Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1009

Archive 1005

←

Archive 1007

Archive 1008

Archive 1009

Archive 1010

Archive 1011

→

Archive 1015

Correct Citation Format: "dead-url=" or "url-status

Which is format is correct?

   |url-status=dead & |url-status=live

Or:

   |dead-url=yes &|dead-url=no

WP:LINKROT suggests that the "dead-url=" is correct, but Help:CS1 errors lists "dead-url=" as a deprecated parameter, and I'm seeing that now show up as an error in actual articles (see citations for ARPANET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Henderson (talk • contribs)

Hi Carl Henderson. You should use the syntax that works. It's quite possible that the change was made and neither the LINKROT page nor the individual template page's were updated. At the same time, it appears from Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 3#deprecated dead-url is causing lots of confusion at the moment; you might want to point out that things like the LINKROT page will also need to be updated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have gone in and suggested documentation updates at Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 3#deprecated dead-url as per your suggestion. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Templates can be very tricky to edit, which is why many are protected. Changing even a single character can cause tons of problems depending upon how widely the template is being used. This particular change appears to be quite contentious and might not've been properly discussed before being made; so, perhaps the thing to do would be to sit tight a bit and leave the CS1 errors as is (no matter how "wrong" that seems) because things might ultimately sort themselves out if the change is reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I Published new articale

I Hope that you are doing well by the way I am recently joined Wikipedia as to contribute , So I need to know how I can Published new article

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussein.diad (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hussein.diad: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to add to it. You can read about creating a new article at WP:YFA. This is not an easy thing to start with for a new editor, so the usual advice is to start by making improvements to existing articles instead. Check out the tutorial (WP:TUTORIAL) and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hussein.diad: As Rudolf said, writing content for Wikipedia is one of the most difficult tasks, especially for a new editor or one whose first language is not English. Just like articles in newspapers, books, and other encyclopedias (e.g., Los Angeles Times and Encyclopædia Britannica), Wikipedia articles are to be written in proper English, with correct spelling, capitalization, grammar, punctuation, and other formatting per our manual of style. Another key requirement is citing of reliable sources. Please have a look at these pages for guidance on future contributions. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Publishing article for future generations

I have always wanted to have an article about my music and life to be published on Wikipedia for the future generations. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosariodemarcomardesar (talk • contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosariodemarcomardesar. The quick and easy answer is that you don't per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The more involved answer has to do with whether you would be someone considered to be Wikipedia notable for an article about you to be written. For more information on the whether you possibly are Wikipedia notable, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Ownership of content because you will pretty much have no final editorial control over any Wikipedia article about you; in other words, you might end up being remembered, but not exactly for the things or the ways you want to be remembered.

As for the content you've added so far to your user page, you need to be aware of WP:UPYES and WP:UP#NOT. While users are allowed to add some personal information about themselves to their user pages, a user page is not really intended to be a personal website or online profile. Your's is currently heading in the direction (if not already there) or being a WP:FAKEARTICLE which means it's at risk of being deleted per speedy deletion criterion U5; so, you might want to make sure it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines before that happens. Now, if you truly think you're Wikipedia notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be written about you, you would be better off working on a draft for such an article as a userspace draft instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add (underlined) comment about user pages due to an edit conflict encountered before the addition could be saved. -- 07:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)]

I will add that your User page is for descriptions of your intentions as a Wikipedia editor, not a draft of an article about you. David notMD (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Saoradh

How can I fix the links on Saoradh quite a few of them show in red "Cite web requires |website= (help)"?

Devokewater (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Devokewater. I don't see any citation errors in the current version of the article; so, perhaps you figured things out. For reference, the {{cite web}} template is specifically used for citing online sources, which mean a link to the source needs to be provided for the template to work properly. If no such link is provided, you'll see the error message referred to in your post. Some templates ({{cite book}} and {{cite news}} are two such examples) can be used without providing an online source because they are technically citing a published work, not a specific website, and published works are not required to be available online per WP:SAYWHERE. One last thing to remember when using "cite web", you also should use the parameter |access-date=, particularly when the |date= is not used, because it gives others some idea as to when the source was last checked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly

Devokewater (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lua Error in Module

Can anyone help to fix this error "Lua Error in Module" in an article Greensole Foundation I can see this for all references. JainAllow (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I just checked again and it is fixed now.JainAllow (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There are people working on updating citation templates. Expect the unexpected for a while, and hope for the best. I wouldn't bother until the dust settles, other errors may be incoming, or these errors could be fixed automatically later by reverting the changes that are being made, or by running a bot to fix the mess.Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 13:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi JainAllow, welcome to the Teahouse. It was a temporary issue caused by an edit to Module:Citation/CS1. The edit was reverted and I updated the article with a purge. There is currently work on error messages for citation templates and other articles may also show this or other problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank You JainAllow (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How to not get your articles deleted on Wikipedia

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia world, in terms of contributing...so I wanted to ask how to put up reference links i.e. is there any quantifiable parameter to choose a link for reference or is it random? Second, I also want to know what part of content makes an article promotional because recently, one of my articles got deleted for being promotional, whereas other articles in the same genre are accepted and comfortably live. Kindly provide an easy and understandable list of parameters that one should keep in mind. I will be waiting for your response.

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashvat Vats (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You can read about referencing, reliable sources, and promotion. As for comparison with other articles, please read WP:Other stuff exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of user pages?

If they're not like profiles on other websites, what are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambambo (talk • contribs) 09:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely what WP:Userpage says they are. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Zambambo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User pages are a place to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. Most users talk about what articles or subjects they are interested in, what they do on Wikipedia, and things like that. As you state, they are not general social media-type pages. As noted by Usedtobecool, WP:USERPAGE describes what is (and is not) acceptable user page content. Also understand that it is not required to have anything on your user page, many long time users do not have a user page, and others simply redirect it to their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources in music articles

Hi! I've been editing a draft for The APX band Draft:The_APX and it has been declined three times. Firts in November, as it was "too soon" and there were "no reliable sources about their international tour". The tour was postponed from 2018 to 2019 and once I added the sources for the tour in 2019 it was again declined, because "Allmusic.com, top40-charts.com and broadwayworld.com are not reliable sources". I wonder why they are bad sources as they've been used in hundreads (or thousands) of other music articles. In July I added a new source, Bandcamp.com, which has been mentioned in thousands of articles but the draft was declined again. There's now 17 sources, all external to the band and I'm asked to remove "all the unreliable sources before resubmitting it for a review". Should I do that? If I remove allmusic, top40, bww and bandcamp there will be 11 sources left. Any other ideas about how to improve the draft or explanations about why these sources are so bad? And yes, I'm a paid editor and open about it. The article was created by someone who was not open and he was being blocked (for ever) before he was able to confess. Jjanhone (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: - AllMusic is reliable, GSS is incorrect. The discussions on it can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (which is a good place to find other possible sources). BWW probably is unreliable, the reliable sources noticeboard has had a couple of short discussions on it. Top40 charts is unclear. I've removed the UDP tag as I felt that most of the content had now been handled by you, and if you were a non-paid editor it would be a legitimate removal.

Trying to find a non BWW source for the tour might be a good way of proving notability. If you manage that, feel free to ping me for a review - the same reviewer is generally discouraged from doing multiple consecutive reviews of a draft unless it either doesn't change or we're requested Nosebagbear (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Author

I have a predicament. If a person has this (©), in the author name, does this mean that I cannot publish that photo in wiki media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi BigRed606 and welcome to the Teahouse. If an image is copyright, then you cannot upload it to Commons. The copyright holder can release the copyright is they upload it. See WP:Images for more detail and the restrictive "fair use" restriction for uploading direct to Wikipedia. Dbfirs 13:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@BigRed606: I'm a bit unsure as to what you are referring to, but am I right in thinking you are looking at an image on a website outside of Wikipedia, and wanting to upload that image to Wikimedia? If so, then yes - the Copyright symbol indicates that except in a few limited cases it cannot be used on Wikipedia as we require all of our content to be free from any license restrictions. It's worth noting that even if content doesn't have a copyright symbol, it is still almost always copyright and therefore not usable on Wikipedia unless there is an explicit statement releasing it for public use. Hug^syrup 13:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you for answering my question. I did not want to brake any Wikipedia guidelines and brake copyright infringement. BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 September 2019

Another question, can you use Pinterest for a picture source as long as the author has the image free to use BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 4 September 2019

You can but bear in mind that, as I said above, free to use doesn't mean absence of a copyright symbol, it means the owner has actively placed a statement releasing it under a license that is acceptable to Wikipedia. In other words, if there is no indication of whether the image is copyright or not, then it is copyright. Also, I don't really use Pinterest so I might be wrong, but I understand that it is often a collection of images found elsewhere on the web, so you need to consider whether the owner of the pinboard where you find it is actually the owner of the image or not. Hug^syrup 15:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I edit existing Wikipedia pages?

I am looking to clarify how I edit existing Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trading Technologies Marketing (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trading Technologies Marketing: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To edit an article, you click "edit" at the top of the article. If you need more clarification, please ask- but first you will need to change your username, as usernames cannot be that of a business or organization per the username policy; please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS as soon as possible to make a request. In addition, if you intend to edit about your company or its clients, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trading Technologies Marketing: Welcome to Wikiepdia. After you resolve the username issue and create an individual account, there are a couple of useful resources to look at for learning how to edit. There is the Wikipedia Tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL and also the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. Please consider working on articles not related to your employer instead. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting your business. RudolfRed (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trading Technologies Marketing: fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do help pages with "... additional citations needed" marking?

There are pages I see that have the message on top of the page saying "This article needs additional citations". But when I put new citations in places where I think it might be needing the same marking on the top of the page still just stays there. Then why did I went on to put new citations? Are they not getting counted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absol069 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Absol069 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That message is not automatic; it is placed there by a human and would need to be removed by a human. If you have added appropriate citations and feel that there is enough of them in the article, you may remove the message yourself- but be prepared to justify your removal should others disagree. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Android Wikipedia app displays vandalized content that has already been reverted

For the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_United page, under

"| clubname = New Mexico United",

the following vandalism still appears on my Android Wikipedia App:

"New Mexico(best team ever) Go follow my boi @saxophone.harbus on Instagram United"

This has apparently been reverted by a bot, however when I try to edit the page on my phone, I am unable to locate the vandalism in the edit page. I've tried swiping down to reload the page, clearing my Wikipedia's App cache, and signing out then signing back into my app.

Does anyone else see this? How can it be fixed.

--Leveretth (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Leveretth: If you're sure it's not a cache issue, you might be better off posting at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@TimTempleton: Clearing my Wikipedia App cache didn't work, but restarting it did. Thank you! --Leveretth (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I create articles as a new contributor?

There's an article I want to create with the page name Institution of Textile Engineers and Technologists. I seem to find no existing page for that or even nothing relating to the same thing. Now, how do I do it. Any beginners' level advice and help would be appreciated. Thanks. PaintItColourless (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@PaintItColourless: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can find the guidance at WP:YFA and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. Creating a new article is not an easy task for a new editor. I suggest you start by getting experience by working on improving existing articles instead. See the tutorial and also the interactive learning game at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

RudolfRed, I'm concerned that this account is a block evasion, per edits here, for instance [1]. I've asked the administrator who blocked the previous account to have a look. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:F560:C171:2103:90BF (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A (Probably Silly) Question About Vandalism

So, uh, yeah, this is probably a silly question to be asking, since the answer seems so obvious, but I was wondering...

...what are the ways you can tell someone has vandalized a page?

--FunnyComedianGuy (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at the differences. The most common vandalism is random characters, rude words, or an editor adding their own name or a friend's name. Usually vandalism is fairly obvious, but sometimes it can be quite subtle, and then one needs to do some research to check whether the edit is supported by a WP:Reliable source. Most vandalism is reverted within a few minutes, but I once found some that had been in an article for years. Dbfirs 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FunnyComedianGuy. You can find out more about this topic by reading the page at WP:VANDALISM. Some vandalism occurs when people try to insert humorous edits into serious articles and, inevitably, your username tempted me to look at your own edits. I'm pleased to say all were made in good faith, but I could take this chance to point out a few errors in your early days of editing:

• We never include links in section headings (as you've done at Draft:Manu Carreño)
• Drafts aren't yet live articles, and need to be either moved into what we call 'mainspace' or, better still, submitted for review. (see WP:DRAFTS). I've added a 'submit' button to that draft for you to click when you're ready. In the meantime, it would be good if you could improve the way references are displayed. I've enhanced the first reference for you, and you should try using the 'Cite web' button which you'll find in the editing toolbar. With just a url you can often autocomplete the majority of the reference. (See also Referencing for Beginners).
• There is a very structured and formal approach for submitting articles for Did You Know? on the Wikipedia homepage. Unfortunately it is far more than just adding a hyperlink to an unpublished draft, (as you did here). I'm afraid I had to remove your submission. However the essence of DYK is that, once a draft is published in mainspace, you have 7 days to complete a DYK submission template. This means you have to find an interesting 'hook' which will interest readers, which must be fully supported by a suitable reference. Every articles has to be properly structured according to our Manual of Style. I really encourage you to consider submitting a DYK as it's a great way for your efforts in creating a new article to be recognised. But I'll be frank: it's not an easy task by any means (it has quite necessarily complex instructions, I'm afraid), so I'd suggest you work on understanding the basics of editing first. In other words, you could wait to submit your draft artile until it's really ready and you've worked out how the DYK process works.
• If you think an article needs to have an alternative way of being found, we have a system called REDIRECTS which anyone can create in order to send someone to the right page. I see you created Draft:Robert MacDonnell in the vain hope it would redirect to Bob McDonnell. In fact, we already have the redirect called Robert McDonnell which serves this purpose. Drafts are never used for this purpose. Someone here can give you instructions on how to request an administrator to delete it, or you can simply leave it untouched and it'll get automatically deleted after 6 months, as all unedited drafts are. If you really feel Robert MacDonnell (with an extra 'a' is genuinely justified, a redirect could be created, but I'm not convinced it's really needed.

I hope this feedback is of some help to you. You might like to try out The Wikipedia Adventure to get a feel of the basics of editing. Come back and ask anything about editing, at anytime. The Teahouse never closes! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Username

I am new member, just now. The username I chose was already in use so I entered a new username. I created my account. But....My account is using the first username they said was already used, not my second choice. What's going on, please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankdadbrown (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frankdadbrown. That's weird! You didn't say what your preferred account name is, but the simple solution is to abandon this account, never use it again (ever), and simply go back and try again with your chosen name, and just use that account name from now on. (I've no idea if this is relevant, but just recently there have been situations on Wikipedia where I've found myself in edit conflict with myself - possibly due to some sort of server lag in which one tries a second time to do something that didn't appear to work the first time around, but which did actually go ahead. The second keypress then yields a "you can't do this as it's already been done by someone else" message. Maybe that's what's happened here.) But long story short: just try to create the new account name (with a different password) and you should be fine. Come back and let us know how you get on and one of us will drop a nice friendly welcome message full of useful links on your new userpage for you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I add to references at bottom of page?

I am trying to add a couple references to the bottom of this page (# 26 & 27) I can't for the life of me figure this out!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%22Miles%22_Standish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike 'n Miles (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mike 'n Miles. You do not add references to the bottom of the page. The wiki software does that automatically. Instead, you add the references in the body of the article, right after the sentence or sentences that the reference supports. Please read Referencing for beginners for a complete explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mike 'n Miles. Just want to point out that it's technically possible to add fully formatted references to the "References" section, and then have them link back to footnote markers in the body of the article as explained in Help:Shortened footnotes and Help:List-defined references; such a citation style, however, isn't really common practice and can be tricky to get to work correctly. In addition, when adding citations to the article, you should also try to stick with the citation style already established for the article (including the date format being used per WP:DATEUNIFY) and avoid switching to a another citation style without discussing things first on the article's talk page per WP:CITEVAR. If you think there's a good reason to change to another style, just explain why on the article's talk page and see what other editors think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

moving ?? a talk section

I moved material from Tulsi_Gabbard#Political_positions to create Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard (leaving a summary in the latter). I have also started Talk:Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard#Armenia_and_Azerbaijan_§ to continue discussion of issues raised at Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard#The_Daily_Wire_&_the_Daily_Caller_on_Artsakh. Is there a mechanism to move/copy/?? that section from the 'Tulsi Gabbard' talk page to the 'Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard' page for ease of reference? Humanengr (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr. It's not always necessary to physically remove a discussion from one talk page to move/continue the same discussion on another talk page. Sometimes just letting others know that the discussion has been "moved" with templates such as Template:Moved discussion to and Template:Moved discussion from is sufficient. Generally, discussion threads/comments should only really be removed in their entirety when they're a serious policy or guidelines violation such as WP:TPG#Removing prohibited material, WP:TPG#Removing harmful posts or WP:TPG#Off-topic posts; moreover, for off-topic posts, "collapsing" is sometimes even preferred to outright removal.

Copying posts made by others on one talk page to another talk page can also be confusing because there is really no record of them making the post on the new talk page; it probably can be done if proper attribution is given; unlike in the case of article content, however, some people can get pretty upset when their posts are moved around like that particularly with respect to a difficult or contentious discussions (see all WP:REFACTOR#Concerns). So, it's better, in my opinion, to use wikilinks or diffs whenever possible if you want to refer to something someone posted on one talk page on a different talk page.

One last thing to remember is that moving a discussion to a new page is a WP:BOLD move that some others might not agree with, which is why it might be a good idea to at least try and see what others think before unilaterally making such a move. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

problem using the Cite Book template in Wikimedia Commons

Today I used the Cite Book template (as I have done many times before) to document something I was writing in a description for a Wikimedia Commons category (Category:Statues of Androgynous Angels). I used the |location= parameter to specify New York (the location of the publisher), and the |publisher= parameter to indicate The Free Press (the name of the publisher). When I did a preview, the New York entry appeared as Category:New York - a link which (of course) went nowhere, as the 'real' category is New York City. I couldn't figure out why the template wanted to make New York a category, so I eliminated the whole |location= parameter, and entered |publisher=New York: The Free Press, which made the entry look correct. I've left the entry with my 'kludge' modification (an early computer-era term for a slapdash solution), but it probably could be tested by editing the page and re-entering |location=New York and doing a preview (without saving). I'd like to find out what I might have been doing wrong (assuming it's not a bug in Cite Book).

Seauton (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seauton. Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects. While there's lots of similarities and overlapping content, not everything that works of Wikipedia will work on Commons. Templates, for example, used on Wikipedia are uploaded locally and unless there is an identical template with exactly the same name uploaded locally to Wikipedia Commons, the template is not going to work. Even if there are local versions for a template uplaoded to each project, the template will only work as it's been set up to work, i.e. according to it's documentation page. Template:Cite book is what the template looks like on Wikipedia, and c:Template:Cite book is what it looks like on Commons; since they're technically for separate projects, it would be better discuss the Commons one on Commons, perhaps at Commons:Village pump/Technical. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I understand.

Seauton (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirect for only a citation?

Is it customary to have a redirect whose target is the author of a reference in an article? Scott Baron redirects to Leslie Nielsen, and the only mention that I see of Scott Baron is as co-author of a reference (number 20 at the time I write this post). It just seems a bit obscure. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Teblick. I think that redirects are really only use when they lead to content about the subject in the target article. The fact that only mention of Baron in the Nielsen article is as an author of a cited work is not, in my opinion, really a good use of a redirect per WP:R#DELETE. Now, it might be possible that Baron might be able to be mentioned in some other article (just only requiring a tweaking of the redirect) or even be notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:NAUTHOR, but those are different questions to be asked. For reference, the editor who created the redirect is no longer active, but their user talk page seems to show that some other redirects they created ended up being deleted via WP:RFD; so, maybe this is just another one of that type that nobody noticed before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Converting a Redirect into an Article Which has been Deleted

WP:RTOA says that I could edit a redirect if I think that it should be expanded into a new article. However, if the article has been deleted and turned into a redirect, is this still the case? Do I need to discuss it with the deleter?

The specific articles I am referring to, Flusha and KRIMZ, were nominated for deletion over 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxxl2 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lxxl2. Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages is only an essay, but you might find it helpful. When a particular article is deleted via AfC, it's because that particular version of the article was deemed unacceptable as a stand-alone article at that particular time. In the two years since their deletion, however, things might have changed quite a bit and these subjects which were once considered to be WP:TOOSOON, etc. might now have received the WP:SIGCOV to now justify stand-alone articles about them. I cannot see the older articles, but if you feel you can create "newer" versions which are substantially different and vast improvements over the deleted ones, then they shouldn't end up being deleted per WP:G4.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to work on drafts for each article and then ask the administrator(s) who deleted the articles to take a look at the drafts and assess them. If the drafts are a vast improvement, the administrator may just restore the deleted articles and let you simply add your improvements to them. If the deleted articles had too many problems to be worth restoring, then maybe the administrator will just move the drafts to the mainspace as new articles. While discussing things with the deleting admin first might seem to be a unnecessary hoop to jump through, it's probably a good idea as a courtesy and also to make sure any recreation you simply add directly to the mainspace is not going to end up quickly deleted for the same reasons as before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. I don't know why the original creator didn't argue, so hopefully I will be able to get the articles back.Lxxl (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal

This Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Intelligence_Distinguished_Service_Medal I tried to add Herbert E Meyer. He was awarded the medal in 1986. Here is a speech CIA director Bill Casey made during the ceremony; https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00988R000100090011-1.pdf

Can you have a more computer savvy person edit the site for me?

Thank you!

 Done. @Flushingflash11: If you want to try editing Wikipedia, please leave a message on my talk page (just click the "talk" link near the end of this message), and I'll be more than happy to help you. William2001^(talk) 03:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

question

I am a full Professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. I am a clinical researcher in the area of transplantation. I received an email from an individual that he will write about me for Wikipedia. Is this legitimate. His name is Saad Akhtar. How to proceed. Would appreciate your input.

Dr Sundaram Hariharan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.124.169 (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.186.124.169: Hello. I cannot tell if Saad Akhtar is legitimate or not, but if this person is requesting anything from you in exchange for writing your article, I would advise you not to do it. William2001^(talk) 03:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Key for this query is whether Akhtar is offering to try to create a Wikipedia biography article about you in return for being paid. Paid is frowned upon but not forbidden. There is no guarantee that your accomplishments meet Wikipedia's criteria for academics. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Briefly, having a successful academic career is not enough. David notMD (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I created my Wikipedia page,how do I upload my picture

I created my Wikipedia page and I want to post it so every could easily search me and read about me. And how can I upload my photo. I page name is PuneGreatness. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuneGreatness (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

PuneGreatness Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. So what you did was edit your user page, which is not article space. Because of that, it is not searchable by search engines. You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media like Facebook for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where we are interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in your case, you would need to meet the definition of a notable musician written at WP:BAND in order to merit an article here. Not every musician merits an article here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. As such, autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources have said about you. As you can imagine, this is very difficult for most people to do. The best thing for you to do is to allow others to take note of your music career and write about you. If you have any contributions you want to make to Wikipedia that are not about yourself, feel free.

Also note that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily desirable. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer or prevent others from editing it. Please keep this in mind. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@PuneGreatness: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! To upload a photo, you can use the File Upload Wizard. But, you need to note that:

• Your userpage is a place where you can tell other editors a little bit about yourself. Please read Wikipedia:User pages for more information.
• I highly doubt anyone would look you up. If you want, you can make an article with the Article wizard. However, if you were to do that, you would have a conflict of interest. See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography.

I hope this helps. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

PuneGreatness, you are welcome to write a little about yourself on your user page, but it must not look like an article. Please re-write it in "first person" (using "I"), not third person as in articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so cannot be used for promotion. Dbfirs 06:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Citing video as reference

On the Template:Did you know nominations/B. M. Kutty an issue has been raised by the reviewer that a YouTube video can't be used as reference. My take is that if the video on YouTube is hosted by a reliable channel (The Print in this matter and authored by Shekhar Gupta, third highest civilian award-winning and a well known journalist from India) it can be very well cited as inline reference. Reviewer also believes that as DYK hooks appear on the Main Page so they should maintain highest standards which is sort of vague point as for me all the articles of Wikipedia must maintain highest standards of quality irrespective of where they appear. A source is either "reliable" or not. So the moot point here is whether a video from this particular channel can be cited as reference especially when it is authored by a well known journalist. I am new to Wikipedia so can't claim to understand all of its policies but no where I found that there is any ban on citing videos as references. Please share your thoughts on the matter.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deepak G Goswami. I don't really think it is appropriate to bring that discussion to another forum. The place to discuss which sources are acceptable to the WP:DYK process is firstly (as has happened) at the specific DYK template you've linked to above. If you feel further input is required I'd either ping some of the active/experienced DYK editors to that discussion (see here), or raise it more generally at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. I sense that the other editor (Nsk92) is correct in their interpretation about the need for stricter sourcing for mainpage DYK articles, but it's not the best idea to shop around for different views as nothing we can say here will impact on the acceptability or otherwise of a DYK nomination. Good luck with it, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick for your insight. I am not trying to "bring" any discussion here. My bad if it seems like that. As I am new to the platform and don't understand its working environment so thought people here would help me understand whether or not a video can be cited as reference. If I had any intention to "bring the discussion" here or anywhere for that matter I'd have notified the reviewer. A user told me how I can ask for help on this page. It's not a matter of DYK but the reliability of using a video as reference in an article.--01:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak G Goswami (talk • contribs)

@Deepak G Goswami: my apologies if I misunderstood the reason behind your question. Ignoring DYK, no, there's nothing in policy to stop you citing a good Youtube video, providing it is from a reliable sources such as recognised news channels, and doesn't breach anyone's copyright. You would use Template:Cite AV media when citing videos. There is an essay (not a policy or guideline) called Wikipedia:Videos as references you might find helpful, and then there's WP:RSN to gain opinion from expert volunteers on the reliability of particular sources. I hope this is sufficiently supportive for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

'Missing' Articles.

Hi all.

Something that is commonly encountered are apparently links to pages that should be fine but for whatever reason appear to be effectively deleted, leaving dead-links. An example would be the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexahedrite Where the link to a relatively well known Scientist Johann G. Neumann is highlighted in Red, indicating a dead-link. Many times I've felt inclined to correct these anomalies but in this case described above, is it possible that the page for Johann G. Neumann to be called something else - or exist somewhere else other than its correct linking? Could this mean that a page does not exist for Johann G. Neumann? He's the scientist who found lines at opposing angles on the surface of Meteorites when ground flat, which is one of the main identification processes for Meteorites. IE Neumann Lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumann_lines).

Thank's in anticipation.

John C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayc242 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress and it probably means that no-one has written an article for Neumann yet. If Neumann meets the notability guidlines then feel free to either request an article, or better still start to put one together yourself. Read WP:FIRST and start by gathering references explaining why Neumann is notable. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above, editors often deliberately wikilink a name that does not yet have an article, so that the link appears in red, to draw attention to the fact that an article would be desirable. Note that we do have an article Johann Georg Neumann, but it is about a theologian and church historian who lived 1661–1709, not the astronomer who lived 1813-1882. The composer Johann Gottlieb Naumann (1741-1801) may also cause some confusion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.239 (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How to improve my draft

Hello. Please let me know how to improve further my draft:Draft:Susumu Nishibe. I just provided additional sources to the draft. Thanks.Nishibe0121 (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nishibe0121. Your draft is currently awaiting another AfC review, and it appears some others have been helping clean up some things up. One thing I noticed is that the entire first paragraph of the "Life" section is not supported by any citations, which is not really a good thing. As for other ways to improve the draft, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography for some general suggestions, and Category:FA-Class Japan-related articles for some examples of other similar articles for possible ideas that might work well in the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thank you for your advice. I will refer to them and try to improve the draft.--Nishibe0121 (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing page content

Hello,

I wonder if you can help me?

I've edited a page: Northern_Education_Trust

I updated the list of academies to match the cited reference on the government's website but the content has been removed?

Can you help me with this?

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tside90 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tside90: - Welcome to the Teahouse. When there is a disagreement about content, it is usually better to discuss that with the editors involved, or at the talk page of the article, first. In this case, the editor removing your edits left an edit summary explaining their reasoning. rm two statements not supported by references given. You may disagree with that, but that is for discussion on the article talk page to get consensus either way. To me, it does appear as if your source would support the insertion of one of the schools, but not the other two. However, you also made a significant change to the structure of the article, so it is not entirely surprising that was reverted. Either way, I don't have any background on the context of this article, which is why it is usually better to discuss it there, with the other editors who are regularly working on it. Hug^syrup 10:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Crurkpound Entertainment

How to be permanently active on this site? And I want to upload an infobox, but it says "something wrong". Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzimasi123 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mzimasi123: - Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you by any chance previously used the accounts user:Zaka xans and User:Zaka Weezy? If so, by 'how to be permanently active' are you perhaps wondering how to keep editing without being blocked again? Hug^syrup 10:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, what is your connection to Crurkpound? Hug^syrup 10:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

For info of other hosts, this user as well as User:Crurkpound are now blocked as sockpuppets. Hug^syrup 10:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with multiple names

I created a page for someone that shares a name with three other pages. The pages are all named correctly but when you search Wikipedia, it automatically directs to the main page and only mentions one alternate (the geologist - not the singer or field assistant). How do you go about changing that?

• Anne_Phillips
• Anne_Phillips (geologist)
• Anne_Phillips (singer)
• Anne_Phillips (field_assistant)

Actaudio (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Actaudio. To do this, you need to create a disambiguation page. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Actaudio: Anne Phillips (geologist) and Anne Phillips (field assistant) is the same person and the articles should be merged. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic with two or more other topics allows to still use a hatnote so I have added Anne Phillips (singer) to the existing hatnote.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Borderline Ethics???

Hey

I have studied a very nasty disaster and I created a Hypothesis based on evidence by others.

The hypothesis was proven the only potential explanation to the disaster at the last scientific conference about the disaster. The disaster in question is highly political potent and the hypothesis is unpleasant so the explanation has been handled by thundering silence.

My wikipedia contribution will be in parallel with a blog I write on the same issue. The authorities in question has been given one month to react on the draft blog. Similarly so for the academics involved proving the Hypothesis.

I can hardly expect anybody else to add to the article in question so I will have to do it myself. As my own contribution is minor I think this will be prudent. Do you agree???

I intend to use my real name, which is unique, rather than the nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoviceEngineer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi NoviceEngineer - please do not make such a contribution to our articles, as it would contravene WP:No Original Research and/or WP:Synthesis - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NoviceEngineer: - Just to explain a bit further, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and so it only accepts content that has already been covered extensively in reliable sources. It doesn't accept new/original research, or people drawing new conclusions based on existing sources. The type of thing you are proposing, which is to use Wikipedia as a place to host your own research and ideas, is absolutely contrary to our policies and your edits would be swiftly reverted. Sorry if this is disappointing, but you would be better of sticking to writing your blog, or trying to publish your ideas in a reputable journal. Hug^syrup 15:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting list

About 12 hours ago I requested a speedy deletion for a page I recently created, because I discovered that it was about the same person as on another page. But 12 hours later the page still hasn’t been speedy deleted. I also noticed everyone else on the speedy deletion candidacy when I originally requested speedy deletion, had their Article speedy deleted. But not mine, even some articles that were requested 2 hours after my request have been speedy deleted. So what’s the hold up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606: - deletions are done by volunteer administrators who do it in their own time, and they don't always work through pages in a strict order. There is no rush, someone will get to your page. However, it probably doesn't help that your deletion criteria are confusing. You have used WP:G6, which is for non-controversial maintenance, and have used a template that is intended for a page that is 'holding up a page move', but have not filled in what the page to be moved is. And then, the reason you have actually written is that it is a duplicate page, in which case the correct criteria is WP:A10. There's probably some debate to be had about whether your page is a 'plausible redirect' but the reviewing admin can make a decision on that. If they think it should be a redirect, they'll do that instead of deleting it. Hug^syrup 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Should I change the tag to the correct tag? I couldn’t find that exact tag last night so I just found the closes tag to the tag that you had suggested.

BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 September 2019

Yeah, probably best if you change it. Let me know if you have any difficulties and I can do it for you. Hug^syrup 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No need I did it. Thanks for the help. BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 September 2019

Write an article about yourself

How can that be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samridhhi Mandawat (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samridhhi Mandawat: - Generally, it shouldn't be done. We frown on people editing with a conflict of interest and especially on autobiographies. And the reality is that most people who come here wanting an article about themselves aren't notable enough to meet our standards. However, if you believe you are in fact notable, and have been written about widely in reliable sources, you can write an article and submit it for review by an experienced editor by following the process at WP:AFC. Be sure to make sure it is balanced, non-promotional, and has enough high quality reliable sources. Hug^syrup 12:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hug the only true way to write about yourself while staying in the Wikipedia guideline is to write about yourself on your talk page(talk.

BigRed606 (talk • 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, BigRed606, your user talk page is for other users to communicate with you, not to write anything at all about yourself. You possibly meant your User page. Lest that advice confuse you, Samridhhi Mandawat: you are allowed to write something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page. You are not allowed to write anything there that looks like a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Page's

Can a person create a page that is about a diary?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukhozi (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Is it your personal diary, or is it a famous diary like Anne Frank's? Wordswasted (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lukhozi. Like any other article in Wikipedia, it would have to be almost entirely based on places where people who have no connection with the diary or diarist have chosen to publish, at some length, about the diary. Not many diaries meet that criterion (Diary of Anne Frank and Diary of Samuel Pepys aside.

So the question is, where have several people published books or articles about this particular diary? If the answer is "nowhere", then we cannot have an article about it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Lukhozi. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia only of 'notable things', it's fine to have pages like Diary of Anne Frank or Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Unfortunately, the type of diary-like stuff you've put on your talk page is not acceptable. It's far too personal and not relevant to Wikipedia at all. I would urge you to remove it all immediately please, and perhaps read this advice relevant to young editors. For what is ok for your talk page, you might wish to read this guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

I’m completely new to editing Wikipedia can I have some tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachy2208 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Zachy2208. I think the best advice I can give a complete beginner is to start slowly, learning how to make small edits to begin with, then finding out how to add new factual statements (which absolutely have to be supported with a reference for each key fact). You might like to visit Help:Getting started and to try out The Wikipedia Adventure (which has 15 different badges you can earn as you learn the basics of editing). Don't be put off if another, more experienced editor drops by your talk page and tells you you've done something wrong - just listen to them and learn from the experience. We all make mistakes to begin with, and the Teahouse hosts are always here to assist you with editing problems. If you don't understand something, just ask. Best wishes for your own Wikipedia adventure. It can be life-changing! I'll pop by and leave a welcome message full of useful links to our help pages. These can be overwhelming at first, so take it slowly to begin with, and remember: one small edit for man; one giant encyclopaedia for mankind. (or womankind, of course!). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with category name

On Category:Former municipalities in New York (state)

the subcategory Former cities in New York City is in the wrong place. Why? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. It's sorted alphabetically under its initial letter "F". This is the default placement in categories. I guess you want it at the top like Category:Former towns in New York (state) and Category:Former villages in New York (state), not under a letter. Those category pages say [[Category:Former municipalities in New York (state)| ]]. The space after the pipe is a sort key. Pages with a space as sort key are placed first in the category and have no heading. Subcategories have the same sorting rules as other pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't figure out how to make Former cities in New York City appear first. deisenbe (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I told the exact code to use: [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)