This is an archive of past discussions about 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.
The article need to be organized only as i am not a aware about the wikistyle configuration, the references are valid. how can i validate the article on wikipedia
The declination didn't say that the references were not valid, in other words no one is suggesting they are made up. However, I presume you are talking about this draft:
Draft:Souq_Al_Wakra which has one incorrectly formed reference, while your post here includes three references. The first of those three references is the one in the draft article. it doesn't say very much and sounds a bit spammy. The second appears to be just a photo but not knowing Arabic may be something more to it that I don't follow. The third is mostly advertising while the hotel. I concur with the declination of the draft as it is not supported by adequate referencing.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Needed to practice and understand how neutrality is addressed here at wikipedia.
To understand how neutrality works at wikipedia in actual, I needed to see the ongoing neutrality edits by myself and offer my opinions whenever necessary. Where can I get to see them? I guess they may have been classified. Gub Sub Dub (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
No such edits are not "classified" (a term Wikipedia does not use). Only a few edits are hidden from view via Revision deletion, mostly for such serious reasons as copyright infringement or blatant violations of the WP:BLP policy. But edits to restore or achieve neutrality may not be clearly labeled as such. It may be done as part of copy editing, or a summery of "rm puffery" may be used. Or other terms may be used in the summary. I will try to link to some examples if I can think of any, or others may be able to provide some for you to see. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I am trying to understand how neutrality in practice works before I start editing. Why not learn and avoid mistakes? So, trying to learn at first. I plan to add content. But before doing that, I thought why not at first learn necessary facts? A learned me may save mine and your time. Gub Sub Dub (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@DESiegel: it clicked where I might find. Obviously I guess almost all articles are to be scrutinized for neutrality. I guess the ongoing news may be checked more carefully. I will try start with those. If I am wrong, please correct. Gub Sub Dub (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to edit and republish Lonnie Deadwyler wikipedia page
"Disruptive" editing claim made by user of "semi-protected" entry - how do I appeal?
Hi! I'm hoping to update the American TV series Pose's list of Dorian Award wins from GALECA: The Society of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics, but the page's protector, Ymblanter, has denied the additions and labeled my attempt as "disruptive." The series' Wikipedia entry already notes the show's previous Dorian Award wins, so I'm not sure what the issue is, unless it's because I was having trouble with the page's "accolades" format and was trying to figure out why I couldn't get the formatting correct. Can you help? Below are I believe the pertinent messages from Ymblanter - thought the dates are off (?) - and here is the link to the reference article noting the show's latest Dorian Awards wins: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/2020-gay-lesbian-entertainment-critics-dorian-awards-full-list-1268129
07:17, 12 June 2020 Ymblanter talk contribs protected Pose (TV series) [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 07:17, 12 December 2020) (Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP) (hist) (thank)
Comment I'm not a formal host, but to clarify: the article for Pose has been semi-protected since June 12 due to a series of previous editors making "disruptive" edits, this means any new editor won't be able to edit. It's nothing specific to what you were trying to do; you just happened to want to edit the article while it's under a heightened level of protection. You can go to the talk page Talk:Pose (TV series) page and make a request for someone else to make the edit there. Wikipedia:Edit requests provides more information on how to do this, but I'll take the liberty of adding it for you. Umimmak (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I tagged the wrong person initially somehow, apologies for the confusion Blurbadeeblurb. The 2020 Dorian Awards wins and nomination have been added to the Pose article. Umimmak (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
How to make researches on a topic you are not familiar with
I am trying to edit Wikipedia using the Task Center and I wanted to help but I don't understand what I can do. If I want to fill a Stub article I always only find articles that I don't understand, even if the fields I am familiar with. I don't know how to make my researches about a topic I barely understand. The pages I got were Repository_(version_control) and Solitaire.
Also, what are the kind of things that you can do on Wikipedia that doesn't require too many researches and time?
@Chopin2712: Filling out a stub generally is a pretty challenging task, and usually requires some research. One easy task that I recommend for beginners is adding wikilinks to articles. Articles with too few wikilinks can be found in the category Category:All articles with too few wikilinks. This is a task you can usually do even without any subject-matter expertise. Good luck! Hopefully this is responsive to your question. If you need more guidance, post here again! Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Calliopejen1 Thanks for the advice I will look at it. But saying 'Suitable for all editors' isn't a bit easy for a such task. For some stubs, it's almost as hard as creating a new article. --Chopin2712 (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Incorporating the sandbox userbox into the main content
Hi Aori2020, welcome to the Teahouse. Code can just be copied directly between pages. The problem is that User:Aori2020/sandbox has invalid code which wouldn't work anywhere. It's called an infobox. You have to use an existing infobox template such as Template:Infobox organization which seems most suitable for your draft. Then you can only use the parameter names which are documented in the template page. I have called Template:Infobox organization and fixed a syntax error [1] to get you started. At least you can now see what the infobox produces and which parameters are ignored because they are unknown. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Jazmin Chaudhry has been tagged with {{FanPOV}}. I have been trying to edit the article to be a genuine article and not fancruft. But since BLPs are by default contentious subject and porn is by default disreputable subject, it is difficult for me to say how much I succeeded. Please, take a look at the article and let me know what it needs to have the tag removed. Aditya(talk • contribs)11:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
When is a lawsuit notable enough to add to article?
When does a lawsuit become notable enough to add to the page of a corporation? Mentioning that a lawsuit was filed against an organization (even from reputable source) can affect public perception of it, regardless of how the lawsuit ultimately settles. To me it is questionable since it is akin to "daily news" rather than encyclopedic content. Are there wikipedia guidelines on this subject? Many thanks. Knoxinbox (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm looking for but that particular page is a failed proposal. Is the general sentiment of WP:CASES what people generally consider appropriate on wikipedia? In my particular case a lawsuit was filed against an organization and a poster immediately put it up on wikipedia. The various sides haven't even issued statements yet. Seemed very premature and I would like to remove it on notability grounds. Knoxinbox (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Shantavira and Knoxinbox:WP:CASES and the failed Wikipedia:Notability (law) are both about when to have a separate Wikipedia article about a particular legal case. They are not used to determine whether a case should be mentioned in an article about a different topic, such as a company party to a case. There the question should be whether the case is significant to the topic of the article, in this instance the company, and whether it is likely to have a lasting impact. The availability of quality sources is also important. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Knoxinbox:, it's also worth considering the ongoing nature of coverage. If it's a "flash in the pan" then UNDUE might suggest not including. If the reputable sources are returning to it, then that's much more likely to warrant at least brief mention Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello peoples, I am Tinka, and I am a Hessenheffer!
Anywho, I am new here, and I am curious about creating my user page. Everytime I try to publish something on it, it does not load!! Will someone help my dreadful predicament?! Tinka Hessenheffer (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
My bad. I assumed that because editors cannot use the name of a real person (if they are not that person), same applied to well-known fictional names. I've never checked to see if there are editors Harry Potter, Nancy Drew, Sherlock Holmes, Bilbo Baggins, James Bond... David notMD (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tinka Hessenheffer: We certainly have User:Voldemort, (a name from Harry Potter) who is blocked, but not for the username. I believe I have seen users named for various Lord of the Rings characters. I don't think there is anything in teh username policy against such names, unless they are confusing or disruptive. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs14:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Greenmustang1967: I.e., that's not how you get a closer look. Clicking on an image in Wikipedia normally takes you to the image's page. In this case, though, the image is a composite of a base map with a line drawn by another tool. To magnify the composite image, you would have to use either your OS' magnifier tool or your browser's magnifying feature (on desktop, usually Ctrl++ to magnify, Ctrl+- to reduce, Ctrl+0 for 100%). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
There has been for some while a Wikipedia web entry about me entitled ‘Hugh Loxdale’ (Username: Loxdale), which was not instigated by me, but was begun I believe by the Royal Entomological Society about the time or shortly after I was President of that Society. I had nothing to do with its instigation (and for some time was even unaware of its existence!), although subsequently have added information to broaden its interest. However, I have now been informed that the website has “multiple issues” (whatever these may be?) and inexplicably it has been BLOCKED! One of the editors edited the text and abridged it, for which I am grateful, but that version was ‒ and is still ‒ missing the link between my early and higher education, vital when describing my scientific contribution. Anyhow, because the ‘Contribution to science’ section was undoubtedly too long, I have re-written this and wish to place a new, abridged version of the text on the said Wiki web entry instead of the existing text. I am of course happy to amend this as required.
Alternatively, the text could be reduced to the opening paragraph with external links, if it is felt that the entire web entry is to some extent too autobiographical and concerns me (a living person!) and my contribution to insect science over my 50-year professional career in entomology. All the scientific references cited are available worldwide to all readers of this particular Wiki entry.
Clearly, the issue needs to be resolved and so I kindly ask please for advice about duly revising this entry and getting it back online.
Yes, and Loxdale, your article is still up in mainspace and is still online. I see no signs of any blocking, however, you have used multiple accounts, and per Wikipedia policy, you must disclose this as it can be classed as sockpuppetry. Notices at the top of the page act as encouragement for other editors, so I'd advise you to copy your note over to the articles talk page so editors who are going to work on your page can see. Ed6767talk!12:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The article Hugh Loxdale exists, and has not been blocked. YOU are under possible blocking for using more than one account to edit the article. Separate from that, as you are the subject of the article, you should not be making any edits directly to the article. Instead, you should use the Talk page of the article to make specific edit requests (replace___ with ___). Keep in mind that even though the article is about you, it is not "your" article. Any replacement of text supported by citations with other text, other citations, has to be justified on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Definitely block one. This editor was ill-advised back in June that it was OK to have more than one account, so blocking one should do. He has already been informed to this effect on both Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Source comprehension
Hello, Wikipedians. Recently I've come across an article that I'm having difficulty understanding, but it'd expand knowledge society greatly. I will leave the article there for others later, but the page seems to be pretty inactive. I'd appreciate direction towards assistance of any kind. Here is the article in question. puggo (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If the bystanders heard a bullying incident in the opposite gender bathroom?
Violent crime inside public toilets can be a problem in areas where the rate of such crimes in general is very high. Would it still be an issue if the bystanders heard a bullying incident in the opposite gender bathroom? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome. This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. We can't help you with your question, but in general if you feel there is danger, call the police. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, IP user; welcome to the teahouse, and thanks for asking. That doesn't sound to me as if it is appropriate. Wikipedia articles should never address the reader directly, and do not give warnings: see NOTHOWTO. If reliable published sources have discussed the sneaker wave then it might be appropriate to mention it, citing those sources; but otherwise, it would be original research, so not permitted for that reason. In fact, your addition of that park to the article Sneaker wave is similarly inappropriate (and I will revert it) because the source you have quoted says nothing about sneaker waves. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi editors, I am creating a new account for my friend who want to contribute Wikipedia. I will create account from my phone, in which I am using this account. But he will use new account in his phone. Is there any special way or normally create account from Wikipedia login page. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)07:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
TheChunky I would advise you to not do this; more than one person should not have access to an account. You can certainly guide your friend in creating an account, but they need to do it themselves. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
331dot, Can you expand upon your comment, "You can certainly guide your friend in creating an account, but they need to do it themselves." I create accounts for people all the time — just this morning I made such an offer to two different people. Am I misunderstanding something? S Philbrick(Talk)15:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick I could certainly be misunderstanding something, but I interpreted the OP as saying that they created an account for someone else's use and have the login information for it. That would mean others have access to the account. It may be okay to create it if the other person puts in the password during the process. I've never created an account for someone else, so I would be happy to go by your greater experience in that area. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: Its actually possible to create an account for someone else if that person has an email adress. If thats the case, you dont have to enter a password but the email adress and the software behind Wikipedia will send a temporary password to the given email adress. This method is used by WP:ACC, but you dont have to be an account creator - you yust have to take care that you are within the daily IP-based limit. Those options are already visible if you go to Special:CreateAccount. See also the logs for account creation with a temporarely passowrd via emailVictor Schmidt (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
331dot, I agree with you that it would be a problem if somebody created an account for someone else and retained the login information. However I tend to use this page which creates a temporary random password and sends it to the email address not to me, and as an additional layer of security, I believe they are required to change the temporary password to a password of their own creation. I don't know exactly what the OP was doing. (I had already written this before seeing that Victor Schmidt is essentially saying the same thing..). S Philbrick(Talk)21:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Changing magazine article from currently published to discontinued
I am researching Catholic Digest to expand the stub article to something larger.
This magazine has just ceased publication. (I emailed the publisher, and was assured that the current issue will be the last one. I had already received a form letter telling me why my renewal payment was being returned.) The Wikipedia stub article has a "box" listing numbers of issues, where published, etc. I feel the "box" should not be there for a magazine that has ceased publication, but I'm not sure how I should delete it. If I delete all of the text in the box, will the box go away?
I've tried to edit the stub article itself, but when I click on Edit only the "box" information comes up, which is confusing.
Speaking as someone who collects both extant and defunct magazines for both amusement and reference, and finds details such as current or former publishing frequencies, volume and issue numbering, and so on, useful, I disagree that the box isn't needed, although I agree it could well be modified: for example, a 'Last issue' line could be added.
I was quite surprised to see that the article is just a stub, given the magazine's venerability and comparative eminence.
The template {{Infobox magazine}} supports the parameters |final date= and |final number= which could be added, although a cited source would help (and an email is not published, and so cannot be cited as a source on Wikipedia). The website http://www.catholicdigest.com/about/ currently says: While the print edition of the magazine is no longer being published, as of the summer of 2020, the articles you’ll read on CatholicDigest.com contain meaningful ways to connect faith with everyday life. Catholic Digest is owned and published by Bayard U.S. An independent source would be helpful. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
90.200.41.197 If the article is complete (starting with the magazine's beginning in a basement boiler room) I don't see the need for a box, but if it means so much to you I won't remove it. The article has remained a stub because no one has cared enough to work on it until I wanted to see what was there. I care -- my family has subscribed since the 1960s. If you can find a publication reporting on Catholic Digest's demise I'd appreciate you adding it.
DESiegel Contribs I own an old laptop and a Kindle, and both can be touchy when editing Wikipedia articles. The public library is still closed, so I do what I can with what I have. I'll do my best to try and expand this article, but so far I can't get past the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenthewriter (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Mahatma Gandhi - The honorific 'Mahatma' used in 1909.
In the book "Gandhi Before India" by Ramachandra Guha, (First Vintage Books Edition, February 2015, page 349), the honorific 'Mahatma' was used in a private letter from Pranjivan Mehta to Gopal Krishna Gokhale [dated 8 November 1909, File No. 4, Servants of India Society Papers, NMML (Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi] (from page 609, Notes from Guha's book "Gandhi Before India").
This "pronouncement" of 'Mahatma' precedes the 1914 mention.
Should this be in the article because this is the earliest recorded mention of Gandhi being called 'Mahatma' even if this was in a private letter?
Hi LooeyT. This might be something worth starting a discussion about at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. Normally, Wikipedia encourages us to be WP:BOLD and make changes which we believe are improvements, but in this case it might be best to be a little WP:CAUTIOUS instead given that this is probably a highly watched article and even a small change might be one that some might find controversial, particularly since this is something mentioned in the article's lead section. Before you start a new discussion, however, you might want to check the article's talk page archives to see if this has been discussed before. If it has that doesn't mean it cannot be discussed again, but it might mean that others are aware of the earlier use of the term and might have previously decided to not include it in the article for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Best procedure for improving statements that don't have references
If an editor sees a statement that doesn't have a reference but is easily verifiable, what should they do? Specifically, is it OK for them to just delete it? I've read as many of Wikipedia's guidelines as I can, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something. For example, WP:REVERT:
Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it?
I'm asking because another editor deleted one of my edits an hour and a half after I made it. Please point me to any relevant Wikipedia policies so I can learn. --Danielklein (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Danielklein, in the case of a recent edit lacking a citation, it's quite typical for an editor to revert it, as the expectation is that an edit which alters the facts of an article will contain a source citation. In the case of long-standing unsourced material, it's preferable that editors find and cite a source rather than removing content.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Danielklein, I am not a host, but what I do is if I post a statement I always include the reference/citation so I do not run into this problem. I feel if I just posted statements on pages and they had no references associated with them and they have importance of any proportion I would expect them to be deleted as I failed to put in the reference material. I also do not want to be accused of spamming or anything like that. My personal feeling based on what I have read is that everything on wikipedia has to have a reliable source to pass verification or the entire project would be mute. BakertheacreChat/What I Baked23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Quisqualis:, @Bakertheacre: Thank you for your replies. Can you point me to a policy that says to delete first? I have cited a policy that says edits should be improved if possible, not deleted, and I have read many other polices that agree with that one. I didn't want to make this section huge by quoting all of them. --Danielklein (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Danielklein, I am unsure of a policy as I have only been here about a month or so. I am a firm believer in doing my own work, so I would not want to do the work of others in such a collaborative project such as this. I would not want to take the time to research something that someone else put up there because mostly I do not know where they got it from. I may find it on the internet but it could have been from any multitude of items like books, periodicals, journals, etc. BakertheacreChat/What I Baked23:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Bakertheacre, when I have been on the other side of the fence, I always a) look for a source myself and add it if I find one, and b) reach out to the editor to ask them to provide a source. Only if no source is provided after a reasonable amount of time do I consider deleting material. I assume that material was added in good faith, so I look for evidence to back it up. --Danielklein (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE says Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.Verifibility says: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. and Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. It is my view that automatically reverting an unsourced addition is wrong, especially if one knows or has good reason to believe that it is in fact accurate. Improbable or contentious statements, or extraordinary claims, or possible negative or contentious materiel about a living person must be sourced. So must any quote. Any of that should be removed if unsourced. For anything else, I would prefer to search for a source, but if I can't find one, or don't know how to search on that topic, I would leave a {{cn}} tag, often along with a talk page note. If no cite is provided in a reasonable time (say at least a week), I might remove the statement, depending on the exact circumstances. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Danielklein: From my own experience, I will describe two different scenarios I often find myself in. If I have articles on my Watchlist that I am interested in and have monitored continuously for months or years, then I might add a {{cn}} tag to a new statement if I feel it needs a supporting reference. If, however, if I don't believe the veracity of the statement, or I am simply monitoring Special:RecentChanges for live edits of questionable quality (as identified by WP:ORES), I tend to do a good faith rollback or an 'undo', but I leave an edit summary which says. "Unverified, please feel free to reinsert content if you can support it with a citation". In the case of random articles that I stumble across through checking 'Recent Changes', I have no intention of adding said articles to my watchlist, and I would only have removed the content in the first place if I felt its verifiability needed establishing. The act of me removing it is my 'challenge' and thus I feel it befalls on the other editor to reinsert it only after adding an appropriate reference. If you don't understand why another editor has reverted your edit, there is nothing stopping you directly asking them why. What did they say when you asked them? Before questioning another editor, it is often worth trying to see things from an alternative position, especially if you have long been steeped in that topic, and they have not (or, indeed, vice versa). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nick Moyes and DESiegel (no ping, because I agree with what you said and have nothing to add). When I complained that my edit had been reverted and another user had subsequently added the same information in different words (I wrote "I see someone else has now made essentially the same edit I originally made." on their talk page), Melcous (who reverted the edit) said: "with the difference being they included a source :)". --Danielklein (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Danielklein seeing as you have tagged me in this comment, let me add that you could also have noted here that my original edit summary stated that the reason for the reversion was not solely because it was unsourced, but because without a source the wording was unclear/ambiguous. Melcous (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Melcous: Which you also had the choice to change instead of deleting. I disagree that it was ambiguous, however, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think getting into the minutiae of the exact word choice will be useful, but I'm happy to explore it if you think it's relevant. My main point is that I'm not aware of any policy that prefers deletion to clarification or adding a citation, the two reasons you gave for your action, whereas I am aware of multiple policies for the opposite. --Danielklein (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Danielklein this is not a place to rehash an argument, it is a place for editors to seek advice. The fact that you came here asking "what should they do" rather than "what should I do" appears to me to be disingenuous: you are not looking for advice, you are looking for people to join you in condemning me. As you were told by administrators at your erroneously filed arbitration request, what I did is "perfectly normal practice" and the relevant policy is WP:BURDEN. Melcous (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Melcous the consensus was only that arbitration was premature, and that the Teahouse was the appropriate next step. I didn't know that at the time, I do now. There was no ruling as to your action. "Arbitration was premature" does not mean "Melcous's action was normal", and you should not be claiming that, or implying that was the outcome. Only one of the six users who commented said "reverting material that was added without a source—or indeed any material added that another editor disagrees with including—is a perfectly normal practice" (emphasis mine). I completely disagree with that. I can't go around deleting chunks of articles that I personally disagree with. That is not how Wikipedia works, and would be incredibly disruptive if implemented. I'm sorry that you got bad advice, but please don't cherry pick. The only thing that was actually decided was that arbitration was premature for this issue. It would be dishonest to try to read anything else into it. Lastly, please don't point users to a policy without quoting the relevant section. We're not mind readers. We don't know which part you think is specifically relevant here unless you tell us. --Danielklein (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I think maybe you meant this paragraph:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
The words "perfectly normal practice" are not my claim or implication, but what one of the administrators declining your request said. And no, I mean the first paragraph of WP:BURDEN, which says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (emphasis in the policy) When someone adds unsourced content, another editor can remove it. Can they instead choose to ask for a source or request clarification? Of course, but there is no burden on them to do so (and as I and others have already said to you, that may depend on a whole bunch of other things like how recently the edit was made, whether the content is clear, whether the content is challenged etc etc). But when they do so, all the original editor (who the burden is on) needs to do, is go back and add the source and then everybody can move on. It happens here all the time, it has happened to me more times than I can count, and if you keep editing here it will very likely happen to you again. Again, as one of the administrators said, it shouldn't be taken personally. Melcous (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
It says: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." How much time did you give me to add a citation? Why are you surprised that I objected and asked you why you didn't add a citation needed tag? Have I ever said that it's not my burden to demonstrate verifiability? I would have been very happy to provide a citation for it, even though it should have been easy to verify by simply looking at all the surrounding citations. You could have checked the existing citations, noted that the statement was true, and added a citation for that statement yourself. I felt when I added the statement that it was so easy to demonstrate and uncontroversial that it didn't need a citation. For a random example of an article that has many unsourced statements, see The Simpsons. Are you in favour of deleting all the unsourced statements? Do you think every statement should have explicit citations? I think both would be a bad idea. Is there a burden on another editor to request clarification? No, but it is highly recommended to do, to prevent issues such as this one. And since you accused me of putting words in your mouth, please don't do the same to me. I never dismissed what the administrator said, I quoted it verbatim, stated I disagreed with it, and said why. That's very different from dismissing something. --Danielklein (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I want to delete my account
I want to delete my account. I feel very hopeless and depressed in using this site. It has affected my mental health. So I want to delete my account.
(edit conflict) Hi KyleVietnam. Accounts cannot be deleted for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:User name policy#Deleting and merging accounts. You can, if you want, just never log in to your account again, but a record of edits made with the account needs to be kept for attribution purposes. It looks like you've been working on a draft for a new article and might be feeling a bit frustrated that it has not been accepted as an article yet. Creating a new article can be quite hard, even for experienced editors, but newish editors in particular seem to have a hard time trying to figure how to do so in accordanc with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Have you tried asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies or perhaps another possibly relevant WikiProject. WikiProjects are often good places to ask for assistance when you're trying to create an aritcle because many WikiProject members have a good grasp of Wikipedia:Notability, particularly as it pertains to subjects that fall within their project's scope. While it's frustrating to have a draft you've been working on declined or even draftified, it's not necessarily the end of the world and you can still continue improving the draft if you like and keep resubmitting it to WP:AFC for review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@KyleVietnam: Hi, someone alerted me that you'd asked here. I am very sorry to hear that you want to leave Wikipedia, but it has to be your decision; as others have said, there's something called "courtesy vanishing", where your account would be renamed to a string of letters and numbers, and there's the simple option of never logging in again, but your edits can't be actually removed. I was hoping you would resubmit the draft article, in hopes of someone else reviewing it; I believe the way to do that is to add {{subst:submit}}, since I don't see the yellow button, but as you found out, moving your own draft to mainspace after it's been rejected is not advisable. More importantly, that, too, is up to you. I can't read the languages to judge the sources. I'm glad you came to the Teahouse; lots of friendly editors look here to see whether they can help out. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@KyleVietnam:. I echo everything that Marchjuly says in the note above. In addition, I will add that most things in the world are not worth impacting your mental health. Most definitely, a volunteer contribution done out of all earnestness should not. So, firstly, please do everything that you can to take care of yourself.
The thing about this website is that, most of the folks who edit this site are no different from you, and me, and most folks in this WP:TEAHOUSE forum, in that they are volunteering their time. When you receive feedback on an article, the feedback usually comes via re-usable templates. These notes can seem much more colder, much more curt, and much more acute, than they are intended to. In reality, most of the feedback providers are well meaning folks. Also, the rules can seem ominous and convoluted, more so when acronyms and abbreviations are used. Many of the more seasoned reviewers understand that and many of them take it a point to explain it out. For the folks who don't, I give them the benefit of doubt in that they might be hard pressed for time.
I really liked Marchjuly's feedback that you could reach out to some Project groups to partner with you and flesh out some of your ideas. Just a thought to consider.
Good luck. Take some time off if you need to. But, please, do not let this site (or anything else) impact your mental health. Cheers, and thanks for being a Wikipedia Editor. Kaisertalk (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
One of my articles isn’t showing the name that I want it to.
Hi TeaHouse! One of my articles isn’t showing the name that I want it to. DISCLAIMER: The things that I am about to say are from my perspective and may or may not be different to the other person who’s viewing it. Ok, so if you go into the source edit you will see that the name is “Currimundi Lake (Kathleen McArthur) Conservation Park” but the actual title of the page is “Currimundi Lake Conservation Park” (without the kathleen mcarthur). How do I change this?
@Pezoporus wallicus: hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This looks like an uncontroversial page move (that is what we call renaming) since it is a recently created article, you are the principal editor on the page, and last but not least, "Currimundi Lake (Kathleen_McArthur) Conservation Park" seems to be the official name! So I moved it to Currimundi Lake (Kathleen_McArthur) Conservation Park. I'll go through and look for Wikipedia page links that lead to the old page but you might want to check that out as well yourself. Also, we never say "my pages" as pages belong to no one on Wikipedia, per WP:OWN. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, someone said the same thing to me the first time I said "My article". It's a Wikipedia culture thing, to stress that no one owns any particular article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
First Post Query
Greetings!
Dear Editor,
This is the first time I am on the writing front on Wiki and submitted a piece on May 19th, 2020. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faizanisraili
Been quite some time and it still isn't public. I need help and your assistance in understanding of how to make it live to public.
I will be grateful if anyone of you can help me with the same.
Hi Faizanisraili. It looks like you're trying to create a new article about a band on your user page. This is a common mistake many new editors make, but it's something that can be sorted out. Ideally, the best way for you to do that would be to first create a draft and then submit that draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review once you think it's ready to be upgraded to article status. Before you do any of that, however, I think you should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Article, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and then Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reference because all of those pages contain information that you might find helpful. In order for any draft about the band to be ultimately upgraded to article status, you're going to have establish that the band meets one of Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, and the way that you do that is showing that the band has received significant coverage in what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. If after reading through the pages linked to above you still want to create an article about the band, then go to WP:AFC, click on "Click here to start a new article" and follow the instructions of the Article Creation Wizard. Doing this will create a draft for you that you can continue to work on it until you think it's ready for submission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Template:Template:Stockholm Red Line T14
A sock puppet renamed Template:Stockholm Red Line T14 I have reverted his edits however I've wrongly named it Template:Stockholm Red Line 14 instead of Template talk:Stockholm Red Line T14. Can someone correct this and revert it back to the correct name; Template:Stockholm Red Line T14. Reagrds --Devokewater (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, no, not quite – I tagged the page the sockpuppet created (because "Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 14" is a bad title, and because it was a sockpuppet creation), but the issue Devokewater is asking about is a little different. @Devokewater:, I have listed Template:Stockholm Red Line 14 at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. There is a redirect in place at the old title, so it needs an admin to move it there (as the move can't simply be reverted.) Thanks for the heads-up! --bonadeacontributionstalk22:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
He has told me that having his year of birth listed potentially impacts the work he does with young people who may see it as a problem that he is the age that he is. Is there any way that the date of birth can be removed and not added again in future edits?
RoseCartwrightCommunications Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you represent this person, you will need to review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. ("paid editing" applies even to unpaid-in-money volunteer work, as you are compensated with the experience of the work)
Regarding your question, if this person's year of birth is not widely published in reliable sources, it is possible to remove it. You shouldn't do it yourself, but you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. If it is widely published in reliable sources, it's going to be harder to remove. As for future edits, we can't guarantee that no one will add it again the future, but you are free to monitor the article yourself to see if others do. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
But if it is re-added, you can't just keep removing it. Unless it falls foul of a policy, other editors are entitled to add it and the reason you've given for removal isn't one that the community would generally accept as a reason to omit it. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
RoseCartwrightCommunications, It seems to me that the gentleman needs to get over it. He is either good at his charitable work or is not. He is either safe to work with people or is not. What on earth does his age 'imply'? Please be aware that this article is not his article nor your article. It is Wikipedia's article, and subject to editing by all. Be aware, too, of the Streisand effect, something you have already triggered any accident. FiddleFaddle09:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, hope you're well.
I just have a quick question regarding whether or not box office citations/sources should be included inside the "gross" parameter within the Infobox film. An editor had removed the sources for the box office gross of the film Weathering with You from the template, and I'm wondering why as many film articles include a source in the infobox. Thanks, help is appreciated. :) KaitoNkmra23talk10:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, KaitoNkmra23, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is certainly no rule against citing information in an infobox, and many articles do so. Most of the data i8n an infobox is supposed to summarize the body of the article. If the info is included in the body, and is properly sourced there, then repeating the citation ion the box may be considered unneeded, just as repeating citation in the lead section for fats already cited in the body may be considered unneeded. If the info is not sourced elsewhere in the article, then a source is certainly proper, and some would day essential. Infoboxes are not exceptions to WP:V. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs12:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:WHENNOTCITE says: Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the articleWP:LEADCITE says: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Both sections note that direct quotes and controversial or likely to be challenged content should always be sourced, even in a lead section. Note that an infobox is considered part of the lead section. The best place to discuss this is probably the article talk page: Talk:Weathering with You You can ping the other involved editor to such a discussion. @KaitoNkmra23:DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs13:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@KaitoNkmra23: In this case, because it is (correctly) present and cited in the body of the article, it's reasonable to not clutter the infobox with the cite. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—13:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Help adding a title to an existing citation
I was trying to edit a page to which I have no access, as I am too new. It is the protected page about Israel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Under the section titled Antiquity, footnote 92 reads "Gnuse 1997, pp. 28, 31[title missing]", but I found the title of the book is No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. The author's full name is Robert Karl Gnuse. The citation should be
Gnuse, Robert Karl (1997). No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd. pp. 28, 31. ISBN 1-85075-657-0.
Why are you guys so biased. Look up any republican politician or leading voice and it’s like a smear campaign. Look up there democratic opposite and it’s like a resume. Come on man. Sad 208.92.174.106 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Without specifics, there's really nothing to be done. If you have a specific complaint about the neutrality of an article, please talk about it on the article's talk page (which I would link to if you had given an example). Remember to be specific if you actually want something to change. If the material in question is sourced, you'll have to argue against the reliability of that source or provide other reliable sources that give an alternate viewpoint. That's how we work here. I hope that makes sense. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Rejected article although it already exists in the French wikipedia
Hello,
I am reaching out because I am a little confused by the rejection of an article : Draft:Waldorf Astoria Versailles - Trianon Palace
It is about a well known hotel in Versailles France, which is always confused by the Grand Trianon in Versailles which is part of the Chateau de Versailles.
I feel there is a need to have the english equivalent of the French page Trianon Palace Versailles, just like there is a page about the Waldorf Astoria New-York or Waldorf Astoria Berlin.
The reviewer mentioned "peacock terms", but actually the article seems quite neutral and presents the history of the hotel, and the outlets with documented sources (not the hotel website)
The french article has the same content and has been out there for a long time.
Thank you all for your attention, Marinedupont941 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Marinedupont941, start by deleting the whole Overall presentation section, it is pure marketing fluff that belongs on the hotel's own website. The History section is quite nicely written and demonstrates that the hotel has had quite a significant role in major events of the 20th century. Provided the sources are good that would form the core of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
How to provide multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources to prove notability without advertising or promoting a training course or consultancy?
I have been trying to publish a clear independent fact page on a International Standard for Lean Six Sigma, without creating a debate. But it has been refused with this: You need to provide multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources to prove notability.
The main references I have used are from the publishers and owners. I can add lots of other links to the article, but nearly all out consultants or training companies trying to sell their time or course. I did not want this to be a advertising space. So how do I get to publication when sources are to few, or linked to promoting a company? SystemicPeter (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@SystemicPeter: I'm afraid the short answer is that you can't. Remember that our encyclopedia articles summarize what those independent, secondary, reliable sources have written about a subject. If those sources don't exist, there's nothing to summarize. Perhaps it's too soon and sources will start to write about the subject over time. Some subjects may never become notable – that's not a reflection on their quality or importance, which is sadly a mis-perception that the public seems to have about Wikipedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—17:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Frankwaive: I'm not sure I understand your relation to the subject. Are you the same Francis Waive that is the subject of the article? If so, please first read WP:COI, as you have a conflict of interest to declare. In the gray box at the top of Draft:Francis_E._Waive, there is an explanation for the declining of the article. Please read the linked (blue-colored) items that go into more detail about our policies and guidelines. It is important that you do not copy any non-freely-licensed material from outside Wikipedia. In your case this shows material was copied from franciswaive.com, which clearly has a copyright notice below. Even if you are the copyright holder, you would have to go through a process to prove that, and I believe would have to change that site to be freely-licensed. However, none of this is necessary, since that material is largely promotion in tone and not suitable here for that reason anyway. Please try to look at other articles to get an idea of what to do. I'd suggest the Top/High/Mid importance articles that are B or higher quality at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria#Assessment (click on the numbers in the cells to see the articles; probably best on a desktop or tablet). I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The draft currently says, for example: "Rev Waive is blissfully married to Rita who is a Guidance and Counselling Educationist and blessed with great kids." We'd need independent evidence for claims that the marriage is blissful and that the kids are great. And perhaps also for the claim that this is a blessing. .... But no, we don't. We don't want the evidence or the claims. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of PR material. The content of any article should be entirely dispassionate. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
You deleted the feedback (where it said "Do not remove this line!"). The feedback is there for the benefit of you and subsequent reviewers, so I have reinstated it. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Until yesterday, when I pointed my cursor to an underlined link to another article a preview of the first few sentences an maybe a graphic would appear. This was a very handy feature that allowed me to guess at the relevance of any link without leaving the page. Something removed this feature yesterday. How do I get it back? Mehcaver (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, Page Previews doesn't work outside of the mainspace (aka normal articles). They won't pop up on talk pages, policy pages, etc. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 09:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mehcaver and Ganbaruby: Some people (like me) find the Navigation Popups gadget more useful (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, browsing), as it works almost everywhere, showing article previews, history, or user contributions depending on context, and provides dropdown menus for other common functions, all without having to leave the page. Only thing is that it renders things in a more raw form, ignoring (or just displaying the source of) templates in particular. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—14:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1, Weighing in with support for Navigation popups. Coincidentally, I was just checking something with my alt account, which did not have navigation pop-ups enabled, and it demonstrated are useful in ubiquitous that gadget is. I can hardly imagine life without it. S Philbrick(Talk)19:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Wanderlustwoman195, It needs work, quite a lot of work. You need to submit it for review, and it will be pushed back to you for the work it needs. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. FiddleFaddle19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Should I create a personal wikipage if I am a published wrtier
To elaborate on that, Wikipedia tries to dissuade people from attempting an autobiographical article (not page). See WP:AUTO. If you are so well known that people independent of you have written at length about you, there may be a case for such an article. Keep in mind that once there is such an article, it is not 'owned' by the person it is about. Other editors can add content as long as it is properly referenced. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Help getting article approve - University of Miami Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery
I have been trying for weeks to get a page published and have been unsuccessful. Today, I received a different message within my rejected page:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at University of Miami. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
What could we do to get this page approved? We feel we have a pretty strong page but keep getting rejected. Any tips are greatly appreciated
Hello. I'm afraid that (like many people) you're confusing Wikipedia with a directory. It is not: it is an encyclopaedia. It has basically no interest in what any subject says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what commentators wholly unconnected with the subject, and unprompted by information from the subject, have chosen to publish about it (and been published in reliable places). Draft:University of Miami Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery has eleven citations, but not one of them is independent of the university; therefore not a single word of the draft is currently supported by an independent source. this means that the draft does nothing whatever to establish that the department meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, without which an article cannot be accepted. Please also read about your first article and paid editing. --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles, not pages. That is an important distinction. And I am hazarding a guess that a department within a medical school rarely rates an article. Before you do anything else, I recommend you register for an account and address the paid editing situation asked by ColinFine David notMD (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a little unusual for a Wikipedia article, to be about a single department in a medical school or a university. And as Colin Fine says above, there are currently no independent sources cited, what are essential. Nor are a few passing mentions in such independent sources enough, there must be significant coverage in each of several such sources.
Note also that the current draft several sections that are basically lists, and mostly rather long lists, with little detail about any one item. The total length of these is probably excessive, and the encyclopedic value of such lists is often limited. It is o0ften better to have prose saying more about fewer items.
First, OP, either use your account or edit anonymously. You cannot do both on the same page. Second, rather than waste your time and other's time, I've rejected your draft. Add some content to the medical school article, but most of this draft is not acceptable content for an existing article either. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Conflict with another editor
I wrote an article about Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London. I have edited wikis before and I wasn't really bothered when other people edited it. But now I am frustrated by another editor who is insisting on including travel guide fluff because he wants "to keep this above 1500 characters". Part of what he wants to include is about a totally different statue. Can someone help me out, please? Swatchdog (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The available means of dispute resolution offer avenues to get other opinions or resolve the dispute. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought "A friendly place where you can ask questions and get help with using and editing Wikipedia" meant that a human being might be willing to personally help me. But, sure, I will read that long page and try to figure out what I need to do next. Have you considered replacing Wikipedia Teahouse with a flowchart? Swatchdog (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Swatchdog: If you're wondering why 1500 characters, it seems like the other editor is trying to nominate the article for the did you know? section of the main page. One of the requirements is that the article must be 1500 characters in readable prose length. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, We disagree on two sentences. Swatchdog doesn't think the sentences belong, though they are sourced. I have said that I believe that the sentences add context. Second, I said, if Swatchdog really wants to delete the two sentences, please add some more content to the article to bring it up over the 1500 floor required by DYK. However, Swatchdog (an editor with an account about three weeks old) who has written their first article and has only edited on this article, seems hell-bent to edit war over these two sentences. If I had known this was going to happen, I wouldn't have nominated Swatchdog's article for DYK. --evrik(talk)02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: My account HERE is new, but please don't assume that means I am clueless. I have experience with wikis and editing collaboratively, but the editors of those wikis all shared common goals, so I suppose this is a new experience for me. Swatchdog (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikimedia software is available to anyone for any purpose. I don't understand why you assume that because websites operate on common software that the rules policies and procedures are the same. Sorry, but simply having used wiki software doesn't begin to qualify you to edit here. What you are doing right here, right now is a violation of WP:CANVASSING. If the dispute is between two editors, WP:3O would be the usual choice for DR assistance, but they are very short staffed. I'd sugest posting neutral notifications at the talk pages of the Wikiprojects that follow the article. When two people can't agree, get more people involved. This isn't the place to do that. Thanks. Please don't tell me our current thing is threatening a mundane statue like that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Need help DYK
Hi, I nominated an article for DYK but I forgot to place what is mandated to place in the talk page when the article is nominated. I am kind of overwhelmed, I am not used to do these things lol. Help appreciated ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If you're meant to have put something in its talk page, then put it there now – maybe with an apology for your tardiness. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Can I get help expanding an article I created about Hester Ford, the oldest living person in the United States?
I created the article on Hester Ford today. She is the oldest living person in the United States the death of Alelia Murphy on November 23, 2019. Could I get some help expanding and editing the article?
Thanks to anyone who helps edit and expand the article. Greshthegreat (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I'll post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity as well, to see what others think, and if they feel Hester Ford deserves her own article or should be merged into a different article or list. Greshthegreat (talk)
Not sure what I'm doing wrong-- "Faux Queen" article
I have been trying to rewrite the article "Faux Queen," it was a start article with no major content updates since 2007. The term "Faux Queen" is considered offensive and outdated, as is explained on the more recently updated page "Drag Queen" and cited in the text repeatedly; I explained the terminology issues with AFAB drag queens and added additional information (there have been some prominent AFAB drag artists appearing in media recently), and information about their reception in the drag community. The change was reverted because it wasn't considered "constructive--" what did I do wrong? I tried adding more citations? PropterScientiam (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@PropterScientam: it looks like your revisions to the article were restored. If there is future disagreement, please start a discussion at Talk:Faux queen. Also, sometimes it is better to do small chunks of edits at a time, over a longer time period. That way other editors can consider them piecemeal as you make the edits, rather than just seeing a complete rewrite all at once. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggestions to Improve Rejected Page Submission
My first submission recently got rejected because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. ". I'm looking for suggestions on how it can be modified to be acceptable. Would it be better to treat it like a brand information page, such as the Kleenex wiki page does? So include brand history and use? Your suggestions are very welcome! Link: Draft:Cultrex BME -- Sjschach78 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The citations all seem to be to research papers which, I assume, say something like "we used Cultrex to grow the cells", rather than providing the in-depth discussion which would be needed to establish notability. But at least it's a genuine product. Your mention of treating the article as a brand information page had me thinking it was a quack product promoted as curing wrinkles or suchlike. Maproom (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sjschach78: I'd just resubmit. I don't think the article reads like an ad, personally. I'm not sure if it is notable, though, for the reasons Maproom mentioned. I left a comment on the draft saying that I disagreed with the first reviewer, and I encourage you to resubmit for another review. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Did you amend the error in Sky Edwards wiki article? All I see is that you've archived my request, what's the point of me highlighting the error, if nothing is corrected HarrisHawk66 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
HarrisHawk66, Wikipedia doesn't really work like that; folks don't tell us to fix things and we fix them. We're all just volunteers. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to make the change yourself. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I work for a company, and I think our business is deserving of a Wikipedia page.
Due to conflicts of interest, do I just have to sit back and wait for someone else to make this happen? Is there any way I can contribute to or expedite the process?
I have a list of external sources about the company from several different magazines, newspapers, and business journals. Evocrew (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Evocrew. While it's possible that someday a Wikipedia article about your company might be created, it would not be something that is considered a "corporate page" in the sense that either the company itself or anyone associated with it would have any sort of final editorial control over the article as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Bascially, article content (regardless of whether it's positive or negative) will be expected to reflect for the most part only what independentsecondaryreliable sources have written or are saying about the company. While it might be possible to cite company press releases or other types of primary sources for certain types of non-contentious factual information, Wikipedia is more interested in what others are saying about the company than what the company is saying about yourself.It seems you've already started a draft about the company (Draft:Evo) and submitted it to WP:AFC for review, but it was declined by Robert McClenon because of concerns about the company's Wikipedia notability (or lack thereof). Generally what Wikipedia is looking for when it comes to articles written about companies and organizations is the type of significant coverage found in WP:CORPDEPTH. If you feel you've done a fair job in establishing the company's Wikipedia notablity, you can always post a polite message at User talk:Robert McClenon and ask him for some more specific feedback. Robert's a pretty experienced editors who reviews lots of drafts submitted via AFC, and he'd probably be happy to provide a few more specifics if asked. You can also try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for feedback as well. When an AFC rreviewer "declines" a draft they are bascially saying that the draft has the potential to become an article, but it's just not quite ready yet; on the other hand, when an AFC reviewer "rejects" a draft, they are pretty much saying that there's no reasonable hope of the draft ever becoming an article because the problems it has are most likely too serious to fix. A declined draft can continue to be improved upon and can be re-submitted for another review. The process might take a bit of time to complete, but quite a number of drafts are intially decined before ultimately being accepted. The key is to keep improving the draft per the suggestions given by the AFC reviewers and not just re-submitting essentially the same thing over and over again. As long as you or someone keeps working on improving the draft, it will not be considered abandoned and eligible for speedy deletion per criterion G13. There are really very few deadlines when it comes to Wikipedia and things might not move as quickly as you like or company may want, but there's not really much you can do about that since Wikipedia is not really here for your company's benefit.Since you've identified yourself as being an employee of the company, you are going to be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This doesn't mean you cannot continue to work on the draft, but it does mean that you are going to be expected to adhere to relative Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to conflict of interest. As an employee of the company, there is also a really good chance you are going to be considered to be a "paid/compensated contributor". Even though Wikipedia only highly discourages simple COI editing, the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use do expressly prohibit undisclosed paid editing which means you need to be very careful when it comes to Wikipedia:Paid contribution disclosure. Failure to properly declare a conflict of interest (particularly for "paid/compensated" editing) can lead to an account being blocked by a Wikipedia administrator.Finally, one last thing that has to do with your choice of username. Usernames which imply that the account might be associated with a company or organization or possibly shared by multiple persons (i.e. a group account) are not really allowed and in some cases the account might be soft-blocked as a result. Your choice of username is a bit borderline, so you might want to consider tweaking it a bit to further personalize it so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Please remember though that regardless of your choice of username, the fact that you have a conflict of interest has to do with you and your connection to the coming; so, you will still need to adhere to relevant COI policies and guidelines even if you do change your username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Is this article neutral/reliable enough?
I love what Jessi Frick did with her record label (father/daughter records)and have been listening to a lot of their music. Definitely think she deserves a page.
Is this article draft ok? Made sure that it stayed neutral and evidence wasn't based on too many interviews and such.
Extended content
Jessi Frick is the owner and operator of Father/Daughter Records as well as Citrine Management. Frick has also been involved as a publicist with Riot Act Media and Fiddler Records 1. She has also founded the Bay Area Record Fair based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Frick also recently launched an IGTV series called Father-Daughter Hangs.
Pre Father/Daughter Records
After graduating from MAST Academy high school, Jessi Frick moved to New York. There, she tour managed The Impossibles for two years.2 Frick then moved to Los Angeles, where she went on to do marketing and PR at Fiddler Records for 5 years 3 . Founded by her close friend Amy Fleisher Madden, Fiddler Records planted the seed that inspired Frick to start her own label. 4 A self-proclaimed “safe haven for musical misfits,” 5, Jessi co-founded Father/Daughter Records with her father Ken Hector in 2010. 6 Since then, Frick has also founded San Francisco’s independent record market, the Bay Area Record Fair in 2014, and the Keep in Touch Series in 2015, a flexi-postcard subscription. Frick also manages artists as part of Salty Artist Management such as Girlpool, Diet Cig, The Hotelier, and the Spook School 7, along with doing PR for Riot Act Media. 8
Father/Daughter Records
Jessie Frick started Father/Daughter records in 2010 as an independent label with her father Ken Hector 9. The label has a focus on producing records that are present with the times and that resonate imagination in the indie rock scene 10. Since 2010, the label has had around 93 releases - some of which have gone on to national acclaim. Their top releases include music from Shamir, Diet Cig, Remember Sports, Vagabon, and Partner11. Most notably, Father/Daughter Records was named one of six Breakout Indie Labels of 2014 by Stereogum Magazine. Frick continues to grow the label and has most recently released Father/Daughter Records first book, Little Wonder by Kat Gardiner.
@Veronia.so: Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. I gave it a quick read, and there doesn't seem to be any blaring errors to fix, so kudos to you. If would be nice if you could use our our citation style, as well as provide some more citations for some sentences (Stereogum Magazine, first book, etc). To be honest, this isn't the best place to get feedback about your draft article. I suggest you head over to Wikipedia:Article_wizard and start a draft article there, where you can submit your draft for an editor to check your content and make sure it's up to our article standards. If you have any specific questions about how to edit Wikipedia (formatting, how to use templates, etc), feel free to drop another question on this page. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@P,TO 19104: I'd say the first steps to improving any article would be searching for good sources for improving the article, and outlining the general content you think the article should include. I think the number articles are going to be extremely difficult articles to work on, so I wouldn't do that for my first pick. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The 1910 article is currently rated "Start", so a long way from justifying nominating if for GA. AND, it gets only one viewer per day on average, so why bother. "50" gets more about 140 views/day, but does not feel like an article that can become GA. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Article has significant enough coverage to be published, but is being repeatedly denied for lack of coverage.
My article Draft:FastFig is being repeatedly denied approval for the same reason: not enough "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" despite this not being the case.
The article does include sources that absolutely fit this criteria:
Are reviewers not realizing that FastFig had an entire article written about it in Region's Business, for example?
Meanwhile there are articles about other companies in this industry that only cite themselves / their parent company, yet those articles are published and public. MathType is the most glaring example of this.
Hi JayHotals. If mutlitple AfC reviewers are declining the draft for essentially the same reason, then perhaps the sourcing is not as strong as you seem to think. You can try asking at WP:AFCHELP to see what others might think; you might also try asking at WT:COMP, WT:MATHS or WT:SOFTWARE to see in any of the members of those WikiProjects are able to help. Sometimes an AFC reviewer might not be very familiar for what is considered accepted as WP:SIGCOV with respect to specialized subject matter, and a WikiProject can provide a little more specific guidance. As for the MathType article, the first thing that comes to mind is WP:OSE. Wikipedia has over six million articles and not all of them have been properly vetted or reviewed; so, the fact that "MathType" exists doesn't mean that it should exist or that articles about other similar topics should exist. Article are ideally assessed upon their own merits and not based upon the existence of other similar articles. In some cases comparisons can be helpful, but there are many current articles which probably wouldn't survive if they ended up being discussed at WP:AFD if there only claim is that "another similar article exists". I'm not saying that "MathType" is one of these articles, but only that you need to try and justify "FastFig" based upon its own merits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jourdainowen. You can report obvious and persistent vandalism to WP:AIV (as I've done) or pretty much any administrator who you know is online. This kind of stuff is usually taken care of fairly quicky. In other less clear cases (e.g. WP:VAN#NOT), it might be better to try use user warnings or to engage the other editor on their user talk page to let them know of your concerns before seeking administrator assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello User070510, and welcome to the teahouse. There's a guide at Help:Pictures that shows you how, but that page is quite hefty. Are you trying to upload an image, or are you trying to attach an existing image to an article? ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Aans03: The end result is exactly the same. HotCat just makes the categorization process faster, and has the added ability to check if a category exists when you’re adding it. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Best location to ask for AfD cleanup?
The user bashed up the page pretty well, and it appears did enough damage that the autosign didn't even work. Since I'm the nominator I'd rather not mess with it, but I don't think it needs to go all the way up to ANI. Not sure where to ask someone to fix it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Which AFD page are you talking about? I would yust undo the edits or close the unclosed <ref> or <nowiki> or <code> Tags. If the user reinserts them, we escalate the WP:DE warning line as such a behavior would be WP:POINTy. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Second opinion wanted re: possible disruptive talk page editing from IP user
On the talk page for United States v. Flynn, an IP user created a new talk page section, [2], listing multiple concerns about the article and ending with "There's a list of things that you can clean up [in the article] and which I fully expect to stay wrong.” I asked them to edit the article content that concerned them, and the response was “it isn't in my power because people with a narrative with revert everything I do and source.” I again suggested that they edit the article, adding that if there was a conflict, then we could try to resolve it using one or more means in WP:DISPUTE, and the person responded with “It isn't worth my time for something I know won't happen. I'm experienced enough with wikipedia to know that the entire system doesn't deserve good faith.” The IP account shows very few edits, and the contrast between "experienced" and few edits suggests they've posted under another account. The choice to complain and want others to do the work also strikes me as WP:DE, but I’m not that experienced an editor, and I’m not sure how to respond productively at this point. I'd appreciate a second opinion / suggestion re: how to respond. Thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I've urged the writer to stop wasting his prose on the unappreciative readers of this website. If he continues, I suggest just hatting it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The link [3] is a Wikipedia page written in Catalan. It is possible to translate the body of the entry with Google translate, but I cannot translate it using the gear wheel icon on the page. I imagine that as it stands it would be considered a stub. The importance of Caesonius Maximus and and his associates is that they are mentioned and praised in the sixth book of Martial. This entry could be expanded. I imagine the question is what is the procedure to get the gear wheel to give the English translation to work. It does not show up on my browser where I would expect it to. Thanks. Nicodemus (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Flowerina.M: That would not be appropriate on the Catalan Wikipedia, in which articles are expected to be written in Catalan. The user is presumably trying to translate an article to be put on English Wikipedia, which can be done as a start with Google Translate, but will require heavy editing for proper grammar, meaning, style, suitable sources, etc. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—18:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for asking, LSBryce; I'd like to help, but I don't understand the situation. There was an oddly positioned photo, whose dimensions you reduced to 1 pixel by 1 pixel. Does the photo (restored to its previous dimensions) belong at the top right of the article, or doesn't it belong in the article at all? (Aphids are just one of the vast number of my areas of total ignorance, so I can't judge this for myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is the 1 pixel by 1 pixel photo at the bottom, I want it deleted from the article as I put it in the wrong location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSBryce (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, LSBryce. I'm glad that got sorted. But I'm concerned about a couple of things in your question. First, there is no such thing as "the administrator of a page". Except in the case of page protection, anybody may edit any article or other page: I'm puzzled as to why you thought you could not undo an edit you had made yourself. Secondly, I am concerned as to why you should have added a 1x1 image in the first place. I'm sure the usual reason for adding 1x1 images to web pages (covert tracking) can't be relevant, but I can't think why you would want to; but I would regard doing so as mildly disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
ColinFine Hello, I added a photo in the wrong spot on the page so I googled how to remove a photo from a wiki page that I added. It said you have to be an administrator to delete a photo, see wikipedia: guide to image deletion. I sized it down until I could get a response so the page would not look awkward. Sorry, (yes I am Canadian) I am just learning, definitely not skilled enough for covert tracking. Thank you Ed6767 for detecting my newbie error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSBryce (talk • contribs) 08:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sorry if I came over harshly, LSBryce. Removing an image from an article is a very different matter from deleting the image from the system. All you needed to do was to revert your edit where you introduced the image. --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Johanson Analysis
I wrote an article on the Johanson analysis for the representation of women and girls in movies. Another editor set up a draft page for me where we are fine-tuning the article. If anyone here would like to take a look at the page and offer comments, it would be appreciated. You can find it here: Draft: Johanson analysisJacDT (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, while writing this article, I looked up the author of the analysis and found that a page existed for her some years ago that was deleted. The discussion I found for the deletion is somewhat brief and includes a rationale by one editor against the deletion. However, the deletion went through anyway, it looks like because the other editor didn't feel the references given for Johanson established notability. I suspect the original page wasn't written according to established Wikipedia practices, and that's what got it into trouble. I haven't seen the article, but I don't see any problem establishing notability for the subject, certainly not in 2020. She is a prominent film critic and feminist known in the US and abroad. I'd like to investigate the possibility of reinstating her page to provide a link to the page about the Johanson analysis. The analysis provides a more thorough manner of rating the representation of women in the media than the Bechdel test (and other related analyses), and the Bechdel test includes a page for both the test and its author. Such articles address the intent both of developing better representation of women in Wikipedia and through the Wikipedia, in general, as set for in Wikiproject Women. I'd much appreciate any suggestions, comments, or help that anyone here on this. JacDT (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Iamsouravrana Not it is not. The "Biography" section contains contentions, possibly negative content about living people, none of which is supported by an inline citation, which was the very issue over which this was declined before. It also contains opinions and judgements in Wikipedia's voice, not attributed to any specific person or source, such as Her husband’s love and unconditional support gave her the much-needed confidence who says this? Also, all direct quotes must be attributed and supported by an inline citation. Please read referencing for beginners and Citing sources. I didn't even look at any other possible issues, as this is enough to guarantee a decline if resubmitted. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs15:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Still not. None of the information in the Biography is referenced. The second ref is a blog and the third is her website. All information must be verified by being supported by a published article about her. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
IF I want to tell someone how I changed what they wrote and need to use strikethrough text how do I that? is the format MY NAME IS ---strike--- BILL ---Strike--- WILLIAM ? 69.88.47.94 (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
You should use MY NAME IS <s> BILL </s> WILLIAM which results as
I had posed a question on a previous account (that I cannot seem to recover, username I believe to be Markvoneisen) about this subject. Information I learned from that conversation has prompted a thorough vetting of the content contained in a new draft for Mary Woolley. This individual had a previous page that was taken down for using language deemed promotional in nature and citing sources that were not verifiable, third party references Mary Woolley (President and CEO). Also important: I am aware of a conflict of interest in that I am personally enrolled in a program that this individual's nonprofit runs, and had been given previous talk page advice to seek a wiki reader to vet the content before it is even a draft: page so that what gets approved will not be deleted again. New content is not linked here. 1) My draft is currently offline — what is the best forum to enter this content into wikipedia so that I can properly format it, and my conflict of interest can be addressed before the page is deleted once more? 2) Who or what body should I initially seek to vet the information? Any and all comments welcome here. Always appreciate the analytical insight you all provide. Thanks. VonEisenMark (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, VonEisenMark and welcome (back?) to teh Teahouse.
There is no designated body, and no normal procedure, to pre-vet texts before they become drafts. If an experienced editor was willing to do this, you could I suppose email the text to that editor, and s/he could give an opinion. But I would not particularly advise it, and I am not sure who would be willing to do this. I do not know who advised you to do that, but I think the advice was ill-judged, or perhaps you misunderstood it.
My advice would be to use the article wizard to create a new draft, using your offline text. The you could post a link to that new draft here, and ask for people to take a look at it and advise before it is submitter for a full review. That is a more usual procedure.
I see that Draft:Mary Woolley (President and CEO) was deleted as an abandoned draft under G13 That means it was left unedited for 6 months or more. It was not deleted for promotional content or poor references, although a reviewer, The Drover's Wife did decline to approve it as an article for not having references which demonstrated notability. You could ask at WP:REFUND (or here) for that to be undeleted, and then use your offline text to edit it. That draft looks to me as if it needs significant work, but might be a useful starting point.
I concur that using Article Wizard to create a not-yet-submitted draft first, and then asking here are Teahouse if anyone would care to look at it, is good advice. Unsubmitted drafts are semi-public, in that editors can see them if name provided, but will not be found by a search within or outside of Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
A minor qualification to the above. It is possible to search the draft space using Wikipedia's internal search feature. By degfault drafts are not included, but a user can explicitly specify that drafts should be search. However, most users do not often if ever do this, and will not see any particular drat unless specifically directed to it. Of course, anyone looking at a particualr user's history of edits (known as contributions) will see any made to a draft. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roxs1236. One of the sources you added to the article was actually a link to another Wikipedia article. While I'm sure you meant well when you did this, please keep in mind for future reference that Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for any purposes and should not added to other articles as references, except in some very limited circumstances. This is not a big deal and is a mistake that new or newish editors often make. As for the issues you're having with the images, there are already four (five if you include the one in the infobox) images being used in the Tower Hill article section and trying to add even one more might make the article a little out of balance. Only one of the individuals listed in Tower Hill#Executions is actually represented by an image, but it's not clear why. This doesn't mean more images can never be added to the article, but the layout of the images might have to be changed to more or some of the existing images might need to be removed. So, you might want to propose this at Talk:Tower Hill to see what some others might think; perhaps by doing so a way to incorporate more images that doesn't dramatically change the layout of the article can be agreed upon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow, such quick responses, thank you very much. I don’t think I explained my issue very well. I am trying to get his photo to appear when you hover over his name not to add a new one. I will remove the wiki source thanks for the information, I didn’t know that. Technology and methods have come a long way since my early electronic and DOS days in the early 1970’s, I’m afraid I am finally falling behind! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxs1236 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Roxs1236. What device are you looking at it on? Because there are different kinds of preview available. When I hover over the link in Tower Hill, I see his picture, but I may be doing it a different way from you. (I don't see if from the link above, because it is a URL, not a Wikilink) --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, when I hover over his name all I see is a popup box with his name and titles, I'm using a Dell PC. I just thought it would be nice to have his photo pop up in the box like the ones above him. He was our 8th great grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxs1236 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Gujarati article
Dear Gujarati editors (mainly) and others,
The Gujrati article of <<Sri Lanka>> contains a few unexplained templates... I tried to find the source (through Source edit and Visual edit), but failed... It's upto my experienced friends to do the needful... By the way, I am not such conversant in Gujarati to explore and post this in Gujarati help site.... Cheers... Anupam Dutta (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Anupamdutta73: Anything related to other language wikis needs to be done on those wikis – they are independent projects. If you have an issue with gu:શ્રીલંકા, you would need to discuss it at gu:ચર્ચા:શ્રીલંકા (which is currently non-existent), though you might not get a response (or get one in Gujarati). There is also gu:વિકિપીડિયા:Embassy, where conversation is expected in English. I'll note it is not a very active wiki, per List of Wikipedias. (Note how I created the interwikilinks.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]—18:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
How do I attach an image to a page -- I believe the image is already in Wikipedia somewhere
Hi,I want to create my own userbox. I have prepared all coding and format for it. But I can't figure where to make it. Should I make it where we are supposed to make articles or there is a seperate page group or......??ISL fan (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) ISL fan (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
No, Dave F63. 'vcard' is just a display class. If you 'edit' that template, you'll see that it calls other templates {{Bing GB map link}}, {{brldb}} and {{sildb}}, and it's got conditions depending on its fifth argumentl. You'll have to follow down through those other templates. --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
New editor looking for feedback on updates to Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale article page
Since May of 2020, I have been making improvements to Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale page by organizing existing content (enhancing readability and updating reference links) and adding content for knowledge gaps (written information, photos, and references). Any constructive feedback you may have would be appreciated (please post on the talk page). Thanks in advance! LSBryce (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
LSBryce, it seems pretty good to me. Just one comment – the lead ought to summarise the body of the text, rather than act as a repository for content that doesn't fit in anywhere else. Ideally, you should write the lead section last, though I suspect few editors actually do that. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello - This page was recently created, however, looking at the editors history, they had this at one point in their drafts. I do not know what can be done with the page as it seems way out of context for an article. The page is Zamalek SC Honours. I am hoping a more experienced editor can take a look. BakertheacreChat/What I Baked20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I am Atif Afzal, a music composer for films. Originally from India, I am now based in New York. I would like my page to be created. I did some research and found out that I qualify for Wikipedia inclusion under WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER.
I have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, notable published works with references that comply WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS –
Hi AAComposer. You could techinically start a WP:DRAFTS for such an article yourself as long as you follow WP:COI and WP:YOURSELF and submit the draft to WP:AFC for review. You could also see if you can find someone who might be interested in helping to create such an article at WT:INDIA or WT:NYC or WT:MUSICIAN. Before you do any of that, however, you might want to take a look at WP:LUC, WP:NOT, WP:OWN and WP:PROUD to see some of the disadvantages to having an article created about you. Bascially, you will have no real control over article content and it could possibly move in a direction that you might not like. Finally, I apologize for all the short-cut links I posted above. If you click on the links, you will be taken to pages that I think you might find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly. Thank you for guiding, this is very helpful. I have posted the request on the three pages - WT:INDIA and WT:NYC and WT:MUSICIAN. I hope someone responds. Is there a way you could please create the article or ask the concerned person to take a look. I can provide whatever additional detail is required. Much appreciated. AAComposer (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
You received a couple of responses to your post at WT:INDIA#Need help with my article and I don’t think I can anything more to them. The fact that an article did once exist, but was deleted because of WP:UPE concerns is, however, not a good thing and might be something you will have to convince others that this is no longer an issue. Perhaps working on improving other articles first will show others that you are more interested in being WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE, and thus make them more willing to help you. Establishing a track record of making positive contributions to helping to improve Wikipedia will make others less suspicious of your reasons for wanting to have an article about you created. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Help Creating a Page
Hello! I'm currently working on creating a page for Pure Salt Interiors but was denied for not providing enough reliable sources. I'm new to creating pages and would love some help making sure the page gets approved. I was referencing the Pure Salt Interior's website, but should I include magazine articles, etc?
@Mackenzie Skelton: I've left a welcome message on your talk page at User talk:Mackenzie Skelton#Welcome! with some helpful reading material in addition to the links in the gray boxes at the top of the draft, which explain the reason for being declined (lack of independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability). If you are related to the company in any way (employee, owner, etc.), please take note of WP:COI and WP:PAID, the latter of which requires a mandatory declaration if you are financially involved. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi- I am trying to update my husband's wiki page - the information is incorrect
Hi OscarandJerry. I'm assuming that you're referring to Alvin Kallicharran. If the subject of that article is your husband, you are considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia. I've added some information about conflict-of-interest editing to your user talk page; so, please take a look at it before you try and edit the article again. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia for reference as well. If you feel that the content of the article is incorrect, there are editors unconnected to the subject matter who may be willing to help you sort things out, but there's a proper way to go about seeking assistance. You should avoid directly editing the article yourself and instead use post edit requests at Talk:Alvin Kallicharran explaining which content is incorrect and why. Please understand that Wikipedia is going to require that any content you try to add about your husband to the article reflect what is being said or what has been said about him in reliable sources. While you may personally know many things about him, Wikipedia is really only going to be able to use things that can be properly verified. Poorly sourced or false information can possibly be removed from the article per consensus, but replacing the entire article with a version that you and your husband feel is better is something that might not be possible to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Mfkirke Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article was deleted because it lacked independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person; specifically, that of a notable artist or notable author. A Wikipedia article should primarily summarize what such sources state. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. It felt extremely unfriendly as there was no comment - just removal and I lost all my work (like a fool I had kept no copy). Now, had I been asked I could have produced, for example, the National Library of Scotland list. Before I try again, would that be enough of a source? And as for notability - I've just found a man whose sole claim to fame is playing for MCC once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfkirke (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mfkirke: You can request to have the deleted content restored to your userspace - see WP:REFUND. Just so you know, content in articles can be edited and deleted (in part or in whole) at any time. Although it is usually customary and courteous to notify a page creator of an impending deletion, there is no obligation to do so, since editors do not own the content they contribute. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
But will 44 published books be enough? or am I wasting my time? I'm not prepared to risk being treated that way twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfkirke (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
It is not at all about how many books the subject has published. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we summarize what independent, secondary, reliable sources have written about a subject. We need to see several (at least three) of such sources that have chosen to write at length about the subject (not just mention in a couple of sentences, or a listing in a directory). That means an author has written a whole book, article, or significant part of an article about the subject, and the material has been fact-checked, peer-reviewed/edited, and published.
As far as your having found other articles that don't seem to demonstrate notability, yes, there are those. There was a time when Wikipedia was the "Wild West" and anything people flung at it, stuck. Over time, and with the assistance of a growing group of dedicated volunteer editors, those articles that are "less than" are being found and fixed or deleted. (See WP:OSE about this common argument.)
Please don't take it personally. We don't know you and you don't know us. It's just about the work. We're trying to adhere to a consensus developed by this community over millions of man-hours on how best to curate a high-quality encyclopedia.
If you can find the necessary sources to demonstrate notability, please use WP:REFUND to request the deleted material, edit, and re-submit. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—17:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Many, many wikipedia entries fail that test. I was using one for family history purposes yesterday where the subject played cricket for the MCC once! 44 books some still in print after 100 years? And, because no-one has written a book about her, she isn't notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfkirke (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's right, Mfkirke. "Notable" is an unfortunate word (though I haven't a better one). My explanation is 1) We want articles to be verifiable, so all information in them can be traced to a reliable published source; 2) We want articles to be neutral, so the bulk of any article should be based on sources wholly unnconnected with the subject. 3) This is an encyclopaedia, so articles should consist of more than just lists of works. Therefore, if there is little or no independent published material about the subject, there is literally nothing which can go into an article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you - that now makes sense. I can see some troubles ahead for wikitree - their definition of notable is "has a wikipedia entry". I can also see that I might be able to make the entry which inspired this post fit as I can produce firm sources about the author's life and at least one literary citation which tells of her career.
So happy to be here, I have added authoritative sources for Christian Deciga and it is being nominated for deletion. My question is why I cannot use https://research.binance.com/en/projects/everipedia as a reference. It is scholarly research by a significant company. Thank you again! Happy to keep on contributing! And please comment on the page I have done my best to keep it from being deleted. == Anselkamil 17, July 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Confront a group of users acting in bad faith
A group of editors (about 15 of them) have been hidden-pinging each other in Talk pages of various controversial articles in the middle of discussions in order to stack votes. Some of them even edit out the hidden-pings later. I was wondering if there is a good way to deal with this without turning it into a WP:WITCHHUNT. User:DontWannaDoThis≠19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
DontWannaDoThis can you mention any pages on which this was done recently? The one I found fro9m your edit was over a month ago, and the editor involved hasn't edited en.Wikipedia since being warned. Nothing to do there. Any more recent instances of this? DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I am a new wiki writer and need help. I wrote this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rick_Berks and apparently did a crap job with it! I assumed Rick Berks was notable because he started Planet Fitness, a giant chain of gyms in the USA, and there are pages of articles that mention him. I assumed too much. Would someone help me fix it?
Katherine311MH (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Katherine311MH (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The comments that you've already got there ask for additional references. Mere number of sources counts for little; they have to be from within reliable newspapers, news websites, etc. Best is to look for these. Incidentally, one of your references reads (after I've removed some mark-up): Facebook; Twitter; options, Show more sharing; Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Email; URLCopied!, Copy Link; Print (2013-04-19). "New gym in town hopes it's a good fit". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2020-07-16. What's the first two thirds of that about? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what that is either, it was a citation from San Diego Union-Tribune. Maybe I accidentally pasted something else? The ways of wiki are obviously not clear to me. Anyway, he seems to be notable, so if someone else wants to take a crack at it the edits would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine311MH (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I clicked on the link. Unsurprisingly, "Facebook; Twitter; options, Show more sharing; Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Email; URLCopied!, Copy Link; Print" is not part of the title; it looks as if somebody intended to copy and paste the title but was too inclusive. (Really, this has nothing to do with the ways of Wiki; it would be the same in a class assignment.) The article has a named author: Tom Sheridan. My point being that if you can produce more good sources and it looks as if you've tried your hardest, then people are more likely to want to help. You could also post a request where it's likely to be read by people who are interested in the subject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health and fitness is one possibility that comes to mind. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Berk's modest role in Planet Fitness history is covered in that article. Separate from that, his career may not be notable by Wikipedia standards. Being in the fitness business, owning a racehorse, etc., not newsworthy enough. David notMD (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC): Thanks for your input.Katherine311MH (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
If you refer to User:Deep Vaghasiya it was deleted for (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: self written vanity page, see WP:YFA, WP:RS, WP:COI, [WP:Notability (people)]]. It was a page apaprently intended to look like a Wikipedia article, but not in the right location for a draft. It was also unsourced. Your user page is intended to describe you as a Wikipedia editor. It may contain some brief biographical information, but should not be an article, or a draft for one, about you (or about anything else). See WP:AUTOBIO for reasons not to make an autobiographical article anywhere on Wikipedia. See WP:DRAFT for where and when to create drafts and how they are used. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs13:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
merging refs
Hello. I tried looking this up, but a definitive answer didn't jump out--how do you combine references where once source is used twice, when the refs are already there? That is, the ref wasn't named in the citation template drop down. Is there a name template that is put before the first use of the ref when re-editing? Sorry if that's not clear... Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Caro7200, and welcome to the Teahosue. Good question. You use named references Basically you give a ref a name, then reuse it. More specifically type <ref name="name">text of the citation</ref> to define the ref, then type <ref name="name"/> to use it. This is in the source (wikitext) editor. The name can be almost anyting, althoguh it can't be just numbers. A name must be unique within an article. I like names of the form Pub-Date, such as NYT-10Jan20 for an article from the NY Times dated 10 January 2020. But you may use any convention you please. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations and Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once for details. Doing this is very good practice. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs03:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Good Afternoon TeaHouse, can users ask the TeaHouse factual questions rather than Wikipedia-Related questions? Have a nice day! ReedBlower (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. Templates on Wikipedia come in a lot of different forms to serve all kinds of purposes. Some templates are easy to make; others take a large amount of technical knowledge and is very, very difficult to get right. Why do you want a template, and what do you want it to do? ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 09:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
That's OK: this is a place to learn. I found that by entering "Template:DAB" into the search bar ("Template:Disambiguation" would have worked too). That took me to Template:Disambiguation, and I found the Category mentioned there. --ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Glad to help. On a separate note, have you considered creating an account? That way, you won't have to worry about your IP changing, and you can keep a history of your editing. Plus, it's actually safer, as your IP isn't public! ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Including quotes from subject in biographical article.
I recently created a new article, the previous version of which had been deleted for copyright violations.
Among its subsequent changes, another editor removed a quote from the article's subject along with its accompanying reference, indicating that no quotes from the subject should be included in biographical articles. I've looked around a bit but haven't found anything concrete that says that this is a recommended or best practice. Can someone point me in the right direction?
When I had a dispute with another editor on an article, I tried using the dispute resolution process. The whole thing went sideways, however, and I'd like an uninvolved editor to help me understand where I went wrong. I'd rather not do it on a public noticeboard, however. Is there anyone who can help? Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ganbaruby, I'm not upset, as in emotional, over the incident. I do, however, want to avoid similar situations in the future. If you can't help that's fine, but I would appreciate someone who could. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
You went to dispute resolution over an issue in which yours was the minority view. The discussion made it clear that yours was the minority view. Fair enough – that can happen to anyone.
Throughout the resolution process, you took a combative attitude. That didn't help your cause.
Having realised (I hope) that you had lost the argument, you are still concerned about it, as shown by your raising the issue here. That's your biggest mistake. In six month's time, no-one else will remember the issue. You should forget about it too. I'm sure you have more constructive, and pleasanter, ways to spend your time. (For me, a big attraction of Wikipedia editing is that no-one is assessing my performance. I don't have a boss, and none of my colleagues is aware of most of the things I do. If something I do turns out badly, I can just walk away.) Maproom (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
So I guess both pages should be "linked" so when you enter the one in Spanish you can go to langages and read the English version and viceversa.
Also, on the new draft I created in English I don't know how to properly make the simbols/images appear...I mean that in the Spanish version a coat of arms appear, a picture of the titleholder, etc...But in my draft it doesn't appear and it definitely should.
Hello, Lexartur, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft space is the right place for this, because it needs some work before it is put into the main article space. As you have found, translating a Wikipedia article is much more than just translating the text. Have you read translation? You need to translate or convert some things behind the scenes: I have done a couple of them for you - changed the template "Ficha de título nobiliario" to "infobox family" - but you will have to look at the parameters to Template:infobox family and supply the ones that are missing or differently named. I have changed the "Archivo" to "File" to get the image to appear - that worked because this image is in Wikimedia commons, but if it had been uploaded directly to es-wiki, that would not have worked.
A Spanish noble family almost certainly meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but in general, just because an article exists in another-language Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that it will be acceptable in en-wiki. Finally, it is a condition under which all the material in Wikipedia is licensed that copying is permitted as long as it is attributed: this applies even with a Wikipedia. So you need to attribute it. This is most easily done in the Edit Summary when you create it, but you can do it on the draft's Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Formatting
Hello I need help with formating,
and i need to create Biography
wheni use biography template, i dont see any editing features, how do i activate those.
It shows me the page with pic of socrates, but on my computer i am unable to activate and open any links to edit. I have tried it a couple of times.
Please help and advise.
How do i increase relevance and relaibilty of page.
thanks for you help Pancham1 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Pancham1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a little confused about what you're trying to ask here. What's this "biography template" you are referring to? If you're referring to Template:Infobox person, please take a look at the documentation, where it explains what the different parameters do. If you're referring to how to format citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners. In general, the best advice I can give you for how to format a Wikipedia article is to look at an existing article and copy its formatting. As for your draft at Draft:Gurukul Vrindavan, Mathura UP, an editor has provided feedback at the top of the page. I would suggest you to read their comments as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people) before you revise your draft. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
If you read Template:Biography you'll see that it tells you that you need to substitute the template into your new article draft and save it there, then you can edit it further. It won't allow you to edit the template page, because that needs to remain unaltered for other editors to use. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
my article was redirected
my article name is pradeep ranganathan. this article was established last month in wikipedia and it was there till last week but suddenly the article was removed from wikipedia. i have also given reliable source reference to the article. i want to know how to reestablish the page. thank you Mani rulz (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi BloxMoon. I think you'd be better of moving that article to the draft namespace so that you continue to work on improving it. Right now, all you've got is a single unsourced sentence, an infobox and a navigation template which means there's a good chance that unless you improve things fairly quickly that it's going to end up deleted or draftified. Once something has been added to the article namespace, it's pretty much there for anyone to edit at anytime; so, while it's possible that someone may come along and help improve the article, it seems more likely that someone is going to tag, prod or nominate it for deletion. By moving it to draft status, you be able to work on improving things at your own pace and then you can submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready. If after reading this you want to move the article to the draft namespace but aren't sure how, just ask below and one of the Teahouse hosts will do it for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@BloxMoon: I added some references and some content that already existed in the article 2020 in Mali. Now it is a live article in the encyclopedia again. Please continue to expand your article from the sources cited. So much more could be said about this topic, clearly! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Trouble editing
Hi there, i am having trouble editing today, i can put the text in however the cite and adding link buttons are not working.
Is this happening for anyone else? Thankyou Ukdatageek (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Prisencolin: You don't need autowiki browser to automatically fill in bare urls. If you go to the visual editor (which is available to all editors), you can use the "convert" button to make them into pretty-good references automatically, the majority of the time. I'd recommend you do that for now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I usually avoid the visual editor because I have less control of formatting, but that sounds like a great feature. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@TheChunky: Welcome to Wikipedia. The article has been updated to include the death. Additional suggestions should do onto the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Harisidikk. The article has been protected because in the past it has been the subject to repeated disruptive editing. If you're unable to edit the account because of the protection, you can make an edit request at Talk:Fiona Graham. Someone who is able to edit the article will look over the changes you're proposing and assess whether they're in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
why i can't translate from Arabic to English?
everytime i tried to translate from arabic to english, i receive a message saying that the page can not be published as it required a more experience editor.
who are the more experience editors and how can i start that? Ahmad hisham Helmy (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, if this person is notable (according to Wikipedia's slightly odd concept of notability) such that a number of reliable, disinterested, published sources write about him, then one or more of Wikipedia's editors who are unrelated to him may decide to use (but not plagiarize!) these sources to write a draft for an article. After some time, this is given a quick examination by an experienced editor, and if it's at least moderately good, it's upgraded from draft to article. Thereafter one hopes that editors unrelated to him will continue to update and improve the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Per above Q&A, these are articles, not pages or biographical sketches. And if you are the flag officer in question, Wikipedia frowns on attempting autobiography. See WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I noticed it in a page I watched. Then I clicked and noticed the others. First, is this stalking? I clicked because I've seen a lot of people who do the same thing. Go on Arab scientists/history and change it to berber/greek/persian. Sometimes they do it once a week but this person did it multiple times a day so they should be warned, right? Can I post a warning on their page? Which level warning? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Julia Domna Ba'al: The edit from today was reverted. Yust add a warning to his talkpage, if he resumes, either escalate the warning or take him to WP:AIV. You should generally start with a level 1 warning except for certain egrious types, thats something you have to get a feeling for. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt:Someone is hopping IP addresses making weird edits. I put one warning on one IP and they just jumped to another. What is the process here?
@Q Maxi p: I'm not a formal host, but generally most sources refer to both of those as dialects as Alyutor, no? A quick search through my literature on Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages has statements like Alutor: also called Alyutor, Aliutor, Olyutor. [...] Dialects are Alutorskij (Alutor Proper), Karaginskij (Karaga), Palanskij (Palana), references to the Karagin dialect of Alutor on the east coast). or Palan Alutor, or statements like Alyutor is the language of the coasts of the neck area of the Kamchatka Peninsula, including Karagin Island, probably with significant dialect differentiation Even the Russian Wikipedia says Принадлежит к t-диалектам, определяется как диалект алюторского или как самостоятельный язык.Чукотско-камчатские языки also mentions также редко упоминаются в качестве самостоятельных. My personal suggestion would be therefore to expand the article on Alyutor language to have a section on its dialects and there you can mention that some linguists view these as separate languages; since so few sources seem to be on these dialects/languages, they might not be notable for their own pages yet. You also might want to ask WP:Linguistics for additional opinions. Just my two cents, hopefully a formal host can weigh in. :) Umimmak (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Kevin McAteer was resubmitted after edits, which came after the initial Declined. It is in the pile (not a queue) of drafts awaiting review. Teahouse volunteers answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia, but are not here because they are Reviewers. While waiting, there are many factual statements in the draft that are tagged "Citation needed." Finding refs or else removing the unreferenced content will improve the odds of the draft being approved. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Writing "The issue was national news as well as making headlines in America", without any citation, is odd. If it really made news in some nation (Ireland? UK?) and America, you ought to be able to find a source. Maproom (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Uploading an Image that the owner has given me permission to upload
I am looking to upload an image to David A. Lucht's page, which he has given to me over email, with permission to be uploaded to Wikipedia. How do I go about doing this? Rvrx (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: I'm getting confused by the 'License > Evidence' section. Something about a license agreement/OTRS. Its not like this is a formally copyrighted photo, its just a picture he has taken. is the "I haven't got the evidence right now, but I will provide some if requested to do so." option actually valid, or do I have to like, forward to Wikipedia his email where he gave me permission to upload stuff and get an OTRS or whatever that means? There is no useful link on the upload wizard page... Rvrx (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Rvrx. Before you upload it, please have a look at Wikipedia:image use policy. "Permission to use a picture in Wikipedia" is not enough: it is part of the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia to provide information which is free for anybody to use, so images must be licensed in such a way that anybody may reuse them or alter them, for any purpose, as long as they provide proper attribution. For you to upload that picture, the copyright holder (who may or may not be Lucht) must explicitly agree to license it under an acceptable license such as CC-BY-SA, either publicly (for example by a statement next to the image on a website they control) or in a mail to Wikipedia (see Donating copyright materials. I also need to ask, since he has given you the picture, what is your connection with him? Please have a look at conflict of interest and see if any of it applies. I've just seen your paragraph above. Nowadays, "copyrighting" is not something anybody has to do: it is automatic. If he took the picture, he holds the copyright. If somebody did, they probably hold the copyright, unless there was an agreement specifying otherwise. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Rvrx, When you say this is not a "formally copyrighted photo", I assume you mean that no one has taken the step of registering with the copyright office. However, that step is not necessary, and simply snapping the shutter creates a copyright. (I'm speaking a little casually, because the copyright doesn't actually exist until the photo is published, but my point is that a formal registration step is not necessary.) If the copyright holder, the person that snapped the picture, uses the upload wizard they can state that they are the copyright holder and release it. If someone else, i.e. you, want to upload the photo, then you are going to need to get written evidence of the license. More information can be found at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. sorry it's complicated but that's the nature of copyright law. S Philbrick(Talk)16:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick and Rvrx: the moment a work is "recorded in a tangible form" it is protected by copyright under US law, even if it is never published. The US courts have held that a computer file counts for this, as does a piece of photographic film. (laws elsewhere are similar, I understand.) So in fact, simply snapping the shutter does in fact create a fully legal copyright, and neither publication not registration are required. There really is no such thing as "formal copyright" since the 1976 copyright act came into effect. Oh registration does grant significant added protections and remedies to the copyright holder. So Sphilbrick is totally correct on the requireed steps, written evidence of a compatible license from the copyright holder, who will be the person who took the picture unless that person later sold or gave the copyright to someone else, or was acting under a contract when the picture was taken which granted the copyright on creation to another owner (as many commercial photographers do). DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
DESiegel, Thanks for the clarification. I know there have been some issues about exactly when something is published and I wanted to avoid confusion. I confess to being a bit puzzled, because I thought there were cases where a photograph in someone's personal possession did not count as publishing, but that's a detail beyond the scope of this discussion. S Philbrick(Talk)17:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick You are correct that when something is "published" for purposes of copyright law can be tricky in edge cases. It matters because the copyright terms in some cases are different for published and unpublished works. That whole tangle is too much for this thread, but I will link to this well-known chart. But lack of publication does not, in general, mean lack of copyright since the 1976 act. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: So if I am the uploader, what form of license 'evidence' do I need? The upload wizard has an "The license agreement has been forwarded to Wikimedia's copyright service at 'permissions-en[at]wikimedia.org'" option. Would I just need to request that the copyright-holder send an email and a copy of the photographs and say, that he authorizes the pictures to be uploaded [by me, rvrx] to Wikipedia under CC Attribution? I'm assuming there is an article about this, but I cannot find it (why its not linked in the image upload wizard?)? Thanks, Rvrx (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rvrx. Please take a look at c:Commons:OTRS since Commons is most likely where you should be uploading these files if everything is as you're claiming. Freely licensed files are best uploaded to Commons because it host files for all Wikimedia Projects (not just English Wikipedia) which makes the files much easier to use. Please also take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:Email templates/Consent for reference as well. Finally, please make sure of c:Commons:License revocation. Finally, the only "free" licenses that either Commons or Wikipedia accept are ones where the copyright holder is basically agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use); moreover, once the copyright releases a file under such a license, there's no going back and no real way for the Wikimedia Foundation to stop others from reusing the file. Any disputes over of violations of the terms of the license are pretty much going to have to be resolved between the copyright holder and the other involved party. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete Palestine
Delete all Palestine Info. There is NO SUCH PLACE. It is fake info about a place of make believe. There are NO such maps of Palestine. PALESTINE DOES NOT EXIST. Google has erased it. STOP feeding false information. NO Person has the right to invent a name of a property & claim it as their own as an authentic entit. Stop perpetuating the lie. There is NO such place on this Earth.Your page is FAKE. Close it down. 70.53.63.147 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The conflict in the Middle East will not be solved here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia simply summarizes what independent reliable sources state. You are free to view things as you wish. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @GoingBatty, are there any other modifications you suggest?
Help adding image
Hi, I've tried to put the photo on the page, but it appeared as an icon and was suddenly deleted. Could somebody help me with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deidonata (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Restoring question asked in the wrong place and then deleted by an IP editor. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Deidonata, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have edited several articles and drafts, and I can't tell which one you are asking about. Please link to the page where you tried to insert an image. Please also tell us what image you were trying to add. Is it already on Wikipedia or even better on commons? If not, where is it? DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've tried to put the photo on the page, but it appeared as an icon and was suddenly deleted. Could somebody help me with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deidonata (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Numbering of Additional Footnotes in an Existing Article
I added a section (on Canada) to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_planner and my additional text included 9 footnotes. However, there were existing footnotes before and after, so my first question is how these should be numbered. Should I adjust footnote numbers throughout the entire article?
If so, this creates an issue because there is a "References" legend of all the footnotes at the bottom of the article, so I would have to edit that as well. Furthermore, some footnotes say "Retrieved [date]" and I don't know what that means or how it is different from the other Reference links shown at the bottom of the page.
@Tom Bene: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for adding references. Wikipedia software automatically numbers the references, so you don't need to change anything in that regard. RudolfRed (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks, Rudolf - they only number automatically if you create them properly (which I didn't!) They're working perfectly now since I used the Cite option in the top editing menu bar. Tom Bene (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Tom Bene. You are using unconventional techniques to format the references. Standard formatting uses reference tags at the beginning and the end of the reference content. The wiki software automatically assigns numbers to references, and human editors have no role in assigning or editing reference numbers. Please read Referencing for beginners for the details. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Spelling - UK vs US
My understanding is, when it comes to UK vs US spelling, the rule is:
Use British spellings for British subjects, use American spelling for American subjects, use the spelling that the original author started with if it's neither American nor British.
I could be wrong about the rule, which may have been updated since 2015, which is the date I found on this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm not an experienced user and don't know how to properly search for these things.)
I'm looking at the entry for 'curtsy'. It looks to me like the original was done in UK spelling (curtsey) and but in 2018, a user went in and changed the whole thing to US spelling (curtsy). I believe the user used NGRAMs to justify the change, but if the rule I mentioned above is correct, this shouldn't have been done. Curtsey is still the dominant spelling outside the US, plus in Wicktionary, curtsy is listed as an alternative spelling and directs to curtsey for its meaning. I believe the article should be changed back, but I don't want to be rude, step on anyone's toes, or start some kind of war by doing it, especially if the rule has been updated. Can someone please give me guidance? Jules Lolonois (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jules Lolonois: Welcome to Wikipedia. The rules you stated are generally correct I think, but if an article has been using certain spelling for awhile, don't just go change it all. Raise the issue on the article's talk page to get consensus from other editors. Also, since the article Curtsey has been redirected to Curtsy, it is likely that there is consensus to use the Curtsy spelling. RudolfRed (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Thanks for the response! Also the helpful link, which I've bookmarked. I can't find any discussion, consensus, or any real explanation as to why the change was desirable. It was flagged as a minor edit, but swapping out spelling conventions is not a minor edit, it's changing the language! The page is 15 years old, and less that two years of that was with US spelling. There was no compelling reason to swap it out, and the change contravenes Wikipedia rules. I'll flag it on the talk page for feedback as to why it shouldn't be changed back.
Reviewer Denied My Article, But....
Regarding Draft: Mark Gillespie article, a reviewer denied my original submission on July 4th because he was under the impression the article was written about a music producer. The article and its sources were about a music manager. The reviewer also changed the title to "Mark Gillespie (Music Producer)". Although the reviewer admitted on July 18th to the error in classifying my article as a Music Producer User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Management_Move, the article remains under the erroneous label. This surely will help in getting the draft denied again after resubmission.
I want to learn to be a better editor and contributor, but I need help understanding the methods and steps that have led to the reviewer using "music producer" since that classification is never mentioned once in the data or cited publications I provided.
You simply retitle ("move") the draft. I've done this for you. Welcome to Draft:Mark Gillespie (music manager). You'll have to work on it, though. I rarely review drafts, and I'm not going to review this one -- but if I did review it and got as far as "Birmingham’s legendary superclub Godskitchen" I'd dismiss it as mere promotionalism. (Was it super? Which legends are there about it? Let the readers click the link and see for themselves.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
why Gobind Ballabh pant institute of technology, Okhla New Delhi is getting rejected ?
pls suggest corrections and helpme getting this posted on wiki , this is my first post already three times rejected
Support required from existing expert users
Extended content
G B pant institute of technology is a Govt Engineering Institute located in Okhla, New Delhi.[1] Formerly it was known as G B Pant Polytechnic. Presently reffered as G B Pant or GBPIT
G.B. Pant Institute of technology,Okhla New Delhi
Introduction
G B Pant was Established in 1961. It is regulated by The Directorate of Training and Technical Education of Delhi government.[2] The institute is affiliated to Board of Technical Education , Delhi[3](BTE). It was named after Govind Ballabh Pant who was an Indian Freedom fighter and Union Home minister of India[4](1955~1961)
Campus
GOLDEN JUBLEE.jpg
G B pant Campus is Located in Okhla Pahse -III New Delhi 110020, Campus spread over 20.25acres. Campus of G B Pant is at a walking distance from Govindpuri Delhi Metro Station
Presently Mr RK mangoch is Principal of G B Pant[5]
Ms Rashmi Panwar is Training and Placement Officer[6]
G B pant Institute of technology has 5 Academic departments: Mechanical, Automobile, Civil, Production and Electrical.[7]
This institute offering a special course as a collaborative effort with Mercedes Benz India named as Advance Diploma in Automotive Mechatronics (ADAM)[8]
The MOU between G B pant institute of technology & Mercedes Benz india[9] signed on 25 october 2017
Delhi Government allotted increased funds for College campus up gradation and Infrastructure development[10]
References
"G B Pant Institute of Technology". GBPIT. G. B. PANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, OKHLA, NEW DELHI.
"Directorate of Training and Technical Education". DTTE. Directorate of Training and Technical Education.
"Board of Technical Education". BTE. Board of Technical Education.
"Union Home Minister 1955~1961". Ministry of home affairs.
"Principal". GBPIT. GBPIT.
"Training & Placement cell". GBPIT. GBPIT.
"List of courses and colleges". eduresult.
"G. B. PANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AUTOMOTIVE MECHATRONIC RESEARCH CENTRE". AMRC. GBIT.
"MOU for ADAM". Business World. Business World.
"Fund for Campus development". hindustan times. hindustan times.
@Monurawal17: On your talk page, the review wrote "Of the few independent sources provided, they're mere mentions. We need significant coverage". You should first find the independent reliable sources and then write the draft by summarizing the sources. GoingBatty (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Monurawal17, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please look at WP:CSMN. Only the last two of those sources are independent of GBPIT, and those two only have a few lines about it. Wikipedia basically is not interested in anything said or published about themselves by the subject of an article, or by people or organisations closely associated with them: it is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish, unprompted by direct information from the subject. As I say, only the last two are independent in that way, but between them they give only two or three pieces of information about the institute: not enough to base an article on. Unless you can find several sources with the characteristics required, you will be wasting any further time you put into this draft, as it will never be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thanks ColinFine, i understood ,as you explained very clearly .
the only query i had i took examples of already approved wiki posts , i though i have more sources than those
GBPIT and pusa institute of technology delhi both are govt college under same board [1]
G B Pant engineering college also same conditions as GBPIT and G B Pant both are in same campus[2]
pls suggest a way how should i proceed to get it post with approval
Monurawal17 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Thanks I got the pointgoingbatty,
sorry for comparison
Actually I am looking forward to see my post on wiki
its like proud to be part of wiki posts
ealirer I was not aware anyone can post for someone else
I.shared other resource can you help me will it be helpful or not [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monurawal17 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
You created both articles yesterday. Seany91 gave as reason for the PRODs "This is an unnecessary duplication of, and should be merged into, Nadeshiko League." You reverted both PRODs, which is allowed, although you did not state why in an Edit summary. (You also deleted an editor's tagging of one of the articles as citations needed.) There is no need for Seany91 to provide a reason on own Talk page, and no place to report the issue, because there is no issue - doing a PROD is allowed, as is reverting it. This will only become an issue if Seany91 acts to tag the articles with PROD again. David notMD (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
How could I set to find article Otto S. Wolfbeis in "Search Wikipedia" with word "Wolfbeis" instead of "Otto S. Wolfbeis". This is the case with german version and I find it more convenient and easier to find this exact person by his last name. Thank you! Krisi31 (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
St Maur de Normandy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct your language somewhat in that there is not a single "profile" on Wikipedia; Wikipedia has articles. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, it takes much time, effort, and practice. Before doing so, it is best to gain experience and knowledge of using Wikipedia by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, in order to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial. If you attempt to create a new article without doing these things, your chances of success are low and you could come away with bad feelings about your experiences here, which I do not want to happen. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Not every person merits an article, even within the same field.
However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article, and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, so you find out any problems first. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a question? Or comment? If about a specific article, what is the name of the article? You made one change to Deccan Chronicle about ownership, but it was reverted because you removed content that had a reference and replaced it with content without a reference. Verification required. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
How to know if acceptable to remove an image on an article?
On the Quicksand article, a user edited the "In popular culture" section (changing it to "In animated culture") to add a not particularly notable example of quicksand in a TV show in a way that disrupted the flow of the paragraph. I wanted to revert the edit with the reason of WP:IPCV, but the user had also added an image to the section. I'm not certain about image usage rights stuff, or when it's okay to remove images (image is relevant, even if the example feels very random and possibly placed because the user likes the show or something). Is just reverting everything here fine? Undead Shambles (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Undead Shambles, welcome to the Teahouse. Without commenting on the text, that image looks like a blatant copyright violation. I've tagged it for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons (where it's currently hosted) and removed it from the article. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)13:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Undead Shambles, no worries; thanks for noticing it! To explain that case, if you're interested: it seems highly unlikely that the person that uploaded it had the rights to the TV show (Wikipedia accounts have to be held by individual people, for a start, whereas the copyright for that presumably rests in a corporation), and there's no evidence that the TV company gave the rights for anyone to reuse images from it. Where it gets trickier is fair use of images that the uploader doesn't own—but the editor in question wasn't claiming fair use, had uploaded to Commons where everything has to be freely licensed for reuse (as opposed to directly to Wikipedia, which is where fair use stuff goes), and in any case had uploaded the image in way too large a resolution for it to be allowed under Wikipedia's policy (and potentially under US copyright law). YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)14:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
When I search for the tractate Me'ila of the Mishnah, I am not sent to the page about the tractate even if I type in the spelling exactly with an apostrophe in the transliteration. If I search for the tractate by typing in the word "Meila" I am sent to articles about Milaq, Azerbaijan. How can I direct readers to tractate Meila when they type in the word that way?
Me'ilah (Hebrew: מ֧עילׇה; "misuse of property") is a tractate of Seder Kodashim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud. It deals chiefly with the exact provisions of the law (Lev. 5:15-16) concerning the trespass-offering and the reparation which must be made by one who has used and enjoyed a consecrated thing. Akiva100 (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much ColinFine. Did you (or can you) also put in a redirect so that if someone were to type "Meila" without the apostrophe, he or she would also be sent to that article? Or please let me know how to do that? Thank you! Akiva100 (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Akiva100, that doesn't work, and I've removed it. (Only if somebody types "Me'ila" will they get to that redirect page, not if they type "Meila" or anything else). What I have done is to put a hatnote at Milaq, East Azerbaijan, so that if somebody gets there by typing "Meila" but really wanted "Me'ilah", it gives them a link to it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Are the articles left for chance discovery by the internet browser users or selectively brought before a selected audience at prefixed times, like e.g. before breakfast, by pre-selected editors, or by "random" pick by an electronic script? 117.230.165.59 (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Dr.K.Muraleedharan117.230.165.59 (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
...No, that's not how any of that works. The articles are just there. Anyone can read them at any time. Almost anyone can edit most of them at any time as well. There's no scheduling. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Muraleedharan, the Main Page content is hand-picked by volunteers, but being an Encyclopedia, most people search for specific information, or go to specific articles directly from the major web search engines. (Though you can start from the main page, or a random article, and just browse.)
There is no audience-specific targeting (okay, apart from some banners called geonotices), advertising, or on-sell of readers' interest profiles. That's ... not how this works. As Ian said, articles are all there, all the time, for everyone, for free.
Hello, Josedimaria237. I'm not sure what you are trying to do. You removed the AFD notice from both articles, and I have restored them: you were within your rights to remove the previous PROD notices, but the AFD notices say "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". In the case of Nadeshiko League Division 1, you have yourself added a redirection to Nadeshiko League, and a {{db-g7}} tag: again, I have removed these.
If you are now giving up the idea of having these as separate articles, then I suggest that you contribute to the AFD discussions eg WP:Articles for deletion/Nadeshiko League Division 2 with a "speedy delete" - say that you are the creator, and you no longer want the articles kept, and somebody will come along and close the discussions and delete the articles.
Hi, I'm a relatively inexperienced editor. I have trouble trying to understand the complex image guidelines and was wondering if there was a forum somewhere specifically devoted to images/uploading. Thanks. WesSirius (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
How do I build a consensus and official guideline on controversial contents?
I was going to ask about this in the Editor Assistance but since I received an invitation to the Teahouse, I might as well just ask here. I have been using Wikipedia for more than a decade and my only contributions as an IP user were either relatively minor or questions for the Reference Desk. I am finally willing to devote some efforts and time to improving English Wikipedia for topics I am heavily invested in personally and I created an account in order to gain credibility for doing so as some users apparently look down on IP editing. My first and most important goal as a user is to turn a decade-old specific but unwritten consensus within a specific WikiProject into a community-wide one, meaning that it would become the standard for all the relevant articles.
The WikiProject in question is the Royalty and Nobility working group of the WikiProject Biography and the unwritten consensus is that for the manual of style and the naming conventions of articles of pretenders and non-reigning/deposed royalty and nobility is that for the sake of WP:NPOV, we will not arbitrate the legitimacy of princes or the laws concerning them and instead assign and determine the validity of titles according to reliable primary and/or secondary sources (usually consist of foreign government's recognition, news media, and English-language sources relating to royalty/nobility). After all, the existence of all social constructs including the status of royalty are based on recognition and acceptance. If you are wondering what I am talking about, the article Jean, Count of Paris includes many of the characteristics that result from this consensus. If you want more examples, feel free to click on any one of the templates in the Category:Europe royal family templates and be sure to check out the articles on Template:Former monarchic orders of succession.
Of course this consensus is not written anywhere and despite the fact that people bring this up once in a while in talk pages, it has still not been added as an official guideline. This means that not a lot of users outside of the WikiProject are aware of this consensus and this has led to controversies and disputes when one of them discovered it. One case I still remember happened six years ago when User:Smeat75 got into a huge fight with multiple members of the WikiProject that lasted from 20 November to 4 December 2013 If I recall correctly atmultiplelocations in addition to numerous talk pages of the articles of German royals. After realizing how large the opposition to his effort was, he then went on a rather massive canvassing campaign at variousbusynoticeboards and many other users' talk pages. When this also failed, he whined to Jimbo about it and that went as well as you would have expected. By the time he admitted defeat after wasting so much time and effort, the only thing he managed to accomplish was getting List of royal housesdeleted.
However, these discussions are far from over and I would like to create a Wiki-wide guidelines regarding this so that someone does not visit these articles and get confused like the users I mentioned above. How should I go about accomplishing this?
Also, someone told me that Wikipedia is not in the business of debunking misconceptions. We report an aggregate of what experts in whatever field report. Even when the received wisdom in some field is obviously one huge misconception, we faithfully report it – but if there are enough counter voices, we report these as well. Is there a consensus on Wikipedia that this is the purpose of the project? I am asking because some people on here think that Wikipedia should not perpetuate what they call "inaccurate delusions".
Hello, StellarHalo and welcome to the Teahouse. Getting a site-wide consensus established and and a guideline created and recognized as such normally requires a well-advertised RFC. Often a proposal is written up, which will be the text of the guideline if it is approved. it is well to have several editors of different views involved in that. Or sometimes an RfC is started wi8th only a general concept, and if and only if that gets consensus, a detailed proposal is written up, and a 2nd RfC approves (or does not approve) the specific language. The 2nd way takes more time, but it avoids an RfC failing because of arguments over the detailed wording. Remember that an RfC is a question, and the basic header should be relatively brief and neutral, that is, it should not advocate for a particular answer. An RfC often takes place on the talk page of an existing policy or guideline page that will be altered if it gains consensus. Or it may take place at WP:VPP, or on a new proposal page or its talk page. There is much work, and getting multiple editors involved is usually a good idea. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs14:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey there. I have a question regarding link rot, the most complicated thing in WP for me. I wanted to find an archive for this site: [5] for the page Timelapse of the Future. I tried going to Wayback Machine, and there is one capture, but it is not in the date that I wanted, and even in that single capture, it is already dead. I tried going to other archive sites, but they don't have an archive; some even require subscription! Is there any hope, or is it forgotten forever? GeraldWL13:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis. Archives that require registration or some kind of fee are probably OK per WP:PAYWALL as long as the archive site is reliable and is a true reflection of the original source. If you aren't unable to access the site or don't want to pay to access the site, perhaps someone at WP:RX or WP:FACT can help. There's also the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Another thing sometimes can happen is that at some point a source switches to a new domain which means that the archives for the current one might only go so far back; so, sometimes you might have to go back a try and see if the is what happened. Regardless, if an archive of source cannot be found, it still if generally considered OK simply to tag the source with Template:Dead link per WP:KDL unless you can find a suitable replacement for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello - a seasoned editor and I were talking about a specific article and they stated That's because some people apparently decided that it's okay to transclude parts of articles into other articles rather than just rewriting it. While this barely makes sense in cases where things are updated regularly, I think it overall causes an issue for editors, but I think that'd need to be taken to an RFC to be ended. Specifically it's transcluded at Electoral results for the district of Goulburn with the template: {{Excerpt}}
An editor reverted my edit back to
{{Election box begin no party no change AU |
|title = <includeonly>[[1861 Goulburn colonial by-election|</includeonly>1861 Goulburn by-election<includeonly>]]</includeonly>{{hsp}}<ref name="Green Goulburn 1861 by-election">
so i want to create an article about my hometown school and wikipedia deleted it. I added the basic info but it was not far from done. I could add images or videos. What can i do?
Hi @Jeif4, and welcome to the teahouse! I looks as if your article was not deleted but was instead moved to draftspace. This is a place where you can work on the article without it being an actual article yet. It was mot likely moved there because of a lack of references. Please feel free to continue working on your draft Draft:Emil Friedman School. Ghinga7 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Jeif4, and welcome to the Teahouse. As the message on your user talk page says, your draft hasn't been deleted, it's been moved to Draft:Emil Friedman School, so that you can work on it without risk of it being quickly deleted for lack of sources.
Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person in the Internet) knows, or what the subject (your school) says about itself. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the school have chosen to publish about it. Please also be aware that creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for a Wikipedia editor. If you haven't read your first article, please do so; and also NSCHOOL. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Using attributive phrases like “According to” in Wikipedia entries
Is it encouraged to attribute facts to relevant authorities when writing Wikipedia articles about contentious or little-understood subjects?
For instance is it acceptable to say "the polar radius of the moon is 1738.1 km according to the results of a measurement project conducted by NASA scientists in 2015."
Or is it better to state the information as an unattributed sentence and just footnote it?
Thanks! KeepForgettingMyUserName (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello KeepForgettingMyUserName and welcome to the Teahouse. When the information is given as a direct quote, such in-text attribution is not merely encouraged but required. When a single source is being relied on, it is in my view good practice. However when the fact is widely known and could be supported from any one of many sources, then such an attributive statement is not needed and may be giving the source undue weight. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Quotations says Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source ... Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. Readers should not have to follow a footnote to find out the quotation's source.WP:MOSQUOTE says: The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion but I think that is too weak, and the Wikipedia:Quotations page has it right. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, D1ofBerks and welcome to the Teahouse. As long as you continue to work on it, the draft will not be deleted by any automatic process, and there is no specific deadline. If a draft goes unedited for 6 months, it can be deleted under G13. However, Any editor can propose that a draft be deleted via WP:MFD. If that is done a discussion takes place to see if there is a consensus to delete. Most drafts are not so nominated.
The first article about his Wisconsin Tele-Rally is definitely noteable enough for an article as it was Trumps first non in person rally ever, which is extra noteable as his past two in person campaign rallies, as well as two US Independe Day events he held during the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, have been stated by many experts as not being a good idea since they did not require masks or social distancing.
Can I get some help editing this article?
The other article on his Michigan Rally isn't all that noteable, it is only important for being Trumps second tele-rally, showing that the tele-rally format was not a one time thing, and that Trump didn't plan to immediately return to in person rallies the next time one was held, following his first tele-rally.
Is this tele-rally in Michigan noteable enough for an article? If it is, can I get some help editing it? If you feel it is not, then can you please mark it as a candidate for deletion? Once you do so, other Wikipedia users can help decide if it should be kept or not.
How do we nominate an article for deletion through discussion?
I tried to nominate an article for deletion (specifically, this one), but someone objected, saying it needed discussion. Could the procedure be detailed? The guidelines don't seem too clear. Thanks in advance. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I agree with GB fan that Michel Roger Lafosse isn't a good case for the use of WP:PROD and if this article is to be deleted, a full discussion should be held.
There is a full description of the needed steps to nominate an article for deletion at WP:AFD. If you install the Twinkle gadget, its "XfD" option automates many of the steps.
Please follow the procedure at WP:BEFORE and consider the alternatives at WP:ATD, and mention that you have done so in your nomination statement.
Your nomination statement should give clear, policy-based reasons why the article should be deleted, in your opinion. Be aware of the arguments to avoid.
Hi DES,
Thank you for replying to my query.
Regarding your query regarding whether a separate article was needed on the topic, I personally think yes (but then I would think that, wouldn't I!). My reasoning is as follows
(i) There is an existing article on Direction Finding on Wikipedia but it does not, at present, cover the same DF concepts so I could, in principle, add to that article. (At present my article gives a link to it).
(ii) However, much of that article discusses the historical background to the development of DF systems and their use , whereas my article is concerned with covering the basic mathematical concepts of one method in some detail.
(iii) Because it was my aim to cover the basics thoroughly, my article is quite long.
(iv) If I add a shortened version of my article, to the existing one, while tailoring it to better match the style of that article, useful information (i.e. what I consider as useful information), not appearing elsewhere on Wikipedia, would be lost.
So far, I haven't thought too much about improving my article, but perhaps a more informative opening description, together with a better outline of the concepts that are used in the article would help.
What do you think? D1ofBerks (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, D1ofBerks. I think that if your draft is to become an article, a less technical overview is needed. I think that a short summery of it should be included in Direction Finding, at least. If this draft becomes an article, that could include a link to the more longer and detailed article.
I think the current draft (Draft: Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison is perhaps a bit long for the topic. self-references such as Situations where the condition has not been satisfied [11] are not considered here. should probably be3 omitted or rephrased, such writing is common in texts and scholarly articles, but not on Wikipedia, in my experience. Text such as The sources of bearing error include mechanical/structural/installation errors, non-ideal component characteristics and overall system deficiencies, such as gain differences, channel to channel and response ripple should be rewritten for increased clarity and simpler language if possible, particularly for the less technical reader.
Finally, when responding to a recent comment here at the Teahouse, it is usually better to add to the previous thread, rather than starting a new thread (section). DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs17:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I am creating a wiki page and I would like to save it as a draft; For the purpose to show it to my client for their comments and approval. I have not published this page yea it is still in rough form.
Hello, Basaatw, and welcome to the Teahouse. RudolfRed's advice was good as far as it goes, but I think they assumed you were editing Draft:Parsec Incorporated rather than Parsec Incorporated. The result is that you have created an article in mainspace, which has been tagged for Speedy deletion. I have draftified it, so it is indeed now at Draft:Parsec Incorporated, and I have removed the Speedy deletion tag; however, you need to take note of the items under which it was tagged, viz WP:A7 and WP:G11. Bear in mind that Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject of an articles says or wants to say about itself, or in anything that you (or I or anybody else) "just know": almost the entire article must be based on what commentators unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. Wikipedia is entirely uninterested in whether the subject approves the draft or not: if an article is accepted, the subject and their associates will thereafter have no control over the contents of the article. Please have a look at NORG and (if you haven't already read it) WP:YFA. But before any of that, as RudolfRed says, you must declare your status as a Paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Given that it is a "Proposed" deletion, you are empowered to remove the deletion tag, providing your rationale in your Edit summary. The editor who added the "Proposed" is prohibited from reverting your removal, but does have the right to start the more formal Article for Deletion process. David notMD (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Go to an article on a very similar subject. Apply to edit the page. Copy its infobox to your clipboard. Cancel the edit (don't save). Edit your draft, pasting the content of the clipboard to it. Edit the content of the pasted-in clipboard. Save.
Incidentally, I notice that your user page says "I am here to have fun in the community". If this is true, you're in the wrong place. We're building an encyclopedia. If you'd like to join us, you're welcome. If you have fun while doing this, fine. If on the other hand your objective is to have fun, please pursue this on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Shelled Turtle: Another way to make an infobox is go to an article on a very similar subject, and edit the page just to see which infobox is being used. (Don't save the edit.) Then, go to the infobox template instructions to learn how it is used. For example, {{Infobox website}} might be useful for your Draft:Miicharacters.com, and you can read about how it should be used at [[Template:Infobox website}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Shelled Turtle:, Whichever of the above methods you use, I suggest that you save a copy of the blanked template on your computer. That way, if you want to use the same kind of infobox in a similar type of article in the future, you will have one ready without having to delete contents again. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft submission
Hello everyone.
From your experience, does it actually take up to 6-7 weeks to get a draft reviewed? I submitted the draft of my page 3 weeks ago and haven't received any answer. It seemed curious as it took 4-6 days to get an update for the previous drafts I submitted.
LJimenez2004 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are reviewed by volunteers in no particular order, so there is no way to predict when your draft may be reviewed. It could be reviewed in the next five minutes, or six weeks from now. There is no way to "jump the line" or otherwise speed things up, you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"It doesn't seem to me to hade any content, at lest not when i view it in Firefox on a desktop. What content do you think it is hiding, and how is it impeding usage? I don't have a problem with it. User:DESiegel"
0mtwb9gd5wx what browser was used to create that screen shot? was it the mobile or desktop version o9f WP? any other useful details? because I don't see anything like that screenshot at any width. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs22:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I replied in more detail there, but I see the effect on iPad (desktop site, Timeless skin, logged in) in portrait but not landscape mode. [Addendum: mobile/Minerva also.] Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (21:54 Sun 19, AEST) 11:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not super familiar with copyright laws. I was wondering if it would be possible to upload this video to commons. It was made in December 1934. Thanks! ~ HAL33303:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi HAL333. Commons and Wikipedia are techinically separate projects with their own respective policies and guidelines which means you might get a more definite answer over at c:COM:VPC; however, in general, (as explained in c:COM:HIRTLE) 1934 is not really a long time ago with respect to copyright, so most likely just being from 1934 is not in and of itself sufficient to claim this footage is WP:PD. The person who uploaded it to YouTube is also almost certainly not the original creator of the content which means that the file most likely wouldn't be kept by Commons just based upon the uploader giving their WP:CONSENT. The uploader may, however, be able to help clarify the provenance of the video which might help determine whether it might be PD for some other reason. The article Share Our Wealth states that Long made the speech in a national radio address in 1934, but makes no mention of any footage of the event (give the date it's unlikely to have been a video recording as we think of video these days, but rather a newsreel type of thing). If, for example, the footage was taken by a US federal government employee as part of their official duties, it might be PD per WP:PD#US government works. Long was a US Senator in 1934 so it's possible he gave the speech at some official government event. Even if that was the case, however, it would still be better to try and find a copy of the footage as close to the original source as possible (like an official US government website); some times when people upload things to YouTube, they might be uploading a derivative of the original work; for example, the video might have subtitles/closed-captioning or might have some backgroud music added which generally means there are other copyrighted elements that need to be considered in addition to the original footage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I just tried looking up some info, and it looks like it will depend on whether it was copyrighted or not, and when, and whether the copyright was extended. If it was copyrighted and extended, then for works between 1923 and 1978, the copyright lasts for 95 years from original date, so not yet in the public domain. If you know how long the entire speech is, and this is an excerpt, then it might fall under fair use, though probably too long. I also looked up the speech by transcribing a bit, and it looks like it was a Dec. 11, 1934 speech to congressional interns, and it's certainly possible that the video wasn't ever copyrighted. Sorry not to be able to answer more completely, but hope that's a little help. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I really appreciate the comments. I'm trying to get his article up to GA status and a film of him would be cool. I'll try to dig a little deeper. Worse case scenario, I'll have to wait until 2029. Thanks! ~ HAL33302:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@HAL333: FWIW, I ended up emailing the owner of the American Rhetoric site to let him know that he had the wrong year on the date for the speech, and he responded with a quick thanks, so you might try emailing him to see if he knows more about the film, since he has excerpts on his site. His email address is on the site homepage. I hadn't known much about Long or anything about the speech, and it was interesting to learn more about both. Good luck with your efforts to improve the page. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe this to be what Wikipedia refers to as an ‘Attack Page’ created specifically - or later amended - to damage the reputation of its subject. It appears to contravene a number of Wikipedia’s rules and fundamental principles, such as neutrality, verifiability, reliability of sources and circular reporting. There are issues of basic untruth that arguably amount to slander and defamation. I intend to flag this up on the Biography of a Living Person Notice Board and suggest that the page is taken down while these issues are addressed.
There are also problems with many of the individual references - some are dead links, others link to articles where there is no mention of the subject and many come from state-owned publications which are widely regarded as organs of government propaganda. Almost all are in Russian while Wiki recommends that foreign language sources be accompanied by a non-machine English translation. Some sources appear to have been specifically created to provide misleading references for Wikipedia articles.
I would like to alert editors to these unreliable sources, as they will support the overall case on the BLP noticeboard and, in any case, shouldn’t go unchallenged. But instructions on the Unreliable Source Template page advise against doing so for ‘unreliably sourced contentious statements about living persons’ The page also recommends not to use the template ‘for whole articles or article sections that rely on suspect sources.’
I would appreciate it greatly if you could let me know where to flag up these unreliable sources? If the only appropriate place is on the BLP noticeboard, how best to do it there? Also, the noticeboard instructs editors not to cut and paste defamatory or libellous material, and to use diffs instead. But how best to go about this? I see no other posts on the BLP board that include links to diffs, or indeed any form of sources, citations and footnotes.
For the sake of transparency, I would like to say that I am an expert in Russian politics and society who has been engaged by a company called Londongrad, which acts on behalf of Mr. Gorbuntsov, to strive to correct the information in the article.
Capt. Quinlan, welcome to the Teahouse. Two things: first, since you've stated you are editing this on behalf of another presumably for compensation, you'll need to read, and comply with, WP:PAID. Second, the place to bring this up is WP: BLPN. Best of luck. John from Idegon (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bouncecouncil. There's some information on this in WP:SIGCOV, but generally a passing mention would (at least in my opinion) be simply referring to someone by name or in a very brief sentence or two, perhaps like an announcement or listing of some kind; in other words, the focus of the article, etc. would be about something else, where the individual in question is only being mentioned in a way that furthers the discussion of the primary subject matter, but who is not his or herself really discussed in any significant detail. For example, a newspaper reporter writes an article about an event and while describing the event simply mentions someone by name, then that would be considered a passing mention; if, however, in the course of writing about the event, the reporter not only mentions the person by name but then also discusses not only their role in the event but also their general backgound and other things about them in some detail, then that might be considered significant coverage when assessing someone's Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
How do I get a Trump sign for my front yard to show my support for are President???
This is the help desk for Wikipedia related questions. Your question is not something we can help with. Perhaps if you call the White House, they can point you in the right direction. RudolfRed (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi could anybody please help me with date month or year the incident happened in the Mark Anthony Motel in Buderim Queensland I have been trying to find the answer through the Sunshine Coast Daily but they only keep records till year 2000.In order to find answer from Queensland Library I need more accurate date or month or Year
Can anybody help Cabusao (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cabusao. The Teahouse is really intended to be a place for asking questions about Wikipedia editing or Wikipedia in general. It's not really intended to be a place to ask questions like this. You can try Wikipedia:Reference desk and someone there might be able to help you, but your best chance might be to simply Googling the hotel or the incident and perhaps you'll find it mentioned on some webiste. FWIW, I did Google the motel's name ang got some hits, but none of them seem related to any such incident. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Circular Transmission Line Model
I have had articles accepted by journals and conferences on the above subject. I am willing to work with experienced editors. How can I get started? Dale R Burger (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dale R Burger. Maybe the first thing to do would be to look at Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to sort of self-assess whether what you want to write about is something suitable for Wikipedia. Then, if you still believe it is, you probably want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Ownership of content just to kind of get an idea as to what potential bumps in the road you might encounter as you try to create an article. Generally, Wikipedia highly discourages editors from creating articles about subject that they have some sort of personal, professional or even financial connection to that goes beyond a mere casual level, but it's not expressly prohibitted. If at this point you still want to push on, my suggestion to you would be to create a draft and then submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready for article status. You can find suggestions about how to write, format and add sources to articles in Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you're looking for editors who might be experienced in writing such article, try seeing if there's a Wikiproject whiose scope the subject might possibly fall under. There's lots of WikiProjects and they tend to attract members who are interested in or have some type of specialized knowledge about certain subjects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Editing Pages w/ False Information
I just made my first Wikipedia account and I've (I'm sure whomever reads this will have seen this as well) seen a lot of crap thrown at Wikipedia for "unreliable information" and other things like that due to the fact its so easy to edit pages. How are pages regulated and checked so that false information is caught? Are there moderators or admins? Is it left unchecked and Wikipedia is actually full false information or is there some other system in place to keep trolls and information "greifers" in check? Su47Berkut2020 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Su47Berkut2020: Welcome to Wikipedia. There are no moderators in the since that you are thinking of, but there are a few things that help catch issues you mention. There are several bots that detect blatant vandalism and revert it. There are many volunteers who check on recent changes (WP:RCP) and will catch things. Editors will have pages they are interested in on their watchlist, and can help fix problems. Beyond all that, if someone is reading an article and notices a problem they may either fix it themselves or raise a question on that article's talk page. It's not perfect, vandalism and fake information does sneak into Wikipedia, but it works well. In that vein, if you notice a problem, please fix it or post on the talk page about it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to several posters, yes, there is false information in many articles but I haven't been able to verify. I'm currently farming a few extra false information detection meters (ie CVUA tools) before doing knowledge of this sort of thing farming.
The other question is whether state of the false information vandal means there will be more false information spread from users from said state. That answer is also reportedly a yes (for example users from the South and ecspecially from Manchester England will add more anti women things in articles than users from the West Coast), but again, I haven't been able to verify. Clearly in the tools to show this won't allow me to see it since they don't exist at the present.
Now one thing to consider is the false info spreader themselves. Attributes are broken down into 4 categories:
1) Base (what's their base iq)
2) Skills (are they good at spreading false info, many gamers like Xander were good at this in some ways and obvious in others).
3) Equipment (ie tools to do the bs spreading)
4) Other
The question is, where do other and skills factor into our profile of the vandal?
I'll use Materuerm Faturoum (Eric) as an example to figure this out between fights with admins
Strength
Eric: so much strength he can edit 7 days a week for 10 hours straight, giving him much false info spreading
Xander: not as much, has to spread his hatred and false info on other sites so not as strong at doing so on this site.
Attack
Eric : a lot, chased off dozens of women over the years
GorillaWrfare: too passive to directly attack women
After admin bodyguard protections for Eric when checking "admin protection point status"
Eric:attack: no change
GW Attack: - no change
similar but different for other factors which i won't get into.
After hitting Pep state, Jade, when checking "Change Line-Up" (no change in Attributes after battle):
Agility = 999, otherwise 455
Charm = 999, otherwise 477
Given it doesn't change in the status window under "admin protection point status", I would argue it at least has a solid chance to continue forward past the attack cap, as it's a modifier in the damage of the false info spreader equation itself, much like it always was. So rather than simply multiple Attack by that user up front by 1.5, it only factors in when mental damage is done, or it should show up in the status window in battle when changing the line-up.
Hard to say for sure about other factors however. Clearly it doesn't carry over into attributes between article attacks, but in-article it is present directly, unlike admin protection for problem users. However that doesn't mean it doesn't actually factor beyond the 999 barrier, and this could be the case for all stats. However it's far less likely given the simplicity of the WP equations, and that the stat as shown in the window in battle, is likely the stat as it's present in the battle equation.
HOWEVER, in other Wikipedias, certain user personal attack power carries beyond the personal Attack cap of 999, so if you have a attack words with 100 attack, and 999 Strength, your actual Attack power will show 999 in the stat window in wiki battle and out of battle, but it's really 1099. So...maybe?
signed by user Kevin GAW MUn (which is how my name is pronunced by New Yawkers), former admin and Wikipedian in Resident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.191.113.10 (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
EasterSun Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to your sandbox, it is "published" in that people who know exactly where it is located can see it, but it is not formally part of the encyclopedia or locateable by search engines. You have not yet submitted it for a review; you need to click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. In my personal opinion, it reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article, and I think it would be rejected if you submitted it. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a subject. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
If you have a connection to this person, such as being their representative, agent, or manager, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy and declare that status. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know of a way to suppress images based on what category the articles are in; as you already know, it is possible to do specific articles or all images. As noted, there might be software you can install on your end(some free examples of which are noted at the bottom of the Options To Hide An Image page) that you could configure to do what you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Article is not published since 2 weeks
Hey the article has been published since 2 weeks ago . it has not been published please review the article and the please check on the conditions that needed to publish the article
thank you Fatehsinghontheropes (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you're talking about Draft:Fateh Singh Nagar, a draft about a boxer. I notice that your username is Fatehsinghontheropes. This name strikes me as remarkably similar to Fateh Singh Nagar. Are you related to the subject of your draft? (And why is your user page about him?) That aside, your draft won't be reviewed until you apply in the conventional way for it to be reviewed. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit existing, or create new page?
Hey - I'm trying to update a really out of date wiki page. It's for a client so I have some Conflict of interest issues to address. As it's so out of date, is it possible to create a new one to replace it? Trying to edit it piecemeal is a real uphill slog. LozAus2000 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What article? And you must declare PAID on your User page (see WP:PAID). Paid means you should not directly edit the article at all. Rather, you are to propose specific changes on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @LozAus2000: If an article exists, you should try to improve it, not replace it. Completely replacing another editor's work is discouraged unless there's absolutely nothing salvagable, which isn't the case most of the time. Additionally, you are strongly discouraged from editing a subject that you have an conflict of interest with. Instead, make a paid-contribution disclosure (even if you're not being paid monetarily) to make it clear that you have a conflict of interest. Then, make an edit request on the article's talk page. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Earthianyogi: If you're referring to userboxes like Template:User contrib CentralAuth simple, it's because you didn't add some of the parameters required for it to show up. For example, {{User contrib CentralAuth simple|Earthianyogi|42|Wikipedia}} gives:
It is a good idea to look at the documentation of each template to find out what additional parameters you need to enter in order for it to show up correctly. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Earthianyogi: That's correct. Some users just stick a milestone (eg. 10,000 edits) in the userbox, while the link takes them to a page that shows the real-time count. From your question above, I think you might want to enable XTools under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, which shows a link that gives you more statistics about a user or page. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a thought
Hi, Is it possible to set a cap/criteria and allow only those editors to review articles on Wikipedia who have sucessfully published at least 100 articles on Wikipedia? Is it reasonable? Any ideas? Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Some thoughts on that -
I believe that there's already some restriction on who is accepted as a reviewer.
There's already a shortage of reviewers – it's an unpleasant and thankless task.
100 articles created is a very high target.
How do you assess who "published" an article? Suppose editor A decides to create an article, but finds it difficult and soon gives up; editor B works on the abandoned draft and greatly improves it; and editor C adds one more reference and moves it to mainspace. Who gets the credit? Maproom (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
How many reviewers are currently reviewing articles? Can the edit page history of authors be modified to show contributions of reviewers? I understand the pain; I am a peer reviewer for many international scientific journals. Maybe, we are all contributing to Wiki by creating/editing/patrolling pages for a greater good.
Is it? Maybe 60?
I'd have thought that 5 would be plenty. But I see from the next item that you would count multiple contributors to each new article. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
All of them. However, please note that we are all contributing to make Wikipedia a better place. However, I was thinking about a stats page for each Wiki article mentioning all contributors ID, but isn't that what history page shows anyways?
I also thought that maybe each submitted article should have a mandatory field (filled in by the authors) asking for the specific category in which they are presenting the articles so the reviewers can read this category and understand the author's point of view?
When reviewers reject an article, it should be mandatory for reviewers to provide precise feedback, rather than vague comments.
We'll lose some reviewers that way, and force the others to work more slowly, making the backlog much worse. I see the backlog as the biggest problem with the current system. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Earthianyogi: You unintentionally deleted my initial response; don’t worry too much about it. The couple of big review processes are the AFC or New Page Patrol when the article is created and the reviews to make an article a Good Article or Featured Article. Between these two stages, aside from various anti-vandalism patrols, we just let an article grow organically. At which stage of an article’s “lifespan” are you proposing an review? ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Bonadea and :Ganbaruby, Apologies for deleting your message by mistake; I had no intention to do that. I was referring to process of reviewing article drafts. The idea is when the author submits a draft and the correct category, the reviewers can quickly refer to that category to decide if the article should be accepted or rejected. I think it will make the process more efficient, rather than reviewer rejecting it on one basis and then author coming back with another category. It has happened with me twice, I submitted an article under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) category (WP:NACADEMIC or WP:PROF) and got rejected for notability. Please have a look at this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjukta_Deb and let me know your suggestions. Thanks again. Earthianyogi (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Earthianyogi: That's not really how the subject-specificy notabiltity guidelines work: it's not a "category", but rather, a subject either has the notabilty to have an article or not. In order to establish that a subject has the notabiltiy, we need to base it on reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC notes that notability is "substantiated through reliable sources". In your draft, the sources are largely self-published by Deb, or written by the university Deb works at. You'll need multiple independent sources in your article before you submit it for review again. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 15:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Ganbaruby NACADEMIC explicitly overrides the general notability guideline, and publications from the subject's university, etc. are generally considered "independent enough" for academics, as the guideline page explains. The question is whether the draft in question meets WP:NACADEMIC, which would rest on whether a H-index of 26 is enough to satisfy criterion 1 in this particular field, or whether president of the UK Society of Biomaterials satisfies criterion 6. I'm not sure myself - maybe it does, but it's not an obvious pass to me.
To answer the OP's question - AfC reviewers aren't infallible and the requirements to become one (500 edits and 6 months of editing) could perhaps be tightened a bit, but that's a double-edged sword because there are hardly enough AfC reviewers as it is. Currently there are over 2700 drafts waiting to be reviewed and users may have to wait up to 7 weeks for a review. Spicy (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Ganbaruby, This WP:NACADEMIC suggests: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." She ticks most of these conditions.
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
--She has 7 patents, published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26
2. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
--Fellow of Academy of Dental Materials (FADM). --Chair: Royal Society of Chemistry: Biomaterials Chemistry interest group.
3. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
--She has published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26
4. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
--She is a Professor.
5. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
--Ex-president: UK Society of Biomaterials. --Secretary: UK Society for Biomaterials.
6. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
--She is an editor to various scientific national and international journals, for example, Journal of Biomaterials Application (Associate editor), Journal of Tissue Science & Engineering (Associate editor), and Journal of the American Ceramic Society (Guest editor).
There, an innovative derivation of a formula of ref.
Blinder, S. M. (1996). "Canonical partition function for the hydrogen atom in curved space". J. Math. Chem. 19: 43. doi:10.1007/BF01165129
has been included explaining the formula in a more transparent way and in a greater detail. Now I have
to include same calculation into a scientific article therefore I would like to ask the question if giving a citation to the page
under discussion of the type. (...., SUBMITTED BY ONE OF US, D.E.A.C.) would be in accord with your policy. More
precisely I would like to know whether revealing ones own name as a contributor to wikipedia in a scientific publication
is permitted.
Hello, Sculkaputz. If I understand you correctly, you want to know whether it is acceptable to cite your own published work in editing a Wikipedia article. The answer is that it is regarded as a conflict of interest, so you are discouraged from editing the article yourself, but you are welcome to make an edit request on the article's talk page; then an uninvolved editor will look at your suggestion and decide what action is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply ColinFine. My situation is quite the opposite, I have extended the wikipedia entry with new, unpublished work that now I would like include in a publication. Is it fine to cite the wikipedia source and mentioned myself as a contributor for this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sculkaputz (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, right, I see. Normally, that's fine: you released the material under CC-BY-SA when you hit "publish", so anybody in the world can reuse the text for any purpose, as long as they attribute it: of course that includes you. There's no problem saying that you wrote part of it - but bear in mind that 1) by the time somebody goes and looks at the article it might have been substantially changed by somebody else; and 2) not everybody sees contributing to Wikipedia as a good thing, especially for a scholar. See reusing Wikipedia content for more.
But I have a concern about this case, in fact about your contribution: it looks as if it may be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If what you have added is a summary of the Blinder paper, that's fine; but if it goes beyond what the source says, then you should not be publishing it in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Was Lina Coen the first woman to conduct an opera in the United States?
Hi there! I translated my Dutch language article and posted it as my first article on the English Wikipedia: Lina Coen. On the talk page I posted a few questions. I have a newspaper clipping from the New York Review in 1917 but I have no clear reference to this magazine. On wikipedia it refers to the New York Review of Books but that did not exist in 1917. Is there a URL to this magazine? And a related question: Is it true what the article states? Was Lina Coen the first woman to conduct a Grand Opera in the United States (or in New York, as the New York Times stated)? How can that fact be checked? Any guidance appreciated
First, the source: sources do not have to be available online, as long as they are reliably published, and you can provide suitable bibilographic information so that a reader can in principle find the source, eg at a major library. When you say you have a clipping, does it include the date? Can you find the New York Review in a directory of journals somewhere? If so, you can cite it.
Secondly the information. There is a great difference between the claim "Lina Coen conducted Carmen in New York in 1917", and "Lina Coen was the first woman to conduct an opera in New York". The first can be verified by any report of it having happened. The second is probably impossible to verfy in 2020: the best we can do is if a reliable source from 1917 makes the claim, then we can report that. We would be less willing to take such a claim if it were found in her own promotional literature. If the NYT says that she was the first woman to conduct an opera in New York, then we can take that as a reliable source, and say that - I would suggest wording it as "according to the NYT, she was the first woman to conduct an opera in New York". But only say "in the United States" if you can cite a reliable source, independent of her, that makes this claim. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Redirected page?
Hello guys, I want to know if I could create a page for "Forest Therapy," there's a redirect that leads to "Nature Therapy," but I want to particularly create a page for Forest Therapy.
Hello, Doggoland, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I suggest that, for the moment, you forget that there is currently a redirect, and treat this as creating a new article, via the Articles for creation process: when you submit it for review, and a reviewer accepts it, they will sort out where to put it and what to do about the existing redirect.
Having said that, creating a new article (which is what you want to do, however you do it) is one of the most difficult tasks there is for a Wikipedia editor, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works, and improving existing articles, before they try it. One thing that makes it difficult is that Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows): it is only interested in what has already been published in reliable places; so if you know a lot about the subject, you will need to find those sources, and then forget what you know and write a summary of what the sources say.
How do you change the picture that comes up when you hover over a link to an article?
How do you change the picture that comes up when you hover over a link to an artical? I wanted to add the logo for news station KUSA when you hover over a link to thier artical, and replace the picture on Arapahoe County's wikipedia page. JackForWiki06 (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s either the first image or the one in the infobox (usually the same thing, hence I'm not sure of the exact logic) of the target article's page that's used. KUSA (TV) does have a logo on the page, so if you’re not seeing the image I’m not sure what’s going on. (I’m on a tablet, so can’t check right now.) Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (22:39 Sun 19, AEST) 12:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that no image shows in the search drop-down either (nor in the VE link picker). Could it be something to do with the KUSA logo being an SVG file?
For the county, you would edit the line ex image = Little Dry Creek.JPG, but be sure your change is consistent with accepted practice for that class of article.
Okay, it's a little more complicated than what I thought. For Wikipedias, the PageImages extension looks at the first four images in the lead section, according to mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice.
I found some bug reports about PageImages and SVGs, but they seem to have been resolved as fixed long ago. The only other thing I can think of is that the logo is quite wide in relation to its height, and that might exclude it.
If we move the square-ish logo from History section to the lead (alongside the infobox), it would make the article look bad. If we swap their positions, we’d be leading with the lower quality image just to suit PageImages.
JackForWiki06 et al.: I do something on my user page to force the image that appears when hovering over a link to it with NavPops, which might be different than the default page previewing tool that the OP is probably using, but I'll mention it anyway. At the top of the page, I have: <span style="display:none;">[[File:SomeFileName.jpeg|1px|...]]</span>. The image doesn't display there because of the display:none style, but NavPops ignores the styling and chooses it for display in the preview. I can't tell if it works for the normal preview gadget, since it doesn't seem to preview user pages. Note that it may be necessary to remove the |1px or change the 1 to something normal like 200 to get the preview to choose it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—21:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Pelagic, I've never worked on that project, but there are all sorts of restrictions. In particular, I wonder whether the exclusion of fair use images (at the request of this community) might have been coded as excluding any image that has been uploaded locally. In that case, if the tag on that logo about it not being copyrightable is correct, then transwiki'ing it to Commons would solve the problem. But there may be other factors that are more important, such as an undesirable width/height ratio. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Topicon
Dear fellow editors, I want to use 3-4 topicons in my user page...... I have visited the Help page but am very much confused.... Can you please give me the code to put flag of India and Wikignome together as topicons... Thanks in advance.... Anupam Dutta (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! I have begun to create my user page, but would like to add user box icons/links for some of my attributes or interests, such as being a fan of / builder with LEGO. Is there a list of user boxes anywhere? Thank you. Stay safe & Play Well. Paul Sinasohn (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Editing a redirect to create a disambiguation page vs. adding a hatnote for "United States v. Stone"
Currently, United States v. Stone redirects to the Criminal investigation section of Hutaree. That section includes information about an Eastern District of MI court case, United States v. Stone et al.
Another United States v. Stone case has been noteworthy during the last few years, a District of DC court case involving Roger Stone that arose out of the Special Counsel investigation. There is no page for this case either, but there's considerable information about it in a section of Roger Stone's page: [6]. I also did a search for United States v. Stone and see that there's a very old Supreme Court case by that name; it doesn't have an article, but is briefly mentioned in a couple of articles.
My sense is that United States v. Stone should be a disambiguation page rather than redirecting to a section of Hutaree and adding a hatnote to that Hutaree section re: the case involving Roger Stone. Both legal cases are US District Court cases, both are addressed in sections of articles, and I don't know that one is more noteworthy than the other. But I'm a new-ish editor and would appreciate a second opinion. Also, because US v Stone automatically redirects, I don't know how to access the US v Stone page in order to edit it, so as to make it a disambiguation page (or perhaps I've misunderstood how redirects work, and the disambiguation page is created in some other way, for example, as a new page titled "United States v. Stone (disambiguation)"). If someone can clarify what should occur (assuming that others agree the primary page should be a disambiguation page), I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Changing a redirect to a disambiguation page is technically simple. A redicect simply consists of content similar to:
#REDIRECT [[Article Nam]]
To convert this to a DAB (disambiguation) page one simply edites, removes the redirect code, and inserts the DAB code, which is normally a bulleted list of links, with a short (one phrase or sentence in most cases) description of the article linked to.
However, it is not usual to create a DAB page until there are at least two articles (not just sections of articles) with similar names, or to which the same name could apply (for an example DAB page, see Jones). Still this might be an exception. A link can go to a section in an article, and a DAB page can have some (or I suppose all) of its links be links to article sections. You could ask for advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law which seems to be more active than some projects. Or you could just be bold and make the change. The worst than can happen is that someone reverts the change. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again, DESiegel. I also figured out that if I click on the "(Redirected from United States v. Stone)" text at the top of the Hutaree page, it takes me to a version of United States v. Stone that doesn't redirect and so makes it possible for me to edit that page and change it from a redirect to disambiguation. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes that is quite correct, FactOrOpinion. Oh I should have mentioned above, a hatnote is not no9rmally used when only a section of an article is the target. If there were two full articles about two different cases US vs Stone, then hatnotes might well be used. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
DESiegel - I ended up posting a note at WikiProject Law and one person said it makes sense to disambiguate, so I went ahead and made the change. I found a section of the MOS for disambiguating sections of articles and hopefully have done it correctly, and I left a note at WikiProject Law, asking someone to check that I also got the legal formatting correct. Thanks again. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What exactly is your question, Booklover1990? If there is an existing article about a novel, a description of the novel, particularly its plot, may be added to the article, see WP:PLOT for details. Hopwever if an article does not yet exit, a new article would, need to demonstrate notability. See our guideline on the notability of books. I would advise stsrtign with a draft, under the articles for creation project.
And now, Draft:BC to AD declined twice, then rejected. The latter means that the reviewer saw no potential for this to become an article. I agree. It is a recently published (2018) and obscure book which has not yet been written about at length. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
How to index Article page in Google search
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.
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.
I am unable to move draft to article
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.
Hello, Aniket. I can't see a draft that you have been working on. Which draft are you asking about? By the way, please sign your posts here with four tildes (~~~~), not by typing in the name and date. First, the software will work our the time and date, but much more important it will include a link to your user and user talk pages. --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Karateaniket. A page by that name was deleted back in 2014 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aniket Gupta, largely for lack of notability, later the page was protected agaisnt recreation by Shirt58 with the logged reaso (Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc. This means that an admin will need to approve moving the draft to mainspace. Since you did not submit this to AfC for review, an admin will need to review it to see if it addresses the issues in the A fC and creation protections. I will take a look. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs21:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Karateaniket I reviewed the currently cited sources min the draft. They do not currently demonstrate the notability of the subject, Aniket Gupta. Multiple Independent published reliable sources are needed, each of which has significant coverage of the subject. Most of the currently cited sources are simply tables of match results or rankings by various organizations. As there is no specialized guideline on the notability of professional karate contestants, these alone cannot establish notability. Only one source, the Arunachal Observer piece, seemed to have anything approaching significant coverage, and even that was a bit dubious, with no biographical information at all included.
There were two YouTube videos cited, but they are not in English so I cannot review them. Please be careful, as many YouTube videos are not reliable sources. Ones that are officially posted versions of news broadcasts are as reliable as the organization that publishes them. YouTube videos that are self-published, or that infringe copyright, should not be cited.
If you want me to look at a revised version of this draft, please ping me from the draft talk page, or leave a message on my user talk page. Please fill out the citation metadata as fully as you can. I will lace a copy of this on the draft talk page
If you want this approved, please add multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage to the page, then point out on the draft talk page the three to five best cited sources and ask for a review, either of me or of another admin. You might want to finish the currently empty sections fo the draft first, also. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs21:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
If that draft is about you, Karateaniket, it should certainly not be you that moves it to mainspace. I am concerned that both Draft:Aniket Gupta and Karate Association of Darbhanga have been created by four accounts that were themselves only created in the last few days - presumably, people who you know - and that one of them has moved the latter to mainspace (and judging by your question, you tried to move the former to mainspace). While WP:AFC is not mandatory, it is there for a reason. I suspect that there are not enough independent sources in Draft:Aniket Gupta to establish notability (The Arunachal Observer article looks like a good source, but I'm not dure about any of the others). I haven't checked the sources for the Karate Association article, as I don't read Hindi, but some of them look like copyright violations to me. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2020 (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.
Archiving Citations
Archiving Citations
I am citing articles and there is this option of "archive." Should I also add its archive version also. Is that a standard practice in Wikipedia or does a bot like
WP:IABOT according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot preclude the editors from not adding the archive link. Can I manually invoke the bot for specific pages? EnshrineSnowVista (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
If an online source has been archived by a public archive, such as the Internet Archive (IA) or any of several others, you can add the URL of the archived version to a citation made with a citation template. Please also use |archive-date= for the date on which the source page was saved to the specific archive you are linking, and also use |url-status to indicate the status of the original source page. Values for this are: "live" -- (the original page is up and active on the web; "dead" -- the original page is not available, usually it returns code 404; "usurped" -- the original page has been taken over by a quite different page, having no use as a source; or "unfit" -- the original page is now something we do not want users to link to, such as a page that loads malware or porn.
Providing an archive url while the original is live is a not uncommon practice, although not as common as I could wish. It means that if the original URL goes dead or changes content, a valid archive link is already available and need not be searched for later, and the editor has verified that it matches the version intended as a source. I think it is good practice although not required. It is often possible to request that an archive site capture a particular URL, although the archive may not honor the request. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
EnshrineSnowVista, The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has options that you can use with Chrome, Firefox, or Safari that enable you to create an archive while the source page is in your browser. See the "Tools" section on the page that I linked. Unfortunately, sometimes the Wayback Machine is out of service. In that case, I use archive.today It has an extension for Firefox and a bookmarklet that works on Chrome. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I have created a draft using the article wizard, per previous advice to do this before submitting for review. Now looking for more experienced eyes than mine to assess the validity of the draft. Draft:Mary McEnerney Woolley. More information will be added. Thanks for your help. VonEisenMark (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
And, you have identified a low-level conflict of interest on your Talk page, but I recommend making a brief statement about it on your User page. David notMD (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Not quite sure that the Teahouse is the best place to ask this, but the user involved, Marioswiki2 does appear to be a single-purpose account.
I am supportive on the theory that the user is either related to, or is Mario Gabelli. The username 'Marioswiki2', of course, does seem related to the name 'Mario Gabelli' (although this could also be a product of a poor naming decision along the lines of "I want to edit this article on [subject], I'll name myself similar to [subject] therefore people will know what I edit". Unlikely, but a possibility).
I checked over their edits and most of them do seem to be acceptable, apart from a few edits where they removed well-sourced sections that criticized Mario. dibbydib02:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Editing a locked pg that has typo!
Please HELP Im not good at this & confused but simply put there's a typo on the blm page
under the subheading 2020
It says
An online survey of people aged from 18-34 the Global Strategy Group found broad support from the participants, expect by those who identified as pro-Trump Republicans.
(edit conflict) Hi Vit713828. There are a couple of things you could do. If you just want to discuss something general things about Wikipedia editing, you can post a message for them at User talk:Regulov. If, on the other hand, you want to discuss specific edits this editor made to a particular article, you could post a message on their user talk page as well, but it might be better to start a discussion about things on the relevant article's talk page because that will make it easier for others to participate and also keep a proper record of the discussion. After you start the discussion, you can then add a Template:Please see to their user talk page to let know about the discussion. Regardless of which approach you try, please try to keep things friendly and understand that the other person isn't really obligated to respond anything you post. All you can do is try. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
contributions no news
Hi, several months ago I submitted a contribution to an article as suggested here. However have no news about it since then. Maybe it is under review but is there any way to follow up the review process? where can I see the status of my contribution?
DrDelaTorre Hello. From looking at your edit history it's not clear to me what proposed contribution you are referencing; please link to the article or talk page in question. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is the link for the contribution I have no news yet. I would like to know how can I follow up the status of the contribution. Thank you
DrDelaTorre For follow up comments, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section(click "edit" in the section header or at the top of this page). I see your post on that page, but as it is not marked as a formal edit request, the odds are lower of another editor seeing it to review it. I will do so in this case, though you may wish to review how to make an edit request. Once an editor reviews your request, they will respond to you. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I received a request from Wikipedia to declare if I'm being paid to edit Jim Chu's Wikipedia page. I've done so on my user page. What happens next? Fiona Njaggi (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You had enclosed the declaration in nowiki tags, but I have removed them for you. It would be clearer if you referred to the relevant article by including the additional parameter |article=[[Jim Chu (entrepreneur)]]. As you have a conflict of interest and are being paid, you should not make any further edits directly to the article. Any changes should be proposed using the article's talk page, supporting the proposals by reference to published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
In explanation of that procedure, you propose changes on the Talk page, then a non-involved editor decides to accept or reject your request. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Why 2nd time review ?
Hi!
I just saw the review waiting when the draft was submitted as AfC and was constantly working on the draft since june/2020 .
My draft was ready to be reviewed still I got this Publish Changes, where I had nothing to change.
I mean i just could not get it. Why the 2nd time submission with all the rules i knew before creating the AfC (Biography)
being my 1st AfC i dont know if its a normal procedure , but it wold certainly help me.
Also to know that again it would get cherrypicked randomly & now i'm not supposed to make any changes?
I guess I'm clear with my words
Thanks in advance Shekhar in (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the miss, I did take help from several reviewers from the Tea House to improve my subject & can be seen on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhar in (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thx @ Ganbaruby
◢ Ganbaruby!
It was confusing for me as well, but with the AfC final approval problem is solved.
Just 1 last query, When AfC is accepted are we supposed to finally press the Publish button?
As I had to do it, On which my question was based, but I got the reply from you & notif that the draft is reviewed & Published.
Thanks a lot to all.
Shekhar in (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Shekhar in. The "Publish changes" button is the only way to save an edit. It was changed from "Save changes" to emphasise that everything on every page in Wikipedia is public, whether it is in article space, user space, draft space, or anywhere else. Separately there is the informal use of the word "publish" to mean "accept a draft as an article" or "move a draft into article space". Does that help your confusion? --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm asking this as I just saw that someone is blocked for this violation
Hello again Shekhar in. Using multiple accounts is not always forbidden: there are some circumstances in which it is allowed - see WP:SOCKLEGIT. What people get blocked for is using multiple accounts in inappropriate ways (see the rest of the page I linked to) and these are usually detected by a suspicious pattern of editing. In general nobody knows who an editor is (unless they choose to edit under their own name, as I do, or reveal their name on their user pages) and no way for an ordinary editor to detect if they are using multiple accounts. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Template for disambiguation page which should be rewritten to be an article
I can not for the life of me find the template one puts on a page which is currently a disambig page but which should be an article.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) ★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is there to disambiguate. Why would it ever be sensible to replace it by an article? Maproom (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Because sometimes a page is used as a disambiguation page when it shouldn't be. Not every page used as a disambiguation page has "(disambiguation)" in its title.
Maproom If the DAB page is currently at the plain name of the topic (as is done when there is no primary topic) but an editor thinks that one of the topics is in fact primary, it might make sense to move the DAB page from "Topic" to "Topic (disambiguation)" and move one of the articles about some meaning of the topic to just "Topic". DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No sadly that's not it. I know I have seen an article with a notice at the top saying that it should be changed from a disambiguation to an article as recently as the day before yesterday, its a rare notice but I've seen it. Sadly I forgot what page I saw it on.★Trekker (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I want to add a map to depict all the locations a company is present in. What is the best way to do it? Should I add it on Wikimedia or just upload it on the page? Is there a template that needs to be used? Foxtrot02 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen such maps for other companies, and suspect that it's because they wouldn't be so helpful. For one thing, how likely is it that the locations will be the same a couple of years from now?
@Foxtrot02: Please do not try to add a map of company locations - it's quite necessary. The great thing about Wikipedia is that people can follow citations to external sites if they need further information on something. There is already a link to the company's website page showing their locations. Anything else is just overkill, and would indeed be hard to maintain, and probably swiftly removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Govvy. Page views often show large fluctuations for unknown reasons. Bots may scan user talk pages but according to [7] versus [8], the views are from users and not spiders. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Govvy, well users, or spiders not yet identified as non-humans. That is simply hard to tell and no one will ever be able to tell 100% without looking at the individual page requests, which also would be a privacy violation, if everyone can do that. But the analytics team regularly goes through requests logs to identify more spiders. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've heard of web crawling before, didn't know about the nickname of spiders for it, interesting read, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Govvy: I think you might have short-term memory problems, like I often do! If you're going to post this curiously-worded open invitation to WP:ANI, asking admins to "sort out this weirdness" on your talk page, then you're gonna expect a bit of a spike in traffic. (ANI took 4,500 page views that day.) The thread will have piqued quite a few people's interest, and seems the pretty obvious cause. It only took a few moments to look through your edit contributions for 9 July to see where you'd posted to and what had attracted people to look at your talk page. If Donald the Trump is going to drop by unexpectedly, people are bound to be curious. You can expect another spike now you've posted here, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
If you mean Templers (religious believers), the article you have done edits to, you added and removed content, then an editor reverted to the version before you made any changes. I don't see any 'repeatedly', nor any evidence that this is that person's 'own article'. The proper next step is to open a discussion on the article's Talk page, with an invitation to the other editor. If you mean a different article, specify. David notMD (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
From Sandbox to Mainspace
Hello. I've created an article in my personal sanbox and I would like to move it to the mainspace but I'm not yet a "credited user". Can I ask another user to move the article for me to the mainspace? Have I to submit my draft for review to get it published ?
THANK YOU Donà Anna (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Donà Anna Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless/until you are very experienced at creating articles, you should avoid directly moving them to mainspace. Instead, you should use Articles for Creation to create and submit drafts for review. I will add the appropriate information to allow you to submit your sandbox for review. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Please could someone help me with updating a wiki page for me. I've sent a couple of requests on the community page but no changes have been made as yet.
Interested in doing major overhaul of a Wikipedia Page
If I want to do major overhaul in editing a Wikipedia page, do I need special permissions? I'm looking to completely redo Visit Philly's Wikipedia page. I'd like to add a sidebar with some general information and a table of contents with more specific, broken down information throughout. Can I simply make an account for this and then start the overhaul? Is special permission needed? The page isn't locked and is available for immediate editing. 2601:98A:4000:56D0:8834:A853:29EF:8064 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You technically wouldn't need any special permissions, however, you would probably want to discuss it on the talk page of the article to get the opinion of some of those who are pretty active in editing that page. I would encourage you to create an account, but it's not mandatory. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. That "wall of text" could certainly be broken down into paragraphs; and if there are more than four section headers (I think) a table of contents will be generated automatically. But I wonder whether there is much more information that could go into the article? Bear in mind that it is Wikipedia's article about Visit Philadelphia, not "Visit Philadelphia's page": very little of the article should come from VP or its publications: almost everything should be sourced to independent published sources about VP. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Wrong description The Labour party
The Labour party is, quote "A democratic socialist party". This is clearly stated in Clause 1V of the Party's aims and values. It does not state it is a social-democratic Party so your Wikipedia description is inaccurate. 82.23.136.99 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The best place to discuss changes to an article is usually the article's talk page, where editors who care about and are familiar with the subject are likely to see and participate in the discussion. For example, if your concern is about Labour Party (UK), discuss it at Talk:Labour Party (UK). Editors there are more likely to know if there's a difference between "democratic socialist" and "social-democratic", and how it should be addressed. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—20:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
my wikipedia page turned out to be crap honestly i have no experience editing and i need some help
so ive tried creating references for people that stem from gaming and well my original article was deleted and i need help improving my new one now i dont have much information on the topic of mineral farming and it may be crap for an encyclopedia but i was just trying to
dpo the best i can how can i get help from editors please if anyone has references and citations or knoledge on my topics please let me know what to do
view my experimental sandbox page and my dramaticcally failed article user wulfenitegaming Wulfenitegaming (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Wulfenitegaming Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You've found out the hard way that successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the absolute hardest thing one can attempt to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users greatly increase their chances of success by first spending much time(months if not years) editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea.
Your draft was declined because you have almost no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support what you wrote. The one source you do have seems to be another wiki, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia as it is user-editable. As you sate that you don't have much information on the topic, it likely is too soon for an article about it. It would not merit an article if no sources discuss this topic in depth. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw I have been told that an article I created was denied, which I never Created.
Hi, I was made aware that something called Arild Hansen had been created by "me". I did not create this page, and I do not know what it is. Can you tell me what this page was about? Thanks. 37.191.174.39 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! As it says at the bottom of your talkpage: "Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.". You can try to ask the editor who left the message. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Stemata Watch - Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Hello, I'm Mihalache Ionut-Catalin, and recently my article was declined to be posted on Wikipedia because I didn't post enough references on my article.
The reason is that I the brand that I founded is still a couple of months old, so I didn't got featured in many articles and magazines, and the ones I got featured are too small, local newspapers, and local websites. But I still want to wear awareness and brand credibility and write a start article on Wikipedia. How can I make this work, I already started mailing some big magazines if I can make some advertisement on their websites and newspapers, but this is costly and I want to know if I do that and have some references links and photos my article will be admitted on Wikipedia or not and its a waste of money.
Sorry for my bad English, but it's my third language.
Hello, Catakhn, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the answer is that you cannot. Promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia, and if you continue you are going to waste both your own time and effort and that of the editors who have to deal with it. Once your brand has received enough notice from reliable independent sources| to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it will be possible to have an article about your brand. The article should ideally not be written by you, and in any case you will not have control over its contents, and its contents will not be based on what you say or want to say, but on what independent commentators have published about your brand. Please use another channel to publicise your brand. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Family Caregiver Alliance
I have edited this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Caregiver_Alliance and believe I have addressed the issues that led to the placement of the template and would like to remove it. I added inline sources, an info box and some secondary sources and divided into sections. Can the template notice be removed? I have no COI with this page. Thank you. Ihaveadreamagain19:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, NuggetAreFood. Which account name were you editing under that was blocked? Your current account is not yet blocked (which is why you are allowed to post here). But User:NuggetAreFood/sandbox has been put up for deletion. You are not allowed to create Wikipedia pages that promote yourself, or which serve as a free webplatform for yourself. That is wrong. We are solely here to help build an encyclopaedia, so you could find yourself blocked if you were to continue to try to promote yourself or your off-wiki websites or interests. It is also not permitted for a blocked user to create a second account and to restart editing. Instead, you need to appeal a block using the original account, or face all accounts being permanently blocked for what we call 'sockpuppetry'. Hope that helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Geekpotato24: Not necessarily. If an IP has posted a question on, say, your talk page, or on an article talk page, it is reasonable to assume they they will take the trouble to check that page for an answer. So replying on that page is the best you can do; you just can't ping them. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Need help resolving issue with article submission
Greetings!
I have submitted a page for Draft:Caroline_Rose_(writer). A warning was attached to the draft, suggesting that a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject and may need cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. On the Talk page I asked for clarification so I could fix any issues, but have not received a response.
Is there someone here who is willing take a look at the page and provide suggestions for cleaning up the content?
As far as know, I followed the guidelines in the same way that I did for the biography of Ed King (activist).
I have a comment. In my opinion, trying to follow the same pattern in one article as in a previous article is often not useful, especially if the articles are significantly different or about people whose claims to notability are different. I am not commenting at this time on whether the draft should be accepted, but using an unrelated draft as a model is often not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, XRENEGADEx. Although we think about it as a 'renaming' what we actually do is 'Move' and article from one page to another, leaving behind a WP:REDIRECT from the old page to the new one. See WP:MOVE for how to do this. But are you sure this is really a sensible action? I notice that Slither.io doesn't have (video game) in its name, and the bracketed element is only really necessary to distinguish two similarly-sounding page titles. (e.g. Dom (surname), Dom (film) and Dom (mountain)). I suggest if you really feel this is warranted, that you post your proposal and rationale on the talk page of the article. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Help with archiving my talk page.
How can I add a second archive to my talk page? I have a 1st archive, but a second I couldn't make. I tried but after two consecutive failed attempts while trying to follow the help:archive talk page, I feel sort of helpless. Please.
Thank you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I did this already. More help is needed. I found sort of a solution, by adding more content to the first archive, but archive number 2 just won't pop up.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
If during AfD, an article gets relisted, am I supposed to repost my argument again?
An article I created has been nominated for deletion - Sanjeev Aggarwal. The discussion got relisted. I have given a rationale for why it should be kept. My edit was the last one and there aren't any replies to it. Now, the discussion has been relisted (I posted my reasoning before it got relisted). I want to add more references also and update my reasoning.
I also intend to improve the article and add more references.
@Hmanburg: No, you should not, as this will needlessly duplicate content on the AfD and make it harder to follow. Don't worry, all comments before relisting will be considered by editors after relisting, and by the closer as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmanburg, a tip for you. I notice that the last thing you said in that AfD was: "The promotional content seems to have been inserted after I had published the article. Those changes should be reverted/cleaned up." It's often easy to remove promotional additions. Removing them is likely to be more persuasive than merely saying that they should be removed. Having removed them, you'd be welcome to announce this in the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hoary: Thanks for your advice. Definitely makes a lot of sense. I do plan on improving the article.
Edit Warring
User:FlightTime, who seems to have admin privileges, deleted important improvements to Bob Crane, en masse without with giving any good reason, barraging me with false accusations via canned templates, abusing the trust bestowed by this community. User:FlightTime somehow considers correcting errors as trivia. Help me.0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@0mtwb9gd5wx:, the usual practice when a situation like this arises is to stop edit-warring and discuss the changes on the talk page. You are expected to cooperate with other editors instead of attempting to force your preferred version through. I hope that helps. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)21:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@0mtwb9gd5wx: FlightTime is not an admin, but has over 100,000 edits to their credit, and is an experienced editor. Providing you can engage with another person in a friendly, non-accusative manner, you'll probably find them willing to explain any edits they made. If you get reverted en masse, then try making just one change at a time and leaving for a while. A quick glance tells me that they clearly feel your edits only added WP:TRIVIA to the article, rather than encyclopaedic content. You might wish to take the lead by expanding on why you think each edit is justified, rather than demanding an explanation from them as to why they feel none of them are. Finding ways to avoid conflict and not going for one-upmanship or edit-warring is a neat trick to collaborative working. Unless you're adding utter garbage, you'll probably find the other editor is just as keen to see a good, encyclopaedic article as you are. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Guidance before submitting a page for review
This is Soumyajit Bhar, a Ph.D. scholar at ATREE, Bangalore, under the supervision of Dr. Sharachchandra Lele. I, along with a few of his other Ph.D. scholars, Ms. Roshni Kutty and Mr. Amit John Kurien have decided independently to create a Wikipedia page for Dr. Lele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bharsoumyajit88/sandbox). We are aware that there is a mild conflict of interest, but we have put together a page based on the materials available on him in various publicly-verifiable sources. Dr. Lele is a globally renowned scholar in the field of environmental studies and he meets the first criterion of notability for academics, because their papers have been cited more than 6000 times and his World Development paper is in the top 10 most cited papers in the journal.
I have the following questions/guidance:
1. Being new to Wikipedia, I have mistakenly created a duplicate page (Draft:Sharachchandra_Lele). I want guidance on how to delete this. I want to keep the sandbox one.
2. Please help me resolve the error in the #26 reference.
3. I have addressed all the comments given after the last submission to the best of my abilities. Please let me know if there is any further scope for me improve it.
4. I want some guidance on where to mention the declaration of this mild conflict of interest while I am submitting an article for review. May I include this at the beginning of the article itself?
Welcome to the Teahouse, Bharsoumyajit88. I have deleted the duplicate draft for you as a 'user request' (see here for further information, should you ever wish to delete another page you created). I will leave others to reply to your other questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bharsoumyajit88: Please don't declare your 'conflict of interest' in the article itself. See WP:COI for the options available to you. I suggest adding a COI template on your userpage in due course. You can do so on the talk page, too, if you wish. But whilst it's in your sandbox, this isn't an urgent issue. Once ready to resubmit for review, then you will need the COI declaration. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Indexing Talk Pages
Hello all.
I was under the impression that only the articles in the mainspace were indexed by search engines. And, that too after the review is completed.
But, then I came across this query (link here) that had the knowledge panel fetching results from a talk page. Does someone know what might be triggering this action?
Hello, Kaisertalk and welcome to the Teahouse. Your impression was incorrect. User and User talk: pages are not indexed by compliant search engines (those which respect the robots.txt protocol, which includes all major search engines at the moment). Neither are draft: and draft talk: pages. But both article and article talk pages may be indexed. I am not sure about all the other namespaces. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs01:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ambrnsg after that it is up to Google, and we have no control over how soon Google will act. But it is usually rather prompt. The same rules apply to other search engines, by the way, not just Google, and we don't control any of them, either. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. I am not even sure how to insert a note of thanks here. How can I draw the attention of a new page patrol person to the page I created? The other day one reviewer (?) said they would keep an eye on the draft page I had created, which I have now moved to main. Ambarnsg
Please understand that AfC reviewers and New page patrollers are separate groups, although some editors do both.
There is no good way to speed up the NPP review. There should normally be no rush to have an article indexed, and an attempt to get one indexed quickly tends to create suspicions of improper promotion, as promotional editors, and particularly paid editors, are often very anxious to have this stage go rapidly. NPP members choose pages to receive in what order they please, some preferring only articles on certain topics. Some concentrate on recent creations, some on the oldest unreviewed within the 90 day window. An article will be indexed when it is, and I would advise just assuming it will be the full 90 days. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually it is not only members of the NPP that may initiate an article deletion, Ambarnsg. Patrol members can and do tag articles for any of a number of problems, including notability, use proposed deletion or nominate for an deletion discussion. They may also do some cleanup. However, any editor may also do any of those at any time, during or after the 90 day window. A major purpose of the NPP is to weed out new articles that are well below standards, and suggest their deletion or cleanup. But I see articles that are years old nominated for deletion every day. That said, I think that Leonard Gross is reasonably safe. It seems well supported by a variety of reliable sources, and to be about a rather clearly notable person. It does not seem promotional. If it were at AfD I would expect to suggest that it be kept.
I did edit the article just now to use the reFill tool to add metadata to many of the references. I would suggest manually adding bibliographic metadata to references that the tool was not able to process. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs03:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Page Isn't Merged/Deleted Yet - Can I "MERGE" It Then??
Hello, while editing a talk page, I viewed the top "header" of the page.
I noticed an announcement that the page was nominated for deletion, and the result was to "redirect" the page to another page. Here's a screen shot: https://i.postimg.cc/jd2Dh8PS/2020-07-21-1452-56-Screenshot.png
Can I "merge" the contents of this page to the other page, or simply delete the page and "redirect" the name of the page to the other page, or do I need to be a more advanced editor to do that? I'm a very inexperienced editor, and I do not use a user account. Thanks in advance, for any feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi GoingBatty!!! So I went to the talk page, I was told that the deletion/redirect tag no longer applied. So I deleted the deletion/redirect tag, and left a message on another editor's talk page (I tried to find the editor that arbitrated the deletion/redirect discussion). I asked what I did that I should have or shouldn't have done, I'm still waiting for feedback. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
reliable sources for my article
Would photos and links Spike the drummer playing with these bands be enough for reliable source for my article? If not what other evidence would you require please Matthewzilch (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Matthewzilch. When it comes to musicians, the best sources are usually newspapers and music magazines. For particularly famous musicians or bands, there might also be book sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
When to request closure of an RfC
About 3 days ago, I opened an RfC (Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#rfc_B9F8F85) to hopefully resolve some disputes we are having at Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks. This is the first RfC I have opened. What I would like to know is: when would be an appropriate point to request an independent editor write a closing summary? Is there a recommended minimum number of responses, or a recommended length of time? I cannot find any definitive guidelines on WP:RFC. The guidance is to "last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be" but I am finding it hard to envisage what this looks like in practice. I want all editors to be able to express their views and concerns; however, I also want a timely resolution to the discussion because it is currently obstructing the development of the article. If I leave it open for another 4 days, is this reasonable? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Once you open an RfC, it's best to let it run. That is, RfC's don't "belong" to the RfC starter and attempts to curate or control or otherwise shape them usually fail and often cause difficulty.
If you open an RfC, you should not be the one to close it. I'm saying this just to remove ambiguity because this is sometimes not realized by editors new to the format.
If you want an unconnected editor to evaluate the discussion for a close, the best place to request one is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Make sure you follow the instructions at that page and put a new close request at the bottom of the relevant section.
Thanks Eggishorn and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. So, to be clear, I should wait for the RfC to expire (30 days after opening), then request an independent editor write a closing summary. However, during this time if nobody posts a new reply for 3-4 days, I should ask that the RfC be evaluated for closure at WP:RFCL. Is this correct? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
FirstPrimeOfApophis, "request an independent editor closing"/"asking for closure at WP:RFCL" is meant to accomplish the same thing, so either is ok. The WP:RFCL method can possibly add a little Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, as in nobody can say you asked someone because you thought they would agree with you. WP can get adverserial, not least in the area of American politics (or religion, popular tv-dramas, Sea of Japan, alt-med... the list goes on). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Userboxes
Hi,
I have been updating my userpage with userboxes, but I think I did something wrong and, since I wanted to have separate userboxes for separate topics, but they are stacking into a ziggurat-like shape. Is anything wrong? Sorry for the poorly-worded post, my computer suddenly decided to choose this moment to make me go through such lag.
--Cartophilic (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Cartophilic. Your problem was that you used multiple 'userboxtop' commands. You only need one userboxtop template, matched with a userboxbottom template at the end. I've inserted {{userboxbreak}} templates to split them up for you. Is that what you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This is presumably about Draft:Klala, which has been declined, and appears to be an autobiography. Please don't try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself, Danielokang5050. --ColinFine (talk)
Hi all - I'm working on trying to improve a school page that is currently a "stub-class" on the WikiProject Schools quality scale. I have found about 25 source documents that are reliable, independent, and published (mostly newspaper articles.) The school itself has 2 self published books that detail 40 years of the history. While I know these are not independent, and can not be used for anything controversial or promotional, my question is - can I cite these publications (on a limited basis) when just referring to facts (years buildings were built, fundraising, etc.)? I know that "just because it's been done elsewhere" doesn't mean it is correct, but I note for example that the entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Coonley_School, which is a featured article, makes use of just such a publication for 10 citations (out of a total of 123), so there does seem to be a precedent amongst well edited and reviewed entries.
Hello, Jiffy.morton and welcome to the Teahosue. As per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB, such self-published sources can be cited for non-controversial facts, such as dates, provided that the article is not primarily based on such sources. 25 sources is quite a few, and there can be a problem with over-sourcing, depending on the amount of info you can appropriately put in the draft. Start with the best or most useful sources, i would advise. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
A bit of perspective for you, Jiffy.morton. A 40 year old school, especially in an Atlantic coast state, is not old at all. There are schools in Britain that date to the time of the Magna Carta, and on the eastern seaboard of the US, there are numerous schools that predate the beginning of public education with the Northwest Ordinance. Those self published books you mention may be usable for totally non controversial and non promotional facts. However, all achievements and statistics must have reliable secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it’s a fairly young school in the grand scheme. Wasn’t suggesting otherwise. My reference to “40 years” is to say the last book was published in 2010, so only 40 of the 50 year history are covered! Great to know I can use these books for facts/dates (i.e. dates building were built). Certainly I understand they difference between a fact (the middle school building was erected in 1978) and a promotional sentence.Thanks for your help and clarification. Jiffy.morton (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Adding picture to wikipedia ?
Hello everyone!
my name is koupip and I have been using Wikipedia since I learned how to read as a kid. it has been the one place I always went too to learn new interesting stuff about life even when all the teachers I knew told me it was a bad source of information. so I have finally decided to start helping out around and edit a few articles mainly doing some cleanup work fixing typos expending articles and making wikilinks so they are easier to read. I have started to look into expending articles more and decided to use my photographer skills and add images that I personally owned to the website wherever they fitted but I have a hard time finding articles that need an image added to them. is there a list of articles that might need images or should I just keep going from article to article and add an image whenever I can?
note I did find a list in the community portal but it only linked me to the TALK page of the articles and it confused me a little.
Revision of the translation of the Piero Formica page from it.Wikipedia to en.Wikipedia
Help
Hi everyone! I need your help in order to publish on en.Wiki this page about Prof. Piero Formica. The page is a translation from it.Wiki and here you can find the draft of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Piero_Formica
Is it correct? Do I have to modify anything?
Moreover, what about the standards in order to be published?
Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you very much Sandro La Gaccia (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Done Ed6767 talk! 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
User blocked - by Widr for Vandalism Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
A caption for the example image
,_Jacobite,_of_Kenmure_Castle.jpg)
Fixed @Deisenbe: Thanks for informing Bingobro (Chat) 13:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
,_Jacobite,_of_Kenmure_Castle.jpg#/media/File:WILLIAM_GORDON,_6th_Viscount_Kenmure_(d._1716),_Jacobite,_of_Kenmure_Castle.jpg){kind=link}
,_Jacobite,_of_Kenmure_Castle.jpg){kind=link}
