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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
I am researching Jack Orrison in order to expand his article, but I can't find published sources for his birth and death dates. I went to FamilySearch, which has user-generated content, but also hosts primary source documents. I found data on Orrison, which I'm told comes from the 1910 U.S. Census (his birth date and parents), and from the California Death Index, 1940-1997, but I'm not able to see the actual documents, or get the page number or other details for a complete citation. Would it do any good for me to reference that his birth date came from the 1910 Census, and his death date from the California Death Index, or should I just leave those dates unreferenced? I can't afford to subscribe to websites that would let me see the actual documents. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Karenthewriter. I am always leery of relying on any secondary compilation of source data. Neverthelesss, I have no definitive answer for you, but wanted to just drop by to tell you that I was able to access the 1910 census itself through Ancestry.com, and, in fact, uploaded a relevant page from it for use in an article (see Kelly pool#Origins – which I am rather proud of; though it was not original research, but written from reliable sources (old newspaper articles), the details of the origins of the game's inventor I unearthed had been lost to modern billiards scholarship, e.g., a variety of billiard encyclopedias [though all written in an earlier time without access to digitized newspaper archives]). (The same article sheds light on the origins of the well known expression behind the eight ball.) Anyway, I digress, I don't have access to Ancestry anymore, but I am betting you might be able to get someone to get the relevant source material to you with a post to WP:RX. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit sigh, that's what I was afraid of. At one time my local public library had Ancestry.com, but there's been budget cuts, and no fund-raising opportunities during the pandemic. I have a special interest in expanding online information on anything connected to the DuMont Television Network, thus my efforts to research an actor who costarred on The Plainclothesman. I'll keep looking for a good reference sources on Orrison's birth and death dates, as I collect properly sourced info on his early career.
Sure. But Karen, I just want to make sure one part of my response wasn't lost "...I don't have access to Ancestry anymore, but I am betting you might be able to get someone to get the relevant source material to you with a post to WP:RX." To expand on that slightly, I have made requests there for rather obscure matters, and been granted direct access, such as by emailing of relevant PDFs. In other words, I would not be surprised if a request there got you the actual source material – the actual, relevant page of the 1910 census itself – which is what I intended to indicate with my initial post. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit I did go to WP:RX and look around a bit, but since I'd never been there before it seems overwhelming to me. I'll need to remind myself how much I want to improve the Jack Orrison article, go way outside of my comfort zone, and try to figure out another portion of Wikipedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Karenthewriter: Ha. Okay. I suggest wading right into WP:ANI discussions then. No seriously, it might look daunting but it's not difficult. Not trying to push, but all you would need to do there is go to the bottom of the page (you don't need to use the "Click here to create a new request" button at the top, nor fill out the preloaded template provided there, which would not be geared toward requesting a page from the Census). Instead, once at the bottom, click on the side edit link for the last discussion; paste below the last writing there something like:
==Page from 1910 US Census (Jack Orrison)==
For purposes of locating and verifying the birth date of [[Jack Orrison]], can anyone possibly locate and provide to me the relevant page from the 1910 US Census that covers him? Thanks in advance--~~~~
Fuhghettaboutit I left a request, did it all wrong, deleted what I put there, and did it all wrong a second time. I'm not trying a third time. I'll either get a response or not. Editors keep advising Teahouse visitors that writing a new Wikipedia article is the hardest thing they can attempt. I respectfully disagree. Requesting help at WP:RX is way more than I can comfortably deal with. I should not have pushed myself to attempt it. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You did fine. The weird formatting comes from using the template I recommended you didn't need. These are kind people who don't care about some formatting issues. This is not formal; just a behind the scenes discussion help page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I believe I was working on my WP:RX request while you were advising me how to make the request so I didn't see you post until after I had finished. I'm feeling a bit unwell, so it is rather confusing for me. Thank you for taking the time to write. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Karenthewriter: Well, you certainly did get a whole load of help at RX, didn't you? It's no different from asking a question here. Be persistent, don't give up. As you can see, pretty much everyone here is willing to help. 'Please' and 'thank you' go a surprisingly long way. Best of luck with your enquiries and editing. MinorProphet (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
MinorProphet (talk) people were generous in replying, so I'll need to take the time to go through everything carefully to see what I did and did not receive. Unfortunately, I am having some health challenges right now, and get overwhelmed easily. I believe it was unwise to try working on my project, but since I started it I'll do my best to process what I received, and do all that is necessary to properly close the RX discussion. Thank you for taking the time to write. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Kylietastic, I am new to making wikipedia articles but noticed a prominent figure from this Russian city was missing. I am only just learning how to format properly here, now. What can I do to rectify my addition of a Roman Albertovich Alabin page and to have him linked in the "notable people" section of Chelyabinsk? OffTheIsland (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
You should not link any person to a list of "notable" people in a Wikipedia list until they have their own live article (that's what we have here, not "pages"). I took a quick look at your Draft:Roman Albertovich Albalin and doubt whether it will ever achieve the standard required for him to be considered notable enough. A single Youtube citation certainly is insufficient. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
OffTheIsland, Hello! The Teahouse is not the best place to directly get into contact with someone. Most users have a talk page so you can message them directly. In this case, click here to go to KylieTastic's talk page. You can copy and paste your message over there. Panini!🥪14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Olanzapine
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
My name is Dr abdikadir shaib I invented olanzapine how can I edit olanzapine and add my name ass the one who invented the drug Cadnan99 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
You have been editing Olanzapine since 11 March and have been reverted, and warned on your Talk page for making edits at that article (and elsewhere) without providing citations or providing flawed citations. Given that you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), the proper path for you is to state your proposed changes on the Talk page of the article, with references. Other editors will decide what to do. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
By coincidence, I noticed this Teahouse thread after I had add a section on the chemical synthesis of olanzapine to the article. My edit added a reference to the original Lilly patents, which clearly state the names of the inventors, not including anyone called Dr abdikadir shaib. To me, that makes it extremely unlikely that you, Cadnan99 had anything to do with it. If you did, please provide a reliable source for that assertion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
eliminate a maintenance template
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Aguamiel94 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I edited a page with the template: This article has many issues. I changed and neutralized it, using the VisualEditor, but I can not understand how to eliminate the template. Please if some of you know,explain me. thanks in advance.
ExclusiveEditor, Well if it's true there shouldn't be a problem with either guideline; it's up to the editor to determine that. To directly answer your question, if it should be removed I think it fits better under NPOV but there's no problem in citing both when explaining its removal. Panini!🥪14:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am grateful for the fact that my draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josef_Josten was reviewed quite promptly. Reading the comments and reflecting on the text, I can see that my first paragraph was not written in neutral language, and that can be relatively easily changed. However, as an inexperienced writer, I would appreciate comments on whether the rest of of the text needs significant revision. I am also concerned to know if the sources that I quoted were inappropriate or insufficient: I'm not sure if the reviewer's comments were general or specific to my article.
With thanks in advance,
Honza Giles. Honza Giles (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The article looks pretty good to me and certainly shows he is notable, so the main issue is the tone. Also, I think some of the references could be improved. I've added one alternative reference for his MBE. The London Gazette is fully online and so you can link directly to the page which refers to him. Good luck and happy editing. Honza Giles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I was just browsing and reading through Wikipedia and I was shocked to see a male penis in Wikipedia.....in the page ejaculation....admins please pay attention to it... someone is vandalising and adding explicit content to Wikipedia...as there are many children browsing Wikipedia Perthirvin (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Did you intend to read that article? If you did, it shouldn't be surprising to see such an image. As noted, you can suppress the display of images if you want to avoid seeing such things. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
So, I tried to archive my own page and mistakenly put other user's name on the code to bring in ClueBot III.
I have deleted the content at here and restored them to my talk page. I also have changed the ClueBot III code so that it points out to SunDawn instead of Sundawn.
Now how do I delete the "1" on the archive box on my talk page and redirect it to the correct page?
SunDawn, I'll fix this for you. If you hover over the "more" tab, you'll see a button that says "move". Clicking that It'll bring you to a page where you can change the name of a page to something else. Every archive page needs to be named exactly the same with changing numbers ("User talk:SunDawn/Archive X") or else the archive template you have on your talk page won't work properly. Panini!🥪14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Panini! Thank you very much! However, I restore Talk page content from May as I think there are some discussions that are not finished yet, is it good? Can you please check it again? Thank you so much! SunDawn (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
SunDawn, There is absolutely no problem with keeping some things unarchived. If you want to archive them, just copy and paste them back there. If it comes to the problem where your archive page is getting too long, you can simply make another one ("User talk:SunDawn/Archive 2", "User talk:SunDawn/Archive 3", and so on). You can view my talk page as an example of this. Panini!🥪15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Assuming the draft is good and is adhering to all the policies, well, the time is really random from a day to a month since the articles are reviewed randomly. TigerScientistChat16:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, StratCom1080, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is "Never, if you don't submit it for review!". Assuming you're talking about Draft:Elmer G. Cato, I've added a header which will let you submit it. As it says there, it could be anything from an hour to several months until one of the reviewers chooses to look at it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Another question, how can I remove the Draft on his name? Is it automatically attached because it hasn't been approved yet? I submitted the article for review already. Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StratCom1080 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi StratCom1080. If and when the draft is accepted, the article will be moved from the draft namespace, to the article mainspace by the reviewer – meaning you will not need to do anything about this. By the way, the draft contains quite a bit of unsourced content. How do you know it? If it is sourceable, then the source(s) need to be cited. If it can't be sourced, then the content does not belong. In either case, those parts of the draft are an impediment, in my view, to its likely acceptance. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, can you expound more about the unsourced content? I can add more sources but how can I add more and on which parts?
Was it the 1st, 2nd or 3rd paragraph?
It was throughout – every paragraph not ending with a footnote – but it's irrelevant now, since every sentence was copied and pasted from previously written material and as such, was blatant copyright infringement and plagiarism. I will leave a more detailed note about this on your talk page. The long and short of it though, is that you must write in your in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase, citing sourcing for the information. As we often say: you may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. This could have been deleted entirely (under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion), but I decided to decline instead, revision delete the history and leave the structure and references to work from.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Fake information on wikipedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I just want to know what all this changes to the history of science mean? Law of Energy Conserbation was developed by Newton and Leibnitz - not by Émilie du Châtelet who was much more later "interptereter" of their law. By giving fake information you mislead wiki's auditory. Even from your source in becomes evident that Newton - Leibitz were the first who created classical energy conservation with all the subordinate laws.
Why not to start from Ancient Greece. May this law stems from Archemedes propositions.
All other logic in this article is distorted and violates logic of science evolution. Einstein and Poincare are cited together (and that is pretty new shift for wiki!) but Lorenz is not (bit strange choice). Data Scientist 0101 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Data Scientist 0101, and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to discuss improvements to a particular article is on its talk page, in this case Talk:Conservation of energy. I see that you have edited the article, and been reverted: both of these are normal for Wikipedia - the next stage is to discuss it on the talk page and try to reach consensus (see BRD). A word of advice though: this is clearly something you feel strongly about, but your view will prevail only if you persuade others to change the consensus; whether you are right or wrong, coming in with all guns blazing about "fake information" is not conducive to building consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Data Scientist 0101 I agree with the user above; please discuss on the talk page. One piece of advice for the future: when you make a change, it's really good to leave an edit summary that accompanies your change. You have less chance of being reverted if you leave an explanation that provides grounds and context for your edit. Generally speaking, the more fundamental the change, the more likely a good edit summary is to forestall a knee-jerk revert. Please note two other matters: Whether you're right or wrong about the issue here, your edit made the change while leaving in the existing citations that putatively supported the prior version. Your edit was problematic to that extent. On an aspect of the same issue, I strongly recommend to you that in any talk page post, you support your contention as to the correct facts by invoking a reliable source that corroborates its accuracy. Lastly I note your edit was pretty clearly made in good faith, but was reverted using rollback, which is, by policy, reserved for blatant vandalism. That should not have happened.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:2005 Tour de Corse
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Excellenc1: There are 5,335 pending submissions, so you will just need to be patient. While you are waiting, you can work to expand the draft so it is not just a stub. RudolfRed (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Meaning that Wikipedia is not social media, and the only way you could be the subject of a Wikipedia article is that you become so famous that someone else creates an article about you. Your draft has been tagged for Speedy deletion, and will soon disappear. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! I am probably a tad too accustomed to Wikipedia to use the Teahouse, however, I have an inquiry. I have recently found an article which I believe constitutes plagiarism (it copies a substantial piece of text from a website - they even have the same typo, which is how I found the page.). However, the article does cite the website though it doesn't say it is the exact wording. If it is any use, the website ends in gov.au so it from the Australian government.
My questions:
1. Is this plagiarism, copyright infringement, something else or is it acceptable?
2. What should I do?
@Timtempleton: Because it is from the Australian government, I'm going to hazard a guess that they copied it from the Australian government. Thank you, I will now follow the guidance from the link you have given me. EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up,note: turns out in this case that the government page is CC-BY, and the article gives attribution with {{NSW-SHR-CC}}. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:03 Tue 11, AEST) 20:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Help publishing
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
How to cite any source for any sort of information on wikipeida.
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I read blogs and articles frequently, and use to add this information to wikipedia to help others too. But whenever I try to link that information to any source(website url), this work is counted in spammings. Can you tell me the right way to cite any information with reliable sources(website url or something like that) Bhavik Bansal 777 (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I need to be referred to a Professional in South Africa to assist me creating a Wikipedia profile?
Any mobile number or e-mail address you can provide me with.
I'll say the unsaid - Wikipedia does not prohibit articles written by paid editors, but it definitely does not promote nor refer people to paid editors. Using a paid editor in no way guarantees that what they produce will be accepted as an article. There are predatory businesses that promise results, but often do not deliver. P.S. Wikipedia also advises against attempting an autobiography (see WP:AUTO). David notMD (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Amazecom if you really do need specifically South African-related assistance you can post a request at the WikiProject South Africa talk page. I have noticed that your draft has several anachronistic terminology errors. One example, the SANDF did not exist before 1994. The previous iteration was the SADF, without the "N". However, that is all moot until you have provided sufficient evidence that the subject of the draft is actually notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi....the controversy on anbumani ramadoss is fake
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
For interest, I've wikilinked the use of 'FIR' in the text of the section to First information report, since it's not explained anywhere in the article or the linked source, and will be unfamiliar to people (like myself) not from the region. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring stop
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As posted below, the OP has been indefinitely blocked which means there's nothing really more to resolve here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Do edit wars end with 1 edit, or just a block of the edit warring people?
The questioner has already been blocked indefinitely by Bbb23: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
WHH indef banned within one hour of creating account for reason that all edits were misc stuff on other editors' Talk pages or reverted nonsense at articles. David notMD (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
article keeps getting deleted
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there, I am trying to create an article about a Canadian sociologist and professor john o'neill, and it keeps getting rejected. I am wondering if someone could help me figure out what I am doing wrong? The most recent cause for rejection was that the sources are not reliable, but they are all from published books by reputable authors and scholars. Thanks. JohnDeeree33 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@JohnDeeree33: The entire draft is sourced with one book which appears to be a scholarly collection and discussion of his work. If you want to show notability, it would help to find things that have been written about him and his work. Also, long unsourced lists of papers and books without context are discouraged. See WP:NOTDIR. Here are the notability guidelines for scholars, which may also help. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. Finally, if you have any connection with the subject, you will have to disclose it on your user page or the article draft's talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)04:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] A point of Wiipedia special terminology: your draft has not been Rejected, it has been Declined.
'Declined' means approximately "this draft doesn't yet meet all the criteria necessary to become an article, but the subject is probably eligible, so keep on improving the draft in the ways the reviewers suggest so that it can be re-submitted." I'm pretty sure that this subject does indeed merit an article, so please don't be discouraged: writing a Wikipedia article is a bit like playing a piano concerto in public – it takes aptitude and practice, and learning by having one's mistakes corrected.
'Rejected', on the other hand, means roughly "this subject is not and will not in the forseeable future be eligible for an article, so don't bother trying to improve and resubmit (or recreate if deleted) the draft."
Your draft appears to rely on a single publication (and certainly on a single main author) for all of its existing references. At least two, and preferably more, separate and independent (of each other and of the subject) sources are needed to demonstrate any academic subject's Notability.
Nearly all of the draft seems to be a list or description of what the subject has written. What he has written does not demonstrate his Notability (though it may be acceptable content). Only what other people have written about him can do that. (It is quite possible for a person's writings to be Notable, but not the person themself.)
As an aside, since this subject is still living the parameters of WP:BLP also apply, which means statements about them are judged more stricktly than if they were deceased.
Can I suggest that you step back from working on this draft for at least a few days. (If nothing's done with it for 6 months it'll be considered inactive and be deleted, but I don't suggest leaving it nearly as long as that!) Instead, try finding some articles on other comparable academic figures, preferably ones that have been assessed as Wikipedia:Good Articles, and get a feel for how they are written in terms of prose style, structure and content. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I have created my Draft but it is not appearing on Internet
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello I have created a new article. But first it said me to create a draft so I created it. Then i published it. But it is not appearing on the internet. What is the problem? Yeah and on the title it is showing Draft. Badassboy 63637 (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Badassboy 63637 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are not formally part of the encyclopedia until you submit them for review through Articles for Creation and have them accepted. In this case, if you were to do so, it would be rejected quickly as the draft is just advertising, and a long way from a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles must do more than just tell of the existence of a business and what it does. They must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. Please read Your First Article.
Hi Badassboy 63637. I have deleted the draft as its text was the result of copyright infringement and plagiarism. (It also could have been speedily deleted for being a blatant advertisement). I will leave a note about this on your talk page. You must not do this again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've been here a long time but I've never brought anything to the Teahouse before. I'd like a verdict on whether I can combine two datasets from Commons to make a new graph, or whether that falls foul of WP:ORIGINAL or their licences. The aim is to show that while rates of plastic recycling are increasing, the amount of plastic waste produced each year is also still increasing, because global production is sky-rocketing. The graphs's data-points are also on Commons (linked below each image) and they are from the same source, so the combined graph should be accurate.
I take the advice at WP:OI to mean that creating the new combination would be fine. Obviously you'll acknowledge the sources you used and load the result back to Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Cheers... any idea how I handle the licencing of the new graph? If it's made with open-access data I assume that must carry forward, with a citation to the original work? --Project Osprey (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes. The standard Commons license for a new work is CC BY SA 4.0, which translates as Creative Commons for use BY anyone with attribution to the original, provided their new version is given the Same license Again. In this case, you are the "BY" part, Project Osprey. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Suggestions for Wikipedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Vanshu Mathur. 1. Dark mode can be installed following the instructions here. Alternatively, go to your Preferences link (at the top of every Wikipedia page), and under the Gadgets tab, tick the box marked "Use a black background with green text". 2. Please add your suggestions for improvement here. 3. Wikipedia already has hundreds of thousands of images; you are welcome to submit better ones.--Shantavira|feed me07:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Vanshu Mathur, If I may elaborate a bit, a very common plea sent into OTRS is a request for more images, often with a specific suggestion for a particular image for a particular article. In probably 99% of the cases, they are proposing a copyrighted image, and seemed to be under the impression that if you can find it on the Internet you can add it to a Wikipedia article. Some are surprised to learn that this is not the case. I've spent many hours arranging for permission for copyrighted images. It takes time but it can be done. S Philbrick(Talk)13:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Being told that my page is 'Almost certainly COI' and not sure how to proceed
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I am attempting to help a band by the name of Esoterica to get a Wikipedia page made. I'm not a member of the band nor getting any sort of compensation - payment, merchandise, or anything. I'm doing this as a favor to them simply because I'm a fan and an IT guy who has worked with markdown language before and always wanted to create a Wikipedia page before, so I offered to help them.
My original post of the page was lacking in reliable sources and I've resubmitted the page adding several sources to confirm the information that I've updated on the page.
I've received a message back from an editor saying that the edits I've added are 'Almost certainly COI' and that I may have a conflict of interest. I don't believe that I do, but I'm not sure how to 'appeal' this declaration. As stated, I have no affiliation with the band and am just trying to help them get a page re-created. Their previous page was taken down for some reason (I don't know why - it was before I was involved) and I offered to help create this new one.
Reading through the list of issues given to me "that Wikipedia asks of me", the closest one that I can find that appeals to me is "disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles". Do I need to put a disclaimer at the top of the page that this page was created by a fan of the band? Can I get some more clarification please as to why the page I created was identified as potentially being a 'COI' so I can fix it accordingly? I was merely attempting to compile as much information from the many sites where I was able to find information about the band going back as far as I could find (2009 or so for certain) and organize it in such a way to conform to the requirements that were listed in the original requirements of "guidelines on the notability of music-related topics", specifically item 4 under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" showing that they had been involved in two international tours.
I look forward to hearing back from anyone who can direct me to fix my issues to get this issue taken care of.
Thank you in advance! Cwbuege (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cwbuege. Whether your connection to the band goes deeper that what you're describing above is something only you will know for certain, but you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest just to familiarize yourself (just in case) as to what kind of things the Wikipedia community expects from COI editors. For reference, COI editing is not something that is expressly forbidden, but it's something that is highly discouraged because it can lead to some serious problems. If feel that you don't have a COI, then others will likely take you at your word as long as your edits seem to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If, however, you start to stray too far outside of the lines, then addressing the concerns of others is likely going to take up most of your time. So, the more transparent you're about any connection you may have, the less likely you're going to find yourself having problems with other editors and more likely you're going to find other editors willing to help you out.Regardless of whether you have a COI, you should realize that writing a Wikipedia article from scratch is a pretty hard thing to do. You can find out a little more about creating an article in Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners, but it's going to make no difference as to how well you write or how perfectly you format an article if the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. You can find out some more on this at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music). You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources because while you have cited a number of sources in the draft, quite a few of them aren't really what Wikipedia would consider to be reliable or represent the type of "significant coverage" that subjects of Wikipedia articles are expected to have. Since you're trying to create an article about a band, you might also want check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians because that's where you're going to find editors who have experience working on articles of this type.Finally, not having a Wikipedia article written about it doesn't mean that Esoterica is a "bad" band; it could just mean that the time isn't quite right for one to be written. There are alternatives to Wikipedia that you might find easier to navigate and better suited to what you're trying to do for the band. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Cwbuege. I concur with Marchjuly that Esoterica isn't a "bad band." In fact, having just checked them out on A Well Known Video Platform, I'm thinking about getting a ticket for Bournemouth in September.
However, please understand that Wikipedia expressedly forbids promotion of any kind, which includes "attempting to help a band", regardless of whether the person doing so is being paid or even if the band (or other subject) knows nothing about it. Wikipedia only summarises what has already been published elsewhere by writers completely independent of the subject, in Reliable sources (i.e. reputable publications with good editorial standards). Whether or not you decide to persevere with the very difficult task of creating a Wikipedia article about the band, good luck to you and them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk)
Another perspective, Cwbuege: A Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit of its subject. Obviously, many subjects do benefit from Wikipedia having articles about them (in other cases they definitely do not, if it happens that the independent sources that the article is based on are critical or uncomplimentary). But if even part of your intention in creating an article about the band is to benefit them, then by definition that is a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I need help neutralizing a page. Neutral Tone.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
I want to resubmit Draft:Massar Solutions but the admin said it's promotional, so can anyone help me with making it neutral? I have read it but it seems non-promotional to me. I don't exactly know what to change. Aztecwarriors (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Aztecwarriors Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm curious as to your interest in the draft, but in any event, the draft is promotional because it just tells about the company and what it has done. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources provided mostly seem to be announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. As an example, Microsoft merits an article not because they release new software or purchase a competitor, but because independent reliable sources have extensively written about Microsoft and its effects on its industry and society in general. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Aztecwarriors, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. The text of an article should summarise what those independent sources say, not what the subject says or wants to say. --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Natalie Portman: "the British Mandate of Palestine (now Israel)"?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
How can this obvious error be corrected?
I would be surprised if there has not been some previous discussion of this point.
If there is any dispute that this is an error, I would simply refer to the maps at the two wikipedia links involved.
At the very least, Gaza was part of the Mandate, but is not a part of Israel.
Hi Laughtond. The "(now Israel)" text was added on February 21, and was removed a short while after your post, in this edit. Hoary: in sum and substance the above post is saying that the parenthetical "(now Israel)" is factually incorrect because the geography within the ambit of the British Mandate referred to included a wider area than just Israel (including Gaza). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Improper "TONE"
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
PLEASE, I need help in identifying improper the improper "tone" of an article in my sandbox for a Registered Charity.
Can anyone, super please, help me by identifying the subject materials that are improper, I appreciate and accept all criticism, I want the article to be better and accepted. Noapplause (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Noapplause Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft just tells about the charity and what it does, and is sourced to only announcements of the charity's activities. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the charity, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of the organization's activities and needs to be in depth reporting about the organization itself. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Noapplauwse. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
An enquiry
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have an enquiry about Articles for deletion
Can an article be deleted if the user who had created an article is proved a block evaded sockpuppet and if that article has no substantial contributions by any other user. Perthirvin (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Perthirvin, yes, per G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. Note that this only applies if the blocked user in question has not made any substantial contributions to other articles. It actually applies when the article has not received contributions from other editors. See WP:G5. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Sungodtemple, is that the case for everyone. Even if the editor has a 9000 edit count???? Still his article would be deleted if he is a block evaded Sockpuppet and that that article has no substantial contributions by others????(Perthirvin (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC))
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I am doing "Deaf Gain" article since there is none of those on Wikipedia, yet the topic of "Deaf Gain" has been redirected to the page, "Deaf culture". I would like to change that redirect link to my article I created for specifically "deaf gain".
Alanakay13, you've got the right idea; but the timing isn't yet right. When you're ready to submit Draft:Deaf gain as candidate for article status, simply do so in the regular way. At the time of its acceptance, the matter of the redirect can be dealt with. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
PS . . . and, Alanakay13, you do need to do more work on this draft, promising though it is. As an example, you have a lot of references to what you describe as Leigh, I., Andrews, J. F., & Harris, R. L. (2018). Deaf Culture : Exploring Deaf Communities in the United States. Plural Publishing, Inc.. Amazon quickly shows me that this extends to about three hundred pages. Which of the citations you make of this refers to which part (page, page span, or non-consecutive pages) of this book? Given the [fundamentally sound] way in which you've started referencing, I think that the best way to add this information is via the "rp" template; read about it here. (This isn't so widely used in Wikipedia, and other experienced editors may well chime in to disagree with me, suggesting an alternative.) A second problem is that the draft reads to me like a work of advocacy. It's phrased mildly and reasonably, but it does still seem to be making a point. Good encyclopedia articles don't make points. ("Why am I working on this? It's pointless!" Yes, if it's good, it is indeed pointless. Or the sole point is to enlighten readers, dispassionately.) They just summarize, describe and explain. All the best in editing! -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, I am very happy today that my Article of Michel Rivera is showing up in Google. I would like to let me know the things that are needed (if) for the article Virtue Clan. I have re-submitted it and have removed most of it's part. Please do let me know!!! Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
To take just one sentence ans an example, we read that "The company is primarily focused on international relations, strategic development, immersion, connected collaborations, events and other public relations activities." That doesn't convey any meaning to me. "International relations" where -- between Moldova and Romania? "Development" of what, and in what sense is the development "strategic"? Is the "immersion" some kind of baptism? "Collaborations" between who and who, and can any collaboration not be "connected"? The whole sentence sounds like the kind of material that Harry Frankfurt has so eloquently written about: it seems intended less to convey meaning than to bring about some feeling of awe. Another thing: the prose style in this draft seems very different indeed from the prose style you use in this "Teahouse". It's almost as if the draft were written by somebody else. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Your submittal was declined. Please stop editing Draft:Virtue Clan. This draft was created by an editor since indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock puppet and undeclared paid editor. Your means of finding and then deciding to edit and submit this twice-previously declined draft are suspect. David notMD (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Adding images in translated wikipedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I translated a Wikipedia article but the image didn't translate well. Here, is the article:
@AbhigyaDahal: To elaborate on this: that album cover is considered a copyrighted image. Per English Wikipedia policy, we may use these images for identification purposes under something known as fair use, but they're under a lot of restrictions. I do not know how Nepali Wikipedia works, but I do know that certain language Wikipedias don't allow fair use images at all (for example, Japanese). Please find out what the fair use image policy is on the Nepali Wikipedia and ask editors there if you have questions. Hope this helped! ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I created the stub article Daniel Holt (politician) on January 24 of this year and I just now noticed that there is no other article on Wikipedia named "Daniel Holt". When I went to move the page so that it would just say "Daniel Holt", it showed that the page had been deleted several times, in 2005, 2007, and 2009. The 2005 deletion was as a result of an AfD nomination of someone involved in the film industry. The deletions in 2007 were vandalism and the deletions from 2009 was for re-creating the page deleted in 2005, which led to it being fully protected. Who should I go to to have the protection removed so that I can move Daniel Holt (politician) to simply Daniel Holt? MainPeanut (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Powerful Karma: Yes, we have plenty of articles on journalists for newspapers. The criteria for whether a person should have a Wikipedia article written about them is known as notability, where we must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please read WP:YFA carefully for instructions. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Help with list articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
(This is the same guy who posted the discussion about moving Mazda Demio to Mazda2 but on an actual account)
@1989ChevyVan: You do not have to. The Articles for Creation process (draft, review, etc) is actually not mandatory, and you could just type any title into the searchbar, click the red link there, write your list, and publish directly. You could even create a draft in the draftspace and move it into the mainspace yourself. Note that new articles created using these methods go through a separate process known as New Page Patrol. AfC is strongly recommended for new editors because it allows a second pair of eyes to look at the draft before it goes live, which is why most experienced editors here keep funneling newbies into AfC. May I ask what topic you want to write a list about? ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I was accused of lying in teahouse on purpose. I did not lie, and I said what I thought the answer was. After this I wanted to leave wikipedia because I felt like a nothing and everyone wanted me banned. Now I have people screaming in my talk page for me to come back. Why do I feel weird about this. Can somebody explain to me the full story. DavidPlayzYT (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
You are on the steep parts of the learning curve, and have made a number of errors, also some edits that were not appropriate. Hence, the warnings, and most recently an indefinite block. You can appeal the block, but that requires that you clearly identify what you did that was wrong, and commit to not doing that type of stuff again. In general, Wikipedia tries to not drive away new editors. I will leave a more detailed reply on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
He did get a Keep editing from TigerScientist, but then screwed the pooch by adding content to an article with a deeply flawed attempt at a reference - more lack of competence than deliberate vandalism. I left some guidance because I have a soft spot for anyone with "David" in their User name. David notMD (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Sphilbrick Likewise, the second annual "Josh fight," where hundreds of people gathered in April in Lincoln, Nebraska, armed with pool noodles, to take part in a friendly battle over the right to use the name Josh. (First year, the rules of combat were "Rock, Paper, Scissors.") David notMD (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
La Liga TV: New official name and article expansion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians: there have been many changes resulting from COVID19, especially those related to the Internet and digital. I would like to expand the article "La Liga TV" with all the changes of the last year. Likewise, the exact and official name of this digital channel is "LaLigaSportsTV" so I have the doubt about how to do it. Should I create a new article and merge it with the previous one or simply request the name change and then expand the article ....? Thank you very much for your advice AraceliLaLiga (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
I feel discouraged when people don't treat things properly. Adda52 is been rejected multiple times, but no one shares why. Before a month I got a little hope at Adda52 Discussion. Even AFC Helpdesk is not replying to me. I tagged & asked users also who rejected the request. Now, I don't trust the AFC Core team members after multiple issues. Please let me know what to do? Also tagging @Ritchie333: if he wants to guide. 1друг (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
1друг, The decline messages clearly state that reason that why it has been rejected. If earlier issues remain unaddressed, it means a next rejection. See WP:N. ─ The Aafī(talk)17:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
[[u|1друг}} I left a message at its talk page. It is not notable enough. The reviewers have said their reasons. They have a lot of experience and know what they are doing. TigerScientistChat17:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see the above discussion links, i shared. I think you have not seen those. How come the subject is not Notable called as a reason, please explain why it is not notable,guide constructively. Let me know if I have to explain sources that how they are independent, significant and indepth. I can see the proper reason for other afc rejection but not for me and this makes me feel bad. Thanks but this is not notable is not a reason it is a final statement. 1друг (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
1друг, Sources don't mean everything. If a draft is promotional (it is G11 CSD criteria) for deletion. Ritchie333 didn't say the subject has became notable, but she said "this thing adds to its notability". If you want the draft to be approved, you need to follow WP:MOS and WP:N guidelines first. ─
Thanks, so you are saying content is spamming but this reason is not given to me yet. I will check this new guide also. 1друг (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
This has been extensively discussed and spammed. See below:
Yes, all these are discussed long back and I have been guided about these links in last March discussion, as shared above. My only point is it is notable as of now if you see. Rejection should not be that this got deleted in 2017, so this is never notable.1друг (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
1друг just because the discussion happened three years ago doesn't mean it's not valid, but this doesn't address the questions about your COI either. YODADICAE👽18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I saw the links again. I have no relation with the old guy. Infact, I learned poker in 2019 New Year Eve only.1друг (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Changing title of Article
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
I would like to change the title of my draft article.
Mmpm123 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that by "change the title" you mean you want to remove "Draft:" from the title. In order to do that, you need to submit your draft for review. I will shortly add the appropriate information so you can do that. However, you should work on it some more before submission, as there are some stylistic issues with it, and I don't think the sourcing is sufficient. Please review Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you mean Draft:Randy Bishop, then there is no current need to do that. It can be changed when / if accepted. At present, it has no hope as the limited references don't back up the text. The doi doesn't work (refs 1 and 2 are identical) and ref 3 is to unrelated material. Please read WP:YFA and WP:MOS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. With regard to the comments:
"...you should work on it some more before submission, as there are some stylistic issues with it, and I don't think the sourcing is sufficient"
I went into the document and changed what I thought were the stylistic errors, and it would not allow me to "publish changes." I can't understand the information that apparently needs to be cleaned up
"...At present, it has no hope as the limited references don't back up the text."
- how many references are required for authentication?
Also, the picture that I submitted that apparently has copyright infringement issues, was submitted to me by the artist himself.
As I commented on your draft there is rather a lot of unsourced promotional trumpery here, please hack back to what the actual sources say and declare any conflict of interest. The photograph would need to be uploaded by the artist themselves if indeed they took it and hold the copyright. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this comment:
Hello Mmpm123. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.
- I have zero financial stake in this article. I am simply attempting to help a friend publish his bio on Wikipedia. Same thing goes with the photo I submitted that is being held in copyright violation. The artist sent me the photo and is the owner of the photo. Would appreciate some guidance here on what is wrong with my article ("Draft: Randy Bishop") and the photo.
Also, you're going to have a hard time that you are complying with copyright with just saying "the artist sent me the photo and is the owner of the photo" as for all we know, that could simply just be an excuse for uploading a copyrighted photo. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
At present, the article has no valid sources. What little it does have are not relevant to the topic. By policy (for living people) every fact needs to be sourced. If the subject of the article is your friend, then you have a conflict of interest and should read WP:COI. While it is not prohibited for you to create such a draft, it s strongly discouraged since you are unlikely to be able to do so with the necessary neutral point of view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Mmpm123 I've consolidated your comments here. Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections, for follow up comments. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Mmpm123. If you are truly not being paid, then you can disregard the warning. However, you should disclose your friendship on your now blank user page, since that is a conflict of interest. As for the photo, only the copyright holder can license an image for use on Wikipedia, because this is a legal transaction. You wouldn't ask a friend to sign legal papers for you, would you? In its current form, your draft is unacceptable for the encyclopedia, because it fails the core content policy of Verifiability. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published, reliable sources say about the topic, and those sources are presented as references in the article. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced and you must either remove all of that or provide references. It seems clear that Bishop told you all that stuff, and anything you learned in those conversations is Original research which is strictly forbidden from use on Wikipedia unless verified by a published reliable source. Remove all the stuff about famous bands he played on the same bill with. It is only relevant if he collaborated with those bands. Read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all these answers to questions. Since it appears there is a 'conflict of interest' because I am familiar with the subject, Randy Bishop, through social medial, who would be a proper person to publish the article?
Marv
Mmpm123, editors with a disclosed conflict of interest can submit drafts through the Articles for Creation process, so you are the best person to write the draft. But you absolutely must take on board the advice you have been given, and remove all unreferenced content. Essentially, you need to forget everything you have learned through your friendship, and neutrally summarize only what the reliable published sources say about Bishop. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
delete my posts
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Adding the song, It's Grim Up North by KLF to the culture/music tabs on towns, areas, villages and cities mentioned in the song...
It's just a small ask if some admin or editors would be okay to help me with just referencing the song in each article. A minor edit of sort. I have the titles from my sandbox here. Just a short paragraph as the song is well known and the band has high notability...
I have gotten as far as Wigan...could some others add to this with the following sentences:
@RailwayJG: Welcome to the Teahouse. Blaze The Wolf is spot on. Having got as far as Wigan, please now go back and revert every one of those edits. A one word mention in passing in a list of names in a song is not a cultural reference by any stretch of the imagination that needs to be added to Wikipedia - it's trivia multiplied by trivial to the extreme. Oh wait: no, I think this one of your is even more surprising. Please don't do anything like that again, and don't leave it to others to clean up your work - go revert them now, please. Hopefully you might find something more constructive you can contribute to. I really don't intend to be rude, but honestly, this is not a great use of your time. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with that too. You've prompted me to go and check the article about the Skunk to see if there's a cultural reference to my favourite singer songwriter LWIII, or whether John Betjeman is mentioned in Slough. The latter is; the former isn't. I wouldn't necessarily object to both - if done properly. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I was just trying to add some cultural references...sorry I made a huge troll contribution...I only contribute to add or remove things and always seem to be given a hard time yet some other times I am thanked...guess I am one of those who is only useful when others think I am...RailwayJG (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Please don't be disheartened, RailwayJG. Wikipedia is a huge beast, with a lot of baggage, and it takes time to about it. Your contributions are no less valuable than anybody else's; but people who have more experience often know about consensus that has previously been argued and arrived at. (You can find some relevant discussion to this case at IPC). It's an unfortunate fact that in something like Wikipedia, the edits that are the most valuable are usually ones that are not easy; for example, finding and citing reliable sources (and removing unreliable ones), or cleaning up non-neutral or promotional language. The corollary is that if a change is easy to make, it is often one not worth doing, because consensus has decided against it - especially if it is a matter of adding something to an article. This is not always the case, of course, and there are loads of minor changes such as spelling errors - see GCE. Have you looked at Community portal for ideas of where work is needed, to see what interests you? --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
It's fine I have asked about trivial authenticity on the Admin Noticeboard and found your remark (Nick Moyes) of "Hopefully you might find something more constructive you can contribute to" an insult. You clearly have not looked at my contributions since joining and how many articles I have made. Some deleted or merged but many still in situ. I worked on missing articles for the Cromford and High Peak Railway. Great Central Railway, GNR, Yorkshire and other BUA's... so please don't say something like that...I found it very rude and offensive...RailwayJG (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@RailwayJG: Well, like I said above I didn't intend to be rude (though I was becoming aware as I was typing that it might have come across as such) It obviously did to you, so I apologise unreservedly. So do please now go and revert those edits. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
3.2 vs pi
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Indeed, Gmac4247: Wikiversity is an entirely separate project: this is the Teahouse for English Wikipedia only, not any other Wikimedia projects. Like Wikipedia, Wikiversity is not a reliable source (as it is user generated) and so cannot be cited as a reference for any Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Unable to access a lot of sources for a period
Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
So... because my school heavily restricts where students can go on their chromebooks, during school hours I am unable to access a good amount of sources for the reason of being "Unmanaged" (which probably isn't true for a lot of sites but I'm not discuss that here). Is there some way I can declare this on my userpage because being able to access the sources you need is kinda a big part of editing Wikipedia. Also, just a small question here but, what does & nbsp; mean? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Nah. While I do pay attention in school when I"m actually doing stuff for class, sometimes I'll have some freetime and editing Wikipedia (constructively might I add) is basically the only thing I can do to entertain myself as basically all games are blocked (for obvious reasons). And usually when I get home I'm not editing Wikipedia and instead, playing games on my PC. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blaze The Wolf: If you don't have access to online sources where you're editing from, then simply don't add anything that would need a source. There's been a few points I've wanted to add, but couldn't, whereby the only sources are certain American websites which restrict access from Europe (something to do with seawater getting into the undersea cable, I reliably informed[citation needed]).
We simply can't have editors adding challengeable material with a get-out clause that they can't access sources to let it be verified. The onus remains on you to find and add those sources. A sort of workaround would be to post a suggestion on the article's talk page and hope someone else might find the point of sufficient interest to go and find a reliable source so they can add it. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
With regards to not having sources, I mean, I can do a lot of Wiking without sources. Copyediting, vandal fighting, formatting, pictures, that all can be done without sources. You can also download sources at home and then use them later. Or you can pay attention in class :P As a Wikipedian, I am thrilled to have you editing. As a teacher, I commiserate with your teachers who are probably very frustrated... AdmiralEekThar she edits!19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I do pay attention in class actually. It's only when I have free time in class when I"m editing Wikipedia. I'm trying to succeed in school, not fail. And that makes sense however I have no clue how I would download the sources Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Printouts of sources using the print interface, save as a PDF. PDF books, cached copies of websites. Google it, there are numerous methods to save websites for offline use. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Council of Education Social Consolidation
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You say "job." If you are in any way, directly or indirectly, being paid to create or work on a Wikipedia article about a subject, or have any personal connection to that subject, you need to read and comply with WP:PAID (this is mandatory, part of our Terms of use) and WP:COI. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Indra Devi article. A photo there is said to be her, but is not her. How to correct?#
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Rishiyoga, the only two pictures in the article are of the cover of one of her own albums, and a photo of her and 3 others (2 of them with Wikipedia articles) taken in 1965 (when she was 66 or 67) uploaded as "own work" by schmausschmaus (talk·contribs). Both appear to be authentic. What are your grounds for disputing either? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Anew MacMaster actor
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I saw Anew MacMaster in Dungarvan doing Macbeth which we enjoyed, next morning in school our English and Latin teacher came in with MacMaster who spent an hour explaining and bringing the more difficult parts of Macbeth, we thoroughly enjoyed it.
I feel that anyone reading about him would appreciate how lucky we were.
Years later in Met Police a colleague and I were on way to Valentine Park in Ilford, colleague wanted to see what was being done in old church, alter gone, stage being built. Man in charge asked if we went to theatre we said no, I recounted MacMaster and he was really envious of me. 86.4.161.209 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I put in a lot of secondary sources and removed some primary ones in . Can someone check and possibly remove this note?
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Purplewriter (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome the Teahouse, IP editor. We're here to help people who run into difficulties editing Wikipedia. Your question makes no sense. Care to elaborate, or link to a page you're asking about? Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
How do I make my draft not to appear self promoting and conflict of interest
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
As a new member I have been accused of either my draft being self promoting or conflict of interest (paid editor) due to my effort to ensure my draft does not breach copyright of publications copied from primary and secondary sources, and adhering strictly to Wikipedia policies. I try to study other articles published on Wikipedia and it gets more difficult to clearly differentiate my draft from approved articles. What am I missing? Thank you for the patience in guiding us newbies. Bibihans (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans
First, if you are not being paid or otherwise compensated, state that on your Talk page, as you were asked to do. Second, don't copy. Your draft has been declined once for insufficient references, so while waiting for a new review, continue to improve on the referencing. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD|WP:TOOSOON Does this mean that no matter what someone has accomplished in his other career, it is only that which he/she becomes popular in that will be considered notable? For example, someone who had a robust career in business and then suddenly becomes elected a governor, minister or even president cannot be considered Wikipedia qualified and TOOSOON to be published? Bibihans (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans
Bibihans A business career rarely of itself is notable unless the person has been written about by others because of a very prominent career. Winning major elections is a surer path to notability. Campaigning but not winning - Not. Same for Ambassador, an appointed position. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
What to do with a BLP that is written almost entirely like an advert?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I found Gerardo Ortíz through recent changes, and it is mostly terrible - the first couple of paragraphs are badly sourced and written like an advert. Removing most of the unsourced claims and rewriting would significantly reduce the article's size, but at the moment it is clearly in violation of many Wikipedia policies with acronyms I don't know. Should I just blank most of it, except for the well-sourced stuff, since it is a BLP? BobEret (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Hello! I recently noticed that one of my edits to Idi Aminwas reverted. In the edit I changed the formatting of "Butcher of Uganda" from quotation marks to boldface only to have it reverted. The thing is, in this article, "The Merrie Monarch" is emboldened, which left me scratching my head as I seem to be getting conflicting messages. Some clarification would be lovely; thanks! LittleMissDexterous (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@LittleMissDexterous: I can't find anywhere in the MOS where it says that nicknames are never bolded. On contrary, MOS:NICKCRUFT says:
Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article. Boldface is not needed for obscure ones or a long list, and those that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all.
I admit that I was exaggerating when stating that nicknames are never bolded, but it is certainly unusual unless they are extremely commonly used and accepted. I have no idea whether that is the case for Kalakaua, but it is certainly not the case for Idi Amin. Amin had dozens of nicknames, and "Butcher of Uganda" is one more commonly used outside than inside Uganda. Not not mention that is a very POV nickname, and many Ugandans would still strongly disagree with it. Case in point, one of Uganda's most important newspaper, The Daily Monitor uses it only thrice overall since it has started releasing online articles over a decade ago. Amin's positive nickname, "Big Daddy", is actually far more commonly used. The Idi Amin article has a whole bunch of issues anyway (it was recently demoted from GA to C) and puts a stronger focus on his perception in the western world than his actual rule in Uganda. Applodion (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I would instead recommend deleting the redirect. Bolding these nicknames would push POV narratives in the article which is the last thing we want to do. In addition, there are other individuals in Uganda who were also called "the Butcher", for example President Milton Obote and security official Peter Owili. Applodion (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I also write a lot on Ugandan topics in this time period. I agree with Applodion's assessment. We need to be extremely careful about bolding mere nicknames. It's different for someone like a performing artist, who is almost always introduced by their stage name. But an overwhelming majority of material that discusses Idi Amin will refer to him by his name most of the time. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Posting articles that will never have broad reference support.
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I drafted an article for an artist who did not have a high-profile career and thus does not have a wide net of online or print references. Unfortunately, the referencing is not enough to pass muster.
My question is, will Wikipedia ever be able to post articles for minor subjects like this, or is Wikipedia simply going to exclude them? Derzak (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Derzak: Without better sourcing I'm afraid that will not pass. Its mostly just cited to the artist himself. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything, and thus we generally do not publish minor subjects, as they are well, minor. AdmiralEekThar she edits!20:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
There is the possibility that one or more art historians will in the future choose to publish academic studies of Huebner's life and works, and/or that something occurs to make him fashionable/collectable so that more popular reliable sources independent of him choose to publish articles about him. Given what I can see in your draft, I'm a little surprised that there isn't sufficient such material already, but I'm neither an art expert nor a reviewer.
Take heart from the fact that the reviewers thus far have Declined the draft (meaning they see potential for sufficient proof of notability to be attained) rather than Rejected it (meaning they see no realistic prospect of this happening). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.196 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Derzak. The one thing you should be made aware of is that drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months tend to get deleted. So, it might be sensible to either make the occasional edit to it, or, better still, move or copy it back to your own sandbox page if you think there's a chance that Huebner might become notable in the future so that your work isn't totally lost. (or make an off-wiki copy). Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Derzak: I had a look at the draft; the main problem is that you used his site, ronhuebner.com, as a source something like 15 or twenty times. Self-sourcing does not get you any credibility on Wikipedia, per WP:Reliable sources. It also seems like you may have a conflict of interest, is that correct? I am going to try to add some good sourcing to see if this can be published. Please let us know about the COI.--- Possibly (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@Derzak: I had a look at the article. I have written hundreds of articles on artists, and I have to say you are correct here: there is no "broad reference support". I had a look around and, while some of the shows are excellent, my conclusion is that there was not enough written about him (or I cannot find it or see it) to support an article.--- Possibly (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Help with resources error
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I am working on the 'afro-Caribbean music' wikipedia page for a university class. I have some error messages coming up for my resources. Would someone be able to help me fix these?
Thank you,
Dimi Ddra5202 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback on my article
Hello,
I am working on the 'afro-Caribbean music' stub. I was wondering if anyone could have a look at it and give me some feedback? My talk page is ddra5202.
Thank you! Ddra5202 (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Ddra5202: and welcome to teahouse. That cite error on Afro-Caribbean music is shown because you named a reference but never defined it. I mean you added "<ref name=':0"/>" but you forgot to add "<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|...}}</ref>". I guess you added it but later erased it by mistake before saving. The date error is shown because you mentioned only year but date should be like 12 May 2021. -- Parnaval (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
information about the person read about
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
In Talk:Jennifer Winget, you write: "I it needs to be edited when it comes to her lovelife". If somebody is notable and that person's love life has been described in reliable, independent publications, then the material can perhaps be added if references to reliable, independent publications are provided. But remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine, and that it therefore ignores most aspects of most people's love lives. (Indeed, I'd say that if an article has to resort to describing a person's love life, then perhaps that person isn't really very notable. What have they achieved?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Srinidhi Mugasati Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on your draft article, I think that you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place like social media where people tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia we are interested in what others choose on their own to say about you. Any Wikipedia article about you would need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what people want to say about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself(which, while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged) you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people have great difficulty in doing that about themselves.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. Quick question. If someone who has French parents (French descent) is born in French Algeria and has Algerian nationality + French nationality and has lived the majority of their life in metropolitan France, would they be classified as Algerian people of French descent? Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, @Paul Vaurie, if this is about how to word it in the opening paragraph of a biographical article, and the person has dual citizenship, would "French-Algerian" suffice? Then the details their heritage could be explained in an ''Early life'' section. Pelagic ( messages ) – (20:54 Wed 12, AEST) 10:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sportspeople
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The category Sportspeople from [city name], does it only include athletes? Or can it include people involved in sports who didn't play? Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
What are my options if an editor is violating WP:BLP on one particular page? They have removed solidly sourced edits, added factually inaccurate edits not backed by RSs, and they discuss on the talk page that this person is deceptive. Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Why not add links so editors can see what's happening? It's a little hard to make any kind of determination of BLP violations without a link. freshacconci (✉)14:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Hello,
I have a recurring donation set up but it does not appear there is a way to link it to my Wikipedia account (so I will still get requests for donations during fundraising). I don't mind it that much but I thought it would be nice if Wikipedia recognized I already contribute regularly.
@Bcbradley: Welcome to the Teahouse. You should be able to stop getting donation banners by going to your preferences while logged in and navigating to the Banners tab, where you can uncheck the "Fundraising" option. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Bcbradley. Note that the facility Tenryuu pointed you at is a way for logged in users to turn off the banners: it is in no way linked to whether or not they are donors. There is as far as I know nothing anywhere in the software that drives Wikipedia (and all the other Mediawiki projects) that has any information about donors. If there were even a possibility that being a donor could affect how the software treated a user, that would compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bcbradley:, Just to make things clear: your kind donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation, which among other things provides the server hardware on which all the various language Wikipedias run. The English and all other Wikipedias are wholly separate entities, run entirely by volunteers who are unpaid. We have absolutely no way to work out who donates what, and little interest either. I suppose you could you could create a new userbox if you wanted to let other people to know, but you would have to create your own User page first. (Just click on your red user name, add some content like 'Hello, it's me' and click 'Publish'. Same for your Talk page.) Obviously we are grateful for everyone's donations to the Wikimedia Foundation since they allow WP to keep working. Thanks for your enquiry. MinorProphet (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely @MinorProphet and I'm happy that I'm able to do it. I totally get it - we don't want this to turn into a paid service of any kind and, again, it's a slippery slope from making a change for donors. Thank you for expressing gratitude. Bcbradley (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh and I did forget to mention I understand that, also, aside from the slippery slope that occurs if it were directly to the English Wikipedia and not the Wikimedia Foundation, I understand they are separate entities to begin with. Thank you! Bcbradley (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey @ColineFine, that's a good point, yeah. It's a slippery slope even if the initial change is merely changing the donation box to something like "thanks for your recurring donations". Bcbradley (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Foundation stopped showing donation banners to logged-in users, regardless of that setting. Other promotion banners, like Wiki Loves Earth, are a separate matter. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:32 Sun 09, AEST) 12:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
HELP! How can you remove an Everybody's Wiki page?
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am a new Wiki editor, and have been asked to remove an Everybody's Wiki page by Jeff Bien. I am accessing the internet through his modem, and believe that's why I can't access or remove the page. Please remove the Everybody's Wiki page on Jeff Bien {{db-userreq}}https://en.everybodywiki.com/Jeff_Bien Thank you, Truth TruthInCanada (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@TruthInCanada: That also means your Wikipedia account doesn't work there. Unlike Wikipedia, you can only edit if you create an account. I don't know their deletion policy but {{db-userreq}} will not work. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
How to change draft to article
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. You can submit a draft for review by clicking the button "Submit for review". If you don't see this button, you can add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft (remember to switch to the source editor first). If you see a yellow box saying "Review waiting, please be patient", you have successfully submitted your draft for review. Please note that getting a review can take a while, but that your draft will be reviewed eventually. Hope this helps; let us know if you have more questions! DanCherek (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
New article about a person with the same name as an existing article
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I've written my first contribution to wikipedia: an article about William Joseph Campbell PhD, a meteorologist and pioneer of using satellite remote sensing for studying sea ice. There is already an article about another man named William Joseph Campbell. When I go to publish the article I've written, I get the notice:
Note: There is a Wikipedia article named William Joseph Campbell (diff)
There is already a disambiguation article for William Campbell. It seems like I could either change the title of my article to William Joseph Campbell PhD, or modify the existing article's title to William Joseph Campbell (US federal judge) and rename my contribution to William Joseph Campbell (meteorologist).
(ec) @Musiclover2005: If you're referring to edits like this, the reason it showed up "on the actual article as a link" is that you neglected to enclose the URL in <ref> and </ref> tags. Also, it's considered suboptimal practice to use bare URLs as refs; when you cite a Web site, try to use the {{cite web}} template, filling in as many of the fields as you can, to format the citation properly. You may want to read Help:Referencing for beginners or the more extensive Wikipedia:Citing sources for further help. Deor (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@EditsBySw1ft: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question: nope, we're all volunteers here. Anyone can revert vandalism by clicking the "Undo" button on a bad edit. User warning messages can be found here. Once you become an autoconfirmed user (registered for four days with at least 10 edits), both of these things can be made easier with a tool called Twinkle. Many users like to patrol the recent changes feed to look out for recent vandalism. Let us know if you have more questions! DanCherek (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
In reference to the above, most editors are not paid to edit here. However, some are paid to edit articles for some specific reason. Seeking out people who will pay you to edit articles is highly discouraged as there's a change you may not even get paid for your edit, on top of that if you edit an article and it is revealed you are being paid but didn't disclose it, you may end up getting blocked. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@AdmiralEek: Thank you for getting back to me. Where shall I add those sources, please? There are already 22 references and a bibliography on the page. Do you add them here or at the end of the draft? Ukuser691 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Ethiopian food photos. Question can i use photos from flickr or do you have a suggestion where i can get photos that doesn't violate wikipedia/copyright rules??
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hi, Dawit S Gondaria. You can use some but not all photos found on Flickr. When searching Flickr, click on "Any license" and change it to "Commercial use & mods allowed". Those are okay to use. If you find interesting photos, go to Wikimedia Commons here and chose "Share images from Flickr". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for a helpful guide to the Flickr licenses corresponding to images that can be freely used on Wikipedia. By the way, I've also found success in asking a photographer on Flickr to consider changing the license of their photo from "All Rights Reserved" to "attribution" so that it can be transferred to Commons. DanCherek (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
:AdmiralEek Thank-you....Actually I had tagged those articles for deletion but I was anxious whether what I did was disruptive so I made sure about it(Perthirvin (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC))
To clarify, these are articles about purportedly notable elephants, which you tagged for Speedy deletion. Does beg the question as to whether elephants can be notable (aside from articles created in apparent good faith by a sockpuppet editor). David notMD (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Nevertheless, a sockpuppet should not be rewarded, and my deletion is both according to policy and doesn't stop someone from creating a new article. Doug Wellertalk19:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yep, had no issue with your deletion, was just wondering if you'd be willing to reconsider since the tagging wasn't in good faith. I'm sure someone will re-create it if there's a passion for elephants. StarM19:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@StarM: - thanks. I really, really dislike sockpuppets. And I can assure you that dislike is not just because one of them recently wanted to document my crimes against Western civilization. :) Doug Wellertalk 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Messed up ping, here we go again @Star Mississippi:Doug Wellertalk10:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
LOL. I mean clearly you're elephant-ist, so you must be against the entirety of our collective existence Doug Weller. The spaces in our usernames are just a start in the plot. StarM18:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
When using quotes in a citation/reference how long is too long and how short is too short? Should I always include at least a full sentence? Should I avoid quoting a paragraph? Are two or three sentences too long? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, TipsyElephant. There is no hard and fast rule. Personally, I have no problem with quotes of two or three sentences, but ask myself "why?" if the quote is longer. Consider the length of the source, too. Quoting a full paragraph of a three paragraph news story might be excessive, while quoting a full paragraph of a 400 page book might be OK. Also, longer quotes of public domain works are more acceptable than similar quotes of works restricted by copyright. You want to be sure that the article does not turn into a quote farm. You do not need to quote a full sentence. Sometimes a pithy phrase is enough. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant: See also my note below. Quoting from a news source directly is almost never necessary. (unless you were trying to highlight that the news source in question was saying things that were outside the mainstream viewpoint on a topic, and I was specifically noting that source for that viewpoint.) Instead, if I were doing as Cullen suggests, and using a news report as a source, I would summarize the information with my own original writing and simply cite it with a footnote. --Jayron3218:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Link Reusage
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm sorry for asking this, but do we reuse links after they have been already added to a page? For example, if New York City was repeated two times in an article, would the first one be the link? Thank you. CodenameP.U.P.P.E.T (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Broadly speaking only the first instance would be linked. So in your example the first instance of New York City would be linked, and not any other mentions. There are exceptions - such as replying like this, there would be no need to refactor your comments to bluelink your first mention of New York City and not link mine. There are also situations where it may be beneficial to link to the same article several times - image captions are always a contender for that, as are infoboxes.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I made this edit a while ago: [3], but the source that I provided only provides the length of the wakizashi in question. It does not say that this is an exceptional length. I come to that conclusion. Logically, it must be an exceptional length, because it does not fall within the length range provided. Is original research acceptable when it is obviously the only logical conclusion? If it is not acceptable, how would you recommend changing the wording? Should the information about the exceptional length not be included at all, to avoid implying a conclusion that is not in the source? After much thought and indecision, I still am not sure what to do. Thanks. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is an actual diff: [4] — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 19:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion the fact that one person chose to commit ritual suicide with a shorter than normal blade length is not notable and does not belong in the article at all. David notMD (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Re: Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
New user here, looking for some pointers to update and improve this page (Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development) to the best of my ability. I see the flag that the article could use some more citations for verification. Any advice on what type of information/citations about the company that editors would be looking for? This page has had some copywrite, plagiarism, and promotional language issues in the past, so I want to avoid that as much as possible. Is there a certain number of references that's recommended for a page this size? In general, would a reference be considered more reliable if it came directly from a company's page or from external press coverage? Sorry if these questions are a little naive or super basic, just a mega-newbie who's a little lost in the sauce. Hemeiling (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hemeiling: I'd read everything significant that is written about the organization in reliable sources and use that to build the article. Use neutral language, and don't add anything that's overly promotional. Almost everything that's there now is sourced, although I see at least one press release that should be swapped out with an independent third party source. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)20:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Is Rejoin EU relevant enough to have their own article?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I've been wanting to write an article about 'Rejoin EU', but I don't know if they're relevant enough. They've got plenty coverage from minor sources, and a few mentions from bigger sources like the BBC or the Evening Standard, and they had over 28,000 votes in the London Mayoral election. However, I'm not sure this is enough to merit them an article, they've only stood in one election, and they hold no power. Are they relevant enough? Castilruz (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Catilruz, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer lies entirely in the quality of the sources: not in what they've done, how many votes they got, how many elections they fought, or anything else. If you can find enough reliable sources that are wholly independent of the party (which excludes anything based on a press release and nearly anything based on interviews) that contain significant coverage of them to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article, then you can do so. If you can't, then there is no point. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Writing about people you know
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello! I started an article about a good friend. I would like to hand it off to another contributor, as they were also a client when I met them, so I am not impartial. Or is there a way to suggest the article so someone else might write it? Thank you! ERNTert (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
As long as you declare a COI on your User page, you are permitted to create a draft and submit it to Articles for Creation. Difficulties are achieving a neutral point of view and only including content with supporting references, leaving out what you know to be true if no reference available. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, ERNTert, and welcome to the Teahouse. Alternatively to what Victor and David said, you might manage to find somebody to "hand it off to". Your problem there is that we are all volunteers, who work on what we want to; so you would need to get somebody's interest in your friend. There is no sure way to do this: if you can find an appropriate WikiProject, then you might find somebody there who would be interested. But in any case, it's up to you to "sell" the project (I don't mean that literally - please don't contemplate any monetary transactions!) --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone with a background on British journalism interested in reviewing a brief article?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Timtempleton: Thank you very much for your help . I'll do my best to act upon your suggestions and improve this article. Once I'm done, I'll submit it again for review. All the best, Carlos. Carlos Muñoz-Neira (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Editing...
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
Hey, Mox=mana, and welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, keep in mind that no one can own an article. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "unmediatable to the public"? Not sure I understand your question. Bsoyka(talk · contribs)16:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I am new and i was just asking i heard things about editing and i wanted to confirm. Mox=mana
You're perfectly fine! You came to the right place (also please remember to sign with your signature using ~~~~). There is no way to make it so no one can edit an article besides making it protected. The only articles I know of with a protection level that makes it almost like no one can edit it would be pages like the Main page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
On that last note, editors can request that an article be protected (there are different levels of protection). Administrators decide on implementing protection requests. The most common reason to request protection is repeated vandalism. David notMD (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Aye, I feel ya MinorProphet. I just happened to come across a quite humorous page trying to stop us from ever thinking about delating the main page, but unfortunately, it only increased my curiosity. Although I doubt deeply that delating it is even possible for now. Alas. TheeChEese (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I sent over some important information that is loocked into the history of a couple articles. So do we get paid for info? Lol :) 160.3.63.8 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're not in the right place for that sort of question. This page is for help in using and editing Wikipedia: nothing else. Perhaps our article Marriage may give you some answers, or point you to some other resources which will help. --ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm just a passerby, but if you are seriously having a problem about that in reality, then this is definitely not the right place. We just can't give you advice on that. Additionally, I don't think any of us can really counsel you for something so important.TheeChEese (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Question from User:07225535Nm
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
If an article has old information about something, then go to the talk page of that article and make your suggestion there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
User:07225535Nm, you clearly have considerable interest in the "love life" of Jennifer Winget. You have repeatedly requested that information about this should be be added. However, you misunderstand. If you want material about this to be added, then you have to write the material, on Talk:Jennifer Winget. Of course you have to do so intelligibly and citing reliable sources. Shantavira has already told you this, but you have ignored it. If you continue to ignore what's said to you, then we'll have to conclude that you are wasting our time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
You requested adding new information on Winget's personal life, but did not specify what exactly should be changed. Talk pages are intended for making specific suggestions about how to improve an article. If you don't know exactly what information should be added, it's pretty likely that your fellow Wikipedians don't either, and won't find your suggestion very helpful.
RoxySaunders, I'd hope that the people at the reference desk would have more valuable things to do with their time than search for reliable sources that might back up online tittle-tattle about an actor's "love life". But perhaps mine is a minority opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Add a reference?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the article for the song Falling in Love Again an editor wants a citation for a comment. Instead of a citation(?), I can supply the German text of the song and a translation of that. I can't begin to figure out how to put that information into the article.
In German
Ich bin von Kopf bis Fuß
Auf Liebe eingestellt
Denn das ist meine Welt
Und sonst gar nichts
Das ist, was soll ich machen
Meine Natur
Ich kann halt lieben nur
Und sonst gar nichts
Männer umschwirr'n mich
Wie Motten um das Licht
Und wenn sie verbrennen
Ja dafür kann ich nicht
Ich bin von Kopf bis Fuß
Auf Liebe eingestellt
Ich kann halt lieben nur
Und sonst gar nichts
[translation by Tom Clark]
From head to toe.
I'm made for love.
That's my world,
and nothing else.
That is - what can I do about it? -
Just my nature.
All I can do is love
And nothing else.
Men buzz around me
Like moths around the light.
And if they burn up,
Well, there's nothing I can do about that.
From head to toe.
I'm made for love.
That's my world,
and nothing else. Mrbroschat (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mrbroschat: I'm assuming you're talking about Falling in Love Again (Can't Help It) (we have articles about multiple songs with this title). There are two ways to provide a citation for the tag in the introduction about the German vs. English verse. The best way is to find a source that explicitly and directly backs up the sentence. Your way is not as ideal; we could source the original German lyrics (ideally translated by a reliable source) and Lerner's English lyrics and make a simple comparison, though that way we are bound by WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and cannot make any analysis of the lyrics, which means we'll have to take "erotic" out of the sentence. Who's Tom Clark, is he a reliable source/recognized authority in the field, and do you have a link to this translation? ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
How to move an article into a draft if a draft is already there by same title?
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Everyone, How to move an article into a draft if a draft is already there by same title?
USN policy on brothers serving together on the same ship
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I believe there was a tragic incident during WW2 where 5 brothers were killed in action on the same warship resulting in a directive that brothers were no longer allowed to serve on the same ship together. (Similar to the directive to remove Pte Ryan from the European front following 3 of his brothers killed in action prior. (movie, 'Saving Private Ryan' based on this directive.)I am trying to establish if this is fact or fiction. 144.132.219.175 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Regards Vince
Hello Vince, factual questions like these are more suited at the reference desk. The Teahouse is for asking questions specifically on how to edit Wikipedia. Hope you find your answer! ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Link requested for Sharon L Smith from protected page
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am working on a page for Sharon L Smith, it is currently in my draft workspace (new editor here). Smith is the sponsor for the Celebrity Solstice, which is described in Wikipedia. However, the Celebrity Solstice page is protected, so it seems I cannot make the link. Can someone do this for me? Also, I am not sure how to best make a link to a page that I am still working on as Draft:Sharon L. Smith. Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
DaffodilOcean Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You shouldn't link to a draft in articles; once the draft is accepted and formally placed in the encyclopedia, you can then place links to it where needed. I've added the submission tag to the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This Erica Fernandes is the second time you have asked that love life details of an actress from India be added to an article. If you can find references, do it. If not, not. David notMD (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Translating an article without proper citations
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I am making a draft by translating it from its French article. But the original article does not contain proper citations and even I am not able to find suitable citations. Can someone please check both the articles if possible and guide me regarding citing my draft? Excellenc1 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Excellenc1: I also translate articles, though from Chinese. My rule is to hold myself to a higher standard and not include any information that isn't sourced and I cannot find a source for. We would much rather have a short but well referenced article than a long but inaccurate article. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Excellenc1: Hello. Do you mean Draft:Île des Impressionnistes? Note that we already have some coverage at Île_de_la_Jatte#History, so you will have to figure out if a standalone article is called for. Now, regarding French article sourcing, I have translated several articles from fr.wikipedia, and find that it is faster to mostly ignore their sourcing because a) it's often not done very well, or of dubious quality and b) it's usually faster to search for new sources in English. I added one new source to your draft.--- Possibly (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ganbaruby has things exactly correct. Translating Wikipedia articles from other languages to English and from English to other languages is a wonderful thing to do. But the translating editor is responsible for making sure that the translation meets the standards of the target language Wikipedia. Do not include any policy violating content and make sure that the content is properly referenced. Include new content that comes to light in your research. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Huge Earth: To become an extended confirmed user, you need to have 500 edits and your account must be 30 days old (for example, I am extended confirmed as I have Edit count for dudhhr edits and my account was created in 2019). To become an admin, you have to pass an WP:RFA. Dudhhr (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Huge Earth, the main benefit of extended confirmed status is the ability to edit a small percentage of articles that are EC protected, because of serious disruption. Another benefit is the ability to use advanced translation tools. Administrators have the power to delete and undelete articles, and block and unblock editors, in accordance with policy. Achieving that status is not automatic and requires a rigorous review by the community of active editors, and many editors who try to become administrators are not successful. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
All, I'm not sure what went wrong, but when I tried to use SuggestBot to generate suggestions for pages I could work on, nothing happened. I used the form nearly two weeks ago, I got a message on my talk page saying that I'd soon have suggestions, but none ever appeared. If anyone has suggestions on how to make the feature work, I'd really appreciate it. I'm particularly interested in helping with pages relevant to law, history, and technology.
NerdOfAllTrades42, Welcome to the Teahouse! Although I don't have the answer for this one, I just wanted to mention that if nobody else does either you can also ask this question at User talk:SuggestBot, where the manager of the bot can be found. Panini!🥪11:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi NerdOfAllTrades42. I don't know if this is the issue, but the instructions say that when you use {{User:SuggestBot/suggest}} the bot "fetches your last few hundred edits and suggests articles that are similar and in need of improvement". You don't have a "last few hundred edits", so maybe since that condition can't be met, you're outside the bot's parameters to act. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have a move request, but it is blocking with the following note:
Editing Wikipedia:Requested moves
Jump to navigationJump to search
Page notice
Attention! This page is not for requesting moves. For technical (uncontroversial) requests, edit this page. For (potentially) controversial moves, edit the talk page of (one of) the page(s) you want to rename, following these instructions.
Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse.
21:07, 6 October 2018 Ad Orientem talk contribs changed protection level for Wikipedia:Requested moves [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite)'
Why is it this way-? Do those "autoproclamated adminbs" of this site still try to protect themselves and somebody- that may critize them ???
That's noobish !
I think that I'll better go away straight away. do it yourself.
Move request
Please move Angoumois grain moth to: Sitotroga cerealella
There is no such name, anyway there seems to be somebody who likes to get "very heap" on "naming" lepidoptera with some "fantastic names".
Thise are shit, unscientific and just taken out off the mind of somebody that's weared in his mind.
Thanks
I'm so tired (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC) I'm so tired (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Both names have been in use for almost 200 years. Since 1970, Sitotroga cerealella has been more widely used in English-language sources. I support the move, but I can't make it over a redirect myself as I'm not an admin (autoproclamated or otherwise). Maproom (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Tonton Bernardo, the 'require autoconfirmed or confirmed access' means you have to make 10 edits over 4 days. This is because many users have vandalized, or intentionally harmed, the page. It's not hard to get autoconfirmed. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Making good pages
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I started to make a page called "Jailbreak(game)", but it got declined because it did not use reliable sources. It was also too short. How can I become better at making pages without these errors? Raaganjali (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am sure there is/was a BOT but cant find it (SuggestBot ??) that I could use that would regularly suggest pages that I might like to edit. Please can you point me in the right direction? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
How do you find the Location of Publication and why is it important? Google books, Amazon, GoodReads, Barnes and Noble, IndieBound, BetterWorldBooks, Indigo, and Alibris all neglect to include the location of publication. The only sites I've found so far that include location of publication is bookdepository.com and WorldCat and I have already found conflicting information on the two sites, are there other sites I could use? How do most people on Wikipedia find this information? How is the location typically formatted (i.e. City, Country; State/Province, Country; City, Province/State; or no country at all)? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant: Location is just something that is traditionally included in citations and bibliographies to provide more detail about the publisher. If your source, whether that's a book or a news publication, contains a location, just copy what it says directly into the citation template. Take this news story by ESPN for example ([5]): it says "St. Louis" at the beginning, so just directly put that into the template parameter instead of "St. Louis, MO" or "St. Louis, USA" or whatnot. Books will have something similar, usually on the edition notice at the beginning; enter in what's written there, instead of looking up the book on Amazon or WorldCat. If you for some reason don't have access to the edition notice, then it's fine to leave the parameter blank. Just give enough information so that someone else can reasonably find the same source you used. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
That table cell began with an exclamation mark rather than a pipe. Exclamation marks are used for table headers which are centered by default. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll add that to my mental list of ways to screw up tables.
(I couldn't find my preferred version of the Law online, which has "casual passerby" rather than "nagging intruder".) Narky Blert (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Artical not showing
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Darvespurvillage: Your draft is located at Draft:Darveshpur (Shikarpur, Uttar Pradesh), where it is in a place known as the draftspace. This is for you to work on the draft for it to get up to Wikipedia's standards, and it is hidden from searches from the public. I've added a button for you to submit your draft for more experienced editors to review. However, your draft is unlikely to pass review because it lacks any references; please read Help:Referencing for beginners and add inline citations before submitting. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
You submitted it for review. Add as much content as you can, WITH REFERENCES, as it will be Declined or Rejected if reviewed as it now exists. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
How does this article exist?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Created in 2006-7, when rules were loser. You might ask the creating editor SDC if that person (still a very active editor) wants to revisit the article and add citations. David notMD (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Creating a new List page
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Okay, so I'm a big fan of dark comedy, and on the page for black comedy, there used to be a list of dark comedy films, but of course this was removed. I'm currently creating a table page to list as many dark comedy films as I can.
1: You can do this by moving the page. 2. You submit it for review, however if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards it will be declined and possibly rejected (declined is not as bad as rejected as you can submit it for review again). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
How to add referencing to your edits as a number or hyperlink (FIXED)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorted - don't know how to delete this!
Tried to edit a wikipedia page for first time. Not a techy person but some of the info was wrong so I updated it with my reference. The reference shows up as a line of text rather than the blue hyperlink type thing - how do I add a reference more subtly next time please?
The page was 'ventricular hypertrophy' - end of the first paragraph of physiology content - don't have time to change all of pages as I'm a student but will update when I can as I learn more! Thanks
Draft:ChrisPayway? It doesn't help that the greatest claim made for him in the draft is that he "became a known entity", which makes him sound utterly normal. (Everyone I know is a known entity.) The reviewer explained, writing that 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 people). This is an extraordinary understatement, because the draft comes with no references whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Just because you are the owner doesn't mean any article you make gets approved. I could make OOOOOOOOOOOGOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAA and the article is just not helpful but it needs to be accepted? TigerScientistChat15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring for the moment TS, but rephrasing what Hoary wrote, no references = no article. Wikipedia cares nothing what people write about themselves. Everything depends on other people writing about you. David notMD (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
OH ok I meant to say like according to his logic I could make a random dumb article that is not helpful that would still be accepted because I am the owner. TigerScientistChat > contribs16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, I am a disclosed paid editor here. I recently submitted a page for review, Draft:Bahrain_Economic_Development_Board, which was rejected on the grounds of advocacy and failure to meet WP:GNG. However, a helper in IRC said that it is a notable organization and the draft is not bad either, and that I should discuss the matter here since he had to go somewhere. Can somebody please check the draft and see if it is notable and meets the requirements for WP:NPOV? Thank you! Hillster (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You draft was rejected for the following reasons: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
@Hillster: Welcome to the Teahouse. A speedy deletion tag was reverted by another editor, as it was considered not unambiguously promotional. It suggests that it's a tone issue more than one of notability. You may want to directly ask the reviewer where they believe a neutral point of view is missing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Tenryuu:, thanks for the suggestion. I've left a message for the original reviewer at the draft talk page and their talk page, as well. Hillster (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If this was about a government agency of a western country, and wasn't by a paid editor, would we be dissecting its sources with such vigor? Or would there be some hand-waving about presumed notability? Anyway, the sourcing there strikes me as having breadth but not depth of coverage. Some are no more than quotes from the CEO; others are very brief mentions but in the context of more thoughtful treatment of regional economic trends. But the citations that I checked (only a subset) do support the facts stated. And the tone doesn't strike me as blatantly promotional. Perhaps the article could benefit from some context about Bahraini government policies aimed at encouraging foreign investment (per US State Dept) or the general trend of GCC countries looking at fintech to supplement oil (per Santosdiaz, 2020), but given the COI, may it be prudent to stick to "the facts and just the facts", as @Hillster seems to have done? Pelagic ( messages ) – (04:48 Thu 13, AEST) 18:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Pelagic:, thank you for understanding and looking into this. I had similar concerns, but I didn't want to voice them out loud. Can you please have a look at the discussion on the talk page and the links I've provided there? The organization has either been mentioned, covered, cited, or quoted in at least 80 sources. I understand that many, perhaps most, of them are quotes and mentions, but if the organization has verifiably made an impact in its local economy and has been covered and discussed by international media and government agencies, is it not noteworthy and notable? I appreciate you looking into this. Thank you. Hillster (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Teahouse
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Its exciting to be guided through your first draft and being inspired to do more here on Wikipedia. Thanks to Teahouse and the editors who have been so patient with us newbies. Glad to be learning and making my contributions. Looking forward to my Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohaire been moved to article space. Thanks. Bibihans (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans User:BibihansBibihans (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm a new editor. I started editing an article and tried to add a new reference. The article already has several references. When I typed in the reference information and clicked "insert", it showed the inline citation superscript number as 17. There is already a reference (or note) 17. The next reference number should be something like 59. I have not yet published. Why is it showing 17? Will this change to the correct number after I publish? Howbeit (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Howbeit and welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer, yes it will. The preview can only number the section you are editing because it is "unaware" of the rest of the article.--Shantavira|feed me18:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Is this wrong?
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Is it wrong to ask in Teahouse about submission of my article? As in, "can someone please check my article and approve it too?" (I asked because I was going to ask about approving my draft) Excellenc1 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Excellenc1: Typically, asking here about your draft doesn't end up helping much. There are currently 1,382 drafts that need to be reviewed – someone will get to yours eventually! Bsoyka(talk · contribs)18:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I am attempting to create a new article about Sail Internet, but it was rejected due to: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
BusinessWire merely distributes press releases. For a subject to be notable it needs coverage by independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy: Draft:Sail Internet, Inc. Rejected and also nominated for Speedy deletion. Copy and save off-site from Wikipedia, because it is likely to be gone soon, with no easy means of recovering what you wrote. Fatal flaw is no independent references about the company. WP:Other stuff exists points out that there are many flawed articles that exist. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Australian Rules Football Kit template or sports kit template
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am looking for a list of codes to produce designs in the Australian rules football kit codes template. It produces a small graphic that looks like the strip or jumper an Australian football team wears. Does anybody know where I can get all the codes? HIHPISBrian (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Inappropriate userbox
Today I found a userbox that I think violates the restrictions for userboxes because it is inflammatory and divisive. Is there a place I can go to report it and have it removed? 🐍 Helen 🐍19:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@TigerScientist: I can still see categories at the very bottom and aside from the image stretching the page to the right, it looks fine to me. Do you have a screencap that you can post on a site like Imgur? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now. It might have something to do with position:absolute in the first div; there also don't seem to be that many </div> closing tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems the second div element hasn't been closed, and the absolute attribute is causing it to go further than the page boundaries. Try closing the div after the {{under construction}} template. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs19:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Request for Publish My Articles < Darveshpur Shikarpur Tehsil,Uttar Pradesh
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Sir Good Afternon, i'm try to make a Articals, is not publish please help me ? my articals Darveshpur,Shikarpur Tehsil,Uttar Pradesh
Thank you for help have a nice day
Respecfully
Darveshpur village Darvespurvillage (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Three versions of the same proposed article, all different, none of them anywhere near acceptable. Maintaining rival versions of the same draft is very likely to cause confusion and hamper progress. I strongly recommend getting rid of two of them, and then concentrating on improving the third, basing it on cited sources. Maproom (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
When to quote and when to do an individual citation
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I'm working on Minjung theology, specifically the theology section's second paragraph. I was wondering whether I should use separate quotes for every few sentences to indicate where in the chapter I was getting the information and whether using quotes to identify exactly where I got my information is overkill or not. Should I perhaps skip the quotes and simply give page numbers? Maybe combined anything within a few pages of each other? Or just cite the chapter for all of the content without page numbers or quotes? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi TipsyElephant. If it's possible to provide a page number, always do so if the source of the information is a work of more than one page (even if you are quoting the work [actually: especially if you are quoting]). You do not need to quote at all, unless an in-text quote is warranted; there's no need to quote the corroborating detail in the reference (there are sometimes extenuating circumstances that would warrant this, such as because the nuance of meaning has been disputed), but don't do this in the normal practice. When you are quoting a source (outside of a public domain work), you are always balancing fair use and portion of the work used against the extent of the whole, where quotes are unneeded for most purposes. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant:: Hello, and thanks for stopping by The Teahouse. In general, one needs to think whether one should be speaking in Wikipedia's voice about a topic or in a specific author's voice. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should be written based around the generally accepted, consensus, mainstream viewpoint on a topic, and should effectively summarize what that viewpoint is using original writing. No quoting needed. Just use original writing to summarize the viewpoint, and use citations to direct readers to a reliable source for that information. I tend to only use quotes for a few purposes 1) To highlight a particularly important, or famous, statement about a subject (in which case it will be short and limited to the one specific quote which needs to be stated) or 2) To report on a viewpoint which is NOT the mainstream viewpoint, but is nonetheless important to highlight, in that case a directly attributed quote may be useful to represent the fringe viewpoint of the person in question, and to make it clear that we aren't speaking in Wikipedia's own voice. Both of those can be used sparingly. Basically, if it can be said in Wikipedia's own voice, using original writing, it should be. If it can't, then use a direct quote, but only do so sparingly. --Jayron3218:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32: maybe a better question is whether citations 22 through 27 at minjung theology are overkill or not. Should I combine 22 and 23 and simply cite the Preface without a quote? Similarly, should I combine 25 through 27 and cite chapter 2 rather than including quotes for each section? Should I combine reference 13 and 14 and simply cite the Introduction rather than providing quotes? Should I just remove the quotes to avoid cluttering the references section and keep the references separate because they have slightly different page numbers? I'm mostly trying to determine how important or useful quotes are when creating references. Based on what Fuhghettaboutit said I should probably remove the quotes but keep all these references separate because they are on different pages, but should I be super specific about which page something is on or use page ranges? For instance, I could still combine references 25 through 27 and use a page range of 3-11. Should I remove all of the quotes being used in the entire reference section? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi again TipsyElephant. Verification should be made as transparent and accessible as possible; we want the reader to be easily able to identify the source, and just where the information is located in the source that corroborates the cited information. Using a quote does serve this purpose, and so it does have some merit for that use, but if you can direct the reader very closely to where in a source to find the information (e.g., by providing a page number), the quote's usefulness for this purpose is mostly obviated (see WP:FOOTQUOTE). On the other hand, fair use is involved whenever you're quoting from any non-public domain source. Were we to take this up as a general practice, we would inevitably violate copyright with too-long quotes, or quotes that use too large a portion of the source, for sources of limited breadth (see e.g., WP:COPYQUOTE). (Also, for fair use purposes, the argument for the educational value of an in-text quote in the body of an article is fairly straightforward, where the educational utility of using quotations in a citation is less so – meaning whether the use is "fair" would seem to me to properly start with a higher bar to merit their inclusion.) And yes, it is cluttering, not to mention being simply non-standard in most referencing. All this is to say:
I suggest removing every single reference quotation, unless there's some specific extenuating circumstance for retaining;
However, consonant with my thrust above, if it's not possible to provide page numbers, or similar close-identifying location data in a citation to a work of multiple pages/long length, so as to specifically point readers to the part of the whole that verifies the article detail, then that would be such an extenuating circumstance; keeping in the quotation in that situation would be warranted. But this is not very common.
It is far superior to provide a page number for each citation than some general span like pages 3 to 11;
So, I recommend only combining references if they are on the same page of the same work (while there is some added "clutter" to this as well, some might argue, on any balancing test, good verification is of far more gravity;
For an article with content that is verified using multiple pages from one or more particular works, you're already using what I would suggest as the best method to provide individual page numbers – some form of shortened footnotes (rather than, e.g., {{rp}}).
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Any two users may speak to each other, either on article talk pages or directly, on user talk pages. No account is required(though there are good reasons to get an account) 331dot (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If by "speak", you mean actual voice audio, then no, we don't have an official Discord channel or anything like that. If you mean to converse in writing, then that's what we are doing now. But it is public; we don't have private DM's/whispers. Pelagic ( messages ) – (20:31 Wed 12, AEST) 10:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
someone needs to edit the first paragraph of the article titled "Bani Hamida"
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The Bani Hamida (Arabic: بنو حميدة) are a nomad bedouin tribe living in Jordan. most famously known for breaking theThe Bani Hamidah tribe, also known as
This is how the article starts. Obviously it is supposed to read "..., most famously known for breaking the Mesha Stele (aka Moab Stone)." I'd do the edit but I don't know how to access the beginnings of articles since there is no "edit" icon to click on. Could someone please tell me how to do this. Thanks. Radphilosophe1 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Radphilosophe1 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Radphilosophe1. For future use you might want to change your settings to enable this. Click on your Preferences (top of every Wikipedia page), then choose the "gadgets" tab and check the box marked "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Why this isn't the default behaviour I don't know.--Shantavira|feed me18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Radphilosophe1. In addition to the solution provided above, you can click on the edit link at the top of an article (rather than one of the side edit links) to access editing the entire article (including the first section). Alternatively, you can click on any side edit link and then change the number at the very end of the url, such as ...§ion=2 to "0" (zero), i.e., ...§ion=0; then hit return/enter. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia as a essay
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
I want to write a essay about anime for middle school essay contest and I would like to use some of the text on the Wikipedia article am I allowed to use Wikipedia text in my own words as long as I source the article or do I need to have copyright permission to use it and if I need permission what is the email to get permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunacats (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lunacats: all text on Wikipedia is licensed that, as long as you attribute Wikipedia, it's fine to copy. However, I'd recommend not copying a significant amount - generally, essay contests prefer your own work. Passing off Wikipedia's text as your own is plagiarism, which is usually disqualifying if found out. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Elli and I was not planning on passing the text as my own work I was just going to use some of it and change the text and citing Wikipedia as the source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunacats (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd recommend consulting Wikipedia:Research help too, Lunacats, and particular the advice about only trusting material from Wikipedia if the article has a reliable source (and ideally, only once you've checked that that source actually supports what it says in the Wikipedia article). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lunacats: Since Wikipedia takes its information elsewhere, you may want to try consulting the sources used in the article, read them, then cite the sources directly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Lunacats. You might have done it properly without the detail, but the manner you must provide attribution when you use content from a Wikipedia article is important, or it will result in a copyright violation. For the nitty gritty details, please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. In short, Wikipedia is not the owner of the text, us authors are, of all of our contributions (that are sufficiently original to pass threshold of originality), and the heart of the manner of citation is to give proper credit to the authors of the article, whose names and edits are available from the page history of every page, under the free copyright licenses we release our content under when we edit here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
General John L. Dewitt
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I do not know much if anything about computers, etc. However the article about General John L. Dewitt is grossly misleading. See: The Report to the Congress of the United States: A review of the Restrictions on Persons of Italian Ancestry during World War II, dated November 2001. 99.150.252.10 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi IP 99.150.252.10. The best place for you to discuss any concerns you may have about John L. DeWitt is on its corresponding article talk page at Talk:John L. DeWitt. This will give others a chance to examine your concerns and figure out what if anything needs to be done. If you're not sure how to use an article talk page, please take a look at Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. However, you're going to need to be much more specific than just stating that the article is grossly misleading. Be specific about what article content is incorrect and try and provide supporting reliable sources which can be verified by others. Of course, you may also try and be bold and correct things yourself, but you will still be expected to support any changes you want to make with citations to reliable sources; otherwise, they may simply be reverted by another editor as unsourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for expressing your concerns. You are referring to the article on John L. DeWitt, and I would ask you to post those concerns on that article's 'Talk page' where other interested editors will see it. There's a Tab labelled "Talk" right next to the article tab. Click that, and then click 'Add topic' and post your concerns and suggestions for changes there. The more detailed you are about what is wrong, and why you think it is misleading, the more likely another editor will review your concerns, and any sources you can link to. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Need help to improve a Draft
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Avivdc (talk) I looked over your draft, but I still don't know much about Workiz. It has some type of software and raised a lot of money, but is it good software, what does that software do, and is anyone using it? I looked at your references and one was in a foreign language, 3 were expired or had errors, and most were about raising money. One had a chart showing businesses that had good customer satisfaction, but there was no information about why customers were satisfied. Has any independent source (one not directly connected to Workiz) written a review about the business, explaining what it does, and how it differs from other businesses? If you can't find references that tell anything about what Workiz does it might be best to wait a year or two until the business has had more written about it.
I would suggest you read and study other Wikipedia articles about software companies, such as QuickBooks, Peachtree Accounting and Sage 300. See what information is given in those articles, and what references are used. Your draft tells me Workiz raised a lot of money, but not why the business is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Best wishes in finding good references giving good information. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
assistance citations and inline citations help if poss...
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello
We are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlexandLiane
If anyone could help us with citations and inline citations we would both be over the moon !
Someone set up our wikipedia several years ago and we a bit confused with th flags it has, so we haven't attempted to change or update anything (in case we make break it somehow)
Hello. First things first: do not edit your own Wikipedia page. Autobiographies rarely (if ever) comply with our neutral point of view policy, since we all have inherent biases about ourselves and may want to present ourselves in a better manner. The tags mean that there are not enough reliable sources, and that the ones that are there are not formatted properly as inline citations. If you would like to help, feel free to file an edit request using the edit request wizard. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
500 edits and ant-vandalism
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Hi all. On the talk page for Palestinians, a user has added a section that is an unambiguously racist outburst against Palestinian people. I've added warning templates to the talk page and their page, but should I just delete the section [7], maybe under G10? BobEret (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey there BobEret, I see that you've added the warning template and warned the user. As a talk page banner on that particular talk page reads, "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Palestinians. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Palestinians at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk." In cases of content similar to that, you are welcome to simply remove the content. This is the same for all talk pages. Best, EpicPupper (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
BobEret, In this case, absolutely. Anyone who is not here to build an encyclopedia should be dealt with at once accordingly. G10 applies here to a G. Panini!🥪03:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@BobEret: just an FYI, G10 is about entire pages. You can remove the content without a necessary speedy deletion criteria - just per the talk-page guidelines. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Crvnz: nothing you added was lost - you can click the "view history" tab to see the edits you made. I think the message left to you - Pls. only include alumni that have articles - is quite clear. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Crvnz: Please stop adding non-notable names to the alumni list. For these lists, Wikipedia convention is to only add the name if the person has their own Wikipedia article. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Question about why some articles tagged for speedy deletion
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
hey,
i just want to ask, why their are artices wich are less relevent created by admins or person in big post are not deleted in wikipedia whereas if some one new creates an article people start tagging the article for speedy deletion?? BantiAurBabli (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have recently changed the data upon one of the Wikipedia pages, but it was deleted as they stated the information was not constructive, though when I added the information it was based upon a new cyclone that had formed recently in the northern Indian Ocean, I added this information as the current information was outdated, may I ask why has this been done? RichIsBestGamer (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I HAVE SUBMITTED AN ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA FOR MY FAVOURITE LYRICIST Mr.Arunbharathi, but my article was rejected stating that not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. i jus want to confirm that he is a renouned Lyricist working with big shots in the industry. now he is the next gen Lyricist of tamil cinema why would you not include him in wikipedia Uddyshiva (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that there have been repeated attempts to create an article about Arun Bharathi (See history at Draft:Arun Bharathi) which have been Rejected and deleted, so the idea of an article about him has been "salted". meaning only an Administrator can restart. Also, you have put all the content of your draft on your User page in addition to the draft. Please delete that as soon as possible, as that is a non-allowed use of User page.
So it would appear that I can only add names of people who are already in Wikipedia?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Crvnz, one of the issues is that all content on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable and sourced. Very little of the content you added had sources verifying the fact that the people went to the school. Then secondarily, as other editors said, Wikipedia has to create some kind of cutoff for what is included in lists like that--otherwise a list of every student who had gone to the school would be a horrible mess--and so a common standard used is when the people are notable enough to have their own article. I don't think that's a hard and fast rule, but if you don't have a source for any person then it won't really matter anyway. Alyo(chat·edits)02:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Crvnz, I understand that you may be feeling frustrated, but to be blunt: yes. This is because Wikipedia is not a directory; the purpose of Wikipedia is not to contain all of human knowledge, but just what's important enough (by our standards) for inclusion. If any of those people that you added do have Wikipedia articles, feel free to put it back. Otherwise, since you have shown interest in the college, consider improving the article body by adding references to any information without an inline citation, and while doing so adding any missing information you find in your research. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Long-haul - you could draft articles about those people, get those articles accepted, and then add their names to the notable list. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Sairat - Suggestions to copey edit a article
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A Marathi film Sairat article needs copey editing. The article have lots of issues like in the main section it have the names of remake of that film but this info also present at remake section then why this info is at 2 times. Huge Earth (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Huge Earth, Welcome to the Teahouse. The main section (known as the lead, or lede) is to give a brief overview of the topic and what the article covers. It's purposely there twice to cover the Remakes section of the article. So do not worry as the duplicate info is intended. Panini!🥪11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
How to remove a picture from Wikipedia Commons
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please Help Me. I was adding a photo in Wikipedia commons but by mistake I have added another photo and I have to remove that picture, so please tell that how can I remove that picture. Please help me I don't want me to be banned from editing
Huge Earth, in addition, you can add the {{Annual readership}} template to the talk page of an article. It'll show the article's daily views. Panini!🥪13:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
First edit on another wiki... from a move?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hello! I had moved a page to a different name as the original name had very few sources and after putting it up for deletion, someone actually said it was a synonym of another name. So I moved it to the other name (Which had way more sources) and after the move was done I got a notification from MediaWiki thanking me for my first edit.... I'm honestly very confused. ANyone know why I got this notif? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blaze The Wolf: You probably got notified from wikidata because you gave a new name so it changed entry see your edit.
the Watchlist doesn't give notifications, it displays changes on the "Watchlist" tab on the same row as where your user page and talk page are. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
I was thinking to ask these questions from long time but asking only one seemed trivial. So now questions are piled up in my head so asking them all at once. -- -- Parnaval (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Parnaval, don't worry about it. When you have a question of any kind, as long as it relates to Wikipedia, feel free to ask right away. After all, that's why I'm here! ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Rotating WP logo
I read somewhere that once a large wikipedia logo was made for a meet and then pieces were given to attendees. Is there any animated logo of wikipedia which rotates on vertical axis such that all pieces are visible ? I want to add it on my userpage. -- -- Parnaval (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
If an editor's previous account is blocked some reason and then the uwser returns , creates another account and makes good edits for many monthes. They are given reviewer rights like rollback, reviewer etc. because of good editing, but then it is found that this user evaded block, so is a sockpuppet. Should he be blocked? Why? asking this beause I saw one usser getting blocked (User:Kashmorwiki) -- -- Parnaval (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Parnaval, Scanning the reasons why Kashmorwiki was blocked: Theoretically, although they have been making helpful contributions they still have broken the major rule of evading their block in the first place, which is a big no-no. Panini!🥪14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
It is an excellent question. First, I agree that blocks should be imposed to prevent further damage, not to punish. If someone repeatedly breaks a policy (for example, by harassing other users or repeatedly posting copyrighted material) we impose the block so that it doesn't keep occuring, not to punish them. However, what we want to see before we unblock isn't evidence that they will follow that particular policy, but evidence that they will follow all policies. Thus we're not looking so much for "I won't make that copyright violation in the future" as "I will follow policies in the future". If someone then ignores policy by creating a sockpuppet account, even if they do good work, they are showing that they still are unwilling to follow policy by breaking it to edit. How then can we know that they will follow other polices in the future, if they are currently breaking that one?
What we generally ask is that people express an understanding of why they were blocked, state that it won't occur again, and demonstrate that they will follow policies in the future by not breaking them while blocked. - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
IP editing advantage ?
Most of the IP edits are vandalism. But sometimes I see IPs which do good edits. Their contribution history is also good. So what are the reasons they do not create account? Creating account has many benefits. Only benefit I see at WP:WNCA is that IPs are dynamic so no drama but as many IPs are static this is not benefit. -- -- Parnaval (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Parnaval, Who knows? From personal experience, however, a friend of mine once went to go make an account; when it asked for email confirmation, he believed it wasn't worth the hassle. Panini!🥪14:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: But e-mail confirmation is not necessary. The reason for IP editing must be something else, something very very secret...🤨🤔😂
@331dot: I KNEW THIS, someone will say it. I even thought not to write the opening statement becaause it distracts people from real question. See, now I have struck it -- Parnaval (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Emoji use
Why emojis are used so less here. Instead editors use sarcasm template, why not emoji? And sometimes template:smiley but that too very less often. Is there a policy or guideline which discourages use of emojis. -- -- Parnaval (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Parnaval, There is probably an essay of why somewhere, but most often I hear the same things about them:
They are an unnecessary drain on server resources, and could cause server slowdown
They make pages more difficult to read and scan
They make it more difficult to copy text from a page
They are potentially distracting from the actual content
@Parnaval: The response above by Panini! is probably referring to mainspace article content, where it is very distracting and unnecessary. As for other namespaces, it's probably because most of us are editing from a computer with no effective emoji input. Editors probably don't hate emojis; they're just not worth the hassle when they don't convey extra information. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hello, it is hard for me to understand how to publish my first article on Wikipedia. I was trying to find a person who will help me but it was very difficult too. I'm interested in science and I've noticed that none has published an article about the method of Electron Resonance Imaging. My relatives have work in the field of this method and I also read about it at Radiopedia. I think it is important to educate people that a new method of preclinical imaging is available. Could anyone help me in publishing such an article? Bepova (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I just added a section header to your post, something you should always do, when you have a question. Btw it's better not to start your WP experience with creating new articles but with little things. Other users will explain IT better than me. --Maresa63Talk12:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bepova: Indeed, creating an article on Wikipedia is like trying to drive a bus when you've never been behind the wheel of a car: some people manage it, but most end up crashing and unfortunately they're reluctant to drive even a car afterwards (i.e. people give up and leave). It seems like you're a subject specialist just trying to make your knowledge available on Wikipedia. In this case, I would recommend looking at existing articles and asking: is this out of date? Is anything missing? Is there a claim here missing a reference that I could find?
Wikipedia work always needs to be reference-oriented, which can contrast a lot with how academia works. You need a reliable source (like a peer-reviewed paper) for everything you write; conversely, a good place to start editing might be to look at some papers/books/references you've read recently and ask, "is any of the information here suitable to Wikipedia, and in which (existing) article would it go?"
As you mention your relatives, you might want to look at our conflict of interest guidelines, because if you start editing in a way that people suspect is intended to raise the profile of your relatives' or your career then we have concerns as to whether what you are writing is neutral. — Bilorv (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Be aware that Wikipedia's function is as an encyclopedia. It is not a place "...to educate people that a new method of preclinical imaging is available." David notMD (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Noobie updates to Richard Hey Lloyd's Wiki page keep being reverted. Can you explain why please?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I have been trying to update Richard Hey Lloyd's Wiki page to add a link to his obituary as well as other compositions and links to recordings of some of his music on YouTube, however these keep being reverted. Can you explain why please?
Richardmkenyon (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. WP:RS makes no specific mention of Youtube, please enlighten me. Also, how is the Church Times an "unreliable source"?
Also, what about the other changes I have made which simply do not have sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmkenyon (talk • contribs)
@Richardmkenyon: There's guidance over at WP:YOUTUBE, but generally videos can't be linked to Wikipedia as they are likely to be copyright violations (an exception can be made if, for example, a news report comes from the official news channel). I can't speak to the reliability of Church Times. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Page creation on wikipedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
i need a page on Wikipedia
First create a new section next time, don't ask questions in all caps as people will think you are yelling, and no one owns a article on Wikipedia. See WP:FIRST Also sign your talk messages with 4 tildas ~ TigerScientistChat > contribs17:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Buharihaido001 To date, every one of your article edits have been reverted. I suggest you take the Wikipedia tutorial and then develop a pattern of successful edits of existing articles before trying to create a new article. If, by "I need a page on Wikipedia" you mean about yourself, Wikipedia is not social media. Unless you are so famous that other people are writing about you, not going to happen. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Conflict of interest edit request on primary hyperoxaluria
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I have a COI edit request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Primary_hyperoxaluria. It is an extensive list of changes mainly because the article is scant and is in need of many citations and more recent evidence. This is a rare genetic disease which clinically manifests in the kidney. Would a medical editor(s) kindly review these edits? I would be happy if you could take a look at a couple of them at a time, instead of the whole bunch. Let me know how I can help make it easier for the editors as well. Thank you! Iciplascarfern (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I'm fairly new to wikipedia. I've been adding categories to some of the uncategorized articles, and I realized that the message saying the article hadn't been added to any categories was still there afterwards. My question is, should I change it to the message which says the article needs more categories, or is it done automatically? If I should be doing it, how would I go about that, and do I need to do anything except replace the message?
Many thanks in advance, DirkJandeGeer. DirkJandeGeer (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Declined, actually, which is not as severe as Rejected. All articles require references. Articles should not contain hyperlinks to websites outside Wikipedia. This also appears to be an attempt at autobiography. Wikipedia does not outright ban such, but strongly advises against. Only if several published articles about Jack Castiglione can be identified and used as references would this be possible. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Jack8581, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, because Wikipedia is so well-known and popular, many people have a completely wrong understanding of what it is. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about something, no matter how significant or virtuous that something may be: Wikipedia is only interested in things which the world has already been told about, in the form of published reliable sources wholly independent of the subject. If Wikipedia at some point has an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and it will contain little or nothing that you or your associates say or want to say about yourself. Instead, it will be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with you, and have not been prompted or fed information on your behalf, have chosen to publish about you - including any sources which have been critical of you. If there is enough such independent published information to base an article on, then somebody could write one - preferably not you, as David said. If ther is not, then no article about you will be accepted, whoeve3r writes it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I've been struggling to find source material on basic search engines for a bio that I've been writing. Luckily, I came across Newspapers.com which has given me a wealth of articles to choose from. However, because they are all archived and old, the articles aren't readily/easily found online to copy and paste into the auto-cite option. How do I cite these old articles? I can certainly enter the details manually. The problem is that when someone goes to review the article there will not be a clickable cite. Also, Newspapers.com is a subscription service database. I'm able to download a PDF or JPG of the newspaper-clipping which includes source material citations. Will that be enough when going through the review process? HollyBells (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, HollyBells, and welcome to the Teahouse. A citation to a newspaper consists of information such as the title, author, date, page number, name of the paper, maybe publisher and place. If the (issue of the) paper happens to be available online in an authorised copy (i.e. not an copyright-violating unauthorised posting) then adding a URL to that online copy is helpful to readers, but is not an essential part of the citation. I recommend using {{cite news}}. --ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@HollyBells: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can find an example of how to cite Newspapers.com at WP:NEWSPAPERS – it's preferable to use the clipping tool provided on the site, as that makes the article visible to everyone. Bsoyka(talk · contribs)18:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I'm the owner/manager of a large property in New Mexico called Vermejo. Over the years a Wikipedia page was built under an incorrect name. I've read several articles that say there is a "move" tab or button that will allow me to edit the name. This is incorrect as I don't have a move button and there seems to be no way to edit or correct the name. Can anyone help me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermejo_Park_RanchJademcbride (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jademcbride: the "move" functionality is restricted to autoconfirmed users, because it's an absolute pain for us to reverse when people do it maliciously/jokingly. I gather that you want the page moved to the title "Vermejo Reserve", but can I ask why? It's not obvious to me from the article or a quick search that that is the most common name used for it. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move pages without autoconfirmed status, but someone at the Teahouse might do it for you if you give a clear rationale why the move is uncontroversial. (If it could potentially be disputed then you want the discussion process option at the requested move page, so others can give feedback.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jademcbride: Strange, the Turner website disagrees with you. [8]. The reason the page has that name is that that is the name the sources use, including the website of the actual owner. This page also lists a different person than yourself as the manager. Wikipedia policy requires us to use the name which the majority of sources use to refer to the subject. Encyclopedias are not expected to be completely current. When in the future the majority of sources use the purported new name, then it could be changed, but meanwhile you need to provide verifiable proof that the name was changed and when if you want to add an additional name to the article. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Balked in editing templates
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Perhaps it's simply "protected", CAT edits wiki. But can you give an example of a template you want to edit, and say what about it you're prevented from changing? -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi CAT edits wiki. Your question is too general to provide a truly concrete answer. What have you tried, to what template, in what location; what were you trying to change; what did you do to try to effect that intent, and what exactly was the result? Is it possible you were trying to edit a template that was protected? If possibly relevant, though I do not use the visual editor (which has instructions about editing templates at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing templates), past discussion appears to indicate it is buggy and inferior when trying to add/remove/change templates than is regular source editing using wiki markup. Anyway, there are information pages at Help:Template and Help:A quick guide to templates that might be of assistance, but if the issue is protection this is not relevant. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
How to access and edit a Preview Page of an Article?
Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Hi! I have noticed that the following article: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has orphaned code </ref> leftover displayed in it when I am mouse-hovering over it. However I have not the slightest idea on how to access the preview page to correct the problem. Gave a quick look around there: [9] but can't seem to find how to do just that. Any ideas? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)16:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, SilentResident. Because that's such an enormous and fully referenced article, could you say which section the problem appears on, and perhaps the few words preceeding it? I took a quick look on mobile, but couldnt see anything. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@SilentResident: - thanks, that image was really helpful. I fixed the problem with this diff. But to go back to your original question - there is no way to edit a mouseover preview. That link simply shows the article - which is what you would need to edit to fix the problem. I don't use the default mouseover tool (preferring to use Navigation popups), so possibly wouldn't see the same issue. Anyway - hope it's fixed now, and thanks for taking the trouble to report it. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@SilentResident @Nick Moyes I had to revert the edit made to the article in this diff, because it broke {{efn}} due to curly bracket removal; but also I didn't understand why the page preview is not showing the page properly. I've just noted to here to inform, and have a nice day. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I tried to fix the problem by joining the first two notes with this edit. It was a quite maddening incestuose nested ref/notes situation, so some additional checks are welcomed. Personuser (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @SilentResident and Ahmetlii: If this issue is still showing, now that my edit has been reverted, may I suggest you report this issue at this talk page for the Page Preview tool? Should you choose to link to this discussion, remember that posts here get archived after three days of inactivity, so you might need to update any link to our archive page, or use a WP:DIFF. Regards,
The issue is fixed and the article's Preview is displaying its text properly now. Perhaps we shall report it nevertheless, just in case? EDIT: And thanks very much to everyone of their time and responses! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)21:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't dig much into the Preview tool matter, but this seems to had to do with notes inside notes. I guess there's little to no reason to have this kind of setup and could be a syntax mistake by someone trying to add two different notes and misplacing brackets. The inner note wasn't used elsewhere and was displayed earlier than the outer one (which doesn't seem to make much sense to me). Reporting the issue to someone more technical, either for the Preview tool or for referencing to avoid such unusual nesting seems worth it nevertheless (nitpicking is the key to bugfixing, worst case it will be deemed as unremarkable, best case it could help solve a lot of unrelated problems). Personuser (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I am unclear if others experienced the same issue that you reported with the Preview, or not. If they didn't, it could have been a PC memory issue at your end, or some other temporary glitch. I'd probably not report it at this time, but wait and see if it appears again elsewhere in the same type of scenario. Although I initially loved hovercards (=Page Preview) as an admin, I now find Navigation Popups gives me access to so much more information and links to diffs, pagee history etc that I'm unlikely ever to go back. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Personuser:, I agree. If none else goes ahead with reporting it, I may do so, later this weekend. The only thing holding me back is the careful choice of words to avoid confusing the technicians more than helping them understand what the problem is about. Explaining and describing a problem is not something I do often, and the fact that I am a non-native English speaker only makes it more difficult.
With technical/software related problems usually the best think you can do is to provide an example that is as simple as possible and still shows the same problem (this could also in part exclude local/temporary problems). I recently tried to do this for Module:excerpt in my sandbox. This seems one of the most legitimate uses for the sandbox, but I'm not a much experienced editor yet and I'm not sure if this is the best way to go about it or if I should post a differen question about this matter, so take this comment with caution. Personuser (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I have made a draft. Can someone please approve
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello I have made a draft about an Indian Billionaire. Can someone please approve. As I am new to wikipedia. I don't know much that what to do after making a draft. I have made draft about *VIKAS OBEROI*. Now when this draft will be approved? I have made that article using different articles on the internet. Badassboy 63637 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Badassboy 63637. All your draft shows is that this person has a lot more money than 99.999% of other people. Simply being rich is not a claim of notability. Forbes publishes lists of rich people. Wikipedia publishes informative encyclopedia articles about notable people, rich and poor alike. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Badassboy 63637 The draft has not been submitted. At the top, put subst:submit inside double curly brackets {{ }}. There is a backlog of more than 5,000 drafts waiting for review, so could be as long as several months. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Good evening, Teahouse. Could someone please clear this up once and for all? Is this - or is this not - a main space article: Tom Brier on WP? and if so: how? This article was voted delete at an AfD, I thought; and the article in its present form is not up to WP policy or standards. It keeps showing up in my Watchlist; and when I type the name into the WP search it takes me directly to the page as if it is a main space article. I miss a lot of things on WP, so I may have missed something here. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Good morning, Maineartists. I will drop just some links to help other give you a decent reply: I found an afd from February 2016 and a redirect from February 2017, that quickly evolved into a new article. I guess article deletion doesn't preclude by itself the article to be rewritten, this one seems still in a poor shape. I have no reason to think it isn't currently in main space. Personuser (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I deleted all the content about the accident, as that information has nothing to do with his purported notability as a musician. David notMD (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is an article in mainspace. A version of it was deleted by AFD in February 2016. The current article was created today. There is no reason a deleted article can't be created again with better sources. I do not know if this article is substantially better than the deleted version. If it is not, it can be nominated for deletion again. MB00:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Since I was the one who placed the original article up for AfD, which resulted in delete, I can attest that this present version is in far worse shape; and does not meet even general notability for inclusion at WP. Should it be placed for WP:SPEEDY or AfD 2? Maineartists (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
If it is not an improvement on the deleted version, then it can be G4 speedy deleted. I applied the tag, let's see if that works faster than AfD.--- Possibly (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, um, since you ask, this seems to be written in Fine-Art-Industrial-Complex Speak. Here's a sample: FOCUS Photo L.A., the emerging and practitioner sector of Photo L.A., is centered around its biannual photography competition that becomes a platform for art photographers to broaden their career opportunities and promote their work within the Photo L.A. network. FOCUS Photo L.A. competition finalists are selected by a panel of art + photography experts to have their images professionally printed and framed for special exhibition. I imagine that its name is not pronounced "eff-oh-see-you-ess"; therefore not "FOCUS" but "Focus". If "a platform for art photographers to broaden their career opportunities and promote their work within the Photo L.A. network" doesn't just mean "a way for photographers to promote themselves", then I don't know what it means. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@SXLA: I cleaned it up and resubmitted it. As Hoary implied, it had some things that needed to go before it would get published. please remember that if you have a WP:COI, you should not edit the article once it is in article space. --- Possibly (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to a page where people can ask about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
About unblocking
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Back to my fav place for asking questions! I was reviewing one draft Draft:Niraj Gera since it seemed notable. It was blocked from creation so I pinged the admin [11]. Seems like the admin is not active since long time (May 1 as per the contribution history was last edit). In such cases should I simply wait for the admin to get active? Or, should I ping someone else? If yes, then who and where? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Victor Schmidt. I am reading the purpose of this essay and I think point 3 if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; might suit the agenda here. What are your thoughts? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to a page where people can ask about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
i have clicked the submit draft for review button but i still see Draft article not currently submitted for review. how can i submit my draft article for review Iamorganiza (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What mistakes should I be worried about while writing an article about a client? I already disclosed his name and said that its a paid article. What other necessary steps do I have to take which will help me publish the article?
Inzy321 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the proper information to allow you to submit your draft for review. You should not do so yet, however as there are several concerns that I see after a quick review. You will need to remove all external links from the main article text(specifically those in the headers). The draft seems to just tell about this person and what they have done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. There needs to be sources with in depth, signficant coverage of Mr. Biniaurishvili himself, not just what he does. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Council of Education Social Consolidation
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I encountered a problem while writing an article. I was adding Wikipedia links in the article but came upon a Title which was not found by the English version of wiki. But the article with the Title exists in another language i.e. German. I tried translating languages as well but it still doesn't show up for me to add the link in my article.
The Title is 'Jüdisches Berufliches Bildungszentrum', which translates to 'Jewish vocational training center'. How can I add this Title's Wiki page in my article? Any help?
My article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eden_Biniaurishvili ,
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCdisches_Berufliches_BildungszentrumInzy321 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I made a small edit and wanted to cite one reference but got a message that a closing tag was missing, so I inserted what I thought they meant, but the error message was repeated. I couldn't follow the 'Help' page. It should be simple enough to enter a reference, but seems complicated. Can someone explain in simple terms, please?
Hi Palaeocene. Not sure if this will help (and the page linked in the post above contains much more information), but the typical way we cite sources is to go to the part of the text we wish to verify with the source, and add a footnote using this markup:
<ref>Source information, e.g., book title, author, year page number...</ref> – and please be sure to note that the second "ref" tag has a closing forward slash ("/").
When you save the page, that code you placed displays as a footnote marker like "[1]", and the details you placed between the ref tags are shown in the references section of the article, so long as it contains certain coding, like "{{Reflist}}", to tell the software to display the references' content there. I also recommend reading this how-to guide to the basics of citing references. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia Issue: This site can't be reached
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hey!
I'm trying to access Wikimedia from a few days now but it always says "This Site Can't Be Reached". I'm not sure if its an issue at my end or the website is under some maintenance. Although I'm getting their notifications and everything but still no luck at accessing the website. A little help would be appreciated thanks.
This is the link that I'm trying to open: https://commons.wikimedia.org/Inzy321 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Inzy321: That link works fine for me, too, so clearly it isn't under maintenance. You're obviously able to edit en-wiki right now, so it's not a general connectivity issue. Usual steps would be to clear one's cache or reboot computer. Check other sites/filters applied by an employer's network etc. Can you access it from a different device like a mobile phone? You should be aware that your talk page on Commons has received a message about the very imminent deletion of the photo you uploaded from Facebook without properly indicating the licence. When you can access Commons, you should check it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inzy321 Just the say-so of the subject is not sufficient release of copyright for images to be accepted on Commons, I'm afraid. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Uploading drug structures
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Gentlemen,
How do I upload, drug stereo-structures (drawn using Chemdraw), while editing or creating an article in Wikipedia. It is not allowing me to upload through media.
Looking for assistance Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The file is <CS ChemDraw Drawing (.cdx)> format. It is structure of a drug molecule.
You can't upload .cdx files directly as they are not supported at commons. Take a read of MOS:CSDG to see your options. The preferred file format is .svg but .png files also work for chemistry. Ask me on my Talk Page if you need further help, Valliappan Kannappan, as I've had loads of experience uploading chemistry drawings. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information
Wikibooks
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Eep Crood: Welcome to the Teahouse! This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia, but I think I can answer this for you anyways. Wikibooks does not host books like that one – it's for open-content digital textbooks. It would also be a pretty big copyright violation for anyone to publicly host books like that, so you'll just have to buy it to read it. Bsoyka(talk · contribs)17:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Is this article noteworthy enough?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I found a random article that I was going to help de-orphan - A-SUN Energy - but a google search doesn't give anything about them. I'm assuming articles need to be verifiable and also somewhat noteworthy? It has two random industry magazines that mention it that are already cited. What is the process for dealing with an article like this? Does it get removed or improved? Thank you. Abillionradios (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Looking at the wikipedia pages for The Four Seasons and particularly their chief songwriter/producer Bob Gaudio, I noticed that the link for Judy Parker, who was Gaudio's wife but more importantly for the purposes of these pages co-wrote some of the group's biggest hits with Gaudio, goes straight to Gaudio's page (and contains no other information about Parker except that she was his wife). Firstly, I don't see how this is effected - the link is not "Judy Parker" linked to Bob Gaudio just Judy Parker but it takes you straight to Bob Gaudio - secondly, I would like to create a sole Judy Parker aka Judy Parker Gaudio page, and I don't see how that's possible without being able to redirect the link to the new page. Can anyone offer any advice? Davidnicholsknowsbest (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Davidnicholsknowsbest, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are very practised in creating Wikipedia articles, so that you think you can create an acceptable one basically in a single edit, then you can edit the redirect: Follow Judy Parker, and then pick the link where it says "Redirected from Judy Parker", and that will take you to the redirect, which you can edit and replace with your article.
If you are not so practised, I strongly recommend that you use the articles for creation process to create a draft. When you submit your draft for review and it is accepted, the reviewing editor will handle the redirection. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Pipe Major and music composer My John McLellan DCM wikipedia page not approved earlier. i recieved a number of criticisms about my writing style, and couldnt see how best to go forward with his bio page.
Would it be possible to link Pipe Major John McLellan DCM's name currently listed in the Notable People section of the Wikipedia Dunoon page, to a related Wikipedia page which highlights his most successful tune 'Road to the Isles'?
i'm not really sure how to achieve that! Baishan17 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Baishan17, and welcome to the Teahouse. Probably not, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a repository of articles about subjects which meet its definition of notability - roughly, that they have been written about in independent reliable sources, at enough depth that an article can be based on those sources. Your draft Draft:Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon (Composer) has no sources at all, and so is incapable of establishing that McLellan is notable - and without that, he should not appear on the list of notable people from Dunoon. It the song is notable and there is a reliable source showing its relationship to Dunoon, then it is possible that the article about the song could be linked from Dunoon but not in the list of notable people; however, at presenr The Road to the Isles does not appear to have a single source that discusses the song in any detail (it is possible the History Journal article does, but I rather doubt it) and therefore does not establish that the song is notable (I have tagged the article accordingly). If you can find some scholarly articles about Mclellan or the song (they don't have to be online, but they must be reliably published), then you can add them to your draft or to the article about the song as appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Clarification
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is not an autobiography and this is my first wiki page creation. I have the user id close to the name of the professor because I can easily remember. Please let me know what I can do to prove that this is not an autobiography. Can I change the user name now?
Also, if you would like to authenticate me, please see my LinkedIn profile here. Please feel free to send me a note through LinkedIn and I can respond to it for further authentication. Thank you.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lakshmisathianathan/
Hello, ShankarThai, and welcome back to the Teahouse. In that case you should change your username so that you are not appearing to be somebody else: you can use (a form of) your real name (as I do) or a pseudonym (as many editors do): it's up to you. Wikipedia has no need to "authenticate" you for any purpose. However, if you are connected with Thayumanavan in any way you should read COI, and if you are in any way employed or paid to write this, you must declare yourself as a paid editor.
It is understandable that other editors thought you were writing about yourself, because of your user name (I think I thought that myself). I suggest that once you have changed it, you put a note on both your user page and Talk:Sankaran Thayumanavan saying that you accidentally gave the impression that you were writing about yourself, and clarifying what your relationship is to Thayumanavan, if any. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What are the templates for talking to users, and where do I find them?
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
By this, I mean templates that are used for pinging or replying to other users. I see a bunch of different ones being used (such as {{hp|user}} and {{re|user}}), but I don't know what the difference is or how I should use them. Could someone help me with his? PeanutButterPopcorn (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I notice an image on a particular page is a mirror image. I do not feel comfortable trying to replace it. Is there anyone who can replace it with the original which I downloaded from a public website. Vorteilhaft (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Notability guidelines for sports not listed in current essay
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have been trying to find notability criteria for Hockey. We have here ice hockey [12] but not just hockey. The broader question is, if any sports are not listed in the guidelines essay, the only way then is to resort to WP:GNG or WP:BASIC? Or there is some other general sports criteria that exists? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomadicghumakkad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. An athlete from a sport without specific notability criteria would fall under WP:SPORTBASIC, the more general criteria for athletes. As noted there, if that doesn't apply, then the more general WP:GNG or WP:BIO would apply. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I assume that your question is more specifically about field hockey. The word hockey, like the word football, has different meanings in different continents, and especially in North America. User:331dot is right about sports without special notability guidelines. One possibility would be to propose a guideline for field hockey, which is played in much of the world. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Review in progress template
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I created a draft article which was almost immediately designated as 'under review.' The "Review in progress" template that was added to the page says that "if the template has been unchanged for more than twelve hours, please ask for live help from our experienced editors." It has been almost 24 hours. I asked for help on the live chat but got no answer. The draft in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Albert_LabergeValerie.gau (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Valerie.gau, and welcome to the Teahouse. The editor who put that 'Under Review' message on your draft some 24 hours ago was User:Jeromeenriquez, who will get a ping to notify them they've been mentioned here. It's easy to start a job on Wikipedia and then get pulled away in real life. Hopefully, this will jog things along a bit for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear Nick Moyes, seems my rights have been removed or maybe some technical problem because of which i was all of a sudden unable to review or finish assesing the article that was in the progress. i dont know how come my rights were revoked all of a sudden or the technical issue happened. Please try to help me to continue editing further. i love to contribute to wikipedia. Thank you. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear Victor Schmidt, I asked this question on the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer page and Rosguill gave me a reply that i never had the rights and i never edited or reviewed any new pages. Kindly explain what is happening. I had no rights then how can i put the template and if i had the rights then why it has been revoked. kindly clarify and let me continue contributing to wikipedia. thank you.Jeromeenriquez (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
My talk page vandalized. Please someone help me and block this ip
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is the ip that's vandalizing my talk page 122.167.113.180 by writing sex stories. At first they were just abusing (Which I even kept as badge of honor) but this is too much. Please help by blocking them. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have given this pornographer a one-month vacation from Wikipedia. In future, please don't treat vandalism as a badge of honor: it feeds the troll, who we can assume is desperate for attention. -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I was wondering if there's a specific guideline or anything on whether edits on talk pages should have edit summaries? I've seen talk page edits with summaries like "Reply", and I've seen some that don't have a summary. I'm not sure whether I should be using edit summaries when I edit a talk page, or just leave it blank. HoneycrispApples (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have updated the draft. Can now someone approve it?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi I have updated the draft about *Vikas Oberoi* and added more information about him. Can now someone check it and approve it. Plz give suggestion :) Badassboy 63637 (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have looked at it but I cannot approve of it. Remember your earlier thread "I have made a draft. Can someone please approve"? (If the link doesn't work, then try this.) It was about this very draft. Both Cullen328 and David notMD made comments on the draft to which you seem to have paid little heed. Please don't ignore the very comments that you have asked for. ¶ Yes, we understand: The man is rich. However, his riches don't make him notable. How is he notable? When you're sure the draft demonstrates his notability, follow David notMD's earlier instructions to submit the draft and await acceptance. (This may take time. There's no fast lane for the rich.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, (almost) all editors do this without pay. Perhaps you should write a letter to Vikas Oberoi, asking him what of his accomplishments makes him notable??? Meanwhile, your efforts to update the net worth information of Indian billionaires who are already subjects of articles is worthy. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Advice about nominating articles for deletion
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Teahouse Helpers
A few days ago I worked on a couple of random articles from the Task Center that needed more wikilinks. One, Abol Hussein Tanhai, is really just a CV - résumé. It has a multiple issues banner/hat, which says just that, too, among several other problems. The main problem that strikes me, is that it has no reliable sources, and never has, since it was created in 2012 - none at all. There's a "Sources" section which consists of four links to web pages that are the subject's own blogs, personal, work pages, etc.
My question is this: Can I start the process for the article to be considered for deletion, or will that be looked upon unfavourably, coming from an unregistered user? Is it even possible for an IP user to do? (Sometimes I find doing minor or fiddly corrections and edits relaxing, but I have no plans, just atm, to register a WP account - for various reasons.) If it is better that I don't nominate it myself, could I ask another Editor to do it? Very grateful for any advice you can give. Thanks 49.177.30.125 (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Updated 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok to change Nintendo UK from a redirect to an article or should I create a new article?
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Is it ok to change Nintendo UK from a redirect to an article or should I create a new article?
I would like to create an article for Nintendo UK, with information about the current company, it's history and links with other companies such as the Official Nintendo Magazine, Nintendo, etc. I can see Nintendo of America is classified as a redirect with possibilities, which if I understand correctly means it would be ok to change it from a redirect into an article despite it already being a section on the Nintendo article. Would this also apply to Nintendo UK? Thanks! Robhlark (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Robhlark: Welcome to the Teahouse! That'd probably be the kind of thing to discuss on the article's talk page – in this case, Talk:Nintendo. In my personal opinion, it's not necessary to split it off into another article mainly because you can simply add more details to the existing section. For example, Nintendo of America doesn't have its own article – it just has some extra details in the Nintendo article. Bsoyka(talk · contribs)13:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Robhlark: generally, you could be bold and convert the redirect to an article - it doesn't look like there has been any consensus against this. Anyone can tag a redirect with {{R with possibilities}} (and therefore such a tag is not necessary to convert a redirect to an article). Elli (talk | contribs) 13:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bsoyka and Elli: Thanks, I have quite a lot of information I could add so I think it could be worth it's own article, but I'll check the talk page archive and check for consensus Robhlark (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Robhlark: for a newer editor, asking might be a good idea first, yeah. As long as your information is backed up with reliable sources, though, you're good. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Saving Drafts
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I'm very new here, so sorry if this is a stupid question, but I can't seem to find an answer anywhere else. Is there a way to save drafts without submitting them for review? I recently started my very first draft from an entry on the requested articles page. I didn't have time to get the whole thing done and I guess I accidentally submitted it for review with basically nothing on it. I didn't think much of it, as I was expecting it to take months to be reviewed - but it was reviewed by the next morning and rejected (obviously, as I was nowhere near done)! I'm also working on another draft from the requested articles page, so I don't want the same thing to happen to either page - Any help is greatly appreciated! SeptaLemore (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek, Thank you for the quick reply! I understand what you said about my current pages. In the future, is there a way to save new drafts without submitting them for review? If I remember correctly, the only option I had when creating the draft page was the blue publish changes button, which I think was what submitted for approval - of course, I may be wrong. Thanks again for your help :-) SeptaLemore (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@SeptaLemore: Wikipedia changed the Save changes button to Publish changes a few years back to make it clear that changes would be published for all who come across the page, as every page can be viewed by any user, which is not the same thing as submitting it for review; to do that, you'd had to have clicked Submit on the {{AFC submission|t}} template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I think I get it now - thanks you two!
Wikibooks
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Citation for assertion made on Arabic Diacritics page
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On the Arabic Diacritics page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics three similar assertions are made about the diacritics fatha, kasra and damma, namely that each one is "usually not written" when it precedes its corresponding long vowel, e.g., kasra before yeh. (Incidentally, I am naming the diacritics and the letter as they are named in the Unicode table. http://unicode.org/charts//PDF/Unicode-3.2/U32-0600.pdf. How did one decide, how should one decide whether to use the names used here?) Is there a citation for this assertion about when they are usually not used? I believe that is the case, and I've been looking for authority to cite in a manual I'm writing. Does the author / editor who put this assertion into the page have a citation for it?
NC Daoist NC Daoist (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
NC Daoist, you can research this article's history to discover which of the many editors added that material. However, it may turn out that the editor is no longer on Wikipedia and cannot be contacted, or that they have no idea as to the source.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion for my Article
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hey everyone. I would like to have your expert opinion regarding an article that I want to publish. I have been getting speedy deletion request for the article stating that the page has promotional intentions. But I am stating the facts about the subject in the article with proper articles references to back it up. I need an opinion whether I should stick to the article of the Actual Person himself or should I switch and write an article on the product/event which is of importance.
Waiting for you kind response!
"I am stating the facts": yes, sometimes. But not always. Example: The entrepreneur after getting success from these products said “We don't want to reveal too much about our current sales, but there is one thing we can proudly say. We are on the verge of reaching eight-digit sales." Is there a reliable, disinterested source for the sales? If so, feel free to cite it. Don't cite the boss: he's not disinterested. And in particular, don't recycle his humblebrags. ¶ Biniaurishvili is, you say, paying you to write this; but you're asking others for help, and they (we) aren't being paid for this. I'm not inclined to spend more of my time on it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The thing to understand, Inzy321, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Unless you can find several such sources, the subject will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Submission request
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I have made Draft about an Indian actor. Can anyone approve of it? I don't know much about Wikipedia because I'm a new Wiki user. So please someone accept the Draft I have made. I have made Draft about the Indian actor "Vansh Sayani". Thank you. Tellyring (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tellyring: Hey there, and welcome to the Teahouse! To elaborate on the above reply, one of the three core policies on Wikipedia is verifiability. Other people should be able to verify that any information in an article is correct based on a reliable source. In addition, this means that all subjects of Wikipedia articles need to be notable, and this can be proven by adding proper sources. Bsoyka(talk · contribs)13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have made Draft about an Indian actor. Can anyone approve of it? I don't know much about Wikipedia because I'm a new Wiki user. So please someone accept the Draft I have made. I have made Draft about the Indian actor "Vansh Sayani". Thank you. Tellyring (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Tellyring, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you're rather in the position of somebody who says "I've just made a movie: please will somebody look at it and tell me how I can get a TV station to pick it up? I don't know much about movies because I've only just started studying cinematography". Writing a Wikipedia article is much harder than it looks, especially for new editors. My advice to you would be first to spend a few months making improvements to some of our six million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, and then reading your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Submission approve request
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I've made a draft about an Indian child actor. Can anyone approve of it? I don't know much about Wikipedia because I'm a new Wiki user. This is my first article. please accept it. I have made article about the popular child actor vansh Sayani. Which has not yet been accepted. please accept it quickly. I have done it for the good of someone else. And I have also add reference to it. Thank you. Tellyring (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
First, your Edit summaries are often "I have made some changes." That is not helpful. Try to briefly describe the nature of your changes. Second, what you added is not a valid reference. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Third, Teahouse hosts are not all draft reviewers. Your draft was declined earlier today. The next steps are to address the reviewer's comments and then resubmit. There is a backlog of drafts waiting for reviews. It is not a queue. Can be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before your revised draft is reviewed. David notMD (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Tellyring Drafts without sources will not be accepted. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable actor. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot(talk) 20:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
331dot, Tellyring states, "I have done it for the good of someone else.", indicating, altruistically, the reason for the rush.</sarc>--Quisqualis (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, Tellyring. A Wikipedia article is not at all - not even the tiniest bit - for the benefit of its subject. (Obviously many subjects do benefit from there being an article about them, but that is no part of the purpose of Wikipedia). If even part of your purpose in creating or editing an article is to benefit the subject, then by definition you have a conflict of interest and should follow the guidance there to make sure that non-involved editors make the final decision what to do with your suggested content. --ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
"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 people)."
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Newbie here. Not discouraged, rather eager to learn from mistakes. My subject is a writer of science fiction (but not exclusive to), with several decades of published works in several noted magazines (many that have their own Wikipedia pages, such as 'Astounding', 'Cosmopolitan, 'Fiction', 'Collier's' etc.,). What my author is lacking is publication of his own biographical information and the sources of what biographical information that is available are from user-generated websites that are a Wikipedia 'no-no'. I'll keep following the links provided in the submission notice but I wonder if this lack of 'published', 'reliable', 'secondary' source information about the author, himself, means this article will never qualify for publication. It's okay if it does not. No time is ever wasted if there is something to be learned from the investment. Tchula65 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hey there, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not too familiar with the subject considering you haven't shared the draft link, but I do know that usually, notability is not inherited. What that means in this case is that while the subject's works may be notable, that doesn't necessarily make the subject notable. You'd probably need to find reliable sources that go into more detail about the writer rather than just mentioning his name and use those in the article. Bsoyka(talk · contribs)13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Not good enough yet, to the draft about the author, and "No" to the attempts at drafting articles for bibliographies of his publications. David notMD (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello again! I've been reading a lot of the help files and there's a lot to learn but they've all been super helpful. I read through the Help:Minor Edit one and I have a question. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to ask on the 'Talk page' of that article so I thought I'd ask here instead. Sometimes I forget to add the tildes for my signature. When I go back to add it, do I need to mark that as a minor edit? Thank you. :) Abillionradios (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Abillionradios (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Abillionradios. It isn't mandatory but I think that it is a good idea. An edit summary like "added signature" is also helpful. The idea is that no other editor needs to spend any time checking out an edit like that. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Abillionradios: just to clarify one thing - it is never necessary to mark something as a minor edit. You could avoid marking any of your edits as minor and you would be fine. However, it is, in this case, preferable to mark it as a minor edit. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I made the mistake of am reviewing Space Race, which is currently at ~150K. My first instinct is to trim it to ~100K to conform with WP:SIZERULE. But then I note that its parent, Cold War is twice the size, and most country articles are 200-400K in size.
Have we abandoned WP:SIZERULE? Should there be an effort to streamline these articles? I've never run into this issue with my own articles, so any guidance that could be provided would be much appreciated! Neopeius (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Neopeius: Sizerule applies to prose. According to [13], there is only 76Kb of prose so it is under the suggested limit of 100Kb (and it is only a guideline, not a hard rule) RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi everybody!
Nice to be here for the first time. My draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jan_Schouten_(geneticist) was rejected by Robert McClenon and he adviced me to ask for help here, to rewrite the article in a more formal tone that is more encyclopedia-like. As it is my first draft article, it would be nice if somebody could give me some text suggestions to improve it! That will help me for my next article as well. Hoping for your advice, best wishes. Indyplant (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Indyplant: Welcome to the Teahouse. To be pedantic, the draft was declined, not rejected. You may want to ask Robert McClenon as to what he considers to be promotional or not neutrally-worded. From a glance, the sentence about the foundation he created might need to be revised, as it seems to be extolling the virtues of said foundation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The page uses quiz using Wikicode. Where can I get a tutorial for it?
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Thank you so much. I guess there are other functionality such as checkbox?
thats why I asked for a tutorial. I already have checked the codes.
Thanks and regards RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
To be honest I also doubt the utility of this at the first glance. Anyway here's a list of pages using the template that may give you some hint on how to solve the problem. I may try to make some tests, but don't count too much on me. Personuser (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am trying to get the history section updated for the Bayswater City soccer Club, but someone keeps stopping it requesting sources.
The sources are the people of the club, and I have pulled together the story.
So i can not understand why it just can't be published. I have been at this club for over 50 years so I think I may know enough about it as well Garrydorazio (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Garrydorazio: One of the core policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, which is that every single piece of information should be attributed to a reliable source. Without this policy, anybody on the Internet can claim to be an expert on something, and we would have no way of double checking about whether or not it's true. Therefore, we offload the responsibility of factchecking to those reliable sources, hence the phrase "verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia cannot accept information that you collected yourself, which is covered in our no original research policy. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Question about citations
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I added an additional pop culture appearance to the Cao Cao article, but my citation of the High School DxD Fandom site was reverted for being untrustworthy. I understand why, but I can't find any other sites that give the specific information I included. Should I just leave it uncited? TheLobsterCache (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@TheLobsterCache: You shouldn't just slap a "citation needed" and expect other people to put a reference in for you; that's being irresponsible. There are approximately 464,000 pages with the citation needed template, and many of the tags go unsolved for years. It's unlikely that someone's going to provide one for you in the near future. Remember, verifiability, not truth; you are expected to find a source for everything you add to Wikipedia, so if you can't find a source, it's better to leave the information out because it's probably not noteworthy enough for inclusion. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Russian Sources\Mixed Sources for the English Page
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Russian Sources\Mixed Sources for the English Page
Hi there, I'm new to English Wikipedia. Previously have been working on Russian pages and I submitted a draft for review but can't find out the info on how I shall enter the sources originally presented in Russian.
Hello ColinFine, thanks for your answer. It partly answered my question. Perhaps, I haven't formulated that right. What's about the references themselves? Shall I translate Russian references or simply put it this way?
30 не достигших 30: молодежь московского будущего (in Russian). The Guardian. 2015-06-08. Retrieved 2021-05-10
The article you mentioned seems to have an english version, so it would make sense to change the title and the link in this case. Otherwise with some templates, if you really care, you can specify the transliterated title under |title, the cyrillic title with |script-title and the english translation with |trans-title. Whether it's worth the effort depends mostly on the kind of source. Personuser (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I need a infobox for Ill-tradition
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I am currently writing a article about a Ill, bad Hunda of Maharashtra. I searched infobox for tradition but , I think there's no such infobox available. Can you guide me. Or I write this article without infobox . Huge Earth (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully right diff. Seems appropriate to leave the nowrap in this case. At least locally, if I zoom in such a way to make the two-world names to split between two lines it looks awkwards, because there's no spacing between different state/entities or what they are. Actually no-wrapping even the successor column seems to make sense (though the flags give more clarity in this case). I had some trouble with understanding the syntax, but my understanding is that you mainly removed redunant diplayed text/link text pairs and nowrap has only to do with spaces and occasionally other characters in the displayed text, so there is no reason to remove it, if it was initially appropriate and the final text is the same (replacing a two word name with a one word one is a different matter). Personuser (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Pepsinus, and welcome to the Teahouse. The advice I will give you is "find several reliableindependent sources with significant coverage of Barbasetti". He may well meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but until you find the sources that establish notability, you are building a house without building any foundations - indeed, without even surveying the ground to see whether it is fit to build on. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. At present you have one source, and I can't tell whether or not it would be regarded as either reliable or independent of Barbasetti. There is no point in doing anything to your text until you find the sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
There are a lot sources,I added now, but maybe it is easier to translate the german article about Luigi Barbasetti into english?
Creating an article about myself
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi! I've been editing for quite a few months now, though, I've never actually written a Wikipedia page about myself. Well, I'd like to, and would like to ask; How'd you actually go about doing this?
I've also never written a question before, so I sincerely apologise regarding any and all mistakes I've made here. belg (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello BelgianFried and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating an article about yourself is really not a good idea. You may however create a userpage with some details about yourself, e.g. where you come from, which articles you have created, your areas of interest on WP. You can find details on what's generally accepted on your userpage at WP:UP. To create your own userpage simply go to Special:MyPage. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
BelgianFried I would also suggest that you read WP:PROUD as to why an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. As noted, you may have a userpage about yourself, but it should be designed to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor- not a general social media style page where you say anything and everything about yourself. Please see WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable (and not) user page content. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have been asked to provide more citations on an article that I have written and attempted to publish@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eimear_Considine
I added them but they were not saved, possibly because I was not actually in the article. The article as named above is not giving me an 'edit' option - am I in the wrong place? How do I source the original article to correct it? Lizimbrie (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Abillionradios: To send a notification properly, you have to include a link to that user's page and sign in the same edit. Linking to a userpage can be done by {{Reply to}}, {{U}}, or simply a link. Go into edit source for this section to see how I notified you of this reply. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, MariaCMendes, ands welcome to the Teahouse. It's not clear to me what you're asking, but if you are asking about translating articles from English Wikipedia to Portuguese Wikipedia, you are very welcome to do so, and yu can find advise at Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can any of the veterans in here give me some advice on whether it's better to cite a book or an interview?
Suppose I wanted to prove the statement "Herman the Hermit claims that the Flying Spaghetti Monster advised him to live in a cave in the desert."
Imagine I had two sources: a) A printed biography (not an *auto*biography) of Herman the Hermit, in which the author quotes him accordingly, b) an interview (podcast) with Herman the Hermit posted on the Internet by a radio station, in which we can hear him saying just that.
Which sources should I reference? Both of them? Only the book, because although more cumbersome to obtain it is more permanent? Only the interview, because although it is more volatile, it is an original sound bite and readily available?
I would cite both. While there can be overkill when citing too many redundant sources, citing the book is important because it is a secondary source whereby the information is vetted, but insofar as you are merely reporting that he made the statement, then citing an actual example of him making that statement is also a good additional citation. WP:RS clearly states that broadcast sources are as good as print sources, The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. In other words, so long as a copy of the recording can be accessed somewhere, the rules for citing recordings is the same as for printed text. --Jayron3213:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
How can I remove something I entered in 2007. It contains my name and personal information that is now damaging. It’s about a historical home
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Would like to know the procedure to escalate if a veteran editor is reverting to my edits without giving valid reason and even after explaining my edits the editor is still reverting to my edits. Whatever edit I have made are with proper citations and to the point complying with Wikipedia policies but still its more of a personal attack which is done by the editor since we do not share the exact same beliefs.Asad29591 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Asad29591 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Asad29591: Thanks for stopping by The Teahouse to ask this question. I have reviewed your recent edits and those of the user in question; based on what I can see there is nothing to report right now. You just now asked them for an explanation; that is the first step in any dispute process. Please give them time (it can be a day or more depending on when they next come by Wikipedia) to respond to your request for an explanation. If they do not give a satisfactory explanation, the next step is to use dispute resolution to invite uninvolved editors to assess the situation and give their opinions. There is no need to escalate anything to administrators at this point, because no one has done anything that deserves a sanction. There's just a difference of opinion on content, and that can be resolved without invoking admins. --Jayron3214:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Best place to recruit people for a WikiProject
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So I recently made a proposal to have yearly based WikiProjects. I sent a notice out to some of the active members that I know that work on more current events, since my trial idea is Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject of 2021. I checked the talk page stats where I posted it (WikiProject Year talk page) and it gets an average of like 5 views. Yesterday, it got 35, but that was with a ton of notices and no replies. I know editors can start WikiProjects if they have some members, normally 4-5 at least. Where is the best place to actually "recruit" editors for the new WikiProject idea And/OR where is the best place for me to post the talk page discussion that I started for the WikiProject idea. Thanks for the help in advance! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
My article was not Accepted
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
not accepted
Hi i am aneeb i recently found out about creating articles for wikipedia and was interested.and i made an article as test and sent it to review and it was nit accepted, Anyone who knows about this issue please say the reason.The article was about andikkode an village in kerala,india. AneebAni7 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The reason has been given both on the draft and on your user talk page. The draft was unsourced, so fails Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability. Before trying to write an article you ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article. I removed the unnecessary bold text from your question. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wiki master 20009. Your edit to Maxwell Jacob Friedman was entirely inappropriate content for inserting into an encyclopedia. It was unsourced; it lacked any context, and, though it read as near nonsense, it appears to be your apparent personal opinion of what you think will happen. No edit like this will ever be accepted. It also lacked any semblance of proper, grammatical, well composed writing in coherent English. Your more recent edit to the same article was also inappropriate unsourced, contextless opinion.
I can only suggest you spend some careful time reading about this place, and do not make any similar edits. While your intent may be good, Wikipedia requires competence in editing and I fear any edits that resemble these will quickly result in a block from further editing. There are editors who are not fluent enough in English to add and edit rich content, but who make a successful go of it here by recognizing their limitations in this language, and who limit themselves to changes that do not require such skills. But that requires that recognition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Press releases
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Are press releases for references acceptable? As far as I know, press releases are copies of the company's statement, therefore, considered biased.
Wondering if it's alright to remove PR used as reference in articles. HeythereitsBella (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello @HeythereitsBella: and welcome to the Teahouse! It depends entirely on what the press release is being used as a reference for. It is a self-published source, and as such, it cannot be used to provide evidence of notability, it cannot be used for statements about unrelated entities presented in Wikipedias voice, and should not be used to cite controversial or contested information. However, such self-published sources can be used in limited cases such as a) providing a direct quote, which is clearly attributed to the source in text and not provided in Wikipedia's voice or b) providing banal and uncontroversial facts, such as number of employees or basic statistics. Such sources should never be used to uncritically present any potentially contentious or overly self-serving statement in Wikipedia's voice, however. --Jayron3214:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Dantakelwara, in general, any random picture you find on the internet is under some sort of copyright and if you add them to WP, they will be removed. However, at this link Commons is a large collection of images that can freely be used on WP. There, you can also contribute pictures you have taken yourself with your own camera. For more info, see Help:Pictures and perhaps WP:FAIRUSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
How much family detail is needed?...
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm adding some biographical information to an existing biography page. I have information about the person's siblings / nephews and nieces such as birth and death dates, who they married, etc. Is this relevant to add? Should information about other relatives only be added if they are of public interest e.g. the person has their own Wiki page? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ruthhenrietta. Insofar as they have siblings or other confirmed family members, short statements about their family life is okay, as well as connections to people who themselves are notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, such as "John Doe was the third child of seven, and had three older sisters, as well as three younger brothers. Jane Doe, the well-known archaeologist and fashion model, was his paternal aunt". However, private people, who are otherwise not notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, probably don't need to be named, and be very wary are naming children who themselves are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron3215:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
You must either find a photo or upload the photo. Note that the photos must be under a free license. See WP:CMF for instructions on uploading.
In order to review drafts, you must be an AfC reviewer. In order to mark new pages as 'reviewed', you must have the new page reviewer right.
YouTube is actually a perennial source, or a source that is sometimes OK and sometimes unreliable. For specific guidance see WP:RSPYT. If the uploader was reliable, like NBC News, it works. If it's uploaded by 'RandomYouTubeDude', don't cite it. It could be anyone. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
1 In general, any random picture you find on the internet is under some sort of copyright and if you add them to WP, they will be removed. However, at this link Commons is a large collection of images that can freely be used on WP. There, you can also contribute pictures you have taken yourself with your own camera. For more info, see Help:Pictures and perhaps WP:FAIRUSE.
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hey all! Working on edits for Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development and just wondering how I might be able to edit the page's title. This company is primarily referred to by its acronym, ACORD, within the industry and in most press coverage, so it'd probably be best to list it as such. Any advice is appreciated, thanks! Hemeiling (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey @CommanderWaterford! Nope, not using a different account. This is my first account ever, and this would also be my first edit! Just trying to get some practice in and build up my Wikipedia editing resume, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemeiling (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Copied article and then clean up
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
User:PA12194 created Shilpa Thakre. It was tagged as copyright violation. I copied the content to my userspace, reworded and did some clean up of references. By that time mainspace article got deleted. Then I moved my version to mainspace. Now, some article content(Authority control, Categories) , talk page banners and old edit history by that user is missing. Admins, please add it back. -- Parnaval (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. One more question, Is there a better way instead of copying which I may have used so I don't need to request like this. Also why you marked one line of article as clarification needed ? -- Parnaval (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Parnaval, and welcome to the Teahouse. The better way of doing it would have been to start again. It is rarely appropriate to copy material within Wikipedia at all (see Copying within Wikipedia), but unauthorised copyrighted material is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia, even in userspace (that's one of the reasons that "Save changes" was changed to "Publish changes" a few years back) so your copying the material was in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Assuming you've changed the wording enough to fall outside copyright violation, there is no problem now (though the earlier versions should really be REVDELed) but it is not a recommended way of creating text. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Parnaval. I agree with ColinFine, and would have said something similar if I was around. (ColinFine: as part of my edits I had undeleted the history to fix the copyright problem of the prior history being divorced and then I did revdelete all edits containing infringement).
As to the clarification needed tag, Parnaval, the sentence tagged says "She is known as expression queen due to her videos on Youtube, Tiktok and Likee". The phrase "expression queen" is close enough to informationless that you could almost insert any other phrase there and nearly the equivalent [lack of] information would be provided ("She is known as pepper mill due to her videos on Youtube, Tiktok and Likee"). Hundreds of thousands of people post videos at a variety of places but aren't then known as "expression superlative".
So it is not the fact that she has posted videos to these platforms that made her known as expression queen but something about those postings. Is it because she has posted so many, so far beyond the typical, that she has "expressed" herself to such an extent? Is she known for coining catchy idiomatic expressions in her videos, such that she came to be called expression queen? In sum, we don't know why she came to be known by the appellation, but one thing we can be certain of is that the mere fact she posted videos to these platforms does not provide any clarity as to why she was dubbed with the title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
my article i wrote since last month has not published .please i want to know why?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
@Great akeni You did not write/publish any article so far. You have a draft in your user sandbox but you did not submit it for review. Please have a look at WP:YFA and after finishing the draft at the section "Submitting for review" at Wp:AFC. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not social media. Articles exist about people who are considered notable because others have published content about them. Your User page and Talk page are not places to create draft articles. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Creating a new wiki page
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (think at least two to three paragraphs dedicated to the topic, to see whether it is actually notable, as we use that concept here; the existence of those sources is what determines whether a topic is generally notability;
however, please be sure you unpack that standard, with its four mentioned parts, and thus look for the right types of sources and depth of treatment – you might find Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) of assistance with that;
if you can't make that list with at least three entries, with different content from one another, write nothing – no article is seemingly possible on the topic at this time, because it hasn't been the subject of sufficient independent publication by the wider world – and you will be wasting your time; no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability;
write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.
As to an image, it very much depends on how you are situated with respect to it – how you own the copyright to the image, or don't, such as "I found it "_here_"; or "I took it with my own camera" or a host of other possibilities. Can you provide some context for that? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
As for pictures, Wikipedia can't just use any picture found somewhere on the internet due to copyright restrictions. Because of that, all images must either be uploaded locally or to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. We do not accept any given image, images hosted on Wikimedia Commons must either be licensed under a acceptable free license or Public Domain (which is not the same as being avaialable in a public place, see Gratis versus libre. Images hosted locally may, in addition to the images that Commons accepts, be uploaded if they meet all of the non-free content criteria. Images that are neither liicensed under a acceptable license nor meet all of the non-free content criteria must not be uploaded. Once an image has been uploaded, it can then be included in the article using [[File:Filename.extension|thumb|Image description]] Inserting File:Example.jpg via this method renders as shown on the right. Image description Happy Editing! Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Creation of new wiki page
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
hi, I have created new wiki page for MCOPS12 (microphthalmia syndromic 12) by searching wiki and using link for creation of new page, after testing how this is done in sandbox.
I did not use a wizard, and I can see my newly created page under "Contributions". How could I push this page for review and to be published?
Do I need start from scratch and use Wizard for creation?
Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanaUrsicIvic (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@IvanaUrsicIvic: I've added a header with a box for you to submit the draft for a volunteer to review before it goes live. However, in its current state, your draft is unlikely to be published because it lacks reliable sources, which is required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Every single piece of information must be attributed to a reliable source, or you need to take that piece of information out. External links don't count. For more information, read Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
think tank dedicated to shaping the higher education policy debate through evidence. It is based at 99 Banbury Road, Oxford.
Higher Education Policy Institute
Type Think tank
Registration no. Charity Commission in England and Wales: 1099645..[1] Legal status Private company limited by guarantee
Location Oxford, United Kingdom President Bahram Bekhradnia Chairman of Trustees Professor Sir Ivor Crewe Director Nick Hillman Revenue (2019) £464,882[1] Expenses (2019) £572,558[1] Staff (2021) 4[2] Website hepi.ac.uk
History
HEPI is a charity established in 2002, originally as an offshoot of the old Higher Education Funding Council for England, to promote research into, and understanding of, all aspects of higher education, and to disseminate the findings to policy makers and the general public in the UK and beyond. HEPI is funded by higher education institutions, corporate organisations and a variety of events[3]. As a charity, HEPI’s editorial independence is guarded by its Trustees and an Advisory Board.
In recent years, HEPI has produced 20 to 30 reports a year on issues such as the graduate gender pay gap[4],future demand for UK higher education[5],reducing racial inequalities in higher education[6] and whether the UK still has a single higher education sector. In partnership with Advance HE, HEPI also produces an annual Student Academic Experience Survey which covers students’ perceptions of value for money, wellbeing and workload[7]
HEPI’s research has often been referred to in official UK documents, such as a higher education white paper (2016)[8], the Augar review of higher education (2019)[9] and the International Education Strategy (2019)[ ].
References[edit source]
^ [1]Charity Commission, Higher Education Policy Institute, registered charity no.1099645
^ For list of staff as at 25 January 2021, see https://www.hepi.ac.uk/about-us/who-we-are/staff/.
^ [2]UK Department for Education (8 June 2018). “Education in the Media”. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
^ [3]Owen, Julian (12 November 2020). “Graduate gender pay gap remains pervasive, says Hepi”. University Business. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [4]Baker, Simon (22 October 2020). “London and South East to drive increased demand for HE to 2035”. Times Higher Education. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [5]Suen, Evianne (26 November 2019), “Higher Education think tank proposes six recommendations against racial inequality”. The Boar, University of Warwick. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [6]Office for Students (11 June 2020). “Office for Students responds to HEPI/Advance HE student survey”. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ [7]UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills (May 2016), “Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice”. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
^ [8]Independent panel report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding (May 2019). Retrieved 25 January 2021.
The review comments are these
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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 organizations and companies). 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.
I'm puzzled, for the text is not dissimilar to other entries for think tanks (see, for example,Policy Exchange), and all the references are to third parties.
I have no relationship with HEPI (save having had some blogs published there), and believe they should be represented on Wikipedia - hence why submission.
Barlingsouth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft just tells about the existence of HEPI and what they do. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sourceswith significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about HEPI, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling about the organization and what it does, and includes in depth discussion of it. While noting that other articles on other think tanks does not necessarily mean that this one merits an article too(see other stuff exists) the article you cite(while not perfect) does a better job at citing what others say about it. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Major restructuring Desigual, asking for help
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I did a complete remodeling of Desigual article trying to provide as much information as possible and avoiding that this information was a pamphlet or advertising brochure. With the help of the editors :Deb and :David notMD, whom I thank for their contributions, I have cleaned the article of phrases that could sound like marketing and we have introduced the history of the company in the second heading. They also helped me to write some phrases in a more neutral way in both the Sustainable Production and the Brand Image sections.
On Deb's recommendation I have looked up all the necessary references on alliances. We have also deleted the list of the 107 countries in the commercial network and only provided the most significant ones along with the necessary references.
It would be fine to have other editors reading this because my eyesight is already blurred and I can't see the errors anymore. In any case, I am removing the label "under construction". --Ursulabela (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Saving Wikipedia Articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is it possible to save Wikipedia articles, sort of in a personal "book", just for your own use. Specifically, I was wondering if you can save multiple articles on one subject, such as saving articles which are from links from another article, so that you can save a whole "book" of articles on one subject? Amateur Astrophysicist (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi ItsJustdancefan. Are you speaking of some other problem than what was provided in the draft's Articles for Creation (AfC) decline notices and comments? If so, please clarify.
Since those decline notices and accompanying AfC comments are prominently displayed, this seems fairly redundant but, in summary: the "problem" identified as to the draft and its topic is the sufficiency of its citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail to sustain the content of a substantive encyclopedia article, while demonstrating the subject's notability. Also, that with that decline in place, you re-submitted the draft for review without adding "any independent reliable sources since the last" review (as GoingBatty noted in their comment given with the decline). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Who should I ask to move page?
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Someone has edited my friend's Wikipedia page to show they've had more children then they actually have. What's the best approach to make this change since I couldn't make it due to conflict of interest. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Occasionalpedestrian. In addition, when an edit is made that is unsourced/improperly sourced (or in this case, sourced to something supporting different information), you can challenge the edit and remove the unsourced information under the WP:BURDEN section of the verifiability policy. It is especially effective if you link the policy at the time you make the change, and indicate the policy-based meaning of such challenge to the unsourced information. The result is that the person who made the change, the proponent of it, cannot return it unless they cite a reliable source that directly supports the information, using an inline citation. I was doing so here, but edit conflicted, so I left the challenge in a subsequent (dummy) edit, seen in this diff. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
NOTE: Posts below were affected by the problem identified in my edit summary here (the second response post below was added to the duplicate thread)
I am currently working on a draft for an article that uses a book for several sources throughout, should I have several difference reference lines for the different pages the quotes come from? JorodHistory (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi JerodHistory. Yes, you should. Verfiability is very important, and part and parcel of that is making the reader not have to comb through multiple pages of a larger work to find the source. I personally think the best method for doing this is to use some form of shortened footnotes. By the way, this came up very recently, though in a different context, with more expansive answers (than yet here), and can be viewed here. If possible helpful, an example article of mine that uses shortened footnotes (using the {{sfn}} template, to link to a set of books listed at the end of the article) and which (mostly) individuates page numbers is Glossary of bird terms. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@JorodHistory I think you answered your own question by asking it. In general we try to make life easiest for the reader, not for the editor, so, unless the pages are in a short contiguous range, it is optimal to have several references stating page numbers FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me20:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Self verification
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Tibusheikh. Your userpage can be used for posting some short information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and similar matters. Please see WP:UPYES for what you can have on your userpage, and WP:UPNO for what you cannot. It is not ever the correct place for the text of an article. That being said, what you posted there (now deleted) an attempted, unsourced autobiography, would not be welcome anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm afraid you may have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is for. It is not a social media site, and it is not a place for promotion; we do not host profiles of anyone or anything, but only encyclopedia articles about subjects of knowledge, that the wider world has already written about in substantive detail. All indications are that you are not notable (just as I, and most people are not), and that no suitable article, citing reliable, secondary, independent sources, could ever be written, even if it wasn't inappropriate for you to write about yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
“Indonesian wikipidean” message
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I have a message that’s says “Indonesian wikipidean” and it happens to be send by a person I don’t know. I previously accidentally clicked the “Indonesian language”. I don’t no what happened.
-Syplo Syplo (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Syplo. At some other language Wikipedias, when you visit them the first time while globally logged in, that automatically triggers a bot posting a welcome to your talk page there. I think that's all this is about, so don't worry about it; just ignore it (don't bother responding there, since it's just a robot).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Syplo! Pardon me for being a bit late but go go back into English you have to delete your search history with the Indonesian Wikipedia and go back in and it will be English. Also just like articles without English there is a google translate thing on top that you could put to the English language and read in English Josh cant edit at all (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:John O'Neill (sociologist) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Esoterica (Band)
LittleMissDexterous (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Caption1
![[10]](https://i.imgur.com/r4ZR4ZO.png){kind=link}
