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.
I have created a new Wikipedia page on Connectionist Databases in my sandbox. As this is my first Wikipedia page, I have to wait for four days before it will be published. I have already done rather more than the required ten edits of existing pages.
My concern is that as this has not been published before and there is no existing Wikipedia page on the subject. There are plenty of Google pages about connectionist models and connectionism. There is a published article which mentions it at https://www.itjungle.com/2017/08/14/ibm-need-databases/ and it eventually finds an article on my ERROS website at http://www.erros.co.uk/ERROS_Connectionist_Database.pdf. ERROS allows developers to create complex applications, mostly without any new programming
This article, with little change, is the basis of my proposed Wikipedia page. I used ERROS to create STIPPLE, a major collaborative fine art system, unlike any other in the world. STIPPLE is the working proof of my ERROS concept.
Can anyone see any reasons why my page might be rejected? This is fairly technical stuff, yet perhaps more easily understood by non-technical people than computer experts for whom ERROS may be too large a paradigm shift.
In my opinion your draft, which has not been submitted to Articles for Creation for review, will be Rejected, and likely to be quickly deleted as wholely promotional. Minimally, it has no references to confirm its notability. Much of what you wrote has nothing to do with the concept of 'Connectionist Database.' Of much greater importance, you are writing about your own creation of a database system = original research = not allowed. From what you wrote "ERROS was conceived and created by Rob Dixon [you] who patented its concepts." Only if other people are publishing stuff about connectionist databases could it possibly be a subject of a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
David,
Many thanks. But surely no one else will publish pages about connectionist databases if they don't know of the concept? Why is orignal reseaarch not allowed? How can any new concept get a Wikipedia page?
All of what I wrote is about the concept of a Connectionist Database as all the features are features of the database - it is defined by itself in itself.
Hello, RobertSpencerDixon. Wikipedia does not accept original research, period. Only when several people, wholly unconnected with you, have published material about your ideas could an article be written, and it should be based almost exclusively on what those independent sources say, not on what you say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Best recommendation at this point in time is that you delete all content in your Sandbox, turn off your computer, and make a cup of tea. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum, not a webhost, not a blog, not social media, not. David notMD (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Well David, according to Wikipedia, "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge" Knowledge progresses, at an ever fater rate. How does Wikipedia ensure that it doesn't get left behind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertSpencerDixon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I will add that I am not a Reviewer for Articles for Creation. If you wish, submit your Sandbox as a Draft and get a second (formal) opinion. David notMD (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
David - I accept your view and there is no point in wasting my or anyone else's time. Do you have any ideas about where else I might try to spread the word? I have tried Acaademia but without response RobertSpencerDixon (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
How to hide infobox in an article?
Hi there, I have a question to ask about hiding an infobox in an article. I created the infobox but feel that it doesn't contain enough useful information so perhaps it's best to keep it hidden for the time being. However, when I use the standard template, it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes. Do you know how I can get around that (short of not including the infobox at all)? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Revirvlkodlaku: I don't know what you mean by "the standard template" or which type of hide you want, for example collapsing it with a "show" link (should probably never happen for an infobox), or commenting it out so it's not rendered at all but is still in the source text. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Marchjuly, thanks for the input. WP:HIDDEN is precisely what I tried using (I mentioned this in my initial comment), but it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes. The reason that the infobox for the page I'm referring to is currently a disinfobox is why I'm trying to hide it, but rather than removing it entirely, to keep it available in the source text for future use, once it becomes a better resource in the article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Revirvlkodlaku:MOS:COMMENT doesn't care about what's in the comment, except if it already contains an ending --> from another comment. Then it fails and you have to change the existing -->, or start a new comment after it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Revirvlkodlaku: If you can provide a link to the article where this infobox can be found, perhaps someone can help sort things out. However, as PrimeHunter pointed out above, if multiple hidden comments are being used within the infobox, the sofware will be looking for a beginning tag (i.e.<!--) and ending tag(i.e. -->) for each comment and incompletely formatted comments will not work as intended. If you remove the infobox, you'll always be able to find a record of it in the page history for reference; you can also post the infobox to the article's talk page if you want to discuss it. If you add the tags <pre> and </pre> before and after the infobox syntax, you can look at it in a discussion thread without it being enabled as explained in H:WT#Limiting formatting / escaping wiki markup. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Brandon Lapin. Does this relate to Draft:Wendy Sachs? First off, neither an Infobox nor a photo will achieve acceptance of an article - it's having references that support WP:NBIO that matter. But both are welcome, of course. Please see WP:Infobox for guidance on adding these (but come back if you're still stuck). For photos, do you have a photo that you have taken yourself, or can you link to non-copyright image that we can look at for you, and offer advice? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Brandon Lapin, welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information about creating infoboxes and adding photos at WP:INFOBOX and WP:UPI respectively. In regards to the infobox, you may want to peruse the list of infoboxes, as they can get very specific in use. Before adding an image, please read Wikipedia's image use policy; if you hold the copyright and are willing to let the photo be used by anyone for whatever reason, you should not have any problems uploading it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
TheMadDesperado, worth the shot. Not the "I used to go to school waking up at 2am, passing 2 forests, jumping off of one cliff, passing a thunderstorm, facing Nazi soldiers, hiking a mountain, crossing no-man's land, for 5 hours" BS. GeraldWL18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Kathy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid we can't use Google maps or Google Streetview anywhere in Wikipedia, because their terms of use are incompatible with Wikipedia's needs. Most images you find on the internet are not suitable for similar reasons. If you were to take a picture of the house yourself, you would be able to upload it to use it in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! A deeply researched article I wrote about the founder of modern Cuban librarianship, who created the current national public library system in Cuba, was recently taken down by Nathan2055 for not having reliable sources.
This is absolutely racist and utterly inappropriate. The sources are from several different Latin American academic publications, Latin American encyclopedias, and a recent article written by a PhD student in information science.
The subject of my article has an Italian Wikipedia page. Is she notable enough for Italy but not for English?
I'd love some help fighting this one. I think that Nathan is not familiar with academic librarianship in Latin America and I don't want English Wikipedia to suffer as a result of his ignorance.
Wikipedia (English, at least) suggests disputing actions, but not attacking other editors. Your draft Declined, reason given is need for better references. You asked Nathan directly, and received confirming answer on the Talk page of the draft. Lastly, English Wikipedia has different standards from other languages as to what are considered reliable source references, so the existence of an article in a different language counts for naught. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mewestin:. The fact you have descended to the level of assuming and accusing the reviewing editor of racism with no evidence whatsoever of anything but following our core inclusion policies (and with an explanation of the reason for the rejection in the talk page), miserably taints your post, and is very de-motiviating for offering you assistance. I agree with moving this to a draft. It is not ready for the article mainspace.
The draft article subject is certainly notable. As the proponent, it is your burden to demonstrate that by citing proper sources, in a proper manner. That would be done through well-attributed citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail and directly verify the information. To get you on the right foot, I have removed the inappropriate and unreliable user-generated wiki source you used for citing a good portion of the content, as well as the embedded raw link in the body and combined the duplicative references (see WP:NAMEDREFS). Now, go use some of the many better sources you can find through a search like this one.
Ever consider, as a brand new user with 82 edits, that there might actually be standards for writing, and that it just might be that you haven't met them yet, when told nearly exactly that by a user with 34,000 edits, who both declines and accepts draft articles on all manner of different subjects, based on their type, manner and depth of sourcing, instead of jumping to the conclusion that it's all some racist conspiracy?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mewestin: Agreed. This draft simply fails in its current state on Notability because of poor sources. You, on the other hand, rather fail on a poor and wholly unacceptable attitude to other experienced editors here. Wikipedia is built by editors from all round the world and from all walks of life. Trying to play the race card is a bit of a non-starter here! Just fix the sources, please, and don't attack other people. If you can't find the sources, then this wonderful librarian simply isn't going to have an article about her here - just as I haven't got one about me, either. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, all! This feedback is very fair-- I got way too heated up over this one and responded inappropriately. I'll apologize to Nathan and also apologize to all of you now.
Meanwhile I've added a lot more citations and am hoping this article meets the guidelines now. Mewestin (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mewestin: In my view, this was a very unfair draftication/decline. People at Wikipedia hate being accused of racism/sexism even though it's silly to think that Wikipedia is a racism/sexism-free zone. For practical reasons only, I'd recommend against making comments like this again. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you stick around despite the horrible welcome you received. @Nathan2055: I think the draftification you did here was in shockingly poor judgment. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Format for listing a book with revised editions
I cannot locate the formatting recommendations for how to list a book in a person page's bibliography under various circumstances. For example, a revised edition/anniversary addition/new or revised preface or foreword: do I list publication information for the original and the anniversary/new edition?
If there have been several editions with the last not being as significant in content as, say, a 30th anniversary edition, do I only list the original and the anniversary edition? What should I do when there's a later edition with the original no longer in print: do I list both ISBNs; do I list publishing information for each edition?
And so on. ;)
Bottom line: If this is standard, I'm wanting to keep the list in chronological order by original release so people can easily see which works came first. --PaulThePony (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
My article has been rejected and I understand why. I don't want to edit it, I want to start again but can't see how to delete my article from my sandbox. Can you help? Brenda P. Hall (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Teahouse, Brenda P. Hall. There is no need for anyone to delete an old draft from your sandbox (although admins can do so in some circumstances). Basically, all you need to do is to re-edit the page and save (i.e. "publish") the new version you want to move on to: this could even be a totally empty page. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that nothing is ever deleted, just placed into the history of a page. It can be returned to later if you realise a portion is re-usable. Note that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, so occasionally some user pages do get completely deleted if someone tries to use them like that. However, that does not apply to you if you now just want to move on and re-create the article. If that's what you wish to do, I recommend the WP:AfC process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Brenda P. Hall. Your sandbox has been blanked by another editor (see here) based upon what you posted above and replaced with the template {{User sandbox}}. Bascially, Wikipedia:Page blanking is when you open the edit window of a particular page and remove all of the content the page contains. This is something you typically shouldn't do with respect to articles (except in some very limited cases), but it's perfectly OK and quite a common thing to do with respect to a user sandbox. If you want to see what was removed, check the page history and click on the previous version you want to view to see what was there before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting case of socks gaming user page to get autoconfirmed?
See User:Pahunkat/Usernames to watch, the 'possible spambot' section (mainly the usernames with actual names - most of the 'user-' prefixed accounts have been blocked). Anyone have any idea if it's worth filing a SPI, or reporting to AIV, or do something else? I think they're just waiting to get autoconfirmed. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no reason to report anything to WP:AIV simply because it doesn't appear to be vandalism. Are the accounts connected? Perhaps, but the only way to know for sure would be to ask for a WP:CheckUser to look at them and the most common way of making such a request is via WP:SPI. I'm not an administrator, but WP:SOCK only happens when WP:MULTIPLE accounts are created and then used in inappropriate ways; simply having more than one account doesn't not automatically make someone a sockpuppeteer. If all these accounts are being used for is to create a bunch of user sandboxes, then the disruption level seems pretty low in my opinion. Perhaps try asking the admin who blocked the other accounts you've marked as "done" in that section. There might be more to those blocks (e.g. WP:LTA, WP:EVADE or WP:BANEVASION) than the actual edits themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was on the Trump Derangement Syndrome wiki page. The definition and facts cited there uses an article by CNN to distort and manipulate readers. This is an inaccurate article cited. The person who edited the page is not sound of mind. I am trying to get the portion: “The term has also been used to describe Trump supporters who are unable to accept reality, such as Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.[8]” removed as Trump has not lost the election due to ongoing litigation over allegations of voter fraud. It appears that this portion of the article is weaponizing the Wikipedia platform for politics. It seems very inappropriate and a political attack on those who want fair and accurate elections. Is Wikipedia an anti Trump platform or will an administrator correct this? CThomasFox (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
CThomasFox Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are being summarized incorrectly, please discuss it on the article talk page. Note that almost all sources state that Biden won, William Barr said there was no widespread fraud, and judges of all ideological stripes(some appointed by Trump) have tossed all litigation. "Voted for Biden" is not fraud. This is not an anti-Trump platform or a pro-Trump platform, but it is not a platform for fringe theories with no evidence. If you just want to be told what you want to hear in order to satisfy your worldview and support for Trump, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Additionally: Don't speculate about the soundness of mind of other editors, and don't speculate about their motives. Limit yourself to comments on the reliability of the sources that are cited, the accuracy of their citation, the balance among the reliable sources that are cited, and similar matters. Incidentally, none of this needs an administrator (yet). -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, CThomasFox, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm an administrator (based in the UK), and I won't have you or anyone suggesting that any editor here is "not sound of mind" for making a fair edit (nor indeed for most other types of edit). I'd not heard of that term, but thank you very much for exemplifying it for me. My initial view is that the edit you quoted seems a quite fair one to have been added. Maybe 'Trump's defeat" would have been better phraseology than "Trump's loss". Even over here in the UK we know that all of Trump's efforts in litigation have been thrown out of every court thus far, and that Joe Biden is president-elect, having defeated Trump in your election, so no amount of future litigation is going to make anyone in the mainstream media (which is then reflected here on Wikipedia) change that position right now unless and until such time as any court action were to be put forward, not thrown out as all have thus far, and then successfully overturn the election result. Thus far, that seems unbelievably unlikely to happen, though I'm currently listening to the release recording or Trump's phone conversation right now on CNN trying to influence an election official into finding him some votes, so it does seem he will stoop to any depths to get his 'win'. Please don't bring examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome into this forum, or attempt to undermine content based upon your own wishes for the election's outcome. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@CThomasFox: – Sidestepping whatever deep state windmills this grievance letter is tilting at in favor of redressing an actual issue with the article, I've added a qualifier to the sentence; as we have a citation for only one prominent instance of this usage, it only seems appropriate to qualify its usage as such. The excerpt now reads: "The term has also been used by political commentator John Avlon to describe [...]" TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Ponzammo.
Who is Ponzammo and why does he/she think that they have the right to automatically undo your edits to an article without giving any proper explanation? 79.147.232.241 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, anonymous editor. This appears to have happened only once, and Ponzammo was using a tool called Wikipedia:RedWarn. Your edit was undone because, in order to "correct bias", you changed the description of James Shelby Downard – a man who believes the Freemasons were responsible for JFK's assassination – from "conspiracy theorist" to "truth researcher" in the prose. Whereas "conspiracy theorist" has a well-known meaning of one who engagies in conspiracy theories, "truth researcher" is ostensibly a made-up term meant to confer validity to Downard's beliefs. TheTechnician27(Talk page)07:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Notification bell icon shows badge with number 1 despite no unread notifications
For some reason the notification bell icon in the toolbar shows a gray badge with the number 1, even though I don't think I have any unread notifications. Is there a way to refresh this to make the number go away? I find it a little distracting.
AnonQuixote, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's gray, that almost certainly means that you opened your alerts interface, but didn't actually click on the unread item. Does clicking "Mark all as read" in the top-right corner of the interface not do anything? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, I am not sure how you managed to get to that page. Does a small interface appear when you click on the alerts? This is what I see when I click the icon on my end (I marked your notification as unread). Do you have Javascript enabled for Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenryu Initially I got there from Special:Notifications when I got notified about your previous comment. I did have JS disabled at the time. I enabled scripts for wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org, then logged out, cleared my browser's session data, and logged in again. This time there was a new alert from Wikimedia Commons (regarding an automated welcome message on my Commons talk page). Once I marked that one as read, the notification badge went away on Wikipedia. So my issue is now resolved. I'm guessing it was some kind of bug/caching issue regarding notifications across different Wikimedia projects, possibly complicated by my browser script blocking settings. Anyway, thanks for the assistance! AnonQuixote (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear. Definitely have your browser accept scripts from the Wikimedia domains, because quite a bit of functionality runs on them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
CSP Solar Companies
Hello,
I recently noticed that not all of the Companies that are dealing with CSP solar energy are listed.
Belove are three links from all the Companies that are dealing with this kind of energy.
Hi, A. Alexandrou. From what I can gather from the question and the article you're creating on your user page, you're asking if these articles establish notability for the company in question, namely Parvolen CSP Technologies. The unfortunate answer is to my knowledge 'No', as the general notability criteria critically requires that the reliable, independent sources have "significant coverage" of the subject. They do show potential promise for finding other sources that do cover the subject in more depth, however.
Based on the Greek subject matter and on what I believe is a Greek last name, I'll ask if Greek is your first language. If so, two things you could do are check the Greek Wikipedia for a corresponding article at el.wikipedia.org and attempt to port that material to the English Wikipedia (while giving proper credit to its creators). If not, it should be noted that, while the English Wikipedia prefers English sources where available for obvious reasons (easier for readers and editors), references to reliable Greek citations would be perfectly acceptable if they're more plentiful than English ones. TheTechnician27(Talk page)06:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I was curious about the Banner Shell usage (Template:WikiProject banner shell). Specifically whether it's standard convention to include banners that are not wikiprojects in the shell. For instance, editing history banners like whether the article had been listed or delisted as good article, merge history, and Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments. If these aren't supposed to be included then is there an alternative shell for these types of banners. Also, in general, what is the organizing priority of all these banners? Like what should be at the top and how should things be ordered below. Is it just oldest to newest? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A very very experienced wikipedia editor reverted it back to the original redirect state though and said “This exact draft just failed at draft, and would fail GNG. Draftspace exists for a reason, and this article was already a redirect for a reason.” And i made a reply to that on the Gawr Gura talk page titled: Appeal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gawr_Gura). I tried pinging the experienced wikipedia editor, but i don’t know if the format is right, or if it even works on talk pages.
@Too Much Distractions: Yust a note, you cannot generate Notifications by simply adding your signature in a later edit. Notifications are only generated for added sections, while replacing the four tildes with the signature code, not for modifications of any edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, André the Android. I'm afraid not. The only circumstances in which a user-generated source like Twitter can be used are 1) when the subject of an article tweets from their verified Twitter account, in which case information can be used in the limited ways allowed for Self-published sources; or 2) in theory, if the tweet is from the verified account of a recognised expert in the field (this exception is occasionally used for blogs; I've never heard of it being used for Tweets). A tweet by a random person on the internet is never acceptable as a source. (See WP:TWITTER and WP:TWITTERREF.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me about the tweets' reliability, it is clear that unverified accounts make more mistakes (and even misspellings) than verified ones. According to this wiki's rules, I would add one of them (about André's first and only cameo) to the draft I created before and the list of Pixar film references if Pixar's official Twitter account was more aware of earlier short films Pixar has produced like The Adventures of André & Wally B. However, all Pixar films (including Luca, which it is my least favourite Pixar film to date) are overhyped so it is impossible to find reliable sources to help verify it.
I have another question related to books as sources: a few days ago I received a copy of The Art of Pixar Short Films (an art book from The Art of... series which was written by Amid Amidi and was published by Chronicle Books) as a Christmas present and I think this book is not only useful, but it can also be reliable. For example, I discovered that the fictional character is not only named after one of the protagonists of My Dinner with André, but also his name has the same prefix as the "android" term. That is why I think this book may help to verify information.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)14:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
And one more thing: I tried searching in Wikipedia if there is an article in mainspace with any book from The Art of... series which were published by Chronicle Books (but not including any mentioned) and I find nothing more than unrelated articles (including political ones and San Francisco Chronicle). Then I tried again using the name of an art book about a feature film as an example and it only appeared in the feature film's article's "Further reading" section instead of the "References" one. It is clear that an art book like The Art of Pixar Short Films can be included in the "Further reading" section of any article, but what I still don't know is if these can be used as references, so I need to know if it is reliable enough to be included in the "References" section.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@André the Android: We have an article for Chronicle Books that briefly mentions the series. Does the book have endnotes with sources? That can be an indicator that a book has been well researched (though conversely its absence doesn’t mean the book is unreliable). Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:21 Thu 31, AEDT) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
With what you had answered, it sounds like you had answered differently although I asked a different question. But I have reread the two last sentences of your answer a few times and it seems that any installment of this series of art books is reliable according to what you have said.
Besides, I'm doubting if entries published on Animation World Network's blog section like this one counts as a reliable source. I have tried searching in Wikipedia any article that contains a blog post (from Animation World Network) for reference, but I can't find it anywhere.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)17:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear about the book, André, I meant that reliability is something that you might judge from the book itself, rather than our coverage of it. But the fact we have an article about the series (which you uncovered) could help convince people that it's a serious work and not some vanity publication.
For the AWN review: Even though they call it a "blog" on the site, it's not that different from a recurring column in a magazine. Given Rick DeMott's credentials as a former content director there, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it. Personally, I feel that it depends on what kind of assertion you are trying to support. BLPs and controversial topics need impeccable sources; non-controversial statements not so much. Others may disagree with me, of course. If you can source the same fact from both AWN and the book, even better. But sources supporting facts is different from sources establishing notability. The AWN piece only describes André within the context of the short film's plot.
@Pelagic: As this book's name suggests, the book I mentioned is notable in itself and forms part of The Art of... series. I was very surprised that this book was not mentioned anywhere in the article about this series of art books, so I will add it later.
And about the two sources, I have planned to add The Art of Pixar Short Films and the blog post from Animation World Network to the draft as references. The art book will be added as a reference in the draft's "Concept and creation" section, whereas the blog post may be included as a reference in its "Physical appearance" subsection. For the latter case, the reason is because the "Description" section is mostly unreferenced.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)16:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I have also planned to add L'histoire de Rayman (one of the books I own currently) as a source someday in Rayman-related articles (including a "recreation" of Rayman (character), which it is currently a redirect) so I wonder if the template of book references has a language parameter. Also, I don't know if L'histoire de Rayman is as reliable as The Art of Pixar Short Films, but I know L'histoire de Rayman was published by Pix'n Love.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thanks for solving my doubt in using French books as reliable sources, but I have two questions pending to be answered: What is your opinion on including the blog post from Animation World Network as a reference on the draft about the very first Pixar character (specifically the part of his facial features in the "Physical appearance" subsection) according to Wikipedia's rules? Can references with the same book used (but each one with different selected pages) be put in a draft? In the latter case, I had planned to use The Art of Pixar Short Films as a reference, and as before yesterday I discovered that the "irises" of André as a noseless android were actually his eyes according to a concept art showing the anatomy of the character's primitive design.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
How to place wikipedia category articles on a map
Hi, Is there a simple automatic way to generate a map (can be with an external tool, the intent is not to include it in an article) containing marks with all the articles of a category (and its subcategories) ?
Thanks,
Ogoletti (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Ogoletti (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Dispute of content in another language
How does one contact a person who has put content on a page that is disputable? I have tried to change the information but the page continues to be reverted. Africanwomenincinema (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Africanwomenincinema, looking at your contribution history, the only edit I see that's been reverted is your first one, here, where you tried to change an image but did not do so successfully, because you used a URL rather than a filename of an image that has been properly licensed and uploaded. See Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor.
More generally, when an edit of yours is reverted that you do not think should have been, go to the article's talk page, start a discussion there, and ping the editor who reverted you (use the code {{re|USERNAME}}) asking them for more explanation. See WP:BRD and Help:Introduction to talk pages. {{u|Sdkb}}talk12:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
My problem is that I am not able to communicate because of the language barrier. I have tried to make suggested edits and would like to refer the user to a more representative photo. I have provided content to a few thousands of pages across the Internet and am familiar with the information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Africanwomenincinema (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If the page in question is not at English Wikipedia, you need to be at that language's Wikipedia. The history of your contributions at En Wikipedia show no content dispute. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Separate from that, your English Wikipedia account is blocked until you change your User name. I see that you have already asked for a name change and unblock.David notMD (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
And, separate from THAT, I am guessing that you recently discovered that an article about you existed in English Wikipedia (Beti Ellerson), which you decided to significantly change, including removing referenced content and references. That is considered a conflict of interest. People do not 'own' articles about themselves. See WP:COI. As such, you are restricted from making direct edits, and instead are instructed to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
User Page
Hi there!!!
I am a newcomer in here and need to know some details. I have completed the Wikipedia Adventure and have earned the badges. The thing is, What should be mentioned in my user page? Please do suggest me other things that I can do to get myself in Wikipedia. Desmond Maverick (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Desmond Maverick (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Desmond Maverick Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The guidelines for user page content can be found at WP:USERPAGE, but in short, you may use your user page to tell the Wikipedia community a little bit about yourself as a Wikipedia user. You can discuss other things about yourself if you desire, though you should consider any information about yourself carefully before doing so. There is no requirement to have anything on your user page; many users never create one, and others simply redirect it to their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Some users, as they become more experienced, remove the tutorial badges from their User page. Most add Userboxes (see Wikipedia:Userboxes) to indicate Wikipedia interests. Wikipedia is not a place for profiles of users, or for attempts to create autobiographical articles. David notMD (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.
The Baháʼí Faith is a small-to-medium-sized religion and there are some academic works on it, but a far greater number of articles written by Baháʼís in Baháʼí journals that aren't peer-reviewed by non-Baháʼí academics. For example, at Baháʼí Faith and science#Existence of ether, there is a quote from the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal about how the Baháʼí scriptures are compatible with modern physics. Would mainstream physicists agree? We don't know because they haven't written about it. Based on the above quote from WP:RS, I would think the material should be removed. On the other hand based on the note from WP:RSE, I would think it is okay to include. What should I do?
By the way, I've been on Wikipedia for a few years now so I'm not sure if I'm still supposed to post at the Teahouse... let me know if there's somewhere more experienced editors should seek advice instead. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Gazelle55 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Gazelle55, welcome to the Teahouse; we don't actually care about how long the asker has been here on Wikipedia, though the help desk is a possible secondary venue (I don't really see too much of a difference between the two).
My personal take on it is that if the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is indeed considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, I think it can be included into the article, so long as it's made clear that the thought is attributed to the Journal (most preferably in the text), and not espoused by Wikipedia's voice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tenryuu, thanks for the quick reply. I didn't explain very clearly but my concern is that I don't think the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is reliable according to WP:RS. It is run by the Association for Baháʼí Studies (specifically the Australian branch), which is works closely with the Baháʼí religious leadership of Australia, and everything submitted to it is reviewed and approved by the Baháʼí religious leadership. There are no non-Baháʼís on the editorial board, nor are they welcome to join the board. So I would normally think it shouldn't be cited, except perhaps to say "Baháʼí author XYZ has argued..." However, after an editor mentioned WP:RSE I am now uncertain. Is it okay to use a journal outside the scholarly mainstream because it shows opinion within a religion? That's what the excerpt from WP:RSE I shared above seems to say, but I'm concerned this would introduce a lot of pro-Baháʼí POV. (WP:RSE is an essay not a guideline – I'm not sure how that affects its importance.) Gazelle55 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Gazelle55, I suggest that you ask about the reliability of the journal over at the reliable sources noticeboard, where editors who are more in the know could possibly help you with this problem. I don't see any prior cases in the archives where it's been mentioned, but you're more likely to find your answer there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gazelle55: I think the fine point here is that the Baháʼí are saying that their doctrine is compatible with modern physics, for which their journal seems like a reasonable primary source. We are not (in Wikipedia's voice) claiming that this is true, just saying that the Baháʼí say that it is. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—02:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Gazelle55, you are always welcome to ask a question here at the Teahouse. Do not hesitate. In my opinion, this is a case where a clear distinction should be made between stating something as factual in Wikipedia's voice, and stating that certain people believe something, attributing that assertion inline with a reference to a non-independent but otherwise reliable source. The second is permitted in a case like this. It is a challenge to keep articles that describe religious doctrines neutral, but that is among the many tasks that generalist Wikipedia editors must take on. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way to tag a talk page to ask for expert support?
I am copy editing European Monetary System and I found some information that doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the article. It may be that the info is correct and should be incorporated, or it may not be accurate and need to be removed. Is there a proper way to move this information to the talk page and ask for expert support from some economics SMEs? Is there a way to tag Wikipedian economics SMEs or economists? I am pasting the passage below. I have not copy edited this yet since I don't know if it will end up in the article, so excuse the syntax and grammar errors. The statement that #3 and #4 on this list are part of the EMS is not supported anywhere else in the article. If they are, then I need help verifying and citing.
The EMS has four basic functional arrangements are:
1.The ECU: With this arrangement, member currencies agreed to keep their foreign exchange rates within agreed bands with a narrow band of +/− 2.25% and a wide band of +/− 6%.
2. An Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) : The main aim was to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability.
3. An extension of European credit facilities : The aim was to provide enough credit facilities for a country that is ready to proceed to its convertibility in order to get loan easily.[1]
4. The issue of a new reserve asset, to create European Monetary Cooperation Fund: created in October 1972 and allocated ECU to members' central banks in exchange for gold and US dollar deposits.
I m newbie here and in writing world my vocabulary is not that good. I need guidance to write good article with good vocabulary Kindly help. Rathoredeepa (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rathoredeepa: Editing Wikipedia isn't really the place to learn good vocabulary so much as to apply it. I'd suggest reading a bunch of articles first. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know why the page I’ve created is possibly going to be deleted. It’s a page for an artist. He’s been a singer for almost 7 years and he had many projects, is part of a big group and all of the other members have pages for themselves too. I’m genuinely curious as to why his page is going to be deleted. Thank you. SAMI REAL GYEOM MANAGER (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy: article is Yugyeom and has been nominated for deletion. The place to contest the proposed deletion is there. Among other things, no references. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to The Teahouse SAMI REAL GYEOM MANAGER Your article has zero sources, and your user name gives the impression you might have a conflict of interest? Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them in reliable places. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
There are references at Jus2 which may be useful to support Yugyeom. If you copy content from that article, then in your Edit summary, attribute where the content and refs came from. But you should address the COI issue (WP:COI) first. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@SAMI REAL GYEOM MANAGER: Hi greetings, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Feel free to continue that. It seems that one of your article is nominated for deletion. First of all, Wikipedia have several policies and guidelines on how it's articles should be. It is an encyclopedia which contains articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. And since you are a new user, it is normal that you don't know these policies. But don't worry. When we write an article we have to consider...
Then, for showing notability, you have to cite different sources (and it must be reliable) (references) on this topic. It is essential in a Wikipedia article. You can use reliable website, news, etc as a source.
These are some things that can't see in your new article. But don't worry, we can do that. You can cite different sources about the topic in your article. Feel free to ask, if you have any doubt. Thank you.--PATHSLOPU16:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
references
Hi,
How can I include a different quote each time I cite the same source? I am using
Welcome to the Teahouse, CartleR255. Yes, that's an easy thing to fix for you. To reuse a reference you first need to give the reference a name (called a 'refname'), then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to re-enter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation. You can then use the {{rp}} template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this: First fact found on page 29 of a book.[1]: 29 Second fact found on page 114 from the same book.[1]: 114 And so on...
You'll find it easier to allocate a 'refname' if you use our WP:Source Editor for that task as the Cite template has a very visible refname field for you to pop in a memorable name. You might also wish to read our simple tutorial on adding references via the 'Cite' button. See this official guidance page or this one that I also produced. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
References
^ abWillmot, A.; Moyes, N. (2015). The Flora of Derbyshire. Pisces Publications. ISBN978-1-874357-65-0.
Hey CartleR255. I don't know what specifically was the reason for the problem when you attempted use of {{sfn}} for shortened footnotes, but given what I've seen in the past as a common source of the failure, let me just offer one possibility: the base citation that sfn works off of must be cited using a citation template (e.g., {{Cite Book}}), which must have the parameter, |ref=harv, added to it. Does that help at all?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: That's a really good improvement! (especially given that the very reason I mentioned it was because I'd seen it as the problem so often). Thanks for letting me know. And of course, to the OP[in the voice of Emily Litella]: 'Never mind'.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there - I'm hoping for some clarification as to what the norm is for publishing new articles as an autoconfirmed user. It seems to be that the available options are (1) go through AfC, which is quite slow and (in my experience) frustrating, or (2) just put the thing into mainspace.
I ask because I've just written a new article (would be my third). I've spent a lot of time editing articles recently, and I feel like it's good to go - meets notability requirements IMO, many refs, careful tone, etc. But I was burned before: after publishing a previous draft that I moved to mainspace a couple months ago, it was flagged for speedy deletion, and I was told "you can move [an article] to article space without review - you have the ability to do so - but that doesn't make it a sensible thing for an inexperienced user to do."
Basically - at what point is it acceptable for users to publish directly to article space, versus going through AfC? Will the admins smite me down?
Lamacha9617, if you can create an article that is acceptable by Wikipedia standards from the get-go, you shouldn't encounter any problems from other editors. It can be a little aggravating to wait for a reviewer to review your draft, but there are other things to work on while waiting for a review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Lamacha9617, let me put it this way; an article going through the AfC process (and draftspace) is going to be reviewed with constructive observations that will help it match article standards. An article going directly into the main articlespace does not have this support, and are usually either moved to draftspace or nominated for deletion. As Cullen328 pointed out below, it is possible to start an article in mainspace and keep it there if you know most (if not all) of the policies and guidelines before starting your article. I would also suggest that if you're embarking on such an endeavour, that you do it in one edit, as passing editors will consider it to be "not ready" and are most likely to move it to draftspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Lamacha9617. I have written about 100 new articles, and have never once gone through the AfC process, and have never once had an article I wrote get deleted. That's because I studied the policies and guidelines for months before beginning to edit. In fairness, AfC came along later, but it is optional for all but the newest editors. AfC is much slower, but it gives less experienced editors reasonable chances to correct obvious errors. The alternative is placing your new article before the tender mercies of the New pages patrol, who can be abrupt in their response to articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines. So the question is how thoroughly you understand the policies and guidelines, and how scrupulous you are in following them. Only you can decide, and I would never tell anyone but a paid editor that they must use AfC. Good luck. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu and Cullen328 Thanks to you both for this helpful advice and further clarification. My own experience with AfC was that it's less a system for constructive feedback on an article, and more a place where you're either outright rejected or accepted, with little detail either way as to exactly which nuances of policy lead to why. Is there a place on Wikipedia where new editors can ask for clarification on policies? The teahouse, other forums? Lamacha9617 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, didn't realize I was asked for more comment.
Lamacha9617, from what I've seen by editors who've had their drafts declined (not rejected), the decline templates provide general reasons that make the drafts' deficiencies apparent. Some reviewers go an extra step and add additional comments to clarify their concerns, at which point they go to venues like the Teahouse or the help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if it could be possible for me to know if my page is marked as nonindex and will not be shown on the search engines or if it is still under review. MoustafaNassar (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how to combine the same reference links, where it appears as "[1]" throughout the whole page, and not as different numbers.
The same link currently made multiple tags and appeared as "[1]", "[2]", "[3]". It basically spammed the reference part a bit with the same link over and over again. Ranksquid (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ranksquid. The first time you cite a reference, give it a name like this:
The next time you want to use that same reference, use just the front end of the name markup, but place a forward slash, before the ending ">", like this:
Hi, I have been editing the page on Tax residence as the info is out of date and sets out inaccurate information about the tests as per the OECD Model Convention and the tests in the UK. But the edits keep getting taken down. How do I fix this? Taxchambers15 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Taxchambers15. I can see that your edits were twice removed - some of which included content supported by citations, so another editor might simply have concluded that you were wrong to remove good content. So, whenever this happens, the best way forward is to go to the article's talk page and explain your concerns about the article, what you'd like to add/remove/change, and link to any sources you would use to support it. Then wait some days for editors who watch that article to respond (or consider 'pinging' the other editor there to ensure you draw their attention. I notice that you are a new user with a related sounding username. So, whilst you might be very experienced in your filed in one part of the world, we have no way of telling that, or whether you're a 15 year old kid with a fascination in tax matters. Without giving away your identity or employer, you might like to think about saying a few words on your userpage about yourself, and your background in this subject area and your desire to edit articles. This tends to help editors understand the motivation of new editors here. A process for engaging with other editors is outline at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You can, of course, go to the reverting editor's own talk page and have a chat with them there, but I tend to feel that discussions about article content are best kept with that article. Whatever happens, keep cool and polite in any such discussions, and appreciate that reverting of disputed edits is quite commonplace here, and should be the start of a collaborative discussion, and definitely not a reason for you to say to yourself "Wikipedia's rubbish", and walk away for good. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Taxchambers15, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the history of Tax residence, you'll see that your first set of edits were reverted by Diannaa, with the edit summary " remove unsourced recent additions and re-add sourced content", and your second set by Eyebeller, with the edit summary "unexplained content removal ". Eyebeller also notified you on your user talk page. So you removed sourced material, and added new material that, while it may be perfectly good, was unsourced; also, you did not give an edit summary explaining what you were doing or why. All material in a Wikipedia article should be derived from a reliable published source; and while it is not an absolute requirement to cite the source, reviewers patrolling articles for vandalism and disruptive editing tend to remove edits without sources, especially when they also remove sourced material. According to BRD, your proper action now is to start a discussion on Talk:Tax residence, preferably pinging the editors who reverted you (though I have pinged them here), and reach a consensus about what changes should be made to the article.
Hello, Thanks for your prompt responses on this. I will use the talk page for this. The username is not used by Chambers as a whole, just by me working independently. I have made sure to include an edit summary and will talk to the others on the talk page! Thank you!Taxchambers15 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
How to add a picture ure to a wiki public page, not the link.
I want to add picture to wiki page, not the link but the image of the artist i am searching on Wikipedia , there is just description and not the image , photo or any reference on that page , how can that be done? 110.224.170.240 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi IP editor, detailed instructions can be found at Help:Pictures but essentially if you insert a link to a file then it will display as an image by default. For instance:
Hello, IP user. I'm guessing from your question that you want to add an image that is not already in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, but that you've found somewhere on the internet - is that right? If so, I'm afraid that the answer is that you probably can't because of copyright. (That's why we have so many articles which don't have pictures). In most cases, you can upload and use a picture only if the copyright owner has specifically released it under licence CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse or alter it for any purpose. If you own the copyright to a picture of the artist (eg if you took the picture yourself) then you can upload it, and license it on the way. See Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've only written one other article which wasn't listed and it was 12 years ago, so basically I'm new at this. :)
I'm not sure what else I can add to it to make it more notable. I feel like this person has done a lot of good work for the AIDS/HIV and trans communities, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right. Is it just that the references for her work need to not come from sources that already cover things like that? Does it just require more coverage?
Hi Xadrian. Agreeing with ColinFine above as to the overarching issue—in many cases, the person is just not notable, and so, since the necessary sources actually don't exist no suitable article is possible. We often get posts here that regard subjects where that is true. In this particular case, however, the subject does appear to be notable; the needed sources do appear to exist – you just haven't demonstrated that by citing them. (In fact, sorry, but have used exactly the wrong types of sources. You have cited a blog, which is a self-published source that should not be used at all, and a database which is seemingly a bit better, but still isn't clearly a reliable, secondary, independent source, with clear author provenance, known for any rigor in fact checking and accuracy.)
What I suggest you do is turn to a type of search that tends to concentrate the right types of sources. I believe this Google Books search (set to only find sources that have "preview" or better available), will allow you to find and then cite the right types of sources for this subject. (As a disclaimer, I am only basing this on the fact that the first page of results of that search seems to have a few of the right types of sources, and that the page indicates that there are more on subsequent pages of the search.)
One more issue. When citing a source, it is important (for a number of reasons, such as better verifiability), to provide transparent attribution details about the source, that identify it well. As a pragmatic observation, if your goal is to have the draft article accepted, then you want to make it as easy as possible for anyone seeking to assess notability, to easily review the sources you've provided at a glance. So please don't just provide just a naked url, but details about the source. For a book, for example, I usually provide the author's first and last name, the title, the publisher, the page number of the verifying content, the url, and the isbn number. To assist you with doing that, please see WP:CITEHOW, and possibly Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates and (for the visual editor), Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Adding a new reference. But if it helps, here's one way of placing the wikimarkup for providing a well-attributed citation, and how it will appear once saved:
<ref name="Howell2014">{{cite book |last=Howell |first=Steve N. G. |title=Peterson Reference Guide to Molt in North American Birds |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eQU-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8 |year=2014 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |isbn=978-0-547-48769-4 |page=8}}</ref>[1]
I am a new Wikipedia contributor and wanted to publish an article about a local architect from the early 20th century, who was formally unwritten about on Wikipedia, although several articles link his name in red (meaning there is no existing article). I have written and tried to publish a draft of his biography to create a wikipedia article for him, but it has taken over a month to publish. Am I doing something wrong or does the publication process take a while? Drysdaledesign (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Drysdaledesign: Courtesy link: Draft:Clarke_Waggaman. First, The draft is not currently submitted for review. When you are ready to submit it for review, you can place {{subst:submit}} on the draft. Second, to answer your question, yes it can take quite some time for a review. There are over 3000 drafts waiting for review, and it can take up to three months. But, drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, so yours may be reviewed sooner or later. RudolfRed (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If I would like to take post a much better photo of a historic building or site, who decides which photo stays up? I'm a long time photographer and appreciate the previous efforts of some posters, but many do not do the scene justice. 75.163.141.38 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi IP editor. Choice of image is, like most things on Wikipedia, a matter of consensus. So long as your image is free to use, then you can put it in - if someone disagrees with your change then you can discuss it with them. But before you do, I'd suggest reading the guideline Manual of Style: Images to get an idea of what we're normally aiming for, in particular the section on Images for the lead. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Although the general rule is anyone can edit, and if some editors disagree go to the talk page to sort it out, it's my personal opinion that images deserve special treatment. By definition, if you are taking the photo, you have a bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to choice, but the approach that I've seen work well is if there is an existing image in an article, and someone identifies an alternative image, open up a discussion on the talk page and take a poll. I've seen this happen dozens of times and work well. It isn't always the case that the one I choose ends up prevailing, but that's mainly because some cases it's a close call. In the case of a professional photographer who can take good photos, my guess is that 99% of the time your photo will be chosen over the alternative.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
how to close a COI request?
Hi all,
when implementing, with caution, a COI edit request, what should be done to mark it "done" in the COI dashboard?
I nominated the page Timeline of prehistory to be moved. There was a consensus to move the page. I saw that the closer listed the page st WP:RMTR. I (the nominator) had answered the request and I moved the page I originally nominated. I figured this was OK because I am acting on consensus. I would like to know if this was an OK thing to do because usually the nominator isn't allowed to move the page. Any feedback is much appreciated. Diffs: Answering the request, Moving the page, Discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Interstellarity. I don't see much of an issue here. If you are not the closer, and the discussion has been closed, it's **mostly, probably** fine to do this. Certainly, the mere fact that involved person cannot close a discussion is substantially irrelevant to the ministerial mechanics of performing the move, once already closed by another editor (who's not the mover's sock/meat puppet;-) Of course, you should avoid doing such a move if it requires moving too many pages for your permissions (thereby avoiding masochism – administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click) (later note: oh, and I see you have page mover permissions), or where you don't have the understanding, or higher permission tools to perform all the cleanup required at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions' #Moving procedures (including, e.g., necessary history swaps) and taking all actions listed at #Cleaning up after the move. But if you do, it seems pretty anodyne.
The sole potential for a hypothetical problem I can see is with the rare close that is contested, as done against consensus, or done by a non-admin without meeting the standards at the same page's #Non-admin closure section, before you come along and do the mechanics. In that situation, you might be seen as having moved too quickly than would have otherwise happened in the normal course, thereby causing a lot of extra work in undoing it all. But now we're really in hens' teeth territory aren't we. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for the response. I didn't think that what I was doing would cause problems at all. I was trying to act according to what the consensus is. I'm pretty familar with WP:RM and how it works and I just needed a little guidance to see whether I acted OK. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@T-doo tman: Welcome to the teahouse. I have left a welcome message with a few useful links to help and guidance articles on your talk page. Please be aware that we do not allow any editor to add information just from their personal knowledge. All content should be based upon Reliable Sources which you should insert as a 'citation' or 'reference' to allow someone on the other side of the world to verify it. See WP:REFBEGIN to understand the basics of adding references. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Need more help and explanation
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 ! I am glad you contacted me.
I hope, I am using correct place to answer you.
I have difficulty in finding correct places. Earlier, I noticed your flags and bells, but did not know what to do with them
and where to write answers.
I am very new in wiki. As soon as I found this place, I will answer to your questions here.
1/ Richard V. E. Lovelace is a lively and talkative person. He liked to tell stories about his early life, family and travel
at any Cornell gatherings. Everyone knows a lot about his life, because he liked to repeat these stories many times. I added only a small part of
information, which everyone at the Department knows.
Description in the section of his Early years, biography and travel are correct. However, it is YOUR choice to add them or not.
I am not professional in wiki, and quite satisfied with the current version. Some wiki pages include fun staff about professor, others are very formal.
Whatever. Does not matter for me.
2/ I had a reference to the US-Russia collaboration in Plasma Astrophysics which was removed: http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/us-russia/
The collaboration started in 1991 approximately, and continued for almost 30 years. This is the only major US-Russia collaboration in astrophysics.
The web page is stable, and has lots of information. More than 50 science papers were published. Collaboration is Cornell-based and US-supported (through multiple US grants). There is nothing in Russian and helped by Russia. Russian scientists visited US every year or worked from home.
4/ I liked the former sub-section "Discovery of the Crab Pulsar Period" and recommend to return it back. This is very important discovery. Let me explain.
When pulsars were discovered by Bell and Hewish in 1967 (he got Noble Price for this discovery), people initially talked about
Little Green Men (Aliens), then (when the second pulsar was discovered)
about pulsating white dwarfs, and only some scientists suggested the hypothesis of the rotating neutron star. Pulsars have period from 1 to a few seconds.
This could be anything. In 1968 Richard developed a special program and was able to find period of Crab pulsar, which is 33 ms = 0.033 sec, which is much smaller than
previously found periods. This discovery led to solid conclusion that pulsars are rotating neutron stars. Only neutron star may rotate 30 times per 1 second.
Neutron stars back then were only theoretically predicted.
This is a star where atoms are broken, nuclei compressed and also broken, and a star consists of neutrons packed together. Our Sun compressed to neutron star would
have a size of 10 kilometers. If you compress it 3 times more, then it would collapse to a black hole. Anyway, this discovery was super important. And forgotten.
Richard is modest person. In many wiki sources I've seen phrases like: In 1968 33 ms period of Crab Pulsar was discovered. Without mentioning the name - who discovered it. That is why, I developed a special, visible section about this discovery. BTW, a few years ago, Japanese filmmakers came from Japan and recorded Prof. Lovelace, about his discovery, then they went to Arecibo Observatory. Unfortunately, I cannot find this movie and reference.
I see that you placed everything in chronological order, and his discovery goes to the place, where he was a graduate student. I think, it is not necessary.
Jocelyn Bell also discovered first pulsar, when she was a graduate student (Nobel Price discovery). Her discovery is considered as "one of the most significant scientific achievements of the 20th century" (Wikipedia). I think, finding period of Crab Pulsar (and proof for existence of neutron stars) is also very important. It would be better and more visible to keep a special sub-section, like in my original version.
5/ Other, minor corrections of the current version of the article:
a/ Reference [1] - should be to Eldridge Lovelace (https://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Eldridge_Lovelace) or to any reference inside this wiki page, not to NY Times
b/ If you keep the current sections, then I recommend in section "Research" to start from the phrase: "In 1969, Lovelace discovered period {\displaystyle P\approx 33}{\displaystyle P\approx 33} ms of the Crab Pulsar.[6] Then continue about the code. Remove this phrase from the middle of the section.
c/ There are other minor things, like dots, etc. Can be corrected later.
6/ I would like to repeat that I am independent scientist and do not have any interest from writing this wiki paper. If Japanese came from Japan with huge cameras to Prof. Lovelace, then why don't colleague from Cornell cannot write a page about prominent, but modest professor?
Richard retired this year, and became Emeritus Professor. He almost stopped working. However, the memory about discoveries should live.
Thank you very much for your help. Thank you for correcting my other errors.
Marinaromanova55 You created Richard V. E. Lovelace article on Jan 2 (Bravo!), and since then other editors have been tinkering with it, with (it appears) the intent of aligning the style with Wikipedia norms. If there is a dispute between you and other editors, per Tenryuu's suggestion, that is better held at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: Marinaromanova55 has been blocked from directly editing the article in question for not declaring on own User page that she is a colleague of Lovelace, at Cornell. Going forward, she is required to suggest article changes on the Talk page, for other editors to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question about Creative Commons attribution
How would attribution work in wiki markup? Let's say it was this image; because there are "some rights reserved" does that mean that it is unusable on Wikipedia? Not really a new user; just unfamiliar with the image copyright/Wikimedia side of things.
Hello, Sdrqaz. Yes, at the moment, your use on your user page is acceptable. If the Commons reviewer or admin decides that the licence is not acceptable, the file will be deleted from Commons, and of course will have to be removed from your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz:. Images you find on Commons are pretty much OK to add to your userpage. Of course, there's always the possibility that a Commons file is incorrectly licensed or that it might be deleted for some reason, but for the most part Commons images should be OK. The only thing you might need to worry about is whether you start adding images to such a degree that your userpage starts to move into WP:UPNO territory; in such a case, you might be asked to edit your userpage to bring in line with WP:UP. The only files that you can't use (i.e. display) on your userpage are non-free files; such files can only be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you mistakenly add such a file once or maybe even twice, it will probably just be removed and maybe you'll be given a mild warning. If you continue to add such files even after being warned, you chances of being WP:BLOCKed increase and such blocks tend to be indefinite depending upon the blocking administrator. So, be careful with any files which seem to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia and avoid anything that says "copyrighted", "fair use" or "non-free". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Marchjuly, thank you for the very detailed response. I had fears that the use of that file would be in violation of some policy, but they have been sufficiently assuaged. To be honest, I don't see myself expanding my user page much further, much less turn it into a gallery of photos. Thank you for the advice and I'll steer well away from the types of files you've mentioned! Sdrqaz (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Where can I find a list of Wikipedia Administrators
I have looked in all the usual places but am unable to find a list of Wikipedia Administrators?
It is probably quite obvious, but I need someone to point out the obvious.
– The following comment by AppleAKB was transplanted by Tenryuu.
AppleAKB (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)AppleAKBAppleAKB (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
While trying to make the plot of Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? better, I read that the plot needs to be between 400 and 700 words, but the plot turns out to be 1089 words. This show had 408 episode and this caused the plot to be a little long. But the it has subsections in the overall plot. Can someone look at the plot and advise me on how to fix it so I can remove the tag. AppleAKB (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Relevancy Question for New Article.
Hello all,
Just wanted to see if the WWII veteran information in this draft article is relevant. Also if anyone would want to look it over for sourcing or other issues that would be hugely appreciated.
To clarify what David meant, NoahRiffe, after the lead (the top section), all information must be in the body (below), so that the lead is just a summary of the body. Summary --> details. GeraldWL04:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
How should I deal with serial obstructionism and tendentious editing on a controversial page?
I’m a recent-ish editor but I’ve already got my teeth into Wiki in a big way. I’ve recently been making edits to the page of a controversial conservative author and unfortunately, I’m coming across a lot of what I see as bad faith editing and obstructionism. I’m not sure quite what the etiquette is but I’m happy to link to the page on request. I had no particular interest in this author but there was kind of a snowball effect – I made one edit, which got contested, so I sought more evidence, and so on and so on.
Since December 2020, myself and other editors have added new material to this author’s page drawn from around 10 academic sources and about the same number of journalistic ones. None of the sources used have been adequately criticized on the basis of RS, undue weight, etc. Unfortunately, every new piece of material that has been added has been repeatedly contested, deleted, undone etc without due justification. I believe that many of the editors removing material are acting in bad faith and simply want to remove any material perceived as unflattering to the subject of the article.
Frankly, I’m dedicating several hours a day to the maintenance of this page and I’m exhausted and can’t keep it up. Regarding the new material added to the page, there is usually a familiar formula of obstruction from contrarian editors:
This is not a reliable source (in spite of the fact that most of the sources are academic and peer-reviewed)
IF it’s proven to be a reliable source it’s unduly weighted
IF it’s not unduly weighted then it “appeals to emotion”, is “disparaging”, or another vague complaint
IF all these contentions can be disproved, the editor contends no consensus has been established (thanks to the editor’s serial obstructionism!) and thus the status quo should remain – ie the edits should not be included
Nonetheless I believe the new edits are highly quality and will hold up to scrutiny from any experienced editor or administrator. Other experienced editors have chimed in and have supported my position regarding the new edits, but unlike the contrarian editors, they don’t seem to have endless time to dedicate to editing the page.
Worryingly, some of the editors who have repeatedly removed the new material have extensive complaints on their talk pages about issues with NPOV, bias and advocacy.
Honestly, I think this should be moved up the chain because the edits section of this article is a continuous tug-and-fro. What advice would you give me? Noteduck (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck, that must be frustrating. Believe me, you'll meet such disputes as you edit more on WP. Especially since they're a conservative person, it makes things more tense. Can you link the page so that I could get to more detail? GeraldWL04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck, you should ping the involved editor (me). As for moving forward, the first thing to do is stop editing the article and work on the talk page to discuss the disputed content. Second, you should pay attention to the actual things I'm concerned about (most are related to sourcing issues and to a lesser extent, following BRD). The third thing is don't assume thing can't move forward if you are wiling to assume this is a good faith discussion. The fourth is be willing to compromise. Springee (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Moving Pages
Hello, I was looking at how the discussion of moving pages was supposed to be closed/ended. After reading the respective guide, I tried to mirror the markup text on my sandbox page. Can anyone tell me if what I have done is correct?
Balakumar8000, there is no prior edit of yours making a request on this account. That photo can't be used unless it meets all of Wikipedia's fair-use criteria or the copyright holder releases it for anyone to use for any reason. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It's really impolite to address anyone whom you don't know as "bro". That's a nickname one only calls a very close male friend. Not everyone here is male, and we are probably not your very close friends. Thanks for not doing this again on Wikipedia. - Julietdeltalima(talk)22:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@7light7: Since you are the subject, it's not advised you edit the article directly. You can start an edit request on the article talkpage. Sro23 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@7light7: For more information on what Sro23 means by "edit request", there's more information over at WP:EDITREQ. Just make sure that you're legally allowed to do so (for example, you hold the copyright to the photo) and be aware of the fact that once it is on here, anyone can use it for any purpose, so long as they attribute the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenryuu (talk • contribs) 02:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am reading through an old encyclopedia that has people in it that I cannot find anything on in a google search. Would it be notable to create a Wikipedia page on them based only on the information from a single encyclopedia? 174.236.132.147 (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
In general, 3 sources are required to establish notability. Does the encyclopedia cite sources? If not I'm afraid it isn't notable. Thanks! Happy new year!Eumat114 (Message) 06:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
"Is this notable?" A particular subject may or may not be notable. (If it isn't, it shouldn't have an article.) Articles may or may not be "good" or even "featured"; whether an article is "notable" or its creation has been "notable" is a subjective matter. ¶ "An old encyclopedia" Our understanding of historical events and figures changes over time, and while some trends may be unfortunate and can fairly be described as reverses, in general, newer sources are better than old ones (for some subjects, very much so). And therefore dependence on "an old encyclopedia" doesn't sound so promising. Additionally, encyclopedias and reference works (even new ones) vary enormously in quality and reliability. What's the encyclopedia (title, publisher, year, etc)? -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:TERTIARY doesn't address this directly, but when compared with WP:SECONDARY above it, the language seems to suggest that a tertiary source (such as your encyclopedia) would be worth less than a secondary source. I doubt you can successfully make a case for notability with just one tertiary source. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This all vague unless we know which encyclopedia and which topic. Many editors believe that if a topic is covered by a major, respected, generalist paper encyclopedia, or a specialist encyclopedia published by a respected publisher, the topic should be covered by Wikipedia as well (and probably already is). That is probably based on the assumption that such topics will have plenty of other coverage in reliable sources. However, a hypothetical "Encyclopedia of Cat Memes" issued by a startup publisher cannot be used to crank out articles about each feline meme. Good editorial judgment is always required, but not always present. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Longer duration for approval
We have come across many articles that would be published in a few days, moreover, the article published has taken more than 25 days not an update yet and also previously the article was live and was deleted for the reason of notability which was corrected and republished all over again. Shrie95 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Shrie95:, Articles for Creation are not reviewed in any particular order so reviewing could take up to 3 months. There's no way to expedite this aside from having a very clearly sourced article that very clearly addresses notability criteria. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Shrie95: I'm going to assume this is about Draft:Jason Fernandes. It's being submitted for review, but the review backlog (not queue) is very large, and reviewers will look at drafts that interest them first. As the template box for {{subst:submit}} says: This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. You could work on something else in the meantime. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Shrie95: you say "We have come across many articles" Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use and not to be shared. Your draft is rather informal in tone? "Jason Fernandes hails from Goa"...all your inline external links will need to be removed, we don't use them, Instagram is not a reliable source and large parts of the draft are totally unsourced, unless these issues are fixed it is likely to be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I added 'Dodo Marmarosa' as being a notable artist who has recorded 'On Green Dolphin Street' - should I also reference inclusions independently in footnotes as good practice or is it considered enough to have the name of the album 'Dodo's Back!' next to his name, which has its own Wikipedia page? Balbs (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Balbs! It's best to always add a reference, even if the information is also at Marmarosa's page. If it's properly cited there, you can just copy and paste to On Green Dolphin Street (song). I added a reference column to the table to improve the display. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk10:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Thank you very much, but I don't like removing stuff in areas that might be of interest to some group I know nothing about. To explain myself: I'm not from Ukraine, Poland or Hungary, not a German nobleman, nor a researcher on Austria-Hungary. Besides, other than blanking, I wouldn't know how. So I'd much prefer pinging an admin or two who are doing this regularly. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I read: "I am proposing deletion of this article due to lack of sources and aristocratic nobility." "Lack of sources": Good reason. "Aristocratic nobility" (or the lack thereof): Should anyone care? -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoary, I corrected it. Notability instead of nobility. I mean, it does indeed beg the question about the many aristocratic nobles in history that have owned land and thus show up in historical registers. Jip Orlando (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Jip Orlando, but of course (now that I come to think about it). Amazingly, the possibility of a mistaken insertion of "ta" hadn't occurred to me. I should stop the habit of typing while sleepy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the latter. Which part of it can be found in which of the three sources you list? Two of your three sources are hosted by kitap.net.ru, which currently is not responding; I therefore cannot comment on these. The third is a book published 140 years ago. Historical understanding (and understanding in general) usually advances. Why should this article depend on a source that's 140 years old? And if you do refer to this venerable book, which assertion can be found on which page within it? -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Kudpung and David Gerard who deleted and WP:SALTed the original, and can determine if that decision should apply to the newly created article. I would imagine that since 4 years have passed, and decision to delete would need to be made afresh. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am writing an article about someone and I got most of the information about his life from his family. Do I need to reference this? Can I also get an example of a reliable secondary source? And what needs to be referenced exactly? Robert Eddison (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors connection - How to I communicate with editors? I am new.
Hi
I am a new editor and I love wikipedia. I did my first wikipedia page in 2007 and I have forgotten everything. It is so much more complicated now and I kind of need a mentor or a few. How do I get some help? There are some edits I want to make but I lack the courage at the moment.
I also want to learn how to support you all and do some edits that are possibly on your list of things to do. 20footfish (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
20footfish (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I also have the same question - how do you contact old editors for a chat about the information that needs a change. I don't like the word dispute but perhaps a chance to contact and chat so they don't feel like you have railroaded their hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20footfish (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
20footfish, hey there! If you need a mentor, there's information on WP:ADOPT. Wikipedia is a for fun project, at the end of the day, so you can edit things if you have the time and courage to do so. There are users who list their to-do list on their userpage; for example, I have a list of things to do at my page. If you want to contact editors personally, you can do so at their talk page. GeraldWL11:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Gerald and I totally understand the comment about if you have the courage to do so... That's what I wanna chat about because I am looking at Bios on living people and long story but I got lots to learn about policy first and rules and how to be professional LOL A mentor would be great. I will look at your link. thanks20footfish (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi 20footfish, and welcome to the Teahouse! Regarding "lack the courage", I'd encourage you to read WP:Be bold. Go ahead and make the changes, and if there are issues with them, it'll be easy for someone else to undo.
Regarding getting help, I'd first suggest reading through our introductory tutorial, which will get you up to speed. If you still have questions after that, you can always ask here or seek adoption by an experienced editor.
To find tasks that need help, check out the Task Center.
If by "load" you mean use in an article on Wikipedia, then the relevant text to place into the article is available above the image on its page in Wikipedia Commons. That's also the location of the download button. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you edit the Wikipedia Main Page?
Can any member edit the Wikipedia Main Page? If so, Who are they, what to do and how long will it take to become one of those members? Anonymous Cuber (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Anonymous Cuber: However, if you find errors in the main page, see WP:ERRORS. If you want to have a hand in its various features—the processes resulting in the content that is ultimately featured there—see:
Excellent question, Anonymous Cuber. Just to make it clear, you cannot directly edit any part of the main page unless you are an administrator, however any user can directly contribute to those sections (even IP-users without an account can) by contributing to the discussions that lead to the curation of those sections. While admins handle the technical aspects of actually updating and posting the sections, the text itself that goes in those sections is not created by admins, it's created by anyone who cares enough to contribute, just like every other part of Wikipedia. If you want to contribute to these sections, the links provided by Fuhghettaboutit above will show you how to do so. --Jayron3214:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thomas Muir, Mathematician
There is an existing entry relating to this mathematician, but no reference to any source which gives full information on him. He was an educationist as well as a mathematician.
I am the author of his recently published biography, which provides this comprehensive information. The book is widely available on Amazon and provides fully researched and reliable information. However I cannot add a reference to the work under a 'Further Reading' heading as an author cannot do this, for reasons of conflict.
I would like another editor to consider this.
My book is:
Elliott, Peter (2021). Thomas Muir: ‘Lad O’ Pairts’. The Life and Work of Sir Thomas Muir (1844–1934),
Mathematician and Cape Colonial Educationist. Cantaloup Press. ISBN 979-8-578389-23-8 PeterMEllFr (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, looks like an interesting and useful reference, which I'll add shortly to the article. Amazon says the publication date was 18 December 2020 but that's a minor detail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Review my first page IMO App
Please review my first page IMO (App). I know it is not perfect and need improvisation. Please contribute and enlighten me for Wikipedia page creation process Sonofstar (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sonofstar: you have added a lot of references – in fact, too many. At the end of the first paragraph there are 12 footnote markers, which is never a good idea – having more than three reference markers is sometimes known as "citekill". Another issue is that some of the citations are actually the same source: this and this is one and the same, even though the text (a press release) has been published in two different places. A press release should be used once at most – if possible, avoid using press releases as sources at all. You should go through all the citations and remove duplicates, as well as sources such as this which is inappropriate because it is a commercial website with no informational content about the topic. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk12:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to this, so just learning. I created a sandbox and hit publish - all good I think, although awaiting approval. I then looked up to create a second sandbox as I wanted to create a bio page of the author (of the first page I did) - all good I thought, however, I don't know then how to submit the bio article that I created in the second sandbox as an article for approval. I read somewhere that if you selected more/move/then renamed it article this worked but it hasn't for me - no permission and or the article already exists. Any ideas? I appreciate this may seem obvious to some, but I am lost :( Veracity000 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Veracity000. You can submit your sandbox for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top (what you see displayed here, not what you will see in the source if you edit this section). At present, it has no chance of being accepted because it is somewhat promotional in tone, and has no independent sources at all. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. Also, given that the very first edit you made in Wikipedia was to cite a book by Simon Western, and nearly all your editing has been to create articles about him and his work, I must ask whether you have a close connection with him. If so, you need to read COI. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine I'm not sure if this is how I reply but hope this is okay. Thank you for this, I appreciate your response. I find it difficult to know how to write about a subject e.g. Eco-Leadership when it's a concept created by someone without being bias. Also then I thought I know so much about him now and have asked for permission to use images, that I can then create a page about him - however, then it looks promotional. How is this avoidable? There are a few other leadership writers I know their work, not them at all, but I know enough to write about it, however, I think I would face the same pitfalls. Any ideas on how not to? Not sure how to get external sources if you are writing about a person, or if the subject has been created by the person - in this case, a theory :( Veracity000 (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, Veracity000. You've replied exactly the right way, except that you could have started your paragraph with two colons, which would have indented it by two tab stops, making clear it was a reply to my (single colon) reply to you. The answer to how to write about a subject without bias is to ignore anything that people close to the subject have said about it, and base your writing exclusively on what independent sources have said. If there aren't any independent reliable sources, then I'm afraid that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: it is simply TOOSOON.
Some examples of promotional wording from your sandbox: "He is best known for": who says? "Unusually diverse range" - pure puff. "The focus of the work is ..." - unless this is quoted from an independent source, this is again marketing puff. The whole draft reads like a marketing brochure, not an encyclopaedia article (also, according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, after the lead, which should give his full name, he should be referred to as "Western"). And if there are reliable independent sources about him, are there really none which are critical? If so, they should be covered in the article too. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
ColinFine ah I get it - this is harder than I thought :( I did the whole - some say this and others that and then totally changed it assuming I was being too detailed and picky. I'm going to look at it all again and as you say if there is not enough critics then it's too soon. Thank you - I appreciate you helping with this Veracity000 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Creating a sport event draw
How to get the names in the boxes
I am trying to set up a draw and have copied a previous style, but I can't get the players' names to appear within the boxes, they just run on across the page. I am not sure what I am doing wrong, but cannot fathom it out. Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks Banzai24 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Banzai24. Can you possibly be more specific on the problem you're seeing, i.e., advise which page and which edit(s) show the problem? I took a look at your edits to 2019 World Indoor Bowls Championship and 2020 World Indoor Bowls Championship, and didn't see any problems with the output of the additions to the templates. Maybe I'm just missing it.
Alternatively, is this a problem you have encountered where you decided not to save because of the problem? Are the intended edits to an existing article or a new one you intend to create? If you have not yet posted the edits with the problem, it would be of great help if you (for example), saved them to a personal sandbox (in a subpage of your userspace), e.g., preview or save a link at your user or user talk page in the form [[User:Banzai24/Insert Name of topic]] and then click on it and start editing, or for a generically titled subpage at the name "User:Banzai24/sandbox", you can click on the following: "Sandbox" Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply – I have now created a sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Banzai24/sandbox). You should be able to see from that where my problem is... In the Open Singles section, the players' names are not in the boxes, rather all running across to the right-hand side of the screen. I am struggling to work out how to make them go in the boxes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzai24 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It was a subpage of Talk:Favela and Favela exists so WP:CSD#G8 "Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page" was a wrong criterion but it could have been deleted as WP:CSD#G7 "Author requests deletion". Tetizeraz was the only contributor and had not written a review. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi guys, I created a page a while ago, and it still isn't really a page. It is still a "draft submitted for review" . So I was wondering how to actually get in the web. Thanks, Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
ColinFine It's a possible bug that prevents the former_teams parameter from displaying. It works fine here. Both former_teams (active players) and played_for (retired players) should work. The template documentation might need to be updated if the scenario that causes the bug can be identified and it can't be fixed, but otherwise the documentation is correct. I started a talk page discussion so the template managers can troubleshoot. @Mark.ian.rider: - thanks for pointing this out. I did a little more digging, and noticed that this came from Kevin Regan, where the issue still persists. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
PrimeHunter figured it out. It only displays former_teams if team is set, since you have to be still active and on a team to use that parameter. It should go in the documentation. I'll take a look and see what I can do. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I was declined on this for good reason (poorly written) but will still try as the subject has had great impact on the boxing community and disrupted the managerial process. However, he was a successful boxer first and I will also put some focus on those accomplishments. But how do I change the tital to replace Draft:Adrian Clark (boxing manager) to Draft:Adrian Clark (boxer)? Thanks in advance. IntermezzoMan (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Please could you let me know how to embed the video more effectively (and improve its quality if possible). I initially rendered in OGG but the resulting video has some blurring and I converted it to GIF and would like to get it to run as a short video clip in a loop automatically on wikipedia page when it is loaded by reader
When I loaded the OGV format file, there was an ugly play symbol button. When I switched to GIF, there is no play button but the clip only runs when the reader clicks on it. Rdsk2014 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: many thanks. I used gifsicle to cut the clip down to the bare minimum and its now there.
@Rdsk2014: Why, as a reader, would I want a video to play repeatedly, distracting me while trying to read the page? Seeing the video once should be sufficient, and I'll play it if I want to see it (and play it again if I missed something). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—18:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I personally think your comment puts you in a small minority. I find clips very helpful, particularly when the the text is hard going and an image is worth a thousand words. I think many others do also. I think that technology should be used as much as possible to demonstrate - but perhaps you feel we should go back to papyrus or rock etchings. As to my clip, I originally asked for help on how to improve it as I admit its not up there with the best animations on wikipedia. Why a clip rather than an image? Well I am demonstrating a balance of two shapes. The movement and shadow shows the balancing effect better than a fixed image. I was very motivated to add this clip to wikipedia as I think Archimedes developed calculus 2000 years before Newton but this is not widely recognised. Archimedes balancing technique can is shown equivalent, using centroids, to the integration formulae for powers of x that we learn by wrote without effective proof at school and I think this techniques should be included in the high school curriculum to enrich education massively. As to distracting - I think the clip complements the text. The fact that it moves, attracts the reader to the section and I think the animation demonstrates the points made well. I would like to add further clips showing the same technique works for all powers of x eg X^0 balances with x^1, x^1 with X^2, X^2 with X^3 but this clip took me too much time on Blender and Photoshop. The wikipedia article is very good but skims the beauty of Archimedes insights with many readers left guessing how Archimedes found the centroid of a hemisphere. I think the text would benefit from further illustrations but am not skilled in graphics to provide the best quality. Perhaps Wikipedia could provide more advice on how to make high quality images/clips as its been a steep learning curve for me so far. I appreciate all this is my personal preference and views but I hope you'll agree that my intentions are to make a positive contribution to a lack of depth in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsk2014 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A weather balloon explodingWhat's not to love about a constantly changing and distracting animated gif on a page that you can't turn off?
@Rdsk2014: in that case, add me to that 'minority' along with AlanM1 and many others. For various reasons, constantly cycling gifs and autoplaying video clips are not wanted here in my view. Yes, they should be available to any user who wants to view them, but I, for one, would love to be able to turn off those annoying and distracting animated gifs after a short period of play. Whilst a picture may well paint a thousand words, those same words, chanted over and over again, just become an irritant within an encyclopaedia. With regard to video clips, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is provided to users right around the world, not all of whom have fast internet connections, and may be viewing on a mobile link in extremely remote areas. Videos consume vast amounts of bandwidth, whilst moving gifs just get annoying after the first few times they've played. Both need an 'off-switch', whilst still permitting normal images to be shown as thumbnails. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Rdsk2014: I'm going to have to agree with AlanM1 and Nick Moyes for reasons of reader accessibility. While the animation isn't as "invasive" as the animations that Nick Moyes provided, moving animations can distract the reader from reading the prose (and possibly cause eye fatigue). I think it would be better to provide a still thumbnail of the video, which when clicked would bring the interested reader to the video proper. The important thing is that the reader has the ability to control whether the video plays or not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rdsk2014: I don't have any problem with still images or animations being used to enhance content, nor did I say I did. I do have a problem with forcing the user to be automatically and repeatedly distracted by it, as do the responders above and, I believe, a majority (not a small minority), of the experienced editors of this project. I'm sure it's been discussed and may even be part of the MoS, but it's past my nap time here at the old folks' home, so I'll have to find that for you another time. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:@Tenryuu:@AlanM1: This is like being in medieval stocks. One of my reasons for using a clip is that the shapes need to been shown in 3D as the triangle and parabolic spandrel are at 90 degrees. Since a hologram is not yet possible, the clip was the best option as it shows perspective as the small amount of movement hopefully shows the layout much better than a 2D sketch would. I would like to add further 2D images showing how the balance scales can be used for different power of x. eg a square balanced by a triangle , a parabola balanced by a cubic but at present I cant see are way to achieve the 3D effect. Archimedes used visual 3D shapes a lot, eg cylinder, sphere and cone. I admit my animation skills are beginner level and would settle for a 2D diagram which gave the 3D effect satisfactorily - although I doubt as well as in a clip. If you look at the clip there is also an interesting use of shadow illustrated by the pivot ball which shows a distant principal light source vertically above. The Ball's shadow shows the mid-point where the triangle moves to when in equilibrium. There is also a shadow effect on the spandrel as the coloured side turns black from coloured as it moves to being vertical ie again when the system has reached equilibrium. So, like the article, there is more to detail for the reader to interpret - the shadows come from the Blender simulation. Shadows are also hard to do in 2D still image. As to bandwith, this is really cut down with only a few alternate frames - which is why its a bit jumpy. The coloured bars reflect Archimedes numerical integration approach in the Method.
@Rdsk2014: While I can't speak for the others, I find the animation to be helpful. Nick Moyes and AlanM1 could have been less nippy, but you seem to misunderstand what our concern is: none of us are saying we don't want informative videos at all; we're saying that the animation shouldn't auto-play for reader accessibility reasons. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tenryuu:@PrimeHunter: I hope others find it useful. My teenager's classmate liked it. As to "shouldn't autoplay", I am confused as PrimeHunter above told me how to post the GIF clip: "You can upload a version with width × height × number of frames below 100 million". He didnt mention any objections. I dont know much about the bandwidth issues but think it'll play fine over Wifi based on my experience. As to mobile networks, there may be an issue but if that is the case, Wikipedia should have a firm position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsk2014 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
My other hat was at the cleaners
@Tenryuu: I don't think I was being "nippy". Perhaps pithy, only after my position was mis-characterized as preferring "papyrus or rock etchings". My original question was legitimate and, I believe, summarizes the general objection well. Having said that, in this particular case, looking at the image in place in The Method of Mechanical Theorems, I don't think it's unreasonably obtrusive. Also, IIRC, the only bandwidth issue with an animated GIF (as opposed to an actual video) is that the resulting filesize is multiplied by the number of frames when compared with a still image of the same size and resolution (possibly reduced by some compression), i.e., not really an issue in this case with the reasonably-sized 1.4 MB file. I don't think it continues to consume bandwidth when playing. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—22:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rdsk2014: Please accept my apologies if we've made your life harder here than you expected. It was not my intention to 'put you in the stocks' (Most Wikipedians are pedants, it should be noted. Well, I am - according to my wife). I and some others were responding specifically to your question about making videos automatically play or loop around. I don't want ever to see that happen - that's all, and felt the need to counter your asertion that some of us were in a minority over the use of such graphics. And I said so. I simply gave two images to demonstrate an extreme of how annoying animated gifs that go too fast or are too distracting can actually seem. Your own work on the page you listed looked fine to me, though I didn't attempt to grasp the mathematical context in which it was being used. - I could not create such an image without a steep learning curve. But I would much prefer to see your ogv file with an obvious play button for a reasonably quality video than a lower resolution gif file that never stops moving. Maybe we're all a bit old fashioned here on this encyclopaedia, but I genuinely believe that being able to halt any animations would be the majority view of editors here. I am beginning to wonder whether it was your use of the word 'video' that has caused the confusion, and yuor desire to see them autoplay when a page loads up. We all know that animated gifs load and automatically play (even if quite a lot of us find their constant activity most annoying) - there is no issue about have reasonable ones in pages, so PrimeHunter wouldn't have needed to point out any objections. It is a personal opinion as to whether animated GIFs add to or detract from a page, and they all need to be used in articles with great care and to add encyclopaedic value. (I remember the first mockup website I created back around 1994 had so many moving graphics on every page that I look back now and squirm over how awful it must have looked) I wish you well, and hope you are not put off by our responses. We all wish to guide and assist here - whatever our technical level. It might be that you could get further practical assistance by asking at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
What to do if an animal and a plant have the same genus name?
I was trying to create a new article on an extinct plant, called "Pterophyilum" with an "i" in the Extinct plants list. It seems to be a misspelling, since I could only find images and pieces of information about the plant by searching up "Pterophyllum plant" - and on a photo of the fossil it is referred to as "Pterophyllum". Turns out "Pterophyllum" is both a kind of an animal (an angelfish) and a plant. I am unsure what to do so I can write an article about the plant genus too. W4Vdragon (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@W4Vdragon:. Welcome to the Teahouse. Good question, though it might have helped had you named or given an external link to the relevant plant species, and not asked the same question in two different places at the same time, which tends to duplicate and dilute volunteer effort. Pterophyllum (plant) seems like a reasonable title for this obscure genus, and you should put a WP:HATNOTE on both articles to refer users to the correct taxon. See this article to appreciate there appear to be various invalid names in circulation (like Pterophyllum longifolium, as shown here), so make sure you properly research the topic and prepare a good draft for WP:AFC, listing only valid taxon names in that genus (though clarifying past nomenclatural issues and confusion within an article is to be welcomed). Please don't take this the wrong way but, because you say you aren't sure how to handle mispellings of taxon names, I might question whether you would be better off gaining a little more editing experience and drafting your first article by working on extant genera or species first, where invalid names and disentangling synonyms and past nomenclatural systems will be much less of an issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Iquardo, welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information over at WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, but if you are using Tor or have an IP block exemption, you may be looking at 90 days and 100 edits. From what I can tell you're at 9 edits, so you should be considered autoconfirmed after one more edit and wait three more days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Good question, CanadianOtaku, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's always better to aim to improve content, rather than jump to deleting stuff we don't like. The process we call WP:BEFORE is a very important stage to go through before taking the step to delete any page. That said, this page isn't a List article, it seems just to be a collection of external links in an uncited page. If (and it's a big 'if') there are a number of notable art journals on Wikipedia, it could be restructured and renamed as List of new media art journals or List of journals in new media art. But another alternative is to merge content with another article. Maybe a very brief new section on journals within [[New media] art]] might be appropriate, with a few key journals added in the External links section. But I suspect this page would then be a good potential candidate for either a WP:PROD or, better still, an WP:AFD discussion. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@CanadianOtaku: I did some very rudimentary cleanup, but this article may simply have too many issues to WP:OVERCOME. I've posted about it on the talk pages of a few WikiProjects that I think might cover this type of article, and perhaps others might be better able to figure out what to do here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Who Creates User Pages and How -- and what are they for?
I thought that my user page would automagically appear.
It didn't.
UClaudius, it's up to the user if they want to make a page or no. You can create them via desktop only. They are pages for editors to see and know about you on Wikipedia. They're like an author about page; although you may include some IRL info about yourself, it's restricted to a small extent. See people's pages for more details. GeraldWL06:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
UClaudius, looking at your user page, that's also fine. I even saw one user with their page reading "Nothing to see here. Move along..." See WP:USERPAGE for what's allowed and what's not. GeraldWL06:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
UClaudius, the main purpose of a userpage is tell other editors about you as a Wikipedia editor. Describing your intellectual interests and future editing plans and listing the articles you have worked on are among the most common things you will find on user pages. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Creating an English Wikipedia article in other languages
Hi
I have a specific question. I am updating a Bio on a living person and have gone through many policies. I am happy with that but, how does wikipedia then get all the languages changed? I can only write in one language. What happens to get the other languages done. How do I do that?20footfish (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 20footfish (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
20footfish, editing on English Wikipedia will only change English Wikipedia. However, many other languages copy from us, and many have places where you can request translations from English. In the future, we are hoping to build a truly multilingual encyclopedia, but that project is still in its early stages; see Abstract Wikipedia. One thing you can do to help make it easier to translate a page is to add information about it at Wikidata, a sister project to Wikipedia that's multilingual and machine-readable, and which many bots on smaller Wikipedias use to help create articles. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
sandbox draft
How to get the Wiki sandbox published?
I made my sandbox article and I am confused is to when I will get an 'actual' wiki page. Like how I search something up and a wiki link pops up for it, how do I get this? Can I get this? Thanks Nicholas RF Lee (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nicholas RF Lee: Given that this is about a Canadian political party you started last year, unlikely there are valid references. No references = no article. WP:TOOSOON probably applies. You can leave this content as an unsubmitted draft in your Sandbox. If, in time, more people join and the party gets press coverage, consider submitting then. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Aviation160: having a state flag doesn't imply it is a country, it's just using the most accurate and well-known representation. If I show you Valencia's coat-of-arms and use it to refer to the city Valencia, it'd not be as straightforward and direct as using the Spanish flag which far more people know.
For Hong Kong, it has a flag that is far more well-known, and the fact that it has sovereignty and has a flag makes it more convenient to use that flag, but by no means state that HK is a country. As a citizen I can verify :D Happy new year!Eumat114 (Message) 06:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah some dudes just swapped Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (HKSAR)for like, the republic of China, same thing goes with Macao and Taiwan. Taiwan the saidthat it's Taiwan (traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣; simplified Chinese: 台湾; pinyin: Táiwān),[II] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][f] is a country in East Asia. Come on, it's not a country!!!!!!!! Luckly WIKI is banned in China, OR THEY WILL GET SOOOO MAD!!!
I don't understand what your concern in your reply is. Using the state flag does not imply that it is a separate country; we try and keep things neutral on Wikipedia and determine things by editor consensus, which the CCP has had a poor track record of doing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Aviation160: Click "show" at "Other talkpage banners" at Talk:Taiwan. It shows a to-do list which includes this:
Determine whether Taiwan should be called a 'country' or 'state'
Complete: Consensus has been reached for Taiwan to be called a 'country'. The consensus was 33 for country, 10 for state, and 5 for some variation of state. Here is the page on which consensus was reached
(edit conflict)Hello, IP user. If you look in the article's History, you can see that Eagleash reverted your edits. Looking at the diffs, I can see that you replaced material cited to independent sources with material very promotional in tone, and either uncited or cited only to Al Harazi's own website. That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. If you wish to propose some of your edits again, you should open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Zahra Al-Harazi, according to the BRD procedure. The fact that your edit was so promotional makes me ask whether you are Al-Harazi or an associate of hers? If so, you must read about editing with a conflict of interest. If, further, you are an employee or otherwise paid to promote Al-Harazi, you must make the required declaration of being a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that a few of the sources look pretty salvageable. But IP you'd need to pick a few ones like this one from Stuff (website), or this from The Globe and Mail - those seem reliable and not just promotional. Still, you'd need to weave the info they contain into the article in a useful way and not just dump them as links. That is, ofc, not meaning you should not declare a potential conflict of interest. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Advice to New Editor on Merging Draft into Article ?
On 24 December, I saw that Draft:Nilotpal Mrinal and Nilotpal Mrinal were about the same person. The article is a one-sentence stub. I declined the draft as 'exists' and tagged the draft and the article to be merged. The author of the draft, User:Anuragpathak12d, has asked me what the status of the merging is. I have replied that they, as author of the draft, can do the merging by copying information into the article. Does anyone else have any helpful advice for how a new editor can proceed? In my opinion, the stub article would be questionable as to whether it should exist except that the draft is a reasonable Start-Class article. I would have liked to just accept the draft, but AFC doesn't work like that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, as someone who doesn't dabble in AfD or AfC, would it be problematic to delete the preexisting article and move the draft in its place? As a possible rationale, a onetwo-sentence stub of an article does not sound like it would establish a subject's notability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, @Tenryuu and Fuhghettaboutit: . I will try to remember the next time I encounter this situation, where the draft is much better than the article, to move the article to a holding space (without a redirect), and then accept the draft, and then tag a history merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Bro. Reply on Whatsapp. You change the the name Writer Maridhas and photo also. We will only give you new phone if u change it. I send many messages in whatsapp also. We don't know to change. Balakumar8000 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Balakumar8000. Do not refer to Wikipedia editors collectively as "bro" as that is an over familiar slang term that excludes female editors and those who do not consider themselves to be your drinking buddies. We discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles here, not any nonsense on WhatsApp. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, women are also called "dude" and "guy" and "buddy" in such rooms, but that is wrong and sexist and exclusionary and demeaning. That behavior might be commonplace in some bars near college campuses, but is not acceptable among editors of a collaborative worldwide encyclopedia project. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328, exactly, that is why I said "in more social rooms." When we hangout I call my friends 'bro' or 'dude' regardless of gender, and they don't take offence. Various people are present on Wikipedia, so unless they consent to, I would not call anyone colloquially. GeraldWL07:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
SenatorLEVI, I think it's more of a connection towards Maridhas. There seems to be someone editing by trade here, wherein if they edit as instructed they'll be given a phone, which is also WP:PAID. And understanding the sentence, it seems like the two editors communicate privately via WhatsApp. There's no contribs other than Teahouse in Balakumar's log, which scares me; that means they only communicate privately, and we can only know the other guy if he speaks out. GeraldWL05:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thinking about it, it seems like the person (Maridhas) may have paid these editors to make an article about him. Either way the article isn't very good which is why I have proposed a request to draftify it. SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
SenatorLEVI and Tenryuu, I've watched it. The history log only has Cyzkumar with sketchy edits. Their contributions log also has various sketchy edits, some of which had been reverted.
I strongly think Cyz is the other editor. One of their edits is this edit on Face book, where it is hinted that he is a Tamil person; Maridhas is Tamil and Balakumar may be one too. Maridhas is a BJP supporter, where Cyzkumar also blatantly shows COI or heavy bias towards it.
When Cyzkumar started the page, it went live at 13:06, 3 Jan. Balakumar published the thread above on 04:08, 4 Jan, after a photo is deleted and after the page is moved from Maridhas (Writer) to Maridhas. Balakumar possibly confused this with "Writer Maridhas."
The creation summary reads, "He have provided a coll[ection] of all the answers written by Maridhas." Assuming the "he" isn't Maridhas, this signs a third person involved, which may be Balakumar.
That's my initial findings. I know, sounds like a conspiracy theory. But perhaps this can lead us closer to the truth? GeraldWL12:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe so, even the names do sound Tamilian. No surprise because the writer is of Tamilian origin. And the fact that the first person said they would give a new phone if they changed the image or whatsoever strongly suggests WP:COI, like you've said. Either way I've watched the page for any suspicious content. Cheers. SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, I'm inclined to agree with you, but with most of the revisions being revdel'ed for copyvios, I'm not going to definitively say as I can't see the possible evidence. Admins will have an easier time determining this. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Most probably relatives, there haven't been any significant edits to the page, at least for the time being. I suspect that the pointing-out of this issue and possibility of WP:COI has discouraged these possibly-paid editors, along with my request to draftify it. At this point the best thing is to wait, I suppose, since I've had no opposition in my proposal to move the page. SenatorLEVI14:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Switching an image takes five minutes tops, if anyone wants to give me a new phone for that then hit me up. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello SenatorLEVI and Tenryuu, thanks for Maridhas page talks. I am new here to complete a full article about common pages on wikipedia. i am collecting more sources to complete about this page which is mentioned by SenatorLEVI. i found many articles on wikipedia, thats mentioning about Pros and Cons on same pages, thats appreciated. if we writing truth with reliable sources, isn't acceptable on teahouse and wikipedia. i can't understand what bias can understand here. And i am not supporting any one minded editors also. if anything is popular with public sources around me then only i am trying to update here. kindly supporting me to finish my first page.
@Anonymous Cuber: The first person to save their edits via 'Publish changes' will have their edits added to the article. When the second person tries to publish their changes they will receive a message saying they've had an WP:EDITCONFLICT. If you follow that link, you can learn more about ways to resolve it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous Cuber if you're planning to do a lot of edits on one article and you'd like other editors to give you some space until you finish, then you can use the {{in use}} template to let them know. --Paul ❬talk❭ 15:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Citing references
Hi. I've been doing a lot of editing, and I always use the automated tool for citations (visual editor). I see a lot of bots, and sometimes another editor, make changes to the template afterwards.
I'm really not tech-literate, and I don't completely understand how to properly change the template that is created automatically.
Should I be taking time to learn the ins-ands-outs of these templates? ... or continue work as I have been, and let the bots take care of details like this? Thanks. Mollifiednow (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Mollifiednow (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mollifiednow: Could you give a specific example? In general, there are a few tips: Always try to use the correct template ({{cite web}} for web content, {{cite news}} for news, and so forth). Also, as a general reminder, always give as many information as possible. This especially applies to page numbers for anything vastly longer than 20 pages, ISBN numbers for books, and DOI numbers for things that have a DOI. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, @Victor Schmidt:. An example is the most recent edit, by monkbot on Francis Fisher Browne. If you don't mind taking a look at it.
I use the visual editor, I choose automatic, when I add a citation that is a link to a website. It looks like a lot of what is add automatically, ends up removed or changed. I add additional information, such as page number etc., when necessary, and I have entered references manually, such as PDFs.
I asked the question, because I don't want to leave a trail of mistakes that others are left to clean up.
Just as an FYI, I use an Amazon firepad, my computer isn't working. I don't know if that matters, but I don't think I have the same tools available to me. I have had to learn how to add some things, such as the elongated dash, by looking at source editing by others, but I haven't figured out how the references are supposed to look like this way :-\
PS thanks for the links, I will bookmark and read! Mollifiednow (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Victor Schmidt:,
I just took a quick look at the page and bookmarked. I will try to do a better job.
I noticed that the link you sent me, shows a drop-down menu, that I don't have. Maybe it's the device I'm using. The menu that I have consists of: undo, font, insert blue link and two other drop-down menus that allow me to (1) edit in source/visual mode, and (2) insert a citation (automatic, manual, and re-use). I have no mouse, only a stylus :-\
I think that maybe I'm just limited to a few options with this device, I can edit a reference, after I have inserted one, however, I always delete unnecessary parameters when I use it.
I'll try remember to look in source mode, before publishing an edit, and see if anything looks like it needs to be deleted. I appreciate you taking the time to help me. Best to you- Mollifiednow (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mollifiednow: I am not certain what causes this - unless, are you refering to the attention sign between the question mark and the page options menu. If you refer to that, don't worry, that menu bar element is only showing when there is something to display in its dropdown, such as an active page protection. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for being confusing @Victor Schmidt:. no worries. I appreciate you trying to help. Honestly, I regret posting the question. It's frustrating, not being able to explain something, I'm still climbing the learning curve...I'll read the pages you provided, and figure it out.
I'm going back to editing and the bots can take care of the technical details. My references do the job of sending the reader to the websites, so I'm not going to stress over it. Thanks again -Mollifiednow (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Draft redirects inside of the draft space
Hello.
I want to know if it is possible to make a draft redirect to another draft. I would like to do this to make sure that someone sees when creating this new page that I have in a draft that might become notable soon (professional footballer making a pro appearance WP:NFOOTBALL) without creating a page with the wrong accent mark. Basically I want to make sure someone doesn't create the page Edouard Michut when there is a draft at Draft:Édouard Michut. I know that when someone will try to create a page for Édouard Michut, it will notify them that there is a draft for this article. Except if the page name is Edouard Michut, they will not see that and maybe make an error. This is why I want to create a draft redirect from Draft:Edouard Michut to Draft:Édouard Michut just in case someone accidently gets the accent mark wrong when creating the new page when the player becomes notable (which may be today, he is in PSG's squad for the match against ASSE. Thanks for reading this text and answering my request. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Need help with edit warring, CIR-problem edits from likely COI SPA
Hi. I posted something at the Help Desk a few hours ago. Then I got to thinking about how my help desk questions typically go unanswered for months, so I thought I'd try linking the Teahouse to that question which is here. I hope it is not inappropriate to post such a question in two places; please let me know if that is something I should not do. Thank you! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Is the vectorization of Dream's profile picture under fair use?
It was recently point out that the company and product development now had a Wiki page, except the data used was five years out of date. I updated with the relevant latest information with sources cited to confirm the information and a bot comes along and reverts the entire edit because a Youtube link from the companies own YouTube channel, that simply replaces an old video from the same channel, is now somehow flagged as spam?
I am confuded as to how an existing Youtube video, being replaced by an updated Youtube video from the same channel is fair game for someone to try to revert an entire edit, to data which is now factually incorrect? Can you offer some guidance as to what needs to happen to stop people from 'trying to help' by continuing to post incorrect data? Faradair2014 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I would check the talk page, usually bots leave a generic message with a nice big button that lets you revert their work. I do not mean the button on the bot's user page, which stops the bot from working. Don't press this one, just the one on the article's talk page. If it doesn't have one, you can just manually revert its work. EcheveriaJ (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
how i add a contribution about myself?
i am a public figure in my country and in my region.
i add a contribution about ,myself which has been rejected.
imagine i am film director of many award winning films, the film is in wikipedia in arabic and english without enough information about myself which is the director
for exemple see myfilm omar200 in actor khaled el nabawy filmography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El_Nabawy
i put very confirmed sources in great newspapers and magazines like Variety and website of
the european commision ..major and famous film festivals official websites etc
Ibnfernas2020, Welcome to the Teahouse. The issue that's most pressing is that this is an article about yourself. While you're not strictly prohibited from directly editing an article on you, it is strongly discouraged. A less painful avenue to get such information evaluated and posted would be to submit an edit request on the talk page (Talk:Khaled El Nabawy) so that uninvolved editors can do it for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Page Published with the wrong name
I accidentally published a page with the wrong page name. How can I change this. It is currently showing as my username title for some reason. Megapostmodern8 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
If you mean the content that was in your Sandbox, appears you have moved it to Draft:Amar Singh (activist and art gallerist) and submitted it to Articles for Creation for review. On your Talk page, you have been asked to address whether your connection to the topic is paid or some form of what Wikipedia defines as conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"A registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically when the account is both at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits." David notMD (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Teahouse i would like to understand what you might consider promotional on the bio that I, as Hamilton`s world wide manager for the last 16 years, updated. That is our press release exactly what we have on our website or when we need to send his bio to the press. So please help me understand what is happening. Thanks and stay safe (Mportinari (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)) Mportinari (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Mportinari. Wikipedia articles must be written from the neutral point of view. This is a core content policy and is not negotiable. You wrote that "Virtuoso, brilliant and unique are some of the adjectives to describe this multi-awarded improviser and composer that inspire audiences worldwide." That's overtly promotional and not acceptable. As this person's manager, you must comply with the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Please do so promptly. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Mportinari. Press releases are almost never of any relevance for a Wikipedia article. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Dears [[User:Cullen328|<b User talk:ColinFine|talk],
So when I mention adjetive is that it was written or said by someone before in a newspapper or by someone like Wynton Marsalis so if I quote the source it will acceptable? For example virtuoso, brilliant is on every article could be in Brasil, italy, france, Usa,... That will do the job or should i take it off??? As instrumental musician you don't get easily 731.818 thousand monthly listen on spotify if you don't get some compliments from the media or public. ALL THE BEST --Mportinari (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
and Let's discuss it 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Mportinari. Press releases are almost never of any relevance for a Wikipedia article. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I have just registered, specifically to amend the 'Sidmouth' site, which is of poor quality. The amendments went up, but have all been rejected. There were two spelling mistakes which I was going to change this evening. Are you able to tell me what I did wrong? Cosid (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, SpinnerLaserzthe2nd. Yes, you can, just as you can complain about the actions of any other editor if they have clearly breached our WP:POLICIES. But complaining about another editor's behaviour or actions is quite different from simply having a minor disagreement over editing. The best way to start with, however, is simply to contact that editor/admin on their talk page and express and discuss your concerns. That usually avoids a huge amount of hassle, and that editor ought to be able to explain the reason for any interactions they may have had with you, and point to any policies that are relevant to your interaction. It helps to provide WP:DIFFS to demonstrate edits or actions that you are concerned about. If you're not happy with this or other means of 'dispute resolution, there is a procedure you can follow to formally complain about any editor - it's shortcut name is WP:ANI. You would need to provide brief but accurate explanation (again using diffs) and to notify that other editor of your complaint there. The process is two way (see WP:BOOMERANG), and your own edits and actions will also be carefully looked into. So my advice is always attempt to seek understanding and resolution outside of that forum. I've not looked at any of your edits or interactions - but that's a quick summary of the process for genuine complaints. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello
Hello! Can someone leave me here a social media (gmail discord or whatever) that we can talk? Because I need help with an wikipedia article. Thanks in advance!!!! Holloman123 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Submission Declined - Not Adequately Supported by Reliable Sources
Article title: Sean McCoshen
The article I submitted was declined as a result of inadequate support from reliable sources. I am hoping that a reviewer can help me identify which sources I referenced are not credible, in order to provide better support/sourcing for them, if possible. Sean McCoshen is essentially a celebrity, so most mentions of him in the media are from news sources which reduces the overall believability behind what is being said about him. With that said, I'm a little stumped as to where I turn to help improve the reliability of the sources used in my submission and would be really grateful if someone could point me in the right direction or provide some knowledge on how past articles of this nature have worked around this debacle.
The majority of content has no references. And the refs I looked at only briefly mentioned McCoshen and read like press releases. You need to find published content that is about him at length. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Review For Article
Hi there!!!
I have just come to Wikipedia and have tried to create two articles. The first one got declined and that's okay. I then submitted the other article for review. zThe thing is when will the article get reviewed?
I know that there are more than 3,000+ articles waiting for review. How long does it take to review an article?Desmond Maverick (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Desmond Maverick (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@2006nishan178713: I assume you meant to ask "How do I create a new Wikipedia article?". If so, please be advised that sucessfully creaating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can start on Wikipedia. That being said, there are a few steps available here, here or here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Pageviews
How can I make a pageviews page? This page is updated by a bot and it can tell if it's a Cali related article, and I want to do the same for wildfires, but I don't know how a bot can detect if it's a wildfire article. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Although I've been here for 15 1/2 years, with almost 270k edits, here's something I don't know the answer to, so here I am at the Teahouse.
Q: When a category gets moved (i.e. its title is changed), does the change ripple back so that all the articles assigned to that cat are changed to the new name, or does it have to be done individually, either manually or via bot?
Thanks, please ping me when answering as I don't have this page on my watchlist.
Hello,
I submitted a Draft:Institute of Project Management and it got rejected due to references issues. This is the note "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)."
When created that article, I refer much to this published article Institute of Public Administration (Ireland). I thought that type of references I used are similar with what's used on that article. However mine was rejected.
I wish I could get better understanding about the difference of references using on Institute of Public Administration (Ireland) compare to mine. Therefore I could avoid the same mistake and improve.
@Cnagita4: With a quick glance, the sources for that article are not very good either. It did not go through the draft process, someone created it as a stub and then it got expanded. RudolfRed (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Cnagita4. The existence of one poorly referenced article does not justify the creation of another new poorly referenced article. On the contrary. That observation invites deeper scrutiny of both the older article and the draft. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Non-linked articles from other language Wikipedias
Hello fellow Wikipedians at my favourite tea house that is still open when all the others close,
so I've started the New Year with fresh motivation to edit, but alas I've already found more things to do than I possibly have time for (in addition to my longer-term planned new articles).
Specifically, I am sometimes stumbling about "non-linked" articles in different language Wikipedias which clearly are about the same topic, but seem to be disconnected in... Wikidata? For example, these here:
Five freedoms and de:Fünf Freiheiten (Tierwohl).
As I'd rather spend my time editing Wikipedia than diving into Wikidata (which I overall find to be rather dull ^^) - is there somewhere I can report this, so it can be fixed? Or at least be able to fix it with a few (automated) clicks without having to spend much time going over to Wikidata and learning how to work there.
-- LordPeterII (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi LordPeterII. Thanks for spotting this. Good catch! Usually it can be done in a few clicks (first click is edit links under languages) but in this case there seems to be a duplicate Wikidata item, (d:Q5456220 and d:Q60982313). I'll try to flag that. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. My request on the article Draft:Asif Tariq was declined because of lack of sources. Unfortunately this is very difficult to find many sources as i am from very small town. The said subject is a renowned Kashmiri poet i worked hard on this article. Please help me by approving this article. I did my best. Hope in your help. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Majid Saleem78, and welcome to the Teahouse. The most important criterion for whether there can be an article on somebody is whether there are enough independent, reliably-published, sources to establish that the person is notable. The sources do not have to bo online, or in English, (though it's easiest if they are), but they have to exist, to have been published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, and to be independent of the subject. If you cannot find several references which meet these descriptions, then I'm afraid Tariq does not satisfy the criteria for notability, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Another question but this time about talk pages
Hi
I am asking a lot but thanks for your help so far. I want to makes some changes and I put comments into Talk and history. I notice that only one editor has been in there on talk to action changes in 2016. I put my comments there but no-one visits why? I am just wondering how it all works. Does Wikipedia get a notification from talk when editors are in asking in there. I have read through what you gave me and am new but some things must be put onto talk for the living people. And no-one comes ... I am wondering if I am missing a step here. Can you tell me how this works and am I meant to notify anyone?20footfish (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 20footfish (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware people only see what's on a talk page if (a) they click on the talk page or (b) have it on their 'watchlist'. This does mean that smaller, lesser known article talk pages don't get much attention and it might take a while for a response. EcheveriaJ (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody gets notified automatically when you edit an article's talk page, 20footfish. Anybody who has the article on their watchlist will see it appear, but won't noramlly get a notification. If you know there are particular editors who you would expect to have an opinion, you can ping them in your posting: you should certainly do this if you are already in dispute with an editor or editors on the matter. If there is a relevant WikiProject, you could put a notice on the project's talk page pointing to your discussion on the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You have been extensively editing Park Yoo-chun AND posting comments on the Talk page of the same article. As you have correctly been bold in making direct changes, and because other editors have chosen to 'watch' the article, you may find that some of your changes will be disputed, perhaps reverted. That should lead to an active discussion on the Talk page, perhaps where you have already made a case for your changes. Lastly, please stop designating your edits as minor edits. That terminology is intended for very small changes, such as correcting spelling, punctuation, etc. David notMD (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
To expand what David notMD said above, do not be afraid of someone to revert your edits nor take it as an attack. It is a normal phase of article development at Wikipedia -- see WP:BRD for more explanation. --CiaPan (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Rhank you everyone who has commented here. Very helpful. Really glad to have has some feedback. Yes I will look at minor edit thing and rethink it. Perhaps a heading change isn't minor or putting the info into the correct area of the page. Little has been changed other than family history which is disputed in 5 articles, the sources were contradictory and the info was uncited so I am not expecting a dispute on uncited sentences. Yes I am correcting it because the Thai, Japanese and Portugese wikipedia has different information and at this point I will wait couple weeks, get used to wikipedia and watch the news because some of his legal stuff may really change because there is a current case now going through where people are going to be held responsible for falsly blaming him. Changing it now would be a waste of time :) Huge THank you. I will keep mu courage to change it. I am not really sure which wikipedia will become the main one where transations come from after wikidata is finished but slowly I will get the other languages done. The info is not in dispute but the detail is. The detail needs to be accurate or removed as per your policy. Hopefully its okay. I plan to take out uncited unnecessary info :) 20footfish (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Find an archived version of the page that contains the information in the Wikipedia article
If the reference in the Wikipedia article uses {{cite web}} or something similar, put the archive URL under |archive-url= and the date of that archive |archive-date=.
If you can't find an archive or even an updated URL, tag the citation as {{dead link}}. We need to keep it so people know where someone found the information once upon a time. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 16:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@SpiritGirl809: There is also an automated option that works most of the time (and if it doesn't, you can do it manually as outlined above):
Click "View History" on the article, and then you'll find "External tools" at the very top. It lists a few ones, and the last option is "Fix dead links". You can simply click that, and it will prompt you to login at the site (just click login, should be done automatically with your Wikipedia account). There you can "Analyze a page", which will automatically fix all deadlinks in the article it can find. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
hello, I am new to Wikipedia, I want to write an article but I have no idea where to start. Could you please suggest a format or any guidelines that I should take into consideration except for what is already there on the Wikipedia guidelines page. If some admin could help me in the initial stage I would be very much obliged. Thank you :) Hitch2413 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Hitch2413, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I remember when I started editing Wikipedia fifteen years ago, and was likewise desperate to make my mark by creating a new article. Now I know that creating an article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for an inexperienced editor (more difficult now than it was fifteen years ago, because we have a much higher standard than we had then), and my advice to you is that if you spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million articles (thousands of which desperately need some attention), you are likely to have a much much less frustrating time, and add much much much more value to Wikipedia than if you set out to create a new article straight away. --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The Welcome posted to your Talk page includes a link to "Your First Article," but I also strongly recommend doing time improving existing articles before essaying your own creation. P.S. Admins are busy mopping up messes, but the volunteer editors at Teahouse are around to answer specific questions. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could help me create a draft article?
Hello SoyokoAnis, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to submit your draft for review, you can click the blue button on the banner at the top. However, you first need to demonstrate the topic meets the general notablilty guidelines by showing the reviewer it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You should also read WP:NWEB. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is probably a dumb question but I'll still put it here
So I was browsing the Fun Spot America Theme Parks article when I saw that Hurricane (Miler roller coaster at the Kissimmee, Florida location) didn't have it's own article.
@Jajamanjaja: Not a dumb question at all! There is not a specific guideline that discusses the criteria of a ride's notability, so go by the WP:GNG guideline. If there is significant, reliable, in depth coverage of the ride, it is notable. Perhaps develop the article in a draftspace. Once you feel it is ready, you can submit it for review, where an experienced editor (such as myself) will review it. Hope this helps! – DarkGlow (✉) 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Designating profession in name...
I created a page for Professor David Ullman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ullman_(author) who is obviously designated with the (author) label. That's fine, however, there is another David Ullman who is a sailmaker and has no designation. I am curious if there is a way to designate the sailmaker so that when searched it is obvious what each Ullman does. Thank you. 76.108.89.160 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 76.108.89.160 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Can I add a more lighthearted page to Wikipedia, like "List of countries by how fun their name is to say"? I know the answer's probably no, but I just want to make sure because I think that would make Wikipedia more interesting. Calicopenguin1112 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No, You cannot. Wikipedia is an Online encyclopedia and the content should be professional. Such things for fun is not acceptable on wikipedia. please do not even try this because sooner or later your article will be deleted. Anonymous Cuber (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Calicopenguin1112. I agree with what's said above. However, you can select a "fun" subject to write about – and then write a "serious" article that's "fun" just because of what it's about; maybe something that ends up at WP:WEIRD. One of my favorites (that I had a very small hand in), is William Windsor (goat). Researching and adding this detail, for example, was fun for me. The takeaway though is that this was a notable topic, worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article, and everyone contributing followed our inclusion and writing policies and guidelines to create it, such as sourcing the content by citing reliable, secondary, independent sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I wish to write about some major budget cuts that are going to affect a local school district, but I'm not sure if the event qualifies for its own article or if it would be better just to write about it on the school district's Wikipedia article. Springfield2020 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Springfield2020, I would suggest just writing about it in the school district's article; a standalone page would likely be deleted on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. Even on the district's page, make sure that you give WP:Due weight to the cuts within the historical context of the district, avoiding any inappropriate WP:Recentism. This probably means that they will warrant at most a paragraph, and perhaps only a single sentence. As always, make sure you include citations to news coverage. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
A question has arisen about the neutrality (or otherwise) of the article submitted. A similar article (on Robert and Thomas Elworthy) can be found on Russian Wikipedia. None of Robert Elworthy's family have contributed anything to the Russian article. Therefore it could prove a useful check on the contents of the article provided under the title "Robert Pearce Elworthy. Philip Clarkson Webb (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Philip Clarkson Webb (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Philip Clarkson Webb, I'm not familiar with Russian Wikipedia specifically, but many other language Wikipedias have different norms and standards, and some of them have substantial neutrality issues. Unless the article has good or featured status in another language, I would look more to WP:Neutrality than to the example on Russian Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Liberealist. Part of the explanation is that the link includes "&oldid=9938715" so is confusing things by trying to point to a specific (old) version of a page. If you delete that part of the link, it works fine. I can't give a more detailed technical explanation but others might. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Liberealist. A bit off topic, but you might like to mention to your friend that we do have a dedicated Wikipedia link shortener here. This can sometimes be useful when you want to give links to Wikipedia in a printed document, especially if the url is a very long or complex one. Thus, https://w.wiki/tYD links to that specific page version of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Hope this is of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: That's a cool trick! Do you know where I could post to suggest that the link shortener info be added to the "Cite this page" info that is available on articles? Currently that page only shows the long URL to use in citations. RudolfRed (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed:MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content if you just want to give a link to the URL Shortener. Short url's are assigned on demand and to keep them short we probably don't want to use one every time "Cite this page" is clicked. That means at least one extra step for people who want to use it. If any character is lost or wrong then you have no way of guessing where it should have gone, unlike the example here with two missing digits. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ciiting Wikipedia is a really bad idea in an academic paper, much less a thesis – unless Wikipedia is the subject of the thesis! Why not advise your friend to use the source used in the article instead? --bonadeacontributionstalk17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My talk page is gone?
Hi, all. I just joined Wikipedia and attempted to make a user page (granted, it's extremely simple). The link for my talk page was showing in red for the first few minutes after I joined, and then it turned to blue. I was able to click on it then and go to my talk page. However, after I added the link to my talk page into my user page, the link turned red again and I haven't been able to access my talk page since. Did I do something wrong?
I'm putting together a page for a musician/DJ and I'm hitting a bit of a snag with formatting/wording. She has been in 5 bands from 2000-2011, but none of them had any formal releases. The Wiki page is focusing on her more prominent DJ career than her career as a musician, though it's all notable to mention. Since there isn't much information about her previous bands other than the fact she was in them, it's all coming out as "she was a member of X band from 20xx to 20xx" and that's it. Having 5 of those similarly worded sentences in a row just doesn't look right.
What might my options be? I want to mention them all as they paint a picture of her as a musician.
Hello Alexmarie. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to summarize what independent published reliable sources say about the topic. It is difficult to imagine that reliable sources would spend much time discussing five bands that never released recordings. Anything is possible but I am dubious. Ask yourself: if reliable sources do not discuss these bands, then why should an encyclopedia? Cullen328Let's discuss it08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328 I never said there are not reliable sources that discuss these bands. There are definitely reliable sources because they were all prominent in their local scenes and got good media coverage regardless of them not having formal releases. Westworld, Chicago Reader, and IMDB are my main sources. Not including these bands makes it look like she had a 10 year gap in her career when she didn't. I can add the genres and those details, but I'm stuck with the same issue of each item reading the same, which is what I am trying to avoid. Maybe bullets, a table, or something else is a valid alternative. Alexmarie (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently, i made Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/Articles/Requests, and I want any posts archived within 1.5 months of inactivity, but how? And also, how do I make the instructions on top of the page go into wikitext, like it does in this page? If you don't know what i mean, how do I make this'?
{{subst:trim|1=
<!-- PLEASE ADD A SHORT SUBJECT HEADING then WRITE YOUR QUESTION BELOW THIS LINE. -->
<!-- DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE. This form inserts your signature for you, using four tildes (~~~~). -->
}} ~~~~🔥LightningComplexFire🔥20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi LightningComplexFire. As to the first part of your question, follow the instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archiving. If you have any problems, please advise here further. As to the second part, please see generally mw:Extension:InputBox. Following the instructions there, you would need to create a dedicated page for the preload content. I suggest using the content of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload as an example to work from. You might create that at the title Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/Articles/Requests/Preload. Once created, you would add to the existing inputbox code the following (being sure to use the exact name of the preload page you created):
If you wanted to use exactly the same text as used for the button here, though, with no tailoring, you can simply repurpose it, by adding to the existing inputbox code:
I am trying to add a map to an article about the Teays River to illustrate the point about valleys wider than the creeks that could have created them. The data is government data from the State of Ohio. I manipulated the data in a GIS workspace to show hillshade and color gradients so that the wide valleys are more visible. Wikipedia is saying it cannot verify that I created this, and so it won't let me publish it. What should I do? Tothcolin1 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
(i) Is this set of government data in the public domain, and (ii) do you want either (a) to release the result under a (very permissive) copyleft license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons or (b) to waive all your rights to it and instead donate it to the public domain? If "yes" to both (i) and (ii), then upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If you encounter a problem doing this, then ask at Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
IronThumb3000 You should remove your "Reviewer note" from the article, as you are not functioning as a reviewer of the draft. If you have any comment on the draft, put on Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi IronThumb3000. Just a few quick notes: remove each and every embedded raw link from the text. Remove all citations to blogs (and any other citations to user-generated sources). Punctuation, such as periods and commas, should be placed before the footnotes, like at the end of this sentence.[1] (It doesn't do this everywhere, but in a few places – and there are a few where the punctuation is doubled, one before and one after the footnote.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
two measures?
I respect the importance of strict COI policies on all editors. I am very familiar with it in scientific publications too. But I worry about the journalistic COI. When an editor here refers to an article in a media publication, without a COI disclaimer, doesn't it taint the information presented by the editor? Shouldn't be at least a requirement to TRY to obtain a COI statement before an inclusion or reference to such an article is made? And at least inform on the denial, or the compliance/disclosure of such statement? Artemon ge (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Not clear wht your question is. Do you mean when a Wikipedia editor cites a media publication there is a need for a COI disclaimer? (No.) Or do you mean when an editor employed by a media publication cites that publication? (Yes) David notMD (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That too is intersting: a non trusted media needs nothing more? In the case of employed editor, the COI affect all articles from its relation right? Artemon ge (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC) ::David notMD, he meant that (if I can grasp it well, Artemon ge can verify) he was concerned of this scenario: Alice wants to cite a USA Today article. Unbeknownst to others, Alice is the article writer (qualifying WP:OR) and that she is using a pseudonym here to mask her COI. He thinks if there could be a guideline requiring COI questioning before someone can add a source to an article, or change a source, to verify that they're not affiliated with the source and thus not sneakily violating WP:OR. GeraldWL14:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Actually yes that was my main point, I recently started using a browser with VPN (obliged) and had trouble with WK, must be signed in to do anything, which is ok, but a catfish email and an autocofirm allows someone to mask his COI, right?
@2006nishan178713: I assume you meant to ask "How do I create a new Wikipedia article?". If so, please be advised that sucessfully creaating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can start on Wikipedia. That being said, there are a few steps available here, here or here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Pageviews
How can I make a pageviews page? This page is updated by a bot and it can tell if it's a Cali related article, and I want to do the same for wildfires, but I don't know how a bot can detect if it's a wildfire article. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Although I've been here for 15 1/2 years, with almost 270k edits, here's something I don't know the answer to, so here I am at the Teahouse.
Q: When a category gets moved (i.e. its title is changed), does the change ripple back so that all the articles assigned to that cat are changed to the new name, or does it have to be done individually, either manually or via bot?
Thanks, please ping me when answering as I don't have this page on my watchlist.
Hello,
I submitted a Draft:Institute of Project Management and it got rejected due to references issues. This is the note "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)."
When created that article, I refer much to this published article Institute of Public Administration (Ireland). I thought that type of references I used are similar with what's used on that article. However mine was rejected.
I wish I could get better understanding about the difference of references using on Institute of Public Administration (Ireland) compare to mine. Therefore I could avoid the same mistake and improve.
@Cnagita4: With a quick glance, the sources for that article are not very good either. It did not go through the draft process, someone created it as a stub and then it got expanded. RudolfRed (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Cnagita4. The existence of one poorly referenced article does not justify the creation of another new poorly referenced article. On the contrary. That observation invites deeper scrutiny of both the older article and the draft. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Non-linked articles from other language Wikipedias
Hello fellow Wikipedians at my favourite tea house that is still open when all the others close,
so I've started the New Year with fresh motivation to edit, but alas I've already found more things to do than I possibly have time for (in addition to my longer-term planned new articles).
Specifically, I am sometimes stumbling about "non-linked" articles in different language Wikipedias which clearly are about the same topic, but seem to be disconnected in... Wikidata? For example, these here:
Five freedoms and de:Fünf Freiheiten (Tierwohl).
As I'd rather spend my time editing Wikipedia than diving into Wikidata (which I overall find to be rather dull ^^) - is there somewhere I can report this, so it can be fixed? Or at least be able to fix it with a few (automated) clicks without having to spend much time going over to Wikidata and learning how to work there.
-- LordPeterII (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi LordPeterII. Thanks for spotting this. Good catch! Usually it can be done in a few clicks (first click is edit links under languages) but in this case there seems to be a duplicate Wikidata item, (d:Q5456220 and d:Q60982313). I'll try to flag that. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. My request on the article Draft:Asif Tariq was declined because of lack of sources. Unfortunately this is very difficult to find many sources as i am from very small town. The said subject is a renowned Kashmiri poet i worked hard on this article. Please help me by approving this article. I did my best. Hope in your help. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Majid Saleem78, and welcome to the Teahouse. The most important criterion for whether there can be an article on somebody is whether there are enough independent, reliably-published, sources to establish that the person is notable. The sources do not have to bo online, or in English, (though it's easiest if they are), but they have to exist, to have been published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, and to be independent of the subject. If you cannot find several references which meet these descriptions, then I'm afraid Tariq does not satisfy the criteria for notability, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Another question but this time about talk pages
Hi
I am asking a lot but thanks for your help so far. I want to makes some changes and I put comments into Talk and history. I notice that only one editor has been in there on talk to action changes in 2016. I put my comments there but no-one visits why? I am just wondering how it all works. Does Wikipedia get a notification from talk when editors are in asking in there. I have read through what you gave me and am new but some things must be put onto talk for the living people. And no-one comes ... I am wondering if I am missing a step here. Can you tell me how this works and am I meant to notify anyone?20footfish (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 20footfish (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware people only see what's on a talk page if (a) they click on the talk page or (b) have it on their 'watchlist'. This does mean that smaller, lesser known article talk pages don't get much attention and it might take a while for a response. EcheveriaJ (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody gets notified automatically when you edit an article's talk page, 20footfish. Anybody who has the article on their watchlist will see it appear, but won't noramlly get a notification. If you know there are particular editors who you would expect to have an opinion, you can ping them in your posting: you should certainly do this if you are already in dispute with an editor or editors on the matter. If there is a relevant WikiProject, you could put a notice on the project's talk page pointing to your discussion on the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You have been extensively editing Park Yoo-chun AND posting comments on the Talk page of the same article. As you have correctly been bold in making direct changes, and because other editors have chosen to 'watch' the article, you may find that some of your changes will be disputed, perhaps reverted. That should lead to an active discussion on the Talk page, perhaps where you have already made a case for your changes. Lastly, please stop designating your edits as minor edits. That terminology is intended for very small changes, such as correcting spelling, punctuation, etc. David notMD (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
To expand what David notMD said above, do not be afraid of someone to revert your edits nor take it as an attack. It is a normal phase of article development at Wikipedia -- see WP:BRD for more explanation. --CiaPan (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Rhank you everyone who has commented here. Very helpful. Really glad to have has some feedback. Yes I will look at minor edit thing and rethink it. Perhaps a heading change isn't minor or putting the info into the correct area of the page. Little has been changed other than family history which is disputed in 5 articles, the sources were contradictory and the info was uncited so I am not expecting a dispute on uncited sentences. Yes I am correcting it because the Thai, Japanese and Portugese wikipedia has different information and at this point I will wait couple weeks, get used to wikipedia and watch the news because some of his legal stuff may really change because there is a current case now going through where people are going to be held responsible for falsly blaming him. Changing it now would be a waste of time :) Huge THank you. I will keep mu courage to change it. I am not really sure which wikipedia will become the main one where transations come from after wikidata is finished but slowly I will get the other languages done. The info is not in dispute but the detail is. The detail needs to be accurate or removed as per your policy. Hopefully its okay. I plan to take out uncited unnecessary info :) 20footfish (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Find an archived version of the page that contains the information in the Wikipedia article
If the reference in the Wikipedia article uses {{cite web}} or something similar, put the archive URL under |archive-url= and the date of that archive |archive-date=.
If you can't find an archive or even an updated URL, tag the citation as {{dead link}}. We need to keep it so people know where someone found the information once upon a time. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 16:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@SpiritGirl809: There is also an automated option that works most of the time (and if it doesn't, you can do it manually as outlined above):
Click "View History" on the article, and then you'll find "External tools" at the very top. It lists a few ones, and the last option is "Fix dead links". You can simply click that, and it will prompt you to login at the site (just click login, should be done automatically with your Wikipedia account). There you can "Analyze a page", which will automatically fix all deadlinks in the article it can find. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
hello, I am new to Wikipedia, I want to write an article but I have no idea where to start. Could you please suggest a format or any guidelines that I should take into consideration except for what is already there on the Wikipedia guidelines page. If some admin could help me in the initial stage I would be very much obliged. Thank you :) Hitch2413 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Hitch2413, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I remember when I started editing Wikipedia fifteen years ago, and was likewise desperate to make my mark by creating a new article. Now I know that creating an article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for an inexperienced editor (more difficult now than it was fifteen years ago, because we have a much higher standard than we had then), and my advice to you is that if you spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million articles (thousands of which desperately need some attention), you are likely to have a much much less frustrating time, and add much much much more value to Wikipedia than if you set out to create a new article straight away. --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The Welcome posted to your Talk page includes a link to "Your First Article," but I also strongly recommend doing time improving existing articles before essaying your own creation. P.S. Admins are busy mopping up messes, but the volunteer editors at Teahouse are around to answer specific questions. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could help me create a draft article?
Hello SoyokoAnis, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to submit your draft for review, you can click the blue button on the banner at the top. However, you first need to demonstrate the topic meets the general notablilty guidelines by showing the reviewer it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You should also read WP:NWEB. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is probably a dumb question but I'll still put it here
So I was browsing the Fun Spot America Theme Parks article when I saw that Hurricane (Miler roller coaster at the Kissimmee, Florida location) didn't have it's own article.
@Jajamanjaja: Not a dumb question at all! There is not a specific guideline that discusses the criteria of a ride's notability, so go by the WP:GNG guideline. If there is significant, reliable, in depth coverage of the ride, it is notable. Perhaps develop the article in a draftspace. Once you feel it is ready, you can submit it for review, where an experienced editor (such as myself) will review it. Hope this helps! – DarkGlow (✉) 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Designating profession in name...
I created a page for Professor David Ullman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ullman_(author) who is obviously designated with the (author) label. That's fine, however, there is another David Ullman who is a sailmaker and has no designation. I am curious if there is a way to designate the sailmaker so that when searched it is obvious what each Ullman does. Thank you. 76.108.89.160 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 76.108.89.160 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I wish to write about some major budget cuts that are going to affect a local school district, but I'm not sure if the event qualifies for its own article or if it would be better just to write about it on the school district's Wikipedia article. Springfield2020 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Springfield2020, I would suggest just writing about it in the school district's article; a standalone page would likely be deleted on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. Even on the district's page, make sure that you give WP:Due weight to the cuts within the historical context of the district, avoiding any inappropriate WP:Recentism. This probably means that they will warrant at most a paragraph, and perhaps only a single sentence. As always, make sure you include citations to news coverage. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
A question has arisen about the neutrality (or otherwise) of the article submitted. A similar article (on Robert and Thomas Elworthy) can be found on Russian Wikipedia. None of Robert Elworthy's family have contributed anything to the Russian article. Therefore it could prove a useful check on the contents of the article provided under the title "Robert Pearce Elworthy. Philip Clarkson Webb (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Philip Clarkson Webb (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Philip Clarkson Webb, I'm not familiar with Russian Wikipedia specifically, but many other language Wikipedias have different norms and standards, and some of them have substantial neutrality issues. Unless the article has good or featured status in another language, I would look more to WP:Neutrality than to the example on Russian Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Liberealist. Part of the explanation is that the link includes "&oldid=9938715" so is confusing things by trying to point to a specific (old) version of a page. If you delete that part of the link, it works fine. I can't give a more detailed technical explanation but others might. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Liberealist. A bit off topic, but you might like to mention to your friend that we do have a dedicated Wikipedia link shortener here. This can sometimes be useful when you want to give links to Wikipedia in a printed document, especially if the url is a very long or complex one. Thus, https://w.wiki/tYD links to that specific page version of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Hope this is of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: That's a cool trick! Do you know where I could post to suggest that the link shortener info be added to the "Cite this page" info that is available on articles? Currently that page only shows the long URL to use in citations. RudolfRed (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed:MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content if you just want to give a link to the URL Shortener. Short url's are assigned on demand and to keep them short we probably don't want to use one every time "Cite this page" is clicked. That means at least one extra step for people who want to use it. If any character is lost or wrong then you have no way of guessing where it should have gone, unlike the example here with two missing digits. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ciiting Wikipedia is a really bad idea in an academic paper, much less a thesis – unless Wikipedia is the subject of the thesis! Why not advise your friend to use the source used in the article instead? --bonadeacontributionstalk17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My talk page is gone?
Hi, all. I just joined Wikipedia and attempted to make a user page (granted, it's extremely simple). The link for my talk page was showing in red for the first few minutes after I joined, and then it turned to blue. I was able to click on it then and go to my talk page. However, after I added the link to my talk page into my user page, the link turned red again and I haven't been able to access my talk page since. Did I do something wrong?
I'm putting together a page for a musician/DJ and I'm hitting a bit of a snag with formatting/wording. She has been in 5 bands from 2000-2011, but none of them had any formal releases. The Wiki page is focusing on her more prominent DJ career than her career as a musician, though it's all notable to mention. Since there isn't much information about her previous bands other than the fact she was in them, it's all coming out as "she was a member of X band from 20xx to 20xx" and that's it. Having 5 of those similarly worded sentences in a row just doesn't look right.
What might my options be? I want to mention them all as they paint a picture of her as a musician.
Hello Alexmarie. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to summarize what independent published reliable sources say about the topic. It is difficult to imagine that reliable sources would spend much time discussing five bands that never released recordings. Anything is possible but I am dubious. Ask yourself: if reliable sources do not discuss these bands, then why should an encyclopedia? Cullen328Let's discuss it08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328 I never said there are not reliable sources that discuss these bands. There are definitely reliable sources because they were all prominent in their local scenes and got good media coverage regardless of them not having formal releases. Westworld, Chicago Reader, and IMDB are my main sources. Not including these bands makes it look like she had a 10 year gap in her career when she didn't. I can add the genres and those details, but I'm stuck with the same issue of each item reading the same, which is what I am trying to avoid. Maybe bullets, a table, or something else is a valid alternative. Alexmarie (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently, i made Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/Articles/Requests, and I want any posts archived within 1.5 months of inactivity, but how? And also, how do I make the instructions on top of the page go into wikitext, like it does in this page? If you don't know what i mean, how do I make this'?
{{subst:trim|1=
<!-- PLEASE ADD A SHORT SUBJECT HEADING then WRITE YOUR QUESTION BELOW THIS LINE. -->
<!-- DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE. This form inserts your signature for you, using four tildes (~~~~). -->
}} ~~~~🔥LightningComplexFire🔥20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi LightningComplexFire. As to the first part of your question, follow the instructions at Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archiving. If you have any problems, please advise here further. As to the second part, please see generally mw:Extension:InputBox. Following the instructions there, you would need to create a dedicated page for the preload content. I suggest using the content of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload as an example to work from. You might create that at the title Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/Articles/Requests/Preload. Once created, you would add to the existing inputbox code the following (being sure to use the exact name of the preload page you created):
If you wanted to use exactly the same text as used for the button here, though, with no tailoring, you can simply repurpose it, by adding to the existing inputbox code:
I am trying to add a map to an article about the Teays River to illustrate the point about valleys wider than the creeks that could have created them. The data is government data from the State of Ohio. I manipulated the data in a GIS workspace to show hillshade and color gradients so that the wide valleys are more visible. Wikipedia is saying it cannot verify that I created this, and so it won't let me publish it. What should I do? Tothcolin1 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
(i) Is this set of government data in the public domain, and (ii) do you want either (a) to release the result under a (very permissive) copyleft license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons or (b) to waive all your rights to it and instead donate it to the public domain? If "yes" to both (i) and (ii), then upload it to Wikimedia Commons. If you encounter a problem doing this, then ask at Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
IronThumb3000 You should remove your "Reviewer note" from the article, as you are not functioning as a reviewer of the draft. If you have any comment on the draft, put on Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi IronThumb3000. Just a few quick notes: remove each and every embedded raw link from the text. Remove all citations to blogs (and any other citations to user-generated sources). Punctuation, such as periods and commas, should be placed before the footnotes, like at the end of this sentence.[1] (It doesn't do this everywhere, but in a few places – and there are a few where the punctuation is doubled, one before and one after the footnote.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
two measures?
I respect the importance of strict COI policies on all editors. I am very familiar with it in scientific publications too. But I worry about the journalistic COI. When an editor here refers to an article in a media publication, without a COI disclaimer, doesn't it taint the information presented by the editor? Shouldn't be at least a requirement to TRY to obtain a COI statement before an inclusion or reference to such an article is made? And at least inform on the denial, or the compliance/disclosure of such statement? Artemon ge (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Not clear wht your question is. Do you mean when a Wikipedia editor cites a media publication there is a need for a COI disclaimer? (No.) Or do you mean when an editor employed by a media publication cites that publication? (Yes) David notMD (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That too is intersting: a non trusted media needs nothing more? In the case of employed editor, the COI affect all articles from its relation right? Artemon ge (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC) ::David notMD, he meant that (if I can grasp it well, Artemon ge can verify) he was concerned of this scenario: Alice wants to cite a USA Today article. Unbeknownst to others, Alice is the article writer (qualifying WP:OR) and that she is using a pseudonym here to mask her COI. He thinks if there could be a guideline requiring COI questioning before someone can add a source to an article, or change a source, to verify that they're not affiliated with the source and thus not sneakily violating WP:OR. GeraldWL14:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Actually yes that was my main point, I recently started using a browser with VPN (obliged) and had trouble with WK, must be signed in to do anything, which is ok, but a catfish email and an autocofirm allows someone to mask his COI, right?
Recommendations for rejected Trans Chair article
Hi there! I'm working on a page for the Chair in Trans Studies at the University of Victoria. My draft was rejected, but given only a short reason why ("article does not have sufficient content for its own page"), and did not offer any other issues or point out other problems. It was also rejected almost immediatel after it was submitted. After chatting with some folks, I made a handful of changes and would love if anyone has more advice before I resubmit it. I think it has a good amount of info in it and is sufficiently sourced, but would love suggestions on formatting or what else I can do:)
The article name is as follows: Draft: Chair in Transgender Studies at the University of Victoria.
Hello Wrenhawke, based on what David notMD has said, I agree. Although I'm unsure if this is the right thing to do, you can try moving it directly into the main-space and wait. According to me it does meet most criteria and therefore it will be accepted and not nominated for deletion, considering the fact that much smaller articles have also been accepted the same way. SenatorLEVI11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Wrenhawke, David notMD, and SenatorLEVI: I resubmitted the draft to AfC and subsequently accepted it per the above and my own brief review; it can now be found at Chair in Transgender Studies at the University of Victoria. Curbon7's rationale was indeed a confusing one given the quality of sourcing. I've watchlisted the article and will keep an eye on it in case it does indeed end up at AfD (I doubt it will, but still). I have added the article to the gender studies WikiProject and Category:Gender studies, but am not sure off hand which others would apply. Wrenhawke, David notMD, SenatorLEVI do you have any ideas? --TheSandDoctorTalk14:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I applaud the move from draft to article. Cannot help with categories, but want to add that University of Victoria has a modest amount of content about transgender studies, and there also exists Transgender Archives at the University of Victoria, so this article should Wikilink to those, and there should not be too much duplication of content. The latter may provide some useful references that could be added to the new article, remembering to include in the edit summary where the content came from. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD, SenatorLEVI, and TheSandDoctor: Hello all, thank you for the kind words and help! It is very much appreciated:) As for other categories, Category:Universities and colleges in Canada and Category:Transgender studies are ones that come to mind Wrenhawke (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Wrenhawke: You're welcome! I've added the categories for you; please don't hesitate to add any others that you think may apply. As for linking categories in a discussion, adding the wikilink like you did is the correct approach, just add a colon right at the start (like this "[[:") or see Template:Cat. I hope that that helps; if you have any questions on wiki formatting etc, feel free to reach out on my talk page. I would be more than happy to assist. --TheSandDoctorTalk05:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I note the entry for Henk Guth refers to "Panaorama Guth" (Alice Springs - destoryed by fire in 2005.
Using images found on the internet, I've created a fairly high resolution re-creation of the full panorama, and it seems a shame that this otherwise "lost" image is not available to the general public. Clearly an entry or link in Wikipedia would be a sensible location.
Given I've stitched the image together from material from the internet, I'm unsure of the copyright status of the final. Clearly I have copyright in my work but I don't know the status of the source images I used.
I was wondering if this is an image that would be appropriate to include in the entry for Henk Guth.
Because of the sources, the full stitch can look a bit scrappy, so I also did 3 part stitces that together give to full panorama, but each looks less scrappy than the whole.
You should create an account to upload an image (called a file) to Wikipedia. Those files, unless it is noted in the website somewhere that it has a certain free license, are assumed to be copyrighted, and must be uploaded locally in the English Wikipedia under fair use. GeraldWL09:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Any Experienced Editor or Sandbox/Draft Reviewer To Review My Sandbox - Howard X?
Hello everybody!
I would like to receive help on my sandbox Howard X. He is the first impersonator of Kim Jong-Un, and is well known in East Asia. As he impersonates a risky figure, I don't think a lot is available about him.
Would it be considered WP:PROMO or WP:BOOKSPAM to include books related or written by the subject of an article in the Further Reading? For instance, would any of the following be okay for the Maximum Fun network: Everybody Has a Podcast (Except You), The Sawbones Book, Here There Be Gerblins, Murder on the Rockport Limited!, Petals to the Metal. I asked the same question on Talk:Maximum Fun, but figured I'd have more luck getting an answer if I posted here.
I'm also a little confused what is considered a good selection for the Further reading section. I added some books to Religion and spirituality podcast, Slidecasting, and Draft:Music podcast. I'd really appreciate feedback on whether I did these Further reading sections correctly or not. I basically just looked up keywords on Google Books and these seemed the most relevant to the topic. Can I put non-book sources in the further reading section? TipsyElephant (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
TipsyElephant, if the books have much more information related to the podcast that readers might find useful, sure. If no, you can simply make a section titled Bibliography with a bulleted list of books related to the podcast, as seen in the article Stephen King. If the books are too much, you can make a separate article, as seen in Stephen King bibliography. Keep in mind that they must be referenced with a source; although primary sources are allowed, secondary sources are preferred. GeraldWL10:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Suspicion of auto-ads white-washing
Hello,
While visiting the Dead-end articlesmaintenance page, i've found this one: Suresh Sriskandarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who I've supposed it's a autopromo ads made by a Sri-Lankan lawyer for promoting his business, so a new page created not so long days ago. When I've checked history, I saw that it's an old article that has been blanked by this new ads-oriented article, as commented in the talk page. As I'm not sure about what happened and I'm relatively new in English Wiki, I interpell you with this message , as someone who has more time for seeing it, can do something.
Thanks, and sorry for my broken english. Anas1712 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Right now I really want to know which one I should use. I currently use Visual Editing as it is very helpful. Which one should I use? SoyokoAnis (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello SoyokoAnis, it is really up to you. Many editors use either, or both. Since you find Visual Editing helpful you could continue using that. You can also try source editor, if you like it you can start using it. But as I stated before, completely up to you. SenatorLEVI04:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
SoyokoAnis, welcome to the Teahouse. Like SenatorLEVI stated, it's completely up to you. I find the two to be useful in different situations:
Visual editor: great for doing tasks like copy editing.
Source editor: useful for template tweaking (especially if they don't have TemplateData).
If you want to make your life easier with the source editor, there are gadgets like WikEd which can provide some more functionality that the standard toolbar does not provide, or the beta feature 2017 wikitext editor, which basically ports over the toolbars and features from the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
What I also find myself doing with source code editor (when I got the time) is to clean up hand-made inline citations, which does not work well in VE (where you have to recreate the entrie ref structure, especially if tempaltes where used). Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm assuming you want to know how to create a page/article. In order to do so you need to fulfill two requirements-
Account needs to be 4 days old
You have to have made at least 10 edits
After that you are eligible to create an article. However before doing so it is best you go through Making your first article. You can also submit an article through the article wizard-Here. If you are inexperienced in making articles, or require help you can submit one through Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Afc is a peer-review process in which other experienced editors can help you make your article. If unsure you can ask any questions at the Teahouse or the Helpdesk, or make minor edits on other articles before you know you are ready to make your first article. Keep in mind to keep your article notable and reliable. Additional information here. SenatorLEVI06:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
While an editor who has made ten edits and had the account for four days is technically able to create an article, I would advise any editor that new not to even attempt it, Zayakg. Creating a new article that gets accepted is one of the most difficult tasks there is for an inexperienced editor, and trying it before you have learnt how Wikipedia works is likely to lead to a lot of frustration, and possibly a lot of wasted effort, if you try to create an article on a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. My advice it to spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles (some of which desperately need work!) before trying to create an article; and then using the articles for creation process to create a draft. --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to have any independent sources, Grhodig2107. This is the most important matter: unless you find some independent reliable sources, the draft has no chance of being accepted. Please see CSMN. Also, it contains non-neutral language like "multi-talented" and "well-known". Such evaluative phrases don't belong in any Wikipedia article, unless they are direct quotes from a source wholly independent of the subject. (I see that the Thisdaylive site describes him as "multi-talented" but, 1) that article is mostly an interview, so not independent, and 2) you have used the word in Wikipedia's voice rather than as a quotation.) --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm theleekycauldron (talk·contribs), and while I'm not new to Wikipedia, I stumbled upon the draft page for Draft:CallMeCarson and have run into a brick wall. I cleaned up the language and grammar, made sure all the sources were reliable, and made sure the important controversies were there and the rather unimportant ones were deleted. But as far as basic graphical information goes, it's kind of taken as a given when covered by reliable sources. They don't feel the need to bring readers up to speed. Where can I cite biographical information, instead of just the controversies? Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, sometimes you can use primary sources for basic biographical information per WP:ABOUTSELF. Those sources can't be used to establish notability, though, and if all the sources are for communities so niche that information about Carson can be presumed, there may be notability concerns per WP:AUD (that's technical for organizations, but may be IAR applied to BLPs by some). {{u|Sdkb}}talk13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Done, submitted for review - thanks!
Wikipedia logo
On Wikipedia:Slogans I have added Wikipedia logo for Sjo language but on the typing is missed one word. Is there someone that can gently help me to complete the typing? I am Italian, I cant read and write mongolian. Thanks in advance!!! --2001:B07:6442:8903:5CE0:29CA:3B85:1A03 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I asked for advice here about the same topic before, but I believe I am still a bit confused. I would like to have the redirect "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaic,_New_Jersey#Government" for Hector Carlos Lora replaced with a draft article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hector_Carlos_Lora) I've written on him. I would argue he does meet the criteria for notability to have his own article. What would be my next steps in seeking such a replacement? Do you believe it is worth it and would have a chance? If yes, then how do I proceed? If not, why? Thank you, LMPAJ (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: From what I can see, I don't think he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for local politicians WP:NPOL. You can read more about the consensus guidelines at WP:POLOUTCOMES. To paraphrase, just being mayor and doing mayorly things isn't automatically enough. I'd like to see some biographical coverage - what's in the draft now is the city web site and a speaker bio likely written by him. His ethnicity aside, has he gotten any publicity for anything besides being mayor? If you can say yes and have sources, you'd be in better shape. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)22:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Faster edits, I'd have a read of WP:Reliability but the key takeaway is that it depends on context: a paper in a peer reviewed academic journal might be the most reliable source for one topic, but a local newspaper article might be the most reliable for another. --Paul ❬talk❭ 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Faster edits, see WP:RS. In general, newspapers, news websites, magazines, and academic journals are considered reliable. In context of video games, comics, aviation, etc., sites or sources highly respected in the field are considered reliable. Books written by credited people can also be considered a reliable source. Note that although some sources are RSes, not all of their works are reliable; plus, an editor should not use a reliable source to mask an uncited claim. For example, stating a claim that the NASA headquarters is flying, using a source talking about Jesus. GeraldWL15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
How can I create a new flag for a job I am doing?
By flag I mean like the flag of Mexico or the United States to be included in conflicts. D10s Maradona (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Newreaders, the speed at which drafts are reviewed can vary quite a lot; unfortunately, when there's a backlog, sometimes it can take months. Per the advice in the submitted notice at the bottom, you can add project tags to the talk page to try to speed things up.
Sometimes (but not always), a longer review means that the page isn't so bad that it can be quickly declined, but also isn't so good it can be quickly accepted. Other times, it just means no one has gotten to looking at it yet. {{u|Sdkb}}talk13:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, many thanks. It just seemed a bit strange that it was being reviewed quite swiftly and then stopped altogether. I'll look into the project tags, although I'm not sure what they are! Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newreaders (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Either just because you asked, or just a coincidence, reviewed today, and declined (for the fifth time). The draft is sprinkled with notes where citations are needed. Comply with ALL OF THESE before resubmitting. If you cannot provide citations, deleted the unverified factual statements. David notMD (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's 20th birthday
In one week, the largest encyclopedia in human history will be turning 20 years old, are there any plans to commemorate this milestone? 47.150.227.254 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
My name is Ron Harper of Sydney, Australia.
As a regular DONOR I am seeking personal help.
My forebear "George Harper was born in the Parish of Donaghheadie in or near the Market Town of Strabane in the County of Tyrone" (As recorded on George's discharge papers from 20th Light Dragoons in 1794.)
Sorry but we're unable to assist you with personal problems unrelated to Wikipedia articles. Donors don't get gifts as it's optional to donate or not. If you are seeking ancestral findings, Ancestry.com researching may lead you somewhere. There are profiles of George Henry Harper 1794 on GENi, if you're searching for said person. Good luck with the ambition, and hope you can puzzle the past. GeraldWL10:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
To put it another way, anyone is welcome to use Wikipedia's various help facilities, including this one, which are "staffed" by unpaid volunteers like GeraldWL and myself. Your donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), a non-profit that develops and runs the software, servers, and a small admin and legal staff for all the different language Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, outreach, etc. projects. The money "keeps the lights on" so people can develop and use this resource (thank you). While the Teahouse is only for help on how to use and edit English Wikipedia, we do have a Reference Desk where you can get help researching subjects directly, where volunteers may point you towards content that may help you (much like the Reference Desk at a traditional library, where they can tell you what books you might find useful). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—17:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
HeroArmenia, welcome to the Teahouse. As the reviewer notes, This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. The language being used is inappropriate on Wikipedia. It should inform, but without saying how amazing the subject is. An example of promotional language: HAY-HAY concept store has promoted Armenian fashion and made an impact on the fashion industry in Armenia in a series of art exhibitions and events, and has also been featured in fashion magazines in several editorials and interviews. Citations removed. It's not important for readers to know that the store "made an impact". Show, don't tell; let readers make up their minds on how the store did with the information given without shoving it down their throats. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Question by 72.220.88.88
Can someone assist with writing a Wikipedia column on our firm? We are one of the first data analytics firms operating in sport/sport businesses and have been fairly successful at this service since 1989. The firm is also female founded and run which we believe will help serve as a role model from an educational standpoint to other women..
We feel we offer a very valuable message to other women in business/sport business who aspire to work with events nationally and globally. Please advise!
Thank you in advance...Dr. Kathleen Davis, CEO-SMRI 72.220.88.88 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello IP, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't offer a system for getting articles, they are simply created when a user (who is a volunteer) decides to create one. We don't offer writing services because they can contradict our goals as an encyclopedia, which are to be a neutral, accurate source of information for the world. Writing services can produce content that is not neutral, and not likely to be well maintained, as well as potentially making Wikipedia a PR platform, which it is firmly not.
On that note, Wikipedia has articles, not pages or columns. Anyone can create, and once an article is accepted, anyone can edit (within certain restrictions). Wikipedia has no interest in being a place for role models or messages. David notMD (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why SMRI is not using their own website to provide information to interested readers. In the "What's New" page on that website, the latest (actually only) entry is dated August 2008! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Μέδουσα
Hi i wanted to start a new wiki page but not a big reader i like to write creatively or about what i know of at the moment very well. I want to ask the tea house for recommendations on starting article, with this image name Μέδουσα. New to editing so i am also looking for tips. This started out ok but has twice been redirected and once commented nonsense before much was typed. The translation to medusa would not be a accurate representation.
The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9C%CE%AD%CE%B4%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B1&oldid=998836016
I am not sure of my correct use of my starting a new article. Or i have no choice but to argue with the entire wikipedia article with the image of medusa name. Time is not defined as a accurate verifiable source. Levwashere levi may (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, article titles should be in English or for proper names should be transcribed to Latin script. Thus if Μέδουσα should exist at all it must be a redirect to Medusa. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Levwashere levi may, hi there. The article on Medusa is present, so your only choice is to "argue with the entire wikipedia article with the image of medusa name." I'm not sure what you meant by that by the way. And by Time, you mean the Time Magazine? They are accurate and allowed, as I remember.
As to "i like to write creatively or about what i know of at the moment very well", sorry, but Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not for writing blogs, opinions, or short stories, if that's what you mean by "creative works". However we do allow creative ideas in improving or formatting articles, as defined by WP:3O. GeraldWL08:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Levwashere levi may, this edit was undid, because a) this the English not Greek Wikipedia, and b) we are not a host of creative works like Wattpad, as I said earlier. The thing I'd like to emphasize is the word "encyclopedia."
As for "The translation to medusa would not be a accurate representation"-- why? per WP:COMMONNAME, English Wiki articles must be titled in English, if an English translation is available. GeraldWL08:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Gerald
it has helped me gather the information i was interested in knowing. And from your questions no not Time magazine. Time as in on a clock. AS to the why question μέδουσα as in medusa is constantly changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levwashere levi may (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
LightningComplexFire, you plan on creating a WikiProject? Sounds cool. Anyways, if you look at the coding, they're basically a bunch of bulleted lists, like this:
I made factual changes to a wikipedia page and had them erased by another editor (Nj-de). The changes I made were based on fact and personal communication with the individual. How do I contact the editor who erased the changes and get the changes made restored. We will be adding references over the next few weeks.
You can contact Njd-de on his user talk page or you can write to the article talkpage and ping him. As for offline sources, they are accepted as long as they are acesable in some way. The usual problem when someone says they are person X is that nowbody knows who is actually on the other end of the network cable. I am not saying you are lying - you most likely aren't - but its not something you can rely on. If I say that I am Joe Biden - you can choose to beliave that - or you don't. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Editor 20022: Anything you add must have a reference. If you don't have a reference don't add it. Information must come from published reliable sources that can be verified by other readers. You can't use information you know personally. RudolfRed (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Editor 20022, welcome to the Teahouse; I'll answer these in reverse. Please understand that a Wikimedia account (which Wikipedia is a part of) is tied to one person only. If there are other people also operating through this account they should create their own, as this is a common reason for accounts to be blocked.
You claim that the changes you made were based on fact and personal communication with the individual, which doesn't do the article much good. Wikipedia deals with reliable sources to establish verifiability, many of which are secondary sources; primary sources can be used, but in very specific and limited cases.
If you want to contact an editor, you can either post something on their user talk page, or ping them with templates like {{ping}} (for example, {{ping|Njd-de}}) on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I saw a "placeholder" article today. The content says that the author will add full information at Jan 9. I nominated it for speedy deletion. And how do I send a request to move it to draft? Thanks. Larryzhao123 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Larryzhao123: I have deleted Wilfred Scull as it had no meaningful content, and we don't accept 'placeholder' pages, as you quite rightly recognised. Its creator (Roderick E) probably didn't realise we don't work this way, but is welcome to prepare a new WP:DRAFT via our Articles for Creation wizard, which will then be be reviewed and accepted, providing the person meets our Notability Criteria and the article is based upon Reliable Sources, and not on user-generated sites such as 'Find-a-Grave, IMdB, etc. The oly thing I would comment on, Larryz, is that there is no point putting forward and article for deletion in one way or another and also trying to move it to draft. In this instance, a draft would not have been the best way to proceed.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Grhodig2017, welcome to the Teahouse. This is not the correct venue for page move requests. Since this is a draft, you should put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article to let a reviewer note it's ready to be reviewed. If the reviewer finds it suitable for Wikipedia's standards, it will be moved into articlespace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
So I have been a part of many discussions on Wikipedia. I am always confused on when consensus is reached for them. I have heard that it doesn't matter the amount of keep/oppose votes happen, but that seems to always be the case that the majority vote wins. So when exactly does a "consensus is reached" happen? If you are not an admin and you want to close out a discussion on an articles talk page, what exactly should be looked for in the "consensus reached" or should a request be made to other editors somewhere to come close the discussion out?
Deleted contribution
My article on Makeda Cheatom was deleted. I have rewritten it. Do I just submit it like it is a brand new article? Geolog10 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Geolog10. I am quite happy to restore the draft for you to work on, but if you've already rewritten it, maybe that isn't necessary. Please link to where it is, as I couldn't see it from a quick look in your edits. But, yes, providing you address the issues raised in the original rejections (including poor reference structure) you can submit it afresh. But I think it might be better for me to restore the original (Draft:Makeda Cheatom) for you to carry on working on. Just let us know what you'd prefer. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
On a BLP of somebody from Ireland, the date format is dmy per MOS:DATETIES. If the person is involved in an event which takes place in the US (mdy format), is MOS:TIMEZONE to be followed (retain local format) or MOS:DATEUNIFY? The BLP in question is a professional fighter who has fought in both the UK/Ireland and the US, so I figured that DATEUNIFY would take precedence, otherwise the article would be littered with different formats depending on where a fight took place. I've only encountered two instances (both BLPs of professional fighters) where TIMEZONE has been used as the rationale for using a format that is inconsistent with the rest of the article, with the latest instance coming from a more experienced editor than me (which has made me doubt my opinion on the matter), so I figured I'd post here for some input. Thanks in advance. – 2.O.Boxing00:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@AlanM1: on Conor McGregor. However, looking back at the edit, I think the editor was using TIMEZONE more so for the local date (24 instead of 23 January), and used mdy simply because it's the format they're used to using. Thanks for the input though. I'll go ahead and change it to dmy. – 2.O.Boxing01:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Did I do it right?
I realized that a field was missing on the page, so I decided to contribute with information that was missing. I mentioned the source and posted it on the page. Did I do it right? WGCL19762021 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Atlantis77177: If you which to create an article about a subject that you feel meets WP:N, then probably the best thing for you to do would be to create a drafts and then submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think its ready. While Wikipedia does have lots of articles about sports team rivalries, that doesn't mean that it should have lots of articles about sports team rivalries. So, it would be better for you to create a draft or a user space draft first, with all of the supporting citations that you think establish the subject matter's notability. Then, if you want feedback from some Teahouse hosts or relevant WikiProject members, you an ask them to look at the draft. "Can I create an article about this?" types of questions are very hard to answer in anything other than a very general way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I got declined.
So i spent a while building a small wiki page for a football player and igot declined. It said minumum standard for incline citations. Can anyone tell me a simple reasoning behind this, thank you. CalebBowman3 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hope everyone is well. Thanks for inviting me here in teahouse. I have a question. I have searched "Smartchem Cable Limited" [1] in wikipedia and wiki suggested to create one. I just created one and this is deleted. Can you please advise me how to write in Wiki? In Bangladesh, this cable company is so popular and helping people use quality cables. But there is no information in wiki.
@Trailershow: Welcome to the Teahouse. Writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. New users are encouraged to become used to how Wikipedia works by working on preexisting articles and trying tutorials like The Wikipedia Adventure. If you are still inclined to write an article on Smartchem Cable Limited, I suggest reading through Your first article and finding independent, reliable sources. If you go the Articles for Creation route you can work on your draft in draftspace where it won't be deleted due to it being unsuitable by Wikipedia standards in mainspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I am trying to edit my grandfather's Wiki page (George Pedersen), but the edits are not being accepted. I do not have anything specific to reference as I am referencing his personal CV, which is not on the internet. Can anyone help me to do this for him? Puddlejumper2million (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Puddlejumper2million (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Puddlejumper2million, welcome to the Teahouse. An issue that you are facing is that you have a conflict of interest (COI). While it doesn't prevent you from editing the article directly, caution should be taken as Wikipedia editors frown upon COI editing. Edit requests make it easier so that edits onto the page are more neutral. The other issue is that Wikipedia relies on verifiability, which is done through reliable, independent sources. Your grandfather's CV would not be a great example of that. Has he been mentioned significantly in any newspapers, journals, or similar? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Puddlejumper2million. I'm really sorry - and I know you only wanted to update the George Pedersen page with good content - but we need anyone, anywhere in the world, to be able to VERIFY what they find on Wikipedia. OK, this might mean going online to check an independent website, or go to a library to request a published book or journal. But sadly we can't allow content 'straight from the horses mouth' or based on factual content held solely in private archives. I hope this helps you appreciate why your edits were removed. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Puddlejumper2million. I've added some information about conflict of interest editing to your user talk page. Please take the time to look it over, and then feel free to ask for further help here at the Teahouse if you have any questions. Now, there is one big way in which you could help improve the article about your grandfather and that would be to find and upload a picture of him to use in the article. Please understand that the copyright status of a photo can be a tricky thing to sort out sometimes and only certain types of copyright licenses are accepted by Wikipedia as explained here and here. The best thing for you to do would be for you to simply take a picture of your grandfather and then upload the image to Wikimedia Commons as explained here; trying to use an already existing image (perhaps one posted somewhere online) might actually require some sort of copyright license verification. It would be much easier for you to just take a photo yourself and then upload that photo with it's original Exif data to Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi June 099. I'm just going to add that you should also probably take a look at MOS:COLOR for reference. Adding color to a table might seem like a great thing to do, but it might actually create problems for others reading the article if it's not done correctly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I have my own articles
Hi, I have my own articles and just today is my 2nd day on this wikipedia world. I feel so great and thanks to you for your idea and suggestion. I have all the references too is its fine to create an articles can you pls help me for this. Zayakg (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Zayakg, I'm not sure what you mean by "my own articles", so I can't check them. But I see that you recently added some content to Santali cinema, providing nine references for something that isn't even a statement, and another four for an uncontroversial statement. This "cite overkill" will look suspicious to other editors. Maproom (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I am guessing that you mean you have an intention to create Wikipedia articles. General advice is develop more expertise by editing existing articles before trying to create one. See Help:Your first article once you are ready. David notMD (talk)
@Zayakg: Thanks for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. Based on what you wrote on your talk page, I have my own articles to post and make visible to the world ..., please be aware that articles that you've already written for another platform are unlikely to be suitable as-is for Wikipedia, as we have our own policies regarding notability, reliable sources, and style, plus some technicalities in the way text is marked-up for presentation. Additionally, if you have previously published that content or copied any of it from somwhere else, we have strict rules about respecting copyrights that would result in speedy removal of the content. Please see the links above (especially WP:YFA) for guidance. Writing and publishing a new article here as a new user is a difficult task, and we generally suggest that you instead spend some time improving existing articles to understand how Wikipedia works, both procedure/policy-wise and technically. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
My articles will not published any were until I give permission, what ever I will create that would be all my own work & own creation, I was thinking to create this since 2016 but so busy with my task and schedule. One day I inform to the person who is familiar with articles writing in wikipedia. He told me so many time ok I will create for you,...ok I will create for you, the days pass on & on and now almost 4 years and 6 days passed away I don't have my articles on wikipedia. I laugh at myself just before 3 days my soul says why don't you try by your own to create an article in wikipedia. Even-though I have many task to do but I give my 36 hours to see what is happening on Wikipedia how it works. Today is my 3rd day now I feel I can try. I don't need that person since 4 years and 6 days which I was waiting for my articles. Everyday is a learning day for me if I do any mistake pls pls guys help me or guide me. I feel so good to be connected with you all.
Thanks a lot, enjoy the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayakg (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope you didn’t pay money to that person who was going to create for you, Zayakg. What kind of articles do you seek to create? Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:17 Sat 09, AEDT) 12:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC) (P.S. to reply, next to the heading "I have my own articles", click the edit link or tap the pencil, then write your answer underneath the existing text.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelagic (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see that you have listed the film Bonodal under 2016, but the notes column says unreleased.[8] Also, do you have any relationship with the producer-director Kiran Khatiwada? —Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:44 Sat 09, AEDT) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this bodybuilder or the TV movie about him notable?
Bodybuilder Gregg Valentino has been called "the most hated bodybuilder". Valentino was the subject of the TV movie "The Man Whose Arms Exploded"[1], which documented his steroid use, bodybuilding, and injury. He has had an interview with ESPN[2]. There are a lot of articles about him on bodybuilding-specific websites, including T-Nation.com [3] and bodybuilding.com,[4] just to name a few.
An academic article in Critical Readings in Bodybuilding[5] dedicates time to Valentino, and claims he is the poster boy of bigorexia. He also appears in the book Manthropology,[6] although again briefly.
On the other hand, the only coverage I could find of Valentino in large newspapers was when the UK Independent covered the TV movie about him[7] and an article in the Denver Post which profiled him briefly along with a few other bodybuilders [8]
Hi IllQuill. Try taking a look at WP:NFILM or asking at WT:FILM regarding whether the film is Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be written about it. As for Valentino himself, WP:INTERVIEWS are WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB types of sources that might be acceptable in support of certain facts, but aren't really helpful in establishing notability. You can try asking about him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bodybuilding, but that WikiProject seems to be inactive these days. Maybe also try asking at WT:SPORTSBIO or WT:SPORTS since they seem to be more active and you're more likely to get a response. I don't see anything specific to bodybuilders in WP:NSPORT which means you might have only WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC to work with here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
When you add [[ ]] to a name and/or create an article, is there a way to then automatically link/add [[ ]] to name in other articles or do you have to manually do it? For example, Actor X is mentioned in lots of film articles but doesn't have own page, own article now created, does [[ ]] have to be added manually to his name in all the film articles or is there a quicker way to do this?--HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians!!! I have got my first Wiki Page approved, but it shows that it is an "Orphan Article". What does that mean?It seems like the article must be linked or should have incoming links. Please do help me what is the next process. Desmond Maverick (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it does not appear that you had an article approved. What I see is that you too someone else's draft Draft:Sandeep Kumar Mishra, which has been Declined three times, then copied it to create the article Sandeep Kumar Mishra in Mainspace, bypassing review, and without any accreditation of the original creating editor (Snowfall21). Tsk, tsk. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: I am going to go do a bunch of things to fix the copyright problem this has created, so I'd appreciate it if anyone seeing the above doesn't edit the article (which will, in any event, soon be deleted); any substantive made while it is (was) in the mainspace need to be attributed so each new one will create more work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out that mess. I was shocked, seeing what had been done, but did not have any idea how to remedy the transgression. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD: Thanks for discovering and noting the problem above. I hadn't looked at the history of the user before starting a copyedit on the cut and paste moved draft. Yeah, it was a big mess, and was quite a pain, becsuse multiple edits ocurred after the cut and paste move, but a history merge would have "shuffled" the page history. By the way, note this that I've just been alerted to.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
How to deal with weird, persistent vandalism(?) on Product key
Since July of last year, a series of IPs have been trying to add a sentence about gift/game cards from various retailers to the lead of Product key (and disrupting the article in other ways too, but that same sentence is always part of it). They've been reverted by different editors and lots of messages have been left on the IP talk pages, to no effect. I started a discussion on the article talk page, but I seriously doubt they'll show up; is there anything else can I do? I'm not sure if this is genuine good faith editing or just spam. Wikignome Wintergreentalk14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
How does one add references without an inline citation?
I just started editing Wikipedia recently and don't know how to add a general reference without out adding a inline citation in the article. Can someone please help? CeaselessTeapot (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Teapot! If you go to source editing mode and simply use the citation template without the <ref> and </ref> tags surrounding it, the citation won't be treated as an inline reference. There aren't a lot of use cases for this, and it's typically reserved for creating a bibliography where you're citing multiple different pages inline throughout the article. TheTechnician27(Talk page)18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I need some help.
Hey, this is somewhat urgent. I got a message from a user saying that File:CroppedImageOfAmericanProducerDJSuede.png is not suitable for Wikipedia because it is not freely licensed. I'm not familiar with different types of licensing, I'll say that, but I'm even less familiar with the methods of finding an image's licensing status. What kind of threw me off is when the user stated that a file can not be used even if the author themself approves of it, which I can kind of understand now that I think about it. However, I actually received another message from the subject asking to CHANGE the picture, and this is all kind of confusing. I'm thinking maybe the one he sent me is under a free license, according to Google Images, but that's a faulty method of finding out whether a picture has been under a free license, because I have tried it with other pictures that ARE available on the internet. Regardless (I know it sounds like I'm rambling) I need to know whether this picture is freely licensed, probably due to the fact that I wouldn't want to go through so much trouble to get some image uploaded. By the way, the only reason I'm doing any of this is because if the author seems to approve of it, and has even sent a picture to use, one would think this doesn't have any restrictions over it. I need help figuring out what license this picture has, if anyone knows how to do that, please let me know, thank you. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC) TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi TrevortniDesserpedx, free licensing here means that the Image must be free to use here or at any other open source. The best way to get a free licensed image is at our Sister project Wikimedia Commons. If you are the original owner of the image, you may upload it to Wikimedia Commons here. Please feel free to leave a personal message in my talk page for further clarifications.Desmond Maverick (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not quite right, Desmond Maverick. Free licensing means that the image must be free to use by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not, including altering it. Except where an image is in the public domain by reason of its age, this requires that the copyright holder explicitly release it either to the public domain or under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. In the absence of such explicit information, Wikipedia (and all Wikimedia projects) assume that an image is not freely licensed and cannot normally be used. Trevortnidesserped, Maverick is right that if you own the image then you can upload it to Commons, granting the licence on the way. But you say the subject has given permission, so it is evidently not your image. If the owner of the copyright (who is probably the photographer, unless they took the picture under an agreement which says otherwise) wishes to license it so that it can be used here, they can send a message as specified at donating copyright materials. You cannot do this, and nor can the subject, unless they own the copyright. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you guys soo much for your help I appropriately Added a link to the wikipedia page and put the Page Link of the Wikipedia page in the summary Just let me know if I need to credit it better don't wanna. Get introuble Thanks again. And have a great year --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty also can you show me an example of how Hyperlink Is done I have never done that before? And sorry if I'm aggervating you? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
How to see the full list of interwikis on the siderbar of a page?
Please refer to this image (I'm afraid I can't post it here on Wikipedia since it's not for an article, so I chose another host):
https://imgur.com/a/ifEWYk0
This page, for example, only shows a few interwikis followed by a button saying "14 more" where I can browse the remaining ones. Does anyone know how to make all pages show the entire list of interwikis instead, like it used to be? I searched a bunch of help pages about interwikis and sidebars, but found no solution to this problem. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum18:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I had submitted the draft Draft:Danish Siddiqui for review on 1 January. User Victor Schmidt had replied to the request for re-review and tagged another user, inviting them to the discussion (see) The user says that the article is not submitted for review.. Can someone clarify what seems to be the issue and what I could do to get the draft reviewed asap Indianite (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Theroadislong, so can no new draft be created by the same name? You see, I have written about a completely different (and notable) person as opposed to the autobiographical article that was earlier submitted for review. Is there a need to use a disambiguated title when no article (except for this draft) exists by this name?Indianite (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ahh I see that it is a different person, I have added a submit template for you, but you will need to find a reliable source for the Pulitzer prize win. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
How to submit a re-drafted page (original draft from 2019 now deleted)
Hello!
Based on feedback from the first draft of the Palace Cinema Broadstairs page, I've just drafted a new one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3APalace_Cinema_Broadstairs.
I've used the editor's notes from 2019 and also compared it to Wiki pages for similar independent cinemas to ensure the content is Ok and abides by Wiki rules.
I've submitted 4 pictures which I hope are ok: 2 x 100+yr old ones and 2 direct from the Palace Cinema.
I can't see the 'Submit' key and I'm worried that I've redrafted this page in a floating/unauthorised space.
Thanks if you could tell me the next steps.
Best wishes,
Corinna LittelLondon (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Wordsthatsay: On the "Page" menu/tab, choose "Move". Under "New title", in the first listbox, select Draft. In the second field, type Briana Cash. Click the "Move Page" button. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—00:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Delisting GA
I started a GAR a while back for Stephen Fry's Podgrams and there was quite a bit more discussion than I expected. I'm unsure what the guidelines are, but I assume that some kind of consensus has to be reached. I was curious whether it looks like that consensus was reached (I think everyone except one was pretty much on board with delisting) and what I should do to move the discussion along. I would also appreciate links to the guidelines for situations like this. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new to contributing Wikipedia and I'm curious as to whether or not there are any video tutorials available (like the videos available through LinkedIn Learning, Khan Academy, Coursera, etc.).
I've found those types of videos very easy to learn from, and there's certainly a lot to learn behind the scenes at Wikipedia!
Are there guidelines or policies against using promotion of trademarks in an article? Is there any significance to the use of different band colors in a Navbar?
I'd like to know if there is a policy against promoting a particular trademark in an article?
Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me the reason for the different colored background for band members names in a Navbar.
I'm seeing this in the Jefferson Starship article.
Thank you. Specifically, Slick, Kantner, and Balin have yellow backgrounds and Papa John and Chaquico have pinkish backgrounds. Is there significance?Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cheryl Fullerton. I don't know what the significance off hand might be, but the same colors used in the infobox are the same as the ones used in the navbars. The explanation for this is given in Template:Infobox musical artist#background. I'm not sure why those colors were chosen and I'll admit it's something that's almost certainly not going to be obvious to someone reading the article, but there does appear to be a reason for it. If you want to know what that is, try asking at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me (Apologies for my bad sense of humour)... Pahunkat (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy link: User talk:SenatorLEVI/sandbox SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
– DarkGlow (✉) 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
