take quite some time due to backlog. RudolfRed (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you, I noticed and proceeeded. Yes it says might take up to 3 months. Understand the situation. Many thanks!

How long of a wait?

I posted a biography of Michael Warren Powell, a leading figure in off Broadway theater on Sept 3. I made a couple of improvements, italics, or sources, and then got a message today that said I needed to click 'publish' again. Now it's listed as being submitted today. Will I now have to wait another three months? Is there a way to expedite? What have I done wrong? Cinequenon (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't obviously done anything wrong. You might have to wait another three months, or longer, because people who might be able to accept (or reject) it are volunteers and, like you, are pressed for time. One way to expedite its promotion to article would be to do this yourself: I believe that you're qualified to do this, and a very quick look at the draft doesn't show problems. (I'm reluctant to promote it because American theater is one of my numerous areas of total ignorance.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

There were two AFC submissions a the bottom of Draft:Michael Warren Powell. I removed the newer one, so there is now only one, dated Sept 3. AFC is not a queue, but reviewers in general try not to let applications get old, so your draft is likely to be reviewed in days to weeks rather than months. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

And... approved. Congratulations. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I really appreciate this community! Brings tears to my eyes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinequenon (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Publishing my page

I have a problem with editing and publishing my page NadjaPetrovi Art (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NadjaPetrovi Art. If you're referring to User:NadjaPetrovi Art, that's your user page and isn't the correct place to draft an article. There is an existing draft at Draft:Nadja Petrovic, which you can work on and submit for review if you want an article about you to be published. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph starting with "Critically acclaimed painter and sculptor..." should be deleted before this is submitted. David notMD (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Characters of Halo

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

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

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

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

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

Given the name, I wonder if this isn't an effort at containing a pataphysical or game-related anomaly... —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Financial stability

Yesterday, I saw Wikipedia was asking for donations. I want to know is Wikipedia doing fine financially? Do the administrators need any assistance? 47.150.227.254 (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Donations go to Wikimedia, the organisation behind all the different Wikipedia versions, Commons, etc. Administrators are volunteers, like the rest of us. Donations don't benefit English Wikipedia specifically, and they do not go to any individual admins or other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 09:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you read Wikimedia Foundation you will see that it has "annual revenues in excess of US$109.9 million".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review needs reviewers!


Wikipedia ads	file info – #14

Hi all, if you're interested in monitoring this page, you're probably interested in helping and mentoring new and up and coming editors. We have a backlog of reviews at peer review that would benefit from YOU! In case you don't know, anyone can put an article up for peer review; so editors seeking review are often seeking help or ways to improve, and in my experience usually find the reviews extremely useful. Peer review is, also, often a stepping stone for more active editors and for a good article or featured review nomination.

Please have a look and respond to one or two of the unanswered reviews. Many thanks!

The list is here: WP:PRWAITING Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Is "peer review" different from "new pages patrol"? Which is the one with the backlog frequently mentioned on this page? Maproom (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to Peer review, New pages patrol and the huge backlog at Articles for Creation reviews (a frequent Teahouse mention), there are also thousands (?) of requests backlogged at Wikipedia:Requested articles, hundreds at Good Article nominations and dozens at Featured Article nominations. Kudos to all of the editors who try to keep up with these Sisyphean tasks. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Published Source from Cornell University Being Dismissed

On the Charles V. Paterno Wikipedia page, I'm aiming to correct that Dr. Paterno graduated as a Doctor of Medicine (MD) from Cornell University on 7 June 1899 for which I supplied a citation which is a publication from Cornell University. There is no evidence that 1. there was a school of dentistry at Cornell at that time, 2. that Dr. Paterno was trained as a dentist, or that 3. Dr. Paterno ever practiced dentistry or any other medicine. Another user would like to include on the Wikipedia page that Dr. Paterno never practiced medicine (which is true) but did practice dentistry. There is no evidence or citation to support this claim. This user is telling me that my source from Cornell University is not reliable/permitted. Additionally this user provides no citation for Dr. Paterno practicing dentistry. I would appreciate help in understanding how the citation I provided from Cornell is not reliable/permitted but that the other user's lack of citation for dentistry is reliable/permitted.

Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V._Paterno Cornell University citation: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/22336 (Charles Vito Paterno appears as Doctor of Medicine graduate on PDF document page 445) Carlagolden23 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carlagolden23. I don't get it. The user who reverted you twice, has said each time that the detail about the article subject being a dentist is "sourced", but the citation immediately following this fact doesn't even look like it's being used to source that fact; and in any event, the source cited does not say anything about dentistry (it's also a blog, i.e., far from a sterling source, but since it fails verification as to the dentistry occupation, that's beside the point). Furthermore, the user has said you're engaging in original research by removing this unsourced fact. That's the exact opposite of what you appear to be doing—keeping in an unsourced fact is original research.

Overall, then, unless I'm really missing something, your edit looks absolutely proper and is one that is un-revertable within policy. That is, once a fact is questioned (as you have) and removed, a user MUST provide a reliable source, using an inline citation that directly verifies the material, or the fact cannot be returned (as it was). See the subsection of the verifiability policy at the shortcut, WP:BURDEN. The user is highly experienced, so I suspect this may be just a "d'oh" moment — legitimately but erroneously believing the dentistry detail is actually sourced where it is not. Anyway, he or she has been pinged to this post by my linking of his or her username. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Carlagolden23, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can see that you are frustrated, but what you are doing is Edit warring, which is not allowed, irrespective of who is right or wrong. When somebody reverts your edit, what you should do is not to reapply it, but to open a discussion on the article's talk page about it: see BRD. It looks to me as if you are right: despite what Beyond My Ken said in an edit summary, I cannot see that the statement about practising as a dentist is sourced, and you were justified in removing it. However, though your citation is welcome (and would be even better with a page number in the citation) it is not germane to this argument, and that is what Beyond My Ken was saying: your citation proves that he took an MD (which was already in the article, but not cited); but it does not say anything about whether he did or did not practise as a dentist. Your argument that he did not, based on your citation, was what Beyond My Ken described as original research - that editor did not say anything about the source being unreliable, just that it was silent on this particular question.

So, in summary, I think you were right to remove the claim, but when Beyond My Ken reinserted it, the proper course was to ask them, on the article's talk page, where this claim was cited. --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you could technically describe this as a start toward "edit warring", even though the reverts were patently outside of policy, and a little BRD would have been obviously better but, let's be clear here: the above inexperienced user solely added a citation for preexisting, unsourced material and removed an unsourced claim, explaining in the edit summary why it was challenged. There is nothing there that could ever be described as original research – only the return of the unsourced content could possibly be so-described; the reverts were blatantly against bedrock policy; neither user ever reached a third revert, though the experienced user warned the user on their talk page with an edit warring template that cited policies they were themselves violating far more than the user warned, who at the same time also didn't open up a talk page discussion, and then the inexperienced user came here to ask about the issue. Seems pretty one-sided to me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Carlagolden23 - In reviewing the sources cited in Charles V. Paterno, I do not find any that say he was a dentist, however, I know that I read that in some source or another, perhaps one that's no longer used in the article. So, I was mistaken in telling you a number of times that the information was sourced, and wrong in that I should have checked the refs instead of relying on my memory. I'm sorry to have caused you a problem, but it's good that you persevered and the record has been corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, very nice. :) —valereee (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles for assesment

This might be a dum dum question but when do we submit a article for assessment. What I'm asking is, is assessing articles a big deal and should we only submit them when we add a lot of content and are going for a high quality rating. Or can we send articles for assessment after we, for instance, add a bunch of citations to it? JMLCarvalho (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi JMLCarvalho. Am I correct is assuming this is about Sri Lanka Police? There are many things on Wikipedia that people might refer to as forms of "assessment", such as peer review; submission for good article status; featured article status, etc. The one process that actually uses that word though is Wikipedia:Content assessment. (Here, the more specific process would be through Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka/Assessment). If that's what you're talking about—you think it might deserve something other than start class—you can post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. But (to answer part of your specific question, if I've honed in on the right type of assessment) such assessments are really "not a big deal". They're mostly just for internal Wikipedia Wikiproject maintenance. One other possibility: maybe you're thinking that in light of your addition of citations (thank you!; very important work), the posting of the {{more citations needed}} template should be re-assessed? If so, the article has a large amount of uncited material, so that template still belongs. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thank you so much for the in depth answer you provided, yes I was talking about content assessment, and was thinking it deserves more than start class. Thanks for clarifying because now I can request and assessment without fear I'm wasting someones time. Again thank you for your in depth answer.JMLCarvalho (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

How do I submit an article to wikipedia

I have created a programming language and I want it's page to be on wikipedia. It's name is Plutonium.I have created a draft:Plutonium Programming Language. How do I submit it? Shehryar514 (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, please be aware that writing a new article is difficult, and start by reading your first article. Notability of a topic is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.

Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage. Your draft Draft:Plutonium Programming Language has no such sources and would be rejected if submitted I’m afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Convenience link: Draft:Plutonium Programming Language —valereee (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. —valereee (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have just created it Shehryar514}, it's probably too soon. A lot of people have the idea that Wikipedia is a place to tell the world about something: it isn't. It is a place that summarises what the world has already said about something. Until the world (read "independent commentators published in reliable sources") has talked about a subject, Wikipedia isn't interested in it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Publishing this draft

Hi! After working with Draft:Matthew Kulke quite a bit, I feel as its time to make it an official article. My question is, how exactly would I do this? I saw that theres a button for sandboxes, but otherwise it was very confusing to figure out.

If someone could help me with this, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: You could submit it, but it's likely it might be rejected again since there aren't enough sources yet to demonstrate notability. You should try to cite Kulke's research, which is a large part of the article. Search for his published work on Google scholar. Check out this article I created two months ago Scott Halstead. You can see that the sourcing is more extensive. Read this Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and then the "submitting for review" section when you think it's ready. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do that right now SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Now how exactly would I reference these? Right away just searching his name comes up with quite a few, and some relevant results. Which template (I'm using WP:ProveIt)/ how would I reference these? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: Either Template:Cite web or Template:Cite journal should work, depending on how much time you want to spend filling out the citations. Cite journal takes a bit longer since there are more fields. If the actual journal content is available online, I use cite web to speed things up. If not, then I use cite journal. With cite journal you have a page number parameter, which you don't need with cite web if you link to the actual page using html. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It does thanks, I'll try to work on that this afternoon. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity: I fixed up the draft a bit and moved it to mainspace. The subject was obviously notable per WP:PROF#C5 as the holder of a named chair at Boston University. Note that as an WP:AUTOCONFIRMED user, you don't need to submit a draft for review and you don't need to use the AfC process (unless you want to). When you feel that a draft is ready, you can move it to mainspace via a pagemove yourself using the 'move' button at the top of the page. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nsk92 Thanks for doing that, and thanks for letting me know. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of page numbers in a Wikipedia article

Page numbering in an article?

My question regards citations in a Wikipedia article I am co-authoring, still to be reviewed before publication, as to whether I should include page numbers in books, magazines, or journals I am quoting or referring to in my citations...is it helpful to include these? and briefly, how to do it? Noel A. Sherry (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Noel A. Sherry, it is helpful to editors if you include the page number, as it helps editors verify content. Most citation templates (such as {{cite book}}) support page numbers with the |page= parameter. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Noel A. Sherry. Not only should you, but often it is the single mot important item of data in a citation. The chief purpose of citations is to allow the reader to find the source, and then check themselves for reliability and that it actually verifies the content it is cited to corroborate. People usually provide enough attribution to identify what the source is, but if what's cited has more than one page, without a page number it becomes very difficult to associate what part of the whole actually verifies the information. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include generally, and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Identifying parts of a source (WP:PAGENUM) specifically. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cuckoo editing

Is there a name for this sort of editing? I've just reverted one instance of it, and called it 'cuckooing', which I'm obviously hoping will take off as a cool new term and go viral. :) The thing works like this - there's an existing statement in an article, appropriately referenced:

"The Moon is the Earth's only natural satellite."(ref)

Then someone inserts a bit more:

"The Moon is the Earth's only natural satellite. It is entirely made of cheese."(ref)

Now it looks as if the source supports the added statement instead of, or at best in addition to, the original one. And while moon/cheese is obviously false to most readers (one would hope), less obvious errors could go undetected.

Perhaps there's an essay or even a policy on this that someone could point me towards for more info? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any attempt to deface an article is considered vandalism. It can often be very subtle. You can read more about vandalism at this page. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I sometimes come across this. I assume that the cuckoo is just adding the content that she wants, and is unaware of the reference and its relevance. I generally remove such additions using an edit summary like "rm statement unsupported by source cited". Maproom (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

But The Moon is made of green cheese is a well referenced article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shantavira: This is true. Badly chosen example on my part, should have picked something more controversial. :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand the intent of your proposed term as the placement of a factual statement in text supported by a reference even though the new fact is not supported by that reference, as akin to a cuckoo bird laying an egg in the nest of a bird of a different species. The effort is more likely to be an edit made in good faith versus intentional vandalism. Thus, Maproom's edit summary applies. A conscientious editor might even leave a note on the offending editor's talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that good faith, or "good faith" or "good" "faith". I think it differs depending on the type of topic being covered.

Seperately the use of in-line citation doesn't mean any of the prior content is even referenced. Over time citations moved, in which case it becomes less cuckoo and more paper wasp. Koncorde (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This exact kind of thing is covered in WP:INTEGRITY. Leaving a link to that in your edit summary is pretty much self-explanatory. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: I do rather like your WP:NEOLOGISM as it neatly explains the issues. I might even use it from time to time! Cuckoos, of course, lay their eggs in good faith, and the parent accommodates the young chick equally calmly. Some editors do try to insert text maliciously before citations, but most seem to me to want to correct the wording of a quotation, or add some additional, relevant facts, which may well be quite correct, but which aren't in the source. They can be hard to spot; I found one like that yesterday. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Nick Moyes - Maybe you have a peculiar definition of good faith if it encompasses the nesting behavior of European cuckoos. Many species of birds have better family values than cuckoos. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I think my definition of 'good faith' must certainly be different from yours. I take a biologist's perspective, in that no creature, be it a parasitic plant, a coronavirus, a lion, shark, tapeworm or cuckoo is acting in anything other than good faith when it instinctively follows the natural lifecycle that it has evolved over millions of years to follow. For me, 'bad faith' involves some degree of malicious intent to cause harm or damage to another creature outside of its integral need for survival and food. For example, when I watch one of the peregrine falcons that I have helped to conserve catch a live bird and bring it back to its perch, and then start plucking it alive in front of one of my cameras, before snipping though its neck bone with its specially modified bill, I see no maliciousness or bad faith in those actions whatsoever- it is simply nature red in tooth and claw - quite literally. We should never put our comfortable family values on the rest of nature and condemn individual species for existing or for acting in bad faith. That goes for wasps, too! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: You may be overly generous toward the cuckoos, perhaps they're not as innocent as you think. (In which case, great PR on their side!) But be that as it may, please do use the term wherever you can — you get loyalty points, you know? ;) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing:, I'm not quite sure I understand this, are you saying someone adds information that is true but unsupported by the reference? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SnazzyInfinity: I'm not necessarily saying one thing or the other, sometimes it may be done with an ulterior motive, sometimes inadvertently. My point is, it's difficult to detect, unless you happen to catch it in the act. A few edits later, it will have been buried in the sands of edit history. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: I think you'll have to work up an essay on this subject, with a few nice examples. I'd happily link to it from WP:CUCKOO, if it's a good one! Of course the real cuckoo is innocent. It's just Nature at work! See here. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Nick Moyes: — essay created, my first one! :) Please take a look when you have a mo. Can I make the WP:CUCKOO shortcut myself, or is that something only an admin can do (and if so, would you, please?) Thanks & Regards, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, DoubleGrazing. I often encounter this and it's good to be able to put a name to it. Would it be appropriate to move the essay to Wikipedia:Cuckoo editing, or do you want to keep it in your userspace? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, please @Cordless Larry: absolutely — feel free to move it wherever you think it ought to go; I didn't want to make any presumptions, so just put it in my own user space for now. Very interesting to hear it resonated with you, I guess I wasn't just imagining it, then... Thanks,-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Done - and shortcut created from WP:CUCKOO. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: that's so cool, many thanks! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating a draft

So I am quite familiar with wikipedia's guidelines at this point, so I don't need like disclaimer, rules ect. but I would like to know how to make a draft. I have an idea for an article, I'm just unsure of how to create it, (since I use my sandbox as like a guide and place to remember stuff). Thanks. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, I use Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts myself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

How to publish an article which became a draft?

I recently wrote a new article with proper sources and I published it. But it seems like it came into a state which is known as "draft". This the link to this specific draft page. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dhanith_Sri ) I'm still new here, and I'm not sure what should I do now.. Did I do something wrong? Navintc (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Navintc Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to the draft to allow you to submit it for review. Unless you are very experienced with article creation, that's the best way to create one.

"Publish changes" should be understood to mean simply "save changes", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Navintc. The draft was not accepted because despite what you say about having created it "with proper sources", I would estimate it has not a single one that would meet that description. Sorry. That's also the reason for the decline, posted at the top of the draft. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) – exploring the various links provided there. It may be that an acceptable article can be created, but that depends on rewriting the content by using the right types of sources. Unfortunately, if those sources don't actually exist, no acceptable article is possible. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit I don't see that this draft was submitted, nor declined. Am I missing something?

Cool. Fuhghettaboutit I think this happened due to the referenced sources from youtube. 331dot I guess your magic done its trick and now the page shows a button to "submit the draft for review". Thanks A bunch guys! I removed the youtube links and submitted it for review.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navintc (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

And now - Draft:Dhanith_Sri submitted. Declined. Resubmitted without having made any changes. Rejected. David notMD (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the youtube links, but still, the article still got rejected. I believe the artist is not popular enough to be inserted in to wikipedia.. 331dot (talk)

It seems likely that non-English news sources covering this artist exist, particularly in Sinhala, e.g. based on this [11]. I must admit I have no idea how to do Google Searches in Sinhala or how to transliterate the artist's name there. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

REVIEW NEEDED

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr_Hemachandran_Ravikumar I HAVE SUBMITTED THE PAGE FOR REVIEW WITH ALL REFERENCE BUT IT IS DECLINED STATING THAT THE SUBJECT IS LIKE ADVERTISEMENT BUT ALL THE REFENCE LINKS ARE GIVEN IN THE ARTICLE PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT ALL THE LINKS AND DO THE FINAL REVIEW Nhrp (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nhrp: welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, please do not type in all caps (LIKE THIS), since it is more difficult to read, and it looks aggressive even if that is not your intention. Secondly, the reviewer was right, the draft is written like an advertisement. That does not have anything to do with the references, but with the style of writing. Thirdly, even if it were to be completely rewritten in a neutral tone, it is unfortunotely not very likely that the draft would be accepted, because it does not look as if the person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nhrp. "is a Notable young scientist" is puffery for "is a scientist". I don't even know what "making book secrets of society" means, but it doesn't sound like a neutral description of anything. "This research paper is widely recognized as the valuable theoretical explanation" is puffery for "This paper gives an explanation". I didn't bother to go any further through the draft. --ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with draft

At this point, all I need would be some help and pointers if you don't mind. I just created Draft:The Library of Babel (website), and whenever the right time, I would like to do a couple of things. First of all I want to change The Library of Babel to "The Library of Babel (short story)". If possible in that I want to add one of the redirects and links at the end (which I know how to do) and add this to the Babel disambiguation page (which I also know how to do). The only things stopping me are the fact that my draft IS a draft, and that I haven't a clue how to rename an article. So if anyone would like to give me some advice on the draft, and possibly a point in the right direction, that would be great, thanks. (P.S. to the teahouse staff, I am sorry for asking so many questions) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll give you my opinion, worth every cent you paid for it, its' weight in gold etc.

The Library of Babel should not be moved. I've never heard of it, but it seems the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here.

Your draft, in it's current form, does not clearly show WP:GNG. You have 2 afaict independent sources, and Futurism [12] at a glance seems so-so. I think you should instead use those 2 refs to add a mention of this website at The Library of Babel, in a WP:PROPORTION manner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. I'll take you're advice for the mention. If I did want to continue with my draft, is there any way I could make it more "notable"? SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity:The topic is certainly notable, you just need to add more sources. A quick GoogleNews search uncovers quite a few, including Guardian[13], Slate[14], Smithonian[15], etc. Just add more sources and the draft will be in fine shape. Nsk92 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw those, but didn't know how to include all of them, in the talk page for the draft someone is saying its not notable, so I don't really know. If you could help out with the draft that'd be great, thanks. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You demonstrate notability of the topic by citing these sources in the text of the draft in some meaningful way. Whatever objection to notability somebody raises at the talk page is just their opinion, it's not the final word on the matter. You are entitled to your own opinion and you are entitled to make your case. Moreover, it is your prerogative, as an autoconfirmed user, to move the draft to mainspace when you feel it is ready, even if someone objects. Of course, there's a chance that an article can be listed for a WP:AfD then, and in that case you'd have to make a case for its notability there. By the way, I agree with the above comments that the page The Library of Babel should not be moved. Nsk92 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

With the additional refs mentioned by Nsk92, I say go for it. They're all decent, but Smithsonian (magazine) stands out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

My first edits were reverted unjustly

How come an article can put in so much original research? I read the history of edited and talk page. Not only is this a truly non-notable person, this person’s page is full of grandiose claims. Hugsruing (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Hugsruing (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That article is a mess. It was created in 2011 about a journalist born in 1988 with a claim to notability of a student award. Hugsruing, the thing to do is open a section on the talk page and discuss why you think your edits were an improvement. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BRD and start a discussion at Talk:Charles Thomson (journalist). Focus on content, not contributor. At a glance, there seems to be a lot of WP:ABOUTSELF refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and solutions. Very impressive skillset.I will discuss future edits if controversial on a Talk Page as you suggested. I looking into learning how to edit here to follow the proper format. Hugsruing (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

If I have citation and proof that disproves other claims, and someone keeps claiming that it’s considered to be pov pushing..... How should I respond? BI5427 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

With WP:CIVILITY. The {{disputed-inline}} template, along with a reliable source that supports your point of view, might be useful here. If you use it, immediately open a discussion on the talk page. Make sure your source is reliable and if possible, independent and free of bias related to the dispute. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversial topics

Hi, I am curious about how Wikipedia adds articles to this maintenance list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_controversial_topics Do users just add the topics when they notice that the topic is controversial? Or, does Wikipedia quantify the amount of disputes/edit wars and decide to add the topics to the list? Rohan608 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Forget that category and just steer clear of anything tied to anything on this list. Controversial topics almost always end up having an Arbitration case or GS request made to kerb behavioural issues in the topic area. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)(amended 04:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC))

I appreciate your response with advice to stay away from these articles. I also would appreciate if any editor could speak to how the articles are added to the list re: my original question. Thanks. Rohan608 (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I want to add about myself

I am not a famous celebrity but not a common man, having photography skills and modelling phsique, how can i add this Thenameisaayushjain (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thenameisaayushjain , the short answer is you can't. Wikipedia isn't a webhost; we only repeat what reliable sources have already said about each subject. If nobody has written about a subject, then we don't include it. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that while above said is true and you cannot create an article about yourself, you still can put some information for others to see, but elsewhere: On your userpage! Please check this link Wikipedia:User pages for some guidelines because not everything is allowed. The downside is ofc that most people will not see that, as your userspace is mostly meant for communication with other Wikipedians. But it's better than nothing (and better than creating an undue article about yourself), and it can be quite fun with WP:userboxes. You could e.g. state here that you have awesome photography skills, and maybe if you are willing to help Wikipedia with them someone could contact you and ask for a photo of a landmark or sth. I have no reason to brag with it, but you can check out my userpage if you want to get an idea (I admit there are more creative ones out there ^^). Just click your currently red username (Thenameisaayushjain) to create your userpage. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thenameisaayushjain, when it comes to telling the world about your "modelling physique", Wiikpedia is not the place. Please use social media for that. Your photography skills may come to good use with respect to Wikimedia Commons, provided you donate your photos for unlimited reuse for any purpose.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

photo

hi guys how do i add a photo. thanks. Wisdomwarrior27 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Images. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Wisdomwarrior27, use the file upload wizard to upload images, the link for it is here.SenatorLEVI (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

how to add a gap above first line of a Teahouse reply

a small gap above first line of a Teahouse reply is added automatically when a user template follows an indentation. is there any way to add this gap when starting a reply with just an indentation, and no user template ? (Example with no gaps above replies) Gfigs (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

When I put this reply, I can still see a smal gap above it. Possibly the no-gap issue is related to your browser...? --CiaPan (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a ping to User:Gfigs. --CiaPan (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

CiaPan ,that would not be good..as you can see, no gap above this reply either Gfigs (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Gfigs, welcome to the Teahouse. Perhaps you could take a screenshot and annotate what you're seeing/what you want to accomplish, and post it as an imgur link? It may turn out to be a browser-related issue as CiaPan points out above, or there may be some simple syntax that we can recommend. CThomas³ (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Gfigs, you can insert a larger than normal gap by inserting one (or more) empty line, like I did above this reply. —teb728 t c 19:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Cthomas3 ,as newby, will look into doing that..teb728 ,that clearly did not do it. CiaPan ,am trying to accomplish the gap you mentioned in your post..Gfigs (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gfigs, how about this reply with an html br tag? —teb728 t c 09:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gfigs, to create a blank linespace, simply double-click the "Enter" bar on your keyboard. Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

br tags and newlines won't do it Gfigs (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gfigs, to make a blank line, double-click your "Enter" bar to create double-spacing (also known as paragraph spacing). See Help:Wikitext#Line breaks. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender ,ok

will try this.. Gfigs (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sub Page

How to create a sub page of my userpage? DeepGlow²⁰⁰⁹ (talk • contribs)

Hello DeepGlow2009. Simply add a slash and a mnemonic keyword after the URL of your userpage, and search for that expanded URL. You will get a message saying that the page does not exist, but it will give you an option to create the page. Do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Concern

I have a concern about the user Hatchens who is misusing the AFC power. He keeps on declining Draft:MyGate while giving baseless reasons. He himself is an AfC reviewer but seeks help from other editors in order to find out whether subject is notable or not. My concern is

Why is he jumping into something which he has no knowledge of or unsure about notability of a specific topic.

Not once, he declined the above draft twice giving same reasons 1) being promotional 2) sources don't show notability.

On one hand, he's unsure about notability of this subject; on the other hand, he even declined it twice even though the draft was not at all promotional and had over seventeen sources which were more than enough to justify notability of this subject. When I first reached out to him asking for an explanation. He advises me to expand the page and add more citations from reliable sources in order for him to find out whether or not the topic is notable.

It was not even a stub article and as mentioned, had more than seventeen sources, each covering the topic in detail. I followed what he said but he refused to review the draft again stating would leave it to another reviewer. And after certain days what I see is the same user declines the page again for same reasons. The 2nd draft was not promotional either and had enough sources. He also added a paid editing template while I had disclosed the coi way befor and the tag was not needed. When I asked as to why he reviewed the page again when he had clearly refused to look at it again. He did not answer any of the questions I asked and pinged another editor, who was a more senior editor and seemed to have a great deal of experience, to help him identify if the topic was notable and the editor replied stating "from what I've just read about the Mygate app it certainly meets WP:SIGCOV. The article seems reasonably well written now and has enough citations in my opinion."

He is trying to cover his mistakes by putting false allegations on me and harrasing me. Just look at his comments across the Draft:MyGate, he is treating it like a talk page. I will really appreciate it if anyone helps me out with this. Thanks. Loveneeth (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Loveneeth, I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you here. You have been hired to create an article about this company (as declared on your user page), and Hatchens has really gone above and beyond what is asked of a volunteer editor to help you out. It looks like you have moved the draft into article space at least twice, maybe more, and it is good that you have stopped doing that, but you also need to stop arguing on other editors' user talk pages; a few days ago you complained that Hatchens reviewed the draft, and now you seem to complain about the fact that they leave the draft for somebody else to review. The comments that Hatchens has left at Draft:MyGate are more than reasonable; I don't see that the company obviously meets the notability criteria, and many of the references are simply re-hashed press releases, but in any case this is for the AfC reviewer(s) to determine, not for the company itself or their representatives. The deletion history of MyGate speaks for itself – this is a company that seems somewhat desperate to have a Wikipedia article (and it is interesting to note that when you look for sources, secondary sources such as this are prominent, but the draft doesn't mention a single word about that criticism. In other words, it is certainly promotional still.)

At this point, you have resubmitted the draft yet again, and you'll need to wait the days or weeks or months it will take for another volunteer reviewer to go through it. Keep in mind that an article that has been accepted through AfC can still be deleted later; AfC review is a way to check that it is more likely than not that an article would be kept in a deletion discussion, but it is not a guarantee of that. --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Loveneeth. While it can be frustrating to have a draft declined even once, please try assume WP:AGF and don’t immediately jump to the conclusion that Hatchens or any other AFC reviewer is misusing some kind of power. AFC reviewers are just like any other editor in that they’re WP:VOLUNTEERs just trying to help out and be WP:HERE. You yourself are asking the community to AGF that you’re HERE after all by doing your best to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines even though you’re a WP:COI/WP:PAID editor and many members are quite wary of and have serious concerns about such editors. The draft was last declined in November 9 and it’s currently waiting for an another review. Perhaps the third time will be the charm, but please be patient and see what happens. If you want some more specific feedback on the draft, maybe try WP:AFCHELP. There are also quite a few Teahouse host who also help out at AFC. Either way, there are really not a lot of WP:DEADLINES when it comes to Wikipedia; so, once again please try and be a little more patient and see how the third review plays out. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually suspect this draft could just about prove notability, but it would need to include the sources both on the privacy issues and on the legal wrangling (that is, they and a competitor are suing each other for IP and data theft). The accusations made are not warranted Nosebagbear (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Loveneeth, thank you for disclosing your paid contributor status on your user. You'll need to disclose it also on the article talk.

To make this easy for us, would you please provide here the three sources and only three which represent the most reliable significant independent coverage? —valereee (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Make that "the most reliable significant independent coverage." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GGS. Loveneeth, I've removed some puffery and started sections about the privacy/data misuse concerns and the lawsuits. I'd suggest filling those sections in with neutral information. —valereee (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

and I have accepted the draft as it would likely survive an afd. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesty pinging @Hatchens: — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Berrely, Thank you for the ping. Sorry, I was not aware about this discussion. Since, Theroadislong and Valereee have taken a call on MyGate. Then, we all should abide by their decision. Thanks to Bonadea for accepting and justifying my "logic of denial" at the first place. And, also thanks to Marchjuly for much required hand-holding. -Hatchens (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, sorry, the initial post was so long I didn't notice you hadn't been pinged. You did fine, the article was heavily promotional and one-sided and created by a paid editor. I'd have been pretty leery too. :) —valereee (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, no problemo at all. It happens. Thank you for appreciating my approach (of due diligence). Nowadays, it's getting tougher to keep Wikipedia clean - so count me in, if you need any helping hand. - Hatchens (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly recommend AfD. The first sentence of the article "MyGate is a security and community management app." Nowhere in the rest of the article is there any description of what MyGate does, or where it does it, or how it does it. Everything is about securing financing, I am guessing based on press releases as references. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David notMD. It's a crappy article, saying very little about what the company actually does, and sourced to news items based on press releases and interviews. Maproom (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Homoeopathy is not a pseudoscience

2402:8100:3922:265:6C36:6DF6:3140:F633 (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, this has been discussed numerous times at Talk: Homeopathy, see the various FAQs to discussions there. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is being a wikipedia editor fun ?

Is being a wikipedia editor fun ? Verzilliz (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think so. Your mileage may vary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Verzilliz, it depends on which part of Wikipedia you edit and how you experience fun. I certainly find it satisfying and often fun. If you're looking for silliness in the Wikipedia community, check out WP:SILLY, although a lot of it might be in-jokes that won't make sense until you have some experience. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't describe it as fun. It needs care and effort, and can occasionally be frustrating. But I find it satisfying and worthwhile. Other people's opinions will vary. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

How to find similar articles

So after coming to a pleasant conclusion with Matthew_Kulke, which I now consider done (for the most part) I am willing to open my horizon. I had a good time re-writing/re-organizing this article and adding references. I'd like to find similar Biographies in need of clean-up, but I am unsure of how to find them, thanks. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, Have you come across Wikipedia:Community portal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have but I'll check that out later, thanks SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, I've found the SuggestBot useful for this. Essentially, you place some code on your Talk page which tells the bot what categories you are interested in. It will then give you a list of articles in that category that need work. For example, this code:

{{User:SuggestBot/suggest|Category:Harvard Medical School faculty}}

will find articles on people from the Harvard Medical School. Or, you can leave out the category and it will find articles based on other articles that you have edited (although you really need to have edited several articles for this to be effective). More information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuggestBot. Mike Marchmont (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Favorite singer

I was reading about on of my favorite singer, Tarsem Jassar and I realized that his discography was a little wrong. The Song "Single Double" should be under Sardar Mohammad but it is under Rabb Da Radio. I tried to fix it, by it got ruined. Can anyone try to fix it. AppleAKB (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Done, that checks out. And it was indeed difficult to edit that (at least in source view like I do), but after some trial&error I think I managed. @AppleAKB feel free to check out if it looks good to you now. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Fingers and toes

How come there are five separate articles***** for each finger but there's only one* article for each toe? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Trevortnidesserped, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to "why isn't there an article on ..." is always either "because nobody has written it yet" or "because it was deleted". The answer to "why is there an article on ... " is always "because somebody wrote it and nobody has deleted it". In either case, a secondary question is "are there sources to establish that the subject is notable? If not, then there shouldn't be an article on it.

In this case, it seems quite reasonable that the individual fingers play a distinct enough role in many cultures that there are enough sources to justify an article on each; while there is little cultural weight attached to the toes individually except perhaps for the hallux. What do you propose that an article on the second toe, for example, should contain? --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, I guess I should've thought about it first. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There could possibly be a case for a WP:MERGE of all these articles into just this one. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes lol, good one XD

Seriously though, while the answer is pretty obvious, the question is actually quite good imo: The Wikipedia article density here properly represents notability of these features, which are anatomically quite similar, but have a huge difference in human cultural significance. That's the same reason why e.g. in some other area, two hydrologically almost identical lakes might have a different notability/coverage level: Because one might be incredibly important for humans, while the other one might be just a forgotten backwater, so to say. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

[Flora-1] Willmot, A.; Moyes, N. (2015). The Flora of Derbyshire. Pisces Publications. ISBN 978-1-874357-65-0.

[2] Tribune, Chicago. "Judge: Baha'i believers can call themselves Baha'i". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2020-11-18.

[1]

[1]