Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1099

Archive 1095

←

Archive 1097

Archive 1098

Archive 1099

Archive 1100

Archive 1101

→

Archive 1105

Draft:Theatro Technis

 Courtesy link: Draft:Theatro Technis

to : Thank you for the Invitation. I have prepared a Draft: Theatro Technis . User:BereanHunter has imposed an administrators block on Drafts on Theatro Technis but he seems to be missing from Wikipedia practice since 1st October 2020, so I cannot ask him to review my draft. So I am asking you to help me ? Thank you {Panayotmarkou (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)}

Extended content

Draft:Theatro Technis Theatro Technis is an independent multi-cultural arts centre with a 120 -seat theatre located in the heart of London Borough of Camden. It contributes in general and specific ways to the cultural and social life of the people of London . General contribution to the cultural diversity of London: providing in-house productions of ancient Greek Drama in the English language and for which it is noted, 1) a performance space for innovative interpretations of classics , e.g. Shakespeare, Chekov , and Dostoyevski by next generation directors 2) a venue for foreign language productions, 3) a platform for political theatre , most notably “The Madness of George Dubya” ` which had been rejected by almost all of London venues. Michael Billington of the Guardian remarked “The most cheering aspect of the year was the varied and rapid response to the Iraq crisis. At Theatro Technis, Justin Butcher wrote and directed The Madness of George Dubya - ignored by most critics until it transferred to the West End “ Specific and Historical contribution: 1) to serve the “educational and cultural needs” of the Cypriot Greek and Greek communities of the UK, and which was the original raison d`etre by its founder George Eugeniou , and a group of fellow actors and creatives: staging dramas that explored the socio-economic , immigration and refugee concerns that impact this community , revealing the trauma of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus , the ethnic cleansing that ensued and its tragic aftermath. 2) organizing the annual community festival of “Cyprus Week”. 3) hosting the London Greek Film Festival in conjunction with ERT TV and the Thessaloniki Film Festival, History Originally founded in 1957 by George Eugeniou and a group of actors five decades ago Theatro Technis first started its work in an old unused warehouse located in the backyard of King`s Cross . Then after a monumental struggle and continued threats to its existence it finally found its permanent home in an old Church building where it has flourished into a centre of multi-faceted and multi-cultural activities . Selection of Productions Sophocles Oedipus King Prometheus Bound Medea (play) Lysistrata [The Persians]] Antigone King Lear Midsummer`s Night Dream Macbeth The Three Sisters The Idiot “Le Petit Prince” in French “La Casa de Bernad a Alba “ in Spanish “Kato Apo tis Keratsies” by Stavros Lilitos in Greek Griselda Gambaro `s 'Siamese Twins' “The Madness of George Dubya” by Justin Butcher Dowry with Two White Doves Afrodite Unbound The National Engagement' A Revolutionary Nicknamed Roosevelt The Best of Tofias Contract Hands Tied, Tied Hand Gringland Searching for the Lemons The Fire Burns where it Falls ,and Two Lives” “Cyprus Trilogy “The Hole” Educational schemes “The Tasty Plays” by Scene & Heard, `a unique mentoring project that sees local kids join forces with volunteer actors, writers and directors to create theatre.` Theatro Technis also offers one year free internships in theatre practice for aspiring young directors ,supervised by George Eugeniou . The Humanitarian Arm of Theatro Technis Theatro Technis runs a citizens advisory service for the local Greek Cypriot community as well as the Camden community References

@Panayotmarkou: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Don't post your whole draft there - you can ask them to view your draft on your user page or user talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Inserting text not for display

How do I add a note in the text to other editors that clarifies or draws attention a point in the accompanying text? I have seen it some articles but cannot remember what symbols to use in marking out the message. Thanks. 94.119.64.1 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, friend! I believe you're talking about leaving a comment in the code, which can be done like this: <!-- COMMENT --> The comment will be invisible to viewers but can be seen by anyone trying to edit in the source editor. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

EDG 543, People using the visual editor can also see it. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 14:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Bop34, oh, I forgot! Thank you for the reminder. I don't have much experience in the visual editor. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sunil Shukre

Respected Wikipedia team, Please guide me regarding the following draft.

Draft:Sunil Shukre

Please let me know if this draft is correct or which needs some changes.

Thank you in advance ! Cancersign (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cancersign: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added some comments about incline citations when I declined Draft:Sunil Shukre. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing "Your edit was saved" dialogue

Your edit was saved  X"

pops up each time I save an edit. Just a minor nit, but I'd like to remove this feature. Anyone know if there's a way to do so? Maybe something added to my to my common.js? Thanks in advance for even looking. If no one knows, I suppose I'll go to VPT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, found it. Nevermind.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

 Edd Acevedo (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello,Do you have a question about anything Wikipedia related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

About The Draft:Rishikesh Shukre

Please let me know if this draft is correct or it needs some changes. And how to make it better? Please guide me on this question.

Thank you! Cancersign (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cancersign, in my opinion I don't see this article being accepted. I'd ask you to go through WP:N and WP:RS to structure and article as well as WP:YFA. In this case you should go through WP:BLP to know what to do here. Additionally if the person here isn't covered by enough WP:RSes an article about them shouldn't exist, go through WP:NOT. You shouldn't be discouraged from editing due to this since it is only your first article. Cheers. SenatorLEVI 16:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

None of the refs are about him. His name being listed as an actor in these films does not count. Unless there is published content about Shukre, notability is not established. David notMD (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reasons for a wikipedia article to become a protected page?

So, Is there any reasons for a wikipedia article to become a protected page? I know how it becomes a good article or featured, but I would like to know how it becomes protected. Give me at least 3 reasons. Thank you ! Joshua's Number9 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Joshua's Number9. Three common reasons for protection are persistent vandalism, edit warring, or repeated attempts to create the same inappropriate article. Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy for all the details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Joshua's Number9, if you would like to request that an article receive some protection, you can do so here. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua's Number9 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Archives

I'm trying to review archived talk page entries on the Rocky Flats Plant article. I've used the search tool to find such archives for other topics (Medicaid, Elvis Presley just for examples) but it doesn't seem to work for Rocky Flats. Here's what I'm searching on: prefix:Talk:Rocky Flats Plant

Help! Howbeit (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Howbeit, hello, friend! There are no archived talk page entries for Rocky Flats Plant. There hasn't been much discussion, so everything that has been typed is still right there on the article. Hope that helps. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Cited for COI but trying to correct false information about something I was directly involved in.

I had updated information that had been falsely written. Someone reported me stating I had a conflict of interest. (I apologize for being new to making any changes) I have direct knowledge of this subject and only 3 people on earth know the true facts. So how would someone correct false stories and descriptions on Wikipedia? I never have really used or looked at Wikipedia before but thought it was factual information. But maybe it is not? I really appreciate any direction to help correct the information. I do understand that wiki is huge and this is just one company but it is an important company. thank you ShubhoBanerjee1957 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ShubhoBanerjee1957, a conflict of interest occurs when you as an editor is closely related to the topic (e.g. you work for a company the article's about, you are brothers with the subject of the article, you are paid to edit the article, etc.) When this happens, you must disclose that you have a conflict of interest. The reason your edits were removed is that you didn't include reliable references to prove what you said. If only three people on earth know the true facts as you claim, then there is no way for us to know if you are telling the truth or completely making it up. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ShubhoBanerjee1957. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what is published in reliable sources. We do not accept unpublished inside information known to only three people, because it cannot be verified. Please read Verifiability which is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Saying only 3 people know the truth probably sounds obnoxious and not meant to be. I apologize for that. I was trying to show that most of the stories or versions I have seen, seem to be from people on the outside? and wondering where they got this information that would be considered true? Just curious .. but if (this is just an example so I can understand how this works) but if I had a wiki page and someone said something about me that wasn't true or out in left field .. it sounds like I could not correct that? how would that be corrected? I would know me better than anyone else? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShubhoBanerjee1957 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia writes from an academic point of view, which is inherently from the perspective of a neutral observer. We use secondary sources, which are inherently "from the outside". We generally do not use primary sources (sources made by people who were directly involved in an event) as they often have a biased view of events, and lack context. We say what is said in reliable sources. If something doesn't have a reliable source, it can usually be removed. If something is from a reliable source, it can usually be added. AdmiralEek (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ShubhoBanerjee1957, the subjects of Wikipedia biographies are welcome to suggest corrections and improvements on the article talk page, using the edit request process, but they will be expected to furnish reliable sources, and in some cases, to verify their identity. Let's say that a biography says a person was born in Boston because some newspaper says so. And someone claiming to be that person says on the talk page that they were actually born in Austin, and the reporter misunderstood. Well, if there are three other articles that say Austin, the correction will be made promptly. If the matter is in dispute, removing the birth city may be the best outcome. Each case is different. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your education. I will keep learning here how to correct facts inline with Wikipedia rules.

Advice on potential CoI and how handle these constructively

Hi! I am trying to deal constructively with a potential CoI that happened in this edit, but my comments and actions just appear hostile to the contributor. Can someone experienced with CoIs have a look and give some feedback? – egaudrain (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Egaudrain, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is dealing with those kind of issues. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! – egaudrain (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about article review

Hello, I tried to create an english language page of a swedish one. It has been rejected two times.

My draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Malm%C3%B6_Amateur_Forum

Swedish page: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%B6_Amat%C3%B6rteaterForum

Compare this to this page that has no primary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Union_for_Performing_Arts_and_Film

There are no independent sources that I know of, besides maybe news in Swedish. Would this make the article accepted? I only intended to provide an english language article (compare it to the swedish language one). Trommelnindernacht (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Trommelnindernacht, It looks like it was declined twice for notability. You have to find reliable, independent, sources about the topic. Try reading WP:GNG for more. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 20:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And as for Swedish Union for Performing Arts and Film, Trommelnindernacht, if we took inadequate articles as models, we would have a race to the bottom: see Other stuff exists. Ideally, somebody will either find the necessary secondary references, or nominate that article for deletion; but Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people work on what they want to. Whoever wrote that article has (as many new editors try to do now) done the easy bit - writing the article - and ignored the difficult and much more important bit of finding the sources. So for anybody to regularise things is likely to take more effort than went in to writing the article in the first place. That is why an article like this would probably not get past review/new pages patrol today. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Stubs

How many sources are needed to make a stub? And is a stub with good sources likely to be accepted? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd generally assume that any page in articlespace needs at least three sources, though I'd personally let some stubs with clear plans for expansion slide by with two diverse sources if they were exceptionally strong proof that further sourcing would be readily available (for example, a stub citing multipage entries in both an automotive engineering encyclopedia and a theology encyclopedia without WP:SYNTH is probably a topic with room for expansion). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy, there is no magic number of sources. Typically you just need multiple reliable independent sources, as many as necessary to establish notability. A stub is no exception. To quote WP:STUB, "A stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context." If you can do that, then the stub is likely to be accepted. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Help regarding an article

Hello! I have been trying to write about a company for a while now. I think it is a very valuable company that can help many people, mostly small business owner. The information that I am including in the article is not promoting the company, I am simply just explaining what the company does. I read the Wikipedia page for Microsoft and tried to copy the style that article was written in order to get my article approved. But again, I was declined. I really do not understand why I am getting declined for the article US Federal Contractor Registration. I can see the reason stated why I am getting declined but I dont understand how they see it as me promoting the company. Like mentioned above, I tried to write it just as microsoft's article was written. So why did Microsoft get approved? Please help me understand what part of the article is getting declined, HOW am i promoting the company? Gazellestpete (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:US Federal Contractor Registration was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, you cannot copy and paste content like that. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gazellestpete, the Microsoft article is based largely on what independent, reliable sources have said about the company, which is what is expected of all Wikipedia articles. Your draft appears to have been based on USFCR's own account of itself, and cited no sources at all. It read like an advert, with sentences such as "USFCR is the largest and most trusted System for Award Management (SAM) registration and renewal services company" and "If you answer yes to any of the questions below, the Vendor Management Program can benefit your business"; that's nothing like the Microsoft article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Gazellestpete. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have some misunderstandings about what Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not care whether it is "a valuable company that can help many people": it could be that, or a cynical scam, or anything in between: we have articles on companies everywhere on that spectrum. What Wikipedia cares about is whether there has been enough material published about it completely and utterly independent of it, because that is pretty well the only kind of information which can go into an article. When you say you copied the style of the article Microsoft, that is like saying "I wanted to build a house, so I copied the design of that one there": that's fine, as long as you also surveyed the ground to make sure that it wass fit to build on; otherwise your house will fall down. The difference between the Microsoft article and the thousands and thousands of deleted articles and rejected drafts about companies is not in the way they were written, but in the fact that the writers did not build them on solid ground, in the form of choosing a notable company (in Wikipedia's special sense) to write about. The layout and style of an article is important, of course, but irrelevant if the subject is not notable.

As for "written like an advertisement": I can't see the deleted draft, as I am not an admin. But usually this means that the draft contains what the subject says or wants to say about it: that will inevitably make it promotional. Wikipedia, as I said above, is only interested in what people who have no connection at all with the subject have chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: (You can get a good idea of its content, since it was a copyright violation of here, and about as faithful an infringement as we get; unmodified, word-for-word copying and pasting of the entirety, formatted to make it look as much as possible like the original.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What did I get wrong?

Hi guys,

I created my first ever Wikipedia article (I have only been editing on here since I opened an account). Well, a few seconds after my article going live, BOOM! A speedy deletion flag pops up! Some of you here are very experienced in this. Kindly check it out and advise me on what I could have done wrong so that I don't repeat. Thank you. (FYI, I contested the Speedy deletion)

LINK TO ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Wabwire Jkb2017 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(Thank you for your feedback. Guidance noted and appreciated.)

Hello Jkb2017, an editor has added a speedy deletion tag to the page because they believed it was unambiguous promotion (see the criteria it has been tagged under (G11)). Articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and some parts of the article need rephrasing to comply with this. The current contest to the speedy deletion does not appear valid since it does not address concerns about promotion - I would suggest working to improve the article as soon as possible. New editors are encouraged to submit drafts via WP:AFC instead of moving pages directly to mainspace, as it can be hard to understand the various policies we have. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jkb2017! As Panhunkat kindly mentioned, in the future, since you are a fairly new editor, I would recommend creating a draft, as this would allow you to submit it for review so that a more experienced editor can give it a looksy and give you any necessary feedback with less chance of deletion while you are still working on it. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

All content needs to be verified by citations. The great majority of this article is not referenced. And the great majority of the details have nothing to do with anything that would make him notable. I shortened part as an example, but of what's left... David notMD (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, it is clear that you know huge amounts of unpublished information about Wabwire. What is your connection? David notMD (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

AN vs ANI

What's the difference between WP:AN and WP:ANI? When should each be used? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Naddruf, hello, friend! From what I have read just now, WP:AN is simply for posting "information and issues of interest to administrators" while WP:ANI is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Inexperienced editors typically shouldn't have any reason to use AN, and should stick to ANI. Hope that helps. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Naddruf: The comparison I use in my guide is that Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents is like the front room for the security office where incidents can be brought to administrator attention, while Administrators Noticeboard is like the back office where the admins sort out admin matters. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am an administrator and I agree with the explanations above. I do want to add that non-administrators are free to make comments and assessments at AN, as long as they are in good faith. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

trying to create my first article!

 Five Goldfish Swimming (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Hi there I created (or thought i did) a page/article and it hasn't come up? What have i done wrong?

Please help!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Five Goldfish Swimming (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You have created User:Five Goldfish Swimming/sandbox. Its content reads like a corporate PR release, not like an article. How are you related to RocketRemit? -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Secondly, what you have is an unsubmitted draft. David notMD (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I should have pointed that out too. When you think it looks like an article, you can move it to Draft:RocketRemit and add "{{AfC submission/draft}}" at its top. And when you think it's good enough to be an article, you can "submit" it: instructions for doing so will be in the template that you'll have added. For the submission to work, the content will have to be sourced to independent, reliable sources, not to PR and similar material. -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanna know if its bad to copy Wikipedia articles form Spanish to English Wikipedia?

I wanna know if its bad to copy Wikipedia articles form Spanish to English Wikipedia like NBC on Spanish Wikipedia? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

ItsJustdancefan, hello, friend! It is A-OK to copy text from one Wikipedia to another. However, you must be careful to give proper credit. You should, for your edit summary, include an interlanguage link to the original article. Where applicable, the {{Translated page}} tag may also be placed on the talk page to supplement copyright attribution. Here is an example of a proper edit summary: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution. For more information, see WP:TFOLWP. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 01:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It's A-OK to translate into English the text in Spanish-language Wikipedia, if you do what EDG 543 says and if the material meets the standards for English-language Wikipedia. I'm more used to Japanese-language Wikipedia, many of whose "articles" are little more than series of long and unreferenced chronologies and other lists: I could dutifully translate one of these "articles", observing the copyright requirements, and the result would still be crap. So choose your source article wisely. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this article good for simple English Wikipedia?

Is this article good for simple English Wikipedia? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univision_Communications ItsJustdancefan (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: It would be better to ask that at that Wikipedia: [1]. RudolfRed (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsJustdancefan (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Submitted for Speedy Deletion, but it followed an already published format. Why?

Hello All. I created a wiki article that was put up for speedy deletion. Part of the reasoning said that it sounded "soapbox" or "promotional". My issue with that is I followed the format of an article that was already posted, of similar content, with references as well. It was deleted so fast that I wasn't even able to retrieve the content for the article (from wiki- luckily I had a backup). My ultimate thought is its because of my proximity to the subject, but I acknowledged that in the beginning of creating the article. Would anyone be able/willing to help me edit this content to make it suitable for the wiki community please? I'm very new to this but I don't want to violate any rules. Mr.orlandojonesjr (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Orlandojonesjr: "Format" has nothing to do with whether or not we accept articles. All articles are a summary of independent reliable sources, written in a neutral tone. I'll leave more specific instructions on your user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.orlandojonesjr: Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

ian.thomson Thank you for your input! In hindsight, I've realized that I made a very significant flaw with my article submission by not actually citing the list of sources that I have. I look forward to reading more of your input.Mr.orlandojonesjr (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ganbaruby Thank you very much. I will most certainly check that out for more help. Mr.orlandojonesjr (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Clean up bare URLs

The following pages also have bare URL, Please assist in checking and repairing them, I'm not going to tag it template one by one:

Thanks.--Alcremie (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have linked the pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Alcremie, PrimeHunter, and all of them seem to be having one source which is a dead link ..... CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alcremie and PrimeHunter:  Done. I copied the source, correctly formatted, into 44 articles in place of the bare URL. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Naddruf: It's used as an inline reference so it should support the article content. Your archive link doesn't do that in any of the cases I examined. For example, in [2] it's a reference for "At this latitude the sun is visible for 13 hours, 9 minutes during the summer solstice and 11 hours, 7 minutes during the winter solstice". The page [3] doesn't give any times but has boxes where you can enter coordinates. If I enter 17 degrees north or anything else then I get no result. The original dead link presumably gave the stated times when coordinates were entered. Your access-date=2021-03-10 falsely indicates that it worked on that date. Or do you have a method to get the times from the archive? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I think you're right, the php page, if you enter a latitude, leads to a GET request which is not archived, so it no longer works. I'm not sure what one should do in this case; maybe a new reference is needed. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Content Box

On pages such as ‘Scottish Young Labour’ I’d like to add a separate section for the Chair and Vice Chair rather than having them both in the same box. How would I do this? Sylperson (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sylperson:  Fixed - although the documentation at Template:Infobox political youth organization needs to be updated. GoingBatty (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I return back the original Wikipedia

I regret trying the new-style version of Wikipedia, as my search engines seem somewhat confused by the changeover. How do I totally and utterly leave the new-style product and return to the tried and tested version?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: in Special:Preferences -> "Appearence" -> "Skin preferences" select the option "Use legacy vector". Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If that doesn't help then please clarify what you mean by new-style version of Wikipedia and what it has to do with search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What does a client-side preference have to do with how search engines interact with Wikipedia? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Does WP:SPOILERS apply for yet-to-air TV show episodes whose existence has not even been acknowledged by the production company if an unauthorized version of the episode exists on Dailymotion? (Hypothetical question since anyways whoever is adding the yet-to-air episodes didn't add reliable sources twice)

I was informed a while back that it is wrong to delete a TV show episode's plot summary simply because the episode is still not available on the show's YouTube channel (which means that its existence has not been explicitly acknowledged by the TV show production company). However, I was wondering about this: I have noticed that the TV show's company was also proactively blocking unauthorized videos of future episodes on YouTube on copyright grounds (presumably leaked just like how many famous movies get leaked on piracy sites before they are actually released), but there are unverified videos of future episodes on Dailymotion uploaded by some random people. So, should the plots be removed because the production company hasn't said that the episode is finalised, or retained because unauthorized versions do exist?

PS - can someone have a look at Q 125 of Archive 1098 in the Teahouse (about attribution to Fandom) (I don't know how to directly insert a link to it)? I asked it and it went unanswered, but on second thoughts I want to know if the copied text can be removed if no one bothers to fix it (and I have almost no idea how to go about fixing it).
 45.251.33.14 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

PPS - Apparently, Dailymotion has been found guilty of multiple copyright infringements so it may be wrong to cite the unauthorized videos. 45.251.33.14 (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we depend on reliable sources. When the episode airs, the episode itself is a reliable source. Anything released illegally before it officially airs shouldn't be considered reliable.

Here's a link to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1098#Follow up to an archived question at WP:HELP DESK, as requested. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should never use a specific webpage known as or likely to be a copyright violation as a reference, and any such content should be removed on sight. So-called spoilers are perfectly OK if properly referenced to truly reliable sources. A legitimate version of a creative work is an acceptable reference for a plot summary, but not a pirated copy, for many reasons. As for Fandom, it is a website that hosts user generated content, so that content cannot be considered reliable itself, but may well provide clues for finding better sources. Fandom should never be used as a reference for anything except non-self serving statements about itself, such a change in top executives or headquarters location. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So am I right in understanding that:

1. If the TV show production company hasn't announced the episode on any reliable websites, then the episode should not be mentioned on Wikipedia? And
2. If no one fixes the attribution issue involving Fandom mentioned in the archived question (and I myself am not in a position to do it myself), then should the copied text be removed after a while (2 or so weeks) or retained with a copyvio tag till anyone fixes it?

45.251.33.14 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If the show hasn't aired and there are no reliable sources, then the episode title and details should not be included in the Wikipedia article. Someone should respond to the copyvio tag on List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes. GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rejected article: "Revenge Partying"

Hi CommanderWaterford! Thanks for your feedback on my submission for "Revenge Partying". I'd like to know if the article has any potential to be published if I work on the draft. It is not dissimilar to the Wikipedia article on "Revenge Bedtime Procrastination". I'd also like to reference this FT article on partying after covid lockdown, which references "revenge spending" in the text: https://www.ft.com/content/548e151d-39ae-4c6d-9241-b36c3de687b0 Thanks! Jofukilla (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Pinging CommanderWaterford as I believe the user has arrived here from a message left by this user when declining a draft.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, thanks for the ping although perhaps better ping Ashleyyoursmile as she tagged Draft:Revenge_Partying as a blatant hoax for speedy deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I wish it were a hoax, but alas there seem to be no limits to Covid-related stupidity and no it is not a hoax, as Google (or your preferred alternative) shows. I have therefore removed the speedy deletion template. Jofukilla, the draft should not be about the term but instead should be about the phenomenon for which this term is (and probably others are) used. What you've written so far looks like no more than a description of what happened to be at the top of your head before you started reading up on the matter. If you'd like to read up worthwhile descriptions of and commentary on it, and to summarize and cite these, then as I see it you're welcome to augment and improve your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that this, even after augmentation and other improvement, should be an independent article. It might be better as an addition to one of the many articles that already exist about Covid-19 (perhaps Pandemic fatigue). -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for removing the speedy template. I did a Google search which did not turn up anything which explains the tagging. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughtful input, Hoary. I’ll admit the writeup was a top of my head kind of situation and my publishing it/putting it up for official review was a result of overenthusiasm + lack of wikipedia know-how (couldn’t find a “save draft” button). I don’t mean to undermine the effort required to create a successful wiki article and I don’t intend to spread hoaxes (thanks for backing me on the legitimacy of covid “revenge [activity]”.) Having read your thoughts, I agree that “Revenge Partying” might exist better as a sub-section of “Pandemic fatigue” page… it’s just that I see independent articles like “Wrap rage” and “Broken escalator phenomenon” and I feel a little bit bitter. I also keep seeing revenge partying memes, which you can’t find via typing in the words on google, and who’s to say memes are less credible sources of contemporary culture than articles are these days? Could I not just start the page and then have other ppl contribute to it with more research? Thanks as always.  Jofukilla (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jofukilla, firstly I would like to apologise for tagging your draft as a hoax. I searched up Google which didn't turn up any articles or sources and hence I went ahead and tagged the draft. Regarding the articles you've linked above, if you observe the information has been backed up by reliable, secondary, and independent sources that discuss the topic in-depth. For instance, the "Wrap rage" topic is the main focus of BBC News and similar reliable sources. So once you've gathered such sources which can establish that the topic "Revenge partying" is notable to be included as a standalone article on Wikipedia, you are welcome to submit your draft through Articles for creation and get it published. You can go through WP:FIRST to understand the guidelines. I hope this explains, if you still have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Jofukilla, it is indeed confusing, when in order to save a draft you have to "Publish" it (clicking which doesn't publish the draft as most people would understand "publish"). I'm not saying that your draft is crap -- it's a mere draft, after all -- or that the article Wrap rage is crap (I haven't read it), but a lot of crap certainly exists in Wikipedia, yet it's never a justification for adding to the mountain of crap: see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As somebody who's unusually interested in revenge partying, you ought to be able to use (and of course scrupulously cite) interesting stuff from the FT (to which I don't have access) or wherever. What you hope to be promoted from mere draft to article certainly doesn't have to meet the standards for a good article, but it should be worth clicking on and reading: good enough to inspire others to work on it and improve it, perhaps in ways that you can't now even imagine. Incidentally, when I see news stories such as this one about "'It is now time to open Texas 100%,' a maskless Abbott declared to cheers at a crowded restaurant in the city of Lubbock", I wonder if there might be an article on "Denial of COVID-19 reality" or similar, to which material about revenge partying could be added. And if you don't feel up to creating an article (or even a substantial paragraph), there's much else you could do. (My own latest edit is this one: minor, but I think constructive all the same.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Would someone check my first edit

Hi as stated I just made my first edit, I removed a statement that's source was just a headline, which when you read the article is contradictory to the headline

• Was this the right thing to do or should I have amended to reflect the actual article text
• Should I have looked for an edit to revert instead ? I realize now there's an external site to search for these things

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_News

Thanks, CommanderDallas (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Good question, CommanderDallas. Funnily enough I was just reading about GB News. We encourage people to be bold and so I'd definitely see your edit as worth making even if somebody were to later undo it (which would give you information about what to do or not to do). I don't like the removal of a source because that's useful information that someone could use to expand the article further. You've noted that Iman is named later but it's better to mention her in prose as well as in the list. Prose is good for going into detail and the list serves as just a summary.

As for the description, I'm not quite sure if you're misreading the headline ("opponent of ostensible 'wokeness'" is the meaning I interpret) or what it is in the article itself that would give the contradiction, but you've asked a good question: always go with the body of a source rather than its headline. I've just described Iman as a 24-year-old journalist (she's probably overdue for a biographical article about her at this point but I haven't checked) but we definitely could include something that i says about her claims that structural racism is "almost totally eradicated" or opposition to identity as the "primary organising principle of society". This is more specific and hence better than "woke opponent". And it's relevant to the topic at hand as she'll be a political commentator in this GB News role. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to add: you're always fine to change things directly rather than reverting (though reverting someone if you're specifically undoing one recent edit notifies them so they could discuss it further with you). The page history (in this case, [4]) is not quite an "external site"—it's part of Wikipedia and only a click away from the article ("View history"). Also, you can link to a page within Wikipedia with square brackets, so that [[GB News]] produces GB News. — Bilorv (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah I think I misinterpreted the headline as stating that Iman was the "woke opponent" to the others on the channel and not that she was an opponent of the woke, I suppose if something like that isn't clear it's better to describe the person in question as you have done instead of stating a headline, I'll bare in mind going forward that cleaning up a misleading statement from a source is better than removing it, but I assume if something is clearly misleading removing it and then handling re-writing after is okay if you're short on time? Thanks for the feedback I really appreciate it, it's all super useful info I'll be sure to bookmark this convo :) — CommanderDallas (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

sources

Is it okay to have one source used multiple times. I mean this like I have one reliable website on a topic. It has multiple pages all focusing on different parts of the subject. Is that ok? I do have other sources besides the one site. If you want to check it out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Antarctica_in_World_War_II. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: - yes, it's OK. Your draft looks pretty good to me. You might want to ask for further opinions at WT:MILHIST, where a lot of knowledgable editors hang out. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: For some guidelines on using a reference multiple times in an article, follow the links at WP:IBID. (Myself, I've used the inline {{rp}} template for specifying page numbers in a ref that's used quite a few times, but many people prefer to use the short-citation style throughout an article.) Deor (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting changes for neutrality correction

Hello editors,

I have a conflict of interest with Jorge Hank Rhon and am requesting to add more details to the lead paragraph of his page - Jorge Hank Rhon. The accusations against him are not neutrally placed giving only one side of the story. I have noted that a newly registered editor - Thewintermen - constantly keeps adding the information incorrectly without presenting all facts neutrally and it can be a possible vandalism. The editor is conflating Jorge Hank Rhon with other members of his family.

The last line of the lead paragraph can be changed from: He has been involved in drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption, and has been accused of murder. to: His family was alleged to have been involved in drug trafficking based on a report by the National Drug Intelligence Center, but former Attorney General Janet Reno said the report “was beyond the substantive expertise and area of responsibility of the NDIC.” Rhon was also accused of money laundering, corruption and murder, but the judge threw out the charges in a June 2011 verdict.

Please understand that I am not asking for the removal of that information, I am just asking for the line to written as per WP:NPV which states that 'articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias.' Grateful for the consideration. 69.121.153.151 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi, your edit should be made at Talk:Jorge Hank Rhon with the code {{edit request}} at the top so a volunteer can assess it properly. If you struggle to do this then let me know at my talk page. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that the references you have given here will be sufficient to back up the changes you suggest, IP user. As Bilory says, you need to copy-paste your exact text from here into Talk:Jorge Hank Rhon, with the code {{edit request}} at the very top. There is a backlog of such requests across Wikipedia (over 200 today) but it won't be ignored. I would make the changes to the article myself but am not sufficiently familiar with policies on biographies of living people to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I have done the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.153.151 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Cover Art Vs. Logo

I'm looking into what the most appropriate method is for uploading a podcast cover art. I was originally under the impression that when using WP:FUW that I should choose "This is the official cover art of a work." because a podcast has very comparable cover art to that of a music album, however, I recently came across Category:Podcast logos and now I'm wondering whether I should be choosing "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." instead. Which should I use?

I'm also a little unclear what the ideal answers are to some of the fields in the Upload Wizard. For instance, when including a "Source" I recently found out it's best practice to include a URL, but not to have a direct link to the image. Is it best if that source is from the official website or from a secondary source like Google Podcasts or Apple Podcasts? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant official website works as the "source". Can you link the podcast? Elli (talk | contribs) 00:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I was referring to podcasts in general. I'm part of the Wikiproject and I intend to go through and add a cover for each of the podcasts, but I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly before I add any more covers. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant it really does not matter what you pick in this case. Probably Category:Podcast logos would be preferable. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, the most important thing is that the upload complies with the policy on use of non-free images. In my view, "cover art" refers mostly to physical objects like books and music albums (although those are increasingly online). So, I would be inclined to check the logo box when uploading the image. Yes, the source should be from the official website of the podcast itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I think I'm confused, in part, because it appears that WP:LOGO and Logo seem to almost exclusively refer to companies, brands, and coat of arms (which is what I normally think of when using the word "logo"). When you google music logo you get music company logos like iTunes, but when you search music cover you get album arts. When you search podcast logo you get podcast company logos and generic logos related to podcasting, but when you search podcast cover you get tons of cover art for podcasts. I read a little more into this topic at WP:FUR and WP:NFC, but they don't provide many specifics related to logos versus cover art. A quick glance at WP:TAGS/FU seems to indicate that podcasts would make more sense under cover art, but podcasts don't have a template yet. Would it be worth looking into creating a template?

I'm also still confused about the different rationale templates. Should I be using Template:Non-free use rationale logo or Template:Non-free use rationale 2, and what about this redirect Template:Logo fur. All three are present within Category:Podcast logos. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant you can use whichever template you like. {{Non-free use rationale 2}} is made to be auto-filled by the upload wizard. Perhaps creating a template would be useful but I'm not sure that's necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I decided to try both options with the upload wizard and it looks like the only difference is that cover art include "author" and "date" so I'll probably just stick with the cover art option because it's more thorough. I realized afterward that the license is obviously different, but I have to pick a specific option in the upload wizard because I actually ended up with {{Non-free symbol}} instead of {{Non-free logo}}.

Do you know what the rules and guidelines regarding edits of file pages? For instance, if a file doesn't contain enough useful information can I just add information? What if it doesn't have a listed source? Can I just list the official website even if I don't know exactly where the image came from? TipsyElephant (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant file pages can be edited like any other pages. You should list a page with the actual source image, though... Elli (talk | contribs) 23:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: what exactly do you mean by source image? If the image uploaded to Wikipedia was originally downloaded from iTunes but I list the source as the official website of the podcast is that okay? They might look identical but they are likely different sizes and resolutions. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant yes, that's OK, as long as the image is available there. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand what the "auto=yes" option for {{Non-free logo}} does? I removed it from to see what would happen and I don't see what changed. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I start editing

so how can I help with this wiki? BoggieBoggieBoggie (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@BoggieBoggieBoggie: you can edit most pages with the exception of some with really high vandalism rates. just edit anything you want to and make sure you properly cite your sources. leave a message in my talk page if you want some help. also, i think i introduced you here with an edit from hamilton county, so you could do similar edits like those. cheers! Lovin'Politics (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

micro oven can book under furniture and fixtures

 88.201.33.136 (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@88.201.33.136: anything i could help with? Lovin'Politics (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What to do with Category:Dissident Roman Catholic theologians?

I found out this category, and it seems to me that those kind of categories were removed for they were subjective, if I remember correctly. What do you say? Veverve (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Best approach to requesting consideration for establishing a business page when you have a COI

If you believe that a large company which: a) is referenced in multiple Wikipedia pages; b) has a CEO with his own established page; c) employs thousands of people and has billions in revenue; and d) has been reported on in hundreds of news articles in the last four years ... is deserving of inclusion, what is the best way to encourage consideration without running afoul of Conflict of Interest restrictions? I know you can submit a basic request here (Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies), but are there better ways to approach the issue if willing to take the time to collect and share with relevant editors the necessary reliable, independent, third-party sources that attest to notability, etc? Thank you, and thank you for everything that all of you do to maintain Wikipedia. Brianbiggers (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Brianbiggers (copied from response to posting as an IP) In terms of merely suggesting that an article be written, there is no other avenue to do so other than the link you provided(which I fixed to a proper internal link, the whole web address is not necessary). If the company truly meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company, someone will eventually write about it. Keep in mind that a Wikipedia article about your company is not necessarily a good thing.

If you make the required paid editing declaration, you could submit a draft about your company using Articles for Creation- but to be frank most people in your position fail in their efforts if they do not take the time to learn more about the process and what goes into an article. Usually company representatives get it wrong and become frustrated with attempts to correct them, which are usually incompatible with the goals of someone writing about their own company. My suggestion is that you simply allow your company to be noticed and written about naturally- which is usually an indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Brianbiggers, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think part of your difficulty is that, like many people, you think that Wikipedia can contain something called a "business page", which is presumably in some way for the benefit of the business, or for the business to tell the world about itself. None of these things is true. Wikipedia has articles about notable subjects, many of them businesses. If at some point we have an article about your company, the article will not belong to your company, will not be controlled by you or your company, will not necessarily contain what you would like it to contain (or, more to the point, may contain material that you definitely do not want it to contain, if such material has been reliably published elsewhere), and should not be based at all on what the company says or wants to say, but solely on what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

About Google books Citation (references)

Can we take Google Books in article (Bibliography) as a reference?(citations)  Cancersign (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cancersign. A reference to a book consists of bibliographic information about it: author, title, date, publisher, page number if appropriate, etc. If the text is available online (eg at Project Gutenberg, Wikisource or Google books, then it is helpful to the reader to include a link to it, but that is a convenience, not an essential part of the citation. Templates like {{cite book}} are useful for formatting citations. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliablility

Would WWF and HISTORY be good or reliable sources? Blue Jay (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Are you talking about some book, or TV program, or database, or something else titled "WWF" or "History"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Im talking about the websites WWF and HISTORY. Are they good sources? Blue Jay (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I googled for "WWF". Google served up a variety of websites. I therefore gave up and didn't bother with "History". Please provide a link to each of the websites that you have in mind. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

World Wildlife Fund and (https://www.history.com/) are what Im talkin about. Blue Jay (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Jay: No, per WP:RSPSOURCES. GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So both are unreliable? Blue Jay (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Jay: I don't see a discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the World Wildlife Fund. GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The World Wide Fund for Nature doesn't seem to have figured in discussions about sources and history.com is owned by Sky News, who are a perfectly reputable news organisation. So I think either would be OK as a source. As always, it depends what you want to use them for, The great Jay, so my advice would be to make whatever edit you had in mind and see what others interested in the article you are editing say: that's the usual WP:BRD process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

New Article about Uli Hoffmeier

Hello, I wrote my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rane_Rosen/sandbox/Uli_Hoffmeier and don't know how to publish it so that everybody can see it? Or whether it is regarded as lacking notability - if so, who would decide this? Thanks for your help! Rane Rosen (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You've written it in German, so it wouldn't be acceptable for the English Wikipedia. Perhaps you were looking for the German Wikipedia? David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Images

I working on the WP:PODCASTING Wikiproject and I was going through the categories. I found Category:Podcast logos and thought I would create other categories for files related to the Wikiproject. So I thought I would start with a category for images of podcasters, but when I went to create the category I ran into some problems. I figured I would start with Adam Curry so I went to the image location File:Adam Curry 2016.jpg and realized I can't edit the file on Wikipedia because the file is free and available on Wikimedia Commons. Is it possible to create a Wikipedia category that includes files on Wikimedia Commons? If so, how? And if not, why? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I also ran into the same issue with free podcast cover art. I can't or don't know how to add File:99pi.svg and File:All Songs Considered.jpg to Category:Podcast logos. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

For part of the answer, if you go to the page Adam Curry, you'll see at the bottom part (in the source editor) it already contains {{commons category|Adam Curry}} which means that the cross-wiki category is already there. When viewing the page normally, you can see a bit of text that says "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Adam Curry." Hence it is that type of link you should be adding in this situation Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

[EC] It seems rather pointless. Most images are hosted at Commons; Commons has its own categories; if you're not satisfied with Commons' categorizing of images of podcasters then you can improve it. (Most logos are neither PD nor copyleft, so are hosted here and categorized here.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Rishikesh Shukre

Dear, Wikipedia team Greetings, I have made some good improvements and new changes in the draft of this article. Please tell me how I can make it better. Please guide me on this question thank you! Cancersign (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cancersign, I have gone ahead to outrightly reject the submission. In response to your question, I’d say for now, you can’t make it better, prior taking on relatively tough tasks such as creating biographical articles, you may want to start by reading our general notability criteria for inclusion and retention of articles. Furthermore this collaborative project frowns on creating articles on yourself, friends or family, read both WP:AUTO & WP:COI for a detailed explanation. This collaborative project also doesn’t allow nor permit anyone to use its platform for promotional purposes. Thanks for understanding. Celestina007 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

hot

hot Aghnoo (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC) hot

Do you have a question? SenatorLEVI 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Aghnoo, this is the hottest article I could find for you, buddy. Enjoy. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding picture

Can someone help me understand which pictures are allowed to be added to an article? If I take a picture with my phone, I can add it to the Creative Commons area and embed, correct? If it’s a picture somewhere else online (like embedded in an article) it’s not allowed to be used? Can be used with attribution? I just don’t know the rules. Thank you Nweil (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nweil generally, if you take a picture, and it's a picture of something not under copyright (you couldn't take a picture of a recent painting since that still has copyright), then you can upload it and use it. Also, non-free images can be uploaded to Wikipedia provided they comply with the strict Non-free content criteria. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nweil The policies are quite complex and can be confusing. If you're not sure about a particular image use in a prticular article, if you drop a note on my talkpage I'll let you know if it's OK or not. Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

memes

pls give me funny articles Aghnoo (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) lolzz

@Aghnoo: The Teahouse is not a general chat forum, nor a place for memes or lulz – it's a place where you can get help with questions about editing Wikipedia. People tend to be forgiving to brand-new contributors who don't understand this, but this is the third pointless post you make here, and if you continue to do so, your posts will probably be removed without any comment since they serve no function and just clutter the page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Aghnoo, this is a place for editors to ask for help, but you seem to be here to disrupt. If you want memes, just go to r/memes on Reddit, not to Wikipedia. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What is our protection from false and damaging information?

Hi! May we ask what's our protection if people can just write anything in the page that is not true? Not every truth has some source of article or information printed on the internet. We are a private company and not many people know the true story or our brand and our origins. The article has some truths but a lot of false and damaging information. We just want to share to the world what's the truth and nobody knows that well besides us ourselves. How can we share that to the world through Wikipedia? The problem is that Wikipedia is being seen by the public as a source of truth/research for most subjects. Anything written there is perceived as facts. But how can we prevent falsehood and misinformation in the page. And most importantly, how can we share our true story to the world through Wikipedia. Hoping we can work with your team on this aspect. 2001:4451:721:600:AC06:1E9A:45D6:38C3 (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Our protection is verification, and the army of volunteer editors who ensure that an incorrect edit does not stay on the page for long. Britmax (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't. We're not interested in your efforts to promote your company or "correct the record"; we're more interested in what third-party sources with competent editorial oversight and no connexion to you have written about you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source of truth and does not claim to be, so spread the word. Wikipedia is a source for things that can be verified. Wikipedia, however, is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves, you should do that on your company website and social media accounts(where you can also encourage people interested in your company to see those places for what you deem correct information). If there is incorrect information in the article about your company, we want to know what it is, but please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are summarized accurately, but give what you say is incorrect information, you will need to take that up with the sources of the information, or offer independent sources with the correct information. We aren't interested in what companies say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your request at Talk:World Balance, with proposed reference, is the proper method of proposing corrections to an existing article when a COI exists. Advice you got there is to break the massive amount of information into several sections, so that non-involved editors can evaluate each request separately. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've made some edits to World Balance to improve neutrality and remove unreferenced gossipy content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Search Bar

Hi! I just had a question regarding the search bar in Wikipedia, though it's kind of complicated to ask-- How do you adjust suggestions in the search bar for an article, particularly a new article? As an established example, you can type "John F. Kennedy, John Kennedy, john kennedy, john... john k..., etc and you will eventually get a suggestion for the page for John F. Kennedy. However, for a new article that I started a while back, you have to type the phrase exactly verbatim for it to show up at all in the search bar. Does my question make sense, or do I need to elaborate more? TNstingray (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK you can't. Its an algorithm that creates these suggestions, a bit like the YouTube algorith - its a giant black box that is fed with your search queries, and will output something. The difference between Wikipedia and Youtube is that Wikipedia's algorithm will always have an exact match on the first result, while youtube may not. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TNstingray. You may find Help:Searching informative.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TNstingray. Please read about redirects. If the topic has alternate names like your Kennedy example, or plausible, frequent misspellings, you can write a very brief snippet of code that will send readers to the right place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you tell when an article reaches a new class

So I have been working on a few articles that are currently stub classes. How exactly do I get them to the next class, which is start class, and how do I know when they reach it? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip, so basically to get to the next class you need to write more, this is, both in quantity(well detailed but not overly detailed) and quality(well sourced) that’s literally how you get to the next class, to know how, you may install {{subst:lusc|User:Evad37/rater.js}} to Special:MyPage/common.js which should tell you what current class you article is at. Celestina007 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I want to warn to take the suggestions of this (wonderful) tool too serious, very often the suggestion is far away from reality (even the author admits so). I guess the question was how an article gets to the next level if it has already been rated as a stub and now had been expanded. Here you find more info Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment, if you let me know to which articles you refer I will have a look. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How to create page and improve ?

 Abelpurv (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

When you see material in an article that you can improve, click "edit", improve it, provide reliable, independent, published references, preview it, and if you like what you see then "publish" it. After you've done this a few dozen times, consider creating an article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Abelpurv, well your first draft Draft:Ente Kadha Paranju contained almost no text at all so it was declined. Please have a look at WP:YFA of help might also Help:Referencing for beginners. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

General Questions

Hi so I'm pretty new to this and honestly way to young and inexperienced to actually add much but right now I'm experimenting with some fun stuff within my sandbox. I just wanted to make sure that everything I'm doing is ok with the site rules and whatnot, if not I'll stop right away! I hope that as I grow my education I'll be able to one day make some actual edits or articles! Thank you so much! Catden123 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Catden123, I don't see a problem with any of them. SenatorLEVI 17:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Even in your own Sandbox, do not paste in any copyright protected content. That would include text and images. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Catden123, Aye! feel free to play and mess around in your sandbox, it’s ideal to have a perfect swell time in your early stages here, you could also simultaneously, (in your spare time) take a look at some of our policies and guidelines which are already in your talk page. Celestina007 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with adding additional WW1 information

I was doing some research on 17th Engineer Regiment in World War I. I noticed the wiki articles on this regiment are lacking information/possibly mislabeled. I know there are project pages on wiki specifically for certain subjects where I could maybe discuss what I have found but I am not sure which project would be the best place to go. Can someone point me in the right direction? RberlK (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The best Wikiproject to go to is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. There are some very good editors there who I'm sure will help you out. Enjoy your editing! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RberlK, sure - I am pretty sure you will find someone at one of the most active Wikiproject -> WP:MILHIST CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!--RberlK (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rating new articles I written

I have written about a dozen new articles that have been rated as Start-Class and Low-Importance (which is fine with me because I write about lesser-known subjects that no one else is likely to research and write about). I never rate the articles I create because I feel that is akin to being in school and grading my own homework. Am I correct that I should let others rate my articles? I don't want to cause extra work for others, but neither do I want to overstep my editor authority. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Karenthewriter. In general, I agree with you. However, if you have written a moderately informative article, and someone rates it as a stub, you should have no hesitation upgrading it to Start yourself. I haven't looked at your work, but you may want to consider submitting the best of it for peer review as a Good article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Karenthewriter, I just read Charles Stuart Pratt. Well done! One of your references needs work. It displays a bare URL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the citation with the bare URL, Karenthewriter. You'll find that Wikipedia has an article on everything, even Marking your own homework, which as advised I tend not to do to go above "C" class, although anyone is allowed to rate articles (but not above B without consultation and a formal process). Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Turnbull (talk). I've been editing since 2007 and still only know how to do the easy stuff. (I've had non-fiction articles published in print magazines so, after decades of research and writing, creating a new article is time-consuming, but not difficult for me.) Karenthewriter (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Social Media Links

FYI

 – Header added Maresa63 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we write social media links in external links session for a living person's biogy? Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think it's a good idea to add social media links. --Maresa63 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiaddictcommo, hello and welcome, you are allowed to include external links but be careful not to fall afoul of link farming do not add excessive links to the external links section of the article. One link to a social media site should suffice. Celestina007 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiaddictcommo: Social networking links are usually WP:LINKSTOAVOID. GoingBatty (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How do i change the title of an article?

I was wondering how to change an article's title, because some that I've found is incorrect regarding the reference of the said article (the title). This is quite annoying, regarding to spelling, caps, abbreviations, etc. I really need to know how to fix this because of these ridiculous mistakes, mostly place names,the name of a certain person, and so on. An example that i'm trying to fix is Shahumyani trchnafabrika . Also, Google Earth has it with caps, but this article (the link) doesn't. It's supposed to have a capital T in the title, but it's not there. GeoYeeter (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Go to more next to your view history, click on move, you should be able to move name to a different name. Also, I will try and move the name for you. Castling D (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See Help:How to move a page for more information. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Contest a correction done by a fellow wikipedian

How can I contest a revision done upon my work? The person filed for a change under the Wikipedia:NONFREE however the image used has a non-free template rationale. This person unfortunately doesn't have their email available? chefs-kiss(talk) 20:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Chefs-kiss, it looks like the file in question is File:Kenneth Younger 1947.jpg, and you're trying to use it for a table in Shadow Home Secretary.

Unfortunately, my understanding is that WP:NONFREE doesn't all the use of fair use images in tables like that. I forget exactly where I was told that and I can't find the documentation, but someone more into copyright than me might know. The result, though, is that you're probably not going to be able to use it unless policy changes in a way it's unlikely to (since NONFREE has legal ramifications). Non-free use rationales are article-specific, and don't mean that an image can be used non-free anywhere on Wikipedia. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Chefs-kiss, and welcome to the Teahouse. The general answer is to be found in BRD: when another editor reverts your edit, you do not reapply it (that is edit-warring), but open a discussion on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Shadow Home Secretary. But relevant in this case is that the rationale in File:Kenneth Younger 1947.jpg says "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article" (my emphasis). Every single use of a non-free image needs to be justified, and it is well established that Item 8 ("Contextual significance") of the non-free content criteria rarely allows an image to be used except where it depicts or is associated with the subject of the article. Thus that image is correctly used in Kenneth Younger, but is unlikely to be acceptable in any other article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

# of reliable sources for an article

How many reliable sources does an article need to remain published on Wikipedia? Culturepedia (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Culturepedia, welcome to the Teahouse. It really depends on the subject, but if you're creating a draft, reviewers typically look for three as a starting point. Obviously as the article gets more fleshed out it will need more reliable sources to support contentious statements. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Culturepedia, if this is about Draft:Durag Festival, I would say that at present you have no relevant sources. The first one may be reliable but is not independent (much of it is the organisers' words); the second may be reliable but does not mention the festival; and the third is not independent and is a passing mention. 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) 20:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of my edit of an episode description.

Kage Fuusha (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC): In Redo The Healer Episode 9, the episode description says, "Keyarga is horrified when Norn, her army, and Blade arrive in Branica."

Keyarga isn't horrified by this. Does a person smile and lick their lips when they're horrified? No, it's a sign that they're happy/excited by the event.

As for his reaction to Blade,, he's severely pissed off. He wants her dead. You have to realize that he's fearless and will do whatever it takes to get his revenge.

I put this info into the description, but it was removed. Why? Kage Fuusha (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kage Fuusha. The IP editor who reverted left this edit summary: "This was reverted in order to keep it at the threshold for plot summaries". Plot summaries should be succinct and concise but not overly detailed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and its subsection MOS:PLOT. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC

Kage Fuusha (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC): Thank you for your prompt response.

Need help Submitting a draft of article for review

I have drafted an article on WWI hero Lau Sing Kee here [5] but am hopelessly confused by the instructions about submitting it for review. I really wouldn't mind having someone submit it for me, since another set of instructions for a someone as cyber-stupid as I am might not do much good. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Goodtablemanners: At the top of Draft:Lau Sing Kee is a big gray box. At the bottom right corner of the box is a blue button that states "Submit the draft for review!" When you're ready to submit the draft, just click the button. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks! I did that before but then didn't see the article listed in Drafted articles awaiting review or whatever it's called, so I assumed I'd done something wrong. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Finding articles that need work!

Hi! I am a new Wikipedia Contributor, what is the best way for me to find articles that need review/editing? Mmartinkov (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mmartinkov, There are a few ways you can help find articles to improve. One way is to join a WikiProject. WikiProject's are groups of editors who want to improve a certain part of Wikipedia. For example, I am a member of The Current event WikiProject, which helps work on the Portal:Current events as well as improve articles that are current events (or topics in the news). There are hundreds to thousands of WikiProjects, and each has a unique goal in mind. For example, The WikiProject of Meteorology has to goal to improve all weather related articles on Wikipedia. They "manage" over 10,000 articles and out of those articles, only 1,300 of them are classified as "good/A+" articles, which is the highest levels of quality that an article can go. So if you want to help out more on Wikipedia, feel free to join a WikiProject. If you want to help improve new/small articles, the 99% of the WikiProjects label articles with classes. Stub/start classes are normally fairly small and short articles. It really depends on what type of articles you are looking to improve which will guide you. Hopefully all that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mmartinkov, hello, friend! In addition to the WikiProjects kindly mentioned by Elijahandskip, if you go to Wikipedia:Community portal, there are some articles listed under the "Help out" section that need some work and is updated frequently. You can also go to Wikipedia:Task Center for a list of different ways you can help out as well. A couple of simple thing to get you started could be going through random articles to look for obvious things, like grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mmartinkov, hello and welcome, Wikipedia actually has an {{Open task}} which are basically a collection of articles that need working on, such as articles with poor spelling, general grammar issues and whatnot, hence you may go there and find articles you may like to work on and commence, I should however mention that some articles there have problems only older editors can handle as such since you are a new editor, id suggest finding articles with general spelling errors and proceed to correct them accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the feedback! This is fantastic. Mmartinkov (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thiago Alcantara disruptive edits

The page Thiago Alcantara was removed from being a semi protected page, and I have found disrupting edits (I have removed the incorrect and desruptive edits) please could someone make it Semi-protected. Thanks TheWikiEditor1234 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiEditor1234, this looks more like you and Mediocre Legacy have some content dispute. Anyway you can always ask on your own for Page Protection at WP:RPP. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiEditor1234 and CommanderWaterford: I had a talkpage request to protect this article, but I confess I am very confused by it. Most of the recent edits seem to be changes back and forth to stats within templates, and I have no idea what the "correct" version to protect might be. Apologies. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Need to undo a redirect---next steps please

Hi! Looking to get rid of a redirect that is currently affecting "Frederick Joseph" causing the page (which I am interested in creating) to redirect to Fred Flintstone. Not a single thing on the Fred Flintstone page reads "Frederick Joseph". A quick Google search apparently yields that his full name is Frederick Joseph Flintstone....but let's be real....who refers to the animated character with that full name, and even if so, how does this page own the redirection of the actual full name of an author and philanthropist we need to create a new page for. In fact, when you google Frederick Joseph, it is not Flintstone that comes up, its the actual individual we are trying to create a page for.

Current help pages are tbh confusing for a newcomer (me!). Does this fall under speedy deletion? idk. How do I add to the "redirects discussion"? idk.

Please help!

Thx. Potatochip3000 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Potatochip3000. The proper place to discuss this issue is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I am concerned about your statement "we are trying to create a page". Wikipedia accounts are for one person and one person only. Shared accounts are forbidden. Please clarify. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Potatochip3000: The bottom of Fred Flintstone has a "show" link at "Flintstones family tree". Clicking it shows Frederick Joseph "Fred" Flintstone. The more prominent infobox at the top right hints at it with "Alias Frederick J. Flintstone". As a new user you cannot create articles directly. If you submit a draft, e.g. via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and it's approved then there are several ways to deal with the current redirect Frederick Joseph. Don't worry about it now. The approving editor will decide what to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Should I delete my draft?

The Articles for Creation desk declined my draft Draft:Hsiao-ting Lin and told me that biographies from university websites and think tank websites do not work as sources in articles here. There are no newspapers articles about the person directly and I don't want to waste more peoples' time on it. I can move on to work on other articles here. Am I supposed to delete my draft now? How do I delete it?

Thank you. Duduzh (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Duduzh: If you feel like you can't improve your draft further, then just leave it. Inactive drafts get deleted automatically after six months, and maybe you'll find sources in that time and work on it later. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If your decisions is final on deleting your draft, then put db-u1 at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }}. David notMD (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Pud/Albert Kent

Hello, I created an article for the Canadian football head coach Pud Kent, but I realized later that he already had an article because he was an olympic rower in 1912 (Albert Kent). What should happen and what should it be named? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added {{merge}} to the top of both articles. You can start a discussion on one of the talk pages, and update the {{merge}} templates with a link to that discussion. WP:COMMONNAME might be helpful. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Advise on what to do.

Recently for a few days an IP editor (73.70.221.118) has made multiple edits to Attack on Titan (season 4). Most of them are large additions to the plot summaries to various episodes, most of them cross the permitted word count for the summaries (per MOS:TVPLOT}. Yesterday the IP editor made considerable additions, extending the summaries to over 300-400 words, which I reverted. Consequently I posted a note on the talk page explaining that before adding anything they should discuss it here as most of the edits were just minor scenes lasting a few seconds or quotes from characters that weren't worth mentioning. The editor however has continued editing now. Is it right for me to pursue blocking, perhaps in WP:AN/3? If there is something else I should do please mention that here as I am confused as to what to do. Thanks you. SenatorLEVI 02:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@SenatorLEVI: You might want to leave a message on User talk:73.70.221.118 to invite them to the conversation on the article talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed, Now what?

As stated above, I just got extended confirmed and would like some guidence LOMRJYO_{(About × contribs)} 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lomrjyo: Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! Having extended confirmed rights just means that you've been here for 30 days and have 500 edits, and that you now have the right to edit any pages placed under "extended-confirmed protection", like Blockade of the Gaza Strip or COVID-19 misinformation. Most of these articles, like the two examples I just gave, cover controversial topics, so only experienced editors are allowed to make changes. Based on the article, there might be other rules (for example, to prevent edit warring, you can only make one revert every 24 hours at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts), but for the most part, these extra permissions just mean you have a good Wiki record so far and have access to more articles! (Oh, it also means you can become a Teahouse host!) Kncny11 ^(shoot) 03:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You also become minimally eligible for a request for administration, though people would very much prefer to see competent editing in different namespaces, along with some other criteria. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wayback Machine

FYI

 – Added header. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I don't want to waste your time, so I'll just cut to the chase: Should I put citations in the Wayback Machine (without citing on Wikipedia) so that if the link goes dead, it will still be there? Or is that something that is a waste of time? CodingCyclone ^{[citation needed]} 05:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone: You mean making sure the references used are backed up? We do have bots that automatically archive these: see WP:PLRT. However, if you want to help, you can go into any page's history and click "Fix dead links", which takes you to a page that will make add these archives into Wikipedia and can archive the ones that don't have an archive yet. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I didn't know about this. CodingCyclone ^{[citation needed]} 06:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Original Maps

Error uploading an original map created with Power BI using publicly available data.

I am trying to upload an image of a map depicting the Women, Business and the Law (WBL https://wbl.worldbank.org/en/wbl) index on gender equality. I created the map myself using Power BI and the Open source data from WBL, however whenever I attempt to upload the image I get the following error message: "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." What do I need to do to prove this is original content?

}} Carneadesofcyrene (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Own Work would help here. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 07:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

How Great articles are determined ?

Hi , How reviewers or editors designate a article is GA.What are the examples of GA ? How to make a article GA? 106.210.230.99 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good_articles for all your answers. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

About 0.7% of all articles are either Good or Featured (there is no "Great" classification). Both require a review process wherein an editor submits and an experienced reviewer stipulates changes that are needed to qualify. Most articles being nominated for GA review were already B-class, but sometimes an editor starts with a C-class article. David notMD (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please Review draft

Anybody please review my draft page. Link attached : Draft:Kiliroor Kunnummel Bhagavathy Temple

Thank you ❤️ ProudMallu (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello ProudMallu, as the template on the draft says, it takes time to get drafts reviewed and they aren't reviewed in any particular order. Requesting a quick review does not increase your chance. Please be patient. SenatorLEVI 06:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse editors are not AfC reviewers (well a few are, but that does not get a request made here to trigger a review). David notMD (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Live article

Why is my article not live? I have moved my article from draftspace to mainspace but it is still not live.

Castling D (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Castling D Castling D (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Castling D If your article is in mainspace, it is formally part of the encyclopedia and "live". If you are referring to search engines, it takes time for them to index new articles. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your article exists as Kwadjo Asante. Before it can be found via a search at Google or other search engine, it needs to be seen and approved by New Pages Patrol, or if not acted on by NPP, then at 90 days. David notMD (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article in question is Odeneho Oppong Prince. Can you check that out and comment for me? The article Kwadjo Asante is okay with how its turned out for me...Thank you... Castling D (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Castling D

Castling D for both articles, you moved them from Draft to mainspace without submitting to the Articles for Creation review process. That is allowed. However, these now go to Wikipedia:New pages patrol, where it is possible that they be reverted to Draft or nominated for deletion. Only after passing NPP can they be found via search engines, or if not reviewed at NPP within 90 days, auto-approved. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Appreciate. thanks.Castling D (talk)

Duplicate citation detector?

Is there a tool that can detect a citation used twice? So let's say you have a 1000-reference article with two separate citations accidentally using http://www.example.com/. Is there a tool that can spot this? GeraldWL 09:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, AutoWikiBrowser for example, see WP:HTADC. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:REFILL? Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Detecting vandalism on Recent Changes?

How come I can't filter for vandalism on Special:RecentChanges anymore? I haven't edited Wikipedia for about a year. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WikiWarrior9919! Look at the three bars on the left of the 'filter changes' search bar, where you can sort for bad faith, good faith, etc. You also might want to look for the tags #possible vandalism, #Possible vandalism, #possible BLP issue or vandalism, #Section blanking, etc. You can do this by typing '#' followed by the tag, e.g. typing in '#possible vandalism'. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk)

About page protection

How to protect an article from editing? Wikiaddictcommo (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikiaddictcommo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP; you will need to provide a reason with your request. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

I asked a question about several instances of vandalism here, and the Teahouse said it probably wouldn't happen again. But now, there are multiple IPs doing the exact same thing here. I am really freaking out about this and don't know whether to suspect sockpuppetry. Can you help?

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1098#Really_weird_vandalism The old thread. You might not need it, but I've included it here on the off chance that it could be useful. MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You should request that the article be autoconfirmed protected, at least for a while, as that would prevent IPs from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

MEisSCAMMER, hey bud. No reason to fret. You handled the situation perfectly. I have reported the main IP involved and warned the both of them. I'll keep an eye on the talk page as well to see if another attack occurs and if further steps are necessary. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 22:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 13:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for help at ADM (company)

Hello! David here on behalf of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, seeking to improve the Wikipedia article by suggesting some updates at Talk:ADM (company). I'm not editing the article myself to comply with conflict-of-interest rules, and I'm hoping an editor or two here might be able to review and update the page for me. I don't think the requests are complicated to review, but they've gone unanswered since November. Might someone be able to help? Thanks in advance! ADM DavidW (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me that you have been submitting edit requests since October 2020, and that many were acted on in a timely fashion. How many are still outstanding? David notMD (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rather than ask here at the Teahouse, ADM DavidW you may be better to again reach out to the editors who have helped you in the past, as I see you have sometimes done. You seem to be keeping them pretty busy and I'm not surprised they aren't responding so quickly. Other editors could be approached through their membership of the Projects which are interested in the article, perhaps by posting on Project Talk pages such as WT:WikiProject Agriculture. The Teahouse is mainly (but not exclusively) where novice editors are encouraged to come, so experienced folk may not notice requests made here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Searching for an article directs to a related, but different page

Um, hi. Hello. I just recently submitted an article for NEO: The World Ends With You, a sequel to the 2007 game The World Ends With You. The page just got approved as an article, but upon searching the article on the search bar, Wikipedia directs the user to the "Sequel" section of the first game instead of the actual article for the sequel. I would also like to add a link to the sequel article in said section on the article for the first game, but the link appears as a red link even though the page already exists. How can I fix this? Dextramatsu (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Dextramatsu, hello, friend, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed the redirect, and it now points to the correct article. In order to add that link to the section, just type {{main|Neo: The World Ends With You}} at the top of said section. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you add the template message "This might not reflect worldwide views of the subject"?

By that i mean those squares that appear at top of a Wikipedia page, like when a page says: "This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

(I'm asking because I noticed that the "Classroom" article (even though it has images from clasrooms of multiple countries, when it comes to mentioning examples of classrooms in country specific classrooms, it only mentions classrooms the U.S. educational system.) --Teuf0rt (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Teuf0rt (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teuf0rt! You might be looking for {{Globalize}}. If you want to find more templates, just search 'Template:whatever describes the issue'. For example, if the article needs more citations, the template would be {{More citations needed}}, if the article does not adhere to the manual of style, use {{MOS}}, etc. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Not all templates are intuitively named, and there's probably thousands of different content templates of this type. {{Wikipedia templates}} is a good place to look for many of them, links on that list will take one to various other pages listing templates of a bewildering array of uses. --Jayron32 15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Teuf0rt I think the template you're looking for is Template:Globalize. It has parameters where you can specify the country, so you can use {{Globalize|article|US}} which will display "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@ User:Joseph2302 From: Teuf0rt

I'd just like to quickly thank you for all your help, Joseph. Sincerely, Teuf0rt Teuf0rt (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@User: Jayron32 Thanks for your help, Jayron. Sincerely, Teuf0rt. Teuf0rt (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Page Protection

How do I semi-protect a page, or request a page for protection. The page Thiago Alcantara, was protected a few weeks ago but has recently been un protected. Please could you let me know how to semi-protect a page. Thanks TheWikiEditor1234 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiEditor1234: Only administrators can protect pages. If the page is experiencing vandalism or disruption, you can make a request at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Position of link to award page

Hello, I was reading Jodie Foster and I realized the list of awards and nominations is nowhere to be found in the text. Then I discovered it's shown in another format at the most bottom part of the page? Personally, I think it's very inaccessible to readers, I don't have much experience in editing biography, so I'm not sure whether it's a common practice. I have read many biography articles, but this is the first time such important link is not located in the main text. I have put a 'See also: (link to the award list)' at the beginning of the career section. Am I doing it right? I understand I should be extra careful when editing a biography for a living person. Hopefully, you can aid me in this situation. Lots of thanks! ZeroApocalypse (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZeroApocalypse. It's also linked on "Awards   Full list" in the infobox and "She has received and been nominated for many awards" in the lead. A link in the Career section also seems reasonable but I have combined it with an existing link to avoid repeating "See also".[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, PrimeHunter. It looks great now. ZeroApocalypse (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Celebs

How can you find information about people Ima Jewels (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ima Jewels, Not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 16:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Article writing

By: EarthRex: Can someone please teach me how to add the reference part. EarthRex (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

EarthRex, welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your contributions and wanted to thank you for choosing Wikipedia. Since you wanted to know about referencing you may like to read WP:REFB, WP:IC, WP:CITE and WP:YFA. These pages contain the information about referencing for beginner, citing sources, etc. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 18:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Helping / more often

Hello how can I become a helper and be a lot more help for this site FentonEditor (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@FentonEditor: Thanks for trying to help. This should be useful Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

FentonEditor, note that we are here to build an online free encyclopedia. Whatever you do to improve and maintain the site, will be appreciated; be that the vandal fighting or content creation, or something else. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 18:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating an Article

I am trying to create an article, but it will not let me. How do I do this? Kaleb.catiko (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Kaleb.catiko, see WP:Articlewizard. Hope it helps! –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 18:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kaleb.catiko, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for declaring your COI. I would point out that 1) creating an article is much harder than it looks, and new editors who plunge straight into it often have a miserable and frustrating time. 2) Doing so with a COI is even harder, because it is likely to be difficult to put aside what you know about the subject, and write neutrally. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested - not even a little bit - in what you know about the subject (or what I know about the subject, or what any random person on the internet knows about the subject): it is only interested in what people who have no connection at all with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

My advice to you is to forget entirely about Domov for a few months, while you learn how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million articles. Then, when you have at least a few hundred edits that improve articles under your belt, and an understanding of things like sourcing and neutrality, you can read your first article, and follow its advice to create a draft. --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism Help

I want a help in an article to stop Vandalism. User Arjayay is changing my edit or editing my article. 2405:6580:C500:5A00:F533:CCD5:C446:8A29 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that no article is yours, While you may edit an article greatly, anyone is allowed to edit any article as long as it is not vandalism or in your userspace. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 16:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Dhungana is not 'your' article. You have been adding and subtracting content without providing references for the additions or justification for the deletions, and so all of your edits have been reverted. If you persist, warnings on your Talk page will increase in severity, leading, potentially, to you being blocked from editing this article. David notMD (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Frank - Do you have a question?

 Frank6292010 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(added section title) David notMD (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

OK edit?

Does my first edit look OK? To The_Sentinel_(KSU). Boomshel (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Boomshel, hello, friend, and welcome to Wikipedia! For the claim you made, I think you should include a reliable reference to prove that this scam actually happened. You can see the beginner's guide to references if you need some help citing sources. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 01:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s evident if you look at the links given. Not sure how to make it clearer. They are already there. Boomshel (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Boomshe: You were editing the Infobox for the article and all that should appear there is the current website address: thanks for updating that. If the scam is noteworthy compared to the other information about the paper, then it should be described in the article, along with an WP:independent reliable source for that information. Sourcing should not just be a WP:PRIMARY one that might be mentioned somewhere in an publication from The Sentinel itself: there needs to be evidence that the scam was noticed and discussed elsewhere. Whatever you find, I suggest you delete your comment from the Infobox, leaving just the current URL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page. Less informative now. Boomshel (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

How to know if your newly written article has been forwarded to moderators and awaits approval

Hi, I recently wrote an article and after completing it, I realised I am not a verified contributor, yet. This means that any articles I write have to be accepted by a moderator. After finishing the article, I believe that I correctly added it to the a list of articles that need to be screened to see if they will be accepted or not. How can I find out whether my article has been successfully added to this list?

Let me know if you need any other information, thanks in advance! Dimitris Dimitris Zavitsanos (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Dimitris Zavitsanos Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Other than to this page, you have no edits from your account. Did you create the draft before you created this account? If you could link to the draft, we can tell you if you submitted it. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dimitris Zavitsanos. Per above, if we knew the username of IP address by which you wrote it, it would be easier, but is there a big honking yellow notice on the page saying "Review waiting, please be patient..."? Does the page say at the bottom that it's in Category:Pending AfC submissions? If yes, it's submitted and awaiting review by AfC reviewers (not "moderators"). If not, you can submit it by editing the draft, pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top, and saving the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dimitris Zavitsanos: If you refer to el:User:Dimitris Zavitsanos/πρόχειρο then it has not been submitted. {{subst:submit}} is for the English Wikipedia here at https://en.wikipedia.org. Each language edition chooses its own procedures. I don't know Greek or the procedures of the Greek Wikipedia. There may or may not be a way to submit a draft for review. Maybe new users are supposed to just create articles directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe el:Βικιπαίδεια:Το πρώτο σου λήμμα is of help. Questions should be asked at the language edition they are about. This page is for the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Dimitris Zavitsanos (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Thank you all! Your comments were all spot on. Here’s the link for the draft: https://el.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A7%CF%81%CE%B7%CC%81%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82:Dimitris_Zavitsanos/%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CC%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%BF

We can't help w2ith el.wp beyond what has already been said above. Different Wikipediae, different standards and policies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, may you add or help me make a page?

Hi, i realized there was no page for the Cleveland-Cliffs HBI Furnace Tower in Toledo. may somebody help me make one? Thanks! -Mrfalconcool Mrfalconcool (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mrfalconcool, welcome at the Teahouse - I suggest making an article request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mrfalconcool. Mostly when someone notices a gap in coverage, the best way to fill it is doing so themselves. If the person is not ready to do so themselves (creating a suitable article is a very difficult task for most new users, even if the subject is manifestly notable, which is a threshold concern to always be answered before you begin writing [and then see WP:YFA), then essentially the only thing to do is make suggestion at requested articles, per above. However, requested articles is approx. 96.34% broken. Mostly it's like dropping a bottle in the ocean and hoping it reaches a destination eventually. Still, you will increase your chances dramatically, in my view, if you were to list alongside your posting (maybe at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Buildings?), a number of really good reliable, secondary, independent sources that the article writing can be based upon. Also to spark interest, you might possibly list next to the entry something like: "Note that this tower is listed at No.1 at [[List of tallest buildings in Toledo, Ohio]], which will link to that article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

New article creation guide

I want a guide on how should I go on and publish my new article on the wikipedia without getting it banned so can any one help me out with this

P.s I have my article in place if you check it out before I publish it it would be great so that it would not get banned Jay dhandhukiya (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jay dhandhukiya: you won't get banned, I'm 99% sure, most is just a reminder. I recommend looking at article wizard before and also look at what qualifies for deletion so cheers ~ Lovin'Politics (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only edit your account has made has been here to the Teahouse, Jay dhandhukiya. Loads of advice has now been added to your Talk Page. Spend time to read some of that and you shouldn't go far wrong. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jay dhandhukiya: You need to appeal your original block at User talk:Savvyapp. Also, if you post a comment to an admin's talk page, please take care not to overwrite someone else's post. Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:45 Sat 13, AEDT) 23:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit for tone

is it possible to ask for help for editing for tone? I have a wikipedia page that I need to submit for review but the draft needs an edit for tone Cheynoel (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cheynoe. No problem in asking but it would help us to know which draft you mean, as you seem to have been working on several recently. Also, the main hurdle in getting any article accepted will be to show the WP:NOTABILITY of the subject. People can work to improve the tone later, if that aspect seems poor to the reviewer.Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull, they are referring to Draft:Houndstooth Records which currently is in AfC Review Process. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cheynoel, you could ask the reviewer for clarification. The draft doesn’t seem too promotional overall (at least to me), which would be, after notability, the most common stumbling block. I’m not experienced in music articles nor AFC reviewing, but from a quick skim-read I would suggest looking at the use of "synergy", "celebration", and "innovation has been the ethos" in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, encyclopedic style is dry, but you can use direct quotes as you have done in the "innovation" paragraph as long as you don’t over-do it. Hope that helps! — Pelagic ( messages ) – (11:19 Sat 13, AEDT) 00:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

too many primary sources

"this article relies too much on references to primary sources" What is wrong with having to many primary sources on a wiki page? If only containing primary sources, how would adding secondary and/or tertiary sources to an article improve it? example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Secession_Ordinance 96.19.47.144 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The primary sources just state something exists. The secondary sources help us determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are often what an organization writes about itself (press releases, etc.). Wikipedia calls for information about the topic from other sources. For the example you mentioned, the first has a one-sentence mention about the authoring of the Ordinance, buried in a National Register description of a house. The second did not connect to a source of the text of the Ordinance, so useless. Surely there are better refs. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia article I’d want to see not just the text of the Ordinance, but what was the historical background and subsequent effect. Compare South Carolina Declaration of Secession. Perhaps the tag about primary sources doesn’t fully reflect that. Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:03 Sat 13, AEDT) 01:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating a new subcategory

Hi. I am trying to make a subcategory called Category:Palm Beach State College faculty. It is meant to be a subcategory of Category:Faculty by university or college in Florida but I have somehow made a mess of it. Would someone please help me untangle? Thanks so much. remando (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Remando, it seems to be fine. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

OMG face palming myself. When I saw a listing under the school only for the letter D, I looked for a letter D section in the Category:Faculty by university or college in Florida which of course wasn't there because the new subcategory is under the letter P. Thank you, Giraffer! remando (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Remando: When creating a category, I recommend looking at similar categories to see what they do. I have added another parent category Category:Palm Beach State College to Category:Palm Beach State College faculty. It would also be possible to create an intermediate Category:Palm Beach State College people for alumni, faculty, and what else may come. Category:People by university or college in Florida has many such categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks so so much, PrimeHunter. I published your Category:Palm Beach State College people and made the alumni and faculty categories as subs of it. Fingers crossed I did it right. Baby steps! remando (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Remando: I made a couple of tweaks.[7][8] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Bless you! remando (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Journal Citations

I need some help with some citations. I want to cite certain pages but am not sure how? any help, heres the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Antarctica_in_World_War_II. I want to link pages 4 and 5 on citations 9 and 10. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: {{cite journal}} has a |pages= param for this purpose. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: Reference #3 in your draft already contains |pages=470–472, so you can see how it displays in your draft. You can do the same thing with the other references where appropriate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Normally I use pages= for the extent of the article in its journal issue, and add {{Rp}} to refer to a specific page in the article. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:17 Sat 13, AEDT) 02:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops forgot ping Gandalf the Groovy. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:20 Sat 13, AEDT) 02:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Paulo Costa comment issue?

I just got a notification that a change I made related to fighter Paulo Costa has been removed. I don't think I ever made a change to Wikipedia and don't think I even know how to. Can someone provide me with the details of what I added? I am concerned that someone might be spufing my IP, or some such.

Thanks. 142.114.156.43 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@142.114.156.43: your IP address, which you use to edit, is shared, so therefore the edit was made by your IP address but not specifically by you. versacespacetalk to me 01:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your IP address is registered to Sympatico HSE / Bell Canada in Ontario. Most likely another Sympatico customer had the address back in October. Or it’s someone else in your premises on the same connection. You can safely ignore the warning if it wasn’t you. I wouldn’t worry about address spoofing, it’s unlikely. According to Special:Contributions/142.114.156.43, the only edit before now was this change to Paul Costa. Hope that helps! Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:56 Sat 13, AEDT) 02:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you review my drafts ?

Hi one week ago , I made five WP article drafts and submitted it.But still no reviewer reviewing them? These drafts are made after extensive research.The areDraft: Maroti Temple of Shirsada ,Draft: Jalgaon District Court ,Draft: Jalgaon housing scam , Draft: Ghodasgaon (District - Jalgaon) ,Draft:North Maharashtra. 106.210.230.99 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Answered in the Drafts section above. GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi after showing so many refrences after lines , my drafts are declined. My WP articles about and around my place are have just two or three refrences and lots of original research. But I added lots of citations in my draft but some one declined it.Now I made some changes in these draft as reviewer said. Can any reviewer her go and review them ? From these draft one draft Draft :Kothali, Muktainagar was accepted by the reviewer. But remaining these drafts , alao made with the same way. Then why they're declined in just elleven seconds. I don't think the reviewer properly read my drafts and then reviewed. 106.210.230.99 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Teahouse editors are not AfC reviewers (well a few are, but that does not get a request made here to trigger a review). David notMD (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As one AfC Reviewer let me say that it not even needs 10 seconds to see if a section is referenced or not. GoingBatty explained the declined drafts. Please add the references, resubmit the draft and maintain patience, a Review can take time, there are more than 5,000 AfC Drafts waiting for review coming in every few minutes new Drafts - in the worst case it can take up to several months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:CommanderWaterford lots of poorly referenced articles are live on WP but my drafts with so many refrences they declined. Some are still not reviewed. For ex Jalgaon , Gulabrao Devkar these drafts are stub. Poorly referenced and too small according to WP standards. Some articles are Original research see Bahinabai Chaudhari , Changdev, Muktainagar, Raksha Khadse but they are live. And my drafts with refrence and citation not accepted. Why? 106.210.230.99 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging CommanderWaterford as a courtesy. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thanks but nothing to add what not already had been said. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That other poor drafts and articles exist does not mean yours can too. With over 6 million articles and drafts in addition, and only a limited number of volunteers to work on them, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. This does not mean other inappropriate content should be allowed, or otherwise this would cease to be a useful encyclopedia. We can only address what we know about- if you would like to help identify inappropriate articles and address them, your help would be welcome. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

AGAIN, Teahouse hosts are here to advise about how to edit Wikipedia BUT ARE NOT REVIEWERS. In reply to some of your other comments, Stubs are allowed as long as referenced, original research should be deleted from articles, and WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS explains that finding examples of articles that do exist is a useless exercise. Work on improving your drafts that were declined, and be patient about the others waiting on a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You can also help improve those articles that you mentioned if you have reliable sources for them. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I broke the template:Infobox university

How do i fix it? I can't add alumni! Infinitepeace (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: Your edits to Nightingale College were fixed by MB. See the documentation at Template:Infobox university for more information on how it should be used. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

you guys are great! thank you so very much. Infinitepeace (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A basic

Can I know if anyone could help me if userboxes. I'd like to place some, in Wikitext's form, like this

This user is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects.

, but it doesn't work... Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11: Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you mean that you want the reader to see {{User ASTRO}} instead of the userbox? If so, you can add <nowiki>...</nowiki> around the template - see how I did it in the source of this section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @GoingBatty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hypersonic man 11. I was going to explain the above, as well as two other things you might have meant, so let me tell you the other two:

1) In addition to nowiki tags, if you want a template to display its wikitext, and provide a link to the template, there are a variety of template link codes that can be added, by prefixing them before the first set of curly braces, followed by a pipe. For example {{tl|User ASTRO}} and {{tlx|User ASTRO}} produce, respectively: {{User ASTRO}} and {{User ASTRO}}. See more at Category:Internal template-link templates.

2) Lastly, if you want a template's underlying code to be placed somewhere, so that when you save, the wikitext itself is called, rather than having it call from the original location, you can substitute the template. Thus {{subst:User ASTRO}} results in the same display of the template, just as if you placed {{User Astro}} but in edit mode, you would now see:

{{userbox
| border-c = #ccccff
| id       = [[Image:Io highest resolution true color.jpg|43px]]
| id-c     = #ccccff
| info     = This user is a member of '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects|WikiProject Astronomical objects]]'''.
| info-c   = #eeeeff
| info-fc  = {{{info-fc|black}}}
| info-s   = {{{info-s|8}}}
}}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiLove enabling

Hello!! thnx so much in advance to all the kind people helping! I have noticed that some users have a button where I can give them WikiLove! Some of them don't. I was wondering how I could enable this for my profile? chefs-kiss (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi chefs-kiss. I think there is a heart tab for WikiLove on all user talk pages except a user's own talk page. If you don't see it somewhere then please give an example. I see it at User talk:Chefs-kiss. If you refer to something other than a heart tab then please say what and give an example where you see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Chefs-kiss, it can be enabled/disabled in Preferences, on the Editing tab. Look for the check-box labelled "Enable showing appreciation for other users with the WikiLove tab" under General Options. Pelagic ( messages ) – (16:18 Sat 13, AEDT) 05:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Education

 Ima Jewels (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ima Jewels, welcome to teahouse. Here you get the answer of questions. Do you have any? –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 09:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Aging suit

Hi. Will someone create Aging suit for me? I can't create it. The alternative spelling "Ageing suit" already exists. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi New Sheriff in Town. I've created it as a redirect; I assume that's what you intended.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with page drafting - Omniscient Neurotechnology

Hey wikipedia experts! My name is Lewis and i have begun the process of creating a wikipedia page for our steadily growing research company, Omniscient Neurotechnolog. I completed an initial draft after declaring my conflict of interest with the page on my member profile (as per wiki guidelines), and submitted it for review knowing that likely some edits would need to be made. The feedback i received was that the page read too much as an advertisement and that additional references would be required to pass the review - so i have begun the process of altering the tone of the article and adding some additional sources for the next submission, however i was hoping i could get some more tailored feedback from some experts in the publishing field. I am quite naive to the process so any further advice would be greatly appreciated :) The draft page can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omniscient_Neurotechnology#Omniscient_Neurotechnology Thanks so much in advance! Lewis Lewisomniscient (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lewisomniscient. Which independent, reliable sources say that this company is "now actively involved" and "working closely" on a "core focus"? That's just marketing jargon that can be applied to every business venture on the face of the Earth, including the small business I own that does not have a Wikipedia article. We do not want or need that kind of terminology. We want content that neutrally summarizes what reliable sources entirely independent of this venture say about it, when devoting significant coverage to the topic of Omniscient Neurotechnology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed non-relevant content. What is left rests solely on citations from the company. Unless non-connected reliable source references can be added, this is WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I came across a page, namely "Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting" in which an entire section is a quotation of one website. Should I delete this section since it is all one massive quotation? To me, it seems to border on plagiarism as although they source the website they get the information from, there is not one sentence of original text: it has all been lifted. Many thanks EcheveriaJ (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello EcheveriaJ. You could just paraphrase the text, and please also notify the offender on their talk page by look at the article's edit history and viewing edit diffs (which are basically the differences between edits). Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk)

Hi Can you advise exactly which part of the page does this EcheveriaJ, or maybe easier, advise which website it is you think had been infringed/plagiarized? Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The "Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting" section, with nearly all the text being quoted from https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/206 EcheveriaJ (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What to do when someone is reverting your edits and claims that there is no consensus in the talk page?

I removed an outdated claims/opinions in the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence article, I removed the "scientific controversy" section but kept the "Technology Review controversy" part. I first opened a new section in the talk page and made many arguments against the "scientific controversy" part in the article, I gave articles and studies that directly and indirectly contradicts the "scientific controversy" section and pointed the fact that most if not all of the claims/opinions in this section have no study that support them. There was only little opposition to my stance with only two editors that didn't kept with the discussion after I commented about what they said. I made it clear that their arguments in support of this "scientific controversy" section are wrong and even after the discussion ended I kept posting more and more recent sources that contradicts the opinions in the section which most of them were made more than a decade ago.

Only after months without anybody to react to my replies to my criticizers or to the new sources I provided that contradicts the claims in the "controversy section" I made the edit and removed the "scientific controversy" section. Suddenly after several months since my edit someone comes and revert my edit and claim that there was no consensus in the talk page. It seems like a personal interpretation of "consensus" since its been months since someone posted any objection to what I said and there was only two short comments for only part of what I said in the section. That user didn't even participated in the discussion so how I can settle this down and make sure that this user won't just decide that "there is no consensus" a second time if I restore my edit?. It doesn't look like there is other choice other than making another edit because this user just revert my edit without even being part of the discussion or saying anything in the talk page. --ThunderheadX (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ThunderheadX. Do not edit war and do not edit against consensus. There are many forms of dispute resolution available to you, and in this case, a formal Request for comment may be the right way to go. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

ThunderheadX, I have now read the talk page discussion and it is obvious that, so far, you have failed to gain consensus for removing that content. Short objections are no less valid than your lengthy arguments. You must gain consensus if you want to remove that material. To better understand consensus, please read WP: CONSENSUS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Did you read the whole discussion and thought about what I said?, I made it clear that the objections to my edit were just wrong and the objections wasn't even on everything I said. In the article about "Consensus" there is a line: "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated" and it implies that at least in some cases the fact that editors stop responding can be a sign of consensus. It was quite clear that nobody had anything to say against what I said, especially after I waited several months. One of the objections was simply a lie and he said that in-vitro research isn't accepted as a reliable source but the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) article never said anything like that and he just wrongly interpreted what the article said. There is also another line in the "Consensus" article which says: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions" and it is clear that the Editor who reverted my edit completely ignored the talk page. --ThunderheadX (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Puja Bahri

Help on Draft:Puja Bahri

This article has citations from reliable independent secondary sources, but was pushed back from published to Draft with a general tag of notability. Can anyone help me what's more required? Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The relevant notability guidelines for her are at WP:NARTIST. As a living person you must also follow all the guidelines at WP:BLP. In particular that means that every factual statement must be confirmed by a reliable source so that it can be verified by anyone reading the article. At present, none of the facts in the "Life" section has any reference that can be used for verification. It is the notability hurdle which is most difficult to fulfil and which leads to many many articles being ultimately abandoned. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

sandbox to publish

hello - new to this - have done sandbox and looking to publish - have seen on youtube a 'publish' button but do not seem to have one in my sandbox - TIA PaulJOCallaghan (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: User:PaulJOCallaghan/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

When the article is ready, you can add {{subst:Submit}} at the top. It is nowhere near ready yet: reference 3 is based on an interview, so is a WP:PRIMARY source and reference 4 just is not about the company but about the place where its founders went to university. Your main difficulty will be in showing that the company meets WP:NCORP and if you can't immediately think of three or four reliable sources that are independent of the company and have discussed it in detail (see WP:SECONDARY and WP:SIGCOV) you are wasting your time trying to create an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

To revert or not revert...

Hello, thought I would something good, and updated FedCon table of former cons. I copied the missing part over from deWP, now I realize that I should have changed some German phrases, words and links first. If it's okay that I do this later, I'll do it, but It will take some time. If not, feel free to revert. Thank you Maresa63 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Done! At least the easy part. Maresa63 (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Appearance

After how many days my article will appear on wikipedia? Kazorel (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Kazorel Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space, and not searchable by outside search engines. That is a place for you to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia user. You may submit drafts using Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Kazorel Quickly copy all that content you put on your User page to a document on your computer, and then delete it from your User page. You can try again to create a draft by following the instructions at WP:YFA. Drafts are submitted to be reviewed via the Articles for creation mentioned by 331dot. There is a backlog of drafts, so it can be months from submitting a draft to it being reviewed. ALL THAT DOES NOT MATTER YET, because the content you created will not be accepted as an article. Wikipedia requires notability supported by what is written about a person, not by a person. The University of Warsaw article has a list of Professors for whom articles exist. Use those as models for what you want to create. David notMD (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kazorel: I've improved the formatting of the page with wikicode e.g. ==Heading== creates a (main level) heading titled "Heading". Hope this is alright! Let me know if you have any formatting questions on my talk page. Otherwise I agree with what users have said above about how to submit a draft, and what to do before that—see WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC for notability guidelines we have on these topics. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Now at Draft:Ryszard Zięba. David notMD (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kazorel It's a draft, but has not been submitted for review. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category message received - not sure what to do

I am a newbie trying to learn the basics of editing. I received the message below earlier on. I'm not sure to how undo this error, or to avoid it in the future. Please advise.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:The dog said he wanted to have some fun, he wanted to run in the field

A tag has been placed on Category:The dog said he wanted to have some fun, he wanted to run in the field., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. SueSmith-MSc (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SueSmith-MSc. You appear to have added a Category tag on your Talk page in this edit [9] Categories trigger all sort of bots and basically you should avoid adding them anywhere on Talk Pages, Draft articles or in your Sandbox. No real harm done, just don't add any more. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@SueSmith-MSc: The above is not the problem. In [10] you clicked "(+)" after "Categories:" at the bottom of the page and entered "The dog said he wanted to have some fun, he wanted to run in the field." This created a link to a non-existing page called Category:The dog said he wanted to have some fun, he wanted to run in the field. Then you clicked the link and created the page. That was the problem but not a serious problem. The page has been deleted. See Help:Category for how categories work. Don't create test categories. The "(+)" link appears because you enabled "HotCat: easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. If you don't want to work with categories then you can disable it. It's still possible to add categories without it but it takes a little more work. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Film / TV Poster

How would I upload a film or tv poster without getting copyright, I would like to put it under 'fair use'. The Image for characters like R2-D2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-D2#/media/File:R2-D2_Droid.png) is under 'fair use'. Many posters have this licence, how would I do this? Thanks TheWikiEditor1234 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiEditor1234: In many cases of fair use, I recommend that you use the file upload wizard (requires JavaScript). It can do most of the template stuff for you, provided that you feed it with the correct param values. Make sure that you understand WP:NFCC though. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

How would I submitt the form, I cannot find a submitt button. Thanks. TheWikiEditor1234 (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheWikiEditor1234. Since you mentioned R2-D2 in your post, I took a look at your contributions' history and noticed you created a new article called C-3PO & R2-D2. Please note that there already exists separate articles for R2-D2 and C-3PO, which means there's almost certainly no need for a new article about the two as a "team". For this reason, I've tagged the article for speedy deletion per WP:A10 since it seems that any possible content you could add to such an article would be redundant to either of the two already existing articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiEditor1234: (In response to your question above) the submit button shows up eventually while you select options. It has "Upload" as its caption. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It cannot see the 'Upload' button, it just says to upload to wikicommons, and to be honest I do not understand the copyright types. please could someone help. Thanks. TheWikiEditor1234 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

i want to make wikipedia page of businessman

can u please help me how can i make page of person in wikipedia Hardyisback11188 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hardyisback11188, please have a closer look at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hardyisback11188, for an person to merit their own article on Wikipedia, they should meet WP:BIO and there should be multiple sources about the subject to verify the information. These sources may be books, newspapers, journals, etc. I think you are going to create your first article on Wikipedia. But before you go you should have the knowledge of citing sources. WP:IC, WP:REFB, WP:CITE and WP:YFA tells us how to cite the sources. Further, you may also like to read WP:MOS. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 13:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Hardyisback11188, hello and welcome. Now, coupled with what has been said to you by both editors above, if the businessman is yourself, your friend, colleague, or generally, someone you are close to, you are strongly advised not to write articles about them because it would constitute a serious conflict of interest. Celestina007 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Help checking copyright issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Union_for_The_Local_Employees_in_Missions_Accredited_to_Sou... this draft here the links where authorized by the owner I am trying to understand what more needs to be fixed? Can someone give me more information with regards to the Copyright issue since the owner of the organization gave full access to all the content that has been marked as copyright or even if anyone can assist to fix it I would really appreciate it.

The organization is based in south Africa and it deals with gender based violence and unfair labour practices in a diplomatic sector. Africancontrobutor (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Africancontrobutor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that there is almost nothing to do with a Wikipedia article for which somebody's permission is relevant. In the case of copyright, permission to use something in Wikipedia is not enough: in order to use copyright material, we require that the copyright owner release it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse or alter the material for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they provide proper attribution (See WP:donating copyright material. But in any case it is extremely rare that copyright text is suitable for an article, because 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) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

help with sources please!

I am writing a wikipedia page for a youtuber I like that is fairly popular (26,000 subs, total of 4 mil views), but my article got declined because the sources I provided were the youtube link and their discord server link, even though there is proof of everything i stated in those 2 links. the message declining it said I needed a secondary source that is independent of the subject, so I resubmitted it with the sources being screenshots that can be verified by going onto the discord server and looking for them since they're still up. does anyone know anything I can do to improve my sources? 2603:9001:6C01:F7FE:8171:F719:894B:FCF2 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you misunderstand what you were told by the reviewer. For any person to merit a Wikipedia article, there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Independent reliable sources means that we want sources completely unconnected with the subject that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to this person. That would be things like news stories, unsolicited independent reviews, books, etc. If no such sources exist, then this person would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi.Agreeing with everything written above, please note that a large portion of YouTubers are simply not notable, as we use that word here to predominantly mean the existence of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, on which a verifiable article can be based. If you look at the article on PewDiePie, for example, you'll see that it has many such sources. But most YouTubers have not garnered such coverage. Because of the nature of what an encyclopedia is, a tertiary source compendium of existing knowledge, it is never the right place to write the first independent treatment about a topic; some subjects simply cannot sustain an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NYOUTUBE may be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@2603:9001:6C01:F7FE:8171:F719:894B:FCF2: have you thought about submitting your article to Wikitubia instead? — Kleinpecan 20:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Where can I find help with MOS question?

I am an experienced editor and I have done a lot of work on our Rainbow article. Recently an editor came along that has changed the names of the earth, the sun, and the moon to the Earth , Sun, and Moon. Per our MOS there are occasions to use caps but in general caps should not be used. This editor claims that our MOS directs us to always use caps and the fact that none of our sources on rainbows use caps only shows how advanced and correct we are compared to them. In fact, this makes him/her proud to be a Wikipedia editor. I have reached out to two copy editors and have not received help. Where do I turn? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Earth, Sun, and Moon are proper names and should be captialized, as seen in the articles on these subjects. If you were talking about a moon of some other planet that was not named Moon then you would use lower case. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Celestial_bodies which says it should be capitalized "when used as the name of a specific body in a scientific or astronomical context". I have not looked at the article on Rainbow, so this is general advice. RudolfRed (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Gandydancer and Randy Kryn: Reading through Talk:Rainbow#Upper_cased_Sun_and_Earth it seems to me that you both agree on what the MOS says, you just do not agree on specific uses in the page. This is in essence a run-of-the-mill content dispute. My suggestions to resolve it would be first to list the disagreements (it is likely that some uses require capitalization while others do not) and then look for outside assistance using the steps at WP:DR (which would likely mean starting by a WP:3O). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks RudolfRed and Tigraan. In the comments above Gandydancer (a great name by the way) mischaracterizes my comments. Of course sun, moon, and earth are not always capitalized, as, for example, "sun" is often used to mean sunshine, "earth" the soil of the planet, and "moon" is not capitalized when writing about the phases of the moon, etc. What I'm very proud of about Wikipedia is that it stands out in actually upper-casing the proper names of that giant nuclear furnace in the sky, the large rock-like thing that follows Earth around like a lost puppy, and the planet that Wikipedia exists on itself, because not all sources do. That the Sun, when writing about the star, has a proper and common name is just common sense, but this is not held to be true by Scientific American and other scientific americans. Yes, a case-by-case discussion is the appropriate way to go, but the obvious examples of proper names at Rainbow and other pages should not be reversed on the general principal of tossing the baby in the bathwater and see if, by luck, it comes out clean. Randy Kryn Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear here, the only help I got was from Tigraan who called it a run-of-the-mill content disagreement. Contrary to the way that Scientific American and groups such as the Harvard University Department of Physics, not to mention every site that we are using for the article, I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia has departed from the standard way to use caps for celestial bodies and made up their own. Their own WP system, a system in which the rainbow article is now written to have the more than 20 bodies mentioned in caps, with only two that are left without caps, most likely to have been missed by this editor. Gandydancer (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Gandydancer. Please point out one or a few examples and take those to the talk page. You did mention one with wording about "in the direction of the Sun" which seems to indicate the star and not sunshine. If the context is "sunshine" then please change it to "sunshine", otherwise it means the star, which has a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A few examples? Except for two which you apparently missed you changed them all. I'm done here. Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

New Page Creation

I would like to make a page for Gru (Despicable Me), he is the protagonist and he does not have a page. Please could I start making one (is it notable for Wikipedia page creation). If not, please could you let me know what pages need to be created and I will look into them, as I would like to become a better wikipedian. Thanks. TheWikiEditor1234 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TheWikiEditor1234. It's great that you want to improve yourself as a Wikipedian, and improve Wikipedia. If you want to write about Gru, it's up to you to demonstrate notability by finding suitable independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of Gru: that is in any case the first step of creating any article, because if you can't find such sources then you know not to waste any more time on a non-notable subject. If you're looking for articles to create, there's a huge list at requested articles: choose an area that interests you and pick a subject in that area. --ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help ColinFine. TheWikiEditor1234 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Despicable Me has a character section with content about Gru. Rather than a separate article consider adding to that. New editors gain useful experience editing existing articles before essaying a new article. David notMD (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

information on its copyright and licensing status

Hi, i would like some information on some pics i have uploaded. thanks Goldstriker (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Goldstriker (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Goldstriker, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be confused. You have uploaded File:Farnborough Airshow 2018 - Request Permission Rich Cooper Photography.jpg and File:Richard Browning - GWR Brighton - Photo Credit GWR.jpg both to Commons, claiming them as your own work, and purporting to license them under WP:CC-BY-SA 4.0; and File:Farnborough Air Show 1 - Request Permission Rich Cooper Photography.jpg ‎ direct to Wikipedia, without giving a copyright statemement. Given that you have titled these (most unorthodoxly) with mentions of "Request Permission" and "Photo Credit", it seems highly unlikely that they are in fact your own work, or that you have the legal right to license them or to upload them.

All material uploaded to Commons must be free for reuse; which means that unless for some reason it is in the public domain, the copyright owner must either upload it themselves, or they must follow the procedure in donating copyright materials: nobody can do the latter for them. In doing so they will have licnesed the materials in such a way that anybody may reuse or alter the materials for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute them.

There is an exception for certain images, that provided their use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria, they may be uploaded to Wikipedia itself. Among those criteria are that they may be used only in articles, not in drafts; and they must be used in at least one article.

So, unless you are able to get the copyright holder (Rich Cooper?) to donate the images, they should not be in Commons at all; and as for using them as non-free, once your draft has been accepted as an article, it is possible that one of those images might be uploaded to Wikipedia and used in the article, provided you establish that the use meets all the criteria.

Your draft, by the way, has no chance of being accepted in its current form, as it is highly promotional. 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. It also contains many external links, which are not generally allowed in the body of an article. It suggest you read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Academics

Reliable secondary resources for notability of academics

• Can we use official website of a leading university in a country as a reliable secondary source to establish the notability of its faculty?
• Is director of a particular department in a University considered as - named chair appointment or distinguished professor as cited Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

On your second question, Wisdomwiki 40, a named chair (and a distinguished professorship) is different to being a head of department. A head of department might not even be a full professor in some cases. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry appreciate your care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomwiki 40 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Respected members, I need attention on the first question too. thanksWisdomwiki 40 (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wisdomwiki In short, yes. See WP:PROF. ~ Shushugah (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving

I'm just interested in an entry for actor Hugo Weaving. He has lived and worked and brought up children in Australia his whole life, and is Australian to the bootstraps. Yet being born to English parents in 'colonial' Kenya qualifies him as English? When does someone become identified as belonging to the only country he knows?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Weaving 49.3.40.164 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The best place to discuss this is Talk:Hugo Weaving, where these issues have been commented on over the years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A page with sources in French

Hello wikipedians :)

I have a little problem with a wiki page I'm trying to create...

The page is about a platform which is very popular in Europe and Arab countries and which generates over 400 million impressions each month.

I have found sources on very popular business news sites and magazines which are independent and reliable about this platform (most of the sources are in French) but I have read that Wikipedia accepts sources from other languages!

I would like to know what I missed or why the page was not accepted ?

While waiting for an answer I would like to share with you some sources (International Business Times , Press France , Yubigeek , Direct Magazine)

The link of the draft page : Uullu Thanks in advance Zakariabenlafqih (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zakariabenlafqih::

1. Crunchbase is not an acceptable source (WP:RS/P).
2. [11] is almost certainly an advertorial or a press release. News outfits don't break out role bylines unless it's content they didn't actually create.
3. [12] appears to be an advertorial. At the very least, this doesn't appear to be something any legitimate news organisation would put out based on the Google translation.
4. [13] is too sparse; listicles usually are.
5. [14] appears to be an SEO outlet that allows people to publish their own press releases, and thus lacks any sort of editorial oversight.
6. [15] is routine coverage of a product launch.
7. [16] is a press release

Conclusion: Your sources are all deficient. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC

For the first source, see also: WP:IBTIMES. The International Business Times is on a level of reliability so egregious that I would consider using the Daily Mail as a source before using their content. For example, in a recent article of theirs (which I won't link, because it was hastily researched garbage used to generate clicks off of a suicide), they outright stated that Australian speedrunner DarkViperAU was Donkey Kong player Billy Mitchell – something which literal seconds of research would disprove. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, "very popular" and "400 million impressions" are irrelevant; what we need is notability.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I think I understood, I will look for other sources for this page (even if I found several wiki pages that uses the same source that I shared with you ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakariabenlafqih (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(+[number]) and (-[number]) in Contributions

Hello, I was looking at my contributions and found certain things like (-309) for a picture I put and (+42) for a suggestion.

What do those mean? Xdude gamer (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Xdude gamer, hello, friend! Don't worry about those numbers too much. They just show how many characters were added or removed. For instance, if you added "hello" to a page, it would be +5. If I deleted that "hello," it would be -5. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543 and Xdude gamer: its not the number of characters, its the number of bytes added or removed. Letters always occupy one byte, though certain special characters like []{} or the german ß and most notably emoij may occupy more than one byte. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Now that makes more sense! I was worrying. I thought it was like some sort of "prestige" level or something to be honest.Xdude gamer (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you Make Wikipedia more fun?

I've started to get really bored recently. What do you do to make Wikipedia more fun? Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: It’s an interesting balance between fun and engagement. Most of the people who edit here have a great sense of purpose and that drives them. If you’re not feeling it, you don’t need to edit. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Tyrone Madera, you could try varying the kind of work you do on Wikipedia, branching out to a different challenge. Check out the WP:Task Center if you want some suggestions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I change over to food articles for WikiProject Food and Drink sometimes when I get a little bored. Try looking at some projects to join that are of your own interests. I like to take food pics and update article images and then do a little research, add a few reliable sources, check whats there et..--Mark Miller (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help

How do I add WP:COI in {{template:Multiple issues}} Infinitepeace (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: See the example at Template:Multiple issues#Example for an article. Just add {{COI}} instead of one of those templates. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Change of username

I would like to change my user name as : 'Abhivadya'. How can I change it? Please help. ProudMallu (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

hello so i want to make article about this person and he is knowns person and verified please help me

https://theceo.in/business-express/?for=N&Value=Q%2fdoysJY3QQLdhcjlW7F1ghhslmjZSQNNghqRdzoDjFaXghoWdfLx7vjmAI%3d

https://timestech.in/tech-insiders/?for=N&Value=P%2F%2FwSrnvvhdT9xagujlrOQgmU0dSbWkadQi%2Bj1Ulj%2FHzVQgEqaV%2BWi3A4AI%3D

https://news.webindia123.com/news/press_showdetails.asp?id=53037&cat=Press

https://investmentguruindia.com/businesswire.php?for=N&Value=yyGak4%2be282y3yi29taOdwj4N9PBjq4nughsVRriYa9IlwiFKz9sLrG1SgE%3d

https://www.newdelhitimes.com/business-wire-india/?for=N&Value=1gQ10wv7jc%2fI%2fTryDoUGsAiDZdGSudVmZAiH7xlM%2bSr%2fdAjz%2fRLsIVs1SAI%3d

https://article.wn.com/view/2020/08/24/Harisharaan_Devgan_Pushing_Limits_Towards_Sustainable_Develo/ Hardyisback11188 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hardyisback11188. Please see WP:PRSOURCE for why not one of the sources you listed (ignoring the fact that they're all 100% identical) contributes to the notability of this subject. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is far too powerful

Wikipedia is no longer just describing the facts of what happens, it is now creating its own narratives. It has been used as a weapon in political battles and can no longer be relied on to provide just the truth. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source that simply allows anyone to access information, but instead it has become an ideological outlet in its own right, along with CNN, FOX, The Economist, The New York Post, etc. 172.58.19.3 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question or suggestion? GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@172.58.19.3: The Wikipedia rules stop this from happening, though. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 01:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@172.58.19.3: Hi, anonymous contributor. Like CanadianOtaku noted, Wikipedia's rules expressly outline that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, a standard which editors are expected to strive toward. However, with 6.27 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, things slip through the cracks. Would you mind linking to specific examples you've found of excerpts, sections, or articles that violate this guideline so I or other experienced editors here can take a look and try to resolve the issue as soon as possible? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit struck off

Why my edit(with several other edits) are struck off and grey in revision history of Udupi Ramachandra Rao ? Parnaval (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Parnaval The edits in question were hidden because they violated copyright. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI in {{template:Multiple issues}} = please help

How do I add WP:COI in {{template:Multiple issues}} on Nightingale College? There are edit warriors there that will delete information but won't add anything. {{COI}} does not work. Infinitepeace (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: I added {{COI}} in this edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, the requesting user has been blocked. Your edit had been further reverted by another if you not have already noticed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Mis-Formatted Infobox Messes Up Wikilink

The opening paragraph for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Muhammad_Islam has the sentence "He is affiliated with Pakistan Muslim League (N)," linked to an article on "Pakistan Muslim League (N)" -- but when you mouseover that link, it shows up as nonsense from the destination page's infobox. I thought there might be a missing bracket, but the infobox shows up fine. What is the cause? UClaudius (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

UClaudius, seem to be an issue on your side, here it works pretty well. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@UClaudius and CommanderWaterford: We have two popup features. "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering shows infobox code for Pakistan Muslim League (N). I don't know why. "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets works well here and shows lead text. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Renee Harris Producer page and Dorothy Gibson page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renee_Harris_(producer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjsfca (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor with the IP address of 174.16.152.249 is deleting important information from Renee Harris' page. I have restored the information, but this editor stalks and harasses other editors and will most likely delete it again. I believe he is the same person who vandalized the page earlier this month and has been banned (that editor's name was RMSTitanicInc.). It appears to be the same person under an new IP address. This editor, 174.16.152.249, also needs to be banned indefinitely.

I would mention this on Renee Harris' talk page, but I don't know how to get a talk started.

Thank you, Gjsfca Gjsfca (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Gjsfca, I see that you have been adding information about yourself and a book you have written to Renee Harris (producer). You need to declare your conflict of interest on your user page, and to discuss your proposed addition at Talk:Renee Harris (producer) (start by clicking the "New section" tab at the top). While you continue to promote your book in that article yourself, others will continue to remove what you write there. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Gjsfca, welcome to teahouse. These type of situations should be reported to WP:AIV. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 11:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, @Kammill:, this should not be reported to the vandalism noticeboard, since the IP editor did not vandalise. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Are "Notices" permitted on articles?

The main source for all information regarding General Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet is from the book "General Washington's Dilemma" by Katherine Mayo - but the London and New York publications differ, in that only the London edition has an Appendix 2. There is crucial information in that Appendix. Would I be permitted to do the following? Are "Notices" permitted as sections? i.e. == Notice == followed by:- It should be noted that the New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company 1938 edition of General Washington’s Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, does not have an Appendix 2. For anyone wishing to access this appendix, which has a first-hand account of the drawing of lots, it would be necessary to access the London, Jonathan Cape, Thirty Bedford Square, 1938 edition. Here will be found Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville’s {2nd Foot Guards) letter to his mother, dated 29 May 1782, in which he writes: ... etc. etc. I'm a bit worried that I am told not to sign this message, but my account here is Arbil44 and I choose to be known as Anne. Anne (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbil44 Not on the article page itself, you can post the note to the article's Talk page, and sign it. In the article you should just make sure the "correct" edition is properly referenced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "correct" edition is not the edition available online, and it would be detrimental to have no online source. Since the contents of the Appendix are crucial to the entire Asgill Affair, would a short new Article be permitted, which could then be linked to both the Charles Asgill page and also the Asgill Affair page? I'm sorry, but the letter is central to what happened and very few people would be able to access it. It is the only eye-witness account to surface in the past 2.5 centuries. Anne (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources needn't be available online. --CiaPan (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I know, but it is extremely useful, in this instance, for sources to be easily checked out by clicking on the reference. All I am asking is could I create a short article about the mainly missing Appendix? Anne (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Arbil44. The only way you could create an article of any length about the appendix would be if reliable, independent sources devote significant coverage to this specific appendix. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Would this constitute a short article. Unfortunately the best source was published in 1970 and so there would be the additional problem of copyright which would prevent me publishing the entire letter which is spelt out over six pages of the book. Would this do as a short article?

== Appendix 2 of "General Washington's Dilemma" by Katherine Mayo == followed by:- It should be noted that the New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company 1938 edition of General Washington’s Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, does not have an Appendix 2. For anyone wishing to access this appendix, which has a first-hand account of the drawing of lots, it would be necessary to access the London, Jonathan Cape, Thirty Bedford Square, 1938 edition. Here will be found Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville’s {2nd Foot Guards) letter to his mother, dated 29 May 1782, in which he writes:

I can assure you my mind was in a very uneasy state for above half an hour while they were calling out the Lots, during which time we sat in a Circle, where there was almost a dead silence observed...

Mayo's book was republished in 1970 by Kennikat Press and Annex 2 devotes 5 pages to the entire letter, along with a short letter from Asgill to Greville, which follows on. Anne (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

← The references section in that article is something to behold! I could see several citations for different pages of "Mayo (1938) ... New York: Harcourt Brace" but none only one for "London: Jonathan Cape" (currently ref # 43, citing page 223). That one's mismatched, it should have the link to the HathiTrust digitisation of the Harcourt edition removed, or its publisher should be changed from Cape to Harcourt. Which edition does page 223 refer to? Or is the pagination the same up to that point? (Side question: the URLs are deep-linking to the actual pages, why not hyperlink from the page numbers instead of the book title?) Anyway, Anne, if you’re adding a statement sourced to the Cape or Kennikat editions, just cite those without a link, but maybe include chapter=Annex 2 in addition to pages=. You could then add some text after the {cite book} template along the lines of "Note: Annex 2 is present in this edition but not in the Harcourt Brace edition," so that the reader understands there's a particular reason one footnote cites that specific edition in contrast to the citations, and doesn’t waste their time looking in the online book. If you’re not actually using the Annex to support a statement, then perhaps leave a note on the talk page as Roger suggested. (It’s uncommon for Wikipedia articles to have in-depth bibliographies, and that one already has a massive "further reading" section.) Cheers, Pelagic ( messages ) – (21:59 Sun 14, AEDT) 10:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing the discrepancy to light - I will see that it is fixed. As to the rest, I am told I cannot do as planned and so am going down a different route, but I much appreciate your comments. I would add that I am paranoid about references, ever since vast swathes of the article were removed, with no notice or consultation. I err very much on the safe side now. As for Further Reading, all of them have something to say about Asgill! Since I am no longer going down the "Notice" route I am no longer watching this page. Anne (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Drafts

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

After copy-editing and submitting article , why no reviewer reviewing my drafts Draft : Maroti Temple of Shirsada,Draft: Ghodasgaon (District - Jalgaon) ,Draft: Jalgaon housing scam , Draft : Jalgaon District Court , Draft : North Maharashtra .These articles are made after extensive research and are corrected by experienced native English speakers from USA.Take a look to review them. 106.210.230.99 (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I moved the big yellow AfC templates to the top of each draft to make it more obvious that you're ready for a review. Note that each template asks you to "please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,152 pending submissions waiting for review." You can continue working on each draft while you're waiting. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Two Declined, the other three were all submitted within the last ten days. As it says in the yellow boxes, reviews can happen as long as several months after drafts submitted. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Several of these are now published articles, allegedly by the same author Research Voltas. Assuming good faith and no SOCK behaviour, I have marked some of the Drafts for merge with the article namespaces themselves. Shushugah (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah Some drafts content are moved from draft to new article with good intention.And after making lots of improvement suggested by reviewer. Unsourced , incited subsections are omitted after reviewer asked refrences for them. New content added from Jalgaon district census and archive journals of British government from 1880 ,1911. Census data added from official website o of Government of India , it's census of 1981 ,1991,2001 and 2011 citation added. Research Voltas (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC) ShushugahAll these article written in my own words without copying a single word. Paragraph created in my own language after studying census data column's of 2001 , 2011.Research Voltas (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing??

I just left a polite note on the article talk page for any editor to consider changing the title of that article (as I couldn't edit it myself). It is to further disambiguate (for the sake of clarity) Charles Swainson (naturalist) from Charles Swainson, by suggesting that the latter title have his middle name Anthony inserted, or that it mirror the title format of the former article with a bracketed career ie (theologian). Will it be seen by anyone? Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Paranoid Numanoid, as far as I have seen patrolling editors usually respond. I see you have made a suggestion at Talk:Charles Swainson that the article be moved. You should open a new discussion on the talk page of the article (which you think should be moved) claiming that the article be moved to the target name supporting your claim with valid reason(s) and seeking consensus of the community. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 18:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Paranoid Numanoid I added a dab hatnote to the Charles Swainson (naturalist) article, not so much to drive home the point that the reader is reading about the naturalist, but more to allow them to easily jump to the other Charles Swainson's article. If you have multiple people with the same name, there are various ways to disambiguate them - adding a clarifier in parenthesis, adding a middle name or even simply adding a middle initial. But if it's just two people, only one needs to be disambiguated if you use proper hatnotes. It seems that you might be trying to adapt the bare name URL for the article you worked on. If that's the case, you should discuss on both pages to see if indeed the naturalist is the more notable of the two. If nobody objects, then go for it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TimTempleton, I missed your earlier note. Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kammill: I don't mean for any article to be moved, sorry! I meant to suggest that the title be edited to disambiguate further. Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Paranoid Numanoid Renaming and moving are the same thing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I knew that! (no I didnt!) ... hopefully someone will consider the suggestion and line things up. Currently a link at the bottom of that article directs one to further reading at archive.org which links to books not by him, but by his namesake. I've emailed archive.org to have the misattribution corrected. Paranoid Numanoid (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I put a hatnote on the page for the theologian, so that if someone enters Charles Swainson and goes to the theologian and wants the naturalist, they know where to go. A return hatnote is also good, but not quite as essential. If the two are thought to be approximately equally likely to be searched for, then a disambiguation page could be made primary. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Paranoid Numanoid - What are you saying you want to rename/move the article to? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

So, ... the naturalist is a reverend and the theologian is not ... plus the naturalist is related to the famous Swainson who was also a naturalist? Not confusing at all!

(The theologian was moved from Charles Anthony Swainson → Charles Swainson in 2017.) If we move C.A. Swainson to something else, what do we put at Charles Swainson? We wouldn’t normally have a DAB page for just two people, but sometimes I think we should.

At least the hatnotes and shortdesc's are in place. Charles Anthony Swainson (Q5075163) has external IDs, but Charles Swainson (Q105811427) doesn’t – I'll see if I can find a VIAF or something. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:48 Sun 14, AEDT) 11:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

approve article google

Can someone approve Draft:Steven Bartlett and make it searchabel through google 110.138.91.198 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft has not been submitted to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! To submit the draft, simply add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

hello sir I have do what you tell can you index in google now. --110.138.91.198 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Read text in yellow box. Getting a review can happen in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. It is not a queue. Volunteers here at Teahouse are not reviewers. If approved, the article will be able to be found via a search within Wikipedia, but it will remain invisible to a Google search until either cleared by the New Pages Patrol or 90 days go by. (which ever is first). David notMD (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

for any admin seeing this please unsalt the article 110.138.91.198 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if a prior (Jan 2018) deletion means that the topic was 'salted'. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No German article on human genome? This sounds so unlikely, I suspect there may be an argument of some sort behind it

Hello, I just checked for an article on the human genome. Sure enough, an article exists in English, as well as a host of other languages.

One glaring exception is German. Particularly in light of the fact that German is the fourth-most prevalent language on Wikipedia, I find that almost hard to believe. Is there any discussion going on somewhere which has gotten in the way of such an article appearing in German? How could I find out? Awiseassbyanyothername (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

They have a genetics article at de:Genetik. I don't speak German but I assume that the Human Genome will be discussed or linked from there. Or you could ask at the German helpdesk. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

More links to deWP:

de:Humangenomprojekt and de:Genom --Maresa63 (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Drafting

Okay so, I wish to start an Article Draft about a piece of software, however, when I put in the software into the Article Wizard, I get brought to a draft regarding the same software, however, made by someone else.

The article draft has been declined for publishing numerous times because of the author(s') tone. The last edit to the draft was in December, and I want to have a go at remaking the draft properly. I'm just concerned that if I delete the draft, I'm breaking some form of rule I don't know about. How should I go about this?

Thanks for reading Cekrid (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cekrid: without knowing the exact name of the draft this is hard to answer, but improvements to drafts are always welcome. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Doing a major makeover on someone else's draft can feel like trespassing. Consider going to the creating editor's talk page and ask permission to attempt what you want to do. While no one "owns" a topic, this approach might prevent you being in an edit war over the draft. Secondly, if the draft has been declined more than once, look closely at the reviewers' comments. It could be that they felt there was a crucial absence of reliable source references. No amount of revision can succeed unless the requirement for references can be met. P.S. Technically, you can blank the draft, but that would not be the same as deleting the draft (which requires an Administrator's action). Even if you blank and start over, the prior reviewer Declined messages must remain at the top of the draft. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with David notMD's reply, Cekrid, but I think your approach might be more successful if you couch it not as "May I edit your draft?" but "Can I work with you to get this draft accepted?" It will depend on the circumstances, though. --ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Added Lego Ninjago season 15: Seabound

I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia because I have edited many pages in different accounts. I just received a message from someone who kept saying I am using unconstructive material in Lego Ninjago. I have checked Wikifandom multiple times and it is confirmed there will be a season 15 called Seabound in the TV series. It is based off Nya the water ninja and the water amulet that is resting on Wojira's head

Wikifandom is not a reliable source. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 17:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, why are you using multiple accounts KittyJanet114 (this one only from a few days ago) and not signing your contributions on Talk Pages with four tildes, so we know who we are talking to? Doesn't appear like the actions of an "experienced editor" to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

KittyJanet114, may I ask you which other account are you using here?! I do not see much contributions under this account. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Account has been blocked as a sockpuppet (and also after insulting me). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Company article

I'm trying submit an article about the company but it's keep getting rejected. Can anyone help on this? Zara Emtech (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Zara Emtech, and welcome to the Teahouse. The messages left for you on your talk page indicate that your creation of Draft:Emtech Computer Co LLC was regarded as WP:SPAM and that you seem to be trying to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMOTION. We don't allow that. Only where companies have received substantial media coverage in independent sources (not linked to the usual insider trade magazines and press releases) will their businesses meet our Organisational Notability Criteria. Anything else will be removed. Anyone attempting to write about their company must also declare their connection, per this obligatory policy. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Zara Emtech. In addition to what Nick Moyes has said, please note 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) 13:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User is now blocked. StarM 13:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wuling Almaz RS (Baojun 530)

Please someone edits the Baojun 530 and section "Wuling Almaz" because there's an RS variant, Wuling Interconnected Smart Ecosystem (WISE) and Advanced driver-assistance systems. Lkas123 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please go to the talk page of the article, and on the talk page say what should be changed and how it should be changed, and cite the reliable, independent, published source(s) for this revision that you propose. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 question

Is an ipv6 tunnel broker considered a proxy? CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC) CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be a very technical question! You may get someone knowledgeable to reply at WP:Village_pump_(technical). Sorry I can't help, CanadianOtaku Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Image issues?

Not entirely sure, but is there an image issue currently going on?... Very weird and I'm not sure why it's doing it or how to fix it- but this is what is currently appearing in the infobox for 2020 Kids' Choice Awards on my computer. Notice the issues all around the edges of the image. However, when I click on the image, itself, the image shows up correctly on the media preview page. It also appears fine on my laptop. I've tried clearing my cached images and files in Google Chrome, but that seems to not do anything in regards to this problem. Really quite confused by this- I don't think it's happened before, and the issue doesn't really seem to be affecting any other images/articles as well. Magitroopa (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Magitroopa. It looks fine to me in 2020 Kids' Choice Awards with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10. If you right-click the image and select "Open Image In New Tab" (not "Open Link In New Tab") then which url do you get and does it look right or wrong there? I get https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/KCA2020_Logo.png/220px-KCA2020_Logo.png and it looks right. If you get another url then does my url look right or wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The 'open image in new tab' option on my computer gives me https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/KCA2020_Logo.png/220px-KCA2020_Logo.png and it gives me https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/KCA2020_Logo.png on my laptop- the first link appears incorrectly, second link is fine. Both my computer and laptop are on that same version of Chrome, and both are Windows 10. Magitroopa (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: They both look fine to me in Chrome. I don't know what goes wrong for you. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/KCA2020_Logo.png is the original upload. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/KCA2020_Logo.png/220px-KCA2020_Logo.png is scaled to 220px width by a Wikimedia server. How are https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/KCA2020_Logo.png/219px-KCA2020_Logo.png and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/KCA2020_Logo.png/221px-KCA2020_Logo.png? They both look fine to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Perchè sono stato rifiutato ?

Carissimi scusate se scrivo in italiano: Vorrei sapere come mai la mia pagina Salvatore Ruocco è stata rifiutata? mi date una mano ? vi ringrazio anticipatamente Salvatoreariel (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Salvatoreariel. The draft Draft:Salvatore Ruocco was declined because it has no references to establish that Ruocco meets the criteria for notability. Even if it had the two references from it:Salvatore Ruocco, they would not help it establish notability, as the first does not appear to be independent, and the second doesn't even mention Ruocco; but it has no references at all. Whatever may be the rules in it-wiki, English Wikipedia does not accept articles unless they contain sufficient independent reliably published sources to establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Resubmitted with addition of one ref. However, at English Wikipedia, IMBd does not count as a reliable source reference. Unless reliable source references are submitted, this will be Declined again. References can be in Italian, although preferred if can find some in English. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ColinFine David notMD

Thanks for answering me! How can I do? I have all the requisites to be on wikipedia, but I don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvatoreariel (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

For English Wikipedia, what is essential are references to published content about the person. Listing films Salvatore has been in add nothing to confirming his notability. References can be in Italian.

The images needed

Good morning, I am writting article about W.J.Neatby, an Eglish artist. I have good sources but I have trouble finding images for some of his work. Since we are talking about art, image is necessary to complement the text. Wikimedia has few images of his work. Don't know is it possible to upload images from http://www.victorianweb.org/, they say it is free for education as long as they are credited. Can someone please help me out? Brtbng (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

See below. I turns out "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" by W.J.Neatby is on Commons

Hello, Brtbng and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at your draft (good work in progress!) and at the licensing page of the website you mentioned. Unfortunately, we can only accept images that have been released under a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial re-use. It seems clear that their licence does not go that far, and that it's free only for non-commercial use.

I have a couple of thoughts for you: Is Neatby so long deceased that his work is out of copyright, and thus a straightforward photo of his artwork would not inherently be the copyright of the photographer, but it would be if it were a photo of his artwork integrated into a building surface. If so, my informal/unofficial understanding is that this would be permitted, providing the relevant information and source were included in the image upload. But I have sometimes found that simply approaching someone who has published an image, and explaining why you'd like to use that one particular image on Wikipedia, and asking them to change the license for that particular image can have great effect. Alternatively, invite them to upload a sufficiently low resolution version of their image to Wikimedia Commons themselves, such that it's free for use here and elsewhere, but not so good that anyone would ever be able to re-publish and make money out of it. I often see museums reluctant to mobilise images they hold, without appreciating that releasing low res version for monitor display isn't the same as giving away a high res tiff image with lots of publication potential. Thankfully, more and more arts organisations are seeing the benefit of making their images available to a wider audience - so you might have some luck.

It's also appropriate to point out that we are keen to avoid seeing articles stuffed full of random photos by an artist. Choose only those that complement the text and encyclopaedic content in their own right. Rather than add in a 'GALLERY all other images can stay on Wikimedia Commons and be linked to from that article (making sure all the images on Commons are suitably categorized so they can be retrieved via that one Commons link). Also, I noticed in your draft that you wrote: ""With a lot of experience behind him, Neatby decided it was time to move on. In 1890 he went to London to work for Royal Doulton," It would be better to write in more neutral and simple manner that "In 1890, Neatby moved to London to work for Royal Doulton. It's implicit that he would only have gone there had he been sufficiently experienced to be employed by them. Unless you have a source that actually proves he went through that precise thought process, your statement comes across as original research, which we always try to avoid letting slip in, even accidentally. Hoping this helps, and good luck with your draft. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for timely and elaborate response, kind regards. Brtbng (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Brtbng: I am fairly certain that Nick Moyes is correct, and that images of his work are now public domain. This idea is also supported by the fact that 11 images of his work are on Wikimedia Commons. Is that the same W. J. Neatby? If so, just click "use this file on a wiki" near the top of each image's page. Pasting one into this thread for demo.--- Possibly (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Colored interface in Source Editor

I've been around for well over a year, but I've swallowed my pride to ask—in the Source Editor, I used to see color coded font (e.g. green for references, purple for templates). Suddenly, it's all uncolored plaintext, and I have no idea why. I cannot for the life of me figure out how to toggle that feature back on, any help would be appreciated. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem! It is the icon that looks like a pencil just to the left of the word "Advanced" at the top of the interface you get when using the source editor. As you imply, it's incredibly useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply—I kind of suspected, but when I've pressed that, there's no change. Is this a known issue/a question better asked on a discussion page for the source editor? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Try toggling the icon (i.e. pressing it repeatedly: this should switch on and off the syntax highlighter). It is working fine for me. There is a help desk for technical issues, as that suggestions is the total of my knowledge :-( Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhinyTheYounger: I am glad you asked this question. I did not know about his function... which is cool! --- Possibly (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Font image format?

On articles of fonts like Antique Olive, Calibri, and many many others, the images all follow the format of: beige background, color bottom banner, text Aa Ee Gg Rr Qq or other letters, with lowercase and numbers on the bottom banner. What is this style of representing fonts called? Is it just a style that's prevailed over others, or is there an established name for this and a guideline for making font images like it? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 21:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography § Typeface specimens. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Site is blocked

Hey, My site which link is https://graphicdesigneye.com/service/ it is blocked from Wikipedia. I am unable to share the link on Wikipedia`s Page. Can anyone guide me on the best way to post my new posts on Wikipedia's page? Humble Regards Georgia Jack Thanks 103.152.101.43 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't. Wikipedia is not the place to be adding links to promote your site. RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and the second of our five pillars. Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion, we do not encourage editing about websites you are related to and we explicitly have extremely low tolerance for people attempting to advertise on a free encyclopedia with spam links. — Bilorv (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Grammar Standards

Is there a specific grammar style guide that Wikipedia uses? If there’s anything you can point me to regarding policy on that it would be appreciated. I assume that for the first question the answer is along the lines of “no, it’s just a matter of being consistent within pages,” and that any policy that does exist would be mostly about not changing a page’s grammatical style just to fit what you prefer, but I’d like to have that assumption confirmed or disproven. Aninterestingidea (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

In general, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for our very detailed treatment on prose style, as well as many related topics. With some decisions, such as whether to use American English or Australian English, we do different things from page to page. There are many topics, such as using 's as the possessive even for a word ending in "s" (MOS:PLURALNOUN) and using gender-neutral language where possible (MOS:GNL), where we do have a consistent style even if this is not universal among all written English. — Bilorv (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation help

What is the easiest template to cite sources when requesting edit request? Is a tutorial available? Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

DocWattkins, if you're going through View source -> Submit edit request, then you will have to use source editing mode. In this case, go to Cite -> Templates and choose the most applicable template. Then, fill out that form. Make sure to fill in as much information needed for other editors to find the same source. If you need more help, read Help:Referencing for beginners. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about editing a Wikipedia page

Question is referencing this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicks_n%27_More As a recent new owner of an existing business with a Wikipedia page, I would like to update the information on the company's Wikipedia page. I am the brand owner and company owner. Can I update the information. If so, where can I find information on how to update the Wikipedia page? Thanks, Tammy 24.213.105.8 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse - you definitely should read WP:PSCOI before editing this article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Briefly, as owner, you do not edit the article directly. Instead, you start a new section on the Talk page of the article, stating specifically the changes you want to see made. Example: On _____ [date] the company was sold to __________ for ________ [$$$$]. A non-involved editor would then decide to implement your proposed changes. David notMD (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, this is very brief, for legal reasons they need to be aware of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, make an undisclosure etc., they better should read the guide before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There is also a possibility that 'Tammy' (the IP who asked the question) is also User:Wicksnmore, who on 14 March 2021 edited Wicks n' More. Having a User name identical to a business is forbidden, so that User name should be indefinitely blocked, so that the editor can select a new name and ask to be unblocked. And then proceed per CommanderWaterford's instructions. David notMD (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In a whole Table - How to Justify all Numbers by the Decimal Point?

Most tables are left-justified by default because it's less typing. How to right justify a complete table? How to justify a complete table by the decimal point? Just like a spreadsheet. I read the "Help:Table" and saw a workaround. Also I read "Template:Decimal-align".

Can I create a "Decimal-align" table without editing every cell with complex instructions? Sorry if the question has been asked a million times before.

Are there pages of asked&answered questions? So we don't keep repeatedly asking the same questions? Kartane (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kartane: To align the text to the right, specify that in the first line of the table syntax. I've done so below:

A long string	A longer string	An even longer string
A	B	C
Potato	Banana	12345

As for decimals, Template:Decimal cell is probably the simplest way to do it; there's not a better workaround for this. However, why do you need to align this way? It's not very accessible, and I suggest using it as sparingly as possible

There is a searchbar at the top of this page, but I've found that it's not great at finding past conversations. Besides, us Teahouse hosts have seen similar questions many, many times, but we realize that beginners often have similar questions anyways and we're happy to answer them. In fact, asking a new question helps us tailor our response to each new editor. Be assured that you're the first one during my time here that's asked about decimal alignment. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor

Hi I'm kind of new to this so maybe this is something easy but I can't seem to find the visual editor anymore. It's working here, but otherwise I only see the edit source option and I couldn't find the visual edit toggle in my beta preferences Burnside Avenue (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Some articles you can't use the visual editor on. Specifically, "Not available in talk or discussion namespaces", from WP:VISUALEDITOR#Limitations WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No that can't be it cause I've gone back to regular articles I've edited with the visual editor before and the option is no longer there. Also I just realized that the visual editor isn't working here, I just thought it was cause the ui looks like it, with the blue publish changes button in the upper right. Burnside Avenue (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burnside Avenue: Please follow the following steps to ensure you cna edit with the visual editor

1. in [[17]], you'll find a checkbox "Temporarely disable the Visual Editor while it is in beta". If this box is checked, uncheck it and save your prefs.
2. Directly below, a box labeled "Editing mode" should appear. The best selection is imo "show me both tabs", becuase it lets you select between Visual Editor and Source editor when both are available.

If your source editor looks like the visual editor, this could be if you have enabled "New wikitext mode" in your beta prefs. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, turns out my editing mode was set to remember my last editor, so I must have edited an article using source and it then only showed me that. I now set it to show me both, think you're right about that being the best option. Burnside Avenue (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do non-English speakers edit English Wikipedia?

The following discussion 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.

---

Reading Wikipedia articles, it is often glaringly obvious that they have been edited by people for whom English is not a first language, nor perhaps even a second. An example: some text that I removed the other day.

That is a fairly extreme example, but less extreme examples are absolutely rife. I would say that the majority of articles I read contain at least one error characteristic of speakers of a foreign language. Editors of English Wikipedia must be in large part native speakers of other languages. So I am curious as to why anyone would edit a Wikipedia in a language they are not fluent in? I speak languages other than English, but simply would not dream of adding any substantive text on the relevant Wikipedias. Toleco (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia incidentally is the largest Wikipedia, so the potential circulation/exposure is a big one. Shushugah (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Toleco: I understand where you are coming from, but, if I wanted to find out about a place, village or region in another part of the world where English is not the main language, I would be grateful that my prime source of information (English Wikipedia) actually had an article about that place. I would be unlikely to go to another language Wikipedia. If we stopped anyone for whom English was not their first native tongue, then we would be a lot poorer for it, and would not have so much content in those article. And how would we test everyone's language abilities before allowing them to edit? We must therefore rely on editors like yourself to help remove any content that simply makes no sense, just as we rely on other editors to remove other poor edits here. I agree that the diff you linked to above was extremely hard to understand, was unsourced, and so was ripe for reversion. But if I find well-sourced content that was just a little hard to make sense of, then I would prefer for the content to remain there until such time as I or another editor felt able to improve it. As was stated above, English Wikipedia is by far the largest and most accessed language version, so it is natural for anyone thinking they speak good enough English to want to add content to it.

It is often only another person who can sense that someone's language skills are not yet up to it, or that they have used Google Translate without actually being able to assess how well or poorly it reads. In the instance you cite, the content was added by Argentinian editor, GDuwen back in 2007 with this diff, possibly translated from the equivalent Spanish article. They are still active today, and appear nowadays to have very good English skills indeed, so now my PING will have alerted them to the removal of that old content, and they might even be motivated to rewrite it and add an up-to-date source. I would also add that there are a lot of people in this world for whom English is their first language, and yet do not have the abilities to write coherent sentences in their mother tongue. I for one welcome editors attempting to add content in a secondary language (providing it does make some sense!), and am ashamed at my own lack of skills to write in other languages. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Toleco:I wonder why is that even a question! I don't really understand either why was the content removed. I can see that it was a poorly-written entry that happened to be fourteen years old, but that is why we have tags to request an expansion or citations! (not to mention the possibility of letting me know on my talk page). I may also say that I've never understood why people bother bombing articles with a thousand tags instead of trying to fix them a little bit (maybe the simple explanation is that destroying is easier than building something up).

As Nick Moyes pointed out, it is preferable to have entries about villages and towns that non-native speakers contribute to rather than having nothing at all. The articles can benefit from a quick copy-edit from a native speaker to at least make them readable. Let's rather encourage people to contribute to this amazing project and not turn them away arbitrarily. In my particular case, I was doing my first attempts at editing. Starts are sloppy, but you have to start somewhere! (talking here fourteen years and 38 Good Articles later, without mentioning others I did not consider there was sufficient enough information to promote).

In short, it is more useful to improve the existing material, and to work in cooperation rather than to go into this kind of useless rants.--GDuwenHoller! 14:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – There was a related thread recently, started by 37.152.231.40 on 16 January 2021, now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1091#Editors who do not speak English. --CiaPan (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with non-native speakers adding material to the English Wikipedia. They are valuable sources of material that might easily be overlooked by native speakers. However, I have encountered non-native speakers who seem unable to understand that the way they have phrased something is confusing or even contrary to what they are trying to say. Some have gotten into edit wars to preserve their poorly written material, even insisting that obvious grammatical errors are correct. In those cases, those particular editors are problematic. Several have wound up being blocked (often on grounds of competence). --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

English Wikipedia is by far the largest and most accessed language version, so it is natural for anyone thinking they speak good enough English to want to add content to it - truly, I do not understand this point at all. If the Wikipedia in someone's native language is smaller than English Wikipedia, why would that make them want to add poor-quality text to English Wikipedia, instead of improving the encyclopaedia of their native language, for their own benefit?

We must therefore rely on editors like yourself to help remove any content that simply makes no sense, just as we rely on other editors to remove other poor edits here. - that's the wider problem. You can't rely on that. The text that I removed as simply incomprehensible had barely been touched in over 13 years.

I don't see a problem with non-native speakers adding material to the English Wikipedia. - nor do I if they speak fluent English. And I still have no idea why people who must know that their English is nowhere near fluent edit here anyway. I simply would not dream doing this. Toleco (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Many people want their work to be seen and more people see the English Wikipedia. It's just human nature. Articles are also more likely to be translated from English than from other languages. An article about a German city may get more views in the German Wikipedia but in general, there are more readers in English. Reaching a bigger audience is probably the main motivator. Others may include training your English or liking being part of something big or very international. There are also editors who work on the same subject in both English and their native language. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I still do not understand this at all. You're saying that, as a non-native speaker, your primary concern in adding text to an encyclopaedia is not to write well but rather to be seen? You would rather add poor quality text to English Wikipedia than high quality text in your own language, simply because you want more people to see it? I would consider that destructive vanity, not human nature at all.

"training your English" [sic] as a motivation for adding material to English Wikipedia is something I also cannot understand. How is it supposed to work? You attempt to write English and then check back later to see how other people have fixed up your mess? Toleco (talk) 09:50, 15 March 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.

Can I make my own personal watchlist(s)?

HI. I wanted to know if I can make my own personal watchlist(s) using the "Recent Changes" tool. If so, how? Thanks in advance. Mosesheron (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mosesheron. I'm not sure what you mean but an account can only have one watchlist. See Help:Watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for your response. I think I should have elaborated a little. I came across this page a few days ago. It appears to be a customized version of Recent Canges page that only shows changes to Islam related articles this page contains. It says here that "The same method may be used to make your own personal list(s)." I was wondering if such personal list or lists that would show changes to certain selected articles only could really be made. And if so, how? Thanks again. Mosesheron (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: It refers to related changes at Help:Watchlist#Alternatives to watchlists. It can be used to get something similar to a watchlist but harder to use. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I get the idea. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Mosesheron (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Correcting some biographical details on the article about Peter Singer

A few days ago I corrected this article eg I deleted the statement " and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne" as Peter Singer has not held that position since the end of 2019. After I did this, I checked the page again, and verified that the changes had been made. Now I go back to the article, and that change has been reversed, and it seems, others as well. Why is that? Is there anything else I should be doing to to get the article corrected? Utilphil (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Utilphil: The edit was reverted by WeyerStudentOfAgrippa, who raised concerns about sorucing in the edit summary. You may discuss changes with them on the article talk page at Talk:Peter Singer, but be prepared to bring reliable sources to back up your claims. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Utilphil. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing and also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources for some further ideas as to why your edit was reverted , but basically you made lots of changes to the article without citing any sources in support and with only an very cursory edit summary explaining why. It was also the first edit you made on Wikipedia; so, you've don't really have a track record established as of yet of making acceptable edits. All of these things combined together created a perfect storm type of situation that almost certainly (even if it seems a bit unfair) led to reverting your edit. However, don't be discouraged since it's something that often happens in such a situation. Just follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and try to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of the changes through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to correct the above article. I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages, and the first time I was told that the summary was cursory and didn't cite sources, so today I have made several changes and each time have put the source in the summary -- either to Singer's CV, on his website,or to his book Pushing Time Away, or to an obituary of his sister. But most the changes have again been reverted, this time by InterestGatherer. I can't work out how to communicate directly with InterestGatherer, so I'm posting this here. × Utilphil (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You can communicate with any other editor on their Talk Page. That link is in their signature or, if you are looking at the edit history (the "view history" tab) of an article, which is what you'll be doing in this case, then next to each contributor's name there is a direct link for you to click. Once on the Talk Page, create a New Section using the relevant tab at the top. For the editor you mentioned, the page is User talk:InterestGather, Utilphil. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Utilphil. First off, I've moved the other Teahouse discussion you started here since it's also related to roadblock you've hit at the Peter Singer article and it's better to try and keep everything in one place. It might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners before trying to make any more changes to the article. The sources you citing in support of the changes you're making are likely going to be considered to be primary sources which means they have limited use; this particularly true when it comes to articles about living persons when you try to cite the subject of the article as a source as explained here and in the banner above the editing window that's opened when you click on the "Edit" tab. Moreover, the content you're trying to add needs to actually be supported by citations added directly to the article itself as inline citations, not simply added to the edit summaries you're leaving for your edits. Simply adding the content without adding the supporting citations as well makes it seem as if the changes are unsourced and not in accordance with WP:INTEGRITY. At this point, you've already been reverted a couple of times by different editors which means any more reverts might be mistaken for edit warring. Perhaps the best thing for you to do at this point would be for you to start a new discussion at Talk:Peter Singer and explain the changes you feel need to be made and provide links to the sources you want to cite in support. There seem to be a number of editors watching that particular article; so, you're likely to receive a response from one of them relatively soon. Trying to discuss the changes you want to make first will give others a chance to assess them and perhaps through such discussion a good way to incorporate them into the existing article will be found. Just for reference, one of the reason you might have difficulty editing the article is that Singer appears to be somewhat of a controversial figure in some ways and the article content might be contentious to some. If you look at the article's talk page, you'll see a banner that states something to this effect. Sometimes articles like this have had a history of problems with editors trying to make inappropriate changes; after doing a bit of digging, it appears that this has been the case for this article and some edits made in the past actually needed to be revision deleted because they were serious violations of relevant Wikipedia policies. With articles like this, edits made by new editors often end up highly scrutinized as a precaution against disruption or vandalism, even when they have only the best of intentions. One way to try and work through something like this is to engage in article talk page discussion to make it clear that you're to do things in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why can't I find the TW tool?

Hello everyone, why can't I find the TW tool in the user preferences? I have autoconfirmed users. BureibuNeko (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it not in the Browsing sub-section of Gadgets? - X201 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

With full instructions at WP:Twinkle, BureibuNeko. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you both (I'm sorry I didn't go there habitually), and I'm very sorry for the trouble for you all. X201 and User:Michael D. Turnbull!--BureibuNeko (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No editor is responding on articles talk pages

Why no one is responding on queries on talk pages? Lots of folks suggest here to discuss about article on their respective talk page. Research Voltas (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: The sad reality is that many smaller articles don't have a lot of page watchers, so if you post onto a smaller talk page, it's pretty common to not get a response. Talk pages are useful when you actually have someone to talk to and you use notifications to let each other know when you've responded. Depending on what you want to ask, you may want to approach individual editors on their user talk pages instead, or go to a WikiProject talk page (though inactive WikiProjects can often be as empty). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Research Voltas. A lot of it depends upon the specific article. Articles that are highly monitored by lots of editors tend to have active talk pages, and those that may get very little traffic for various reasons tend to have little or no activity. For example, you've posted something at Talk:Dhadakebaaz, but that is an article you created yourself that nobody but you probably knew existed until you posted here at the Teahouse. The article wasn't created via WP:AFC so an AFC reviewer did make sure everything was formatted correctly or that relevant WikiProject banners were added to the article's talk page; so, basically nobody would know about the article unless you asked them to look at it or they happened to stumble across it by chance. A new page patroller might eventually find it, but the article is only a day old and there are probably lots of new articles created around the same time still waiting to be reviewed. You also posted something on the talk page about an hour ago; even on really active talk pages, you might not get an immediate response and have to wait a while. Anyway, I've answered you question there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ironically that includes yourself. You asked for assistance on my User talk page, and I replied, but you haven’t responded (yet), which is of course absolutely okay! But you’ve answered your own question, people don’t always respond. See WP:VOLUNTEER Shushugah (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

talk at Dhadakebaaz article you just tagged it for CE but WP says WP:BOLD.You can't just tag and walkover.You have to fix problems if you saw them. Why your waiting for other person to fix a problem. If you saw grammar mistakes , go ahead and fix them. Research Voltas (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

article needs editing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

first line of the article is someone using obscene language. i can't edit it, i can only edit sources (i'm new here.) so can someone else do it? Geek100 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Fuhghettaboutit PrincessPersnickety (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Geek100. The article is not protected at all, so I'm not sure why you would have only been shown view sources in the editing interface, and would not have been able to revert the edits. (I just logged out and was able to click edit at the top of the article by my IP address.) Anyway, thanks for finding this and advising the problem!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Turkish article to English Wikipedia

There is a Turkish Wikipedia (Vikipedi) article about me with all credible references . Can we completely transfer this and open a new English Wikipedia article about me using the same information (of course by translating it into English)? Regards Cenk Taskan 96.20.210.103 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@96.20.210.103: Hi, anonymous editor! That's entirely possible, so long as the article comports with the English Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing and notability guidelines and so long as somebody is willing to put in the work to translate it over. I don't speak Turkish, so this is out of my wheelhouse, but my first impressions are cautiously optimistic, as the article's first citation leads to Blogspot, though the second seems to be an interview in a fairly popular newspaper Milliyet. Likewise, however, the majority of the information in the article is clearly uncited. That said, if you are indeed Cenk Taşkan, I would strongly recommend against trying to move it over yourself (please see WP:COI) and instead consult with a Turkish editor who could possibly take a look at this if they choose to, such as Nedim Ardoğa. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Vikipedi to Wikipedia (for Technıcıan27)

Hello mr. Technıcıan27

Thank you for answering my question

You recommended me Nedim Ardoğa. how can I contact him?

Be save

Cenk Taskan

96.20.210.103 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow this link: User talk:Nedim Ardoğa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Soundtracks in articles of Movies

Many articles about Bollywood and Marathi cinema don't have subsections of soundtracks.Guide what's the correct format for adding a soundtrack section in movies articles. Research Voltas (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film § Soundtrack. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A article with no refrences

Today I came across a article Ghodasgaon with zero citation.I suggest to take some action on it. Research Voltas (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Research Voltas. You've already appropriately added templates to flag the issues you found. Aspirationally, of course, sourcing the article yourself would be better than adding templates, but we can only do what our time and motivation allows (sometimes an article with zero reference should be nominated for deletion by an appropriate process, if you check and the topic actually doesn't meet notability standards, but geographic locations like this are generally considered notable). All this is to say, there's nothing else to be done here that I can see. There are thousands and thousands of articles in the same situation, and no additional special action is implicated for this topic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Indian English and the article the

I've searched for the answer to this, but can not find it. I see many WP articles that are marked by a template to have Indian English used. Many of them do not use the articles the, a, or an when it would seem appropriate. I have encountered this so often that I'm wondering if it is considered normal in Indian English and should be left as is in a WP article. Can someone give me guidance on this? Thanks. LilHelpa (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey LilHelpa. It might be useful to tap into some of the expertise at WP:RD/L and maybe Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Looking at Indian English is a dead end. Mostly, I have only anecdote and negative evidence to rely on. Nevertheless, given that we get so many, many articles written in utterly broken English by editors from India (which preponderance is evidence, albeit weak, that this "the issue" is not merely a manifestation of "Indian English" sounding wrong to the uninitiated), I'm guessing that it's more likely a result of non-native English speakers (rather than fluent Indian English speakers) leaning on the grammatical forms (here, in the form of a lack of article use) that more naturally transpose from their native tongues. (Although I recognize a contradiction there, insofar as that very process often shapes the local "proper" use of a language.)

Anyway, unless and until we have affirmative evidence to the contrary, I just can't see leaving this alone if you are involved in copyediting an article in this state. That being said, I just found this Stackexchange article on Use of “the” in Indian English, which includes the comment: "Indians usually do not mind the omission or insertion of THE in a sentence." If that's truly the case, then I think it best to treat this grammatical issue similarly to the way we treat vocabulary choices at MOS:COMMONALITY (i.e., likewise, we should fix this, as doing so is not a problem from an Indian English perspective, and is a positive for other English speakers). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

CHANGE TITLE PAGE

Goodmorning everyone, I would like to change the title of a page, what can I do?

The page is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivista_italiana_di_economia_demografia_e_statistica

The reason is that the page has the title in Italian, while we would like it to be in English. I am a member of the editorial board of the journal: check here http://www.sieds.it/index.php/page-rieds-board/

Thanks Daniele G. Grechi.daniele (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grechi.daniele, I have started a discussion to move the article to the English name. Note that as an employee, you will need to make a paid-editing dissclosure, I have left details on your talkpage on how to do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Eshykid

What is a host Eshykid (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A host is a person responsible for guests at an event or for providing hospitality during it. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In the context of the Teahouse, Eshykid, a host is an experienced Wikipedia editor who has signed up to welcome and help people who ask questions at the Teahouse. Welcome to the Teahouse!--ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an entry in another language

I would like to write a bio on an individual in English, but there's another bio on the same person in another language. What should I do? Amazone55 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn’t worry about other articles in another Wikipedia. As long as the article isn’t in this Wikipedia, we would be grateful for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgundian Feudalism (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

('e/c) Hi Amazone55. Each language Wikipedia is a separate (sister) project. If the foreign language Wikipedia article has useful content, you can translate it. Please see Help:Translation and please be sure to provide copyright attribution, as described at that help page. However, please be aware that the mere fact the article exists at another language Wikipedia does not necessarily mean, nor is it really any evidence at all, that the topic belongs here. Not only do different Wikipedias have different inclusion standards, but it's possible the foreign language article should be deleted but just hasn't been yet. You should first make an independent assessment of whether the topic is notable under our standards. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

External links

I was wondering what the standard conventions for external links are and which templates should be used. If I am trying to include an official website for something like a podcast that is part of a network should I still use {{Official website}} and use the direct link to their page on the network's website? Or should I do something different? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#External_links_section, I hope that might be helpful. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Luke Away

Look Away, Look Away. Look Episode Horrow 2603:7080:7403:18F0:FD20:C9BF:9AD:1D4E (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I will, I promise but...do you have any question?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't redirect to Wikipedia:New user landing page

Disregard

How do I stop Wikipedia from redirecting me to Wikipedia:New user landing page whenever I visit a nonexistent page? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you know that the page is nonexistent, maybe try helping Wikipedia by creating an article based on the page that was nonexistent. Or you should try sandbox, and when you are ready, you can turn it into a draft and click: submit for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgundian Feudalism (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your answer is on target, Burgundian Feudalism: Kleinpecan isn't asking about creating a page, just what happens when they accidentally go to a non-existent one. Kleinpecan: I'm afraid I've no idea. It doesn't happen for me. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it has something to do with the fact that I'm not autoconfirmed. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it happens if you are logged in but not autoconfirmed. You can log out or wait two more days to become autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: I don't know why you want to stop the redirecting but the main things you could do if you were not redirected is look for a deletion log which is also possible at Special:Log/delete, or look for incoming links which is also possible at Special:WhatLinksHere. You cannot create the page before you are autoconfirmed. That's why you are redirected. It's misleading that Wikipedia:New user landing page says "You can create it". You can only create a draft outside the actual encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have tweaked the landing page to avoid the problematic language issue flagged here. If I was a new user and learned that what was meant by "You can create it, but..." referred at best to some secondary process of creation, without being told I couldn't create it directly until I reached some future threshold, I would be annoyed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

how do you make userboxes

userbox I really want to make a userbox but how do you make one? JaduaGreatest12 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

JaduaGreatest12, hello, friend! Before creating your own userbox, take a look here to see if it has already been created. There are hundreds for you to choose from, so you'll probably find plenty to meet your needs. However, if you wish to create your own, I would recommend first taking a look here to learn about what is acceptable for a userbox. When you feel ready, you can just head on over to the Userbox Maker to get started. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Plainrock124 notable?

Hello Teahouse, so there is a channel on Youtube named Plainrock124. Some know him because of his destruction videos, like when he destroyed the PS5 a while ago. He also has over 1 million subscribers. I have read WP:GNG and WP:ENT and I'm pretty sure he is notable enough to make an article about. There are also some news articles about him destroying these items, he shows this in a recent made video. Again, I'm pretty sure he is notable enough, but I would like to know for sure. Any help would be great. Max20characters (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Max20characters Hello friend. Welcome to the Teahouse. WP:GNG is much stricter than it appears at first glance. You need around 3 high quality sources such as newspaper articles or books, and they must have multiple paragraphs about the subject. I did a quick Google News search, and I clicked on and evlauated a couple of promising articles, and they did not pass GNG. Therefore I do not think this person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I also do not think he passes WP:ENTERTAINER #2, which basically allows folks who have a "large fan base or significant cult following", but the catch is that you need quality sources talking about that large fan base in order to prove it. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Max20characters, another good resource regarding the notability of YouTubers is Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. Please also keep in mind that, contrary to popular belief, a high subscriber count does not equal automatic notability. A classic example is SSSniperWolf, who has 26.2 million views and still has no article (despite multiple attempts) as she simply lacks notability outside of YouTube. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Max20characters. The "problem" I see here is that there are topics that are obviously notable because a gazillion good sources exist in places that tend to concentrate reliable sources and there's not much else on the topic, and then there are topics that might be notable, but the only way to check is to do a lot of legwork to winnow out whether the right types and depths of treatment in reliable, secondary, independent sources exist upon which a verifiable article could be based. This is often made much more difficult for web-specific topics, such as a YouTube channel, by the fact that so many sources are typically going to be found online for such a subject that are not useful for demonstrating notability, e.g., fan mentions, blog hits, social media stuff, mere mentions, etc., that finding the wheat, among the chaff, becomes all the more difficult.

I can't just pop the name into Google Books and immediately say: "obviously notable" (nor find nothing online and tell you probably non-notable...) Instead, in order to answer your question, I would need to do what I would recommend as the first step to any person aspiring to write an article, which is: do nothing else first but look for and gather the sources that the article will be built upon (if they exist, start writing citing them as you go as the source of the information [without copying the words use]; if they don't exist, write nothing).

I can't tell you for certain that no one else is going to be willing to do that legwork for you, but I have my doubts. So, what I recommend is that if you really want this answered, go look for the existence of the rights types of sources. In order to know what I mean by that, read Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability), report back with the list of sources you found if you still want a second opinion (since the process of doing what I recommended will probably allow you to at least somewhat answer the question yourself). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I cite an Act of Congress?

Specifically, I'm trying to cite the Silver Purchase Act of 1934. Here's a link to the .pdf scan from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/73rd-congress/session-2/c73s2ch674.pdf Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try using Template:Cite act. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, Is there anything more specific for Congress? Cite act doesn't seem to be very geared toward the level of specificity that Acts of Congress have. For example, in this case, this act is filed under United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 48, under the 73rd Congress (1933-1934), under session 2, Chapter 674, pages 1178–1181, published on June 19, 1934. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: In the Colorado article, reference #12 uses {{cite web}} for an Act of Congress. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, does reference #5 in the Free silver article look good? Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: Not quite - you're not supposed to use |others= without using |author= or |editor= - see Category:CS1 maint: others. GoingBatty (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, should I put the 73rd United States Congress in the author last category then? Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, also, should I use the short title or the long title for the act? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: Again, I like the way that reference #12 is formatted in the Colorado article:

Cite web comparison

Wikitext	{{cite web|access-date=November 15, 2018|date=February 28, 1861|publisher=[[Thirty-sixth United States Congress]]|title=An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Colorado|url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/36th-congress/session-2/c36s2ch59.pdf}}
Live	"An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Colorado" (PDF). Thirty-sixth United States Congress. February 28, 1861. Retrieved November 15, 2018.

However, some people like to use other formats. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Who runs the gender pages?

Who runs them? Gender Roamer (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gender Roamer. Nobody "runs" any articles technically. Members of Wikiproject Gender studies do focus on them. Did you have a question about gender articles? I or another helper may be able to answer it for you, or you can ask the people at said WikiProject. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How did I get that alert? I wanted to talk to the person who runs the gender pages about improving them. Many pages are poor. I read different pages for a few months and decided to register today. I look in the edit documentations and see people changing and removing things. At the gender dysphoria page, someone had removed important information about objections to the GD diagnosis. I reached into the edit documentations and restored it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gender Roamer (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gender Roamer: Wikipedia is not monolithic. There is no one group or editor that is responsible for a given topic area (and given the sanctions in this specific area...). If you have issues with how specific articles are written, take it up on the relevant articles' talk pages, but I would strongly urge you to conduct yourself respectfully. Admins are not interested in "my-way-or-the-highway" behaviour here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Gender Roamer, you received a notification because I mentioned you so that you would know that I responded. I did so simply by typing {{u|Gender Roamer}}. You can mention users yourself by typing the same thing, substituting in the username of the user you wish to mention. Make sure to sign your post by typing ~~~~ after your message or else it won't work!

If you have issues with particular articles regarding genders, feel free to make the fix yourself, being careful to include reliable sources. You can also raise the concern on the specific article's corresponding talk page. Since this seems to be about gender related articles in general, consider leaving a note on Wikiproject Gender studies' talk page. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help. I'm taking the Wikipedia Adventure. I'll read the protocols for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gender Roamer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Test: @EDG 543:. Gender Roamer (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender Roamer, your test was a success! Sorry I was slow to reply, I was a bit busy. Nice work, soldier. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

ZombsRoyale Edit

I was wondering why my edits on the ZombsRoyale page were taken down because they were accurate and improved the page. MOISTE (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Likely for want of sources (online leaderboards are not sufficient) and for being tengential. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOISTE, you added information and linked to Gamepedia, which is by no means a reliable source, as anyone can change the information listed there. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information on finding reliable sources. Please also see WP:REFB for a guide to citing sources, as you should include an inline citation instead of just a link. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

request an inclusion of a page on the topic of Artists without Borders

Hi, I have ended up here (in desperation) after trying to follow wikipedia's instructions on the main page about how to request a new topic for inclusion. As it was not clear how to do this (from the instructions there),I have wasted a few minutes just going around in circles from one page to another, getting nowhere. (Until now?)

So, my question is a simple one - can wikipedia please include a page on the very important topic of Artists without Borders? Artists Without Borders is a very important international initiative which makes it possible for artists from developing countries to live above their local poverty line, and that has to be to everyone's benefit I would think.

thankyou for all the work that you do, and no at this stage i don't have time to create the page myself as I am a working artist on a low income just trying to keep my head above water, and that takes all my energy!

Lastly, a heartfelt plea to Wikipedia administrators: please can you make it MUCH easier and simpler for wiki users to ask simple questions like this one, instead of making it progressively harder as time goes on! since I started interacting with wikipedia twelve years ago (when I was briefly an editor for a few months), I have noticed a growing tendency to overcomplicate everything here and make it more user UNfriendly.) Not a good trend for the long term health of a wonderful and much-loved resource! (If its too hard/annoying/frustrating then ordinary folk with busy lives will just give up and instead of contacting you to improve the site, will opt do something (anything!) that's likely to be more productive). 114.30.109.203 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you can request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to clarify that your question "can Wikipedia please include a page on the very important topic of Artists without Borders?" actually translates as "How can I motivate a volunteer editor (or a group of them) to put in the considerable time and effort required to write an encyclopaedia article about AwB?" Kleinpecan has suggested one place to ask, but in honesty, the take-up is very low there. You might have more luck askingat WP:WikiProject Visual arts. But whichever way, you are the one wanting the article, it is unlikely that anybody will write it unless you inspire them to. That's how a volunteer project works. --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm sure I'm not the only volunteer to have more ideas of content I want to work on than there would be time to do in five years of non-stop work. No exaggeration. I'll bump something up right to the top of my priority list when it involves helping someone else volunteer or when someone makes a good attempt to produce something of value. Here I don't even have the secondary sources about the organization necessary to see if this plausibly meets our notability requirements. A shame because it sounds like a wonderful topic I would enjoy learning about. — Bilorv (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@114.30.109.203: I looked into this and there are numerous organizations called "artists without borders". You would need to provide more specific information about which one you are interested in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Possinbly (talk • contribs)

The New Republic

I'm a regular supporter and when I went to this page for information I was concerned to see the second sentance on this page was clearly an opinion and not a widely accepted fact. Maybe that sentence could go in another part of the page regarding different opinions about the magazine.

I've never edited a page so was hoping there was a way to "FLAG" this sentence for someone to look at moving it? 2600:1700:32F0:24A0:287A:AD4B:C60E:A900 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, friend. Would you be referring to The New Republic or another similarly named article? Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 21:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The second sentence of The New Republic is cited to an academic paper in a journal published by Cambridge University, so that seems solid. If you think the sentence is given too much prominence, please discuss your concerns at Talk:The New Republic. That's the proper place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How The Page Notice Is Made BroadcatsLimitedOne (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

BroadcatsLimitedOne, (assuming you and the IP are the same person...) you could try {{dubious|date=March 2021}} after the sentence to produce this. However, as Cullen pointed out, the statement is well sourced and your edit may be reverted. You may wish instead to address this concern on the corresponding talk page. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 22:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and EDG 543: success in navigating two abstract societal ideals is still clearly a statement of opinion and not fact. We should Avoid stating opinions as facts even when those opinions should be covered in the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Finnusertop, if the founders of the magazine explicitly stated that balancing those ideals was the purpose of the magazine, and later explicitly downplayed one of those ideals, then saying so is not an opinion but rather a fact. I have not read the source, and am not really interested in editing that particular article myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Dark Deception

Why is there no Dark deception Page on here and how can I make one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blacephalon, perhaps best would be to create one after reading Help:Introduction and WP:YFA and collecting all WP:RS for doing so. Happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: To add to what CommanderWaterford said, I've done some preliminary research, and it seems plausible to me that the reason Dark Deception doesn't have an article yet is just because it doesn't currently meet our guidelines for notability. I've looked elsewhere for sources discussing this game in-depth, but just as an example, the game's Metacritic page does not yet have any critic reviews. From what I can gather, this is a case of what editors commonly refer to as WP:TOOSOON, which means it may just be too soon for the article to be created as there isn't yet enough coverage of it in reliable, independent sources. While you're more than welcome to draft an article, I just want you to be aware that said article may not be approved because of this, no matter how well-written it is. Essentially, it may be best to hold off until reliable sources start covering the game. (By the way, Celesteela is the coolest Ultra Beast.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Several things called Dark Deception are mentioned in Wikipedia without having their own article. I guess you refer to the video game. An article was created at Dark Deception in 2019 but the only source was a YouTube trailer. It was moved to Draft:Dark Deception and deleted seven months later as abandoned. An article should have sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability (video games) although it's only an essay and not a guideline or policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh Okay. So the wiki and the youtube trailers and the merch don't count I assume? Alright Even though the game has been out for a couple years...

Oh and @TheTechnician27:, Celesteela is a cool Ultra beast. I like Xurkitree, Stakataka, and myself more though. Talk on my Page if you wanna chat about it! UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Admittedly haven't played USUM, so I don't have a solid opinion on Stakataka, but Xurkitree's crazy special attack is fun to play around with (and made it a nightmare to catch). But I digress. As you correctly inferred, the fan Wiki, YouTube trailers, and merch don't count as contributing to notability. The fan Wiki is indepndent of the subject  Done and has substantial coverage  Done, but it is not reliable because it is considered user-generated content  Not done (the same, by the way, would be true of Metacritic and Steam user reviews). The YouTube trailers are substantial coverage  Done and are reliable for some statements about the game  Done/ Not done, but they are not independent of the subject  Not done. Finally, the merch really isn't any of these three. As far as WP:TOOSOON goes, it's less about how long a subject has existed for and more about when reliable sources will start covering it. For example, MotoRodeo debuted 31 years ago and was one of the last games for the Atari 2600, but FOARP and I were entirely unable to find enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to create an article about it. Now I wouldn't call that one WP:TOOSOON (although it's not impossible it'll gain some traction and get its own article), but it's not out of the question at all for something ike Dark Deception. As a popular example, Among Us came out in mid-2018, but it absolutely exploded in popularity in 2020, and in September, OmegaFallon created an article. A bit of an extreme example, sure, but a less extreme version of that is definitely possible. Likewise, while popular LPers like Markiplier and 8-BitRyan have played Dark Deception, the videos are clearly intended to be a casual playthrough for entertainment and not meant as a critique. So for example, if Markiplier were to sit down and write/record a review of Dark Deception, discussing and fleshing out what his opinions on the game are, it would be considered substantial coverage from a reliable (there's no editorial board for Markiplier, sure, but he does play indie survival horror games for a living, so I think this falls under WP:RSCONTEXT), independent source and would therefore contribute to notability. However, him entertaining an audience with jokes while playing the game isn't considered substantial coverage.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia wants to know what reliable, independent sources have to say about a subject. Basically, the goals of Wikipedia's notability guidelines are threefold: 1) Making sure all of the information in our article can be reliably sourced, 2) making sure our article isn't just a bare minimum definition of a subject, and 3) making sure our article isn't just a rephrased/inferior copy of one source. For example, when creating an article about a video game, there are a broad array of aspects Wikipedia aims to discuss, like: how was this game developed? What did professional critics have to say about it? What accolades, if any, did it receive? What is its plot/setting? What is its gameplay like? What is its cultural significance/legacy? Not all of these have to be in a Wikipedia article (for many, in fact, like one whose reception section I recently worked on, it's basically just what it was released for and when, who made it, what the gameplay is like, and what its critical reception was, and that's totally acceptable), but whether or not you can create a 'Reception' section out of reliable, independent sources is usually a good indicator of whether or not a video game merits an article by Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Hope this rambling short essay helped explain the rationale behind the policy a bit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27:This does really help a lot but I do have some questions. Like if we need reliable resources, why do people not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source when we DO list our sources? How many reliable resources are required to write an article of that sort? Are How-to-Play sites allowed? Y'know?

And Stakataka is a massively bulky Pokemon with high defense good attack but not a great movepool. I actually have a plush of it. Xurkitree is a wonderful special attacker and Blacephalon are also a great special attacker but with its signature Mind Blown attack cutting its HP in half. UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: It's almost a bit paradoxical, isn't it? The article for Warren G. Harding is not only based upon dozens of reliable sources, but it has also been rigorously reviewed to make sure what we've written comports with those reliable sources, semi-protected to prevent vandalism, and watched by hundreds of editors. However, a few issues arise with citing Wikipedia (which apart aren't deal-breakers but which together pretty much are): 1) Wikipedia's quality varies by article. So while a featured or good article may be a fantastic resource, maybe something I've written (say, the Robert L.B. Tobin Land Bridge) is deficient in some way. Maybe it's not, but what if some other article is, and how do we judge? There's no real editorial oversight outside of hoping someone notices and fixes the issues. 2) Wikipedia is constantly in flux. What was an article one day might be radically different another or may not even be there at all. You can create permalinks, sure, but that leads us to 3) It creates an unnecessary layer of abstraction that could hypothetically go on forever. When a reader is looking at a Wikipedia article, they want to feel comfortable that what we're saying is attributed to someone reliable. Likewise, when an editor is checking a Wikipedia article against our source, they don't want to be burrowing over to another Wikipedia article to see what they have to say. In fact, if we didn't limit this to just one layer deep (and I'm not sure how this could be reasonably enforced), we could just go on recursively citing Wikipedia for multiple articles until we get to the actual source. 4) Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we try our best to give a general overview of a subject. This means that sources we cite often have a much broader scope for their specific topic than we could possibly fit into our article, so they often outright function better as a source of more detailed information. Finally, 5) It's just as easy to grab the relevant source(s) from our Wikipedia article and transplant them into the other Wikipedia article that would have cited it. In fact, it's arguably easier, because we can literally just copy-paste the source text from one article to the other.

As far as why people don't trust us when we do list our sources? I would point to those reasons listed above (plus, for more controversial topics, some people not trusting what we consider to be 'reliable sources', though this generally applies a lot less to less-than-controversial subjects such as video games). Regarding how many sources are needed? This is where things get a bit more subjective. For example, we new page reviewers stick to '2', but ultimately, there's no firm rule because, as WP:GNG puts it, "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". So if I have two whole books published by reputable sources about my subject and nothing else, I'm good to go, but if I'm creating an article about a video game from the 90s and only have two short magazine reviews, I might want to look for a couple more. Likewise, depending on the type of article, I may want more. Having an article about a video game is pretty benign, but if I suddenly start making articles about living politicians using two newspaper articles as my basis for the whole thing, there'll be some cocked eyebrows. If you asked a generic experienced editor, they would probably say "Three, but more is better." Finally, as far as how-to guides are concerned (e.g. GameFAQs, video tutorials), it depends on who's writing them. For example, I love the game SSX 3, and one of the best players in the world is a Norwegian speedrunner. He makes tutorial videos, and more than almost anyone else (even mainstream outlets like IGN and GameSpot), I would trust him with my life to provide accurate information about the game's mechanics. Whereas I could get away with citing him on Fandom, I almost certainly couldn't here except in some bizarre hypothetical edge case that I can't even think of. The reason is because 1) there's no editorial board overseeing what he puts out, and 2) he's obscure enough that only dedicated fans of the game would possibly know who he is. Meanwhile, IGN (not the IGN Wiki, but the articles) and GameSpot writers do have editorial oversight, and they've built up a reputation for generally reliable information. However, an official manual or strategy guide could reasonably be used (game manuals and strategy guides sometimes contain inaccuracies, but you can always choose to exclude it as a source if you know it does). That said, just be careful if you're citing a how-to guide, and especially be careful what you're using it to substantiate, as Wikipedia is not a game guide (however, as an aside, it's looking more and more like our sister project, WikiBooks, will allow game guides).

To be sure, everything you've brought up are 100% already concerns for the imperfect methods we have right now (check the WP:RSN if you don't believe me), but citing ourselves would exacerbate this to a point where it could arguably ruin the project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Aah, so more is better. So, what sites are reliable and which sites aren't? I've tried to publish an article about Porygon before but people are saying that there are not enough sources. I've also heard people say that because Wikipedia can be vandalized and edited so easily, You can't trust it. I do really want to publish an article, but other editors say I'm better off just editing articles. I've been doing that since I joined but there aren't any to majorly edit. I'm not sure what to do....UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How to edit on wikipedia

How to edit on wikipedia ItsJustdancefan (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: If you haven't already, I suggest you complete The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a short tutorial on how things work around here. Then, just be bold and start improving any article you feel like should be improved! Remember, if you disagree with someone else, strive to reach consensus on the talk page. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And stop copying other editors' User pages and Talk pages to your User and Talk pages (even though you then deleted all the copied content). David notMD (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Need restructuring and clean up of a highly traffic article

Namaste De Dhakka (2008) is a popular Marathi film.its article looks not according to WP standards.It have grammar mistakes.A native English speaker editor have to clean it up and rewrite. Research Voltas (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, thanks for noticing - the article is already tagged for copyediting, some Editor will take care of the article in the future. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford By just tagging a article will alart , Experienced WP editors? Research Voltas (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, no the tag will not alert anyone ins pecial but there are several editors who regularly are looking for this tag in order to correct those articles. You could also ask for a CopyEdit Request at WP:GOCER, this is a project full of experienced "Copyeditors". CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterfordHow they look clean up and copyediting required tags? Research Voltas (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Research Voltas, yes, they do. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Research Voltas - Applying the tag populates a category, and this causes the article to be listed in a list of articles in the category. Categories are an extremely useful feature for purposes such as this. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Need hand for copy-editing

Assistant me to improve grammar and sentence structure for Dhadakebaaz , It's a article about a Marathi movie.The Film is cult classic in Maharashtra Research Voltas (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done one part, by fixing all the instances of citations to a single reference having multiple separate entries by naming the references. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: I've done a little more, including fixing the categories. Please convert the bare URLs to full citations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: An very experienced editor and Wikipedia administrator named PrimeHunter did some extensive copy-editing of the article and cleaned up a lot of formatting/syntax errors with this edit that greatly improved the article, yet you reverted all of the changes with a very next edit without explaining why. If some makes an edit that you don’t understand, it’s OK to ask for clarification. If you’re going ask for help and then undo improvements they make and re-create the problems they’ve fixed without at least explaining why, it’s going to not only make others less willing to help improve the article but will also eventually be seen as disruptive. Finally, please stop adding icons to the section headings of new threads you start at the Teahouse. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly Hello , If your mentioning about me , then I didn't reverted any changes. And if I did then possibly I clicked wrong button of undo while reading changes. Research Voltas (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You reverted the changes here which was the very next edit made to the article after the one made by PrimeHunter. Anyway, PrimeHunter has left a message for you about this and some of your other questions at Talk:Dhadakebaaz#Why this article in in irrelevant category ? and you ask him about the changes he made there if you want further clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability

I'd like to find out if my topic has 'notability'. I'm planning on writing an article of a prominent digital marketing figure - Nicholas Kusmich.

I have sources from Forbes, CNBC, everipedia, lifestyle business but that's about it. He's also an author of an Amazon best-seller (does this count as a secondary source?).

Please let me know if the above links would make my article notable for Wikipedia. Suphotk (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

CNBC and Forbes will work, Everipedia is unreliable. Don't know about lifestyle magazine. @Suphotk: versacespacetalk to me 02:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: When you say that Forbes will work, I have to mention that there's a massive divide between the reliability of Forbes and of Forbes.com contributors. See: WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. The two articles I can find about Kusmich from Forbes – here and here – are from contributors, and should therefore be treated as self-published works. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: I would normally agree but this is an interview, so I don't think that counts here. versacespacetalk to me 03:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: They are interviews, which means that they can be used for attribution for things Kusmich has said. However, Suphotk was asking about the sources within the context of "if the above links would make my article notable", and the answer to the Forbes articles is "no", because: "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." For all intents and purposes, because of the minimal editorial oversight given to Forbes.com contributors, these interviews may as well be in a Medium.com article or a YouTube video. This interview from CNBC is a start, but the Forbes interviews – by community consensus – don't carry with them the same reliability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

But don't interviews not count towards notability as they are not secondary and independent sources? JavaHurricane 03:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: I could've sworn too that this was in WP:INDY at one point (can't find it anymore), but I would personally view the interview as a mixture of primary and secondary source. The direct quotes from Kusmich are unambiguously primary, but because CNBC has an editorial board with a reputation for fact-checking, I would personally treat the prose outside of quotations as a secondary source. In this case, I would also refer to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. However, when it comes to notability, how much this CNBC article confers is ultimately subjective as is how much notability is needed to warrant a BLP, especially one of a current businessperson. As outlined by the WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Moreover, secondary and independent are not necessarily always the same. In this case, I would call it independent because CNBC has no conflict-of-interest in publishing this interview. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I would define interviews as primary sources, solely because of the subject's direct input. I consider any article where the subject had a direct hand in its content - whether by answering questions, writing/filming it, or commissioning it - as useless for notability on those grounds. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:INTERVIEW, WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF for more information on citing interviews as a source and whether they are considered to contribute to Wikipedia notability, but alot depends upon who the interviewer was and how much editorial control they exerted over the interview. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Meghna Patel

i have changed issue in meghna patel wikipedia so please check . Hardyisback11188 (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hardyisback11188. What you did with this edit is remove some citations from the article without leaving any explanation as to why; so, I've re-added the content again. If the citations aren't to reliable sources then they have little value to Wikipedia and should be removed. If you remove only the citations, however, the remaining article content will be WP:UNSOURCED, which means that it also can be removed at any time. So, what you're going to need to do if you want that content to remain in the article is to find better citations that support it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Need copyediting,inspection for a new article

Ola today I created a new article Muktabai temple I need copyediting from a native British English speaking editor on this article.It is important article for Warkari peoples. Research Voltas (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Tea House is not meant to be used for soliciting editing help from others, otherwise everyone would use it for that. I tagged it with Template:Copy edit, so that people who are interested in grammar editing will easily find it and contribute if they choose to. Shushugah (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah So , If I tagged a article by CE template. Will editors will come and fix it ? Research Voltas (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

In short, yup! It always depends on the availability/interests/expertise of the editor in mind. We are all WP:VOLUNTEERS and work on whatever we feel like. Shushugah (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles says:

"Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. eponymous categories and non-diffusing subcategories – see below), an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible, without duplication in parent categories above it."

Most of the categories on Muktabai temple should be removed or replaced with more specific subcategories. Don't add non-existing categories. They display as red links. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagging an article with the {{copyedit}} template will put it in the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog, so it'll be worked on eventually (there's 200+ articles there last time I checked).

About a user

A user by the name of Edaedes (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandru_Agache&oldid=1011536606) Vandalized a small article with "Wikipedia is lies". Should we be concerned? If so, can we ban him? Blue Jay (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The great Jay, if you want to, you can report the vandal to WP:AIV. JavaHurricane 06:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning for now. If the vandalism recurs, please report to AIV. JavaHurricane 06:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Blue Jay (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You were smart to check the offending editor's other edits, and revert those as also vandalism. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

remove page

this page Phra ram Pra Ram is just thai version of Rama need to be remove and this Pra Satrut Lalalulilalia (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, Lalalulilalia. Among many similar cases, Kisshōten is, or is derived from, Lakshmi: I suppose that the former merits an article because of some divergences from the latter. (I notice that you say "thai version of", not "thai name for".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

atleast move page Pra Ram to Phra Ram and Pra Satrut to Phra Satarut Lalalulilalia (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Pra Ram and Talk:Pra Satrut, and explain there why the corresponding article should be renamed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Several questions

Hello,

I have several questions regarding English Wikipedia Policy, and English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

• When reducing lenghty sentences to shorter ones without actually reducing their substance, which policy should I refer to? I tried looking up WP:CONCISE but it only concerns article titles, not the contents of the article body.
• Does Wikipedia pay attention to readers' personal preferences or habits? The number of Wikipedia readers is without a doubt, HUGE. Logically, there are also much bigger and complex differences in outlook of every aspect of life on the readers' part (politics, morality, social values etc). I believe Wikipedia's primary purpose is to put ANY information, whenever and wherever it is sourced reliably. Which policy should I refer to when dealing with this kind of situation? For example, when readers disagreeing with some content and removing them.
• Does updating some small details (such as: technical, always-updating lists, rankings) annually constitute WP:RECENTISM with regards to the article's quality as a whole? For example, source A discusses progress of a railway project and it usually updates annually. Every year, I'd update the date (or any related info) per the source cited. My concern is to avoid dated information.
• When I cite a source, is it necessary to put emphasis on certain sentences (by adding a particular sentence quote unqoute) from the source before the ref format? For example, there's a source who mostly talks about the USA, but there is a particular sentence there that concerns China. If I want to cite only the China part, is it okay to, not only cite the USA source, but also put that particular sentence about China? It looks like this:

Multiple sentences about China's strategic moves against the USA.<ref>This sentence, placed here, is copied quote unquote from the source about those strategic moves.{{cite web|url=www.usa.com|title=USA|publisher=White House|author=The Press|date=16 March 2021|access-date=16 March 2021}}.</ref>

Is there a policy or guidelines regarding this situation?

I'm asking all this this because I want to cite policies (WP, MOS etc) in my edit summaries wherever possible. Thank you. AdaCiccone (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not a policy but a guideline, with subsidiary guidelines. Where you, AdaCiccone, know that what you're asking about is the implications of MOS, it would probably be better to ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. MOS material aside, you ask a lot of questions. Let me comment on just one of your premises, namely "I believe Wikipedia's primary purpose is to put ANY information, whenever and wherever it is sourced reliably." Not so. I can, if I wish, cite a reliable, published source for the entire timetable of the train line that I use most often. This would be well-sourced, factual information, conceivably of some use to somebody among the huge number of Wikipedia users. However, I should use my discretion and realize that for the overwhelming majority of users this would be mere trivia. This is one reason why I do not add this material (there are others); and if somebody else added it, I wouldn't hesitate to remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And indeed, there is a policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, AdaCiccone. --ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Listing my contributions in a category.

Can I get a list of the articles I have edited in a particular category? I know how to list my total contributions, and I know how to list the articles in a category. But can I get a list of the articles I have edited in the category "Women astronomers" for example? Gronk Oz (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

XTools allows you to do that. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good grief, @Kleinpecan: that's amazing! Thank you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, dear, @Kleinpecan: now I realize I should have been more specific with my question. That Xtools list is amazing, but it omits articles that are in sub-categories. So in this example, it omits American women astronomers. Is there something that combines this with something like deepcat, to search in a category and its subcategories? --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

did I create a page correctly?

Hi, I created a page several days ago (in hebrew, it is titled draft:רן נמרוד) and it is my first time creating a page, just wanted to know if it was done properly. Also, does anyone know what is the next step in the process? How do I track what is happening with the page? Many thanks!! Wikinamerode (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikinamerode Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are attempting to create an article for the Hebrew Wikipedia, you should do it there; each language version of Wikipedia is a separate, independent project from the others. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to create an English draft, you may use Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WikinamerodeThis definitely belongs in Hebrew Wikipedia, which you can find by visiting here he:Main. Make sure to read their policies for Article creation, which you can find here he:ויקיפדיה:איך ליצור דף חדש ~ Shushugah (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Related thread in archives: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 March 4#Page I created has disppeared. --CiaPan (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What links a Macedonian historian with a giant container ship?

When I click on the ship names in the article about Bird-class container ships I am taken to a New user landing page ('The article that you're looking for doesn't exist.'). Why, under 'languages' in the left-hand menu, does this page link to articles about a Macedonian historian? See here for example.

There is an article about the ONE Apus ship in Dutch. I would be happy to help translate this.

Thanks! 5duckroof (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This link was added by Jonovski in this diff. I've removed it. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Endeavor Business Media

Hi, this question is in reference to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Endeavor_Business_Media. I received feedback that the company page I am trying to start for my company, Endeavor Business Media, is not encyclopedic compared to other company pages. I would love to improve this entry but could use some help - this is my first attempt to create a Wikipedia page and I have disclosed the WP:COI so it is clear that I work for the company I am trying to create the entry for. Can someone please help me get this to the point where it may be published? Thank you! Abigail Christine (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Christine. Hey Abigail. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for trying to learn about Wikipedia and our procedures. I visited your article just now and made some edits. The main issue with your article is going to be whether or not the company is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, which is our rule about what is allowed to have an article or not. Your article is in OK shape, so it probably won't get quick declined. It will probably sit in the queue for awhile until an experienced reviewer comes along, clicks all 14 of your references, and evaluates whether or not they pass GNG. This could take awhile, as the backlog for AFC is rather big. Hope that helps. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO, this will not meet GNG, as all or almost all the refs document acquisitions, but none (?) are about what the company is or does. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is doubtful this will meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.--- Possibly (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you visit the editor's user page you will see that they a a paid editor, the company's the company's Director of Custom Content, with the huge luxury of a salary to create articles here. Generally I prefer paid editors to learn on their employer's shoaling, not on volunteer time. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I suggest a change to the Notability guideline?

I've got a very specific change I'd like to propose to the Notability guideline. What is the process for putting it up for discussion? A Request for Comment? Or is there some more magisterial WP process for proposing a change to such a core guideline? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. There are 13 notability guidelines in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines and more in various WikiProjects. Many suggestions have already been discussed or are already somewhere. What is your proposal? We cannot give proper advice without knowing what you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's "very specific" in that it's likely to be uncontroversial (e.g. rewording a sentence to be clearer without changing the meaning) then likely boldly fixing it yourself is right. If it's about changing a rule in a major way and the guideline is on a widely-watched page then discussion on the talk page is likely the first step, and a Request for Comment could be appropriate later down the discussion. If the change is on a low-watched page then you can solicit comments by using templates like {{Please see}} (substitute, not transclude) on more watched pages to draw attention, or by starting a Request for Comment. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to Wikipedia:Notability, then go ahead and make the proposal on Wikipedia talk:Notability. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. Of course, there's more than one Notability guideline. That's why I come to the Teahouse, for gentle reminders of points I have forgotten! It's the Notability (People) guideline, dealing with Politicians and Judges. It's not the "politicians" guideline that is the problem, but the "judges" guideline - it's cast too broadly and includes too many judges who are not notable (ie they likely would not meet the primary criterion in this guideline).

In Canada, for example, the current "Judges" guideline would probably include every federal and provincial trial judge. This issue came up a couple of years ago on the Canada Law Project page and there was a lengthy discussion about it. To the extent there was a consensus, it was that the Notability guideline itself is drawn too broadly, and couldn't be tweaked by a "made-in-Canada" guideline.

What I would like to propose is keeping the "politician" part exactly as it is, and narrow the "judges" part to judges of international courts, highest national courts, and highest state/provincial appellate courts. Maybe include the Chief Justices of trial courts. That would exclude all the trial judges from presumed notability, but of course individual judges could still meet the primary notability criterion. Whether that would be controversial or not, I don't know? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: It'll take a little longer, but why not pick one that you think exemplifies this lack of notability, and nominate it for deletion. You'll get a good discussion, and if it's voted as a delete, then you can point to that outcome when you start a discussion about changing WP:NJUDGE for Canada on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The difficulty is that as the notability guideline stands, those judges would meet the notability standard, simply by virtue of being trial judges, so it's not clear that an AfD would pass - the reply would be that they meet the guideline. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Since state/provincial lawmakers are notable why not judges? But in any event, I agree with the advice here. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The catch is the term "state/province wide office" in the current guideline. As I understand, that automatically excludes most trial judges and appellate judges in the US, because federal and state judges sit in districts in their state. However, in Canada, trial judges have jurisdiction throughout their province, so they hold a "province-wide" office" and the Federal Court judges hold a nation-wide office. Should the notability guideline depend on the differences in jurisdictional provisions? A trial judge in Canada is always presumed notable, but a trial judge in the States, carrying out pretty much the same function, is not presumed notable? That seems an odd result, and the discussion on this issue in the Canada Law Project seemed to me to be that the notability criterion should be modified so that the Canadian trial judges have a similar notability assessment as a judge in the US - notability for a trial judge shouldn't depend on jurisdictional quirks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As to state/provincial legislators, the guideline works exactly the same in both countries. State representatives and provincial members both meet the "state/province-wide" category, but municipal politicians don't, so the results are the same. The oddity here is that trial judges have different results depending which country they are in. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

In many countries judges have almost no political role, are never elected by the public, and get very little media attention. Search "judges" in the archives at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) before making a suggestion. The first result is Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2012#Proposed change: judges. Tweaking the judges rule doesn't sound RfC worthy but just something for a routine talk page discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, PrimeHunter. Interesting to see that the same discussion came up nine years ago. I think it supports the point I'm trying to make - that trial judges, even US federal District Court judges, shouldn't automatically be notable just by virtue of their job. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, everyone. I'm thinking that the consensus here is that I should start with a discussion on the Talk page, not with a RfC, so I will post it on the Talk page for that Notability guideline, with specific proposed re-wording. I'll also post it on Canada Project page and let everyone there know about it. Is there any other project page that I should post a general notice (not canvassing - just a notice that there is a discussion on the Talk page)? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A slight tangent but all of the subject-specific notability guidelines should be deleted (including the one I wrote; my thoughts have evolved over the years). They are licenses for Wikipedia to have articles on topics for which suitable sourcing cannot be found; they present exceptions to the precepts that keep this place an encyclopedia and are terribly damaging for that reason (not to mention that they present an attractive nuisance for bickering over interpretation).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

I agree, Fuhgettaboutit. I think they take something that is clear and simple and turn it into something that is baroque and complicated. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Yes, they do do that! (I have never actually considered opening that debate anywhere, though. About a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alert Vandalism ,Block a vandal

Today I created a article Muktabai temple , a vandal is came on article did vandalism.I suggest to Block these vandals from editing on WP. They're two to three vandals.One of them is User:IRoninX1 Research Voltas (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Research Voltas, I checked out the article. It appears IRoninX1 did 1 vandalism edit and that was the only edit he did. Wikipedia doesn't just block someone for making 1 bad/troll edit as majority of editors would be blocked. I will leave a low tier "vandalism warning" on his talk page, but nothing more than that. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, @Research Voltas:, you said there was "two to three vandals". I checked the articles history and that appears to be the only "troll edit" done. Can you mention the other vandals? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Linking to a press conference

First post here, and I've been around for four years now. Anyway, here goes.

I'm currently trying to handle an edit that was caught in an edit filter. The edit in question appears to be constructive; however, there is an issue in sourcing for a quote (the one that tripped the edit filter, most likely). It comes from the Apple WWDC 2013; the editor, JuneForceOne, has given me a source that proves this definitively; however, from my understanding of WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER, we are not allowed to use the YT video as a source, as it would be copyright infringement. Would it be correct to attribute it to "Apple WWDC 2013", as I believe has been customary for sources that we cannot link to directly? Or is there other problems in the edit that would be a blocker? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Youtube videos can be linked, and can even be considered WP:RS in the cases of youtube videos published by academic or news organizations like BBC. Linking to a video is not copyright violation, however in this case, it may be construed as a form of WP:Original research. For factual info that could not be obtained elsewhere, for example a person stating their date of birth, even self published videos can be acceptable. Shushugah (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah however, material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. You can link a CNN YT-clip if CNN uploaded it, not otherwise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Uploaded by "the unofficial AppleKeynotes channel" who almost certainly don’t hold the copyright for what they’re uploading. SK2242 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

SubPages?

What are subpages? How can I create one? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Subpages. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ExclusiveEditor. If you've ever done editing in your sandbox, participated in AfD, etc., you've used a subpage before. All it is is a page underneath a page (the "child" page of a "parent" page, in computer science lingo). If you want to create one on your user page, for example, you could go to the URL bar and type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheTechnician27/Name You Want To Use, then create the page. However, as Kleinpecan noted, please see Wikipedia:Subpages to make sure you're creating one for an allowed use. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

hey

 Zoe haverkamp1 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have a question? Kleinpecan (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Submission for Music Producer

Meeting criteria for musician Hi, I submitted an article on music producer Joey Auch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joey_Auch

The reviewer stated 'it only seems to be riding on one event'. I added 6 additional events that fall under 'criteria for musicians'. Below is what I found in the 'criteria for musicians' and the event I added to the article. Will this now meet all the Wiki standards to be published?

1- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media Event added: article in Rolling Stone Mag, Huff Post, ABC News & NBC News

2 - Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Event added: # 152 on the CMJ Radio 200 (2004)

6 - Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles Event added: Produced Rachel Platten right before her national #1 song “Fight Song” & also produced notable musicians Erin Bowman and Decora.

9 - Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. Event added: Won The Great American Song Contest in 2006. "Leaving Carolina" And won ‘Pop/Top 40 Outstanding Achievement in Songwriting with Nick Deutsch for “Meteor” in The 2014 Great American Song Contest

10 - Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Event from original article: National with McDonalds jingle “Gimme Me That Filet-O-Fish”

11 - Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. Event added: Featured on CBS’s The Rachael Ray Show

Thank you - jcashmanIII JcashmanIII (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Imerit / iMerit

Hi, I went through articles for creation for an article called iMerit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMerit

When i went through the creation process, I thought I made the title iMerit (little first "i") but later realized that I made it with a capital "I." I don't know how to go about changing it. Thoughts on this? Miaminsurance (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that due to technical limitations the first letter of an article title must be capitalized. I think there is a workaround but I'm not aware of what it is. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki automatically capitalizes the first letter of all article titles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Lowercase first letter) unless you add {{Lowercase title}} to the article. I've fixed it for you. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: for messing with titles, see Help:DISPLAYTITLE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Full protection

What are full protection locks used for? And why are they not on Wikipedia page? (Just curious) -  Joshua's Number9 (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Joshua's Number9! Full protection is typically for articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed editors or for articles that are quite visible and critical templates that would screw up a lot of articles if messed with. If you want to request page protection for an article, you can go here. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For the second part of your question, I assume you mean "Why are they not on the Main Page". The answer is that it is fully protected in a different way: you may notice that there is no "Edit" tab on that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It is called Cascading protection. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys. -  Joshua's Number9 (talk} — Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Is adding trivia appropriate?

I am reading an article about a painting. The painting is said to favorite one of one really important historical figure. However, there is no popular culture heading for the article. I am not entirely sure whether I should or should not make this addition. Is adding trivia, which has little to do with main content of article, wikipediac? Thanks. AbhigyaDahal (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

AbhigyaDahal, hello, friend! If this tidbit contributes to the reader's understanding of the subject and is supported with a reliable reference, I'd say add the trivia. Otherwise, it can be left off. Hope that helps! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi AbhigyaDahal. I believe this is something that simply cannot be answered in the abstract. Far too dependent on context, where many of these types of questions are on the razor's edge of the exercise of editorial judgement. (That being said, just about every single question we get here that tells us something in the abstract instead of telling us the specific context, would be improved by providing the details.) Anyway, a prior post of mine, here, might have some discussion that might be useful to at least set the stage for this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How do i know if my edits are good

So i just started editing wikipedia very recently. I mostly just took care of typos so i knew i was improving the wiki. But recently i found an article that was obviously created with a large bias and was hard to understand. I trimmed alot of the fat from the article and made it unbiased. But im not sure if my edit was good. I know it was better then the previous page but im not sure if i didnt do well and should have just asked someone else to do it. Below are the article before and after my changes. Thank you in advance

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kicko_%26_Super_Speedo&oldid=1005852367 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kicko_%26_Super_Speedo Googleguy007 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, but the characters section remains completely unsourced. Ruslik_Zero 17:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not Notable

I've been told that my subject, a part of ZAG Entertainment, is not notable enough. A colleague of his who is equally as notable has a page on Wili that has been published. I don't understand what criteria makes my subject 'not notable' enugh when he and his projects are cited all over the internet and are wildly popular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJG222 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi WJG222. Please could you tell us the name of the colleague, so that we can investigate? Please also note WP:OSE.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi--and thank you. Jeremy Zag is the colleague. He has a Wiki page. Julian Zag is the subject of the new page. He is a large part of the same (family) company. Their products also have Wiki pages (linked in my newest article submission). Pages are Zagtoons, and others per each group of animated feature subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJG222 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@WJG222: I haven't found any good sources for Julian Zag in a quick search. Well, if you can find at least a few reliable sources for the article, then it should be fine. Make sure to check out WP:GNG and WP:BIO for more information on notability. Also, please use four tildes (~~~~)to sign your comments. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Linked in the new submission are several reliable sources including casting on IMDB, links to casting and production pages on the mentioned cartoon projects, Business Wire, etc., etc. I'm not being sarcastic (you can't get tone in writing)--but that's not enough? WJG222 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi WJG222. The three references you've mentioned are each useless as evidence of notability. (They're also embedded external links, which is not how we reference things; see this how-to guide to the basics of citing references.) We are looking for reliable, secondary, independent sources . Please read Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Please also note that if the issue is adequately addressed, then the draft would almost certainly thereafter be declined as promotional. A preliminary step would be removing all of the intellectual property symbols. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Inserting a picture as an edit

When one wants to add a picture to an edit, how do you proceed? Reason: There is a discrepancy with actor Ira Dean Jagger's name throughout his bio. I figured adding a picture of his tombstone would help others verify what his entire REAL name is. Nvymom20 Nvymom20 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nvymom20. Actually, even though your intentions seem good, what you're suggesting is probably not a very good idea from a Wikipedia perspective for a variety of reasons. i'm not sure who the "Ira Dean Jagger" you're referring to is, but perhaps it's Dean Jagger. If you feel there's a name discrepency, it would be much better for you to look for reliable sources that possibly discuss such a discrepancy or perhaps refer to him by the other name, and then raise your concerns about the matter at Talk:Dean Jagger. You can start a discussion about this now on the article's talk page, but you're almost certainly going to be asked to provide information about sources that support such a claim; so, it's probably better to find the sources first. For reference, when determining what to use as the name of article, Wikipedia generally follows WP:COMMONNAME and use the name most commonly used by the reliable sources which have discussed the article. Actors, etc. often are know prefessionally under a name that is different from their birth name (see John Wayne, Kirk Douglas and Tom Cruise for some examples), but if properly sourced their birth name can usually be added somewhere to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nvymom20. Tombstones are not a reliable source for what a person's real name is. The company that sells the tombstone will carve exactly what the person who pays for the tombstone tells them to carve. They don't do independent fact checking. The same is true of paid obituaries written by family members. Some people change their birthdates for various reasons, and other people change their names due to adoption, marriage, divorce or personal preference. Consider Gerald Ford, whose birth name was Leslie Lynch King Jr. What name do you think is on his tombstone? While we are discussing it, how can you possibly define "real name"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To complicate matters further, Variety and the Associated Press obituaries say his birth name is Dean Jeffries Jagger. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The 2nd reference which supposedly supports Dean Ira Jagger actually says his birth name is Dean Jeffries. And the 1st source is a book which is apparently the only publication of author Joseph F. Clarke. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I will remove the 2nd "reference" and add the disagreement in the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I need help getting my wikipedia page to be accepted

I have tried three times to get my page submitted and every time it comes back with insufficient citations. I used citations from industry publications and replicated a page that is similar to our businesses. Can someone please help me get through this barrier? 98.232.43.181 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Remove every reference that does nothing to contribute to notability and are primary sources that should not be used in the manner they're being used. I say this because you have some sources that might be somewhat okay, though it's not clear and needs more, but even those are somewhat buried in prominence next to utterly useless references. I suggest starting with reading Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) so that the following has context:

1. Source 1: Not sure about reliability; it's no BBC News article, but at least it's not on-its-face disqualified; it at least appears independent and has substantive treatment;
2. Source 2: Useless, non-independent, press release; a primary source used for an invalid, self-serving purpose;
3. Source 3: Tech Crunch, when it's not regurgitating a press release, is mostly considered akin to a blog and thus unreliable – no oversight; no reasonable assurance of accuracy and neutrality for its content (search WP:RSN for "Techcrunch" to see this playing out over numerous threads [note also, from WP:NCORP: "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility])";
4. Source 4: Repeat of the source above; see WP:NAMEDREFS for how to fix this, for any useful sources you might cite multiple times;
5. Source 5: Forbes is a reliable source in some contexts; here it's an interview of a principal of the subject and thus a primary, non-independent source (I should qualify that sometimes interviews may have partial content that is usable, e.g., an introduction by the magazine staff, outside of the interview content);
6. Source 6: Another apparent trade publication; a questionable source of unclear provenance, but at least not on-its-face disqualified;
7. Source 7: maybe possibly partially okay? (but a long way from a really good source); certainly is regurgitating some press release tripe, with its purpose being just to announce tech companies within the ambit of its challenge—and not to provide an investigated, fact-checked write-up of the companies involved.

You see the problem? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

New page

Hi Tearoom, I have been asked by a number of industry colleagues to submit a wiki page for the producer Kristian Smith. I've done that but it's been declined. WAny advice on getting the page publsihed? Bimblebuster (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Bimblebuster, hello, friend! This draft, Draft:Kristian Smith, was rejected declined because you failed to include any references. You must include multiple reliable sources in order to verify the content of the draft. You can see WP:REFB for a beginner's guide to citing sources. If you have any specific question, you can go ahead and ask. Hope that helps. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: yust a note, on AfC drafts, "declined" and "rejected" have different meanings. "declined" means Sorry, this is not yet ready for mainspace. Please improve it while "rejected" means Sorry, this cannot get acceptable for mainspace at any time soon. Stop wasting everyone's time. This draft was declined. @Bimblebuster: Please make sure that your refs are actually verifyable. For example, "BBC" is a very bad ref, because which of the thousands of BBC articles is it? Please include at least enough information so others can see what you refer to. For example, is much better, because it allows the interested one to access and check the source without having to guess which one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you for catching that error. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bimblebuster: I have declined your draft again and left an explanation on the draft. Please read over my comments as well as Victor Schmidt's comment above. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 18:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article for more details on how to write an article. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c ×4!) Hi Bimblebuster. After the post above, you added a whole host of footnotes in the draft, not one of which is functioning as a citation. Instead, you have placed certain existing words from your draft in between <ref> ... </ref> tags, and thereby made them show up in the references section, which also has the function of removing those words from display in the body of your draft, thereby leaving it in a mangled state. Let me provide an example of a fully-formatted citation, to a transparently attributed reference work, that verifies the material preceding it. That context, I hope, this will better illustrate how it works. See also this how-to guide to the basics of citing references.

Flightlessness often arises in birds on isolated islands, probably due to limited resources and the absence of land predators. ←this footnote links below to an external academic journal article that corroborates the information written, and provides transparent information on the details of that journal article, so that readers can locate it view it themselves in order to check whether it verifies the content it is cited to verify.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

@Bimblebuster: A Google search (string: "Kristian smith" producer) doesn't really return anything remotely usable as a source (not helped by the fact there is apparently an unrelated music producer who has the same name), and especially not ones that would meet biographical standards. There's no way we can have an article on him at this time; the sources just flat-out do not exist. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you make it simple?

I am not so good at computer-related work as I am very old. I have enough thoughts to share with others may more than young ones. I don't understand why you have made this Wikipedia so complicated, I have spent enough time to understand this still I am confused. Does anyone of my age agree with this? Darshan Singh Writer (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I too am very old. Wikipedia is complicated. I do my best. People don't complain so often, so I infer that I'm still competent (usually). But increasingly, I turn the computer off and do something unrelated. When I return, I usually find that Wikipedia has survived quite healthily even without my attention. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You started a draft (Draft:Tank Cleaner Film). I suggest you look at articles about India films, and model your draft on those. You can submit your draft when you believe it is ready. Given that the film was released last month, you may have difficulty finding references. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Darshan Singh Writer:. Wikipedia definitely can be significantly complicated - I'm not sure whether it's the editing interface or the rules that you're finding more tricky. If it's the former, then can I check you're on Visual Editor, not the source editor. (VE looks more like Word/Pages, the source editor will have you working inside a box). I find that 40 minutes spent running through our basic tutorial (again, use the visual editor pathway) saves both a huge amount of time and a huge amount of irritation. If it's the rules that are the issue, then giving a specific detail(s) can help a lot. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts about the film have no place in an article, so delete that. Again, best is you model content on other articles about films made in India. David notMD (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User page

Hi, When I have a user name but when I sign in and try to open my user page, I get a message, 'Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact tile. How do I crate a user page?

UserKSCV page KSCV (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

After logging in Visit Special:MyPage Gryllida (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're logged in, there should be an option to create the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Usually when I wrote wikipedia I could see my citations afterwards as they look while I'm editing, but that option disappeared. Where did it go? 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:9832:F281:2380:5F68 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you click the "Preview" button for your edits, it will show you what the changes will look like. RudolfRed (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

I can change a wikipedia page's information, then change it back to get a free 2 edits to help crawl my way to be an extended-confirmed user. Is that allowed in wikipedia rules? SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

SteelerFan1933, hello, friend! No, you should not do that, it's just plain silliness and it's not ethical. You become extended confirmed once you have 500 edits and 30 days of experience because you need experience to be able to edit certain articles, not just because we're mean. Just continue with constructive edits and you'll be there in no time bud! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933: no, this would be in violation of WP:PGAME, and can get you blocked or warned. versacespacetalk to me 01:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SteelerFan1933. As noted above, no. However, even though getting extended confirmed status is really no big deal (really), if you want to get the edits quickly and do something legitimate, that actually improves, I suggest visiting Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Contacting contributors

contacting contributors

Is there any way for me to contact people who have contributed to a page_ 64.222.221.26 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You can visit the user's talk page (a link to which you can find next to their username on the History page) and leave a message, or mention them on the talk page of the article in question. WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 64.222.221.26. The way editors generally communicate with one another is via talk pages; so, if someone makes an edit to an article that you don't quite understand or might want clarified in some way, you can post something on the article's talk page and seek assistance. Ideally, the best place to discuss an article is on it's corresponding talk page because that keeps everything in one place and makes it easier for others to join to discussion if they want. Each user, however, does have a corresponding user talk page where you can also post messages if you want; so, you can also posts messages for a user on their user talk page. For some general guidelines on how to use a talk page, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Now, if you're not sure how to find a user's talk page, try looking at the relevant page's edit history because you'll find the name of every editor who has edited the page listed there; just find the name of the person you want to contact and then click on the "talk" link next to their username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

understanding promotional content

When a page is tagged as "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content...." How do you fix that when it doesn't specifically say what is written like an advertisement? Miaminsurance (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Miaminsurance: Understanding the style and tone of Wikipedia comes from being an experienced editor. Many of us can read any article and immediately tell if someone connected to the person or company wrote it. It's hard to share years of experience in a quick note, but this might help a bit. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. You also want to use reliable sources, and avoid emphasizing trivial info. You also want to avoid making the article sound like an advertisement, extolling the greatness of a person or company. Finally, it's possible that the offending language was already removed, but nobody bothered to remove the tag. If you want to post the article title on my talk page, I'll tell you what the issue is. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton, well and ... ehm.. it always starts with the username, like MiamiINSURANCE for example ... CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: lol that’s another whole essay! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Miaminsurance. When it's not clear what needs fixing you can ask at the talk page of the article and then link to it at the teahouse. Then a volunteer from the teahouse can read the discussion at the talk page of the article and assist - such as, explain what needs fixing and continue to watch the article for the next few days while you're working on it. Gryllida (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone. I appreciate the feedback. Just so we are clear, I'm not in insurance. I also don't presume that CommanderWaterford is in the crystal business. But I truly appreciate the feedback.Miaminsurance (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

and, for the record, I am probably a little blue blob of jelly stranded on a nearby beach! We don't always have to live (or down) to our usernames  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mine states that I am not an MD - true. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)