Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1127

Archive 1120

←

Archive 1125

Archive 1126

Archive 1127

Archive 1128

Archive 1129

Archive 1130

How to get a corporate logo image for an article?

Hello! I'm not sure if there is a better place to ask, but I'm trying to figure out how I could add an image to the Draft:Willie Wiredhand article, about a corporate mascot. His rival Reddy Kilowatt appears to have a fair use image, but I think Reddy Kilowatt is no longer actively being used whereas Willie Wiredhand is. I think an image like the one here would add a lot to the article. Is there a fair use rationale I can use? Or, can I contact the copyright holder (the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association) and ask them to give some kind of relevant image permission? What should I ask them for? I'd appreciate any advice, or pointers to better places to ask! Thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could ask them to follow Wikipedia:Donate copyrighted materials, or upload yourself if you can make the claim for fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. GoingBatty (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, LEvalyn. By policy, non-free images cannot be used in drafts, but only in main space encyclopedia articles. So, for now, concentrate on the text and the references. Once it becomes an encyclopedia article, you can modify the rationale that you can see at File:Reddy Kilowatt with wall outlet pose.jpg. But only then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you! That clarifies what I need to do. I'll finish the article, and then once it's in mainspace I'll use the Wikipedia file upload wizard to add a fair use image. Part of what was throwing me off was knowing I couldn't upload a fair use image to Wikimedia Commons, but looking at how the Reddy image was added, this makes sense! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We generally recommend that people looking to upload an image for a draft instead focus their efforts on writing the draft instead, since even if there is an image that could be used for the draft, it won't help the draft in any way regardless. The reviewers are looking at the text and the sources, not the image. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are references to the Kyla Titus book considered to be unreliable?

Why are references to the Kyla Titus/Chica Boswell Mannerly book, The Boswell Legacy, considered to be unreliable? That's the only biography that actually quotes from letters and diaries, and from first hand interviews from Vet Boswell while she was alive. The book was approved by the Vet Boswell Family Collection, LLC. I get that there is a prejudice against "vanity" publishing services; however, the content of this book has held up to scrutiny/review. I see this as a self-publishing effort rather than mere vanity. Pherank (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pherank. As you probably know, that book was written and self-published by the daughter and granddaughter of one of The Boswell Sisters and is currently used as a reference in that article. WP:SELFPUBLISHED is the link to the relevant policy. Unless these authors are musicologists or historians, their self published book should almost certainly not be used. You can discuss the matter with the two editors who reverted you at Emmett Hardy, which is a very sad story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

how you can say chavda or chaprana Gurjar origin is disputed? even if chavda chaprana is a clan of Only gurjar caste ?

 Feniles (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC) hello sir You asked why I made changes to chavda dynasty? sir you made a mistake by saying that Thier gurjar origin is disputed how you can say that? they ruled over Gujart The land Of Gurjars and cahvda chaprana is a clan Of Gurjars only found In Gurjar Hindus and Muslims. Even Chavda Gurjar had good relations with the south Indian chalukiya Gurjars after Chaprana only chalukiya Gurjar took the throne in Gujarat and they referred as chalukiya of Gujarat & solanki

 Feniles (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Feniles: If this is about the content of an article, please discuss it on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the content of the article Samthar State, Feniles, then do so in Talk:Samthar State. If it's about Chavda dynasty, then do so in Talk:Chavda dynasty. If it's about a matter that's problematic in two or more articles, then bring it up in Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. -- Hoary (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

How to join a wikiproject group

Hi, im just wondering how do i join a wikiproject group because im interested in joining the wikiproject disney group Kaleeb18 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello,Kaleeb18. Just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney/Members and add your signature to the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 i am now a member — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleeb18 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description confusion

Hello yes I know this is the 3rd question I've asked today but I need clarification on this one! So on all the articles on the Pokemon games, the short description is very general (for example, on Pokemon Sword and Shield the short description is 2019 video games) and I thought that short descriptions were supposed to be short but still accurately describe the article. Looking at WP:SHORTDESC doesn't help as it doesn't really say whether or not a slightly longer (a little over 40 characters but not too over) but accurate description is preferred over a short (≥40 characters) but very general short description. So I have to know, is a short description that is short but very general preferred over one that might be slightly longer than the recommended limit but isn't very general. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You could have a look at Wikidata:Help:Description, which describes a very similar concept. Keep in mind that an important function of the description is disambiguation. Is there another topic that is similar to Pokemon Sword and Shield that could be mistaken for the 2019 video games? If there is, then you'd want a more comprehensive description. If it is enough to distinguish the similar articles, then a concise description suffices. Vexations (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean.. basically any video game made in 2019 could be mistaken for Pokemon Sword and Shield with its current description. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: You could amend the short description to 2019 Pokémon video games, which shouldn't go over 40 characters. Masters EX was also released in 2019, but I don't think that specific of a distinction needs to be made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say that year Pokemon video games would be a good short description for all the Pokemon game articles because none of the years only had a Pokemon game release (as far as I'm aware). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, numerous editors have already put a great amount of effort into augmenting the articles about Pokemon. No doubt further augmentations and improvements are possible, but I suspect that those readers who are interested in the details are well served elsewhere (by fan sites and so on). Meanwhile, few articles about cities are informative, well-developed, up to date, and free of more or less subtle advertising. Now you know where to find stuff about urban history, why not leave Pokemon coverage for younger editors and get stuck into something that's more important? -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Why can't I choose what I want to edit? I honestly don't appreciate being told that i shouldn't be editing in a certain category just because I could be doing something better. I like editing in my areas of interest which mostly include video games and some other things. I also don't really see how this answers my question. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, you are of course entirely welcome to edit where you want to edit; but very recently you gave the impression that this was, or that one such area was, urban history. If you're going to tackle urban history, then doing so will take time and concentration. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Honestly, that's something that I struggle with. I tend to jump around on what I'm wanting to do a lot, also I don't only edit in one specific area. As I said I edit in areas of interest and urban history is one of those. However and admittedly I probably shouldn't do this I tend to work on multiple projects at once, although I tend to just keep piling them on until I decide that I want to actually work on one of them. I'm not meaning to sound rude here or anything but, as you can tell from my userpage, I'm autistic and autism generally has symptoms of ADHD/ADD (although symptoms will vary from person to person) so I tend to have a short attention span (relatively speaking). This is kinda why I jump from topic to topic. I'm interested in one topic one moment and the next I'm interested in another. It's just kinda who I am and how I work. I understand that all people work differently and how I work on Wikipedia is that I work on multiple things at once, doing them little by little until I finish them. ....As I'm reading this it got way longer than I expected. Kinda shows how I jump from one thing to another. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't seen (or had forgotten having seen) your user page. Well, please do what you feel like doing. (As for me, I tend to have tunnel concentration: When I get stuck into some subject, I hardly notice anything else.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Honestly, sometimes I do get tunnel vision on one thing. I'm kind all over the place. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"2019 video games" sounds fine. One of the examples at Wikipedia:Short description#Inclusion of dates is "1981 arcade game". The description is not supposed to uniquely define the subject, and it's displayed together with the title so it doesn't need to repeat "Pokémon". If you want more detail then I suggest "2019 role-playing video games". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok! That's good to know. I thought that a short description was supposed to be short but also was supposed to accurately define the subject. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected talk page for User talk:AmandaNP

Why is User talk:AmandaNP semi-protected for (expect User talk:AmandaNP/IP, is not protected)? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:51E7:CFA0:7310:4F18 (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted on AmandaNP's IP talk page, "Because of vandals and illegitimate users posting messages to my talkpage, my talkpage has been protected and redirects you to post your message on the IP subpage. If you are a legitimate IP user attempting to contact me, my apologies, and I will be as prompt as I can in responding to your messages." 331dot (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For a similar reason, my user page is protected. I believe all user pages should be semi-protected by default. And I will protect anyone's user page by request of the owner, at a lesser protection level than the user's current editing rights (although one user asked me to protect his page so only administrators can edit it because he wanted his username to appear red and didn't want to edit his own page accidentally). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone help me to redirect ISO 4030 to Vehicle identification number?

I have recently found that Vehicle identification number has 2 standards, ISO 3779 and ISO 4030, which had been stated in the article. As I am an IP user, I cannot create new pages. I hope someone could help me to do this. Thank you. 14.0.180.66 (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit wrongly reverted as "not constructive"

My recent edit to CodeSignal was wrongly removed by RainbowLover334148 for not being constructive, but it's necessary because it fixes the link to Hired. 128.252.48.28 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I reverted my edit. Thanks for alerting me! RainbowLover334148 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

But Teahouse is for messages about article creation, editing and more. If you want to notify me when I made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page instead. RainbowLover334148 (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternative account

Hi. I want to make an alternative account of mine for legitimate use. Can anyone give me suggestions? Thanks.  ||  Orbit Wharf  ^💬 05:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Give it a name such as "Orbit Wharf (perturbed)" or "Orbit a Different Wharf" and then have each user page link to the other. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD Larry Fondren on my behalf

Hi. I saw a WP:COI article, Larry Fondren, edited by COI/paid editor User:Momer313 ​which fails our guidelines. Can anyone here may please nominate it with their own rationale or use mine, "WP:COI article recently edited by COI editor User:Momer313, clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. No real coverage was found about them in my WP:BEFORE". Thanks. 86.133.75.114 (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not me, because I'd feel obliged to read the damn thing and then do a bit of googling; and neither is attractive. All you need do is get a username and log in under that username; then you can do the whole process yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Somebody else is making edits from my IP Address!

Wikipedia told me that one of my edits was rejected, but I never made that edit! In fact, I saw that there are several other edits from me in the past, which I have no idea of! What is happening?

Is it possible for somebody else to have the same IP address as me? Is it possible that my internet security has been compromised? 122.161.48.85 (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Great question - thanks for bringing it to the Teahouse. :) IP addresses are often dynamic, which means that the Internet Service Provider you are using will give the same IP address to different people at different times. So right now you are on your current address, but tomorrow or next week you may be on a different IP. While it is assigned to you no one else can use it, but it may not stay assigned to you for long, and someone else may be given it next.

This makes the warnings we give a bit obsolete, as quite often the person we are warning never sees it, and instead the next person to use the IP address sees a warning for something they didn't do. (Which seems to be what happened to you). But don't worry - administrators know this is happening, so they are very unlikely to presume that you are the same person who was originally warned. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Building off of the above response, the easiest way to make sure you're not the one receiving the warnings is to create your own account and stay logged in. You are not obliged to contribute to the encyclopedia, but you won't get warnings unless they're specifically directed to you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Contribution delete request

I'm using Twinkle and I don't know what is AGF I tested them and end up saying good faith even if it's bad faith so please delete my recent revision to avoid confusion. It's urgent! RainbowLover334148 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@RainbowLover334148: Welcome to the Teahouse. Once an edit's been made, the edit summary generally stays there unless it's egregiously bad (like personal attacks and the such, which can be suppressed from an article's history). You could just make a dummy edit stating that the previous edit of yours wasn't a reversion made in good faith if it really bothers you. Alternatively, you can also undo your revert and use that edit summary to clarify what happened. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes to pictures

Is it legitimate to add footnotes to pictures? I see this in Byeonhan_confederacy but it is a little unorthodox for research papers or textbooks to do that. MGetudiant (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

MGetudiant, when I read your question, I thought it was about appending footnote links to pictures – which might be a reasonable thing to do. But I see it's about using footnotes which are pictures (from Commons). Yes, that is weird. I've no idea whether there's a relevant Wikipedia policy. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments but not an RFC

Hello! So I'm currently trying to establish a consensus for a list criteria on a list and i"m wondering what I can do to try and get more input outside of just posting it on the talk page and hoping someone notices it. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: You could post a request on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages inviting them to participate in the article talk page discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Alright, how exactly would i post said request? Is there a special template I should use? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Presuming you're referring to Talk:List of Nintendo video game series, you could create a new section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games with something like "Hello! I'm looking for some guidance on list criteria for List of Nintendo video game series. Could you please share your thoughts at Talk:List of Nintendo video game series#Talk criteria? Thanks!" (There might be a template, but sometimes writing a few sentences is faster than going template hunting.) Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Alright thanks! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf See WP:APPNOTE i you haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Create article about an umpire

I wanna write an article about a Bangladeshi cricket umpire. Can you please tell me where I can practice first? RidoanMac2 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RidoanMac2 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks to attempt to perform on Wikipedia. Diving right into it without experience and knowledge can result in frustration and hurt feelings as things that are not understood happen to something that hours were spent on. I would suggest first using the new user tutorial and spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.

That said, if you still wish to proceed, you should review Your First Article and gather at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this umpire, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable cricket figure(I assume you refer to a cricket umpire). If you have that, you may create and submit a draft using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to practice before creating your draft at Articles for Creation, you have a personal sandbox, User:RidoanMac2/sandbox. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Could we perhaps have an article on maneuvering through different Microsoft-Word like applications?

I think this would be an important article to have due to some people having a lack of understanding how these work. Sometimes a video on these just wont cut it. If you agree with me feel free to make some, my time is rather limited in light of a new year of schooling so I likely will have trouble making more than 2 in my free time. 50.228.134.2 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide on using various products like software. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you might be getting Wikipedia confused with a similarly named (although completely different and unrelated) website called Wikihow, which is a website dedicated to creating how-to guides for things, unlike Wikipedia. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe

hi there, im just wandering how the Draft:Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe is looking so far and what looks good and what i need to change. Kaleeb18 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Please look at Wikipedia:Golden rule. Your draft doesn't meet any of the criteria. The only review is a blog, you're citing another wiki, and the rest of the citations are either just directory listings or the establishment's own website. You have demonstrated only that the establishment exists, not that it is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me find good references please Kaleeb18 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tried, and found nothing. Maproom (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: I don't believe there are good references for Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe. I searched newspapers.com and found several articles about visiting Magic Kingdom, with brief mentions of eating at the cafe; then I went to Google Books and found a couple of mentions of the cafe being in the theme park. I could find no references for when the cafe was built, no description of its appearance, and no true restaurant review stating the merits of eating there, as opposed to going to any of the other eating establishments at the park.

I see that Disneyland's Golden Horseshoe Saloon article has had a template since 2009 stating it needs additional citations, but it's not wise to try to follow the lead of unsourced articles. If no one has been able to improve that article in the past 11 years it would appear that Disney theme park restaurants just don't get enough coverage in articles and books to become notable enough for a proper Wikipedia article. Karenthewriter (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well thank you for looking @karenthewriter Kaleeb18 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

How to become a host of Teahouse

Can you give us more info about becoming a host of Wikipedia:Teahouse? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:51E7:CFA0:7310:4F18 (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! Anyone can become a host at this page, although it has a few requirements - understanding how Wikipedia and the Teahouse works, and having a registered account that's 30 days old with 500 edits. Thank you for your question! Vukky ^talk•_edits 10:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

From the "Become a Host" box at the top of Teahouse: Are you...

• An editor who understands how Wikipedia works?
• Helpful to new people, with a clear and friendly manner?
• Familiar with the Teahouse project?
• Someone who has been here for at least 30 days and has made around 500 mainspace edits?
• Happy to follow our simple 'host expectations'?

I will add: Have near-infinite patience when answering the same beginners' questions over and over again. David notMD (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, can you review my draft? Panini!^🥪 14:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: This would've been a bit more appropriate to ask on David's talk page. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf I'm just pulling some legs. New users ask the Teahouse to review their drafts a lot. Panini!^🥪 15:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I thought you were legitimately asking them to review your draft. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a specific notability criteria for academic journals?

Curious to know about this. We do have a criteria for academics that is distinct from GNG. How do we decide for journals? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: there's this old essay on the topic: WP:NJOURNALS - Astrophobe (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have said though that in terms of hard policy, and certainly in actual practice, what's used in my (limited) experience is GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

:: Hey, thanks for sharing Astrophobe. Sounds like WP:NMEDIA. Pretty vague but still something! WP:GNG is of course overarching. Was wondering if there is something additional. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it offers anything above WP:NMEDIA :) - Astrophobe (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) presents a set of eight criteria, Nomadicghumakkad. If any one criterion among them is met, the person is notable. I suspect that attempting to create something more or less similar for academic journals would additionally bring in factors discussed in Wikipedia:Notability (books), and all in all become a monstrous time-sink and bore. Why would anyone want to embark on this: is WP:GNG inadequate? -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That looks a lot like the edit history of WP:NJOURNALS! - Astrophobe (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hoary, this is a new area I am thinking to explore. What's happening is this: for my own research papers and academic writing, I am diving deep these days and whenever I see a journal, I start to wonder if I should cite it or not (Wiki reliability and notability policies have started to dictate how I approach my research now!!!). And hence, I started wondering if there was some focus on this in past. Wiki project is so full of surprises. You think of something and mostly, it has already been thought of and is present. So yes, sort of went with that. WP:GNG - well, I would think same way one would think of academics. Why would typical news write about academic journals (unless there is a scandal maybe?!). Sorry for long convoluted answer. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: Maybe I misunderstand you, but a journal does not need to be notable in order for you to cite it. It only needs to be notable if you want to create an article about that journal. RudolfRed (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You are right RudolfRed! I know that; but because of Wiki, my mind is attuned to sort of pick only 'high quality' journals. Need to get over my wiki syndrome outside wikipedia. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, the article Journal ranking may help you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary; I think this is what I have been looking for! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: One more small point. While there are certainly infinite criteria (if you're considering, well, EVERYTHING), there is no such thing as "a" criteria. There is certainly "a criteriON." Uporządnicki (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Games Considered the Greatest of All Time

Hello, so I am looking to add to the listing mentioned in the Subject field above. Thing is, I don't know what makes a particular publisher reputable or not. I don't think it would make sense for me to use a local school's newspaper as a source. Any advice on what to consider when evaluating a source's credibility? Hero Mask (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Hero Mask! I assume you're referring to List of video games considered the best? If so, some of the users of this site created and maintain a list of news sites and all the alike that are considered the most reliable and high quality ones out there. You can view that list here. It also covers what makes sources reliable and unreliable. Hope this helps what you're looking for! Panini!^🥪 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

When will Wikipedia be completed?

I am curious about the prospective completion date of Wikipedia, as I very much look forward to its publication as a collection of printed volumes.

Is there any guidance as to when this can be expected?

Thanks 88.109.141.241 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

There is indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Print Wikipedia is worth reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@IP user. You may be interested in downloading the whole of Wikipedia to create your own collection of printed volumes (or for any other purpose). The instructions are to be found at WP:Dump. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You will need a LOT of memory storage. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Pretty much never :/

Well, I guess at the very least, we will have to wait until the very last person ever to have an article about him or her in Wikipedia--now or in the future--dies. Or when there's nothing left to discover in any field of learning-and it's all in Wikipedia, to boot. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

All that we giant brains have to do after completing our Infosphere is to destroy the rest of the universe so that no new, unrecorded knowledge can arise. Deor (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

In short Wikipedia will never be completed as long as time continues (or at least, until Wikipedia is forced to shut down or just dies out). As long as there is new information that can be added to Wikipedia, it will continue to grow and grow. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Meena clans of Rajasthan

The Meena tribe of Rajasthan ruled the whole of Rajasthan. Rulers of the tribes of Meena tribe like: - Alan Singh Meena on Jaipur and Bunda Meena on Bundi etc. Still, why our attention is not focused on the tribes of Meenas like:- Chanda, Sera, and Narla etc. I am slowly bringing to the fore the history of all the tribes of the Meena tribe of Rajasthan. So that they can also be discussed in Wikipedia. The Meenas founded Amer city and Bundi city etc. Karsan Chanda (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Welcome to the Teahouse! Every editor is free to edit the articles they choose. I wish you much success in your efforts to expand Wikipedia. Do you have a specific question we can help you with? GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Create this category and add it to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karsan Chanda (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Uhm, is that an order? Uporządnicki (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Welcome to the Teahouse! The proper place to request new categories is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Help Changing Image

Need help to update an image file currently on wikipedia, not uploaded by me. Bpay1264 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bpay1264, Hello! Depends very much on the context, can you be more specific? For example, we can almost never use random pics from the internet, because copyright. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Can you please provide the link to the image? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

{{pp-move}} doesn't have a topicon

The template {{pp-move}} does not show a topicon despite being intended to, such as on Ivory Coast. This might just be a rendering issue on my chromebook, though. dudhhr_Contribs 14:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dudhhr: The template doesn't display anything on Ivory Coast because Ivory Coast isn't protected - the template checks if the page has any protection applied then picks the correct icon. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Weird, since the move option doesn't show up on the More tab like it usually does. dudhhr_Contribs 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I checked the prot log and it's indefinitely move-protected. dudhhr_Contribs 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hang on, it's me being thick, it is move protected, it was just the edit protection that was set to expire. Sorry. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say the same. RedWarn doesn't recognize the indefinite move protection, however Twinkle does so it is definitely move protected. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

In case you're still wondering, not displaying an icon for move protection is intentional, a decision made a very long time ago to reduce the clutter of icons - since it really doesn't matter to most readers or editors. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This discussion? Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October_25#Template:Pp-move 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Providing archive link in an article talk page

Hello, I'd like some input from more experienced editors. I came across an article talk page, where other people in the past posted a link to an external site (forum), which doesn't meet verifiability or reliable source criteria, but it was shared as an informative resource about what was discussed at the article talk page. The linked material is no longer accessible through the originally provided link, but a Google cache snapshot of it can be accessed through the Wayback Machine. I want to follow up on the talk page to provide a link to the archive, so that editors can see what has been discussed, and I want to make sure that doing so wouldn't be violating some policy or guidelines. Could I please get an independent insight on that? Thanks! 89.176.230.207 (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard of the Wayback Machine archiving Google caches. I think you're referring to Wayback's copies of regular web pages (without Google as an intermediary). In talk pages, the majority of pages may be linked to. Two kinds that may not are described in WP:ELNEVER. If a page, when still "live", would at a given time have belonged to the acceptable majority, then the Wayback copy of it would also belong to the acceptable majority. (Note that "WP:ELNEVER" is not exhaustive. So for example somebody linking to a "shock sites", or to the Wayback copy of a shock site, can expect to get clobbered for disruptive editing.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The external link posted by this IP was to an anonymous discussion board that they tried to use as a source in article space. When told they couldn't use it they got combative. The link they posted is no longer accessible because the discussion forum changed their security settings, which this user is now trying to circumvent by grabbing a copy from the wayback machine. So, technically possible, but questionable ethically. And for something that was never usable or appropriate. This IP, under multiple IPs and a named account, tried to use these anonymous message board comments to try and counter RS sourced content in article space. Trying to keep this inappropriate content connected to the article by violating those forum members' privacy is inappropriate and disruptive. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no desire to try and resolve this dispute here (I also didn't bring it up here - I merely wanted to go to extra lengths to make sure that I wasn't inadvertently violating some policy that I wasn't aware about), but I feel like I need to correct personal claims about me that aren't true, and frankly, that I don't believe belong here at all. I didn't get combative; I admit I reacted inappropriately once at my talk page, but I admitted that was a mistake, and I apologized for that. But regarding the edit itself, I never edit-varred, and when I got reverted, I tried to talk and discuss. I don't think explaining my justifications for why I think my edit is valid can possibly be qualified as being combative.

The claim that I used multiple IPs, and a named account, to edit anything, is completely false, and I have absolutely no idea why CorbieVreccan now spreads this falsehood. I never used any other IP than this one, or any named account, to make any edit to the article, its talk page, or to interact with CorbieVreccan in any way. I would like to ask CorbieVreccan to stop making personal attacks and false accusations against me. I am ready and willing to talk to justify my edits, explain why I made them in good faith, why I still think the talk page edit is appropriate, but I don't think any of this dispute belongs here, and I ask CorbieVreccan to stop bringing this here, and to continue this on appropriate talk pages. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, as IP is forum-shopping: On an IP with only a few edits, the user blanked a welcome message with the edit summary: 'I have been editing Wikipedia for years and I am not interested in your "welcome"', and inserted text into an ongoing discussion to preserve an edit added by an IP in the same region. That IP had edited a comment made by the named account that first added the link this IP added the wayback version of. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Manner of publishing biography in wikipedia

I am going to publish a piece of biography of a guy who is active in the field of Visual Effect (VFX), for which I wanna cite some reliable sources, but wikipedia did not permit me to do so, you are kindly requested to help me in this regard AmirhDanesh (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

First, the draft Draft:Farid Nazerfasihi has been declined five times. The decline notices must stay with the draft. Only after the fourth decline did you add refs into the body of the draft. Of the refs, IMDb is not allowed, and of the others, the few I looked were only mentions of his name, i.e., not having several paragraphs about him. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos

Would I be allowed to upload my own photos to Commons or Wikipedia? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: That is basically what Commons is for, as long as the photos have use on Wikipedia. Only the copyright holder of a photo can grant permission for the Wikimedia Foundation to use it under an acceptable free license (or declare it public domain). Note that a photo of you is likely not owned by you. The photographer owns the copyright, not the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

How do people do the "conservation status" thing in the taxobox? Is there a specific coding? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you read Template:Taxobox#Conservation status? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:R from grammar correction and Template:R to grammar correction

May I create these templates? Faster than Thunder (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What type of redirects will they correspond to? Ruslik_Zero 20:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

My guess would be redirects that came from a page move to correct spelling or grammar in the article title. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: If spelling, we have Template:R from misspelling. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page for a Cultural Center

Hi, I'm typing this in order to ask, how I can go by creating a page for a cultural center here in Quebec, I'm not very familiar with the rules that Wikipedia uses, as well as how to go about navigating the website in order to create the page. KabirCentre (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, KabirCentre. Creating a new article is quite challenging. Please read and study Your first article. Your username is also a problem since it seems to be the name of the center in question. Usernames representing a group or organization are not permitted so you should change your name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello @KabirCentre and welcome to Wikipedia. While theoretically possible, it may not be in practice. Thanks for asking first, it can save you time and effort.

Start with looking at WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, WP:GNG and WP:NORG. And WP:COI.

Still want to spend time on this? Then we have a rule that says you must change your username (WP:ORGNAME), you can have a username like "Kim at KabirCentre" if you want the orgname in there. Just abandon your account and make a new one.

Next, move on to WP:YFA. This should get you started. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

At risk of piling on KabirCentre, I will point out that if you (or anyone) manage to create an article about (rather than a "page for") the center, the article will not belong to the center, will not be controlled by the center, will not necessarily say what the center wants it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the center have chosen to publish about it. 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. I also always advise new editors to spend several months "learning the trade" by improving some of our six million existing articles before they try something as difficult as creating a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization question

Hello! It has been awhile since I've added a page from scratch. Just now I created a page for the artist Judith Roode, but when I started the page I accidentally left her last name lower case. Is there a way to fix this? When I try to edit the page, I am able to edit the content body, but not the header at the very top of the page.

Any help is greatly appreciated! Thank you!

JS Craftlibrarian (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Craftlibrarian: Welcome to the Teahouse! I have moved the article from Judith roode to Judith Roode for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftlibrarian (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Intrested in a WikiProject anyone?

I want to create a WikiProject about Science, Nature and Eco-Life. Anyone interested in working with me please? FireToWater (Let's Talk!) 18:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@FireToWater: Welcome to the Teahouse! The folks at WP:WikiProject Science, WP:WikiProject Nature, and WP:WikiProject Ecology might be interested in learning more about your new WikiProject. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks, I will ask about my Project there. Happy editing ("redirected" from same to you)! FireToWater (Let's Talk!) 21:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-editor providing content for experienced Wikipedian to evaluate

Content Suggestions from non Wikipedians I have registered to edit, however after doing so I learned that my content contributions could be a COI issue. There are categories and content that belong in the pickleball page, and rather than becoming an experienced editor for a subject that I should not post under due to my COI, I'm hoping to find a simple way of passing along content for evaluation by existing pickleball page editors. Can I do that through email, or posting to an external page and sharing the link? Please help me to find the appropriate person/people and a simple way I can pass info along to let the professionals determine what belongs. Thanks! InformationPower (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@InformationPower: Post your suggested changes at Talk:Pickleball along with {{edit request}}. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir Edward Crosbie's Infobox

Please could someone tell me whether it is possible to adapt a basic Infobox in order to include some elements not normally included? Sir Edward is a special case - hanged and beheaded for a crime he did not commit. His page is here: Sir Edward Crosbie, 5th Baronet and the items I would like to include are emboldened here: User:Arbil44/sandbox#Infobox information copied from the CA page (because those elements were critical in his death sentence). Anne (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Arbil44, As I understand it, we can only use the parameters at Template:Infobox person, unless the template itself is changed, which requires discussion at Template talk:Infobox person. Religion seems specifically forbidden: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes. Template:Infobox military person has the allegience parameter, but I don't think that helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, there may be something called a "custom parameter", but I have no idea how that works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, many thanks for your advice. I will take my question to Template talk:Infobox person in the hope that some exceptions may be possible in special cases! Anne (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Mary Roseanne Katzke

I just updated this page: Mary Roseanne Katzke, and none of the links I added work. I read about how to do it and it seemed to work during the edit but....no. How can I fix them? WriterMouse (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

WriterMouse If you mean wiki links, I think a few of them are going to be faulty due to how you've used the wiki markup. Anything just within square brackets (like [[this]]) is going to be treated as the title of an article, so if you include things like double-apostrophes in order to display as italics, they have to be outside the brackets (like ''[[this]]'', not [[''this'']]). The same is true of possessives, so add any 's after the brackets rather than inside them. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing If I'm Autoconfirmed?

Is there a way to tell whether I'm autoconfirmed? Is there a notification or something I should be getting? Martystlouis21 (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Martystlouis21 The quickest way to check is under your preferences (Special:Preferences), where you should see a list of all usergroups you're a member of. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Name calling

I edited a page that was wrong and simply corrected it. Fellow editors agreed with me more. How to deal with issues like this that come up? Alchemist757 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Alchemist757 If there are any disagreements over changes to articles, the best place for discussion is on the talk page of that article. The basic principle of making changes here is what we call BRD—which means that if you make a change, and someone reverts it, the next step is to discuss your change in order to propose it again. If it's for one article, use that article's page; if it's something affecting several related articles then perhaps a wikiproject might be the best avenue, and those can be found by the looking at the talk pages of the articles too. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You edited six articles about Norse mythology and all of your edits were Reverted. David notMD (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alchemist757: Since all of your edits have been reverted, and your initial question above suggests English may not be your first language (you said the opposite of what you meant), I recommend that for the time being, you suggest edits on the article talk pages and discuss them there first. You will find that other editors are friendly if they think you are trying to contribute, and not create more work to maintain the articles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete request for changing username

Hi. I've made a request for changing my username. How I delete the request. Is there any way? Thanks.  ||  Orbit Wharf  ^💬 16:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Orbit Wharf: What do you mean by delete? If you wish to withdraw it just leave a comment there asking for it to be withdrawn. If you mean that the request has been acted on then it'll be archived automatically, you don't need to do anything. Be aware that renames are publicly logged, it is basically impossible to hide previous account names. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.78: Yeah. I want to withdraw the request. Thank you so much!  ||  Orbit Wharf  ^💬 04:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How to move draft to article

Hello Every Editor or seniors, please suggest or guide me for how to move my draft Draft:Kumbharacha Ganpati to article. Thank You Rajmama (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Rajmama Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted your draft for review and it is pending. If accepted, it will be moved into the encyclopedia by the reviewer. This may take time, so patience is required. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Rajmama. IMDb and YouTube are not reliable sources so your draft will likely get denied. You should add independent reliable sources to prove the notability of this film, see WP:NFILM. Eevee01^(talk) 10:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Set me to the asking question part in the Chinese-language Wikipedia to avoid blocking me as the status in the Chinese-language Wikipedia is indeed different from other-language Wikipedia

Hello. I would like to ask you for this thing:

As the situation of my editing of pages in the Chinese-language Wikipedia is indeed too different from other-language Wikipedia, could you please never let the Chinese-language Wikipedia block me, and please bring me to the question part of the Chinese-language Wikipedia?

Thank you. 548asiaslavia (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

548asiaslavia As explained to you above, issues with other language versions of wikipedia need to be brought up there; if you have blocking concerns on the Chinese-language wikipedia then you must raise them on the Chinese-language wikipedia. Only issues with the English-language wikipedia can be addressed here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you please bring me to the question part in the Chinese-language Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 548asiaslavia (talk • contribs)

I'm not familiar with any Chinese language enough to find such a page, but I would suggest that if you also are unfamiliar enough to find it then perhaps a Chinese-language site is not advisable for editing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Both the Teahouse and the Help Desk have links to Chinese versions of those pages under their 'Languages' sections (here and here). What's actually at the other end of those links, I have no idea. Whether you can post there if your account is blocked, I also don't know. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 15:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Plot too long

I have found a page where episodes descriptions are too long. I would like to add a warning saying it should be trimmed down but don't know where to find it. Thanks in advance. The article is question is American Epic (film series). Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You could probably use this tag. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy—{{Long plot}} is probably the best one to use, but also don't be afraid to make any changes you feel are necessary too. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing an article image

Is it possible to change an article image if a better picture becomes available on Wikimedia commons? What are the rules around changing a picture as the old one is still valid, just not as good. Naturally its subjective but I'd like to know the guidelines. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Occastionalpedestria: See Wikipedia:Be bold. Go right ahead if there is a better image. If the previous image is still useful, find somewhere else in the article to put it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Do sandbox pages show up on your profile?

This is a simple question, do they show up on your profile? I want to try the sandbox page out but I am worried what I put in my sandbox page is shown to the entire public when I don't really want to share my sandbox page with others. AlexEditsWikipedia (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AlexEditsWikipedia. Every edit you make shows up in your edit history, and no page on Wikipedia is private. This is an open, collaborative project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@AlexEditsWikipedia: If you wish to use your sandbox to practice editing, you can do that and use the "preview" button to see how the edits will look when rendered from the Wiki markup. You don't need to ever hit the "publish" button (which saves the page) and can instead copy out the raw text to save in an offline program such as notepad. That way, no-one will ever see your work until your choose to do so. You can set Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing to Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary) and thus make it unlikely that you could accidentally publish something you don't want to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AlexEditsWikipedia. As Cullen says, everything in Wikipedia is public (including in most cases all its history). But only articles are indexed by external search engines, so what is in your sandbox should not turn up in any searches unless the person is using Wikipedia's internal search mechanism and they tell it to search user space. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Guide needed in publishing my movie's page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Choo_Mandhirakaali The page was declined by Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla & he mentioned that there was not enough reliable references, So I have added more than 10 reliable references. But still the page is not live. Looks like Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla is blocked now. Please guide me on publishing the page Annam Medias (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Annammedias: Welcome to the Teahouse! Even though the first reviewer has been blocked, another user will review your draft. While you are waiting, you can keep working on the draft (e.g. ensuring each reference has a valid |title=, |work= or |publisher=, and |language=/|trans-title= for non-English sources). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Annammedias. I see you have made a paid editing declaration with respect to Annam Medias; but you refer to "my movie", and you have not made such a declaration in respect of Draft:Choo Mandirakaali. You also need to change your user name (or abandon that account and create a new one), as usernames that imply that they are representing an organisation are not permitted. Note also that if the article is accepted it will not be your article, will not be under your control, and will not necessarily say what you want it to say. While your draft is not egregiously promotional, it does tend that way. In particular, you cite a review (the Times of India one) without mentioning any of its criticisms (though one of them is there in the title). That is not what we require in a neutral encyclopaedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A comment, not a question

I started in August and some type of robot gave a warm welcoming message. But that was the robot. The actual interactions I have had with established users have been less than welcoming, less than knowledgeable, and often uninformed on their part. In particular the article review process. I started an article on Museums of Florence, not knowing about the "underconstruction flag" because that is how it is done in the Italian Wikipedia. Articles are started and then gradually improved. After move to draft space, it soon became clear that the reviewers were just typing policy names, not knowing what the policies were. I had to explain what WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:NOTESSAY etc. are. I am not kidding, the reviewers did not object to my explanations that they were quoting incorrect policies. They just quoted other incorrect policies! The reality is that Wikipedia is under assault by people who want to build pages for themselves, their dog or their cousin. So the page review process is a boxing match, with reviewers who are fed up, tired and careless. So to be realistic, you people need to tone down the robot and instead warn people that English Wikipedia is a type of fight, with angry page reviewers who have had to fight about pages about pets, cousins and dogs. The tea house robot message was far from real, for all I have seen. Ode+Joy (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Ode+Joy

@Ode+Joy: Reviewers aren't citing the correct policies? If that's true then how on Earth did they become reveiwers? Also, English Wikipedia isn't a fight. It's a team project. I agree that bots welcoming users instead of humans isn't all that great as you can't ask bots questions about things because, well, they're bots. If you'd like help you can ask me on my talk page as I'd be more than willing to help you. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: That is it right: "how on Earth did they become reviewers?" On your talk page, I will give exact, I mean exact examples of how they quoted incorrect policies. Ode+Joy (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ode+Joy: Alright, make sure to provide diffs. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ode+Joy: "Articles are started and then gradually improved." I too thought the same.

Wikipedia is under assault by people who want to build pages for themselves, their dog or their cousin. I have reviewed many drafts, Ode+Joy, perhaps not always as conscientiously as I should, but I haven't yet encountered any that was about anybody's pet. Otherwise, yes, true. Please add "their esteemed fathers and grandfathers" (yes, there's a considerable gender bias) and "the obscure creators of paintings they've somehow inherited and might be persuaded to sell", and much else. But reviewing drafts seldom if ever makes me angry. (Of course, somebody might claim that I'm in denial about my anger.) Yes, Wikipedia is awful in various ways, but we all knew that already. ¶ Blaze The Wolf: Reviewers aren't citing the correct policies? If that's true then how on Earth did they become reveiwers? I became a draft reviewer by eyeballing this, deciding that I qualified, and possibly skimreading chapter 1 of Wikipedia Reviewing for Dummies. Nobody tested me on my knowledge of policies. I haven't made any systematic review of others' reviews, but I get the impression that I warmly agree with perhaps 70% and disagree with perhaps 10%. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: What so you can just sign up to become a draft reviewer? I thought you actually had to go through a review process as you needed specific tools to do so. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I agree with the " Wikipedia is awful in various ways" part. But anyway, the entire mess has made me decide to quit. I will not be drinking tea here, due to the behavior of JBchrch who started the mess, Salimfadhley (The Man Who Knew Too Little) and specially Timtrent whose Afd statement was far from intelligent. The process is awful, as you said, and I do not get anything out of it. The is no reason to edit here. Good bye. Ode+Joy (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, Ode+Joy, one reason might be to improve the article on the museums of Florence. The enjoyment thus derived might even outweigh the (awful) awfulness. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Salimfadhley and Timtrent see above FYI in case this escalates to WP:ANI or wherever. JBchrch talk 12:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with me. Thanks for the pointer @JBchrch Salimfadhley (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch Interesting. It will go where it will go. Thank you for the heads up Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock my account in the Ukrainian-language and Bulgarian-language Wikipedia

Hello. As I have been not editing any pages in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia for more than a month, and the Bulgarian-language Wikipedia recently blocked upon me, I would like to seek you for this thing:

As I gonna begin editing the page Хадіс Кудсі (Hadith Qudsi) in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia soon, could you discuss with the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia to unblock me, so that I can begin with the pages such as Хадіс Кудсі and Нела Мала Репортерка (Nela the Little Reporter)? I have been not editing any in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia for more than a month. And even, I would like to create pages in various languages especially on Nela the Little Reporter. So, could you please discuss with the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia to unblock me and my account so that I can begin with that?

Thank you. 548asiaslavia (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

548asiaslavia Unblock requests should be made on the wikipedia for which the block is active; admins on one wikipedia may not have the same abilities elsewhere and so cannot action these requests. If you wish to be unblocked on the Ukrainian-language wikipedia then that is where you need to make your request. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Just me, or does this have echoes of a previously indef blocked editor with a new account? I just looked, but could not find the earlier Teahouse exchanges or AIN. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought, David notMD. I think the relevant SPI is here. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 14:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Left a note at the editor who had completed the SPI. David notMD (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How to comment on talk pages

Hello, I was wondering how to add a comment in the talk page of an article. Could you tell me how to do this? Thanks for your time. Aythya affinis (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Aythya affinis The good news is that it's as simple as making this question was. On the article's talk page, just click the "edit" button and add your comment wherever it is relevant. If it's a new topic you want to add, rather than a reply to one already there, just add a heading to the top of it by using some equals signs, like ==this== and that's about it. Good luck editing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Grapple X . Aythya affinis (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How to unprotect page

Hello guys, can anyone please tell me how to unprotect a page. There is two pages named Dance Plus (season 6) and Dance Plus have been semi-protected by an editor.This article gets vandalized repeatedly by the same IPv6 range and I believe this would be good to stop that. the protection prevents the page from being updated with relevant and important information. Most of the frequent editors are non-extended editors confirmed users so this page has been neglected and is Missing lot of up-to-date information since the protection is increased — Preceding unsigned comment added by SparksMania (talk • contribs) 10:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@SparksMania, the articles were protected for one month on October 11 because "Persistent sock puppetry". You can request the protection to be lifted at WP:RFPP. Editors who are affected by the protection can suggest changes at the article talkpage. Or wait until they are WP:AUTOCONFIRMed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

[1] I had a feeling. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Árpád Doppler

This page cites no sources and I can't find any notable coverage. However, since it is a composer from Germany in the 19th century, I wasn't sure what the rules are for notability. Would this be one to nominate for deletion? Thank you! FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

FiddleheadLady A quick search over Google Books seems to exclusively pull up directory-style entries rather than anything dedicated solely to him in any depth; likewise his German and Hungarian-language pages are just as spartan as ours. As there seems to be a page for his father, perhaps a merge might be in order if he's perhaps more notable, but I think AFD would be justifiable. Additionally, asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers might bring up someone with more specialist knowledge on finding or judging sources in that field. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I have published to the group's discussion page and will nominate it now. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Creating Templates

How would I create a template? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Like any other page. Please, see Help:A quick guide to templates for details. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: If you let us know what kind of template you would like to create, we might be able to give you more detailed information (or maybe even point you to an existing template). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

One of those "stub" templates, like, say, "This Vespoidea-related article is a stub...", but I want to make them even more specific, like, say, "This Genus Anoplius related article is a stub..." or "This tribe Clytini (a subgroup of Clytinae) related article so on and so on". Cerambycidfreak (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to identify the template you want to emulate, look at the code for it, and see where to make the changes you need—so in your example, find a stub template similar to what you want, and you can see where to change the taxonomic names to match what your intended output is. I would suggest having a look at how many pages you think such a template might be useful for first too; it would obviously save you a lot of work if you found out before making anything that it might only go on a small handful of pages. {{Vespoidea-stub}} looks like a very simple template that already uses an existing template and should be easy to adapt to new uses as well, so good luck getting started. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ: I disagree with your reply. Stub category pages such as Category:Vespoidea stubs state: "Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation."

@Cerambycidfreak: Before creating a new stub template, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, I had never really worked with stub sorting before and assumed being bold was the norm. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

'Data Deficient' not shown in the NZ Threat Classification System graphic

In the graphic in the species box under the NZ Threat Classification System [status_system = NZTCS] there is no graphic for 'Data Deficient'. This is an important classification, especially for species that are likely critically endangered but haven't been researched.

Can 'Data Deficient' be added to the NZTCS graphic? Apburns (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Apburns, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to ask this is in the Talk page Template talk:Speciesbox, or perhaps at the talk page of a more specific template that that calls. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Apburns I'm not really sure that there is an argument for adding an extra DD category to either the IUCN or the NZ threat classifications graphics. Your edit seems to have successfully added DD in a grey circle under status2, whilst retaining the CR status from the main IUCN status categorisation. So what is it that you want that's different?

As Data Deficient isn't a category in its own right (more a lack of any categorisation through lack of information, and thus no evaluation), I doubt it would help adding DD into the NZ scale at any given point between Extinct to Not Threatened. To me, the IUCN Classification of CR along the threat scale, followed by New Zealand's DD circular graphic on its own seems to work to communicate the current uncertainty quite effectively. But maybe I'm missing something you could explain? I'll happily ping a NZ editor I know who does a tremendous amount with species on both wikidata and wikipedia if you care to explain a little further first. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thank you, that answers my question. I was wondering if this was something that needed to be added but I think you're right - if there is a grey circle there that says 'data deficient' it conveys the information that a conservation status has been assessed (and it has been decided that there is not enough information) and not that the status is just missing from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apburns (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Images

Hi there! How do I add an image that already exists on one article to another article? LivingInTwilight (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@LivingInTwilight: First, you would click on the image to determine if the licensing will allow you use the image on another article. If so, click "Edit source" on the first article, find the image code, copy it, and paste it into the second article. If you share the name of the two articles and describe the image, we can give more details. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for your response! The two articles are Pyotr Demichev and List of heads of state of the Soviet Union. There is only one image on the Pyotr Demichev page and I would like to copy it in the table in the section “List of vice heads of state”, where his name is. Can this be done? LivingInTwilight (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@LivingInTwilight: I added another {{Non-free use rationale}} to File:Pyotr Demichev.jpg, and then added the image to List of heads of state of the Soviet Union in this edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:R from sounding

This template should be used in the Redirect Category Shell of a redirect. It redirects from the sounding of a title to the actual title. For example, Kyrgyztan becomes Kyrgyzstan. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder: Welcome to the Teahouse! I would use {{R from misspelling}} instead, to encourage people to correct any article with the misspelled link. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Editing an article on an outdated/defunct mobile app

How should I handle an article about a mobile app that is defunct (not in the App Store any more and its website is gone)? Is there a tag I should use or specific wordings I should add to the article? Aithus (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aithus: You could add a sentence to the article that says the app is no longer available, along with a citation to a source. No need to tag the article. RudolfRed (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks for your clear and concise guidance. Aithus (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Media wiki

What is the official channel for irc chat for media wiki? 106.211.131.9 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! The main IRC channel for MediaWiki is #mediawiki on libera.chat. There are guidelines and lists of the official channels for MediaWiki and all of Wikimedia. ClaudineChionh (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Desloge

Two reviewers reviewed Draft:Christopher Desloge and declined it. I declined it both for questions of notability and for tone reasons, because it was written to praise its subject. User:Wikidesloge, who probably is the subject of the draft, has posted a lengthy statement on my talk page explaining why the article meets notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Christopher_Desloge,_author,_historian_article

It is not entirely clear whether they are writing about a draft on a person or a draft about a book; but the draft is about the person. I would appreciate any comments from other experienced editors. In particular, if the subject is biographically notable, should a neutral editor rework this puff piece into something encyclopedic? I personally think that it is clear that the author needs to leave it alone. Either they are notable, but they can't write neutrally about themselves; or they are not notable. Thank you for any comments by other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The article creator posted the same lengthy (!) justification as a comment on the draft page and on the Talk page of the article. Likely does not understand that you as a Declining reviewer are one-and-done with the draft. I am of the opinion that if this is a draft about a person (and I agree, very likely autobiographical), then there is far too much detail on the books he has authored. Also, what are apparently efforts by him and others to preserve a hospital building named after his ancestors does not convey notability to him. David notMD (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add that the creating editor, after your Declined, added content with refs that do not meet W's definition of reliable sources, to wit, a laudatory quotation in a private letter from an academic to the editor. I assume this will be submitted again, and declined again. Not your problem. David notMD (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add also that the Desloge history books appear to have been self-published, and that much of the description in the draft of the first book is word-for-word match to the book description at Amazon (ref #2). David notMD (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The draft has already been resubmitted. Someone will probably decline it a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It has been declined. The criticism is correct and warranted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I declined it. That was an easy decision, though the thought of rejecting it did occur to me. A further submission that shows no significant improvement (in term's of WP's criteria) could I think be taken to mean that the subject-matter isn't conducive to an article, and therefore to rejection. Incidentally, I warmly agree with part of Anachronist's comment there, but warmly disagree with Anachronist's "Notability claims about books are irrelevant in a biography article, which is about a person." The notability of a writer (or anyway a writer who has no other occupation and is not a "personality") derives from the notability (as evidenced from reliable, independent, published sources, of course) of their books. Or so I believed when for example augmenting the article Morris Bishop. Nothing writer-specific about this, I think: I imagine that the notability of a footballer derives from the notability (as evidenced blah blah) of the football they (have) played; so a footballer (let's say) may be notable despite a lack of (reliably sourced!) product "endorsements", political misadventures, tweet-storms, sartorial disasters, weight fluctuations, DUI convictions, ill-advised trysts with teenagers, etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: As far as I know, books don't work like albums. Wikipedia cannot have an article about a record album without having an article about the artist first. Not so with books. A book can get a lot of reviews while the author gets none. This happened in a draft I submitted about a book author once; the reviewer suggested I recast it about one of his books (which was a best-seller) because absolutely no coverage could be found about the author. It is possible for a book to be notable while the author remains obscure (which is more likely for book authors than music artists, if the writer is a recluse, as some writers are). The notability of a writer derives in part from the notability of his works, but that isn't the whole picture. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable, Anachronist, but I still think that the snippet by you that I quoted a little earlier overdoes it. Where is the notability of, say, Bishop, other than in his books? Well, he once employed a ceremonial mace as an unceremonial mace, thereby appalling some people and thrilling others, and this is widely written up -- but it's feeble material for a whole article. No doubt the Bishop article could be improved, but I like to think that it's not too bad as it is, and certainly that it demonstrates notability. Meanwhile, record albums always strike me as an anomalous area within en:WP. Kevin Ayers, for example, made undeniably noteworthy albums that certainly merit articles (e.g. Shooting at the Moon), but also forgettable stuff (e.g. Diamond Jack and the Queen of Pain) that get articles, I suppose just because they're by Ayers, and whose lack of references (i) is entirely normal (WP:AFATBERGOFOTHERCRAPEXISTS) and (ii) seems not to worry anyone. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

One-and-Done

User:David notMD writes: "Likely does not understand that you as a Declining reviewer are one-and-done with the draft." That is true, but I will observe that a significant percentage of new editors expect that a reviewer will work with them to walk a draft through the approval process. We nowhere say that a reviewer will work with an author to walk a draft through the approval process, but we nowhere say that a reviewer will not continue to work with the author of a draft. The idea that the reviewer will continue to work with the author on the draft is a common although not universal idea. Sometimes a reviewer does work with an editor, just not usually. This is just an observation of long standing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Images

Once you upload an image to a page and it made the main page image how do you center it I keep upload images and it make too small and doesn’t center it for instance go to the page for Frederick VI of Denmark and you’ll see what I’m talking about with image not being centered. Orson1234 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Orson1234. The images used in an WP:INFOBOX generally will be automatically formatted and sized by the software to what's considered to be most appropriate for most Wikipedia readers. What you've tried to do is use a WP:THUMB markup for the image which is generally not a good thing to do as explained here. If you simply add the name of the file to the |image= parameter of the infobox, it should be automatically sized and centered. Now, I have some questions for you. Why did you replace the infobox image in Frederick VI of Denmark? Was there something wrong with the file File:Frederik6coronation.jpg that was being used? Perhaps the infobox image should be changed, but that might require establishing a consensus to do so at Talk:Frederick VI of Denmark per WP:CAUTIOUS. What's really not clear is why you uploaded File:Frederick VI of Denmark.jpg when the same file already exists as File:Christoph Wilhelm Wohlien - Portræt af Frederik VI.jpg and was being used in the article. If you wanted to replace the infobox image, then why not use the already existing file. Now, the same image is being used twice in the article which is not a good thing at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Note::Merged the section Eevee01^(talk) 06:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to apologize I am quite new to editing and I kind of had brain fart by not seeing that the image I uploaded was already in the page. I changed back to the original. History is just a really big passion of mine and I thought it would be fun to improve some of the pages that I read every day. I’ll do more research about editing Wikipedia so that this situation will not happen again. Thanks, Orson1234 Orson1234 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Orson1234: thank you for uploading the images. I have marked File:Frederick VI of Denmark.jpg you uploaded as duplicate of File:Christoph Wilhelm Wohlien - Portræt af Frederik VI.jpg and File:Christian VIII of Denmark.jpg as duplicate of File:Christianviiidenmark.jpg. Also File:King Christian IX of Denmark.jpg had also been previously uploaded as File:Christian IX af Henrik Olrik.jpg (but not used in the article); since the older version has a higher resolution I have changed that to the article and marked your image as duplicate.

On many articles you can find a sidebar link "In other projects" -> "Wikimedia Commons" where you can find images related to the subject so you can check if the image has already been uploaded. MKFI (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

How to help the community

I have been recent changes patrolling and like that a lot, but now I’m looking for new areas on wiki to contribute. I would love to get some recommendations. Thanks in advance. GustavByte (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@GustavByte: Check if anything interests you at Wikipedia:Task Center! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Serious queries

Why promotional content leaves in wikipedia references? Why my content doesn't have many promotional constituents but remove by reviewers?

Take those examples:

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

Reference 10

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B4_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%8D%D0%BB

Reference 38

https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Pau_II

Reference 7 Cherryblossomcici (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Your question is impossible to understand. You list as examples John Paul II and mention ref #10, then a non-English article and ref #38, and then a non-English article and ref #7. How are these examples? Of what? If instead looking at your edits, your three edits to date were reverted. Is your question about that?

Hi Cherryblossomcici. I don't know how the articles about Pope John Paul II apply to your situation, but it looks like you've tried to add some citations to yourself to the articles about Zongzi and Mooncake? Is that what you're trying to do? If it is, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper), Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself. It's not impossible to do such a thing, but it's usually only considered acceptable when you are considered to be a recognized and established authority on the subject matter. In almost all other cases, it's going to be seen as a form of self-promotion by the Wikipedia community absent any reason to believe otherwise. Are you considered to be an recognized authority on zongzi and mooncakes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I found many site who is the shop published a product page and put them in wikipedia. I have not seen any of you delete them. Here you mentioned that are you considered to be a recognized authority on zongzi and mooncakes? Here if I publish content on high authority site or news site, then the content can be cited on wikipedia not promotional. Here I are very curious that what kind of content I can be submitted on wikipedia. Even if I submit a content with unique view of point and have not done any promotional elements, wikipedia still reverts my references. Whether every piece of content published on wallstreetjournal.com or cnn.com have the qualification to submit references to wikipedia. Other news site does not have the authority.

Take this for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batter_(cooking)

2, what'sthe Difference Between Batter and Dough?". thespruce.com.

Why this piece can be submitted on wikipedia? This is the recognized authority? However, this is a content site. Not wallstreetjournal or bbc.

And lululemon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lululemon_Athletica

"Women's Accessories". lululemon.
"lululemon Partners with APL to Offer Athletic Shoes In-Store". lululemon Athletica.
The two references are about their promotional site. People click the site and see the products directly. It is the commercial intention.

I don't ask you must approve my mooncake and zongzi article. I just confused why wikipedia forbids ppl to promote themselves. Why wikipedia always permits those commercial sites to promote themselves or add references for their own sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryblossomcici (talk • contribs) 07:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, let’s take that in order.

You tried twice to add what I assume is a cooking website to Zongzi. You also tried to add a ref to Mooncake in this edit but the reference template was filled improperly (no URL, to start with). All those edits were reverted by Rastinition, with edit summaries invoking WP:RSP, but that page does not say anything about "greenlemonkitchens.com", so that is not really informative; maybe they care to comment?

Now, the general rules: we want to write what reliable sources have to say about a subject. A cooking blog or user recipes is not a reliable source (unless it is extremely influential and reputed - usually that means the blog itself has an article on Wikipedia at least). Many newspapers both print or online are considered a reliable source for most statements; it can be tough to know if a given newspaper is reliable or not since journalism on the internet runs from serious investigative journalism to full-blown public relations pieces outlets or political propaganda with a lot of variations.

You ask about some particular references, which I will analyse below. Notice however that decisions about one article do not directly impact decisions about another article, and even if 99% of articles were guilty of spam links it would not give you license to spam-link the remaining 1%.

1. [2] (link to archive) in Pope John Paul II. This is a bad link. Presumably, the information in the lead is cited the book, but the link goes to a shop page. I am 99% sure there is a guideline that tells you to cite the book and not the bookshop but I cannot find it right now (though Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books implies it). I will try to correct the cite. Also, the book blurb says it will tell you "How [JP II] had conversations with the Virgin Mary", something which the book author is unlikely to have known by a reliable process, so that might impact the reliability of the book for other statements.
2. [3] (redirect to [4]) in Batter (cooking). In the context of the article, it is not really needed to support the statement it is cited to, but the website looks ok-ish. I will ask at WP:RSN since there are quite a few links to that website in articles.
3. [5] in Lululemon Athletica. It is allowed to use a source from company X to support the assertion that company X sells products Y and Z, per WP:PRIMARY as an uncontroversial statements about themselves. Of course you should not go overboard (e.g. linking to every possibly subsection of the shop page).

Finally, Cherryblossomcici, your posts are very hard to read and understand. If English is not your first language, you might more easily contribute to the Wikipedia in your native language which almost surely exists. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the product introduction cannot be used as news, so I claim that it is not a reliable source, at least I think WP:RSP is related to this, but I may also be mistaken, maybe it is not related to WP:RSP but related to WP:RS.But if I don’t roll back, it might make someone think that is news, that’s all.By the way,A cooking blog or user recipes is not a reliable source is great.--Rastinition (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost forgot, because of his editing, == References == can't work.Rastinition (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember that I left him a message on September 28, maybe he didn't understand it?That may be my fault, I once thought he wanted to sell Zongzi.--Rastinition (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

need to create article please out (form sandbox)

 KoteshwaraRaopower (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Power koteshwara rao and User:KoteshwaraRaopower/sandbox. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

KoteshwaraRaopower I have added the submission tag to allow you to submit the draft for review, but if you were to submit it now, it would be rejected quickly as it is highly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please review the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article about you would need to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. We are interested in what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

KoteshwaraRaopower, I see that there are two versions of this proposed article, as linked to by Jack Frost above. It's not against any rule or policy to maintain two (or more) versions of the same intended article, but it's a really bad idea. There are several ways it can cause trouble: someone helping you to improve it can find that they've been working on the "wrong" version; it can get rejected by a reviewer because "another version already exists"; the maintainer can themself get confused about which is their preferred version. I recommend deleting, or blanking, one of them. Maproom (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There is also a third, earlier, draft, at Draft:Power koteshwara rao (PKR). --David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Show that edit request is complete

How do you show that an edit request has been completed? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Occasionalpedestrian, you can do so by changing the "Answered=" parameter in the edit request template from "no" to "yes". For example:
{{edit semi-protected|pagetitle|answered=no}} to {{edit semi-protected|pagetitle|answered=yes}}. Hope that helps, --Jack Frost (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any edits that are not counted by the xtools.wmflabs.org

I experimented by editing my home page, talk page and draft. But only the edits in the talk page was registered, is there a way to know my cumulative edit count including all of the above. Or is it not appearing due to the page being slow or smthing? LostCitrationHunter (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

LostCitrationHunter I'm not familiar with what the xtools count does or doesn't include, but Special:Preferences should show your edit count including user, draft, and other namespace edits. Are the two counts different for you? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Grapple X Thanks I looked up, they were the same. But after some more random editings, I realised it was just xtools being massively slower to register the edits compared to the Special:Preferences--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Judith Azrael

Can anyone help me improve this draft, this draft seemed lack of reliable references, please help me improve it, Thanks a lot! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Judith_Azrael Henry Groht (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Note: moved to separate section   melecie   t 02:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

from what I have seen of this article, there seems to be no coverage of her in reliable sources that are independent of her, making her non-notable in Wikipedia standards. I believe searching and adding those should be your next step for the article.   melecie   t 02:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone help me find the reliable sources of the writer, the reliable sources about the writer is hard to find, please help me improve this draft, hope your guys can helping me editing this draft and make it to a good article, I've feel very grateful about your help! Thank you! ;Henry Groht (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not find references that would support her notability. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Can someone help me find the references to support her notability, I need your help guys,Thank you! Henry Groht (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I checked newspapers.com and the only time she was mentioned in Baltimore newspapers is in her mother's obituary. She didn't even get a notice that she'll be signing books at a local bookstore, and there are no mentions of her outside of Baltimore.

I have several friends who have published four or more books but, though they are notable in my personal life, I would never expect them to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Their books were not bestsellers, and no famous person became fans of their work. Alas, having books published does not mean that an author becomes famous or important in the eyes of the world. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Dealing With Disambiguation

Hello,

I'd like to create a page for the wearable-tech company Whoop (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/style/self-care/whoop-fitness-tracker-men.html), but it seems that I can't, since Whoop redirects to Woops.

I tried visiting the URL, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whoop&action=edit, but this adds "#REDIRECT Whoops" at the top of the text I'm writing.

How should I proceed?

Thank you. FishAndChips36 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

FishAndChips36 The best option would be to use a disambiguated title; Whoop (company) or something similar. You can then add a hatnote (such as {{redirect}}) to the Woops page to point to the new page. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

But if you use the articles for creation process to create a draft, (which I very very strongly advise any inexperienced editor to do anyway), you won't need to worry about the disambiguation, FishAndChips36, because the accepting reviewer will sort that out when they move the draft to mainspace --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Advice on writing articles in Wikipedia-reg.

Advice on writing articles in Wikipedia. Tushar Dey (UU) (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC) What information can I include in the article I write here and is it ok if some part the information already exists in Wikipedia? Can I include research paper findings here?

Copying content from one Wikipedia article to another is allowed as long as the Edit summary specifies where the content came from. Research published in reputable science journals can be described and referenced. Unpublished work cannot be used. Your User page expresses an interest in "Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics." Do you have any questions specific to veterinary research? David notMD (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Good question! Research papers are a bit of a funny one. Yes, they can be used as sources, but it's important to remember the difference between WP and a traditional literature review. Traditionally, literature reviews in journals, which are the sort of thing a working scientist might have written, are secondary, and their author is not only summarising a lot of primary literature, but they're allowed to synthesise what it might all mean together, and express their own professional opinion about which methods have been most reliable, which results are now in doubt. WP is a tertiary source, and our job isn't to synthesise or have an opinion; we leave that to the secondary-source authors. In an ideal world, when we give results, we would refer to a secondary (review) article that itself summarises the results as published by individual labs in primary papers (the secondary source's author lends weight to the validity of the result, and gives a better overview). But primary source research papers seem more acceptable than other primary sources, presumably because they've been subject to a peer review, so they're not just an unvetted personal opinion of one researcher. Where it's definitely appropriate to cite a primary research paper (I think!) is where a lot of other people have said that something was seminal and vital, or a lot of people have used a method that was first published somewhere, and we want to tell our readers where they can find the original, seminal discovery or presentation of a new method. Elemimele (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Photo Uploads

Hi,

Please excuse my ignorance :) I uploaded some photos today but can only view them if logged in. Is this because they are pending approval? They may appear to be repetitive but the reason for publishing them is to show the current, neglected state of the site.

Thanks, LP195 LP195 (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The uploads seem to be fine, but they're hosted on wikimedia commons rather than locally at wikipedia; you can still use them here freely but they're hosted on commons as free files. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Caption

Hello,

I’m trying to add a caption to Maximilian, Hereditary Prince of Saxony but the page doesn’t even have the option to put a caption on the image.

Thanks,

Orson1234 Orson1234 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh never mind it work.

Thanks, Orson1234 (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have fixed this yourself, Orson1234 by adding the |caption= parameter. Sometimes editors remove part or all of the possible parameters in Infoboxes but the ones the templates support (see template documentation) can always be added back. Happy editing! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ELIJAH MITCHELL HIGH SCHOOL STATS

rece!-- This post will be automatically signed, but ADD FOUR TILDES IN FOLLOWUP COMMENTS, and DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> 2600:1700:7F63:1C00:5DA:A26B:6E4:AE4E (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I recently submitted information on the high school football career of Elijah Mitchell was subsequently removed on October 11, 2021. The information that was shown on Elijah's high career is incorrect and reflect football stats from Elijah's junior football season NOT senior year. I am the Erath sports historian which can be verified by contacting school officials. While Elijah attended UL Lafayette, I attempted to correct this info and provide the correct info to the University's Athletic Department. University officials never responded to correction requests. I was hoping by editing the correct statistics on Wikipedia, I could provide the correct info. I am glad to cooperate in ay manner to right this wrong. If you were to contact Erath High School, sources at the school would verify my resources?

Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for attempting to improve the Elijah Mitchell. The editor that reverted your edit explained their rationale by using an edit summary of "unsourced". Every editor needs to provide a published reliable source when adding information to a Wikipedia article. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. If you have a conflict of interest, you need to disclose it on your user page, and may ask for another editor to update the article with the {{request edit}} template (or simply use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard). Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Published" accidentally

I hit "publish" accidentally while trying out my first article in sandbox. How to remove it until it's actually ready?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LithWriter/sandbox LithWriter (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Drafts you're working on in your sandbox can be edited piecemeal for as long as you like--if you don't feel it's ready yet you can simply keep editing it at your own pace without the need to remove it. If you want it deleted, however, you can replace the content with {{Db-u1}}, but that decision is up to you. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what is confusing LithWriter is that the "Publish changes" button is really just a "Save" button. It doesn't mean "Publish to Article mainspace." It used to say "Save", but was changed on legal advice, to remind everybody that all material saved on Wikipedia is visible to everyone on the internet, if they know where to look, so is "published" in that sense. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that Wikipedia is NOT for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about an organisation must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organisation. Wikipedia has no interest in what you want to say about it only in what others unaffiliated with the business choose to say about it. Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

To reinforce what Theroadislong has said:

The (relatively) easy way to create a Wikipedia article is to find some (at least three, many more if you like) reliable published independent sources that discuss your chosen subject, read them all, and then summarise what they say, citing them.

A much more difficult method, which unfortunately is generally preferred by inexperienced contributors, is to write what you know, or what the subject told you; and then go to a great deal of trouble trying to find reliable published independent sources to support everything you have written. Maproom (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

I appreciate all users helping my editing.칼빈500 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@칼빈500: If you want to increase the chances that the people who helped you see that you are thanking them, you can go to the article history by clicking on its view history tab, and then at the end of the time and date stamp of the edit that helped you, you can click on "thank", then "thank" again. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your mention. 칼빈500 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

unban

Unban me Derpxd (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC) hi i am sorry for the things i did i didn't understand what you guysś rejects and other things like that meant i do now so please let me edit again i know now what i did u probably get these a lot but i actually didn't understand what the sharalike things and others were i just try to help please truly consider allowing me to edit again soon please sincerely derpxd

You aren't currently blocked and your block log shows no entries, what ban is it that you're referring to? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Derpxd's reference to "the sharealike things" made me think they might be blocked at Commons, which indeed they are. @Derpxd:, if you want to be unblocked at Commons, you need to ask there – it is a separate project. There's information on your user talk page at Commons, telling you how to request an unblock. --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

edit request Derpxd (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC) can i please be able to re edit i dont know or understand why i got the un edit thing

Your question has been answered above, Derpxd. While I have your attention, could you explain why you created a userpage for another editor at User:Gorden 2211? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It might be because I declined his AfC draft Draft:List of WWE podcasts Gorden 2211 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

sorry Derpxd (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC) i thought it was mine i didnt mean to can you forgive me i didnt think it wasnt mine

Derpxd You don't have to create a new section every time you reply to someone, you can just add your response below their comment like this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

i dont and can u add something to the carmelo hayes and putt it in the name birth date birth name gae thing its a image i just made for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpxd (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Derpxd now indef blocked David notMD (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Jenny Day

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 184.15.53.78 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Why was my Jenny Day page delted, here on Wikipedia, Teahouse?

Welcome to the Teahouse! Your page was not deleted - it still exists at Draft:Jenny Day. The boxes at the top of the draft explain why it was declined, and then rejected. You have no references to published reliable sources. Instead of creating a new article, you may want to add a sentence to the Mikey Day article with a reliable source, or ask for assistance on Talk:Mikey Day. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Her being the daughter of Mikey Day does not make her notable. David notMD (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Page displaying formatting code

Hi. The majority of the page “List of the oldest living people,” ie, the list itself, is full of displayed code, instead of that code being hidden and normally acting to format text. This follows the comment “<The template Row numbers is being considered for deletion.>”

I’ve not come across this before, so I doubt it’s any account setting of mine. I’ve been around for years, but mainly just make minor edits. Perhaps it’s some tiny code formatting error that makes a lot of difference, but I don’t know what to look for

When you see this, please fix the page & let me know, or share this with someone who can.

Thank you. Emo Elli (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: List of the oldest living people   melecie   t 02:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Emo Elli, when I view that article, it displays just fine for me. You can check the edit history to see how any error was corrected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

ask a wikipedian via telephone

If you are interessted in calling a wikipedian and ask questions, please find Wikipedia:Call a Wikipedian. Regards, Conny (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

@Conny: Interesting - I didn't know this existed. I hope it doesn't turn into a robocaller database. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Do you think we should publish number only, if there is technically option to block robocalls? Regards, Conny (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

Red links for pages does not exist

What is a red link do for? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:1CBE:6292:C3F8:5BFA (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:red link. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

William of Nassau-Hilchenbach and Henry II, Count of Nassau-Siegen

I have left a message on the Talk pages of the articles William of Nassau-Hilchenbach and Henry II, Count of Nassau-Siegen as they have the incorrect titles. As there was no reaction, I tried to move the pages myself, but that went wrong. Who can move the articles correctly? Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the articles has any references. If you can find published reliable sources which discuss the subjects, those sources will hopefully support your proposed moves. If no sources are available, the articles should, of course, be deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

See the corresponding articles on the Dutch Wikipedia for the sources I have used. All the information in those articles have the necessary references. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the first article as you request. The second seems less clear: the corresponding de:WP article is titled "Heinrich Graf von Nassau-Siegen". Maproom (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If he had been a reigning count on the German Wikipedia the article would have the title Heinrich (Nassau-Siegen). Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

... which indeed it does have. The phrase "Heinrich Graf von Nassau-Siegen" is used in the start of the lede. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Then the German Wikipedia is wrong as well. In the dispute about the county of Nassau-Siegen after the death of count John VII, the younger sons from the second marriage were content with modest appanages with the exception of John Maurice and George Frederick. See Michel Huberty, et al., l’Allemagne Dynastique. Tome III: Brunswick-Nassau-Schwarzbourg, Alain Giraud, Le Perreux (1981), p. 251-252 and Christian Spielmann, Geschichte von Nassau (Land und Haus) von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart. Teil 1. Politische Geschichten, P. Plauen, Wiesbaden (1909), p. 217. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Gordon H. Whitlow article rejection

I would suggest that the rejection of this proposed article based on lack of notable support is not fully accurate. There are, in fact, notable examples of relevance, and I have attempted to provide a few of them as references within the article. There is ample online (and other) evidence of growing critical recognition and relevance in the form of non-trivial reviews, discographies, and articles, not only to do with four decades' involvement in the Biota (band) that already exists on Wikipedia, but the Sorry For Laughing project that includes artists who have existing Wikipedia pages, and which has its own "story" of interest for as long as Biota involvement. This is an opportunity to expand such discussion around new breakthroughs of audience recognition. The subject also meets the criteria (both with Sorry For Laughing and with Biota) of having two or more albums associated with independent labels with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable. 5.32.40.122 (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gordon H. Whitlow   melecie   t 10:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Presenting your arguments at the Teahouse is not likely to have much effect: most Teahouse hosts are not reviewers. Nor is "there is ample online evidence". The two things you need to do are 1) add the sources and 2) engage with the reviewers, either at their talk pages or (preferably) on the talk page of your draft, WP:pinging the reviewers. You say you've added some references to the article: good, that's the right way to go. But strong references speak for themselves, and don't need to be justified. --ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Declined (twice), not Rejected. Refs #1 and #2 are to Wikipedia articles. Not allowed. Refs #3-5 confirm that Whitlow makes music that has been released as tape, CDs, but has no referenced content about Whitlow. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing you created this article as IP 5.32.29.46 and have subsequently been editing it as User:Gwhitlow. Please use only one account. Editing an article signed in and not signed in is a form of sockpuppetry that can lead to you being blocked. Likewise, at Biota (band), which is woefully under-referenced, appears you have been editing as IPs 5.32.29.46 and 5.32.40.122. Last, but important, Wikipedia advises against attempts at autobiography. See WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with my authors wiki page

Hello, I am writing a page on a favourite author of mine and there is very little information on him online. The majority of information given is found within his autobiographies, and all of the information cited in my article can be corroborated from external and reliable websites. Should I cite the book as a resource alongside the websites for corroborating the information? Switchboard05 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Switchboard05 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to be independent of the subject; a Wikipedia article about an author must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an author, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable author. Autobiographies or interviews with the author are not independent sources, but a primary source, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does the UK articles have to cover ethnicity in the leads?

I'm very intrigued to know why every hamlet village town city district borough unitary authority county article on UK must include a look at ethnicity and religion.

When I read American Canadian Australian etc articles there is no mention of the ethnicity of each place in the lead but instead in a demographic article. But the UK articles seem to need to quote them twice in both the infobox and the demographic or ethnicity tabs of an article.

Why is this the case with UK? Looking at Manchester for example the infobox has the ethnicity but further down is a pie chart a table and a lot of paragraphs. So I'm curious why it can't be simplified to just a table and a brief mention then needing a lot of percentages and mentioning. Same really for Bradford Leeds York Derby Leicester Nottingham Sheffield etc...

DragonofBatley (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Presumably these articles are being written and edited by different people, who will have different approaches to building an article. It may also be that as they're different countries with different infrastructures, the census information used for this kind of thing is different and might be better suited to discussing demographics in one country versus another. Largely speaking, articles only really need to be internally consistent with themselves, not with other articles, and although sometimes a parent wikiproject will have a good idea of how they want their articles to look, each article is really only shaped by the consensus of those involved with it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps its to help Fox News pundits not make idiots of themselves on worldwide TV? - X201 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Soccer Team Notability

I am trying to get a page approved for Georgia Storm FC. There seems to be two pages of notability requirements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability - According to this one they meet the Club Notability due to the "national cup" part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) - This is the one that gets cited to me but this only seems to cover players.

North Alabama SC and Appalachian FC are teams on our same level and they had their pages approved but I can't find what I am missing to get approval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgia_Storm Kevinw33 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Kevinw44 Hello and welcome. You said "our same level". If you work for or are otherwise associated with this team, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

331dot I am not affiliated with the team. The fan in me made me use the "our" word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw33 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kevinw33. Those two places you refer to do not have the same weight. WP:NSPORT says This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline, whereas WP:FOOTYN saysThis is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. You might want to discuss this at the talk page of the latter. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, ColinFine. I am still confused what Appalachian FC and North Alabama SC used to be approved when they are in the same league and level as my draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw33 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kevinw33: - Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If those clubs don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, you may nominate the articles for deletion. Happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Not quite the same. I don't think their articles should be deleted, the teams are a large part of the community and have tie-ins to the domestic cup which passes notability, and include players who are former professionals with their own pages. I believe the reason my page is not being approved is from an error on my part which I am trying to locate. Kevinw33 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine I have checked the one you said is more important but like the OP mentioned, it only gives guidelines about Football Athletes and not teams. As for Teams and clubs, it says "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline." Therefore our only guidelines for teams should be the second one and not the first. I think this page deserves to be given the green-light as it satisfies general notibility (And to @Kevinw33:, you have mentioned your team has a large fanbase/Ultras/fan club, right? I would add that also as a notibility factor).--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Release date of ...Ready for It? from Reputation (Taylor Swift album)

Hi! I found out that before the release on the US radio this song was sent on Russian contemporary hit radio as single on september 11 2017. Should I change the release date to September 11? MemberDecember (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@MemberDecember: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you discuss this on the article's talk page: Talk:...Ready for It?, and provide a reliable source for the information. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to incorporate an archived link in the official website template of a TV show?

Hello, while I was reading this article, I noticed that the tv series' page has been deleted from Fox's website. This made me think if it's possible to put a web archive link in the official website template. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bloomingbyungchan I know no reason why you shouldn't. It may be a good idea to put "(archived)" after it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bloomingbyungchan: Welcome to the Teahouse! I would replace {{official website}} with {{web archive}}. GoingBatty (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @GoingBatty Thank you so much for your answers! Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What can I do on Wkipedia

I want to publish about my company and websites I wish to be included in Wikipedia, I have no wish to spam, is it allowed? I want to publish about my company and websites. looking for the best guides for this situation. RegardsNyama Problemi (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Nyama Problemi (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nyama Problemi. Thank you for asking, rather than just plunging in. Frankly, Wikipedia does not care whether or not you want to be included. If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be an article about your company. The article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not be for your benefit, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about your company, not on what you say or want to say. Given all this, you are not forbidden from trying to write the article, but I advise against it. If you choose to go ahead, you need also to study paid editing, promotion, neutral point of view and your first article. Be aware that creating a new article is much much much more difficult than it looks, and even more difficult when you have a conflict of interest, as you have.

My suggestion is that you give up this idea entirely. If you are excited by the idea of an encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, and would like to contribute, then you are very welcome. If your only purpose is to get on another website, then please choose somewhere else. --ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the above, "I have no wish to spam" is as empty as those Youtube video descriptions disclaimers that "no copyright violation is intended" - what you secretly want is not relevant to what objectively happens, and publishing unwanted content would be spam even if you had the best intentions. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about closing move requests

Hello! I recently made a move request on the page Melbourne city centre. Since then, the discussion has elapsed its 7 day timeline, with two others leaving comments in support of the move. As a result, I think it's safe to say that consensus has been reached. However, after some researching of Wikipedia's rules, I'm not sure how to actually get the page to move. I know I'm not supposed to move it myself as I'm an involved editor, and I also know I'm not supposed to request an administrator to do it as that's reserved for contentious discussions. Is the only way to close the discussion to simply wait for someone to stumble along and do it themselves? RoadSmasher420 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RoadSmasher420. Requested moves are actually patrolled by certain editors, so it is not a matter of somebody stumbling upon it. This is a volunteer project, and my grandmother used to say, "patience is a virtue". Wait a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The requested move is supported by three editors, opposed by none, and looks reasonable to me, so I will soon close the request. In the future, RoadSmasher420, you may consider boldy moving the page yourself, and opening a discussion afterwards if someone disagrees and/or reverts your move. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I now see that the page could not be moved because the target redirect has some (trivial) history. I closed the discussion and listed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Intimidation and Insulting me on the Norwich pages

I think there is intimidation and abuse going on towards me on the Norwich and Talk:Norwich pages. All over a collage with two editors calling it "Depressing" and "Mediocre at most". Also one editor got my Username wrong and are picking issues over a bunch of photos which quite frankly in the previous collage were badly zoomed in and badly edited ratioed. But of course I'm in the wrong not them I guess. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Goldengnomee has commented in the edit summary "the old collage was so much better, i'm not even from norwich, but i was suprised to see it got and replaced by something so depressing". And an anon commented something similar. Not just that but also on the talk pages I have seen the following comments.

@Menacinghat: commented

" I think the old photos used on the other language Wikipedia pages for Norwich are better and the new photos uploaded by Dragonofbaitley are grey and mediocre-looking. The old photos were bright and close-up which meant you didn't have to open the image, while the new ones are zoomed out and largely taken in poor weather.

Thoughts?

The collage made by Deu is far superior."

So they basically are saying Superior as in better and yours DragonofBaitley which they called me is crap.

So these editors and anon have issues whereas at least one editor on there is decent enough to disagree in a professional manor.

These two cannot it seems one can't even get my username right.

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: I'm sorry that the discussion has left you feeling this way. For what it's worth, I don't find the photos depressing at all. They're nice. But the Talk Page is a place for all editors to share their thoughts about how to best represent a subject, so I'm sure the users meant only to express their opinion, and not to insult. I hope you don't get too discouraged. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: thank you for that I appreciate it. I'm not discouraged just feel it's insulting calling them as the terms used above show. To me WP:Intimidate is in use by the anon and Goldengnomee especially. And also Menacinghat. Thanks though I appreciate those who actually can be constructive. At the end of the day. It's photos not written statements etc. To me seems to be a case of pickiness DragonofBatley (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:PICKYPEDIA. Aww that's not a thing? It should be. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• @DragonofBatley: Those comments were entirely appropriate in my view. You might disagree with their assessment, but at least they gave you some actionable feedback (photos from too far away, taking with poor weather/lighting) instead of "eh, I feel the old one is better".

How should have those editors written that feedback to you? Can you write yourself a post with the same substance ("disagree with that photo because of X and Y"), but would not have caused you to come here for a complaint? If no, then the problem is your perception; if yes, I would very much be interested by reading it and understanding the difference with the original.

Finally, you can legitimately complain about someone misspelling your name, you can sort-of complain about pickiness, but complaining about both simultaneously is not the best look.

Listen, I think I understand where you come from. In real life, I am a big whiner. I complain about the smallest things, because I like to complain, it makes me feel better, and by mixing in some humour the people around me seem to find it entertaining. But that only works in real life, with people I know, who appreciate or tolerate my character, and I read their body language to stop when they get bored. Whining on Wikipedia has a much lower rate of "success". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about canvassing

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Question about canvassing

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still trying to get my head around what does and does not constitute canvassing, so I would like to put the question of the following example to more experienced users than myself: A user has commented on three separate AfD discussion pages here, here and here not to make a point, but simply to copy in another user. In each case, the premise for the AfD discussion is notability based on sourcing and general notability: in my opinion, it does not require specialist expertise, but this editor is not commenting themselves, but instead deferring to another user. It seems like quite atypical behaviour. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly strange behavior, but the fact that the user is tagging an administrator implies that they may be seeking neutral input. In the examples of canvassing I've seen, editors are seeking out other editors with clear inclinations towards a particular viewpoint. More info would be needed to know if this admin had a particular POV that the editor was seeking. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason that neither of you pinged either the possibly-canvassing user or the possibly-canvassed admin here? I mean, they might explain what is going on... Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to let the editor who brought this up be the one to do that, in case they're hoping to avoid a direct confrontation. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be kind of a mentorship relationship between the two. It's kinda canvassing, but also a bit too open for it to be canvassing. 78.26 will, in all likelihood, either ignore the requests, or tell the editor that that's not appropriate. I would just wait. If something like this happens, and the summoned actually !votes, then you may bring it up with the editors involved. Editors who are aware of WP:CANVASS and need to ping others to discussions usually explain at the time of pinging what the basis for it is and why it does not constitute canvassing. Judging CANVASSing is mostly about reading the guideline and applying common sense over the spirit of it. If you can't tell which side the editor is on, and which side the editor/s being pinged is/are on, and you have no more light to shed on what they've been doing apart from what's perfectly clear to everyone who reads the discussion, there is little problem. What you can see and take into account, the closer will too. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm being pinged because I have some expertise in the topic area (Seventh-Day Adventism). I'm pretty sure at least two of them are notable. For instance, it's hard to overstate the influence William C. White had on the history and culture of the Seventh-Day Adventist church because of his control over his mother's estate. You'd never know that by the state the article is currently in, or by the references given. Catfurball in no way directed me which way to !vote, so this is appropriate per WP:CANVASS. That said, I won't have time to delve deeply into this for awhile, and a better notification would be WikiProject Christianity or WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as a Seventh-Day Adventist on your User Page, one might suspect that you are in fact being pinged as a believer in that faith, and not a neutral administrator. And I don't think WP:CANVASS requires being told to vote one way, only that they are contacted based on how they assumption that they will vote a certain way, based on my interpretation, anyway. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

long distance rides on motorcycle

My name is Subhash Sharma. I want to add our "world tour on motorcycle 1971-1972". Four friends on 2 motorcycles started on 29th of January 1971 from Jamshedpur, India and ended on 10th of July 1972 in Jamshedpur, India. We traveled 108000KM, went through 62 countries and we were the FIRST Indians to cross Central Sahara in Africa on Motorcycles. Trip included Asia, Africa, Europe and North America.

Many articles about this trip are available on the internet.

Thanks S C Sharma Therider74 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Therider74: Welcome to the Teahouse! Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. If you can find enough independent and reliable sources to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events), you could follow the directions at Help:Your first article. However, creating a new article is one of the hardest things for a newcomer to do on Wikipedia, especially for those with a conflict of interest (which you would have to disclose on your user page). Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

NFL Top 100 Players of 2021

I've been working on creating a page that shows the Top 100 NFL Players of 2021. This list is the 11th in the NFL Top 100 series. It's based on NFL Network's annual countdown of the Top 100 Players list. The program finished broadcasting back in August. I've done everything I can, and gotten all the necessary information that I could to make this a legitimate Wikipedia article, yet it still hasn't been accepted. Every time I go to submit the Article for consideration, I keep getting the message that it has not been accepted. I mean, I've done everything that I could. Why has it not been accepted? Will it ever be accepted? MichaelEhlenbeck (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:NFL Top 100 Players of 2021.   Maproom (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@MichaelEhlenbeck: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you read the comments below the templated decline messages? Reviewers would like to see the Reception section expanded now that the broadcast is finished so that it satisfies television notability guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I DID read the comments below the templated decline messages. I've done everything I could think of to make this a reasonable Wikipedia article, yet it doesn't get accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelEhlenbeck (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

re-submission after deletion

Hi Tea Room, I’m Natalie, and I’m new to Wiki.

i’m seeking assistance because I contributed a CONTROVERSY section to the “Our Lady of Fatima” page and it was deleted under the tag “personal opinion.”

I have since reworked the controversy section to eliminate all opinions, and yet trying to post a new version will result in it being deleted under the tag “removed my edit.”

So if anyone can help moderate, that would be very helpful, because Fatima certainly warrants a controvery section. Ghost apparitions (religious or otherwise) are inherently controversial.

The absence of a controversy section altogether on the Fatima page after so many years is bizarre and almost suspicious—especially since this vision of Mary promoted violence towards children. This is a particularly questionable, potentially very dangeorus “miracle.”

Extended content

I will be citing from two books. The first one, THE IMMACULATE HEART, was published by the reputable Farrar, Straus and Young. It was written by a Priest who interrogated the witnesses firsthand. The other book, FATIMA IN LUCIA’S OWN WORDS, was published by the Catholic Church (Imprimatur), which in normal circumstances would be considered a biased press; however in this case it should be admitted, because they are the memoirs of the Saint herself. Marian apparations are a bit like the Loch Ness Monster, in the sense that only a few handfuls of people have ever seen them, and so it’s hard to find “credible” citations. For instance it would be hard to cite The New York Times reporting on a Marian apparition, or a Loch Ness sighting. That said, what is more credible a source to a Marian apparition than the personal journals of the only living witness to it? (I would also like to mention that on the existing Fatima page, plenty of biased Catholic news outlets are referenced to substantiate the apparitions, and those sources were not deleted.) I intend to re-post my new and improved controversy section at some point today or tonight. If any Wiki moderators could oversee, so that it doesn’t get automatically deleted, I would appreciate your time so much. The Fatima page is incomplete without thoughtful opposition. Thank you guys. Natalie (Username Spyrazzle) This is what I intend to post: Controversy The Mary apparition falsely predicted the end of the war, with Lucia relaying what Mary had told her: "The war will end today (13 October 1917). You can expect the soldiers very shortly." 1 But World War 1 didn’t end for more than a year after Mary’s prediction that it had already ended. This alarmed even the interrogating Priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose records of the children still exist: "But listen Lucia" he said on record, "The war is still going on. The papers give news of battles after the 13th. How can you explain that if our Lady said the war would end that day?" Lucia replied, "I don’t know; I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on that day…I said exactly what our Lady had said. 2 Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and she said the same thing. “(Mary) said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today.” 3 Although Mary correctly predicted the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the children may have facilitated their own deaths, as both were documented as having starved and dehydrated themselves during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. Their biographer, John De Marchi, who was friends with Lucia, wrote: “In the scorching sun of the serra, when through the bright hours of the day the heat hangs like a hot stove everywhere, they abstained from taking any water through one spell of thirty days, and at another time for nine.” 4 For two full years leading up to their deaths, and even on their deathbeds, the children refused food and water, or drank dirty water from an animal and laundry pond from which their mother forbade them from drinking because it could cause illness 5, and even kept blood-stained cords tied tightly around their waists.6 The vision of Mary praised them for their self-harm rituals, saying to them, “God is pleased with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope on; only wear it during the day.” 7 On multiple occasions Lucia voiced her concern that the Mary appearing to them was actually “the devil” all along. She wrote: “I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil…truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt!’ 8 The young girl also suffered a dream during this time period wherein “the devil was laughing at having deceived me.” 9 And Lucia once told her cousin, “If (Mary) asks for me, Jacinta, you tell her why I’m not there. Because I am afraid it is the Devil who sends her to us!” 10 CITATIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 De Marchi, Father John, I.M.C. The Immaculate Heart. New York: Farrar, Straus and Young. 1952. Page 159. Page 159. Page 155. Page 111. Page 111. Page. 71. 6, 7, 8, 9, Santos, Lucia. Kondor, Louis Fr., Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words (Memoirs 1-4) Fatima: Imprimatur. 10th Edition, 1998. Page 97. Page 80. Page 71. Page 71.

Spyrazzle (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spyrazzle: Welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for your desire to improve Wikipedia, specifically the Our Lady of Fatima article. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place to have this conversation is at the article's talk page Talk:Our Lady of Fatima, so you can build consensus with the other interested editors. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The Wiki Squid Game Trolling Tournament Theme Song

After watching the squid game series on Netflix, I was excited to find the name of the song that commonly appears throughout the show. After finding it, listening too many different Renditions of it, and enjoying it very much, I decided to check to see if the showroom was already noted on Wikipedia to be a part of the show. After finding that it was not, I edited it in. After not doing so correctly with the proper citation, it was deleted, and then I re-added it in to be included at once again, with the proper citation, it was accepted. The individual user who had first identified it for deletion, and then saw that it had been reacted with the proper citation, decided to check out my profile of my individual user, and see what else I've been working on around the website. Finding that I was editing the page to help launch its initial publication on Wikipedia, cited it for removal and how to delete it. I clearly believe that had I not edited that song on the other page, and then proved it accurate with the source after having a deleted, this user would not have gone through my work 2 then filed a report thusly. I understand if it is a tremendous benefit of Wikipedia that all users carry the responsibility and access to grow and evolve our understanding of young every topic on the planet. I also just see it as trolling. I wanted to ask since username=Liz was supportive and really helpful and giving me advice and setting me to work to really do things properly and correctly, fully, though I am also interested in once other people are involved with my page if then I can remove my COI inclusion notification, though it does look pretty cool on my profile and I do like it's listing as such, I just did them never seen it used popularly or noticeably anywhere to a once I get anyone else involved, and they're making edits if then I can remove my listing, as they would be the professional?

My only real question now though was whether anybody would at least admit that it's plausible that this user was trolling me?

HenryMaxG (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC) HenryMaxG (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@HenryMaxG: Welcome to the Teahouse! It's possible that your edits to The Blue Danube article led JalenFolf to review Draft:ReJews, but I agree with the nice message that Liz left on your user page that the activity wasn't "trolling". Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). I recommend you keep learning by editing other articles where you don't have a COI. Your best bet for the draft is continue finding independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of ReJews, and summarizing what they report. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What happened at Blue Danube is a bit complicated, and may also explain why things went a bit wrong between you and JalenFolf. At first, you inserted a comment that the Blue Danube had been used in a Netflix series, without giving any reference. JalenFolf reverted this on the grounds that it must be referenced (so far so good). You put it back and JalenFolf reverted again, which is now not so good because the two of you were effectively edit-waring. You then realised that a citation was necessary and put it back with a citation, but this time JalenFolf reverted with a link to the manual of style, MOS:POPCULT, and if you read this, you'll find it's got some text explaining that just because a piece of music has been used in a popular setting, that doesn't mean we should necessarily include this popular setting in the article on the piece of music. There's quite a lot of fuzzy stuff in the manual of style on this, but it comes down to a general feeling that the use of the music must be given considerable weight in at least one reliable source - it must be important within the source, and not just exist. I suspect JalenFolf's argument in their 3rd reversion had changed from "no citation" to "not important enough to be included", but you'd have to ask them. In your case, the reference you cite is specifically about the music used in the SquidGame, so I think you have a case. But I suspect because you'd already got into an edit-war and included text with no reference twice, JalenFolf was in revert-mode and already biased against the edit you were trying to make (and in fairness with some grounds: WP has far too much unreferenced addition of popular material). You (and JalenFolf) did the right thing in ending the edit-war at that stage; any further, and both of you would have been risking getting blocked. The right thing is probably to discuss directly with JalenFolf, on a talk page (theirs or the article's) whether the use of Blue Danube in SquidGame is so notable that it's worthy of a mention in the Blue Danube's article, and whether your reference is sufficient. Please don't be put off. Nothing in WP is down to a single editor, and we all have disagreements. The good thing about WP is that things happen by consensus, not by individual action, so you need never fear one person disagreeing with you. Happy editing! Elemimele (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

List of Volcanos, Double Glacier Volcano, how links work and are edited?

The "List of Volcanos" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_the_United_States) has a link for "Double Glacier" that is linked to "Double Glacier" a glacier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Glacier), that should be linked to "Double Glacier Volcano" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_glacier_volcano). I do not understand how links work, are they automated, name based, or is code added to "list of Volcanos" or to the destination ie "Double Glacier" or "Double Glacier Volcano"? Sunbelt alaska (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the wikilink. Maproom (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sunbelt alaska: Welcome to the Teahouse! For information on how links work, see H:WIKILINK. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you fixing and I appreciate the link, these should be more than enough to answer my questions.Sunbelt alaska (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Protecting a page from vandalism

Hello there, the page Renato Aragão has been vandalized by some users who think it's funny to include language to say he's senile because of jokes he made, etc. This is non-encyclopedic, in my opinion. Is it possible for anyone to remove the last sentence of the first paragraph and lock the page for autoconfirmed users only maybe for 48-72h? Thank you!

It's text that says "In his later years, Didi has grown increasingly senile, going as far as suggesting that the American rapper P. Diddy was named after himself."

Plurabilities (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RPP is the best place to ask for protection on a page; if it's an ongoing concern then it should be a simple request. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Grapple X!

Plurabilities (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Same vandalism added (and deleted) in January, early September and mid-October. Too infrequent/stale (so far) to warrant protection. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

My changes were just reverted three times by the same guy who's on Twitter making jokes about this. I understand if that's the policy but closing it to autoconfirmed users would break the momentum, I believe. Thanks for considering!

Plurabilities (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, now it has become persistent vandalism by IP addresses. IP 2804:d49:151c:3579::ab2f:3cd9 has submitted a protection request. David notMD (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

3 articles

I have three articles. They are very short, and contain no more (and no less) than one citation each. I think they should be accepted, but they only have one citation. The species I wrote about are not well studied, and have barely anything about them online or on books. How do I tell the person who will inevitably decline them this? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cerambycidfreak Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A topic must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources to merit an article. If no sources cover a topic, it will be difficult for it to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

They are covered in significant, reliable sources. My only source for each is the Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America, by one of NA's leading entomologists (and wasp specialists). Cerambycidfreak (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak: Hi there! Note that WP:GNG defines notability as having received significant coverages in reliable sources (plural - more than one). Hopefully Kaufman is not the only person to have ever written about these species. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cerambycidfreak What I would suggest in this case is perhaps consolidating these drafts together. I'm no scientist but looking at the ones you're working on they all seem to be members of one taxonomic family; the information may be better suited at Pompilidae until the individual species are studied more precisely and more references can be found. Sometimes it's best to keep information at a larger article until it warrants being split off, so the work is still useful and available to someone even if an individual draft may not be accepted. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Can one change their username? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You can indeed; Wikipedia:Changing username is the place to go. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Archive talk page

How do I archive my talk page? Can I also just use edit and erase it? Cwater1 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cwater1: Welcome to the Teahouse! You may be interested in Help:Archiving a talk page. You can also remove discussions from your user talk page without archiving, which editors will consider confirmation that you read the discussions. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

FYI

 – Added section header. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 15:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have made 43 good faith edits to Wikipedia. I am also a newcomer and my account is 6 days old. However, I was accused of vandalism by a vandal patrol, for my edits to Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Virus. Only WP:NORESVAND made me feel better. So how do I stop getting messages on my talk page like this??? Old!!man1234561234 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Old!!man1234561234: Vandalism is an intentional act to worsen the quality of Wikipedia. On your talk page, you were (at first) accused of disruptive editing, which can occur even if you mean well. I do agree the later accusation of vandalism is unwarranted, but I believe it is due to the warning templates not differentiating between vandalism/disruptive editing.

Turkey/Greece/the Balkans is an area filled to the brim by nationalistic editors, so a new person appearing out of nowhere to change some flags is sure to bring suspicion. Furthermore, adding the text "Nazi Serbian stratocracy" is definitely not an improvement of the kingdom of Yugoslavia article (unless it is the actual, official name of the political entity, which I somehow doubt).

Finally, you found WP:NORESVAND and know how to use the pipe escape template {{!}}, so you already know quite a bit more about the inner workings of Wikipedia than the average week-old editor. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I do agree the later accusation of vandalism is unwarranted, but I believe it is due to the warning templates not differentiating between vandalism/disruptive editing.
@Tigraan: Actually, there's a separate template from {{uw-vandalism4}} for disruptive editing: {{uw-disruptive4}}, which redirects to {{uw-generic4}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I stand corrected. I would still note that Twinkle proposes the uw-disruptive1, uw-disruptive2 and uw-disruptive3 templates, but not uw-disruptive4, and it is not clear from the Twinkle description that uw-generic4 is more appropriate than uw-vandalism4. While using Twinkle is no excuse for incorrect templating, it certainly makes mistakes easier. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Huh I didn't know that. Might be worth talking to whoever redirected disruptive4 to generic4, then. I'll see if there's been any discussion over the template change. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at all of your contributions, you have a very high revert rate, by at least seven different editors. Presuming you are editing in good faith, i.e., making changes you know or believe to be true, you are running afoul of Wikipedia rules about verification vi references. I suggest you pause, take a deep breath, and turn to the Talk pages of the articles to ask why what you believe to be valid improvements are being reverted. Wikipedia has patience for new editors, but not infinite. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the advice! I will try to stop adding "Nazi Serbian stratocracy" (that one I could understand) and improve on actually hunting for badly written and uncited articles. I do agree with reverting the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, but I was only surprised that I cited 1 factoid and that got reverted. Thx anyway Old!!man1234561234^{Click here for trouble} — Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing

Somebody just removed reviews and content from Boyz (Jesy Nelson song), calling it 'vandalism'. Gatekeeping the reviews and commentary that he/she approves. 132.251.2.122 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place to discuss the reasons you think the reviews and content improve the article is the article's talk page: Talk:Boyz (Jesy Nelson song). Be sure to {{ping}} the user so they can respond to your concerns. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing Incorrect COI Tag

Removing Incorrect COI Tag I got tagged for COI on an article where I am totally unequivocally NOT in a conflict of interest, and the article was moved to draft as a result, and is now dragging on several months, totally unnecessarily through the review process. I could not get the person to respond when I explained that I am not in a COI, so I just went along with the draft method, figuring no big deal, it will get approved that way, and why get into an argument. Well, I am not at the point where I want that COI removed, and realize I should have taken further action at the time - just wasn't sure how. The article is Draft:United_Way_East_Ottawa. Iamthekanadian (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Iamthekanadian (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iamthekanadian: Welcome to the Teahouse! I don't see any COI tag on Draft:United_Way_East_Ottawa, so that won't impact the next reviewer of your draft. You may continue working on the draft while you're waiting for it to be reviewed again. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty to be clear, when I first published the article, this is what happened as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iamthekanadian#United_Way_East_Ottawa_moved_to_draftspace "This was moved to draft so that it can go through AFC. It is plain that this is another article where you have a conflict of interest. PER WP:COI, please do not push articles to mainspace where you have a conflict of interest. Run them through AFC if you have a COI. I have submitted the article to AFC for you. --- Possibly ☎ 07:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)." I am NOT in COI, there is nothing "plain" about it because it is totally false, I feel bullied and persecuted by this action, and There is nothing wrong with the article - it never should have been in draftspace and forced to go through AFC in the first place, which is my main reason for being here at this time - the annoyance that it has unnecessarily delayed the article for months is secondary to the arbitrary and rather punitive action and tone take to falsely label me COI, and I have been reluctant to continue writing anything because I feel that I am going to be stalked and labeled COI, so why bother? Somehow it seems every charitable organization in Canada must have me on their payroll. Who knew my jack of all trades job with a grassroots charity would be so disqualifying as a Wikipedia contributor? Iamthekanadian (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iamthekanadian: I am sorry that you were wrongly accused of COI in this case. You said "I could not get the person to respond when I explained that I am not in a COI", but I don't see where you asked Possibly to respond. You did ask "maybe you could just prepare me a list of topics that are going to be deemed conflicts of interest for me as I actually don't want to be involved in writing them", which wasn't very civil. Since there wasn't a COI tag on the draft itself, I hope the three reviewers judged it solely on its merits. The draft is much better than it was when you started, and I hope you're encouraged by the five editors who have helped improve the draft. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I am only going to respond once here. User Iamthekanadian has wasted enormous amounts of editor time in the past hiding the fact that they are the paid PR person for the first article they wrote, and refusing to abide by COI guidelines until a number of admins told them pointedly to. The article in question here, on the United Way Ottawa East, is something they clearly have a COI for. Based on their past disclosures, the connection is obvious. They have already confirmed their identity on wiki, and it's easy to find the COI from that. Regarding the draft, which is the proper place for COI editors to develop articles, two reviewers have rejected it, one for it being similar to an advertisement, and the other for lack of sourcing. --- Possibly ☎ 02:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: It appears three reviewers have declined Draft:United Way East Ottawa, and none have rejected it. GoingBatty (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: correct you are. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 05:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Possibly your persecutorial response simply proves my point. I never hid anything. As a newbie, I identified as COI and did not understand that just because I worked for the charity I was writing about, I should also identify as a "paid editor" as I am NOT "paid" to do anything here. But this is very old news and obviously you continue to dish out payback for your personal views about it, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. That was my first article, and yes, a lot of time was wasted on attacking me for those misunderstandings instead of focusing on the the writing. Now it is happening again. I do NOT have a COI for United Way East Ottawa. I do not work for them, have never worked for them, and currently have no formal relationship at all - I once volunteered for them, which as far as I know, is not a COI offense. Being "connected" to something we write about is NOT a COI. You seem to have a COI when it comes to me, as you are stalking my articles and tagging me COI without even having a discussion about it, and now referencing back to my first article - that was resolved. I learned and did everything I Was supposed to do. Your continued attacks and persecution is totally inappropriate but I appreciate you are not hiding that you have made this a personal vendetta, including persisting in a lie that I am COI with United Way East Ottawa. Would you like to be in on a joint email with me to them to prove it? That seems far beyond the scope of what should be required for me to contribute an article, but if it will put an end to your bullying, let's do it. I want to continue writing here, and if you are going to be stalking me and labelling me COI for every Ottawa-based organization for the rest of time, that's not going to work for me, as like most people, I would like to contribute about topics I actually know something about. That's not COI. As for the rejections "similar to an advertisement" is another of those annoyingly subjective pronouncements - I didn't copy any of the information from anywhere, and it is simple language accurately stating the work of the organization, with appropriate sources. But I should not have to be debating this as it should not have been falsely forced into draft because you have decided to punish me for your ongoing issues with my first article. You are clearly emotionally compromised and I kindly ask that your stalking and false claims about me end here. I am not ashamed of working for a charitable organization and writing about other charitable organizations, it is an area of Wikipedia that needs help - this is supposed to be an encouraging space, not a place for personal vendettas, especially when you not only state falsehoods, but use your power here to punish me. Not THAT is shameful. Iamthekanadian (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty it's not civil to unilaterally declare another user as COI without even talking to them about it, and moving their article to draft, is it? I would say that is a clear abuse of power that does not respect Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and so while you mayjudge my response to not be "civil" you don't seem very concerned about the abuse of power that elicited my response, and I guess the message is "too bad so sad" is that right? There's nothing I can do about being falsely accused? Telling me that the article has improved etc. is a distraction from the help I am seeking - I don't want to be persecuted in this way, not now, and not going forward. So my request for "give me a list of topics where you are going to label me COI" might seem uncivil, but I am serious - I don't want to waste me time writing articles that are going to get labeled COI every time because one editor has decided I am a plague to Wikipedia for trying to contribute an article about one of the biggest charities in Canada, which should certainly be on Wikipedia. I understand they apparently took the issues I experienced with my first article very personally and continue to seek revenge, but perhaps it might be appropriate to give them some advice as well? Like, maybe offer your "help" to users that you don't make your blood boil and where you are clearly incapable of objectivity? I am sorry if my civility wasn't top grade, but it's not like I went out seeking a dispute, I simply wrote an article, and then found myself dealing with this abuse of power and act of vengeance. Iamthekanadian (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Since one denies COI and the other says it's plain COI with offline evidence backing it up, it needs discussion somewhere to break the tie. WP:COIN seems to fit the bill. Either there needs to be a discussion to establish consensus that Kanadian has a COI and should use AFC, or they should be allowed to bypass AFC if they want. I recommend procedural accept and procedural AFD. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• This draft seems to violate WP:BRANCH to me and the vehemence of the objections by Iamthekanadian seems to be a strong indication of a likely conflict of interest despite their denials. We already have an article United Way which could certainly be expanded and improved, but why the heck should we have an article about one of the 1800 chapters of this organization unless there is something really remarkable about this particular chapter? There doesn't seem to be anything distinctive according to the content of the draft that Iamthekanadian is so passionate about for some reason, although they deny a COI. Iamthekanadian, are you aware how strange your behavior looks to uninvolved editors? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Usedtobecool Really, the resolution I am looking for (it's fine if my simple article takes a year to get published, I'm not actually a dark hat operator getting paid to write it, so it won't impact on my mortgage payments) is not to be harassed in future. It might have sounded sarcastic, but I really mean it - quite literally, what is the list of topics where I will be labelled COI? Then I just won't write about them. I am fine with that. Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, if the agency you work for gets funding from this Ottawa branch of the United Way, then you have a conflict of interest about this funding agency and every other organization that receives funding from this agency. The disclosure on your user page is argumentative and provides evidence that you neither fully understand nor fully accept the COI policy. On a personal note, I am sympathetic to your cause because I am the father of a young man with a genetic developmental disability compounded by associated mental health issues. I have dealt with these challenges pretty much every single day for over 31 years. Because I know how deep my conflict of interest is regarding these topics, I mostly steer clear of editing related articles, and when I do contribute a bit in these areas, I do so cautiously and always defer to uninvolved editors, and am never aggressive about my edits. I recommend a similar course of action to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Perhaps I wrote it in the wrong place, but I already explained, it is NOT a BRANCH (or chapter) - in fact, UWEO is an independent organization about 3x the size of United Way Canada, which is a much smaller organization - they don't have any control over UWEO whatsoever, in fact, it is more the other way around - United Way Canada exists because the independent United Way local or regional organizations contribute to have a national office to help with convening and national affairs. This is verifiable and has been sourced in the article. If United Way Canada closed tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing about the other organizations (and yes, UWEO is one of the most significant, as explained in the article). I don't really understand your accusations - I see a lot of passion here - I mean, other users taking the time to label me COI over a past grievance is pretty passionate - it just isn't very productive in terms of Wikipedia. Maybe it's just not something people can understand that I am passionate about my areas of knowledge the same way that a knowledgeable soccer fan might be? That being edited by people who don't know the structures of the sector is just as annoying to me as someone who doesn't know the rules of soccer editing a soccer article? Anyway, you win - I don't care anymore. This clearly isn't a place to get help, it's a place for false accusations, such as evidence of a COI being based on the "vehemence of objections" to the false accusation. Good grief. Do what you want. After all, I Am sitting pretty, what with all my COI and paid editor work, I can hop on my private jet, and then take my helicopter to my yacht, even without getting my big payout for a United Way East Ontario article. Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, thank you for proving my point. You are incapable of editing neutrally in this topic area. Expect sanctions to be imposed if you do not desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Oh good grief. Because we got $20,000 in emergency COVID-19 funding last year? And someone actually went and looked that up? I didn't even think of it. That's desperately silly. Have you seen the article? Is it not suitably bland and suitably sourced? Do what you want, I am done with the pettiness. I am very familiar with this type of nonsense, I am a certified governance trainer and this is exactly like when a board of directors has gone wrong and they are busy accusing each other and using rules of order as power plays to settle personal disputes. I have no interest in writing articles about topics that aren't actually interesting to me. And if I am going to be stalked by vengeful people who will be scouring the internet with every article I right hoping to slap on a COI label because I once bought a ticket to a gala, no thanks! Iamthekanadian (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, thank you for providing additional incontrovertible evidence of your deep and profound conflict of interest about this topic area. As an administrator, I advise you in the strongest terms to stop editing in this topic area until you are fully capable of true neutrality. It is glaringly obvious that you are incapable of neutral editing at this time. Consider this a formal warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 Oh wow, now I am to be sanctioned. Will you be going after my offshore bank accounts, accumulated from all the charities that paid me off for writing articles? Thanks for completely ignoring the facts I provided and continuing the personal vendetta. I await the sanctions. Will the United Nations be involved, and will this result in some sort of badge of shame being forced on to my user page? Can't wait. Congratulations on your valuable contributions to making Wikipedia better today, you are a true champion for justice. Iamthekanadian (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, that is BS. Please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 You do realize you inserted yourself into this conversation, right? If the article I wrote is some sort of passion-filled subjective mess, why not apply all this energy to fixing it, instead of attacking me? If you don't think it's an interesting topic worthy of your efforts, fine, move along. Why are YOU so passionate about this to the point of threatening to pursue sanctions? Please give that some thought and I hope you can find some peace with whatever it is that is motivating you to engage in this way. You are posting in MY request for help thread. Telling me to "desist" is outrageously ironic. Iamthekanadian (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Because Iamthekanadian disregarded several warnings to desist from disruptive COI editing, they have been blocked from editing for 72 hours. If the disruption resumes at the end of this block, the next block will be much longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Finding URLs to cite

How to find URLs to cite? I don't know what to cite. Can you help? TylerMagee (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The consideration is usually who or what organization is behind the source cited. The primary guideline is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. – Anon423 (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@TylerMagee In general, not blogs, wikis, social media, online bookstores, selfpublished stuff etc. There is a list of sources that has been repetedly discussed/questioned at WP:RSP, that may give you an idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is it ok to use this method:

Markup	Renders as
*123	123

instead of this:

Markup	Renders as
* 123	123

The difference is the space between the asterisk and the number. Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

As a note, it appears your {{Markup}} templates are broken. Did you mean...

No space

Markup	Renders as
*lorem *ipsum	lorem ipsum

vs.

With space

Markup	Renders as
* lorem * ipsum	lorem ipsum

But anyhow, it appears that the space makes no difference to the rendered page, so it doesn't really hurt anything. There seems to be no proscription against it, but I personally have a preference for the space as seen on Help:List and MOS:BULLETLIST, which I would follow just for the sake of consistency. – Anon423 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Heading editing

Hallo , I wish to edit my Heading, how do i go about it? ChabbieCee (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@ChabbieCee If you mean the title of an article, see WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

How to add a page to category?

One of the anonymous editors made a test edit that adds the page to category and remove from category on Wildlife of Karnataka and reverted it back but they accidentally left the word "January" lowercase "january". I removed it from "Use dmy dates from january 2020" but I don't know how to add a page to a category. The category I want the page to be added to is "Use dmy dates from January 2020". RainbowLover334148 (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to add an article to a category just by adding [[Category:...]] to the bottom of the article – see H:CAT.

Sorry, in this case you should use the template {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}.

ClaudineChionh (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

But I changed from "january 2020" to "January 2020", it doesn't add it back to the category called "Use dmy dates from January 2020. RainbowLover334148 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The dmy/mdy-usage templates add the article to a hidden category, e.g. Category:Use_dmy_dates_from_January_2020. These are intentionally not shown to you in the article, unless you decide to switch on "Show hidden categories" in your preferences. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Law AKA Ivan The Great has officially solves the Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls Murders

The Murders of Tupac Shakur and Cristopher Biggie Smalls Wallce has been solved. The new Detectives are Detective Daryn Dupree LAPD Robbery Homicide and in Las Vegas the Detective is Cold case Detective Long. the new suspects are Oshe Ice Cube Jackson, Andre Dr Dre Young. I am Ivan Law artist name Ivan The Great I am responsible for solving the Tupac and Biggie murders. Lieutenant Thompson added my name to the Biggie homicide file. the case is solved. the rewards are claimed by Ivan Law pending arrest and conviction of Dr Dre and Ice cube. wikies has several of the cover up story article on the site. they are blaming Suge knight, Orlando baby Anderson and Darnel Poochie Bolten. however, the new Detective are going after Dr Dre and Ice cube. how do I include the recent investigation and the new detectives in an article on wikies platform? this is an import article Ivan Laws theory and the fact that he has solved the case has been published Who Killed Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls murder Case Officially solved by Ivan Law Ivan Law is an American Rapper most notable contributions to our society are the solving of the Tupac Shakur and Biggie Murders Ivan is the artist that dubbed the lakers purple and gold. Ivan coined the phrase 24/7 and drop the beat in his 1986 demo. Ivan law is the true pioneer of beat making. that truth is what led to Ivan Law being able to solve the decade olde mystery of what happen to Tupac Shakur and biggie Smalls. the article needs to be written by a professional article about Ivan Law aka Ivan the Great monster beats. the article should be written because they are the truth concerning the murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie smalls. Ivan The Great Monster Beats (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are indeed words... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ivan The Great Monster Beats, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have something you wish to add to our article Tupac Shakur, it's best to post on the talk page Talk:Tupac Shakur, specifying exactly what change you are suggesting. Note that unless you can cite an independent reliable source - one with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control - for the information you want to add, your suggestion is unlikely to be taken up. A citation to an article written by you is not enough - Wikipedia does not publish original research. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for change of info in Afghanistan article

IN the article about Afganistan, The government's head Hibatullah Akhundzada is confirmed to be dead by senior taliban officials, so extended confirmed editors please change it immediately. NOTE: News18 is a independent news body is owned by Network 18 and is a part of CNN International. Partha Basak 16:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The place for edit requests is on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

References

How do i Enable Visual Editor?

I need some help trying to find Visual Editor Thegibuspyro (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC) 

Hi @Thegibuspyro: and welcome to the Teahouse. To switch to visual editing, open up the source editing page as usual-- in the top right corner of the editing screen, there's a picture of a pencil. Click on that and you'll be able to switch back and fourth between the modes. Happy editing! Helen(💬📖) 16:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thegibuspyro (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks!

I think there is a miscommunication

Hello community members, I made an edit to a newly created article about one Lukumanu Iddrisu by @Sasluk11. He is the first African, Ghanaian, and also the first graduate to be awarded alumnus of the year by Finland's Vaasa University of Applied Sciences with features in different notable newspapers and magazines including ModernGhana, Daily Graphic, News Ghana, Yen, 3News, Joy FM, GhanaWeb and more. I see the article to be notable and do not deserve deletion. See https://www.google.com/search?q=lukumanu+iddrisu&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGH940GH940&sxsrf=AOaemvJHVpLuhbWwiTirNrz7zEn366LMrA:1633975545056&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZtbyf-cLzAhW4A2MBHQGSBgUQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1440&bih=732&dpr=2 Jibodi (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jibodi: I suggest reading the guidance at WP:YFA, and then working on a draft article where you can take time to make sure there are references showing the subject is notable. You are not the first person to try and create an article on this topic, so perhaps it is just not a fit for an encyclopedia article. RudolfRed (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Also note that a google search cannot be used to establish notability. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Jibodi, he is a university student and a trainee. It is too soon for a Wikipedia article about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf:, under Additional criteria in WP:People specifically WP:ANYBIO, there is a clear indication that the subject passes criteria 1 and 2 because;

1. He is the first ever person be it Ghanaian or African or graduate of the institution to receive "Alumnus of the Year" award. i) https://www.vamk.fi/en/news/lukumanu_iddrisu_is_vamk-s_alumnus_of_the_year/ ii) https://yen.com.gh/195571-ghanaian-wins-first-ever-alumnus-year-award-finland.html iii) https://www.vasabladet.fi/Artikel/Visa/519157

2. He is also a recipient of the Summer Employee of the Year, a national award given by Oikotie Oy in their national responsibility summer job campaign. Kindly refer to i) https://www.wartsila.com/fin/paikallisuutinen/07-10-2021-wartsilan-trainee-lukumanu-iddrisu-nimetty-vuoden-kesatyontekijaksi-ja-wartsilalle-kunniamaininta-vastuullinen-kesatyo--kampanjassa ii) https://kesaduuni.org/vuoden-2021-parhaat-kesatyonantajat/

@Cullen328:, regarding the entity's positive contribution to his community as a community builder and the honours he has received are sufficient for his inclusion on Wikipedia and do not matter his status as a university student nor a trainee.Sasluk11 (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sasluk11: I'm afraid the WP:ANYBIO criteria you mention do not apply. "Alumnus of the year" at an individual university is not "a well-known and significant award or honor". I'm fairly sure that every university in the world that is more than a few years old has similar awards and distinctions. In this case, it is the first such honour being conferred at that particular university (so it is by definition not well-known or significant). Summer Employee of the Year at an individual company is also not a significant award. As for "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" (ANYBIO criterion 2), that is a very strong claim, and it is not obvious from this discussion what the claim is based on, but it doesn't look very likely that it would apply. I notice that articles about this person have been deleted before, see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukumanu iddrisu. --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: With regards to your view on the significance of "Alumnus of the year", I argue that such an award is the highest honor bestowed upon alumni of any higher educational institution based on certain principles — often personality and positive impact. Hence, such an award or honour is significant and it does not matter whether it is first time or not; well-known or less known. The significance of the honour is what matters.

Secondly, the award for the "Summer Employee of the Year" is a national award and it is not an award won at an individual company. It is well-known and significant. Kindly refer to the link in the previous argument. Indeed a previous article about the subject have been deleted as quoted. However, this achievements of his at this time merits an article. Sasluk11 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, an award from an individual company rather than at it. (You did not mention what kind of company Oikotie Oy is, so I had to look it up). It is still not a claim to notability such that WP:ANYBIO is met, and neither is an alumnus of the year award since, again, many thousands of people get such a distinction every year. If you disagree with that assessment, you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: If you had look as you claim, you would have realized how significant the award is; if only you looked carefully. Simply put, the national responsibility summer job campaign is a national competition in Finland comprising of over 500 companies which awards the best summer employers. In addition, the "Summer Employee of the Year" is awarded in this competition. Hence, it is astounding to claim that the "Summer Employee of the Year" award is not worth notability when the works of the recipient (of the award) has gone through rigorous process with other nominees nationwide. It can still be argued that such a honour is significant and is in line with WP:ANYBIO (criteria 1). Here is a link for your perusal: https://kesaduuni.org/tyonantajalle/vastuullisin-kesaduuni-kilpailu-ja-kesaduunitutkimus/ Sasluk11 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If it is a significant award, there will be multiple independent and reliable sources talking about it in depth (see this explanation). In the posts above there are sources from the company where Iddrisu worked when he received the award, and from the awarding company (kesaduuni.org is a website run by Oikotie). I understand what the competition is and do not for a second doubt that Iddrisu deserved to win it, or that it is a tough contest to win. That is not the same thing as it being notable. Not being notable according to Wikipedia's peculiar definition of notability is not a slur on a person (or on an award). --bonadea contributions talk 17:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion?

Hello Wiki warriors, I came across a line in Segmentation (biology) that seems to be more of an opinion than a fact. "Segmentation is a difficult process to satisfactorily define." How would you go about addressing something like this so that it is more in line with Wiki's guidelines? Please advise, thank you.TJM11 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC) TJM11 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@TJM11: I looked up the source at the end of the paragraph, and it sources that first statement. I didn't read the entire paper, but it's possible that it refers to the example subsequently given. Hopefully others with access can review to confirm. For article specific questions like this, you can always post on the article's talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Resubmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MultiCube

Hi,

i would like to know what else coverage or improvement would be needed in order to create this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MultiCube) as the topic has a huge coverage on youtube with videos with multiple millions of views and also outside coverage indexed by google.

Thanks for reviewing Lejib63111 (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If Multicube was a server, why does the first mention of it in the draft call it "The MultiCube Network"? Maproom (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom It was a hub server which was connected to all of there game servers in a network, which it would then technically make it a server network. Like Mineplex Hypixel. Hope this makes sense. Lejib63111 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lejib63111. I'm afraid that a huge coverage on youtube with videos with multiple millions of views and also outside coverage indexed by google is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Anybody can put anything they like on YouTube, and anybody can throw up a website and get it indexed by Google. A core policy of Wikipedia, verifiability, says that everything in a Wikipedia article must be backed up by a reliable published source, and mostly by sources unconnected with the subject of the article. YouTube does host some reliable sources - the official channels of major news publishers, for example - but the majority of material there is not reliably published, and may not be cited. On a quick look, the only one of your references which even might contribute to establishing notability is the Gearcraft one: I haven't investigated to see whether that looks like a reliable source. 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. You need to find several examples of that, or your draft has no hope of being accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thanks for your answer and for pointing this out! I've managed to get some more sources also by some books that published covered information regarding this. I hope that this still will get noticed as all people that played the game during that time will remember this server as youtube was fully covered by minecraft videos from this server at that time. Just by searching Super Jump or Syndicate Games YouTube is full of this, but if this doesn't count as a valid reference this would be a shame. I still hope that there will be any way, this would be sufficient enough to be created. Lejib63111 (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

page protection

My page 'Route to Paradise' was vandalised four days ago and I have had to remove the edits. Is there a way to request having the page protected or having some form of protection? As it is a film about the Holocaust I assume it was done by a far-right group. Donutsmash (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Donutsmash. An administrator has semi-protected the article for three weeks. Things like this should be reported to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Donutsmash, I read the article and a lot of the content is not properly sourced. It appears the Wikipedia article has more details than any of the referenced sources. Because of this and your very narrow edit focus, I have the impression a connection between you and the article subject exists. If this is the case, please have a look at the conflict of interest guideline and take the necessary steps of disclosure. Thanks. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

self promotion and publication on Wikipedia

How can I submit information on self to be included on Wikipedia? 2601:140:9180:D10:D4A2:C883:1994:D9D (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Self-promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

changing the spansih wiki name of the article "Cancer edwardsii"

changing names through moving, redirect, or other method?

Hello. I would like to suggest a name change on the Spanish wiki article "Cancer edwardsii" to "Metacarcinus edwardsii" so that it can also be linked with other languages of the same article. Though, I am fairly new to this kind of changes, which is wh I would like to know your suggestions in regards to this. Thanks for reading. Crescentwuju (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Mariaboas (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A move request for an article on the Spanish wikipedia would need to be made on the Spanish wikipedia; however, if you simply want to use interwiki links to point to this article across other languages, their titles do not need to match--Help:Interlanguage links should provide some assistance here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mariaboas (talk) May I know under which section I should find the assistance that I am looking for, if I want just want to create an interwiki link between the two? I get the error "the page is already in used" and wiki suggests me to merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescentwuju (talk • contribs) 22:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mariaboas. There were two separate entries in Wikidata, d:Q13846584 (Metacarcinus Edwardii) and d:Q20855658 (Cancer Edwardii): the es article was linked to the latter and the en, nl, cb articles to the former. Since the terms are synonymous according to the es article, there is no problem with simply merging the two entries, so that's what I have done (by picking "More -> Merge" on one of them).  Done --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Monika Lubonja

(Section heading added by Anon423)

Can you review my draft please? Likurgu (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Monika Lubonja As with any draft, give it some time. There is a long backlog of drafts, and all reviewers are volunteers. It can take months for someone to get around to it. You can help reviewers by making sure you have good WP:Reliable, WP:Independent sources that establish WP:Notability, perhaps listing the three best references on the talk page.

"Improving your odds of a speedy review" (click [show]) within the yellow Articles for Creation "Review waiting" banner) also suggests adding WikiProject tags to your draft. – Anon423 (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Likurgu. I think your draft is already accepted Talk:Matilda_Makoçi by a reviewer named Eternal Shadow. But I'm not sure why it is both in main and draft space. Eevee01^(talk) 11:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Appears Likurgu created two drafts, about different women, one of which has been accepted as an article. Hence, Draft:Monika Lubonja and Matilda_Makoçi. The confusion was because they are both Albanian actresses, born days apart. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD My bad! Thanks for pointing that out. Eevee01^(talk) 12:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Likurgu: While you're waiting for a review, you can expand your references: make sure each reference has a |work= or |website= or |publisher= reference, and that the non-English references have |trans-title= and |language=. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Article about a referred blogging site

Hi, I want to write an article about a notable Urdu language citizen journalism digital magazine www.humsub.com.pk It is referred in about half a dozen wiki articles but has no wiki article as yet of its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=humsub&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

But it seems that someone previously deleted an article about it. Is it worth trying to write about it? Or would it be a wasted effort?

How can I be sure that it would be accepted? I have written a few blogs for that magazine but this would not be a paid wiki article. 

Khazina 2400:ADC5:127:E600:3455:FFEC:345A:6C63 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Thank you for asking this question. Whilst I do not speak Urdu, my impression is that www.humsub.com.pk is a news forum site, taking blog-type posts from numerous sources. Being a news outlet does not, in itself, make an organisation Notable in Wikipedia's view. What counts is whether the world at large has taken note and written about that particular organisation in some detail and depth, and in an independent manner. In reality, this would mean that humsub has featured as the subject in articles carried by other news outlets or publications with editorial independence. My feeling is that this is unlikely to be the case here (though I cannot say for certain). Whilst a small number of notable people may have contributed posts to that news outlet, that fact does not, in itself, itself make that news outlet notable. Thus, I would advise against trying to write an article unless you are really confident you can cite at least three independent sources which have written in some detail about the work and activities of humsub as an organisation. Those sources need not be in English, but they do need to be RELIABLE in their own right, and contribute to meeting WP:NCORP - a shortcut link to our criteria on businesses which meet our notability criteria. If those sources don't exist, then no article on exist here on Wikipedia. I hope this reply helps you decide what's most appropriate to do. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You might also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Notability (web), specifically the "Criteria" section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

How much disruptive editing/vandalism would warrant page protection?

Note: See the subsection for List of Talking Tom & Friends (TV series) episodes at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/10#09 October 2021 for my declined RfPP request. I have made another request here.

List of Talking Tom & Friends (TV series) episodes was initially protected after this discussion because the IP range was too wide to block (see the page history. 2603:9000:6c01:79c:xxxxxxx is the culprit). I had requested page protection again at WP:RfPP after the same address-hopping editor returned to vandalise the templates when the protection expired, and the request was declined because there was "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection". I am requesting page protection again since I disagree with the declining admin (and the IP editor returned yesterday), but I want to know if there is any clear essay or guideline explaining how much disruptive editing/vandalism (by either IP range hoppers or multiple editors) would warrant page protection. Tube·of·Light 02:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have something like 'Template:Infobox disputed territories'?

Does Wikipedia have an infobox template for disputed territories (like the one meant for disputed islands)? If yes, can someone provide the URL for that template? Rockcodder (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rockcodder: There was one, but it was unused and then it was deleted. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_11#Template:Infobox_disputed_territory RudolfRed (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Would it be inappropriate to use Template:Infobox disputed islands to represent disputed regions which are not islands, reefs, atolls etc? Rockcodder (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

How to view/edit my Wikipedia account information

I opened my Wikipedia account several years ago, and I would like to review my account information now to verify that it is still current, and to update anything that is not. My searches for an explanation of how do do this were unsuccessful, so perhaps I just need a reference to a help article that explains this (and perhaps a reference to an article that explains how to better search help topics).

If this is not an appropriate place for this question, then I would very much appreciate some guidance for more appositively redirecting it.

Thank You, Shadetree Sam (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you found your way into "Preferences", RalphPerry? If not, then this is where you should look. If you have questions about what you see (or don't see) there, feel free to ask them. Incidentally, it would be considerate to your fellow editors if you'd either change your signature so that it reads "RalphPerry" or change your username to something you'd like to see in your signature. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RalphPerry. Click "Contributions" at the very top of a page and yout will see the page called "User contributions for RalphPerry". There are a variety of links at both the top and the very bottom of that page that will take you to lots of information about your account. The link called "Edit count", for example, has very detailed statistics about your editing, including lists of articles, counts by month, and even analysis of time of the day and days of the week that you edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@RalphPerry, to answer your other question, I usually type a best-guess keyword in the search bar with "Wikipedia:" prefix, and fumble around as Wikipedia:Navigation advises, and repeat. In this case, you wanted help with navigating help and with updating account information, so I looked for Wikipedia:Help and Wikipedia:Account. Both led me to real pages which you might have found helpful. If you scrolled down the Wikipedia:Help page, there is "Account Settings" under "Help by topic" which is what you would have been looking for. If you went to Wikipedia:Account which has a lot of useful information but not as obvious a link to what you would have been looking for, you would have had to read the whole page I think to have an idea of what the best link to next go to would be. You might have seen link to preferences there and thought to check it out. Or you may have reached the bottom and noticed the collapsed template that says "Basic Information on Wikipedia [show]" and clicked the show button. There you hopefully would have seen links to Help:Menu and Help:Directory which would be good places to start over. The directory has a link called "Account settings and maintenance" and the menu page has by far the most unmissable link called "Account settings". For completeness, if you reach the very bottom of the page without finding what you are looking for, be sure to read the categories and see if there's any which could potentially contain the page you are looking for. Hope this helps you next time. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiMedia Voting

Dear Team,

What does it take to become eligible to vote, how come I am not allowed to even vote? IndianVenture (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@IndianVenture: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! What are you interested in voting in? A lot of things (like deletion discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment) have no eligibility criteria but it would be a good idea to get familiar with Wikimedia policy before participating. Some things (like arbitration committee elections, board elections) have activity and account age requirements, you'll have to check the pages for each election. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

FTR, IPs can't !vote in RFAs; they can comment though. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@IndianVenture, welcome to Wikipedia! Can you link to what you'd like to "vote" in? Actual votes are quite rare around here, though we have discussions that looks fairly similar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a poll appearing on top of the wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianVenture (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

m:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections, most likely; eligibility requirements are at m:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Set_Up_Process#Election_process, @IndianVenture. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Hello, I came across the picture in this diff. I googled the name (also reverse searched) but nothing came up. I have a suspicion that the account uploaded a pic of his mate and is having a laugh. I have asked the uploader on his talk page but haven't received a response yet. Should the picture be deleted? {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 05:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think so, Abillionradios; and that's why I kicked off commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BobbyKaiser.jpg. You are (and anyone is) free to comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Images

How can i add images to a wkipedia article? Devanjana Rajesh (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

hi @Devanjana Rajesh: and welcome to the teahouse! please see WP:PIC for how to upload an image in wikipedia or wikimedia commons, and WP:UPI for how to upload pictures that you have taken yourself. happy editing!   melecie   t 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

My page is not being published.

I am creating a page on Wikipedia named NUSTAG, A student-led automotive society. But even after 17 to 18 revisions its still being rejected saying that the notability has not been established. I have used the most authentic resources available. Also I am blamed that the content is promotional. Even Though the content I have published are just hard facts. If someone could give me explicit instructions regarding the changes I need to make to get my page published would be a great help to me. Thanks! Malik Huzaifa Saeed (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Malik Huzaifa Saeed (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:NUSTAG Maproom (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Malik Huzaifa Saeed (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something- that is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Independent sources does not include things like press releases, interviews with members, announcements of routine activities, or any other materials put out by the organization. The sources you offer seem to just be telling what the organization does, not why it is notable.

If you are associated with this organization, please read about conflict of interest. Please also see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Caine

Michael Caine

Under 'Filmography' The film 'Jaws 4' Released in 1987, is not shown.--176.22.125.130 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC) 176.22.125.130 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please direct any comments about an article to its article talk page, in this case, Talk:Michael Caine. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to look at the main article: Jaws: The Revenge is included in Michael_Caine_filmography.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Writing about bands: Draft:Master Dy

Hi guys, how are you? I'm new here so I'm sorry if I ask silly questions, I've read a lot about the community but maybe I didn't understand everything well, when I was a kid (Not so long ago I'm 19 now) I used the site to do jobs from school under the influence of my sister and friends, so it became a dream for me to become an editor here, now that I entered college I decided to dedicate myself to writing here because my college is about music so I believe that one thing can influence the other. I decided to start by writing about bands that I like to listen to and admire, and that have people with interesting stories inserted as members, my band chosen to start was Master Dy because it is an immigrant who after she trying to commit suicide in Europe, she create the band that is winning a lot of notoriety, well I followed the band right after this year's release and saw them grow rapidly, the numbers, the quality of the music and many other things set them apart from the rest, yes they are still far from reaching stardom like Iron Maiden hahaha but the story of resilience and exponential growth makes it a remarkable subject, I've been researching the opinion of some people both in my circle of friends and people who listen to the band and I questioned if they thought it coherent for me to start writing about this band on wikipedia, there were few people to be exact 23, and 19 of them said it seemed fair to start with this topic, I know this number I interviewed is small it was a the personal research and it doesn't even compare with the wikipedia public, I would like to know what are the best steps for my content to be approved, which sites can I enter exactly and which would be considered valid? I can't understand this part, because there are exclusive Metal sites that weren't accepted in my article, can anyone help this silly Brazilian here? Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Master_Dy Thony-Ferro (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thony-Ferro: these 19 friends who encouraged you, had any of them read Wikipedia's policy on notability?   Maproom (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thony-Ferro The best advice I can give here is to have a look at WP:A/S, this is a list of reliable sources vetted by the music-based wikiprojects here. If you can find material on any of these websites discussing this band, then that will greatly help demonstrate notability. Spend some time searching through those sources for what you want to write about and see if it helps. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thony-Ferro, you have an immense amount of work to do. Here's just one sentence: The project that was to be called Dy Moob and be turned to viking metal changed its name [I infer that here you're talking about a single person who you elsewhere refer to as "she". Why "it" here?] to Master Dy^[2] after being stricken by a crisis of borderline disorder^[3] [Placement of a reference here implies that the reference gives evidence that she (or "it") was stricken with a "borderline disorder". However, the page this links to says no such thing.] and having tried against its own life. [I suppose this means "attempted suicide" but I'm not sure.] -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thony-Ferro. Welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse. It's great that you're enthusiastic and went to contribute; but can I suggest that creating new articles is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to contribute? I remember when I started as an editor more than fifteen years ago, desperately looking for a topic to write an article on and make my mark. In the end, I have only ever created about a dozen, among nearly 20 000 edits. Consider: we have six million articles, many of them dreadful, and in need of improvement. Most times that a relatively new editor tries to create an article, they end up having a miserable and frustrating time; and if you consider the time and effort that experienced editors spend in trying to guide them, they arguably end up putting a negative amount of value into Wikipedia at that point - whereas if they started by finding existing articles that interested them and need some work, they might be adding value straight away.

You are a little bit in the position of somebody saying "I've done some woodwork at school, and now I want to be a builder. I've got an idea for a house, and I'm going to build it!" Most people would say that perhaps you should spend a few years learning the trade before you take on something so big that you probably don't even know what the matters are that you are going to have to deal with. Writing a Wikipedia article is a bit like that. OK, it's not quite as big as building a house, and you don't need years of learning the trade; but I would suggest a few months at least, while you learn how to survey the site (determine whether the subject is notable) and build the foundations (find the reliable sources that are an absolute requirement. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Need an admin or other rollbackers with high experience

I have a question, I was granted a rollback feature a while ago, then an admin message me that I can only use this rollback for obvious vandalisms. What if an editor gave an information in an article, but with no source, can I rollback it? Ctrlwiki (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No, not unless the edit is also clearly vandalism. For example, an unsourced edit may be incorrect but made in good faith, or actually correct. Neither of those cases is vandalism. Meters (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ROLLBACKUSE Meters (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ctrlwiki, you need to be very careful about your use of rollback. It is limited to unambiguously problematic edits like vandalism. I am an administrator and rarely use rollback because edit summaries are important. If you misuse rollback you may lose that right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, I read the guidelines so I will use it in obvious vandal. How about twinkle? Can I use that to revert an edit of a user because he didn't provide any sources? Ctrlwiki (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You can use the specific functions of Twinkle that allow you to insert an edit summary explaining the reversion, as long as you actually do provide that edit summary. Otherwise, reverting with Twinkle is essentially the same as using rollback. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

But you didn't answer me, my question is, if an editor added an information in an article without sources, can I use twinkle to revert it instead of using rollback (because rollback is for vandalisms only)? Ctrlwiki (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Writ Keeper did answer you. You can use Twinkle to revert non-vandalism as long as you provide an edit summary explaining why you undid the edit. You are not allowed to use Twinkle to revert non-vandalism without giving a reason in an edit summary. Meters (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ctrlwiki, you seem to be fixated on rapidly removing unreferenced content. This is a problem because this is a project to build an encyclopedia, not to tear it down. This is not a massive video game. We value quality over quantity. Obviously, you need to remove highly implausible content. But do not remove plausible unreferenced content without doing some work. Does a reference elsewhere in the article verify the content? If so, use the WP:REFNAME function to re-use the reference for that assertion. Formulate a competent Google or Google Books or Google Scholar search to see if you can find a reliable source, and if you find it, add it to the article. If the content seems plausible but you are not able to easily find a source, add a Template: Citation needed tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got it! Thanks for answering. My last question is how to install Twinkle on touchscreen devices like mine? Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Twinkle, Crtlwiki. Twinkle is written in Javascript, so you must be using a browser that supports Javascript. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Using Twinkle

How to install Twinkle on touchscreen devices like mine? Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

hi @Ctrlwiki:! all you need to do to run twinkle is activate the relevant setting in your preferences, gadgets section, then make sure you are using the desktop webpage as twinkle doesn't run on the mobile page. it's a bit finnicky (seems like you have to hold the TW tab for a bit for it to keep the tab opened), but it works decently enough. happy editing!   melecie   t 07:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm using phone to edit, I don't have a desktop, what should I do to use Twinkle on my phone? Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

At the foot of the page in mobile view you'll find a "Desktop" option. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: There is also a script you can add to your common.js, which will automatically make any Wikipedia page (at English Wikipedia) that is loaded in the mobile view redirect to the desktop version. It is super helpful, because many users post links to the mobile version of pages in discussions, and if you go to a Wikipedia page through an external search engine like Google it will often default to the mobile version, if you are on your mobile. The script is found at User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion, and you find your commons.js at Special:MyPage/common.js. (Of course, if you like the mobile view for other browsing and editing, it may be less helpful.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with the Japanese Wikipedia

Sorry, but I don't know exactly where to post this since I'm quite new. I was trying to edit a page on the Japanese Wikipedia and then when I tried to save my edit, it suddenly failed to save and showed a red error pop-up message (I couldn't fully understand it) that mentioned something along the lines of long term abuse and then suddenly I couldn't edit any semi-protected pages or move any pages. Does anyone know why I had lost my ability to edit any semi-protected pages or move pages and if I am in any trouble on the Japanese Wikipedia? Please help! Jeuno (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jeuno: Welcome to the Teahouse. We can't really help with stuff on other Wikipedia projects. The help desk for the Japanese Wikipedia is here, though. You should try asking there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I was going to try and post there, but then I became worried that I cannot communicate well in Japanese so I might not be able to get the message across properly. Jeuno (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What Tenryuu says. But in the meantime: Your question suggests that you expected to be able to edit semi-protected pages, etc. I wonder why you'd expect to be able to do that, given that your only edits there appear to have been minor fiddling with your user page. Anyway, ja:特別:投稿記録/Jeuno shows that you're not blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Ah, well thank goodness I didn't get blocked! Also, I did have autoconfirmed rights since I could edit semi-protected pages before this incident. I was editing my user page since I had a minor error so I tried to correct it but then it suddenly gave me an error message and prevented me from editing my own page so I couldn't correct the error. I also went onto semi-protected pages and couldn't edit them nor move them. Maybe the anti-vandalism bot had mistaken me for a long-term vandaliser since it mentioned WP:LTA on the error so maybe it temporarily revoked my autoconfirmed rights? I'm not really sure. Anyways, hopefully it is temporary and after a few days I should be able to edit semi-protected pages and have the right to move pages again. Jeuno (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu and @Hoary: I have managed to find out what had exactly happened. It seemed my edit ended up getting caught up in the edit filter here and it ended up being mistaken for a disruptive edit by an LTA alt account which resulted in my autoconfirmed rights being removed. I should be able to explained what had happened to the people at the help desk on the Japanese Wikipedia and to tell them to give back my autoconfirmed rights. Thank you both for your help! Jeuno (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jeuno: Japanese Wikipedia has a page at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers where you can ask questions in languages other than Japanese. For the most part, these appear to be questions asked in English, but other langauges might be OK as well. Japanese Wikipedia also has a much smaller number of administrators compared to English Wikipedia and many of them probably have a basic understanding of English and at least two (ja:利用者:Infinite0694 and ja:利用者:ネイ) state they understand English at a near-native level. Both of these editors have English Wikipedia pages at User:Infinite0694 and User:ネイ as well; so, they might be able to help sort things out for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

They said that because I edited my user page too many times it automatically triggered the edit filter and prevented me from getting autoconfirmed rights. It was a normal trigger because it seems that long term abusers/sock puppeteers on the Japanese Wikipedia often edit their user or user talk page in order to gain autoconfirmed rights and then vandalise/disrupt semi-protected pages. Jeuno (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft review for Sunbury Road

We have another draft for Draft:Sunbury Road, it says on my draft page: "Sunbury Road is a major (16.4 kilometre) urban arterial road in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Sunbury Road runs northwest–southeast from Melbourne Airport to Sunbury. It's a local government area of City of Hume." Can you give us more information about my draft page? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:5D46:F263:440A:A409 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(i) Please see Writing a new article for Draft:Berwick-Cranbourne Road. (ii) Do you intend to keep writing drafts that lack references, and hoping that other editors will somehow conjure up references for these? If so, please don't. The right procedure is first find reliable sources; then summarize what these say in your own words (scrupulously citing your reliable sources). -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

In house-building terms, what you're doing is saying: "I think some houses would be nice here. I've put the front doors up: will somebody build the houses round them?" --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Picton

I have added some well researched information about Rosetta Smith who was Sir Thomas Picton's mistress.

This is well sourced material from the Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies.

[12] Candlin, Kit (2012). The Last Caribbean Frontier, 1795-1815. Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 138–156. ISBN 9780230354081.

My material is systematically removed with no reasonable explanation by a number of users.

This is clearly being done for political reasons by people who want to re-write the narratives of history to fit their agenda.

Why is this happening?

~`~` Jrbsaunders (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Jrbsaunders, you seem oddly quick to ascribe motives to others. I suggest that you stop doing this, and that you instead bring up the matter at Talk:Thomas Picton. -- Hoary (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, Thanks for the rather abrupt and rude response. My post has been persistently removed, so I would hardly decribe myself as "oddly quick". It's perfectly clear to me that there are specific motives for the removal of my factual post and those motives can only be political because they are certainly not based on lack of factual accuracy.

~`~` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrbsaunders (talk • contribs) 05:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Jrbsaunders, your assumption of political motives strike me as absurd. Those removing the content you added are much more likely to be concerned about Wikipedia policy than about a long-dead army officer. I see you have not tried to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. The paragraph "An insight into the type of woman she was can be gleaned from surviving business records" certainly does not belong in the article; it tells us nothing about Smith, let alone about the subject of the article. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Maproom well they've just deleted my material with no feasible explanation. One explanation I did get was that they thought it was inconstructive whatever that means; that's their opinion. No response from two editors who have simply removed my entry without discussing the matter. So I can only conclude this is being edited by people who want certain facts in history removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrbsaunders (talk • contribs)

What is perfectly clear to you, Jrbsaunders, may not be perfectly clear to others. Putting aside imaginable motives for and against, should the material be in the article or should it not? Please bring up the matter at Talk:Thomas Picton, and argue persuasively. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2021

I agree with Hoary. You have added (again) far to much information about Rosetta Smith. Initially, you did it without a reference, so deleted for lack of verification. Subsequently you had added several paragraphs about Rosetta Smith, her businesses, her children... with a reference. All this was deleted as not germane to the article. You added it again. I expect it to be deleted again. Make your case on the Talk page of the article rather than impugning the motives of the editors who disagree with you. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for an opinion on my new draft article

A new draft article namely, Draft:Dantak is pending review. This article is about a famous Indian overseas military unit in Bhutan. Please help me publish it. I feel it is publishable as it is well prepared, written neutrally with valid references. Else, please react to the article. Both positive and negative review are welcomed. Partha Basak 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

2006nishan178713 STATUS: Submitted to AfC (today!). There is a backlog of submitted drafts. The system is not a queue. Can be days, weeks, months before it is reviewed. Teahouse hosts advise, but are not reviewers. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Interview citation / translation transcript for a wiki page

Hi! I'm writing my first wiki page and I'd like to cite an interview that was originally posted in French. There was a translated version from French into English posted as a word document and I was wondering how I should go about referencing this interview. Should I link the original interview and the translation together? Is there a way that I'd be able to do that? Kuugi (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you read French? If you can, then you needn't take the accuracy of the translation on trust, and you needn't cite it at all; instead, use and cite the original. If you can't, then various difficulties arise. Let's put them aside for a moment and consider other things. First, interviews have little use here. Most are of somebody, who talks about him- or herself. However, we're not interested in what people say about themselves. Secondly, you seem to have been editing here for a total of one day, and I don't notice any edits to existing articles. Attempting to start an article when you have so little experience is likely to be very difficult. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kuugi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with what Hoary says. In addition, if you are considering referencing a transcript or translation, please make sure that it is not a copyright violation. On the more general question of editing as a new editor, please have a look at my reply to #Writing about bands: Draft:Master Dy earlier on this page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

About sources for Draft:Amrit Nataraj

My draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Amrit_Nataraj about a musician got rejected citing not adequately supported by reliable sources. Does this article https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/lounge/khanjira-gets-its-brand-ambassador/articleshow/21589357.cms not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notable musician? Do I need to provide more sources about the artist? CredenceMind (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! As per WP:NBIO, You are required to prove that they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. So far you have only presented one source so i suggest adding more of those. You must also look up the section on entertainers as well. Happy editing!--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

CredenceMind, the article you cite above does not help to show that Amrit Nataraj is notable. Some paragraphs are about the khanjira, others report what Nataraj has said. It lacks the "independent discussion" of him that would be required to show notabiliry.   Maproom (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the first Surgeon of UAE "a notable person"

In addition he has also won a couple of awards including the UAE Pioneer Medal, presented by His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE (and also the Ruler of Dubai). He also won the Annual Health Awards in 2018 source  LostCitrationHunter (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, LostCitrationHunter, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've edited your post to convert the link to an external link, instead of pointing to the Wikipedia article Source. If he meets the criteria in WP:NBIO, then he is notable. It is up to you to demonstrate that, if you want an article about him. The source you have given might be relevant, but it looks to me as if derives from Kazim, and so is not independent. 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) 10:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine Thank you for your response and for converting the link to external source (the links have been acting wierd for me for a whill, but i'll ask it in another section) I am curious but can you tell why exactly you feel the source "derives from Kazim, and so is not independent." The article was written by a Staff Reporter for an Emirati News agency and so I wanted to know if theres a particular red flag here? Thanks a lot!--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, LostCitrationHunter. Because that sort of piece is usually written from a press release put out by the awarding institution, which will in turn be based on information provided by the winner or their institution. The fact that it contains quotes from both Kazim's further compromises any independence. Non-independent sources may be used in articles, but only for limited kinds of information, and they never contribute to notability: see PRIMARY. On the links: double square brackets are internal links in Wikipedia, with the display text after a pipe ('|'), so you inserted an internal link to source, with the URL as the display text. External links are in single brackets, with the display text after a space; or if there is no display text, a URL without brackets (which is what I converted it to). --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine Thanks for the reply once again. I'll keep that in mind the next time I use awards as a factor for Notibility. But in this case I think the first part of your response shouldn't be a problem, since the awarding institution is the Dubai Health Authority (which is the de-facto Health ministry of the Dubai) and hence a national-level award. You were also right, the news site probably took details from the Press release of the health ministry. Also if a News agency contacts the person in question to get details (like Gulf News most likely did here) would it be counted as primary or secondary source? --LostCitrationHunter (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Indian Railway Signalling

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Indian Railway Signalling

i submitted the draft of this article. It was declined for the reasons of insufficient secondary sources and encyclopedic language. i worked on the article and included enough secondary sources and also improved the quality as desired and submitted it again. But again the article was declined on similar grounds which according to me were already complied. i replied to the reviewer giving full explanation, but received a reply form some other reviewer that the particular reviewer is blocked so he can not reply. Here is what i replied to the blocked reviewer:

""Draft Indian Railways Signalling page Dear Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla,

i wish to submit that the draft was modified by me to include, reliable independent secondary sources which have significant coverage of the subject. Here are the details of each of the references: Ref 1: This is from a reliable newspaper. This was already accepted by the previous reviewer as a reliable secondary source. Ref 2: This is from the daily newspaper Hindu which is reliable and secondary source and the article has significant coverage of the subject. Ref 3: This is an article by the website Network Rail, which a UK based company, and hence it is a secondary source and it has significant coverage of the subject. Ref 4: This is a USA based journal. Author is also from USA. Hence it is independent secondary source as far as Indian railways is concerned. It has significant coverage of the subject of railway signalling. Ref 5: This article is by an independent website "www.constructionworld.in". The magazine covers construction business from projects policies and people to topical concerns, trends and technology. This is an independent secondary source carrying this complete article on cab signalling on Indian railways. Ref 6: This article is by the global company Ericsson, well known in the field of ICT. Hence a secondary source. The whole article is about modernization of Indian railway signalling. Ref 7: This article is on the site IBEF, which is a knowledge centre for global interests, international policy makers and world media. It carries information about Indian railway industry in general and not about Indian railway signalling. It has been use as a source of general information about Indian railways, which was considered important in the context of the article. Ref 8: This ref is from the daily "Financial Express", which is a reliable secondary source and has significant coverage about the subject.

In view the above clarifications kindly reconsider for publishing or please guide me further. Thanks ans regards. LoveAll (talk). 11:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Loveallwiki, Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla has been blocked and thus can't answer your question. If you need help, I recommend visiting the Teahouse, where experienced editors can assist you. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)""

As explained above, with the desired improvements carried out, i wish to resubmit the article for approval. Kindly guide and help me.LoveAll (talk). 05:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Loveallwiki. You can resubmit the draft by picking the button that says "Resubmit". There is no point in discussing it here. (I for one have not read the paragraph above: either the reveiwers will agree that the references will stand on their own, or they won't - your discussion of them serves no purpose). --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Between the first Declined and the Second Declined, you made major efforts to improve the draft. Continue that process before resubmitting. Persevere. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current revision might still have residual issues of formatting, but the sourcing is well above the bar to publish a new article. The same can be said about the revision of the last decline, whose reviewer has since been banned for sockpuppetry (related to AfC among other things).

I might be out of touch with how AfC operates, but I was under the impression that the criterion for promotion is "more likely than not to survive AfD", and I think the current draft would almost certainly survive AfD, so immediate resubmission would be justified in my opinion. This looks as an extreme example of the hysteresis in the article life cycle, where creating a new article requires the writer to carry the burden of proof that notability is there, whereas deleting an existing article requires the proposer to prove the opposite. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really happy to see this article under construction. Indian railways are hugely important; if any country is notable for its railway system, it's India. This article will, in the end, have to tie in with existing articles, such as Indian_Railways which already has a section on signalling. Ideally the new article should contain significantly more detailed information than the general article, which can then have a main-article section hat-note pointing to the new article. I hope that rail enthusiasts will flock to the new article with extra information about the complex links between the UK's rail system, and that of India, for example (our histories are inextricably entwined), and about the technologies that have been used over the last 100+ years. But you'll have to be careful with some of those references; embarrassingly, the Hindustan times reference (which is otherwise a wealth of useful information) has multiple mentions of events in the 19th C where I think it means the 1900's. I'm pretty sure power signalling was not developed in the early 19th Century, which would mean 1800-1830! Good luck with this useful article; thank you for your efforts. Elemimele (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Character Images

How and where did people get images of animated characters from movies for example how did they get the picture for Simba or Woody. (I’m looking for an image of Mr. Potato Head) Kaleeb18 (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Likely from stills of those movies or (more likely) from media presskits. We can only use such images under a valid fair use claim. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kaleeb18. If you take a look at the image file page, File:Simba ( Disney character - adult).png, you can find out about the source and read the fair use rationale. The policy language is at WP:NFCI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328: but when I click on the source it came from it just says page not available every time with sheriff woody picture it take me somewhere but I cannot find that exact picture. <span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;"Kaleeb18 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: If you go to the Sheriff Woody article, click once on the image, and then click the More details button, you'll end up at File:Sheriff Woody.png, which shows the URL source of the image. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

yes @GoingBatty: but when you click on the source of the picture where in the world did they get it from that website? I scroll through all the pictures on that website source and I don’t see that one of woody at all. Kaleeb18 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Kaleeb18, maybe those websites have changed since the images were uploaded. If the fair use rationales are valid, that is the most important thing. The best place to find an image for fair use is a website closely affiliated with the character. In the case of Mr. Potato Head, that would be Hasbro. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328 oh ok that makes sense. i was talking about the disney character Mr. Potato Head btw forgot to mention that. i also found that his character is in the hasbro toy mr potato head so i will not be making an article on him lol. Kaleeb18 (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Drafitiying Page

I observed many editors are sending page to draft which I am not sure if is appropriate or not. Can we draftify pages on which notability, COI tag is there? but the page is on Wikipedia for decades or years. Also, is there any specific timeline after which we can't draftify? Sonofstar (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: Welcome to the Teahouse. To the best of my knowledge, there is no deadline for draftifying, and it is done if the article isn't meeting mainspace standards but has the potential to. WP:DRAFTIFY has more info. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] The answers are yes and no, respectively.

Draftifying an existing Article will often involve a degree of personal judgement, but the BRD process is there to iron out disagreements: if you disagree with an action, go to the actioner's talk page and discuss it; if you strongly disagree, revert it and then discuss.

Wikipedia's standards were not set in stone from day one, they have been rising over the years, so many articles created a long time ago do not meet today's standards and should rightly be improved: draftifying an article is merely one way of initiating that process. Some old articles may not have been looked at by an experienced editor at and since their creation (article creation is more strictly vetted now), so there is no "statute of limitations" on draftifying or other actions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @Sonofstar, technically speaking any article can be drafitified, but should you draftify an article that has been on mainspace for “decades/years” Then no, because it would be considered controversial rather you nominate it for deletion. Celestina007 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As a practice, I see articles draftified if recent, especially if the creating editor bypassed AfC. For older articles, the creating editor may be long gone. David notMD (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Everyone for your valuable time. Sonofstar (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm very worried that I'm blocked in the Chinese-language Wikipedia for a long time while my experience in the Chinese-language Wikipedia is totally different from other-language Wikipedia

Hello. I would like to ask you for making me much easier:

I just got blocked in the Chinese-language Wikipedia, but not the other, while my experience in the Chinese-language Wikipedia was indeed different and not the same as other-language Wikipedia. I'm too worried that I'm being blocked in the Chinese-language Wikipedia for a long time. So, could you please bring me the link to the questions in the Chinese-language Wikipedia, or just discuss with the Chinese-language Wikipedia to unblock me by understanding that all of my experiences in the Chinese-language Wikipedia was totally different from other-language Wikipedia? In fact, my experience in the Chinese-language Wikipedia was totally different with pages relating to upazila, etc. I'm indeed too scared.

Thank you. 548asiaslavia (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@548asiaslavia: Welcome to the Teahouse! We cannot assist with blocks on other Wikipedias. You'll have to follow the instructions at the Chinese Wikipedia to discuss this issue. GoingBatty (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 548asiaslavia. The Teahouse is for editing help on the English Wikipedia. Your user talk page on the Chinese Wikipedia should have instructions for appealing your block there. Major developments on the Chinese Wikipedia are the result of actions taken by the Wikimedia Foundation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

For more information, see Chinese Wikipedia#2021 Wikimedia action. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at your global account and the userpage at the simplified Chinese wikipedia, it seems you were blocked there as confirmed sock-puppet account. I would advise using your original account, zh:User: Adam Asrul, and posting an unblock request on your user talk page there, making it clear that you understand the reasons why you were blocked and the step you have taken to learn from it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@548asiaslavia: You have asked this before, and the answer is the same. Each Wikipedia project is run seperately, and we at the English Wikipedia cannot help you with other Wikipedias. Please stop asking. RudolfRed (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Indef blocked at English wikipedia for sockpuppetry. David notMD (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked this editor when I looked a bit more closely and discovered that they had a history of extensive sockpuppetry on several language Wikipedias including English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Unofficial Help for Foreign Wikipedias

We, the English Wikipedia community, get a lot of requests for help in other WMF projects, especially foreign Wikipedias, also Commons. I have started a suggestion at Idea Lab to have a Help Center that provides (unofficial) information about how to request help on other Wikipedias for those Wikipedias. This would simply provide a copy in English on the English Wikipedia of the official help on how to resolve problems, requests unblocks, whatever, on foreign Wikipedias. It's an Idea Lab idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

i need help with two stub articles that I made about rivers in 2 colombian departments.

 Dedwell243 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_rivers_in_Vaup%C3%A9s_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_rivers_in_Guain%C3%ADa_Department

@Dedwell243: Welcome to the Teahouse! Help:Your first article has a wealth of information for you. Do you have a specific question about these drafts? GoingBatty (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia porting

I found a red link to France Kralji in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videm,_Dobrepolje, but France has a Simple English Wikipedia page here. Is it acceptable to port over that article into regular English wikipedia with some minor alterations? Apologies if this is not a proper use of this forum, I am very new here. Deckocard21 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Deckocard21: Welcome to the Teahouse! I think the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation would apply to the Simple Wikipedia as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Deckocard21. Here is some information about him and his brother that could be added. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I note that GoingBatty has added a useful template that puts the link to Simple into the article, so there's no urgency for you to create the en version, Deckocard21. I suggest you use the WP:Afc process to create the draft, since you are a new editor and because the standards for notability of Kralji here may be more stringent than at Simple. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ref problem searching

Every now and then, I search up "ref name" and then go to advanced settings and fill the "Exactly this text" option with "ref name", I do this to fix occasional reference problems, and uncaught vandalism. On one of these searches, I noticed the article Pierre, South Dakota comes up as a result. However when I go to the article, I can't seem to find the reference problem, in the sample text it says "late spring and summer, and totals about 20 inches (508 mm) annually.,ref name=NCEI/> Extremes have ranged from −35 °F (−37 °C) on February 9, 1994 to" however when I go to the article, that sentence seems to be fine, showing inline citation to reference 14. When I first found this, I thought it was because the system needed time to register recent changes, but now it's been over a day, and the result is still there. How come it is like that? Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC) RandomEditorAAA (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The source code of the page (as of this writing) is and totals about {{convert|20|in|0}} annually.<ref name=NCEI/> . I can confirm that using this search, the page shows up with the OP’s problem (it shows up as if the "ref name" was in the text, and with a weird comma replacing the opening <). I have of course no idea what is causing it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The error was fixed (replacing the comma by a left bracket) by Ssbbplayer a day and a half ago, RandomEditorAAA. I think you must have a caching issue. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this fit with the wikipedia style?

I found an article which was not arranged into sections, so I did my best to arrange it myself trying to follow the Manual of Style. Is the way I did so in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines? I mostly do basic maintenance edits(categorising, reverting obvious vandalism etc.), and I'm trying to learn to make bigger and more impactful edits without editing carelessly, any advice on how to do so would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks.  DirkJandeGeer (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

DirkJandeGeer, I believe your edits have been a significant improvement. Thank you. Maproom (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hattie Gotobed page

FYI

 – added header --Maresa63 ^Talk 18:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to add young actress Hattie Gotobed to Wikipedia - she has been in many film and tv shows and mentioned on Wikipedia but not as a page - when doing the citations, as rejected once - how much info do you need - for example what do you put in name part at top? your name, Hattie's name? name of writer etc? then how much of the parts they have on there do you need to add info to - for example - if a news article - is th ename of the author, url of article published enough or? huge thanks Romeha3 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Romeha3, when citing a news item, Name is for the author of the material you're citing, Title is for the title of the item you're citing, URL I see you already understand, and "Date" is for the date of publication. You should supply all these values if possible. And a citation should immediately follow the statement in whose support it is cited. I see that in Draft:Hattie Gotobed you have three citations following the text "The Colonel", which isn't even a statement. The purpose of citing your sources is to allow readers to check, for any statement, what source you learned it from. That's why citations should follow statement, and why they should include publication date etc.; without the date of a news item, no-one would be able to check it in a library. Maproom (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Should I just start asking for concensus on my edits?

I know I've frequented here a number of times but I've been reverted so many times on Rotherham Minster, Doncaster and Essington. Should I seriously start asking for concensus on every single edit I make because there was issues with my Norwich collage, then on my photos of Rotherham Minster and now on Doncaster on a collage with lovely photos of the town and it's prominent landmarks.

I'm trying to contribute positively here but nearly all edits I make get reverted and I'm accused and seen by many as a bad editor and a rude inconsiderate and unable to help editor. Really I'm getting beyond annoyed with silly picky things always making me look bad and nothing positive. I've been told I'm not a positive editor before and a rude inconsiderate uneducated individual by some.

What more can I do when I try to improve or contribute I'm always shot down for being apparently inconsiderate and a problem with the wiki when I try to edit positively but some editors rather see me and my edits as a bad thing then a good thing. I nearly quit wiki for good because of this ongoing crusade I'm feeling. But talked myself back round and take on board advice.

I've adhered to it and listened but I'm still not doing good enough and other editors can take swipes at my work. If I do it back at theirs. I'm see engaging in Edit Warring.

Do I really need to be having a concensus on adding images collages editing leads or making positive contributions?

Believe me I'm sick of writing these on here but nothing seems to be changing despite me trying to. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There we go @David Biddulph: has just told me DragonofBatley told @Esemgee: of edit warring when I hadn't. Thanks for the accusation. Getting really tired of this negativity towards me all the time. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

DragonofBatley, as a completely disinterested and uninvolved bystander, can I offer the suggestion that you read and practice the procedures of WP:BRD, and discuss disagreements on the relevant articles' Talk pages, or your and others' Usertalk pages, as appropriate rather than through the medium of Edit summaries? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Article declined, I'm confused

Just added an article for a charity that I volunteer for welsh marine life rescue. I copied the flow of content of another charity article BDMLR, switching out details etc. I'm confused as to why the article has been rejected. I put hours into its creation, researching dates and refs online. Please can someone shed some light? Do I need to write more content based on my experience of animal rescues perhaps? Coasteering (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Coasteering, thanks for wanting to help improve wikipedia. Have you checked your talk page here, as it does explain that the reviewer, Theroadislong, felt your submission read like an advert and may not have been written from a neutral perspective. If you copied the scope of prose from another article, that may also present problems when trying to prove that your topic is sufficiently notable for an article. It isn't enough simply for an organisation to exist. Probably the best place to discuss your query would be at the AfC Helpdesk. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

See other poor quality articles exist, the article BDMLR is very poor indeed, with zero sources, I have tagged it accordingly, thank you for the heads up. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both Bungle Theroadislong. I guess the charity won't have a wiki article as I don't know what else to do with my submission, I thought there were enough legit references. It was written as neutral, third person etc. Maybe the charity itself isn't notable enough. There's no avoiding CoI as I don't know who else would take the time to write an article about the charity. An afternoon spent learning the ways of wikipedia, so not time wasted. Coasteering (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Coasteering! Given that in an article on the Tenby Observer website dated 21 April this year (whose url the link system will not accept, for some reason) your spokesperson is quoted as stating "We are a tiny organisation . . .", this is probably just a case of WP:Too soon.

WP:Notability requires several (preferably 3 or more) Reliable sources, independent of the WMLR, to have published substantial material (i.e. several paragraphs'-worth) about the organisation. If the WMLR continues its work (generating press articles like that one and perhaps being described in official reports) and grows, this will likely come about, but Wikipedia has to maintain its thresholds of notability, and avoid promoting any subject, no matter how worthy, as promotion contravenes its fundamental policies. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Coasteering, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's worth pointing out that, even if at some point an article is written about your organisation, WMLR will not "have" a wiki article. If that comes about, Wikipedia will have an article about your organisation: it will not belong to your organisation, it will not be controlled by your organisation, it will not necessarily say what you would like it to say, and it should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about your organisation (good or bad), not on what you say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Specification for linking specific pages from a PDF on commons

I want to use a specific page from a PDF of an old book on Wikimedia Commons as a citation for something. How would I go about linking the exact page? 2603:7000:E002:E90B:901D:F152:90C0:DFE3 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Links are useful to have, but not essential. Have you already cited the other usual bibliographical details for the book (Items 3.5.1 to 3.5.5)? These are sufficient to be going on with, since even old books are usually accessible physically via libraries, etc., if one is prepared to go to the trouble.

I'm no .pdf-site expert, but no doubt others will be able to give you further advice on that score. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

In general you don't. A citation should have enough information to enable a reader (or a reviewer) to evaluate the likely reliably and relevance of the source, and then to find it if they wish to consult it. It does not have to be online, and a URL is in most cases a convenience, not an essential part of the citation. So your citation should principally be the author, title, publisher, publication date etc. If there is indeed a copy that has been uploaded to Commons, then you could simply add the wikilink (starting with a colon) eg [[:File:name of file]] on the end of the citation, but before the closing </ref>. I don't know why anybody should upload such a thing to Commons, though. If the text is really in the public domain, it might be better to add it to Wikisource. --ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

How

Hi.

I've now created five articles, and I've been notified that I now can just created them, without submitting them or anything, to draftspace or mainspace. Thing is, how do I get there? Through Article Wizard? How? Cerambycidfreak (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cerambycidfreak, see WP:MOVE. If someone disagrees with you that the article should be in mainspace, they can move them back or nominate for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cerambycidfreak, if you're confident that you can create an acceptable article in one go, you can create it directly in mainspace by typing the name into the search bar, and it will give you a link you can pick to create the article directly. I don't recommend doing it this way unless you are very confident: better is to create it as a draft (the same way, but with Draft: on the front in the search bar) and then move it to mainspace when it is ready. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You can also create a draft from here: Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts. You get some useful coding included that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Url related

Can I change the draft name? Can I change the URL after publishing content? Siddhartha Saikia (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can retitle ("move") a draft. Yes, most users can retitle ("move") most articles. (And yes, a draft reviewer can "accept" a draft, turning it into an article with a different title.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

USER PAGE

Please give me an example of an acceptable "USER page" i/e the user page to qualify as an editor to submit a (different) wiki page. P. Graves Pengraves (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pengraves: Welcome to Wikipedia. There is Wikipedia:User_pages which explains what may and may not go on your user page. If you are trying to write an article about yourself, that is discouraged. See WP:AUTO. If you mean something else, please clarify. RudolfRed (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pengraves. A user page is entirely optional and is not a requirement to create any other page. If you choose to create a user page, it should describe your work and plans as a Wikipedia editor rather than focusing on things unrelated to your Wikipedia editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

reviewing a page

Hello kind teahouse hosts. I have a page ready for review in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Artemisia-californica/sandbox&action=edit

However somehow in my numerous edits I deleted the handy dialog box that allowed me to submit the document for editing/review. How then can I accomplish this? Pengraves (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pengraves: Place {{subst:submit}} on the draft when you are ready for it be to reviewed. RudolfRed (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion File:Pictures or Images uploaded

Hello, would you like to help me and say where I can go to delete some of the picture that I have uploaded to use in my Wikipedia Template page? I really don't want to share some of them, so I want to remove or delete these ones before it will be too late. Thank you. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to go anywhere. You can simply add the template {{db-author}} to any file that you uploaded but that you think should be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How do I replace an image with my own?

I have a picture of Super Cat that I took last night myself and I think it's pretty good. I'd like to replace the image on his article (where you can't even see him in the current picture). I do not know how to add my own photo to an article - can someone offer advice? Argles Barkley (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Argles Barkley, what you propose should be fairly easy. As you took the picture yourself, you can go to Wikimedia Commons and upload it there, specifying that you are the creator of the picture and specifying the copyright license under which you're willing to make it freely available. Then, where the article says "Super Cat @ Reggae Geel.jpg", you can substitute the corresponding filename of the picture you've uploaded. (I'm assuming that your image is better than the one now in the article - frankly, it can't be much worse.) Maproom (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Yes it's much better. I agree with your assessment of the current picture. Argles Barkley (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Maproom, I did it! What do you think? Argles Barkley (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've done it, it's worked, it's a big improvement. Congratulations and thanks! Maproom (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Much better, well done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Argles Barkley: Thanks for uploading a better image. Just a cautionary word though in that you might want to read c:COM:LRV and c:COM:L for refrence. Please understand that although you're not transferring your copyright ownership of the image to the Wikimedia Foundation or anyone else by uploading it to Commons, you are essentially giving advance permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at any time and re-use it for any purpose (including ways that you might not approve of). As long as a reuser complies with the terms of the license you chose and attribute you as the copyright holder, they can pretty well do whatever they want with the photo as explained in c:COM:REUSE, and any problems that develop will be expected to be resolved between you and the reuser as explained in c:COM:ENFORCE. If you're OK with that (and I hope you are), then that's great for Wikipedia; if you're not OK with that, however, then that's understandable, but you need to act quickly if you want to have the image deleted from Commons. the longer you wait, the more difficult it will be to get the photo deleted. Please understand that I'm not try to be a downer and scare you away from uploading your own photos because Commons needs high quality images; just try and understand that the photos you upload might start showing up online on websites other than Wikipedia and be used in ways that might make others money but leave you uncompensated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:ChongBlia Yang

A tag has been placed on Template:ChongBlia Yang requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC) ==

Hello, please do not delete my "template:ChongBlia Yang". This is because I didn't know what I did is a "redirect". I apologized, because I still misunderstood between "linking to and redirect to" a page. Now I know that I cannot do like this, from now, I'll not do it again. I'll try to work on it, but as a new article. And then I'll try to see if I can find some resources and references to support it. Thank youNruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC) NruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@NruasPaoYPP: The place to post the object is Template_talk:ChongBlia_Yang. However, you are mentioning wanting to create an article, and the page to be deleted is a template. Those are not the same thing. If you want to create an article, follow the guidance at WP:YFA and you can create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted this redirect, NruasPaoYPP. I couldn't imagine how it benefitted the encyclopedia, and you failed to give any justification for it. Perhaps you intended ChongBlia Yang to redirect to Draft:ChongBlia Yang; but this would be unacceptable because article titles may not redirect to drafts. Draft:ChongBlia Yang is a chatty piece that does not look like an encyclopedia article (in part because it cites no references whatever); if you want it to become an article, I suggest that you do a lot more work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@NruasPaoYPP: The difference between a template and an article was explained to you at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1126#Problems to link a Template page to my article namepage.. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NruasPaoYPP, are you saying that you'll try to work on the content of your draft (from what you already know to be true, from "common knowledge", etc), and that you'll then try to see if you can find some resources and references to support what you've written? If so, you've got the wrong idea. Forget what you already know to be true, "common knowledge", etc, and start with reliable, independent, published sources. Summarize what these say, in your own words (or, where the original wording seems irreplaceable, within quotation marks). Using <ref>     </ref>, clearly indicate which part comes from which reference. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello.

Hope you're well? Just a couple of questions. I was advised previously to ask questions (about potential tag removal) in the Talk section of a page. But, several weeks on, these seem to be unanswered. Is there an alert or something that I'm not aware of? Sorry, if so.

Also, is there a list of articles that need review? And, if so, how do I get to it? I've been using Random Article, but most of the ones it sends me to are good? So, it's pretty slow going.

Anyway, hope you're well?

Take care,

Edward BorleyBoy (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

BorleyBoy If you have no association with the subject of the article, and you feel that the issues raised by the tags have either been addressed, are no longer applicable, or the tags were invalid in the first place, you may remove the tags. You can mark talk page posts as a formal edit request(click for instructions) if you are proposing a specific change to the article(such as removing a tag). 331dot (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very helpful. I'll start with the edit request. Not sure I'm ready for removing them myself! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorleyBoy (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia page on Jayshree Seth

Hi. I created a Wikipedia page of Jayshree Seth. But this page has been kept in draft format by User:Nomadicghumakkad. Can you please tell me why this Wikipedia page of Jayshree Seth can't be kept in permanent format as she is a well established American chemical engineer and author? Thegreatestmanonearth (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thegreatestmanonearth, this issue is whether Jayshree Seth is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about her. This will be decided on the basis of whether the sources cited in the article include several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of her. Which three of the 20 sources currently cited, in your opinion, do most to fulfil those criteria? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Reduced Draft:Jayshree Seth to 16 refs and a lot of subjective-type content removed from Early life and education. Of the 16 refs, make a case here and on the Talk page of the article for the validating references. Consider resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You're going to struggle a bit. The Society of Women Engineers award might count for something, but the alumnus thing and the award from her own company are of limited value in establishing notability. Industrial scientists do struggle. The usual routes to notability as an academic include such things as winning independent awards from very meaningful societies, being the chief editor of a journal, having highly-cited, paradigm-shifting papers, and holding a named chair in a university (or, of course, doing research that attracts the attention of the wider press, and turning up in normal newspaper sources). None of these options tend to be in the career-path of an industrial scientist. Interviews don't count, and the major way in which a person like her hits the press will be in the form of interviews. Anything that looks like it was prompted by a press-release from her company will also fail to establish notability. If you struggle to find enough on her, then since her entire career seems bound up in the same company, it may be more appropriate to put some information about her in the article on 3M instead of making a stand-alone article. Elemimele (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Elemimele. That could be a start. Once she satisfies WP:Academic or any other policy, she can have her own page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How to improve an article

How to improve an article for Wikipedia publication Bryan dewa (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Bryan dewa: usually, by finding and citing reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject, so as to establish that the subject is notable. I see that Draft:Mercy Mutsvene currently cites no such sources. Maproom (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC).

Re-using photos of other versions of Wikipedia

Hi, I want to use a photo in English Wikipedia which is published in Romanian Wikipedia. Now, I just want to know that will be there any copyright warning in this case. Like I want to use this and this images in English Wikipedia, now will I be able to do it or not? Ahp (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Ahp101. The images you want to use are logos, which were uploaded to the Romanian Wikipedia (not WP Commons) under the same sort of non-free use as is allowed on the English Wikipedia for logos. Read WP:LOGO carefully and then you should be able to copy them across here. Make sure you fill in all the necessary details when you use the non-free upload Wizard available at WP:File Upload Wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ahp101 As these are non-free files, you are only able to use them under fair use guidelines, and they will need to be tagged as such accordingly. WP:NFCC is the best page to read for information on this. The files appear to be appropriately marked for use on the Romanian wikipedia so you really just need to follow that example. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ivins-Conover House

Italic textI have written A short article for Wikipedia about my ancestral home which is included in the National Register of Historic Places for Burlington Co. New Jersey. No such article exists for the entry. It probably doesn’t need a standalone page. Wrote it in the sandbox and it completely disappeared. I’m disabled with MS so it would be nice if I don’t have that happen again. Fingers don’t work well. I am a reference librarian and a fairly good writer. Here is the link where I think the article should go. I also have pictures and citations. Where should I create it?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey JillerMc (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC) JillerMc (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC) JillerMc (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

JillerMc I see no evidence in your Contributions that you had done any editing prior to this query at Teahouse. Were you working while not logged in? Were you working in the Wikipedia Sandbox (which is blanked periodically) rather than in your own Sandbox? David notMD (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, JillerMc. The edit above is your only contribution to Wikipedia from this account, so I suspect you didn't "publish changes" (which would have meant "save changes into my sandbox", not "place this article in the main encyclopaedia"). According to the list page you linked, all places on the National Register should already be present in the list, although many have red links meaning they do not yet have full articles in Wikipedia. Is your ancestral home one of these? If so, you could use the articles for creation process to draft something for it. If it isn't on the list, you'll have to provide evidence it should be and then add it to the list page, initially as another red link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Need some help with a complicated matter (reinstating a previously deleted page)

Hi. Recently the article Stuart Scheller has been deleted. I believe the deletion was premature and the subject has attracted significant attention since the deletion (if you live in the US, you know who i am talking about) making him notable per WP:BIO. My idea was to reinstate the article (per WP:BOLD , please dont attack me for doing that) and then start another deletion discussion. The problem is, when I added the deletion tempalte per the guideline I found a problem in that the deletion discussion page already exists (from the previous discussion), so I cant start a new discussion where I could provide my arguments why the article should be reinstated. Could someone help me? What should be the corret procedure if I strongly feel the subject matter of the article is notable now, even if it was not when the article was deleted? Many thanks in advance. --Daikido (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Daikido (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Daikido: I'm afraid restoring the article like you did was not the ideal first step to take; the deletion discussion closed three weeks ago, with a clear consensus to merge Stuart Scheller into another article. Since then, a few attempts have been made to revert the merge and re-create an article, and it was even protected to stop that from happening. The protection expired yesterday. WP:BOLD is a good guideline, but when there is an existing consensus from a recent discussion, making bold edits that go against the consensus is not a good idea. That is especially true when the article has very recently been protected against that type of edit.

A couple of weeks ago when you tried to create a new AfD discussion, the editor who reverted your edit mentioned WP:AFDHOWTO, which explains how to create a new AfD discussion about an article that has been discussed in AfD before. Doing so at this point might be seen as disruptive, though, especially since there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Stuart Scheller, which closed less than a week ago and concluded that Scheller isn't independently notable.

If you believe that significant new information has appeared since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Scheller closed, Deletion Review is the place to start a discussion, but take a moment to read this information first. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I genuinely didn't know the article had been protected (please do not assume I did it today just because the protection inspired today, I was planning on restoring it for about a week), I also didn't really check the article history for that matter either. Given the new information in your second paragraph (about the redirects for discussion), I will now revert my previous edit on the article. I've already started a new discussion on the talk page of the article as well, given the situation, what would be the best case to discuss this? On the talk page of Stuart Scheller's article or would the Deletion Review be the better place to do so? In your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikido (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Daikido, you have described this as "a complicated matter", but it really isn't. A recent AfD resulted in a clear consensus for "merge", and nothing has happened since to change that. So you should drop the issue, and find a better use for your efforts. Insisting on another AfD now will result in the same consensus, antagonise other editors, and weaken your case should future news possibly justify a new AfD. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to add an article on wikipedia on a event in andaman & nicobar islands

I Added appropriate sources covered by local media & official references but it was rejected after review. Why ? Wiki Gyanwala (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wiki Gyanwala it was not rejected. It was declined - pushed back to you for further work. The reviewer has said why.

Generally, however, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, covering events. Instead it records what reliable sources have said about some events Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How to add videos or images from Wikimedia to an article?

Hi so I wanted to edit a wikipedia page to add a photo related to the topic but I don’t know how to do that Wikilover126 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikilover126 If you've already identified the photo or video you want to use on Wikimedia, just copy its title and use [[File:title|thumb]] to add it to the article. There are some more detailed additions to consider too, if you want to use a caption for the file, and if you want to add alt text so a screen reader can understand it. Ideally your file should look like [[File:title|thumb|alt=a description of what the file depicts|a caption for the file]]. Let me know if you need any further guidance. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

To be more specific - you can only do this if the image file is already on Wikipedia's servers. Is it? DS (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

how to lock page

how can I permanently lock a page because of vandalism Eddysocial (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Eddysocial Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Pages/articles are rarely permanently protected("locked") from editing, except in the most extreme cases of persistent, intractable vandalism. You may request page protection at WP:RFPP if you can show an issue with vandalism. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eddysocial please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection where you may make a case for protection Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What is name of article? From your contributions, not apparent where vandalism is a problem. David notMD (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

FYI

 – Added section header. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 17:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused about the complaint that some of the references in my Sidney Thompson biography are self-promotions, like Negro Fort. I am an author of historical fiction; so I'm thinking people would want to know where they can find books on the history of places like Negro Fort. That might arguably be self-promotional because the information is in my peer-evaluated books vetted by a university press, but the information is history--and history that is hard to find because most of the traditional records are whitewashed with few African-American references and contributions. Srthompson721 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you clarify or elaborate on which links or references are being contested. Negro Fort appears in the article as a Wikilink. I see no edit or comment about that. Help us understand what you're asking. Thanks! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Srthompson721, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm looking at this [6] edit so I'll comment on that (though it's not really your question). As I understand it, inspired by history though it may be, it's fiction, correct? Then you can't add it to WP:FURTHER READING, that is fairly clear. What you can consider is something like The_Citadel#Depictions ("In fiction" works as section title), but what you need then is an independent WP:RS, not blogs, wikis, amazon, goodreads etc etc, who bothered to write about this book and that Negro Fort was in it to use as a reference, existing is not enough. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with getting approval for a draft article with reliable external references

I realize I have excessive citations in the article, I will be fixing that now. I am more puzzled by why the references are not considered "in depth" for the subject, since the papers and articles that cite works from this subject clearly use this subject's expertise and works to build upon It would be odd to have an academic paper rely on and cite a work, and then start talking in depth about the author of that work, unless that would be directly relevant to a specific paper about such subjects. So I'm a bit stumped on this one, it seems like there are many external verifiable references to this subject's work.

OP: I'm having trouble with this draft article, which has reliable external references, which I believe adhere to Wikipedia's verifiability standards, but the review declined the draft from being published. What am I missing? Thank you so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M._Riad_El-Ghonemy kosarjaff (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

kosarjaff, to establish that El-Ghonemy is notable enough to warrant a WIkipedia article about him, someone will have to cite at least three reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of him. Which three of the 20 sources currently cited in the draft do you believe best meet those criteria? Maproom (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking into this now... thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosarjaff (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Maproom, Would you kindly take a look at the latest draft to see if that is a better way to cite this subject? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosarjaff (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: Courtesy ping. GoingBatty (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Soccer Team Notability (Continued after archived)

There was a discussion here regarding the notability of a soccer team that was never resolved. Please use this the link for context. The team meets notability to due participating in the US Open Cup, its standing and importance to the community, rostering multiple players who have met notability and have articles, having a large fanbase, and having a large social media presence for the team as well as the supporter group. 90% of other NPSL teams have pages which shows the NPSL is meeting notability, I am just not sure what I am doing wrong to keep getting rejected. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georgia_Storm_FC Kevinw33 (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Kevinw33 (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Consider that it may be WP:TOOSOON, as the team only became a non-youth team a number of months ago, according to what I'm seeing. Might want to wait until it has been around longer and established itself. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, I thought about that as well so I waited for the 2021 season to be in the books, which it now is. I don't mean to get into "whataboutism" but, most of the other teams in our league have pages that were approved, just trying to determine what avenues they took. Kevinw33 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

When I look at this list, I see that teams founded recently (2020 or newer) appear to NOT have articles. Thus, nearly all of the teams in that league that have articles have been around significantly longer than your team. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, ok I see that now. I guess I will keep updating the page and see how it goes. Maybe one day... Kevinw33 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Created a new page but not publishes on wikipedia

Hi I Have areated a page Muhammad Azizul Islam on wikipedia who i followed him from long time. I publishes the page but i do not know why it is not on wikipedia. can anybody advise me on this would really help as it is my first article creation on wikipedia. Mshfuz1979 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mshfuz1979 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Publish changes" does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It simply means "save changes". You need to submit your draft for review, I have added the information to allow you to do so. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Before you submit Draft:Muhammad Azizul Islam, check all references to confirm that the references are about him. I removed many but not all that were to existing Wikipedia articles - those need to be converted to Wikilinks. I also removed refs that confirmed existence or an organization - for example a university - but not that Islam graduated or worked at those places. Also, you used the same refs in multiple places, so shows up as separately numbered, whereas there is a process for multiple use of same refs. I stress, a lot of work needed before considering submitting. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments on Personality page

The current article selected by WP:Articles for Improvement is Personality. I have posted some suggested revisions on the Talk page there and would welcome discussion and help implementing changes. I am also looking for interested editors to help get WP:Psychology going again. Many other pages besides Personality in this topic area need improvement! Hypoplectrus (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus, the WikiProject on psychology isn't as moribund as many. I suggest that you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology that you've already made general proposals at Talk:Personality for the article Personality: doing so might get more people to take a look at what you propose. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

hi i am new

hi i am new to wiki and um why is wiki call wiki and again hi i dont know about wikipedia so also i got a message from some robot that say it changed what i edited and i was scared. o can someone tell me why? Zoeziy (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For "wiki", Zoeziy, see "wiki" in Wiktionary. If you don't know what's wrong with your edit, Wikipedia is not a place for you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

hi its me agian

hey all so um is wiki in every language my friend is from burundi lives there really and his mother likes to listen to news but they dont have tv so he has a phone but he does not see the language kirundi that tge language his mother speaks so could wiki put that language ^.^ : ) Zoeziy (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Zoeziy, Kirundi Wikipedia exists. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please help contribute to page

My page Capital on Tap isn't being approved, despite me trying my best to write from a fair and neutral perspective. Could someone please help me edit?

As one of the fastest-growing companies in the UK that has been recognised by Forbes, Sunday Times and Financial Times and has now expanded into the US, it is definitely worthy of an article. HollyWoodward97 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@HollyWoodward97: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you declared a conflict of interest; if you are an employee, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration.

Your draft just tells of the existence of the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles about a company must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, brief mentions, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Capital on Tap TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Superscript in an article title

Hi. So, there was a crappy article about M³AAWG, which someone deleted because it was crappy. No argument there. But it's a big organization that nobody argued wasn't notable, and was referenced from a bunch of other places on Wikipedia, so I'd like to get a new article going about them. The issue is that their name is "M³AAWG", with embedded superscript. I keep trying to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pagetitle}} with no luck, and can't find any examples of article titles with embedded superscript to look at.

For reference, here's an archived copy of the old page, which had a correct-appearing title:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210813212657/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M³AAWG

...but whoever created that page cheated, and used the unicode ³ superscript-3 character in the article title, and put in redirects from "MAAWG" (which is actually a valid former name of the organization) and "M3AAWG" so people could get to it. But it seems pretty clear that you're not supposed to do that, but should instead create a page with the title "M3AAWG", and use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pagetitle}} to just display it as M³AAWG.

Except that doesn't seem to be working for me. What am I missing? Or should I just give up and do what they did?

Thanks! EVhotrodder (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That use of unicode is what appears to have been done on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album), which has a "good article" tag, which suggests to me that's OK in general, EVhotrodder. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Thanks! EVhotrodder (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull and EVhotrodder: The Mariah Carey title is only allowed because it is a genuine mathematical formula. MOS:TITLE is pretty blunt about typographic effects. "Do not attempt (with HTML, Unicode, wikimarkup, inline images, or any other method) to emulate any purely typographic effects used in titles when giving the title in Wikipedia" - X201 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That was certainly how I read it, which was what lead me down the {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pagetitle}} rathole, but everything I tried threw a "doesn't match" error. That was before the page was created though... Perhaps I should try again after creating the page... EVhotrodder (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think your best plan of action is to forget about DISPLAYTITLE. Create the article at M3AAWG with an opening line something like: "M3AAWG usually stylized as M3AAWG..." and then create a redirect from stylization as per the ALIEN³ example halfway down MOS:TITLE. - X201 (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How to edit using 2017 wikitext editor

Can you give us more info about editing using 2017 wikitext editor? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:BDC4:F472:60E1:79BC (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! See "2017 wikitext editor" on MediaWiki for more info. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Note to the IP, you'll need an account to enable the 2017 wikitext editor in the Beta section of preferences. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

മലയാളം

 2409:4073:296:AD61:0:0:F81:B8A5 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You probably won't find many people here who understand Malayalam. For the Malayalam Wikipedia, please go to ml:പ്രധാന_താൾ. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with declined AfC

Hello, I have been working on an AfC ([[7]] that has now been declined twice. The main, rather general and vague criticism seems to the lack of reliable/notable sources/references. I do however think that the collection of sources/references that includes major English/European/German news sources (The Independent, Spiegel, Zeit, El Pais) plus English- and German-language academic work is solid, particularly when compared to some existing articles. Further inquiry with both reviewers about what part exactly they consider problematic has only yielded "Sorry I don't have the time to check your sources" answers. To be honest, it's rather frustrating when the reviewers don't give concrete expamples of sentences or passages they deem problematic. It would be very helpful if someone said, "Source xyz isn't reliable or notable in my opinion because of this and this" or "This sentence sounds too much like an advertisement if you phrase it like you do", that's something I can work with to improve it. So any help in this matter is appreciated. I have openly disclosed that I work for the theater in question in some capacity but I am not paid for writing/editing Wikipedia, I do this in my spare time. POC74 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) POC74 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

POC74 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you work for the theater, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit. Please also review conflict of interest. I might suggest that you also change your username to be more individualistic- please do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the draft, it's not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. A Wikipedia article should not just merely tell of the existence of something and what it does. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the theater company(not based on any materials put out by the company or on mere reporting of what it does), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Prmotional Words

See this page Jeena Isi Ka Naam Hai see the first line "Jeena Isi Ka Naam Hai was an Indian award-winning talk show" see that an user writes that this is an award winnig talkshow without any citation so I think that the page is fully written by a paid editor so my request is to review that full page because I think there are many promotional words on that page. Thankyou written by UserABCXYZ (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @UserABCXYZ, I've had a knack at it here – since the article only has a few sentences worth of prose, I think that should about cover it, so I've taken the liberty of also removing your advert and undisclosed paid tags. The bit about the "award-winning" talk show seems to have been around since 2008, but stuff like this isn't necessarily the result of paid editing – in this case I think it is more likely that the author was simply a fan of the show. Hopefully this addresses your concerns! AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy, it appears the article has only one source & was created a very long time ago, this is rather strange. Celestina007 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, yep, some stuff does just fall through the cracks – you wouldn't believe the kind of corpses you can dig up by going through something like the list of pages with bare URL sources sorted by least recently edited, for example. In this case, though, I'm happy to leave final judgment to folks more specifically familiar with the genre. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@AngryHarpy, oh my! What an epiphany, now this is beyond problematic. I don’t even know what to say. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

UserABCXYZ, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I’m a prolific anti UPE editor, so I’d do as you have asked, so whilst I check the article after this post, I’m presuming you do not know how to report what you suspect to be paid editing, if you observe what seems to be paid editing, WP:PCD makes it clear WP:AN/I is an acceptable venue to report paid editing but if your report contains private material that may lead to WP:OUTING, you are advised to send a mail to WP:ARBCOM. Celestina007 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Reducing bias of an article to cite more peer reviewed material.

See other note. This was an accidental typo that was created separately. It can be deleted.  Snapdginger (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Snapdginger: Welcome to the Teahouse! The proper place to discuss an article's content is the article's talk page, as you have been doing on Talk:Vision therapy. While you can definitely "fill pages and pages more", you may find it easier to build consensus with smaller recommendations. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mahendra Singh Dhoni article

Dhoni article have lots of travia material and its some point is looks like fan written. I suggest to clean-up it for grammar, styel and tone. If a native speaker edited it , it'll be better. Newton Euro (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newton Euro: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to discuss the MS Dhoni article is on the article's talk page: Talk:MS Dhoni, as you've already been doing. Feel free to tag the article (or individual sections) with {{trivia}} or {{fanpov}} or {{cleanup}}. You can also ask the Wikipedia:Guild of Copy Editors to review the article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newton Euro: I see the article already has some of these tags. You can specify details of these issues on the talk page. You can also cleanup the references with incorrect authors, as I did for a few in this edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanishing Wikipedia citation tool

I used to be a heavy user of the for google books. http://reftag.appspot.com/ It no longer seems to work. Has it been replaced, can anyone tell me please, and if so, by what? It was a real labour saver. JonRichfield (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: Welcome to the Teahouse! There are alternatives mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 192#Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books and Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests#restore the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books. You can also try Wikipedia:Citation expander or Wikipedia:Reflinks or Wikipedia:ReFill. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll give those a try! JonRichfield (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@JonRichfield You can try User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/generatedoi. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Thank you. Shall look into! JonRichfield (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Source citation templates

How do you use templates such as "harvnb" to cite sources when you have multiple books/journals with the same author and date? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Using {{sfn}}, give each different book published in the same year a different suffix letter - 2021a, 2021b, 2021c etc. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am confused. Why did this happen?

when I submitted an edit onto the Dorothy Eady/Omm Sety page, the information was removed, saying it was "not constructive." the information entered was the fact that she was said to be dead and then revived after falling down the stairs. Please explain why this happened. PandaTheExplorer (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PandaTheExplorer, and welcome to the Teahouse. It happened because Equine-man didn't agree with you that it was a constructive edit. This is part of how Wikipedia works in general: you boldly made an edit, Equine-man disagreed with the edit and reverted it, and your choice now is either to let it go, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page. Nothing says that either you or equine-man is right or wrong: you simply have a disagreement about what is best for Wikipedia, and it is up to you both (and anybody else who is interested) to discuss it and reach consensus. See WP:BRD for how this works. In this case, a major question is whether Hansen's book (the source cited for that sentence) says that she was said to be dead, or whether you got that from somewhere else. If the source says it, then it is at least possible that the information could be included: if it doesn't, then that information should not be there (unless it is cited to another reliable source). But you need to discuss this on the article's talk page as your next step. I have pinged Equine-man here, so they should see this reply. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@PandaTheExplorer, hello! In your case I'd ask the editor who made change and posted on your talkpage, Equine-man. It's possible they thought you vere joking[8], but the source [9] sort of agrees with you, though not exactly. If you have a WP:RS that says "pronounced "dead" you can use that. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, @PandaTheExplorer I did indeed think you were making a joke about someone dying and then being alive again. Equine-man (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why was my Ben Duracell Jones page declined?

I am struggling to get my page accepted and published. I have changed it un told amounts of times and its still being rejected due to not enough notable info etc im citing everything to show its real info. Can you please help me? LaylaDakota (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Ben Jones (boxer) Karenthewriter (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@LaylaDakota: I made some updates and tagged two unreferenced sections for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about adding the names of the "Head of Departments (HOD)" of the subjects taught in ABN Seal College

The names of the "Head of Departments (HOD)" of the subjects can be added as there aren't as many people, that is only the people marked with HOD in this website: [10]https://abnscollege.org/teaching-staff-list.php Please give your opinions for this article: ABN Seal College. Partha Basak 15:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Partha Basak: Welcome to the Teahouse! The proper place to suggest improvements to a specific article is the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Acharya Brojendra Nath Seal College). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

how do we create wikipedia article? 102.167.168.215 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 102.167.168.215 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Start with finding a subject that meets the demands at WP:GNG. Then see WP:YFA. Creating an acceptable WP-article is difficult without any previous WP-experience, but without good sources, it is impossible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Help With Publishing Articles

Annaspencer13 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Hello. I'm Anna and I'm new to Wikipedia. I am trying to understand how things work so that I can contribute however, I guess I made a mistake and I was enlisted on the COI noticeboard. I wanted to create new articles for publishing and edit articles based on my research. Can you help me by letting me know how can I be successful in doing so? Thankyou Annaspencer13 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Annaspencer13 and welcome to the Teahouse. About "based on my research", this meets serious problems in the WP-environment. I suggest you start with reading the following: WP:Expert editors, WP:SELFCITE and WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Annaspencer13, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia, and in my experience, it is a very unsatisfactory way for new editors to contribute. Creating articles is much more difficult than it first appears, and editors who try it before they have "learnt the trade" typically have a frustrating and disappointing time. I earnestly advise you to put aside the idea of creating new articles for at least a few months while you "learn the trade" by improving some of our six million articles - many thousands of them are seriously bad. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Creating a celebrity page

Hi there;

How do I create a biography page for a live person who is not showing in the database yet? Csho777 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Csho777 See WP:BASIC. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!" move on to WP:YFA. Note that creating an acceptable WP-article is difficult without any previous WP-experience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Csho7uu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article (not a mere "page") is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia. It's best to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. That, plus using the new user tutorial, will greatly increase your chances of success.

If you still want to attempt to create an article now, please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable person, or one of the more specific criteria like musicians, to see if the person merits an article. If they do, and you have at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage, you may use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft.

If you have an association with this celebrity, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Useful versus gratuitous url archiving

Is it really encouraged to create an archive link for every citation, even when they are perfectly live and well (as it says on Help:Archiving a source)? And is it necessary to add archive links to book references with ISBNs and DOIs or not? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's encouraged, but not strictly necessary. Websites can be taken down, or even just overhauled so their old URLs no longer work, and archiving makes future access much easier. There's no harm in doing it but potential loss in not doing it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit counter on my talk page

Edit counter on user talk page

Hi all,

This is my first question in the "Teahouse"... please don't "bite" :)

I was curious if there is a way to plug a quick and easy "edit" counter widget into my talk page? Is that possible?

Thanks!

Oh, and while I am asking, I was also curious if there is a way to easily download the complete wikipedia offline. So that I could look for simple typos or other innocuous edits in a massive way, or experiment otherwise (not the sandbox)? Is this possible? I think I found it, but each time I tried to download it it failed (was maybe 18GB, but wouldn't let me download the torrent). Th78blue (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

To answer your first question, User:UBX/LiveEditCounter is probably what you're asking for, but you'll need to follow some instructions to set it up. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As for your second question, Th78blue, please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: Check out Wikipedia:Typo_Team#Methods_for_searching_and_correcting_typos. There are some tools such as AWB that can help you efficiently scan for typos. You may be interested in joining the Typo Team. RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey @RudolfRed: I'd love to join the Typo Team! Please sign me up! Where/how do I do this? Th78blue (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: Just add your name to Wikipedia:Typo Team/Members, and you'll be a member. Deor (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: See also Wikipedia:Database_download#English-language_Wikipedia. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Providing links to wiki pages with 's in them.

I recently created a wiki page, Forresters Manuscript, about a 17th century manuscript of Robin Hood ballads that had only recently been discovered in the late 20th century. I list all the ballads in them, they all have wiki pages, and so I linked them. Much to my consternation, several of the ballads won't link to their wiki pages. The pages do exist, I spelled them correctly, and marked them the right way with [[ ]], but they won't link. The one thing they all have in common is an ' within the title (Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham, Robin Hood's Chase, Robin Hood's Delight, etc. What's especially frustrating is that on the main Robin Hood pages, these ballad titles all link properly, but on the edit page, there doesn't seem to be anything different about how these links are marked up from what I'm doing.

How do I get to link wiki pages that have an ' in the title? K9feline2 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at it and made the changes--it can be hard to spot at a glance but the apostrophe character you had used was slightly different, we use the single straight one here ( ' ) rather than a curled one, and that's the difference maker. It might not be a bad idea to create redirects based on the red links you previously were seeing but most of them should now link to existing articles. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi K9feline2! To avoid this sort of problem, my practice when making wikilinks is to go to the page I want to link to, copy the title, and paste it where I want the link, before wikilinking it (by highlighting it and clicking the the link button at the top of the edit box, or by adding the double square brackets). That way no conflict arises between the title on the article and the perhaps subtly or invisibly different characters supplied by one's keyboard or whatever.

This also avoids the problem of the correct article's title having a disambiguating description in parentheses that one hadn't realised might be there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Gatekeeping

I have an issue with Gatekeeping.

I am new to Wiki, and I am trying to post a CONTROVERSY section to the Our Lady of Fatima page. My first attempt was removed for expressing opinions.

I have since revised my controversy section to eliminate all opinions. But when I try to repost, a gatekeeper swiftly takes it down with the tag “undid my revision.”

So if anyone can help moderate, that would be very helpful, because Fatima certainly warrants a controvery section. Ghost apparitions (religious or otherwise) are inherently controversial.

The absence of a controversy section on the Fatima page after so many years is bizarre and almost suspicious—especially since this vision of Mary promoted violence towards children. This is a particularly questionable, potentially very dangeorus “miracle.”

It makes me think Catholic gatekeepers have been removing the controvery section for many years without discovery.

The gatekeeper in this case is using semantics to block the page. He says my use of the term “self-harm rituals” is not encyclopedic language. Fact: the Mary appartion instructed small children to wear ropes tied so tightly around their waists that the ropes became bloody. How is that not a self-harm ritual? The children died afterwards. I have cited the child’s own journals with Mary instructing them to do this rope ritual.

My first source is the book, THE IMMACULATE HEART, published by the reputable Farrar, Straus, and Young. It was written by a Priest who interrogated the witnesses firsthand.

The other book, FATIMA IN LUCIA’S OWN WORDS, was published by the Catholic Church (Imprimatur), which in normal circumstances would be considered a biased press; however in this case it should be admitted, because they are the memoirs of the Saint herself.

If any Wiki moderators could oversee, so that the controvery section doesn’t get automatically deleted, I would appreciate your time so much. The Fatima page is incomplete without thoughtful opposition. Thank you guys. Natalie. Spyrazzle (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The place for discussion is Talk:Our Lady of Fátima. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

:: Yes, and on the Talk Page is an attempt by another editor to explain why this good faith addition was removed. Please continue the discussion there. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) I think my fear is that primarily Catholics and Catholic editors visit the Fatima talk page. I do feel the lack of controversy section is gatekeeping and am requesting a more moderate moderator. [User: Spyrazzle] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia does not have moderators to the extent which you seem to be suggesting; sysops/admins are more of a book-keeping role mostly for maintenance, and carry no additional authority when it comes to discussing article content. The best--really, the only--way to discuss content for an article is to engage in collaboration the article's talk page. If you feel the section is important, discuss why you feel so, ask why it was removed, and see if there is a middle ground that will work for everyone. Not all content is removed because someone disagrees with its sentiment, it can simply be a matter of not meeting our requirements for sourcing and verifiability, so working with the editors of the article to find the best path forward is in your interest and in theirs. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the input. I am asking will a neutral editor who sees it here visit the Fatima page, review the controversy about harming children, and restore the controversy section? I have used two reputable sources and I think a neutral (non-religious) editor would find my submission worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 01:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC) @Spyrazzle: At the top of Talk:Our Lady of Fátima are five WikiProjects, each of which has a talk page where you could invite interested users to the Talk:Our Lady of Fátima#GATEKEEPING discussion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) With the full disclosure that I'm non-practicing Catholic, looking at the material itself the main issues I see are essentially the same as have been explained on the article's talk page itself; the material is essentially describing everything as fact with Wikipedia's voice, rather than attributing claims to those who have made them—this is the difference between "X happened and was very Y" and "So-and-so reported witnessing X, and described it as 'very Y'". For example we have the line The vision of Mary praised them for their self-harm rituals. Firstly we can't simply state as fact that the vision of Mary said or did anything, only that someone has claimed that she spoke to them, so this needs to be attributed to the person making that claim. Secondly as was pointed out, the term "self-harm rituals" also needs to be attributed to someone, as otherwise this reads as Wikipedia, not a third-party source, offering this characterisation. Zfish118 on the article's talk page seems willing to engage in discussion on this, having posted there with critique, so I would suggest engaging with them at Talk:Our Lady of Fátima#Controversy Section to see if the material can be re-written to better fit. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you for looking at the material. I am more than willing to change the text to "Lucia said that Mary said" rather than "Mary said." But removing "self-harm rituals" seems to be a semantics gatekeeping game as the direct quote from the witness was that Mary instructed the children to keep knotted blood-stained ropes around their waists during the daytime. That is self-harm, because the children tied the ropes themselves. It is a ritual because they were instructed to do it daily. Lucia said that Mary praised them for it and encouraged them to do it during the daytime hours. Something you do each day during the daytime is a ritual. Something you do to yourself, for the reason that it causes pain, and that causes blood to be drawn from the skin, is self-harm. Spyrazzle (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Oh, no, I'm not saying the term should be removed, but that the author who described the behaviour in those terms should be attributed, something like "behaviour characterised by XYZ as "self-harm rituals"" for example. The main thing to bear in mind when writing for Wikipedia is that we always have to follow what another source has said, and to attribute that source as best as we can, so it's good practice to do so in text especially when it comes to anything that might be challenged. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) I've attributed the quote to the author that Mary encouraged the ropes, I've attributed the quote to the author that they were blood-stained, and I've attributed the quote to the author that they were worn every day, on command by the apparition. The author didn't use the phrase "self-harm rituals" but that's what they were clearly, and it seems that nothing would get on Wikipedia if every single word had to be a direct quote from a book. Spyrazzle (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Not every word has to be direct quote, but every claim has to have a verifiable source. WP:V is the main policy here, and a vital one to the project. If we don't have a source explicitly calling this "self-harm" then I would avoid the term, as it has connotations very different to mortification (which, again, I would not use unless there was a source to attribute that to--in the absence of either, just cite the behaviour and don't name it, and then we're not creating a label where there isn't one). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Citing the behavior without calling it "self-harm" seems an attempt by Catholics to dilute the fact that two children died after being instructed to do monstrous things to their bodies by the vision. In reporting, a news writer would not water down the word "kill" to "hurt." Calling it self-harm is exactly what it is. This is semantics. They were encouraged to harm their own bodies, with ropes and dehydration, and they did, and they died. I find it similar to blocking a user from using the word "cat" when the source said "the pet meowed." Spyrazzle (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) This discussion belongs on the talk page, but I don't want to go there.No, Spyrazzle. The very fact that you are insistent that the words "self harm" should be used indicates that the words are not neutral, like "cat". Quoting a reliable source that referred to self-harm would be fine; but in Wikipedia's voice it is editorialising. See WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Colin, if someone asks you to cut yourself with a knife, and you cut yourself and it bleeds, did you harm yourself? Spyrazzle (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Spyrazzle, our role as Wikipedia editors is to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, and it is contrary to policy to draw conclusions that do not appear in the sources. Please read WP:SYNTHESIS which is part of a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I will work on word choice to make it satisfactory to Wiki, but I am worried about a larger issue. The Fatima page on Wiki has existed for many years---this is a major event in Catholicism---and the fact that there is no existing controversy page after so many years is frankly suspicious. It makes me think that Catholic editors are slyly blocking this info from emerging. A Mary apparition encourages small children to not drink water for 30 days in a row and to tie cords so tightly around their waists that the cords become blood-stained, the Mary apparition is 3 feet tall and sometimes appears with no eyes and no hands, two of the children die with ropes tied around them right up until their final week on their deathbeds, this information is readily available in all libraries, there is a photograph of the dead little girl that you can easily find on Google, and no one has mentioned it on Wikipedia after so many years? I find that bizarre. Everyone keeps saying to reroute this conversation to the Our Lady of Fatima page, where surely only other Catholics and Catholic editors will read it. I thank everyone for their help, but fanatical religious gatekeeping is my concern. Spyrazzle (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If the sources are this readily available, the good news is that you will be able to provide one to back things up. I think you need to drop this idea about "fanatical religious" editors and focus on what has been explained to you--sourcing. Perhaps the best thing to do is to visit a library, check out a few books on the subject (or identify some on Google Books, or perhaps search JSTOR for papers), read what they have to say, and write up a summary of what they have said. Cited and attributed material backed up by reliable sources can't just be removed because editors have theological differences, and if that truly does happen, you can request uninvolved editors have a look at the page, so this fear is not one you need to worry about. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I already have cited credible publications. I will attempt reposting tonight. Thank you to everyone for listening.Spyrazzle (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got to work with other editors on the article talk page (not here). If you just repost the same thing it is almost certainly going to be removed again. MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don't my edits to the page appear?

I spent a few hours yesterday on research to add links to articles on the "External Links" section of a Wikipedia page. I followed all instructions. Today, they don't appear. Please advise, many thanks! Fellowfeline (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Fellowfeline Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were removed according to the article edit history, with the editor citing the page Wikipedia:Further reading in doing so. Quickly looking at it, it was an extremely long list of external links- Wikipedia is not a collection of links; external links must serve some purpose in furthering the encyclopedia. If you think that your edits were valid, please discuss them on the article talk page, Talk:Nina Sobell. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I spent hours researching additional links for the Wikipedia page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Sobell. I added them yesterday to the "External Links" section and they do not appear today.

Can you help? 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Fellowfeline (talk) Fellowfeline (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Fellowfeline Please see my comment above. If you have additional comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on external links to understand what links are appropriate.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your explanation. However, can you or the editor who removed the links to Nina Sobell's page provide specific guidance on the number of links I may add to the "External Links" section? For example, may I add three to five links to this section provide support for Ms. Sobell's work and influence? Please advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellowfeline (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Singh

Now the name of this king should be changed to Alan Singh Chanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karsan Chanda (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you are unable to move the draft to the changed name, you can add a comment at the top of draft under the pink AfC submission template explaining why you want the draft moved. Hope this helps, and happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Move

A User has moved a page wrong see he move this draft Draft:Krishna Ram Chaudhary to Wikipedia:Krishna Ram Chaudhary which is wrong he has to move to Krishna Ram Chaudhary so please move it UserABCXYZ (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@UserABCXYZ:  Fixed. ––FormalDude talk 05:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are not show my name on Wikipedia - Ajay Raz

Why are not show my name on Wikipedia - Ajay Raz My article already available on Google & other social media Ajay Raz (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC) (Redacted)

Because we are not social media, we do not cite social media, and we do not care about your social media. I've removed the snippet above per our biographical policy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Question

QUESTION ABOUT BOLDFACE, JAPANESE LANGUAGE LINKS, AND MOVING PAST "DRAFT" STATUS

Dear Wikipedians,

Thanks to your kind help, I was able to publish my first Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakone_Onsen One question: I wanted to have the paragraph-level names of the specific hotsprings in boldface type. It makes the article easier to read, but is it congruent with Wikipedia style?

Also, I have started on my second Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aiseki_Shokudō QUESTION: Should I be linking to the Japanese Wikipedia articles about the two places in Japan (Inakadate-mura and Gotōrettō Island)? This draft article seems to have some other infelicities, but I am still a novice and am unsure what they are. Could anyone point them out? Many thanks in advance.

TNewfields (talk)TNewfields TNewfields (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there @TNewfields: as for the boldface question, while I am also new myself, I believe only the title of the article and alternate names can be bolded in Wikipedia. An alternative solution is using bullet points, although that may make the section seem like a list. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@TNewfields: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's manual of style touches on this: do not use boldface for the purpose of making them "more legible" or for emphasis. The paragraphs seem fine as they are right now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@TNewfields: Welcome to the Teahouse! For each of the {{cite web}} templates in Draft:Aiseki Shokudō, the |title= parameter should have the Japanese title, the |trans-title= parameter should have the English title, and the template should include |language=Japanese. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

TNewfields, your QUESTION: Should I be linking to the Japanese Wikipedia articles about the two places in Japan (Inakadate-mura and Gotōrettō Island)? No, because there's an article in English about both. (I've fixed both.) Clearly you found the Japanese articles; unless you're reading the "mobile" version of an article, it should link you to any articles in other languages about the same subject. Thus 五島列島 links to the English article, to Острови Ґото in Ukrainian, etc. (Incidentally, while editing this section, note how I've linked here to each of those two articles, and made the links below.) Now, suppose that you were writing an article that mentioned 前田寛治. There's no article about "Kanji Maeta" in this, English-language Wikipedia. You could write "Kanji Maeta", thereby taking the reader to the Japanese-language page; but I prefer "Kanji Maeta" (ugly though it is). Why so? First, because it takes the reader to the relevant Wikidata page, which in turn points to the article on Maeta in the Wikipedia of any language. Currently, these are Japanese and German, and the reader might have a strong preference either way. (It's imaginable that other languages will be added too.) Secondly, because if a article about Maeta is ever created in English-language Wikipedia and linked to from the Wikidata page, the ugly link will automatically become a direct link to the English-language article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Splitting an article: Second thoughts

As a newish editor, I maybe got a bit ahead of my level of knowledge, by attempting a split of a very long article: Livingstone, Zambia, in this edit. Now I have started to feel nervous this wasn't the right thing to do - it seemed perfectly reasonable at the time! - as my split was to return recently added material back to a draft article page, Draft:Munokalya Mukuni, here. That is not really covered in the WP:SPLIT guide. Maybe I should have told lots of people first, or advised the original editor? Sorry that these thoughts did not occur until I had already moved the material. Wish I had panicked before, rather than after, I did it. What do you think? Have I done the wrong thing? If so, can you advise how to rectify, please? AukusRuckus (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps discussing this on the talk page of the page would be better. Thanks Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I did write it all up on the Talk page, in advance. Just later got nervous, and wanted a general view on whether performing an article split by returning interposed material to a Draft article would be okay, or would cause a problem (and not whether the move itself was warranted. Sorry that I buried the main point!). I am going to assume my first instinct was correct, or at least acceptable, in light of the lack of reaction here, and on the article pages. Thanks for your response, though, Lightbluerain. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome. I really appreciate your hardwork. If you need help with reverting the edits, feel free to ask me. :) Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)