Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 778

Archive 775

Archive 776

Archive 777

Archive 778

Archive 779

Archive 780

→

Archive 785

Any tips for finding references

I recently decided that maybe I want to work on Draft:YouTuber a bit. The problem is I've found it's been hard finding articles that aren't simply interviews with famous YouTubers or about YouTube generally, not YouTubers as a phenomenon. This is worsened by the fact that trying to expand a history section will be even harder as the sources will be old and much more obscure as YouTubers won't have been as widely reported in the early years of YouTube. I've not spent too long looking and maybe I just need to spend a bit more time but I was wondering if there are any ways to more easily find references that more experiences editors use when trying to build up an article. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

One option is to use template {{Find sources}}, so in this case Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The search results will doubtless include many which are nor reliable sources, but you may find some wheat among the chaff. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Bureaucratic drone note: I placed {{copied}} templates, as I believe SoWhy's original edit summary when creating the page is sketchy when it comes to attribution. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: if you're looking for older sources about YouTubers, here's what I'd do:

• Go to Google, search "YouTuber"
• Click the "News" button below you search
• Click the "Tools" button below your search, click where it says "Recent" and at the bottom you can choose a "Custom range" for whatever time period of news you want to search.
• Alternately, you could just use regular google, search "YouTuber" and then the name of a major publication that covers those kind of topics, like Wired or Vox, and again use the "Custom range" Tool to focus in on specific past periods of time.

Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, these suggestions should really help! Alduin2000 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential Article Review

Is there a way to have someone from Wikipedia overlook an article prior to publishing while it is still in draft mode. I do not want to publish and risk it getting removed completely. I just need feedback without someone taking down my work in progress. I have attempted to make an article for a band that is on the rise. I have noticed that groups that have the same stature as the band I have been trying to create a page for but I keep getting my submissions declined. I have used other pages as forms of guidance and still no luck. Any help would be gladly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaz941 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Diaz941, it's interesting that the only thing you tell us here about the band is that it's "on the rise". Here is Wikipedia, that usually means "not notable yet". And indeed, when I look at User:Diaz941/sandbox/IRONTOM, I see that it fails to establish that the band is notable, because it cites no references at all.

If you leave that version in your sandbox, no-one will "take it down", it'll stay there indefinitely. If you submit it for review in its current state, it will certainly be rejected as it fails to establish that its subject is notable; but it'll still be there in your sandbox. My advice would be to wait until reliable independent published sources have written about the band, and then improve the article, using and citing what they've said about it. Maproom (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Diaz941. That is exactly what review is for! When you hit "Submit your draft for review", it will go onto a queue for reviewing, and when a reviewer gets to it, they will either accept it and move it to main article space, or will decline it, and give you a message explaining what. (The third possibility is that they might conclude that the subject is not notable, so rather than you wasting any more of your time and that of other reviewers, they would nominate the draft for deletion).

However, at present your draft has no chance whatever of passing a review, because you have given no references whatever. Please understand that Wikipedia has absolutely no interest in what you, or I, or any random person on the Internet, knows, believes, or thinks: every single fact in every single article should be found in a reliable published source, or it shouldn't be in the article. (Among our five million articles we have many that do not meet this ideal, but we are more careful now than we used to be). Preferably, everything should have its source cited inline, and most of the sources should be completely independent of the subject of the article.

So, what you need to do is find some places - at least two or three - where somebody who has no connection with the band has chosen to write about it in depth, and had that published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher. No blogs, wikis, forums, or social media, no self-published or vanity-published organs, nothing said or published by the band or its members or associates (and that includes articles based on press releases or interviews from the band).

If you can find such source, you can go ahead and write the article, based on what those sources say - pretty well nothing else. If you can't then I suggest you give up.

If that sounds hard - I'm afraid it is. Wikipedia has high standards for new articles, and it is not easy to meet them.

Please have a look at your first article, referencing for beginners, and Verifiability, as well as the link I gave above for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Creating red link to a common existing phrase

I want to link to a non existing wiki article for David Horn, but there exists numerous David_Horns. I could do something like David Horn but how will other people to red link similarly, until a page is created?

Contex: He chaired the local Beitar branch in Jerusalem in 1936 Shushugah (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah, Welcome to Teahouse! If there is no such page existed in Wikipedia then the "red link" would not able to redirect to the "not existing page". Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey CASSIOPEIA my issue is David_Horn DOES EXIST, but for a different one. How do I indicate that I want an article created for a different David Horn? And if so, what do I link it to? Shushugah (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Shushugah, My apologies, I was searching David_Horns instead of David_Horn. You could use the title name David Horn (zionist). When the page is created and other editors would like to link David Horn (zionist) to a page the would link in such manner by adding a pipe [[David Horn (zionist)|David Horn]]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone help make this publishable. My username is Needmorespeed1965

copyvio removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needmorespeed1965 (talk • contribs)

@Needmorespeed1965: You could have just posted a link to User:Needmorespeed1965/sandbox. The reason it's not publishable is because the draft only cites one source, and that source is not a reliable source. Here's how to write an article that won't get deleted:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I'm basically saying "start over" is that Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Needmorespeed1965 - Your draft was deleted as copyright violation because you had copied it from the catalog that was your one source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. That is why User:Ian.thomson included point 5. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone put the wrong company logo and I can't overwrite it!

I need to update our college's logo within wikipedia, but I can't seem to. It tells me I cannot overwrite the file. I do NOT know who uploaded the file, as it is an outdated logo, but it shows someone did it back in march. Now, as marketing director, I am supposed to make sure the correct and actual trademarked logo for our college is on here but literally cannot make changes.

How are companies supposed to change their identity marks when they have a brand update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diannakwin (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannakwin and welcome to the Teahouse. As marketing director, you are required by Wikipedia terms of use to disclose your WP:PAID status, and it would probably be best if you recommended edits on the talk page of your college, rather than make them yourself. I assume that your company logo is copyright, so cannot be uploaded to WP:Commons, but a low resolution copy of the new logo can be used under the fair use policy. Please provide a link to the new logo file on your website, preferably in low resolution, though we can reduce the quality for you. I'm rather puzzled because your website seems to use the same logo as the Wikipedia article, but is there some subtle difference that I haven't noticed? Dbfirs 16:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For everybody's edification, the article in question is Northwest Arkansas Community College. Diannakwin, to answer your last question, you're not. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be constructed by neutral editors, paraphrasing reliable secondary sources about a given subject. We have no interest in your schools branding or marketing plan. Or its vision or mission statement. What exists now is not an encyclopedia article; it is a promotional brochure for the school. It lacks even one independent source. I'm going to post notices at the wikiprojects that cover this article to see if there are any interested editors that might be willing to actually create an encyclopedia article for your school. What exists isn't. Thank you for posting here bringing other non COI editors in contact with this article so it can be fixed. John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Holidaystory17

Hi

I got the bellow message from kingandgod. I am a new contributes of Wikipedia. Can you please help me how I can submit link or edit Wikipedia step by step. Also I submission is removed. How can I submit it please help me with the procedure.

Thanks Ruma Dey Baidya

Extended content

______________________________________________ April 2018 Information icon Hello, I'm KingAndGod. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Tourism in West Bengal— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. KingAndGod 16:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC) "Hello, Holidaystory17, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason. To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page. One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.) In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing."

______________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holidaystory17 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Holidaystory17: You can learn how to edit step-by-step using The Wikipedia Adventure, found in this link. Do not link to your website again, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Chapter Eight: The Upside Down

I reviewed Draft:Chapter Eight: The Upside Down. (I hope that I can enter that name, with double colons, and have it work.) I declined it. I don’t see any specific reason why that episode needs its own article as opposed to a summary (which it already has) in Stranger Things. Now, on looking at the TV notability guidelines, I am not sure that the guidelines are clear as to when individual episodes should be covered in their own articles. Maybe there is a subordinate guideline, or maybe I have missed something, or maybe the guideline should be expanded. The author, User:Imrancat, has posted to my talk page asking me to explain. I see that they tried to add information to the main article and were reverted. One response to that would have been to discuss on the main article talk page, Talk:Stranger Things. Submitting a draft of the episode was reasonable, although I think that my action in declining the draft was also reasonable. Where exactly is the guidance on when to have articles on individual episodes? What do other editors think about whether an article is needed on this episode? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: General guidelines are given at WP:EPISODE. Note especially the statement "While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page." Since articles don't seem to currently exist for individual Stranger Things episodes apart from the listing in the main article, it might be considered that, unless "Chapter Eight: The Upside Down" is treated in particular detail in reliable sources, it probably doesn't merit a separate article, at least at this time. Talk:Stranger Things would seem the logical place for discussing the matter (although the section Article splitting from April of this year suggests that there's little current consensus for splitting out season articles, much less individual-episode articles). Deor (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see that the submitter, User:Imrancat, feels in an awkward place, having tried to add more information about the episode and being reverted, and thinks that the only way to get the additional information into Wikipedia is by submitting an episode article. Nonetheless, splitting out a series or episode article should be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a Note to a Wikipedia Article

I wanted to add a quick note to a Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson), but when I did so, I received the following email:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Gottschalk v. Benson, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What I added was the fact that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) issued a patent on April 19, 1966, and I provided the CIPO web site where the details are shown.

This web site is authoritative, and I do not believe it falls under the category of original research. Can someone help me to word this note in such a way that it complies with Wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryB127 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GaryB127. TJRC, who left that message on your user talk page, might be able to explain further, but there is more detail in the edit summary of their revert, which you can see here. I would also note that you included the sentence "It is interesting to note that the Canadian office issued the Benson-Tabbot patent (patent document number 732763) on April 19, 1966", but the statement that this is interesting is an opinion rather than a fact, and is not supported by a source, so I would leave that wording out. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Help in editing

Dear,

I have created a Wikipedia article on Tiemhcart, but it got disapproved, Wikipedia review team has disapproved my article and I didn't understand the reasons behind that. So, kindly provide a help to get my article publish on Wikipedia successfully.

B/Rgds

Michael Almesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Almesh (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason is already explained, both on User:Michael Almesh/sandbox and on your user talk page. The reviewer pointed out that we need independent sources. All your references are to the website of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Almesh: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was not approved because it is sourced to nothing other than the company website. From this, I assume you are a representative or employee of the company. If so, you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not social media to merely tell about companies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself, or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject that indicate how it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, in this case those written at WP:ORG. If you are associated with this company, in order to successfully write about it, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what independent sources state. This is usually difficult(though not impossible) for people in your position to do. If no independent sources have written about your company, I regret to say that it is not possible for there to be a Wikipedia article about it at this time. If all you want to do is merely tell about your company, you should use actual social media, or your own website, to do that. You may find a forum to do what you want to do in one of the outlets listed here.

Please review the conflict of interest policy, as well as the paid editing policy(the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid to edit here) and make the appropriate declarations. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete my page

Can delete the User: Khris249 page? because the page I want to use in meta so that in the whole project wikimedia that does not have my page. Khris249^talk 09:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Khris249 no longer exists locally on enwiki. It was deleted at your request. What you now see there is the version from meta:User:Khris249. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It was already deleted by another administrator. Khris249^talk 10:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeating news citations

What is the best way to cite a news article repeatedly in an article. There will be different parts of a bio that will pertain to separate paragraphs in a news article. In a book "Ibid" is used, but in a WP article I'm unsure how to do this and was unable to find it in Template:Cite news although I've seen it on WP articles but finding an example is rather like looking for a needle in a haystack. Coryphantha (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coryphantha: If I understand your problem correctly, just put the single named reference with the cite news template in the reference section like

<ref name="thishasweirdrules">{{cite news|yadda=yadda|blah=blah}}</ref>

...then call to it with:

<ref name="thishasweirdrules" />

...in the article. I've learned the hard way that the ref name has specific rules, but I don't remember what those are five minutes after I (re)discover a new one. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you just use a string of ordinary ascii text that is not all digits, you won't have any problems with the "weird rules" Ian.thomson They only show up when trying fairly unusual things, or a string that is all digits. Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once (aka WP:REFNAME) has full details, Coryphantha. I hope that page is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a big help, and the footnote page is something I can refer to again later. Thanks again. Coryphantha (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Topicon

Am I allowed to put the Welcoming Committee topicion on my talk page?Thegooduser Let's Chat 03:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Go right ahead, Thegooduser! There are no restrictions with this topicon. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi,

I recently made an edit that has since been reverted, but the poster gave no reason for this. I would contact the poster, but their userpage has been deleted. I don't want to get into a cycle of edit, revert, edit, revert ad nauseum, so what action should I take?JohnthePilot (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks.JohnthePilot (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for not starting an edit war. Start a discussion on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD RudolfRed (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, RudolfRed. Unfortunately, I can't find the talk page for the article in question, temperature. JohnthePilot (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The talk page is Talk:Temperature, JohnthePilot, and I see that there is a recent comment (in the section Talk:Temperature#coldest or lowest temperature), which may well refer to the revert you are asking about. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry. I found it just after I asked. I should have looked more closely, but I was looking at the top bar. JohnthePilot (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

new comer

i want to add a new article about my friend who is an Indian music director who have worked in a regional movie and have done some music albums. Proper reference can't be provided except his profile on website bookmyshow.com and his videos in YouTube. please do help me with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu Appukuttan (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anu Appukuttan: If no better source material than that is available, such an article is not appropriate. Take a look at what makes a subject notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Using {{em}} and {{strong}} in talk pages where appropriate?

Since I have grown more familiar with HTML and MediaWiki markup, I have been mulling over whether I should begin using {{em}} and {{strong}} (or their HTML equivalents) where semantically appropriate during talk page discussions. Up until this post, I have used the usual ''...'' and '''...''' that almost everyone else does. I have searched extensively for any current or archived discussions anywhere on Wikipedia pertaining to this and it seems almost nobody has discussed anything that is even similar to what I am considering. I have been around on the English Wikipedia for long enough to know that this practice is virtually nonexistent, hence my hesitation. I don't know where else to turn with this query, though, so I'm resorting to here.

In your opinion, would my doing so be catastrophically pointless and strongly discouraged on various theoretical and practical considerations? Or shall I become one of those avant-garde editors and enjoy the facial cleanse in my outstandingly accessible talk page posts? Input would be greatly appreciated. Yes, I'm serious. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nøkkenbuer and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't think anyone will object if you use semantic tags in what you write. Please do not go on a mission to convert what other people have written to your preferred form. That would likely raise issues, as would extensive use of EASTEREGG links such as the "facial cleanse" one you just used. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I assumed few if any would object, though I was more concerned about whether anyone had a rationale for why I should not do so. Most Wikipedians do not and I was concerned that I was missing something obvious here, such as some obscure policy or guideline; or that there are some hypothetical concerns about its usage, such as my doing so may actually confuse those using screen readers because almost nobody else semantically tags in this way. If there is none, then I suppose I will just proceed with this being a personal preference.

Just to clarify, I have no interest in being a missionary for this; if anything, my message here was with the hope that I could be dissuaded from this because I was worried my doing so would be problematic. I was embarrassed to ask about something so minor and potentially obvious, though, hence my facetious tone and easter egg wikilink. Anyway, thanks for the response. I'll just decide this on my own. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Road Marker to incorporate in Infobox

Please help me fit the road marker in Infobox National Highway 702A (India), if possible. Thanks Jazze7 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that's a tricky one, Jazze7. It looks like the infobox does not like the marker created by the {{Road marker}} template. It only accepts a simple image file. We have them for almost every road in India, here c:Category:Road signs for National Highways in India, but File:NH702A-IN.svg is missing (cf. File:NH703A-IN.svg).

My suggestion is to ask the person who's made these images to make one for 702A. You can find their talk page here c:User talk:Imzadi1979. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Finnusertop. There are many other new national highways which need the markers. Let me take some time and request c:User talk:Imzadi1979 for a batch of them instead of asking one at a time. Thank you for your effort and suggestion. Jazze7 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Giving Image Permission

Hello,

I would like to know what is the email address to send permission to use images please? I already have the email template. JLL87 (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• @JLL87: For images (not text!), that's permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. For details see WP:DCM. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you Tigraan JLL87 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

article publishing

Hi

The article that I have published does not show up anywhere not even when I search by its name + wikipedia. So how does this work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlalakaadiwanjii (talk • contribs)

What is the name of the article? Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shlalakaadiwanjii: Welcome to our Teahouse. You have not yet published any 'article' in the main part of Wikipedia. What you did do was place a lot of copyrighted information on your main User page. That was deleted, not only for WP:COPYVIO, but also because that's not what your user page is for. It should be used just to say a little bit about yourself and your editing interests. If you want to do that, you can recarte the page with content just about you. Then you have the adjacent Tab which takes you to your Talk Page, where messages can be left and discussions held between editors. Then you have your own sandbox (accessible via the link at the very top of any page where you see your username and loginin/logout options). You are using this correctly to work on content which you hope one day to move into the main part of the encyclopaedia when it's ready. Some editors get confused by a recent change of name to the blue 'Save' button, which is now called 'Publish changes'. That's simply because very edit is saved online where anyone can read it if they know where to look. But to get it into the main encyclopaedia that everyone normally thinks of, you need to move it there when its ready, and this is best done via the Articles for Creation tool. I hope this makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing a blacklisted link warning

Hi, This page appears with a "black-listed link" warning. I removed the link in question, but the warning still appears. How do I remove the warning? The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Loveday Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newamordia (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Newamordia:, the "Blacklisted link" template is (usually) stored at the top of the article page - it's named Template:Blacklisted-links. As with most maintenance templates, you can simply remove the entire template from the article's top after you have fixed the noted problem. Please leave a short edit summary to explain the removal in such cases. GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This site was added to the blacklist in error a few months ago. Not all WordPress pages are unreliable; some, probably most are. I recall there is a project to automatically remove these errors, so you don't need to touch the warning. But if figure out how, you can remove it yourself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4 says that the bot will remove the tag if the link is removed from the page. Perhaps User:Cyberpower678 may be able to explain why that hasn't happened in this case? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The bot task is currently shut down as it was responsible for bringing down the replication servers on Toolforge. So it’s waiting for a rewrite to make it more efficient.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Would I be able to revive and reconstruct again the article that I made and was declined by etothepi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriisabel (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Yuriisabel: - the draft was not deleted and remains here, where you can edit it. As User:etothepi stated, you require some reliable sources which can provide citations for the statements in the article. Include these, and the article should be fine. If they don't exist, the subject fails the general notability guideline, and does not merit having a Wikipedia article. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
• @Yuriisabel: - In addition to this, don't hesitate to ask me or User:Stormy clouds for help finding good sources or understanding what makes a reliable source (or any other questions you might have!) •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

publish an article

Hi Team, Could you let me know, how to confirm this article will be published. Thanks in advance, Alexia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia007 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alexia007: Well, searching through your contributions page (since you didn't tell us which article "this article" is), I see Draft:Mimoun Assraoui, which you signed as though we host press releases from brand agencies. Brand agencies are not and never will be considered reliable sources here. Neither will press releases (e.g. [1], [2], and [3]). The article needs to cite (not just list, but cite) professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about Assraoui but not affiliated with or dependent upon or paid by Assraoui, any company he works with or for, or anyone connected to him or affiliated companies. The sources must be completely independent. Furthermore, they need to be in-depth (unlike [4]). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A new formula in order to measure period profit. The old formula, profit is total sales minus total costs, is not good enough.

On Wikipedia is info about the old formula, still in use worldwide. I added today a page about a new formula, in the interest of students business economics worldwide. Wikipedia ignores it. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brabant-Twente (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brabant-Twente: This question is the only edit showing for you. We don't allow original research, if that is what you are trying to add. RudolfRed (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brabant-Twente: See the note on your talk page about the page that was deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Defending a reverted external link

I recently added an external link, to page USS Shoshone (AKA-65), which was promptly reverted by a bot. I understand that the bot reverted the link because the link exists on a "list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia". Note the word "probably" in the bots programmed rationale. I would like to argue that the link I shared, as improbable as it may seem in stereotype, is reasonable to include in Wikipedia. The link is to a Google Map that is created from actual coordinates and bearings mentioned in official documents written and/or authorized by the Commander of USS Shoshone and that the supporting documents are readily available to the general public at the National Archives. Those documents are the History, War Diary, and Deck Logs of USS Shoshone (AKA-65). The Google Map presents another VIEW of that official record and, therefore, is not original research. Instead, it is a layered way of presenting the complex data in a way that Wikipedia cannot. All of the coordinate and bearing data could be painstakingly copied into the Wikipedia article but who would want to look at that? It would be almost meaningless. But when presented on a map with zooming and panning capability, it becomes very meaningful. Rossinirichardo (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit in question: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Shoshone_(AKA-65)&diff=843649198&oldid=843647895 this edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Article link: USS Shoshone (AKA-65) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Rossinirichardo and welcome to the Teahouse. When a bot reverts an edit and it is, for once, mistaken, an editor can simply remake the edit with an explanation in the edit summery, and preferably, a fuller one on the article talk page. However, how will a reader know that this facebook page is in fact a reliable source? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempt #2 at responding... I had made two separate edits. The Facebook page is not the link that concerns me. It is the Google Map link that I care about. I will try to respond to your question in the context of the Google Map. The Google Map, like a Wikipedia article, is derived information and is as trustworthy as the verifiable sources that support it. Sources are referenced by the Google Map so users can determine for themselves if the information is reliable. Rossinirichardo (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, Rossinirichardo, you should be able to simply reinsert the link to the google map, and the bot should leave it alone. Please add a comment on Talk:USS Shoshone (AKA-65) explaining the reason for the link, in much the same way as you did here. That should do it, I think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DES. Your help is much appreciated. Rossinirichardo (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

New general discretionary sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrencies

Not a question, but thought it would be a good idea to make everyone aware of this recent decision: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Good to know, could see this coming. If someone wants to understand better why this has come to pass, they should look at the discussion immediately preceding the general sanctions proposal. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing "rough translation" tag from articles

Are there any guidelines for removing the "rough translation" template from articles (and from the corresponding category)? In my case, I cleaned up three articles and I'm fairly confident in the readability, but I don't know if I should leave it for another pair of eyes to check and remove the tag.

Also, I found one article with the tag that had no issues with the English, but the article had very little content compared with the current Spanish version, so I wasn't sure what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvenidaK (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, AvenidaK. Regarding the article that "had very little content compared with the current Spanish version", you might want to place Template:Expand Spanish at the top of the article, following the directions on the template page. If you are satisfied that no further cleanup is needed at the other articles, feel free to remove the {{Rough translation}} template in them. Deor (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Deor, that was very helpful! Found three articles so far that needed Template:Expand Spanish. AvenidaK (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Ragnarok 25

Hi there i would like to know why my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Siege_of_Ragnarok_25 was declined? I was just telling the story about a real player battle that took place in ARK: Survival Evolved, it's just a battle report i have no idea how that would be a game guide. Looks like double standarts are prevalent here because this virtual battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodbath_of_B-R5RB was approved but my page about Ragnarok 25 not.

Huursa (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Huursa! Welcome to Wikipedia. We're very happy you want to help out here.

Now, this is not my area of expertise, but a quick look at both your draft and the article you link to show one significant difference: Bloodbath of B-R5RB refers to a good number of external, reliable sources writing about it, whereas Draft:Siege of Ragnarok 25 is built on what would typically not be considered reliable sources: Youtube videos that show pieces of the battle (it's not that things on Youtube can't be reliable sources, but they'd have to be edited, reputable etc), a Reddit thread, and your own blog. For Wikipedia, there's a huge difference here. We simply need other, reliable sources to write about something in reasonable depth first. /Julle (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you refer to the story as a whole or the estimates provided? Because no matter the sources you are talking about, they still rely on the players that fought in the battle to tell their story on what happened, the only thing that the players can prove is the numbers they give when it comes to stuff used/lost. While what happened during the battle like moves, attacks and so on can only be proved if you have the entire battle taped which it's impposible because the Siege of Ragnarok 25 was 45 days. No one will sit and record for 45 days straight. Julle

I'm talking about the entire article. /Julle (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay but as i mentioned above, no one can prove what moves, attacks, plans and so on occured during the battle of Ragnarok 25 and B-R5RB because it would need someone to sit and record the whole thing from start to end. While when it comes to estimates then yes B-R5RB easily provided them using a game feature. Julle

@Huursa:. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

The sources in Draft:Siege of Ragnarok 25 look like selfpublished blogs, forums, and YouTube videos. Bloodbath of B-R5RB has many indpendent reliable sources from real media. The draft is about a video game battle with only 70 players so I would be surprised if there are independent sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. The sources don't have to prove everything taking place in the battle but they do have to write about the event. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There were 70 players on the server at all times because there were another 100+ trying to join, the servers have only 70 slots so you can't have everyone. PrimeHunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huursa (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC) I would like to know if you need a reliable source for the story itself that i tell on my article or for the estimates i gave? Because from the videos and reddit posts you can clearly see that this battle did happen and it can't be denied. Julle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huursa (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Huursa: Articles need two basic things: Notability of the subject and Verifiability of the specific content. You keep asking questions related to verifiability but the main problem is notability. You absolutely need independent reliable sources writing anything significant about this video game battle to show it is notable in the way Wikipedia requires. If there are no such sources then the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article and it doesn't matter one bit whether you have other types of sources to verify what took place in the battle. Your signature must link to the account making the edit. Please sign with ~~~~. If you already do that then please fix the signature field at Special:Preferences so your signature has the right link. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As noted below, the draft has been nominated for deletion. While I strongly oppose accepting the draft into article space, I also strongly oppose deleting it from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Real, Fictional, and Simulated Battles

I wasn't one of the reviewers, although I was asked on my talk page for my comments. Here is my opinion. I personally do not see the need for articles about simulated electronic battles, or battles in virtual reality. We of course have articles about real battles, regardless of what century and what continent they were fought in. We also have articles about fictional battles, if there is a sufficiently large audience for the fictional work. (See Battle of the Pelennor Fields, for instance.) I am not sure that, even with substantial coverage in reliable sources, simulated battles are notable. If we think that some of them are notable, maybe we need a notability guideline about them. (I haven't seen a notability guideline about real battles, and I don't think we need one. I think that real battles should be described, regardless of what century and what continent they were fought in, as long as they are documented by historians or journalists.)

As a result, I think that the real question is not whether to accept the Siege of Ragnarok, but whether the Bloodbath should be in article space. That is my opinion.

I will also comment that the draft on the Siege of Ragnarok has been nominated for deletion, and I am not expressing an opinion on it at this time.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. I share your intense skepticism that a video game "battle" can be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I would recommend deleting any such article based on dubious or weak sources. But, for the sake of discussion, if such a "battle" was the subject of a lengthy New York Times article, plus articles in several other major newspapers and magazines, plus a book about the "battle" written by a notable scholar, and published by a major university press, then an article would be appropriate. In the end, it is all about the quality and depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources. My threshold is high for such trivial pop-culture topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The Bloodbath article has citations to major publications like Vox, Wired, etc. that are explicitly about that specific event. Take a look at the References section for it, I think it is definitely a case (and probably one of very few cases) where an individual video game event merits its own article. I don't think that comparison to "battle" articles is apt, so much as comparison to any other organized enthusiast event such as a very significant one-time convention, festival, concert etc that had a significant amount of non-routine coverage and analysis. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

An article about a video game battle is unusual but if anyone is thinking about trying to get it deleted then note that Bloodbath of B-R5RB was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodbath of B-R5RB, appeared in the main page Did You Know section Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February#21 February 2014 after passing Template:Did you know nominations/Bloodbath of B-R5RB, and has been a good article since 2016 after passing the review at Talk:Bloodbath of B-R5RB/GA1. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Managing pages

With several million articles, how on earth do you keep up with the talk pages?JohnthePilot (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello JohnthePilot and welcome to the Teahouse.

Honestly, we do not do great job at keeping up with all of the talk pages. Some pages are not actively watched and if a request is made without a {{help me}} tag, it may go unnoticed if it slips past the recent change patrol, who are on the lookout for all pages, but mostly respond to egregious problems only. In practice, if someone has brought something up on a talk page and not received a response, we expect them to take the initiative and bring their question to another forum, such as here to the Teahouse or to a relevant WikiProject. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC):Many thanks for your reply (contribs). Now that I know about talk pages I'll try to help out where I can, but my knowledge is limited.JohnthePilot (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

how to nominate an article for WikiProject Sociology

Thanks in advance for assistance. The Emotional labor article has been significantly edited to include sociological terms, concepts, and theories. I think it would merit being part of the WikiProject Sociology. Could someone please explain how this might be accomplished?AnaSoc (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@AnaSoc: Welcome to the Teahouse! Go to its talk page, and add {{WikiProject Sociology}} under another WikiProject template. You can leave the class and importance blank, as someone else can assess it for you. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 23:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Lucie Person: So many cool tools to use!AnaSoc (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lucie Person:, now what happens? Do I need to get somebody's attention? Thanks for your help!AnaSoc (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@AnaSoc: Sorry for the confusion, I meant under the WIKIPROJECT templates, not a new talk page section. I’ve moved it there for you. I’ve also added a rating to it. Rating may take time, and anyone can do it. There are quite a lot of really old articles that still have no rating (see [[Category:Unassessed articles]]). ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 02:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lucie Person:Thanks very much!AnaSoc (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

New article posting!

I am making a page to cover a clothing designer, but he is not cited in many valid articles. I have added a billboard article as a citation, as well as the official page of the group that he was formerly apart of, for not having too long of an article, should I be accepted now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidano97 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aidano97: Hey, Aidano97! Welcome to the Teahouse! While I am not a new page reviewer and cannot therefore give you a conclusive opinion on the subject, I think that your article may be declined for two reasons:

1) The article's tone appears to take a subjective view of the individual, and makes unverifiable statements like "Grosso is known equally for his exciting personality as he is for his clothes."

2) The articles you used as sources are from a website which may be too questionable to fulfill the guideline for significant coverage as a means of determining notability.

I would recommend finding some additional outside sources and altering the tone of the article to better reflect a neutral point of view. I hope that helps! Obviously, my comments only represent one point of view and others may have different opinions. Feel free to post here if you have any other questions! —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 22:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Mobile site draft creation broken

So, I've created many articles with AfC process. Never had a problem with draft creation before, but today I try with some draft and when I put the title in the column and click Create new draft article. Instead of opening a page with instructions and a box with some AfC stuff in there and a comment that says don't change this or it'll break it opens a blank full screen editing page like it does when editing an already existing article. It's completely blank with only with text that basically says that it's empty. No AfC stuff. No button that says click to submit draft of anything. What do I do? And who thought of changing a already good page and breaking it just because I guess aesthetics? Mobile site shouldn't be so different from PC version. Update: I've manually added a timestamp and draft template on Draft:Pushpavalli (TV series). And now I'm trying to submit it but it force opens the full screen editing window. It's frustrating. Whole draft creation and submission process is broken without forcing open desktop site. Mobile site isn't working.TryKid (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TryKid. I have made tens of thousands of edits using Android smartphones, and have written and expanded hundreds of articles that way. I almost always use the fully functional desktop site on my phone. You may find my essay Smartphone editing to be worth reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you so much. You're right mobile site isn't very good, but desktop isn't very better on small phones. My screen isn't large and full screen editor works well in this situation, it's just that some processes like AfC don't work very well without Desktop site. It's literally impossible to review AfCs on mobile site because AfC Helper script doesn't work on mobile. Your HTC phone doesn't have have a big screen too so I think it is probably hard for you to edit Wikipedia, but it looks like you got used to it, just like I got used to this full screen editor. Thank you for replying. TryKid (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, TryKid. I have used several different phones in recent years and switched to a Google Pixel 2X a few weeks ago. It is not hard at all to edit on my phone. It is exactly like a miniature desktop computer in my mind. Think of it this way: Billions of people post on Facebook and tweet and post information on Instagram and Pinterest every single day, using their phones. I do much the same, editing Wikipedia, although I do hope that my work here is of more lasting significance than most of social media. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)